format: text

text:
# Annihilation Theorem and Separation Theorem for basic classical Lie superalgebras

## 1. Introduction

### 1.1.

Let $`𝔤`$ be a complex semisimple Lie algebra, $`𝒰`$ be its universal enveloping algebra and $`𝒵(𝔤)`$ be the centre of $`𝒰`$. Consider $`𝒰`$ as a $`𝔤`$-module with respect to the adjoint action. Separation Theorem of Kostant (see \[Ko\]) states the existence of a submodule $`H`$ of $`𝒰`$ such that the multiplication map provides the bijection $`H𝒵(𝔤)\stackrel{}{}𝒰`$. Moreover the multiplicity of each simple finite dimensional module $`V`$ in $`H`$ is equal to the dimension of its zero weight space. Such an $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-invariant subspace $`H`$ is called a harmonic space. An easy proof of Separation Theorem was found by Bernstein and Lunts—see \[BL\]. This theorem is an important ingredient in the proof of the annihilation theorem of Duflo (see \[D\], 8.4.3) asserting that the annihilator of a Verma module is generated by its intersection with $`𝒵(𝔤)`$. The annihilation theorem is reproven by Joseph and G. Letzter. They also generalize it to the quantum case— see \[JL\],\[J3\].

In this paper we obtain analogous theorems in the case of basic classical Lie superalgebras. This was done earlier for the completely reducible case— see \[M1\],\[GL1\].

Let $`𝔤=𝔤_0𝔤_1`$ be a basic classical Lie superalgebra, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ be its universal enveloping superalgebra and $`𝒵(𝔤)`$ be the centre of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$. Let $`T`$ be a special ghost element constructed in \[G\]. Call a highest weight module strongly typical if it is not annihilated by $`T`$.

We prove the following version of Annihilation Theorem.

#### 1.1.1.

Theorem.   The annihilator of a strongly typical Verma $`𝔤`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is a centrally generated ideal.

Moreover, for a strongly typical Verma module $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, we describe the quotient $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}/\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{M}`$ as an $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module and show that the natural map from $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}/\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{M}`$ to the locally finite part of $`\mathrm{End}_{}(\stackrel{~}{M})`$ is bijective.

#### 1.1.2.

The proof of Theorem 1.1.1 goes as follows. As in \[JL\], we use the Parthasarathy–Ranga-Rao– Varadarajan (PRV) determinants. We generalize the notion of PRV determinants (see \[PRV\]) to basic classical Lie superalgebras. Our construction is based on the fact that the two-sided ideal $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}T=T\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$, considered as $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module, is injective in a category of locally finite modules.

In the completely reducible case one assigns to each simple finite dimensional module $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ a PRV determinant which is a polynomial in $`𝒮(𝔥)`$.

On the contrary, for the non-completely reducible case the lack of harmonic space forces us to substitute the PRV determinant by a set of PRV determinants corresponding to the same $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$. However, we do not have to calculate these determinants, but only verify that they are non-zero. We use these determinants to show that if the locally finite part $`F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})`$ of the endomorphisms $`\mathrm{End}_{}(\stackrel{~}{M})`$ of a strongly typical Verma module $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ has “a right size” as an $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module and the natural map $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})`$ is surjective, then $`\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is centrally generated.

For type I we directly verify both conditions. The crucial point in the study of type II case is the construction in Section 8 of a perfect mate $`\chi \mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ for each strongly typical $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤)`$. We call a maximal ideal $`\chi \mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ a perfect mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤)`$ if the following conditions are satisfied.

(i) For any Verma $`𝔤`$-module annihilated by $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$, its $`𝔤_0`$-submodule annihilated by a power of $`\chi `$ is a Verma $`𝔤_0`$-module.

(ii) Any $`𝔤`$-module annihilated by $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ has a non-trivial $`𝔤_0`$-submodule annihilated by $`\chi `$.

The condition (ii) seems to be difficult to check. However, it turns out that it is enough to verify (ii) only for simple highest weight $`𝔤`$-modules. This is deduced from \[M2\].

For $`𝔤=𝔬𝔰𝔭(1,2l)`$ the annihilator of a Verma $`𝔤`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is a centrally generated ideal iff $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is strongly typical—see \[GL1\]. In this paper we prove the similar equivalence for the basic classical Lie superalgebras of type I.

As it is shown in \[PS1\], if $`𝔤`$ has type I then for any strongly typical $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }𝒵(𝔤)`$ the algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}/(\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\stackrel{~}{\chi })`$ is the matrix algebra over $`𝒰(𝔤_\mathcal{0})/(𝒰(𝔤_\mathcal{0})\chi )`$ for a suitable $`\chi \mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$. As it was pointed out by V. Serganova this result implies Theorem 1.1.1 for type I case. The opposite implication is also easy (see 7.4).

### 1.2.

Let $`𝔤`$ be a basic classical Lie superalgebra which is not completely reducible. Then $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ is not a domain (see \[AL\]) and $`𝒵(𝔤)`$ is not Noetherian (\[M1\], 2.8). However all non-zero central elements are non-zero divisors and $`𝒵(𝔤)`$ contains an element $`z`$ such that the localized algebra $`𝒵(𝔤)[z^1]`$ is isomorphic to a localization of a polynomial algebra. One can take $`z:=T^2`$ where $`T`$ is the element mentioned above. The element $`T`$ is even; it commutes with the even elements of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ and anticommutes with the odd ones. Moreover, the image of $`T`$ in the symmetric algebra $`𝒮(𝔤)`$ belongs to the top exterior power of $`𝔤_1`$. These properties determine $`T`$ up to a scalar.

It is easy to show (see \[G\], 4.5) that $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$, considered as an $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module, does not admit a factorization of the form $`H𝒵(𝔤)`$. For type I Lie superalgebras, we prove the following version of Separation Theorem.

#### 1.2.1.

Theorem.   For $`𝔤`$ of the type I, there exists $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-invariant subspace $`H`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ such that the multiplication map provides the bijection $`H𝒵(𝔤)[T^2]\stackrel{~}{𝒰}[T^2]`$.

Clearly, $`𝒵(𝔤)[T^2]`$ coincides with the centre of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}[T^2]`$. As an $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module, $`H`$ is injective in an appropriate category of locally finite modules and for any simple finite dimensional module $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ one has $`dim\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},H)=dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{V}|_0`$ is the zero weight space of $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$. For a basic classical Lie superalgebra of type II, we obtain a weaker result, namely that the similar assertions hold if we substitute $`z`$ by a certain subset $`S`$ of $`𝒵(𝔤)`$. This set $`S`$ can be described in terms of the PRV determinants.

A natural conjecture is that one can always choose $`S`$ equal to $`\{T^2\}`$. A possible way to prove this conjecture is to show that an irreducible factor of a PRV determinant is either a factor of Shapovalov form or is of the form $`(\beta ^{}+\beta ^{}(\rho ))`$ for some odd coroot $`\beta `$. However it is not clear how to calculate these determinants if $`𝔤`$ is not completely reducible.

### 1.3. Content of the paper.

In Section 2 we recall some facts about the basic classical Lie superalgebras.

In Section 3 we define a category $`\mathrm{in}`$ of locally finite $`𝔤`$-modules and provide some properties of $`\mathrm{in}`$. We also recall the construction and properties of the element $`T`$.

In Section 4 we investigate the $`𝔤`$-module structure of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ given by the adjoint action. We start with studying $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$ for a simple finite dimensional module $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$. For each $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ we construct a central element $`z`$ such that the localized module $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰}[z^1])=\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})[z^1]`$ is a free $`𝒵(𝔤)[z^1]`$-module whose rank is equal to $`dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0`$. In 4.6 we generalize a notion of PRV determinants to the case of non-completely reducible Lie superalgebras. We also establish properties of these determinants which are similar to the properties of the original PRV determinants. In 4.7 we show that for a suitable subset $`S`$ of $`𝒵(𝔤)`$ the localized algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}[S^1]`$ is free over its centre $`𝒵(𝔤)[S^1]`$. We describe the $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module structure of the corresponding “generic harmonic space” $`H`$. We show that one may choose $`H`$ to be the $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module generated by $`H^{}T`$ where $`H^{}`$ is a certain harmonic space of $`𝒰(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$.

In Section 5 we establish a connection between PRV determinants and the annihilators of simple modules. We show that if all PRV determinants do not vanish at a point $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$ and if a simple module $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ is strongly typical then its annihilator is a centrally generated ideal. Moreover, for a simple strongly typical Verma module $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ all PRV determinants do not vanish at a point $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$ iff the natural map $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})`$ is surjective and $`F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})`$ has a certain nice structure as $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module (it should be isomorphic to the “generic harmonic space” $`H`$).

Sections 6,7 are devoted to type I case. Preliminary facts are concentrated in Section 6. In Section 7 we prove that for a suitable $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-stable $`H`$ the multiplication map provides an isomorphism $`H𝒵(𝔤)[T^2]\stackrel{~}{𝒰}[T^2]`$. We also prove that the annihilator of a Verma module is centrally generated iff this module is strongly typical.

Sections 8,9 are devoted to type II case.

In Section 8 we describe, for each strongly typical $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤)`$ its perfect mate $`\chi \mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$. Note that in type I case for any strongly typical $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤)`$ and for any $`\lambda `$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ annihilates $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$, the ideal $`\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})}M(\lambda )`$ is a perfect mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$. This does not hold for type II. For certain “generic” $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$, the ideal $`\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})}M(\lambda )`$ is a perfect mate if one chooses $`\lambda `$ satisfying, apart from $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )=0`$, also a kind of “dominance” condition. For $`B(m,n)`$ and $`G(3)`$ all strongly typical central characters are generic. For the remaining superalgebras $`D(m,n),D(2,1,\alpha )`$ and $`F(4)`$ we select perfect mates for non-generic strongly typical central characters case by case.

In Section 9 we prove Theorem 1.1.1. The existence of a perfect mate for each strongly typical $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤)`$ enables us to show that for a Verma module $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ with the central character $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ the natural map $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})`$ is surjective and $`F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})H`$. According Section 5, these two conditions imply that the annihilator of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is centrally generated ideal.

In Section 10 we study the $`𝔤_0`$-structure of Verma $`𝔤`$-modules.

Appendix 11 contains some lemmas used in the main text. It also contains alternative proofs of some results (non-vanishing of the PRV determinant,Corollary 4.5.2 and Theorem 4.7.4). These proofs do not use Kostant’s Separation Theorem. Probably, these proofs may be useful in the case when separation theorem does not hold.

Acknowledgments. It is a pleasant duty to express the gratitude to my teacher A. Joseph. Many ideas of this paper owe to his book and to his courses given at Weizmann Institute. The author would like to thank M. Duflo, E. Lanzmann, I. Musson and I. Penkov for helpful discussions and V. Serganova for her extreme patience and useful comments. This work was done when the author was a postdoctoral fellow at MSRI. The author would like to thank MSRI and the organizers of the Noncommutative Algebra Program for their support and hospitality.

## 2. Preliminaries

In this paper the ground field is $``$. Everywhere in the paper apart from Sections 6,7, $`𝔤=𝔤_0𝔤_1`$ denotes one (unless otherwise specified, an arbitrary one) of the basic classical complex Lie superalgebras $`𝔤𝔩(m,n),𝔰𝔩(m,n),𝔬𝔰𝔭(m,n),𝔭𝔰𝔩(n,n)`$. Each of these Lie superalgebras possesses the following properties: it admits a $`𝔤`$-invariant bilinear form which is non-degenerate on $`[𝔤,𝔤]`$ and the even part $`𝔤_0`$ is a reductive Lie algebra.

In Sections 6,7, $`𝔤=𝔤_{\overline{0}}𝔤_{\overline{1}}`$ denotes one of the basic classical complex Lie superalgebras of type I: $`𝔤𝔩(m,n),𝔰𝔩(m,n),𝔬𝔰𝔭(2,n),𝔭𝔰𝔩(n,n)`$. We shall slightly change our notations since these superalgebras admit $``$-grading $`𝔤=𝔤_1𝔤_0𝔤_1`$. The even part $`𝔤_{\overline{0}}`$ coincides with $`𝔤_0`$ and the odd part $`𝔤_{\overline{1}}`$ is the sum of two dual $`𝔤_0`$-modules $`𝔤_1`$ and $`𝔤_1`$.

In this section we present the main preliminary facts about the structure of the basic classical complex Lie superalgebras and their representations, which we shall use in this paper.

### 2.1. Conventions

We denote by $`^+`$ the set of positive integers and by $`\mathrm{\#}I`$ the number of elements of the given set $`I`$. If $`A`$ is an algebra, $`N`$ is an $`A`$-module and $`X,Y`$ are subsets of $`A`$ and $`N`$ respectively, we denote by $`XY`$ the set of the products $`xy`$ where $`xX,yY`$.

For a $`_2`$-homogeneous element $`u`$ of a superalgebra denote by $`d(u)`$ its $`_2`$-degree. In all formulas where this notation is used, $`u`$ is assumed to be $`_2`$-homogeneous.

For a superalgebra $`𝔪`$ denote by $`𝒰(𝔪)`$ its universal enveloping superalgebra. Set $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}:=𝒰(𝔤)`$ and $`𝒰:=𝒰(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$.

In this text all modules are assumed to be left modules. For given module $`N`$ we denote by $`N^r`$ the direct sum of $`n`$-copies of $`N`$. We say that $`A`$-module $`N`$ is locally finite if $`dimAv<\mathrm{}`$ for all $`vN`$.

The symbol $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ (resp., $`V`$) is always used for a simple $`𝔤`$ (resp., $`𝔤_0`$) module and the symbol $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ (resp., $`M`$) for a Verma $`𝔤`$ (resp., $`𝔤_0`$) module.

### 2.2. Triangular decompositions

Triangular decompositions of the superalgebras are defined in \[PS2\] as follows. A Lie subsuperalgebra $`𝔥𝔤`$ is called a Cartan subsuperalgebra if $`𝔥`$ is nilpotent and coincides with its centralizer in $`𝔤`$. For the basic classical Lie superalgebras the set of Cartan subalgebras coincides with the set of Cartan subalgebras of $`𝔤_0`$. Fix a Cartan subalgebra $`𝔥`$; it acts semisimply on $`𝔤`$:

$$𝔤:=_{\mu 𝔥^{}}𝔤|_\mu ,𝔤|_\mu :=\{a𝔤|h𝔥,[h,a]=\mu (a)\}.$$

Denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the set of non-zero roots that is the set $`\{\alpha 𝔥^{}|𝔤|_\alpha 0\}\{0\}`$. An element $`h𝔥`$ is called regular if $`\mathrm{Re}\alpha (h)0`$ for all $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }`$. Any regular element determines the decomposition $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }^+\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ where

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }^+:=\{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{Re}\alpha (h)>0\},& \mathrm{\Delta }^{}:=\{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }|\mathrm{Re}\alpha (h)<0\}.\end{array}$$

Moreover it determines a decomposition $`𝔤=𝔫^{}𝔥𝔫^+`$ where

$$\begin{array}{cc}𝔫^+:=_{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^+}𝔤|_\alpha ,& 𝔫^{}:=_{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^{}}𝔤|_\alpha .\end{array}$$

Such decompositions of $`𝔤`$ are called triangular decompositions. It is clear that $`𝔫^\pm `$ are nilpotent Lie subsuperalgebras of $`𝔤`$.

A Lie subsuperalgebra $`𝔟𝔤`$ is called a Borel subsuperalgebra if $`𝔟=𝔥𝔫^+`$ for some triangular decomposition $`𝔤=𝔫^{}𝔥𝔫^+`$. A Borel subsuperalgebra determines the triangular decomposition; we will add a lower index to designate the corresponding Borel subsuperalgebra in the case where the choice of triangular decomposition is not clear from the context. We denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝔟)`$ the set of non-zero roots of $`𝔟`$. We say that a vector of $`v`$ of $`𝔤`$-module is $`𝔟`$-primitive if $`[𝔟,𝔟]v=0`$ and $`𝔥vv`$.

A triangular decomposition $`𝔤=𝔫^{}𝔥𝔫^+`$ induces the triangular decomposition of the even part $`𝔤_0=𝔫_0^{}𝔥𝔫_0^+`$. The group of inner automorphisms of $`𝔤_0`$ acts transitively on all triangular decompositions of $`𝔤_0`$ and the action of this group can be extended to $`𝔤`$. Hence the theory does not depend from the choice of a triangular decomposition of $`𝔤_0`$. In the sequel we fix a triangular decomposition $`𝔤_0=𝔫_0^{}𝔥𝔫_0^+`$ and consider triangular decompositions of $`𝔤`$ which induce this fixed triangular decomposition of $`𝔤_0`$.

#### 2.2.1.

Denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ the set of non-zero even roots of $`𝔤`$ and by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ the set of odd roots of $`𝔤`$. Set $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^\pm :=\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^\pm :=\mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }^\pm `$.

Denote by $`(,)`$ a $`𝔤`$-invariant bilinear form on $`𝔤`$ which is non-degenerate on $`[𝔤,𝔤]`$ and the induced $`W`$-invariant bilinear form on $`𝔥^{}`$. A root $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }`$ is called isotropic if $`(\alpha ,\alpha )=0`$. For a root $`\alpha `$ denote by $`\alpha ^{}`$ the element of $`𝔥`$ satisfying $`\alpha ^{}(\mu )=(\alpha ,\mu )`$ for each $`\mu 𝔥^{}`$.

Set

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0^+:=\{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_0^+|\alpha /2\mathrm{\Delta }_1^+\},\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1^+:=\{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_1^+|2\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_0^+\}.$$

The set of isotropic roots coincides with $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1^+`$.

Remark that $`_{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^+}n_\alpha \alpha =0`$ for some $`n_\alpha `$ implies $`n_\alpha =0`$ for all $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^+`$. This allows us to define the standard partial order relation on $`𝔥^{}`$ by $`\lambda \mu \mu \lambda _{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }^+}\alpha `$. One can easily sees that the minimal (with respect to this partial order) elements of $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ form a basis of simple roots.

Denote by $`\pi _0`$ the basis of simple roots of $`𝔤_0`$ and by $`W`$ the Weyl group of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. Denote by $`|W|`$ the number of elements in $`W`$. For $`wW`$ set $`\mathrm{sn}(w):=(1)^{l(w)}`$ where $`l(w)`$ is the length of $`w`$. For a non-isotropic root $`\alpha `$ define $`s_\alpha \mathrm{Aut}𝔥^{}`$ by setting

$$s_\alpha (\lambda ):=\lambda 2\frac{(\alpha ,\lambda )}{(\alpha ,\alpha )}\alpha .$$

Evidently $`s_{k\alpha }=s_\alpha `$ and so the subgroup of $`\mathrm{Aut}𝔥^{}`$ generated by the $`s_\alpha `$ coincides with $`W`$.

Set

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\rho _0:=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_0^+}{}\alpha ,& \rho _1:=\frac{1}{2}\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_1^+}{}\alpha ,& \rho :=\rho _0\rho _1.\end{array}$$

For a simple root $`\alpha `$ one has $`2(\alpha ,\rho )=(\alpha ,\alpha )`$.

Define the translated action of $`W`$ on $`𝔥^{}`$ and on the symmetric algebra $`𝒮(𝔥)`$ by the formulas:

$$w.\lambda :=w(\lambda +\rho )\rho ,w.f(\lambda ):=f(w^1.\lambda ),\lambda 𝔥^{},wW.$$

#### 2.2.2.

For a $`𝔤_0`$-module $`N`$ and an element $`\mu 𝔥^{}`$ set

$$N|_\mu :=\{mM|hm=\mu (h)m,h𝔥\}.$$

We shall consider mainly $`𝔥`$-diagonalizable modules that is satisfying $`N=_{\mu 𝔥^{}}N|_\mu `$. Set

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(N):=\{\mu 𝔥^{}|N|_\mu 0\}.$$

If $`dimN|_\mu <\mathrm{}`$ for each $`\mu 𝔥^{}`$ , set $`\mathrm{ch}N:=_{\lambda 𝔥^{}}(dimN|_\mu )e^\mu `$.

When we use the notation $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}|_\mu `$, the action of $`𝔤`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ is assumed to be the adjoint action.

### 2.3.

An important property of the basic classical Lie superalgebras is the existence of a Cartan superantiautomorphism $`\sigma `$ coming from the supertransposition of matrices. Recall that an even linear endomorphism $`\iota `$ of a Lie (resp., associative) superalgebra is called a superantiautomorphism if $`\iota ([x,y])=(1)^{d(x)d(y)}[\iota (y),\iota (x)]`$ (resp., $`\iota (xy)=(1)^{d(x)d(y)}\iota (y)\iota (x)`$) for all homogeneous elements $`x,y`$. The Cartan superantiautomorphism $`\sigma `$ has the following properties:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill a)& \sigma ^2(g)=(1)^{d(g)}g,\hfill & g𝔤,\hfill \\ \hfill b)& \sigma (𝔫^+)=𝔫^{},\hfill & \\ \hfill c)& \sigma (h)=h,\hfill & h𝔥.\hfill \end{array}$$

The restriction of $`\sigma `$ to $`𝔤_0`$ is a Cartan antiinvolution:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill a)& (\sigma ^2)|_{𝔤_0}=\mathrm{id},\hfill & \\ \hfill b)& \sigma (𝔫_0^+)=𝔫_0^{},\hfill & \\ \hfill c)& \sigma (h)=h,\hfill & h𝔥.\hfill \end{array}$$

#### 2.3.1. Symmetric algebra.

Denote by $``$ the canonical filtration of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ given by $`^𝓀:=𝔤^𝓀`$. This filtration is $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-invariant and the associated graded superalgebra $`𝒮(𝔤)`$ inherits an $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module structure. The superalgebra $`𝒮(𝔤)`$ is supercommutative: it is the product of the symmetric (even) algebra $`𝒮(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ and the external superalgebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤_1`$.

For $`u\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ denote by $`\mathrm{gr}u`$ its image in $`𝒮(𝔤)`$; identify $`𝒰(𝔥)`$ and its image $`𝒮(𝔥)`$.

#### 2.3.2. Centre

By definition, the (super)centre $`𝒵(𝔤):=\stackrel{~}{𝒰}^𝔤`$. One has $`\mathrm{gr}𝒵(𝔤)=𝒮(𝔤)^𝔤`$.

Denote by $`\mathrm{gr}P`$ the projection $`𝒮(𝔤)𝒮(𝔥)`$ along $`𝒮(𝔤)\mathrm{gr}(𝔫^{}+𝔫^+)`$. The restriction of $`\mathrm{gr}P`$ to $`𝒮(𝔤)^𝔤`$ provides a monomorphism $`\iota :𝒮(𝔤)^𝔤𝒮(𝔥)^W`$. As a consequence, all non-zero elements of $`𝒮(𝔤)^𝔤`$ (resp., $`𝒵(𝔤)`$) are non-zero divisors in $`𝒮(𝔤)`$ (resp., $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$). The image of $`\iota `$ is described in \[K2\]\[S1\]\[BZV\]; $`\iota `$ is bijective iff $`𝔤=𝔬𝔰𝔭(1,2l)`$.

Denote by $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$ the projection $`𝒮(𝔤)𝒮(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ with the kernel $`K:=_{i1}𝒮(𝔤_\mathcal{0})\mathcal{\Lambda }^𝒾𝔤_\mathcal{1}`$. It is easy to see that $`K`$ is $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤_0`$-invariant and so $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$ is an $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤_0`$-map. Moreover $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$ provides a monomorphism $`𝒮(𝔤)^𝔤𝒮(𝔤_\mathcal{0})^{𝔤_\mathcal{0}}`$ since $`\mathrm{gr}P=\mathrm{gr}PP_{\mathrm{}}`$ and so the injectivity of $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`𝒮(𝔤)^𝔤`$ follows from the injectivity of $`\mathrm{gr}P`$.

#### 2.3.3. Harish-Chandra projection.

Denote by $`𝒫`$ the Harish-Chandra projection $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}𝒮(𝔥)`$ with respect to the decomposition $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}=(\stackrel{~}{𝒰}𝔫^++𝔫^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒰})𝒰(𝔥)`$. The restriction of $`𝒫`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}|_0=\stackrel{~}{𝒰}^𝔥`$ is an algebra homomorphism. An element $`a\stackrel{~}{𝒰}^𝔥`$ acts on a primitive vector of weight $`\mu `$ by the multiplication by the scalar $`𝒫(𝒶)(\mu )`$.

The Harish-Chandra projection provides a monomorphism $`𝒵(𝔤)𝒮(𝔥)^{W.}`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ is a $`𝔤`$-module generated by a primitive vector of weight $`\lambda `$, then a central element $`z`$ acts on $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ by the multiplication by the scalar $`𝒫(𝓏)(\lambda )`$.

Call $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤)`$ a central character  of a $`𝔤`$-module $`N`$ if $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^rN=0`$ for $`r>>0`$.

#### 2.3.4.

Let $`z`$ be an element of $`𝒵(𝔤)`$. Since $`z`$ has weight zero, $`z=𝒫(𝓏)+_𝒾𝓊_𝒾^{}𝓊_𝒾^+`$ where $`u_i^{}𝒰(𝔥^{})𝔫^{}`$, $`u_i^+𝒰(𝔥^+)𝔫^+`$ for all $`i`$. One has $`\sigma (u_i^{}u_i^+)=\pm \sigma (u_i^+)\sigma (u_i^{})𝒰(𝔥^{})𝔫^{}𝒰(𝔥^+)𝔫^+`$. Therefore

$$\sigma (z)=\sigma (𝒫(𝓏))+\underset{𝒾}{}\pm \sigma (𝓊_𝒾^+)\sigma (𝓊_𝒾^{})𝒫(𝓏)+\stackrel{~}{𝒰}𝔫^+$$

that is $`𝒫(\sigma (𝓏))=𝒫(𝓏)`$. Thus the superantiautomorphism $`\sigma `$ stabilizes the central elements. This implies that $`𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0}),𝒵(𝔤)\stackrel{~}{𝒰}^\sigma `$.

#### 2.3.5.

For a $`_2`$-graded $`𝔤_0`$-module $`L`$ denote by $`\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤L`$ a vector space $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_𝒰L`$ (here $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ is considered as a right $`𝒰`$-module and a left $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$-module through the multiplication) equipped by the natural structure of a left $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$-module. Denote by $`\mathrm{Coind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤L`$ a vector space $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝒰(\stackrel{~}{𝒰},L)`$ (here $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ is considered as a left $`𝒰`$-module) equipped by the following structure of a left $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$-module: $`(uf)(u^{}):=f(u^{}u)`$ for any $`f\mathrm{Hom}_𝒰(\stackrel{~}{𝒰},L),u,u^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$. For a $`𝔤`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ and a $`𝔤_0`$-module $`L`$ one has the canonical bijections

$$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{Hom}_{𝔤_0}(\stackrel{~}{N},L)\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{N},\mathrm{Coind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤L),& \\ \mathrm{Hom}_{𝔤_0}(L,\stackrel{~}{N})\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤L,\stackrel{~}{N}).& \end{array}$$

By \[BF\], $`\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤L\mathrm{Coind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤L`$.

### 2.4. Hopf algebra structure

The enveloping algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ is a supercommutative Hopf superalgebra. This means, in particular, that the antipode $`S`$ is a superantiautomorphism of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ and that the comultiplication $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}:\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ is a homomorphism of superalgebras satisfying the relation $`s\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ where $`s`$ is a linear map $`s:\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ given by $`s(u_1u_2):=(1)^{d(u_1)d(u_2)}(u_2u_1)`$. The Hopf algebra structure on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }^{}(g)& =g1+1g,\hfill \\ \hfill \epsilon (g)& =0,\hfill \\ \hfill S(g)& =g\hfill \end{array}$$

for any $`g𝔤`$.

The Hopf superalgebra structure on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ gives a $`𝔤`$-module structure on the tensor product $`N_1N_2:=N_1_{}N_2`$ of two $`𝔤`$-modules $`N_1,N_2`$. The map $`n_1n_2(1)^{d(n_1)d(n_2)}`$ provides the canonical $`𝔤`$-isomorphism $`N_1N_2N_2N_1`$.

#### 2.4.1.

Throughout the paper we shall write “$`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module” instead “$`𝔤`$-module with respect to the adjoint action”.

View $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ as $`𝔤`$-module through the adjoint action given by

$$(\mathrm{ad}g)u:=ug(1)^{d(g)d(u)}ug,g𝔤,u\stackrel{~}{𝒰}.$$

As $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ is locally finite.

For any $`𝔤`$-modules $`N_1,N_2`$ view $`\mathrm{Hom}(N_1,N_2):=\mathrm{Hom}_{}(N_1,N_2)`$ as a $`𝔤`$-module through the adjoint action:

$$(\mathrm{ad}g)\psi (v)=g\psi (v)(1)^{d(g)d(\psi )}\psi (gv)g𝔤,\psi \mathrm{Hom}(N_1,N_2).$$

We denote by $`F(N_1,N_2)`$ the locally finite part of $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module $`\mathrm{Hom}(N_1,N_2)`$. Notice that $`F(N_1,N_2)`$ coincides with the $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤_0`$-locally finite part of $`\mathrm{Hom}(N_1,N_2)`$, since $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ is a finite extension of $`𝒰`$.

Throughout the paper an action of $`𝔤`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ and on $`F(N_1,N_2)`$ is assumed, by default, to be the adjoint action.

For a $`𝔤`$-module $`N`$, the natural map $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\mathrm{End}(N)`$, coming from the action of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ on $`N`$, is an $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-homomorphism and its image lies in $`F(N,N)`$.

#### 2.4.2.

Let $`L`$ be a finite dimensional $`𝔤`$-module. Equip the dual supervector space $`L^{}`$ by $`𝔤`$-module structure through the antipode $`S`$:

$$g.f(v):=(1)^{d(g)d(f)}f(S(g)v)=(1)^{d(g)d(f)}f(gv),vL,g𝔤.$$

We shall use the following form of the Frobenius reciprocity

$$\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(L,\mathrm{Hom}(N_1,N_2))\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(LN_1,N_2)\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(N_1,N_2L^{})$$

for any $`𝔤`$-modules $`N_1,N_2`$ and a finite dimensional $`𝔤`$-module $`L`$.

### 2.5. The category $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$ and Verma modules

Denote by $`𝒪`$ the full subcategory of finitely generated $`𝔥`$-diagonalizable $`𝔤_0`$-modules which are locally $`𝔫_0^+`$-finite. Denote by $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$ the similarly defined category of $`𝔤`$-modules.

Since $`𝒰(𝔫^+)`$ is finite over $`𝒰(𝔫_\mathcal{0}^+)`$, a $`𝔤`$-module $`N`$ belongs $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$ iff as $`𝔤_0`$-module $`N`$ belongs to $`𝒪`$. In particular, any module of category $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$ has a finite length.

#### 2.5.1.

For $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$ denote by $`_\lambda `$ a simple $`𝔟`$-module such that $`𝔫^+v=0`$ and $`hv=\lambda (h)v`$ for any $`h𝔥,v_\lambda `$. Define a Verma module $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ by setting

$$\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ):=\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{𝒰(𝔟)}_\lambda .$$

The module $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ has a unique simple quotient, which we denote by $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$. Similarly, denote by $`M(\lambda )`$ and $`V(\lambda )`$ respectively, Verma and simple $`𝔤_0`$-modules of the highest weight $`\lambda `$.

#### 2.5.2.

Definition.  A weight $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$ is called typical  if $`(\lambda +\rho ,\beta )0`$ for any isotropic $`\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_1`$.

#### 2.5.3.

If $`\lambda `$ is typical then $`\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤)}\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )=\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤)}\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ^{})`$ implies $`\lambda ^{}W.\lambda `$— see \[K3\], Theorem 2. In particular, if a typical weight $`\lambda `$ is a minimal element in its orbit $`W.\lambda `$ then $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ is simple.

On the other hand, if a typical weight $`\lambda `$ is a maximal element in $`W.\lambda `$ then $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ is projective in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$. Indeed, take a short exact sequence $`0\stackrel{~}{N}^{}\stackrel{~}{N}\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )0`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$. One may assume that $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^k\stackrel{~}{N}=0`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }:=\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤)}\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ and $`k`$ is a positive integer. Then the weight of a primitive vector of any simple subquotient of $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ belongs to $`W.\lambda `$. Since $`\lambda `$ is a maximal element of $`W.\lambda `$ one has $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\stackrel{~}{N})\{\lambda +\mathrm{\Delta }^+\}\{\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }^+\}`$. Thus a preimage of a highest weight vector of $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ is primitive and the above exact sequence splits.

By a similar argument, a short exact sequence $`0\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ^{})\stackrel{~}{N}\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )0`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$ splits if $`\lambda ^{}\lambda `$.

#### 2.5.4.

Definition.  A weight $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$ is called strongly typical  if $`(\lambda +\rho ,\beta )0`$ for any $`\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_1`$.

#### 2.5.5.

Call the highest weight modules $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda ),\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ typical (resp., strongly typical) if $`\lambda `$ is typical (resp., strongly typical).

Apart from the cases $`B(m,n)`$ (that is $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(2m+1,2n)`$) and $`G(3)`$, all odd roots of $`𝔤`$ are isotropic and thus the notions of “typical” and “strongly typical” coincide.

#### 2.5.6.

Take $`N\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$. Equip the graded dual vector space $`N^\mathrm{\#}:=_{\mu 𝔥^{}}(N|_\mu )^{}`$ by the following $`𝔤`$-module structure

$$u.f(v):=(1)^{d(f)d(u)}f(\sigma (u)v)),u\stackrel{~}{𝒰},fN^\mathrm{\#},vN$$

where $`\sigma :\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ is the superantiautomorphism defined in 2.3. One can easily sees that $`NN^\mathrm{\#}`$ defines a duality functor on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$.

Since the restriction of $`\sigma `$ on $`𝔥`$ is equal to identity, $`\mathrm{ch}N^\mathrm{\#}=\mathrm{ch}N`$. In particular, $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )^\mathrm{\#}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ and it is isomorphic to the socle of $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )^\mathrm{\#}`$.

#### 2.5.7.

According to \[LM\], for any Zariski dense $`S𝔥^{}`$

$$_{\lambda S}\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )=0.$$

#### 2.5.8.

A Verma module is not irreducible iff its highest weight is a root of a Shapovalov form. Shapovalov forms are polynomials in $`𝒮(𝔥)`$ indexed by the weights of $`𝒰(𝔫^{})`$. Each polynomial admits a linear factorization which was established by Kac. The linear factors of these polynomials are

$$\begin{array}{cc}\alpha ^{}+(\rho ,\alpha )n(\alpha ,\alpha )/2\hfill & n^+,\alpha \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0^+,\hfill \\ \alpha ^{}+(\rho ,\alpha )n(\alpha ,\alpha )/2\hfill & n2+1,\alpha (\mathrm{\Delta }_1^+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1^+),\hfill \\ \alpha ^{}+(\rho ,\alpha ),\hfill & \alpha \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_1^+.\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ is not irreducible iff $`(\lambda +\rho ,\alpha )=n(\alpha ,\alpha )/2`$ for a positive root $`\alpha `$ and a positive integer $`n`$ which should be odd for odd $`\alpha `$.

### 2.6. Finite dimensional modules

Necessary and sufficient conditions for $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ to be finite dimensional are given in \[K1\], Theorem 8. One can immediately sees from these conditions that any typical finite dimensional $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ is strongly typical. If $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda ),\stackrel{~}{V}`$ are finite dimensional satisfying $`\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤)}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )=\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤)}\stackrel{~}{V}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ is typical then $`\stackrel{~}{V}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$—see \[K2\], Prop. 2.7.

The following character formula of a typical finite dimensional module is established by Kac (see \[K2\],\[K3\]):

(1)
$$\mathrm{ch}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )=D\underset{wW}{}\mathrm{sn}(w)e^{w.\lambda },\text{ where }D=\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_0^+}{}(1e^\alpha )^1\underset{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_1^+}{}(1+e^\beta ).$$

### 2.7. Odd reflections

The odd reflections were introduced by I. Penkov and V. Serganova— see \[PS2\], 3.1. If $`𝔤`$ is a basic classical Lie superalgebra, the definition takes the following form. Two Borel subsuperalgebras $`𝔟,𝔟^{}𝔤`$ are connected by an odd reflection along $`\beta `$ iff $`\beta `$ is a simple odd isotropic root of $`𝔟^{}`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(𝔟)=\{\beta \}\mathrm{\Delta }(𝔟^{})\{\beta \}.$$

Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0(𝔟)=\mathrm{\Delta }_0(𝔟^{})`$ and so $`𝔟_0=𝔟_0^{}`$. As it is shown in \[PS2\], 3.1, any Borel subsuperalgebras $`𝔟,𝔟^{}𝔤`$ satisfying $`𝔟_0=𝔟_0^{}`$ are connected by a chain of odd reflections.

Let $`𝔟`$ and $`𝔟^{}`$ be Borel subsuperalgebras connected by the odd reflection along an odd isotropic root $`\beta .`$ Then $`𝔟^{}=𝔟𝔟^{}+x`$ where $`x`$ is a non-zero element of $`𝔤_\beta `$. If $`v`$ is a $`𝔟`$-primitive vector such that $`xv=0`$ then $`v`$ is also a $`𝔟^{}`$-primitive. This implies $`\stackrel{~}{V}_𝔟(\lambda )=\stackrel{~}{V}_𝔟^{}(\lambda )`$ for $`\lambda `$ satisfying $`(\lambda ,\beta )=0`$. If $`xv0`$ then $`xv`$ is a $`𝔟^{}`$-primitive since $`[x,x]=0`$. This implies $`\stackrel{~}{V}_𝔟(\lambda )=\stackrel{~}{V}_𝔟^{}(\lambda +\beta )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}_𝔟(\lambda )=\stackrel{~}{M}_𝔟^{}(\lambda +\beta )`$ for $`(\lambda ,\beta )0`$. Remark that $`(\rho _𝔟,\beta )=0`$, since $`\beta `$ is a simple isotropic root, and so $`(\lambda ,\beta )=0`$ iff $`(\lambda +\rho _𝔟,\beta )=0`$. Taking into account that $`\rho _𝔟=\rho _𝔟^{}+\beta `$, one concludes that for Borel subsuperalgebras $`𝔟`$, $`𝔟^{}`$ satisfying $`𝔟_0=𝔟_0^{}`$ and a $`𝔟`$-typical weight $`\lambda `$ one has $`\stackrel{~}{V}_𝔟(\lambda )=\stackrel{~}{V}_𝔟^{}(\lambda ^{})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}_𝔟(\lambda )=\stackrel{~}{M}_𝔟^{}(\lambda ^{})`$ where $`\lambda +\rho _𝔟=\lambda ^{}+\rho _𝔟^{}`$.

### 2.8. Completely reducible Lie superalgebras

Recall that a Lie superalgebra is called completely reducible if all its finite dimensional modules are completely reducible. According to the theorem of Djoković and Hochschild (see \[Sch\], p. 239), any finite dimensional completely reducible Lie superalgebra is a direct sum of semisimple Lie algebras and algebras $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(1,2l)`$ ($`l1`$). The superalgebra $`𝔤==𝔬𝔰𝔭(1,2l)`$ has many features of the semisimple Lie algebra; in particular, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ is a domain and $`𝒵(𝔤)`$ is a polynomial algebra.

#### 2.8.1. Separation Theorem

In \[Ko\] Kostant establishes the following theorem which is called sometimes “Separation Theorem”.

Theorem.   Let $`𝔤`$ be a semisimple complex Lie algebra. There exists an $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-invariant subspace $`H`$ in $`𝒰(𝔤)`$ such that the multiplication map induces an isomorphism $`𝒵(𝔤)H\stackrel{}{}𝒰(𝔤)`$. Moreover, for every simple finite dimensional module $`V`$, $`[H:V]=dimV_0`$.

Such an $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-invariant subspace $`H`$ is called a harmonic space.

In \[M1\] Musson proves the analogous theorem for $`𝔤=𝔬𝔰𝔭(1,2l)`$.

#### 2.8.2. Annihilation Theorem

In \[D\] Duflo proves the following theorem.

Theorem.   Let $`𝔤`$ be a semisimple complex Lie algebra. Then for any $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$

$$\mathrm{Ann}M(\lambda )=𝒰(𝔤)\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤)}(\lambda ).$$

Let $`𝔤`$ be a semisimple complex Lie algebra and $`M`$ be a Verma module. The multiplicity of each simple finite dimensional module in $`F(M,M)`$ is equal to $`dimV|_0`$ if $`M`$ is a $`𝔤_0`$-simple Verma module. Combining the above theorem and Theorem 2.8.1, one concludes that for such $`M`$ the natural map $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}/\mathrm{Ann}M(\lambda )F(M,M)`$ is an isomorphism. In \[J1\], 6.4 Joseph generalizes this result to any $`𝔤_0`$-Verma module.

#### 2.8.3.

For the case $`𝔤=𝔬𝔰𝔭(1,2l)`$ the following results are obtained in \[GL1\],\[GL2\].

Theorem.   The annihilator of a Verma module $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ coincides with $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤)}\stackrel{~}{M}`$ iff $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is strongly typical.

Using Separation Theorem, one concludes that for a strongly typical $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ one has $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}/(\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{M})H`$.

To describe the non-centrally generated annihilators of Verma modules, it is convenient to substitute the centre $`𝒵(𝔤)`$ by the algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}(𝔤)`$ defined in 3.3.

Theorem.   For any $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$

$$\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )=\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\mathrm{Ann}_{\stackrel{~}{𝒵}(𝔤)}\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ).$$

If $`\lambda `$ is not strongly typical then the ideal $`\mathrm{Ann}_{\stackrel{~}{𝒵}(𝔤)}\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ is a maximal ideal of the algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}(𝔤)`$.

The algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ is free over $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}(𝔤)`$; more precisely, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ contains $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤_0`$-submodule $`K`$ such that the multiplication map induces the $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤_0`$-isomorphism $`K\stackrel{~}{𝒵}(𝔤)\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$. Moreover, as $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤_0`$-modules $`HKK`$ and $`K\stackrel{~}{𝒰}/(\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{M})`$ if $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is not strongly typical .

## 3. Category $`\mathrm{in}`$ and a twisted adjoint action

### 3.1. Category $`\mathrm{in}`$

Denote by $`\mathrm{in}_0`$ the full category of $`𝔤_0`$-modules whose objects are sums of simple finite dimensional modules. Denote by $`\mathrm{in}`$ the full category of $`𝔤`$-modules whose objects, considered as $`𝔤_0`$-modules, belong to $`\mathrm{in}_0`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ is a finite extension of $`𝒰(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$, any module $`N\mathrm{in}`$ is locally finite. In other words, the objects of $`\mathrm{in}`$ are the locally finite $`𝔥`$-diagonalizable modules ($`𝔤_0`$ is reductive and so all locally finite $`𝔥`$-diagonalizable are completely reducible).

Denote by $`\mathrm{Irr}`$ the set of isomorphism classes of simple finite dimensional $`𝔤`$-modules and by $`\mathrm{Irr}_0`$ the set of isomorphism classes of simple finite dimensional $`𝔤_0`$-modules. Note that $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ considered as $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module belongs to $`\mathrm{in}`$.

Throughout this section all modules are objects of $`\mathrm{in}`$. Everywhere in the paper, injectivity and projectivity mean, by default, injectivity and projectivity in the category $`\mathrm{in}`$.

#### 3.1.1.

Recall that the socle $`\mathrm{Soc}N`$ of the module $`N`$ is the sum of its simple submodules. Since any module in $`\mathrm{in}`$ is locally finite, it has a finite dimensional submodule and so a non-trivial socle.

Recall that a module $`N`$ is called an essential extension of its submodule $`N^{}`$ if for any non-zero submodule $`N^{\prime \prime }`$ of $`N`$ one has $`N^{}N^{\prime \prime }0`$. Any module in $`\mathrm{in}`$ is an essential extension of its socle.

#### 3.1.2.

For a homomorphism $`\psi :NN^{}`$ denote by $`\mathrm{Soc}\psi `$ its restriction to $`\mathrm{Soc}N`$. If $`\mathrm{Soc}\psi `$ is a monomorphism then $`\psi `$ is also a monomorphism, since $`\mathrm{ker}\psi \mathrm{Soc}N=0`$ and $`N`$ is an essential extension of $`\mathrm{Soc}N`$.

### 3.2. Injective and projective objects in $`\mathrm{in}`$

Recall that an injective envelope $`\mathrm{E}(N)`$ of the module $`N`$ is an injective module which is an essential extension of $`N`$. An injective envelope of a given module is unique up to isomorphism.

A typical simple finite dimensional module is injective and projective in $`\mathrm{in}`$ (see 2.5.2).

A standard reasoning of \[McL\], 3.11 shows that any submodule $`N`$ of an injective module $`E`$ has an injective envelope which is a direct summand of $`E`$. In Lemma 3.2.2 we show that any module in $`\mathrm{in}`$ has an injective envelope.

#### 3.2.1.

A finite dimensional $`𝔤_0`$-module $`L`$ is projective and injective in $`\mathrm{in}_0`$ and so $`\mathrm{Coind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤L\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤L`$ is projective and injective in $`\mathrm{in}`$— see 2.3.5.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ be a simple finite dimensional $`𝔤`$-module and $`V`$ be its simple $`𝔤_0`$-submodule. Then $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ is a submodule of the injective module $`\mathrm{Coind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤V`$. Therefore $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ has an injective envelope $`\mathrm{E}(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ which is a direct summand of $`\mathrm{Coind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤V`$. The last is projective and so $`\mathrm{E}(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ is projective as well.

#### 3.2.2.

Lemma.   Any module $`N\mathrm{in}`$ has an injective envelope $`\mathrm{E}(N)`$. Moreover $`\mathrm{E}(N)\mathrm{E}(\mathrm{Soc}N)`$.

###### Proof.

By 3.1.1, $`N`$ is an essential extension of $`\mathrm{Soc}N`$. Therefore, by \[McL\], 3.11.1, there exists a monomorphism $`\iota :N\mathrm{E}(\mathrm{Soc}N)`$ whose socle is the natural embedding $`\mathrm{Soc}N\mathrm{E}(\mathrm{Soc}N)`$. Since $`\mathrm{E}(\mathrm{Soc}N)`$ is an essential extension of $`\mathrm{Soc}N`$, it is also essential extension of $`N`$. Hence $`\mathrm{E}(\mathrm{Soc}N)`$ is an injective envelope of $`N`$. ∎

#### 3.2.3.

Lemma.   Any direct sum of injective modules in $`\mathrm{in}`$ is injective.

###### Proof.

Let $`E_i,iI`$ be a collection of injective modules. One has to check that for any monomorphism $`\iota :AB`$ and any homomorphism $`\varphi :A_{iI}E_i`$ there exists a homomorphism $`\psi :B_{iI}E_i`$ such that $`\psi \iota =\varphi `$. By a standard reasoning based on Zorn’s lemma, it is enough to verify the above assertion assuming $`B`$ being cyclic. Any cyclic module in $`\mathrm{in}`$ is finite dimensional. If $`B`$ is finite dimensional, then $`A`$ is also finite dimensional and so $`\varphi (A)`$ lies in a finite subsum $`_{iJ}E_i`$ ($`J`$ is a finite subset of $`I`$). Since each $`E_i`$ is injective, $`_{iJ}E_i`$ is injective and so there exists $`\psi :B_{iJ}E_i`$ such that $`\psi \iota (a)=\varphi (a)`$ for all $`aA`$. The assertion follows. ∎

#### 3.2.4.

Corollary.

$$\mathrm{E}(_{iI}N_i)=_{iI}\mathrm{E}(N_i)$$

#### 3.2.5.

Proposition.   Any injective module in $`\mathrm{in}`$ is projective.

###### Proof.

Take an injective module $`N`$ and write $`\mathrm{Soc}N=_{iI}L_i`$ where the $`L_i`$ are simple. Combining Lemma 3.2.2 and Corollary 3.2.4, one obtains $`N_{iI}\mathrm{E}(L_i)`$. By 3.2.1, all $`\mathrm{E}(L_i)`$ are projective so $`N`$ is also projective. ∎

### 3.3. Twisted adjoint action

In this subsection we present some results from \[G\] which are used in the sequel.

Define a twisted adjoin action of $`𝔤`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ by setting

$$(\mathrm{ad}^{}g)u=gu(1)^{d(g)(d(u)+1)}ug,g𝔤,u\stackrel{~}{𝒰}.$$

Note that $`\mathrm{ad}g=\mathrm{ad}^{}g`$ for $`g𝔤_0`$.

The anticentre $`𝒜(𝔤)`$ is the set of invariants of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ under the twisted adjoint action $`\mathrm{ad}^{}𝔤`$. The product of two anticentral elements is central. For $`𝔤`$ being a basic classical Lie superalgebra, $`𝒜(𝔤)`$ is even and so any anticentral element commutes with the even elements of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ and anticommutes with the odd ones. Therefore “the ghost centre”

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒵}(𝔤):=𝒵(𝔤)+𝒜(𝔤)$$

is a commutative subalgebra of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$.

For $`𝔤=𝔬𝔰𝔭(1,2l)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}(𝔤)`$ is a polynomial algebra and, moreover, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}(𝔤)=𝒵(𝔤)T𝒵(𝔤)`$ where $`T`$ is the element defined in 3.3.2.

#### 3.3.1.

Let $`L`$ be an $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤_0`$-submodule of $`𝒰`$. Then the $`\mathrm{ad}^{}𝔤`$-submodule generated by $`L`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ is isomorphic to the induced module $`\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤L`$. As $`\mathrm{ad}^{}𝔤`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ is generated by $`𝒰`$ and so $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤𝒰`$. Using the isomorphism $`\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤𝒰\mathrm{Coind}_{𝔤_\mathcal{0}}^𝔤𝒰`$, one obtains a linear isomorphism $`𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})\stackrel{}{}𝒜(𝔤)`$ given by $`z(\mathrm{ad}^{}u)z`$ where $`u\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ is such an element that $`uV(0)`$ is the trivial $`𝔤`$-submodule of $`\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤V(0)`$.

An anticentral element $`z`$ acts on a module generated by a primitive vector $`v`$ in the following way. It acts as $`𝒫(𝓏)(\lambda )\mathrm{id}`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_0v`$ and as $`(𝒫(𝓏)(\lambda )\mathrm{id})`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_1v`$ ($`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_0,\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_1`$ are homogeneous components of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$). From 2.5.7 it follows that the Harish-Chandra projection provides a monomorphism $`𝒜(𝔤)𝒮(𝔥)^{W.}`$. The image of this monomorphism is equal to $`t𝒮(𝔥)^{W.}`$ where

$$t:=\underset{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_1^+}{}(\beta ^{}+(\rho ,\beta )).$$

Any non-zero element of $`𝒜(𝔤)`$ is a non-zero divisor in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$.

#### 3.3.2.

Denote by $`T`$ the element of $`𝒜(𝔤)`$ such that $`𝒫(𝒯)=𝓉`$. Remark that a Verma module is strongly typical iff its annihilator does not contain $`T`$.

Up to a non-zero scalar, $`T`$ is equal to the image of $`1`$ under the above linear isomorphism $`𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})\stackrel{}{}𝒜(𝔤)`$. The image of $`T`$ in the symmetric algebra is a non-zero element of the one-dimensional vector space $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{top}𝔤_1`$.

Remark that $`T𝒜(𝔤)𝒵(𝔤)`$ and the restriction of the Harish-Chandra projection provides an isomorphism $`T𝒜(𝔤)\stackrel{}{}t^2𝒮(𝔥)^{W.}`$. For $`𝔤=𝔬𝔰𝔭(1,2l)`$, this implies that $`𝒜(𝔤)`$ is a free module over $`𝒵(𝔤)`$ generated by $`T`$.

It is easy to check that $`(\mathrm{ad}g)(uT)=((\mathrm{ad}^{}g)u)T`$. Since $`T`$ is a non-zero divisor, the ideal $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}T`$ considered as $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module is isomorphic to $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ considered as $`\mathrm{ad}^{}𝔤`$-module. Hence as $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}T\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤𝒰`$ and, in particular, it is injective in $`\mathrm{in}`$. Note that $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}T`$ is a two-sided ideal. Remark that, apart from the case when $`𝔤`$ is completely reducible, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ itself as $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module is neither injective nor projective in $`\mathrm{in}`$: it contains, as a direct summand, a trivial representation generated by $`1`$.

#### 3.3.3.

For any $`N\mathrm{in}_0`$ one has

$$dim\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ),\mathrm{Coind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤N)=dim\mathrm{Hom}_{𝔤_0}(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ),N).$$

Therefore

(2)
$$\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤N\mathrm{Coind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤N=_{\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}}\mathrm{E}(\stackrel{~}{V})^{r(\stackrel{~}{V})},r(\stackrel{~}{V}):=dim\left(\mathrm{Hom}_{𝔤_0}(\stackrel{~}{V},N)\right).$$

This has the following useful consequence. Let $`H`$ be a harmonic space of $`𝒰(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ that is an $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤_0`$-submodule of $`𝒰(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ such that the multiplication map provides an isomorphism $`H𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})𝒰(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$—see 2.8.1. Then $`H_{V\mathrm{Irr}_0}V^{dimV|_0}`$. Taking into account 3.3.1 and (2), one obtains

(3)
$$(\mathrm{ad}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒰})H\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤H=_{V\mathrm{Irr}_0}\mathrm{Coind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤V^{dimV|_0}=_{\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}}\mathrm{E}(\stackrel{~}{V})^{dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0}$$

since $`_{V\mathrm{Irr}_0}dimV|_0dim\left(\mathrm{Hom}_{𝔤_0}(\stackrel{~}{V},V)\right)=dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0`$ for any $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$.

## 4. The structure $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ as $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module.

In this section we study the $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module structure of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$. We start from the studying $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$ for a simple finite dimensional module $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$. For each $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ we construct a central element $`z`$ such that the localized module $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰}[z^1])=\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})[z^1]`$ is a free $`𝒵(𝔤)[z^1]`$-module whose rank is equal to $`dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0`$. In 4.6 we define and study PRV determinants for non-completely reducible basic classical Lie superalgebras.

In 4.7 we show that for a suitable $`S𝒵(𝔤)`$ the localized algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}[S^1]`$ is free over its centre $`𝒵(𝔤)[S^1]`$ and that the corresponding harmonic space $`H`$ (“generic harmonic space”) is injective (in $`\mathrm{in}`$) $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module. Moreover, the multiplicity of a simple finite dimensional module $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ in $`\mathrm{Soc}H`$ is equal to $`dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0`$.

### 4.1.

The following lemma of A. Joseph and G. Letzter provides a connection between $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$ and $`\mathrm{Hom}(\stackrel{~}{V}|_0,𝒮(𝔥))`$.

#### 4.1.1.

Lemma.   An $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-submodule $`N`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ lies in the annihilator of $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ iff $`𝒫(𝒩|_\mathcal{0})(\lambda )=\mathcal{0}`$.

###### Proof.

The proof is the same as in \[J3\], 7.2. Remark that $`𝒫(𝒩)=𝒫(𝒩|_\mathcal{0})`$. Let $`v_\lambda `$ be a highest weight vector of $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )_{}:=𝒰(𝔫^{})𝔫^{}𝓋`$. One has

$$𝒫(𝒩)(\lambda )=\mathcal{0}𝒩𝓋_\lambda \stackrel{~}{𝒱}(\lambda )_{}.$$

In particular, $`N\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )=0`$ forces $`𝒫(𝒩)(\lambda )=\mathcal{0}`$.

For the inverse implication, assume that $`𝒫(𝒩|_\mathcal{0})(\lambda )=\mathcal{0}`$ that is $`Nv_\lambda \stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )_{}`$. The $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-invariance of $`N`$ implies $`𝒰(𝔫^{})N=N𝒰(𝔫^{})`$ and thus

$$N\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )=N𝒰(𝔫^{})v_\lambda =𝒰(𝔫^{})Nv_\lambda 𝒰(𝔫^{})\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )_{}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )_{}\underset{}{}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda ).$$

The $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-invariance of $`N`$ implies also $`𝒰(𝔤)N=N𝒰(𝔤)`$ and so $`N\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ is a submodule of $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$. Hence $`N\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )=0`$ as required. ∎

#### 4.1.2.

Corollary.   Take $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$, a basis $`v_1,\mathrm{}v_r`$ be of $`\stackrel{~}{V}|_0`$ and $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$. For any $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _k\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$, the image of the space $`_{i=1}^k\theta _i(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ under the natural map $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\mathrm{End}(\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda ))`$ is isomorphic to $`\stackrel{~}{V}^m`$ where $`m`$ is the rank of the matrix $`\left(𝒫(\theta _𝒿(𝓋_𝒾))(\lambda )\right)_{𝒾=\mathcal{1},𝓇}^{𝒿=\mathcal{1},𝓀}`$.

#### 4.1.3.

Combining 2.5.7 and Lemma 4.1.1 one concludes that for an $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-submodule $`N`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ the equality $`𝒫(𝒩|_\mathcal{0})=\mathcal{0}`$ implies $`N=0`$. Moreover $`N=0`$ provided that $`𝒫(𝒩|_\mathcal{0})()=\mathcal{0}`$ for a Zariski dense subset $`R`$ of $`𝔥^{}`$.

### 4.2. Notation

Fix $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$ and consider $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$ as a $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-module with respect to the action induced by the multiplication.

The Harish-Chandra projection induces the map $`\mathrm{\Psi }:\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V}|_0,𝒮(𝔥))`$ given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\varphi (v)=𝒫(\varphi (𝓋)),\varphi \mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{𝒱},\stackrel{~}{𝒰}),𝓋\stackrel{~}{𝒱}|_\mathcal{0}.$$

This map is a monomorphism by 4.1.3. Denote by $`(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ the image of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$.

Define the action of $`𝒵(𝔤)`$ on $`𝒮(𝔥)`$ by setting $`zp:=𝒫(𝓏)𝓅`$. This action induces the structure of a $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-module on $`\mathrm{Hom}(\stackrel{~}{V}|_0,𝒮(𝔥))`$. Obviously, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-map. Thus the study of $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-module structure of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$ reduces to the study of $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-module structure of $`(\stackrel{~}{V})`$.

The vector space $`\mathrm{Hom}(\stackrel{~}{V}|_0,𝒮(𝔥))`$ has the natural structure of $`𝒮(𝔥)`$-module. We denote by $`(\stackrel{~}{V})𝒮(𝔥)`$ the $`𝒮(𝔥)`$-span of $`(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ inside $`\mathrm{Hom}(\stackrel{~}{V}|_0,𝒮(𝔥))`$.

### 4.3. Examples

#### 4.3.1.

Example.  Let $`𝔤`$ be a completely reducible simple Lie superalgebra. In this case $`𝒫(𝒵(𝔤))=𝒮(𝔥)^{𝒲.}`$. Separation Theorem (see 2.8.1) state the existence of an $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-submodule $``$ of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ such that the multiplication map induces isomorphism $`𝒵(𝔤)\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$. Thus for any $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$, a basis of the vector space $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},)`$ is a free $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-basis of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$. Consequently, $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$ is a free $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-module of the rank $`dim\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},)=dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0`$ (see 2.8.1).

#### 4.3.2.

Example.  Consider the case $`𝔤=𝔰l(2,1)`$. Then $`𝔥=\mathrm{span}\{z,h\}`$ where $`z`$ is a central element of the reductive algebra $`𝔤_0=𝔰𝔩(2)\times `$ and $`h`$ is an element of the Cartan subalgebra of $`𝔰l(2)`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=\{\pm \alpha \},\mathrm{\Delta }_1=\{\pm \beta ;\pm (\alpha +\beta )\}`$. Choose such a triangular decomposition that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+=\{\alpha ,\beta ,\alpha +\beta \}`$. The subalgebras $`𝔫_1^\pm =𝔤_1𝔫^\pm `$ are supercommutative and are $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤_0`$-submodules of $`𝔤`$. Let $`\{x_1,x_2\}`$ (resp., $`\{y_1,y_2\}`$) be a basis of $`𝔫_1^+`$ (resp., $`𝔫_1^{}`$).

The algebra $`𝒮(𝔥)^{W.}`$ is a polynomial algebra generated by $`z`$ and $`t=(zh)(z+h+2)`$. The image $`𝒫(𝒵(𝔤))`$ in $`𝒮(𝔥)^{W.}`$ is spanned by $`1`$ and the elements $`\{t^nz^k,n>0,k0\}`$.

Denote by $`v`$ a highest weight vector of $`\stackrel{~}{V}:=\stackrel{~}{V}(\alpha +2\beta )`$; one has $`\stackrel{~}{V}|_0=y_1y_2v`$. It is easy to see that a highest weight vector of any copy of $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ inside $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ is of the form $`ux_1x_2`$ where $`u𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$. Up to a scalar, $`𝒫((\mathrm{ad}𝓎_\mathcal{1}𝓎_\mathcal{2})(𝓊𝓍_\mathcal{1}𝓍_\mathcal{2}))=(𝓏𝒽)(𝓏+𝒽+\mathcal{2})𝒫(𝓊)=𝓉𝒫(𝓊)`$. One has $`𝒫(𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0}))=𝒮(𝔥)^{𝒲.}`$ and so $`(\stackrel{~}{V})=\mathrm{Hom}(,𝒮(𝔥)^{W.}t)`$. Since $`𝒮(𝔥)^{W.}`$ is not free over $`𝒫(𝒵(𝔤))`$, the $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-module $`(\stackrel{~}{V})\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$ is not free.

One might expect from the above example that $`(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ is stable with respect to the multiplication on $`𝒮(𝔥)^{W.}`$. However $`(\stackrel{~}{V}(0))=\mathrm{Hom}(,𝒫(𝒵(𝔤)))`$ is not stable with respect to the multiplication on $`𝒮(𝔥)^{W.}`$ apart from the case when $`𝒫(𝒵(𝔤))=𝒮(𝔥)^{𝒲.}`$.

### 4.4.

In this subsection we show that the $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-rank of the module $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$ is not greater than $`dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0`$. The crucial point is Lemma 4.4.2 asserting that any elements of $`(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ which are “linearly dependent” over $`𝒮(𝔥)`$ are “linearly dependent” over $`𝒵(𝔤)`$. Throughout this subsection $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$ is fixed.

#### 4.4.1. Basic definitions

Let $`A`$ be a commutative domain. For an $`A`$-module $`N`$ define an $`A`$-rank  of $`N`$ to be the dimension over the field of fractions $`\mathrm{Fract}A`$ of the localized module $`N_A\mathrm{Fract}A`$. Call elements $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _kN`$ $`A`$-linearly independent  if their images in the localized module $`N_A\mathrm{Fract}A`$ are linearly independent. Call the elements $`A`$-linearly dependent  if they are not $`A`$-linearly independent. Call an $`A`$-basic system  of $`N`$ a collection $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _kN`$ such that the image of this collection in the localized module $`N_A\mathrm{Fract}A`$ forms its $`\mathrm{Fract}A`$-basis.

Let $`L`$ be a vector space and $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_r`$ be a basis of $`L`$. Let $`N`$ be an $`A`$-submodule of $`\mathrm{Hom}(L,A)`$ and $`k`$ be the $`A`$-rank of $`N`$. The collection $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _kN`$ is a $`A`$-basic system of $`N`$ iff the matrix $`\left(\theta _j(v_i)\right)_{i=1,r}^{j=1,k}𝒶𝓉_{(r\times k)}(A)`$ has a $`(k\times k)`$ non-zero minor. Call such a non-zero minor (which is an element of $`A`$) a minor of a basic system $`\theta _1,\mathrm{}\theta _k`$.

If $`pA`$ is a minor of a basic system $`\theta _1,\mathrm{}\theta _k`$ then for any $`\theta N`$ one has $`p\theta =_{j=1}^kp_j\theta _j`$ for certain (unique) collection $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_kA`$. In particular, the localized module $`N_AA[p^1]`$ is a free $`A[p^1]`$-module and the images of $`\theta _1,\mathrm{}\theta _k`$ form a basis of this free module.

Recall that $`t^2𝒮(𝔥)^{W.}𝒫(𝒵(𝔤))`$ (see 3.3.2).

#### 4.4.2.

Lemma.

(i) Elements of $`(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ are $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-linearly independent iff they are $`𝒮(𝔥)`$-linearly independent.

(ii) If $`\theta _1\mathrm{},\theta _s(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ are $`𝒮(𝔥)`$-linearly independent and

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{s}{}}p_j\theta _j=0$$

for some $`\theta _0(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ and $`p_0,\mathrm{},p_s𝒮(𝔥)`$, then there exists $`z_0,\mathrm{},z_s𝒵(𝔤)`$ such that $`_{j=0}^sz_j\theta _j=0`$ and $`𝒫(𝓏_\mathcal{0})=𝓉^\mathcal{2}𝓆`$ where $`q`$ is a maximal $`W.`$-invariant divisor of $`p_0^{|W|}`$.

###### Proof.

Obviously, elements of $`(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ are $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-linearly independent provided that they are $`𝒮(𝔥)`$-linearly independent. The inverse implication follows from (ii) because we always can choose a minimal (with respect to the inclusion) subset of $`𝒮(𝔥)`$-linearly dependent elements in a set of $`𝒮(𝔥)`$-linearly dependent elements.

Let us prove (ii). The equality $`_{j=0}^sp_j\theta _j=0`$ means that for any $`\mu 𝔥^{}`$ one has

$$v\stackrel{~}{V}|_00=\underset{j=0}{\overset{s}{}}p_j(\mu )\theta _j(v)(\mu )=\underset{j=0}{\overset{s}{}}p_j(\mu )𝒫((\mathcal{\Psi }^\mathcal{1}\theta _𝒿)(𝓋))(\mu ).$$

In the light of Lemma 4.1.1, this gives

$$\mu 𝔥^{}\left(\underset{j=0}{\overset{s}{}}p_j(\mu )\mathrm{\Psi }^1(\theta _j)\right)(\stackrel{~}{V})\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{V}(\mu );$$

here the sum belongs to $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$ because $`\mathrm{\Psi }^1(\theta _j)\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$ and $`p_j(\mu )`$.

Fix a root $`\alpha \pi _0`$; let $`s_\alpha W`$ be the corresponding reflection. Assume that $`\mu 𝔥^{}`$ is such that $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\mu )=\stackrel{~}{M}(\mu )/\stackrel{~}{M}(s_\alpha .\mu )`$. Then, for “sufficiently large” $`\mu `$, any copy of $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ inside $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ which annihilates $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\mu )`$, annihilates also $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\mu )`$ and so $`\stackrel{~}{V}(s_\alpha .\mu )`$. To be more precise, choose $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$ such that $`(\omega ,\alpha ^{})0`$ for all $`\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and $`(\omega ,\alpha )=1`$. Set

$$R:=\{\mu 𝔥|(a)n(\mu )^+,(b)n(\mu )>(\nu ,\omega ),(c)\beta \mathrm{\Delta }^+\{\alpha \}(\mu +\rho ,\beta )\}.$$

where $`\nu `$ stands for the lowest weight of $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ and $`n(\mu ):=2(\mu +\rho ,\alpha )/(\alpha ,\alpha )`$. It is easy to see that $`R`$ is Zariski dense in $`𝔥^{}`$ and that any element in $`R`$ is typical. Take $`\mu R`$. By 2.5.8, $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\mu )`$ is not simple because $`n(\mu )^+`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\mu ^{})`$ is a subquotient of $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\mu )`$, then $`(\mu ^{}\mu )\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ and, by 2.5.3, $`\mu ^{}=w.\mu `$ for some $`wW`$. Using the fact that any $`wW`$ can be written as the product $`s_{\beta _1}\mathrm{}s_{\beta _m}`$ where $`\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _m\mathrm{\Delta }_0^+`$ are linearly independent, it is easy to deduce from the condition (c) that $`(w.\mu \mu )\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ for any $`w\mathrm{id},s_\alpha `$. Thus $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\mu )=\stackrel{~}{M}(\mu )/\stackrel{~}{M}(s_\alpha .\mu )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}(s_\alpha .\mu )`$ is simple. Observe that $`s_\alpha .\mu =\mu n(\mu )\alpha `$ and so for any $`\xi \mathrm{\Omega }(\stackrel{~}{M}(s_\alpha .\mu ))`$ one has $`(\xi ,\omega )(\mu ,\omega )n(\mu )`$. Thus $`(\mu +\nu )\mathrm{\Omega }(\stackrel{~}{M}(s_\alpha .\mu ))`$ due to the condition (a).

Let $`N`$ be a copy of $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ inside $`\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{V}(\mu )`$. Let $`u_\nu `$ be a lowest weight vector of $`N`$ and $`v_\mu `$ be a highest weight vector of $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\mu )`$. Since $`u_\nu \stackrel{~}{V}(\mu )=0`$ the vector $`u_\nu v_\mu `$ belongs to $`\stackrel{~}{M}(s_\alpha .\mu )`$. However the latter does not have non-zero elements of weight $`(\mu +\nu )`$. Thus $`u_\nu v_\mu =0`$. One has $`u_\nu \stackrel{~}{M}(\mu )=u_\nu 𝒰(𝔫^{})𝓋_\mu =𝒰(𝔫^{})𝓊_\nu 𝓋_\mu `$ because $`u_\nu `$ is a lowest weight vector that is $`(\mathrm{ad}𝔫^{})u_\nu =0`$. Therefore $`u_\nu \stackrel{~}{M}(\mu )=0`$. Since $`\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{M}(\mu )`$ is $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-stable, $`N\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{M}(\mu )`$ and, in particular, $`N\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{V}(s_\alpha .\mu )`$.

Hence $`_{j=0}^sp_j(\mu )(\mathrm{\Psi }^1\theta _j)(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ annihilates $`\stackrel{~}{V}(s_\alpha .\mu )`$ for any $`\mu R`$. Then, by Lemma 4.1.1

$$\left(\underset{j=0}{\overset{s}{}}(s_\alpha .p_j)\theta _j(v)\right)(\mu ^{})=0$$

for any $`v\stackrel{~}{V}|_0`$ and any $`\mu ^{}`$ such that $`s_\alpha .\mu ^{}R`$. The terms $`_{j=0}^s(s_\alpha .p_j)\theta _j(v)`$ are polynomials in $`𝒮(𝔥)`$. Since $`R`$ is a Zariski dense subset of $`𝔥^{}`$, one concludes that these polynomials are equal to zero. Consequently

$$\underset{j=0}{\overset{s}{}}(s_\alpha .p_j)\theta _j=0.$$

Taking into account that $`_{j=0}^sp_j\theta _j=0`$ and that $`\theta _1,\mathrm{}\theta _s`$ are $`𝒮(𝔥)`$-linearly independent, one concludes that $`p_j/p_0=(s_\alpha .p_j)/(s_\alpha .p_0)`$ for all $`j=1,\mathrm{},s`$. Thus $`p_j/p_0`$ is $`W.`$-invariant for all $`j=1,\mathrm{},s`$. Then, by Lemma 11.1.6, for each $`j=0,\mathrm{},s`$ there exists $`q_j𝒮(𝔥)^{W.}`$ such that $`q_j/q=p_j/p_0`$. By 3.3.2, $`t^2𝒮(𝔥)^{W.}𝒫(𝒵(𝔤))`$ and thus $`t^2q_j𝒫(𝒵(𝔤))`$ for all $`j=0,\mathrm{},s`$. Since $`q_j/q=p_j/p_0`$ one has

$$(t^2q)\theta _0+\underset{j=1}{\overset{s}{}}(t^2q_j)\theta _j=0.$$

This completes the proof. ∎

#### 4.4.3.

Proposition.   Let $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _s(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ be a $`𝒮(𝔥)`$-basic system of $`(\stackrel{~}{V})𝒮(𝔥)`$, $`p`$ be a minor of this system and $`z𝒵(𝔤)`$ be such that $`𝒫(𝓏)=𝓉^\mathcal{2}𝓆`$ where $`q`$ is a maximal $`W.`$-invariant divisor of $`p^{|W|}`$. Then the localized module $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰}[z^1])`$ is freely generated over $`𝒵(𝔤)[z^1]`$ by $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }^1\theta _1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Psi }^1\theta _s\}`$.

###### Proof.

Recall that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ provides a $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-isomorphism from $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$ onto $`(\stackrel{~}{V})`$. Therefore the required assertion is equivalent to the following statement: the localized module $`(\stackrel{~}{V})_{𝒵(𝔤)}𝒵(𝔤)[z^1]`$ is freely generated over $`𝒵(𝔤)[z^1]`$ by $`\{\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _s\}`$. In other words, one has to show that for any $`\theta _0(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ there exists a unique collection $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_s`$ such that $`z\theta _0+_1^sz_j\theta _j=0`$ or, equivalently, that there exists a unique collection $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_s𝒫(𝒵(𝔤))𝒮(𝔥)`$ such that

$$(t^2q)\theta _0+\underset{1}{\overset{s}{}}a_j\theta _j=0.$$

The uniqueness immediately follows from the fact that the collection $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _s`$ is a $`𝒮(𝔥)`$-basic system of $`(\stackrel{~}{V})𝒮(𝔥)`$. To prove the existence, recall that $`(\stackrel{~}{V})𝒮(𝔥)`$ is a $`𝒮(𝔥)`$-submodule of $`\mathrm{Hom}(\stackrel{~}{V}|_0,𝒮(𝔥))`$. By 4.4.1, for any $`\theta _0(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ there exists a unique collection $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_s𝒮(𝔥)`$ such that $`p\theta _0+_{j=1}^sp_j\theta _j=0`$. Now the required existence follows from Lemma 4.4.2. ∎

#### 4.4.4.

Corollary.   The $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-rank of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$ is not greater than $`dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0`$.

#### 4.4.5.

Remark.  Set $`r=dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0`$. Assume that $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$ contains the collection $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _r`$ possessing the following property: for a certain $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$ the images of the modules $`\theta _1(\stackrel{~}{V}),\mathrm{},\theta _r(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ under the map $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\stackrel{~}{𝒰}/\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ form a direct sum. We claim that $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _r`$ is a $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-basic system of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$.

In fact, choose a basis $`v_1\mathrm{}v_r`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{V}|_0`$. By Corollary 4.1.2, the rank of the matrix $`\left(𝒫(\theta _𝒿(𝓋_𝒾))(\lambda )\right)_{𝒾=\mathcal{1},𝓇}^{𝒿=\mathcal{1},𝓇}`$ is equal to $`r`$. Hence the rank of the matrix

$$\left(\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta _j(v_i))\right)_{i=1,r}^{j=1,r}=\left(𝒫(\theta _𝒿(𝓋_𝒾))\right)_{𝒾=\mathcal{1},𝓇}^{𝒿=\mathcal{1},𝓇}𝒶𝓉_{(𝓇\times 𝓇)}𝒮(𝔥)$$

is also equal to $`r`$ and so $`\mathrm{\Psi }\theta _1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Psi }\theta _r`$ are $`𝒮(𝔥)`$-linearly independent in $`(\stackrel{~}{V})𝒮(𝔥)`$. Since $`(\stackrel{~}{V})𝒮(𝔥)`$ is a $`𝒮(𝔥)`$-submodule of $`\mathrm{Hom}(\stackrel{~}{V}|_0,\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$, its rank is not greater than $`r`$. Hence $`\mathrm{\Psi }\theta _1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Psi }\theta _r`$ is a $`𝒮(𝔥)`$-basic system of $`(\stackrel{~}{V})𝒮(𝔥)`$. Therefore $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _r`$ is a $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-basic system of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$ by Proposition 4.4.3.

### 4.5.

In this subsection we show that the $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-rank of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$ is equal to $`dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0`$.

#### 4.5.1.

Separation Theorem 2.8.1 claims the existence an $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤_0`$-submodule $`H`$ of $`𝒰`$ such that the multiplication map provides an isomorphism $`H𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})\stackrel{}{}𝒰`$. In both proofs (\[Ko\]\[BL\]) one constructs, actually, an $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤_0`$-submodule $`H^{}`$ of the symmetric algebra $`𝒮(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ such that the multiplication map provides an isomorphism $`H^{}𝒮(𝔤_\mathcal{0})^{𝔤_\mathcal{0}}\stackrel{}{}𝒮(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$.

Lemma.   Let $`H`$ be an $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤_0`$-submodule of $`𝒰`$ such that the multiplication map provides an isomorphism $`\mathrm{gr}H𝒮(𝔤_\mathcal{0})^{𝔤_\mathcal{0}}𝒮(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$. Then the $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module $`L:=(\mathrm{ad}\stackrel{~}{𝒰})(HT)`$ is isomorphic to

$$_{\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}}\mathrm{E}(\stackrel{~}{V})^{dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0}$$

and the multiplication induces the monomorphism $`L𝒵(𝔤)\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$.

###### Proof.

Fix $`H`$ satisfying the above condition. According to 3.3, $`L:=(\mathrm{ad}\stackrel{~}{𝒰})(HT)=(\mathrm{ad}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒰})(H)T`$ and as $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module $`L`$ is isomorphic to the $`\mathrm{ad}^{}𝔤`$-module $`(\mathrm{ad}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒰})(H)\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤H`$. Now the required isomorphism follows from (3).

Since $`L=(\mathrm{ad}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒰})(H)T`$ and $`T`$ is a non-zero divisor, the injectivity of the map $`L𝒵(𝔤)\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ is equivalent to the injectivity of the map $`(\mathrm{ad}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒰})(H)𝒵(𝔤)\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ (both maps are restrictions of the multiplication map). To check the injectivity of the map $`(\mathrm{ad}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒰})(H)𝒵(𝔤)\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ it is enough to check the injectivity of its “graded version”:

$$\mathrm{gr}((\mathrm{ad}^{}\stackrel{~}{𝒰})(H))\mathrm{gr}𝒵(𝔤)𝒮(𝔤).$$

Recall that $`\mathrm{gr}𝒵(𝔤)=𝒮(𝔤)^𝔤`$. Let $`\{x_i\}_{iI}`$ be an ordered basis of $`𝔤_1`$. For any $`JI`$ set $`x_J:=_{jJ}x_j`$ where the product is taken with respect to the given order. Assume that

$$\underset{JI;k=1,\mathrm{},s}{}z_{k,J}\mathrm{gr}((\mathrm{ad}^{}x_J)h_k)=0$$

for some non-zero $`h_1,\mathrm{},h_sH`$ and some $`z_{k,J}𝒮(𝔤)^𝔤`$. To check the injectivity one has to show that all elements $`z_{k,J}`$ are equal to zero. Suppose not. For $`x𝔤_1,u\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ one has $`(\mathrm{ad}^{}x)u=2xu(\mathrm{ad}x)u`$. This implies $`\mathrm{gr}((\mathrm{ad}^{}x_J)u)=2^{|J|}\mathrm{gr}x_J\mathrm{gr}u`$ for any $`JI`$ and $`u𝒰`$. For each $`JI`$ denote by $`P_J`$ the projection $`𝒮(𝔤)𝒮(𝔤_\mathcal{0})\mathrm{gr}𝓍_𝒥`$ with the kernel $`N_J:=_{J^{}I,J^{}J}𝒮(𝔤_\mathcal{0})\mathrm{gr}𝓍_𝒥^{}`$. By 2.3.2, the restriction of $`P_{\mathrm{}}`$ to $`𝒮(𝔤)^𝔤`$ provides a monomorphism $`𝒮(𝔤)^𝔤𝒮(𝔤_\mathcal{0})^{𝔤_\mathcal{0}}`$. Choose $`JI`$ such that $`z_{k,J}0`$ for some $`k`$ and $`J`$ is a minimal (under inclusion) subset of $`I`$ possessing this property. Then

$$\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & =P_J\left(\underset{J^{}I,k=1,\mathrm{},s}{}z_{k,J^{}}\mathrm{gr}((\mathrm{ad}^{}x_J^{})h_k)\right)\hfill \\ & =P_J(\underset{J^{}I,k=1,\mathrm{},s}{}2^{|J^{}|}z_{k,J^{}}\mathrm{gr}x_J^{}\mathrm{gr}h_k))\hfill \\ & =2^{|J|}\mathrm{gr}x_J\underset{k=1,\mathrm{},s}{}P_{\mathrm{}}(z_{k,J})\mathrm{gr}h_k.\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`\mathrm{gr}H𝒮(𝔤_\mathcal{0})^{𝔤_\mathcal{0}}\stackrel{}{}𝒮(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$, all elements $`z_{k,J}`$ are equal to zero. The lemma is proven. ∎

#### 4.5.2.

Corollary.   The $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-rank of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$ is equal to $`dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0`$.

###### Proof.

Fix $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$ and set $`r:=dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0`$. Choose $`H`$ satisfying the assumption of Lemma 4.5.1. Then the vector space $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},L)`$ has dimension $`r`$; let $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _r`$ be a basis of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},L)`$. The injectivity of the map $`L𝒵(𝔤)\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$, induced by the multiplication, implies the $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-linear independence of $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _r`$ in $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$. Thus the $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-rank of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$ is greater than or equal to $`r`$. Comparing with Corollary 4.4.4, one concludes the required assertion. ∎

### 4.6. PRV determinants

#### 4.6.1. Definitions

Fix $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$ and set $`r:=dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0`$. Lemma 4.4.2 (i) implies that $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _r`$ is a $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-basic system of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$ iff $`\mathrm{\Psi }\theta _1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Psi }\theta _r`$ is a $`𝒮(𝔥)`$-basic system of $`(\stackrel{~}{V})𝒮(𝔥)`$. By 4.4.1, the last is equivalent to the condition that $`detC0`$ where

$$C:=\left(𝒫(\theta _𝒿(𝓋_𝒾))\right)𝒶𝓉_{(𝓇\times 𝓇)}(𝒮(𝔥))$$

and $`\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_r\}`$ is a basis of $`\stackrel{~}{V}|_0`$.

Call such a matrix a PRV matrix (corresponding to the basic system $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _r`$) and the determinant $`detC`$ a PRV-determinant. Note that for different choices of a basis $`\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_r\}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{V}|_0`$ the PRV-matrix corresponding to $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _r`$ differ by the multiplication on an invertible scalar matrix.

Denote by $`𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ the set of all PRV-matrices and by $`det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ the set of PRV determinants (for fixed $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$). One has

$$det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V})=\{det\left(𝒫(\theta _𝒿(𝓋_𝒾))\right)|\theta _\mathcal{1},\mathrm{},\theta _𝓇\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{𝒱},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})\}\{\mathcal{0}\}.$$

For each $`\nu 𝔥^{}`$ such that $`dim\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu )<\mathrm{}`$ set $`det𝒥(\nu ):=det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ))`$. For $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$ we write $`det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V})(\lambda )=0`$ if $`(detC)(\lambda )=0`$ for all $`C𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V})`$.

If $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _r`$ is a $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-basic system of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$, then for any non-zero $`z𝒵(𝔤)`$ the collection $`z\theta _1,\theta _2\mathrm{},\theta _r`$ is also a $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-basic system. Consequently, $`det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ is closed under the multiplication on the non-zero elements of $`𝒫(𝒵(𝔤))`$.

#### 4.6.2.

Let $`N`$ be an $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-submodule of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ such that $`dim\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},N)=dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0`$. By slightly abuse of notation, we shall denote by $`det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V};N)`$ the determinant of the matrix $`\left(𝒫(\theta _𝒿(𝓋_𝒾))\right)`$ where $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _r`$ (resp, $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_r`$) is a basis of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},N)`$ (resp., $`\stackrel{~}{V}|_0`$). Note that $`det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V};N)`$ can be zero.

For different choices of a basis $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _r`$, the values of $`det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V};N)`$ differ by a multiplicative constant. Hence $`det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V};N)`$ is a polynomial in $`𝒮(𝔥)`$ defined up to a non-zero scalar.

#### 4.6.3.

Remark.  The original definition of PRV determinants given in \[PRV\] for the semisimple Lie algebras differ from our definition. Namely, the PRV determinant $`p(V)`$ is equal to the polynomial $`det𝒥(V;H)`$ where $`H`$ is a harmonic space (see 2.8.1). This definition works for completely reducible Lie superalgebras as well. In our notation $`det𝒥(V)=𝒮(𝔥)^{W.}p(V)\{0\}`$— this follows from Separation Theorem 2.8.1.

#### 4.6.4.

Take $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$ and $`pdet𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V})`$. Let $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _r`$ be a $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-basic system of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$ such that the determinant of the corresponding PRV matrix is equal to $`p`$. Denote by $`q`$ the maximal $`W.`$-invariant divisor of $`p`$. Combining Remark 4.4.5 and Proposition 4.4.3, one concludes that $`z𝒵(𝔤)`$ satisfying $`𝒫(𝓏)=𝓉^\mathcal{2}𝓆^{|𝒲|}`$ possesses the following property: for any $`\theta \mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$ one has $`z\theta =_{i=1}^rz_i\theta _i`$ for certain $`z_i𝒵(𝔤)`$.

In particular, for $`a:=𝒫(𝓏)^𝓇=𝓉^{\mathcal{2}𝓇}𝓆^{𝓇|𝒲|}`$ one has

$$adet𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V})𝒫(𝒵(𝔤))𝓅𝒮(𝔥)^{𝒲.}𝓅.$$

On the other hand, $`𝒫(𝒵(𝔤))𝓅det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{𝒱})`$ by 4.6.1.

#### 4.6.5.

Corollary.   Take $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$. For any $`pdet𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ there exists $`a𝒮(𝔥)^{W.}`$ such that

$$𝒫(𝒵(𝔤)\{\mathcal{0}\})𝓅det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{𝒱})𝒮(𝔥)^{𝒲.}[𝒶^\mathcal{1}]𝓅.$$

#### 4.6.6.

Fix $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$. Take a basic system $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _r`$ and denote by $`C`$ the corresponding PRV matrix. Recall that $`detC0`$. For each $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$ denote by $`C(\lambda )`$ the complex matrix which is obtained from $`C`$ by the evaluation of all entries at $`\lambda `$. Clearly $`detC(\lambda )=(detC)(\lambda )`$. By Corollary 4.1.2,

$$\mathrm{corank}C(\lambda )=dim\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )\underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}\theta _j(\stackrel{~}{V})).$$

In particular, $`\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )_{j=1}^r\theta _j(\stackrel{~}{V})=0`$ iff $`detC(\lambda )0`$. Then, for $`f_\lambda `$ being the natural map $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\mathrm{End}(\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda ))`$, one has

(4)
$$dim\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},f_\lambda (\mathrm{Soc}\stackrel{~}{𝒰}))=\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{rank}C(\lambda )|C𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V})\}.$$

Combining 11.1.5 and (4) one obtains

#### 4.6.7.

Corollary.   Assume that $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ is simple. Then the image of the socle of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ under the natural map $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}F(\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ),\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ))`$ coincides with the socle of $`F(\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ),\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ))`$ iff $`det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V})(\lambda )0`$ for any $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$.

#### 4.6.8. Change of Borel

In the definition of PRV matrices we use the Harish-Chandra projection. Therefore this definition depends on the choice of triangular decomposition. In the sequel we will add a lower index to designate the corresponding Borel subsuperalgebra in the cases when the choice of triangular decomposition is not clear from the context. For instance, $`𝒥_𝔟(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ is the set of PRV matrices of the form $`\left(𝒫_𝔟(\theta _𝒿(𝓋_𝒾))\right)`$ where $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _r`$ is a $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-basic system of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$ and $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_r`$ is a basis of $`\stackrel{~}{V}|_0`$.

Let $`𝔟`$ and $`𝔟^{}`$ be connected by the odd reflection along an odd isotropic root $`\beta `$. By 2.7, $`\stackrel{~}{V}_𝔟(\lambda )=\stackrel{~}{V}_𝔟^{}(\lambda ^{})`$ where $`\lambda =\lambda ^{}`$ if $`\lambda `$ is such that $`(\lambda ,\beta )=0`$ and $`\lambda =\lambda ^{}+\beta `$ otherwise. Then for any $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$ the equality (4) implies

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{rank}C(\lambda )|C𝒥_{𝔟_1}(\stackrel{~}{V})\}=\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{rank}C(\lambda ^{})|C𝒥_{𝔟_2}(\stackrel{~}{V})\},\\ det𝒥_{𝔟_1}(\stackrel{~}{V})(\lambda )=0det𝒥_{𝔟_2}(\stackrel{~}{V})(\lambda ^{})=0.\end{array}$$

#### 4.6.9.

Remark.  The equality 4) has the following consequence: for any PRV determinant $`pdet𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ and any $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$, the order of zero of $`p`$ at the point $`\lambda `$ is greater than or equal to the value $`(dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0dim\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\mathrm{End}(\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )))`$.

In the case when $`𝔤`$ is completely reducible, this property is used for the calculation of PRV determinants—see \[JL\],\[J3\],\[GL1\]. Recall that, in this case, the PRV determinant is a polynomial defined up to a non-zero scalar (see Remark 4.6.3).

### 4.7. Separation type theorem

#### 4.7.1.

Definition.  Call an $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-submodule $`L`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ a generic harmonic space if the multiplication map provides an isomorphism $`L𝒵(𝔤)[S^1]\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{~}{𝒰}[S^1]`$ for certain $`S(𝒵(𝔤)\{0\})`$.

In Theorem 4.7.4 we describe all generic harmonic spaces in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$. Of course, if $`L`$ is a generic harmonic space then $`L𝒵(𝔤)[S^1]\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{~}{𝒰}[S^1]`$ for $`S:=𝒵(𝔤)\{0\}`$. However it is always possible to find a smaller $`S`$; in Corollary 4.7.7 we describe such $`S`$ in terms of PRV determinants. As it is shown in Section 7, for $`𝔤=𝔰𝔩(m,n)`$ or $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(2,2n)`$ there is a generic harmonic space in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ such that one can take $`S=\{T^2\}`$.

#### 4.7.2.

Lemma.   If an $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-submodule $`L`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ is such that

$$\begin{array}{cc}(a)\hfill & L_{\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}}\mathrm{E}(\stackrel{~}{V})^{dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0},\hfill \\ (b)\hfill & \stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V};L)0\hfill \end{array}$$

then it is a generic harmonic space.

###### Proof.

Set $`𝔥_f^{}:=\{\nu |dim\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu )<\mathrm{}\}`$. For each $`\nu 𝔥_f^{}`$ choose a basis $`\theta _1^\nu ,\mathrm{},\theta _{r(\nu )}^\nu `$ of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ),L)`$. Recall that $`r(\nu )=dim\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu )|_0`$. By 4.6.1, the collection $`\theta _1^\nu ,\mathrm{},\theta _{r(\nu )}^\nu `$ forms a $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-basic system of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ),\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$. By 4.6.4, for a suitable $`z(\nu )𝒵(𝔤)`$ the collection $`\theta _1^\nu ,\mathrm{},\theta _{r(\nu )}^\nu `$ forms a free $`𝒵(𝔤)[z(\nu )^1]`$-basis of the localized module $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ),\stackrel{~}{𝒰}[z(\nu )^1])`$.

Set $`S:=\{z(\nu ),\nu 𝔥_f^{}\}`$. Denote by $`\psi `$ the map $`L𝒵(𝔤)[S^1]\stackrel{~}{𝒰}[S^1]`$ induced by the multiplication. For any $`\nu 𝔥_f^{}`$ the collection $`\theta _1^\nu ,\mathrm{},\theta _{r(\nu )}^\nu `$ forms a free $`𝒵(𝔤)[S^1]`$ basis of the localized module $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ),\stackrel{~}{𝒰}[S^1])`$. This means that the restriction of $`\varphi `$ on the space $`_{i=1}^{s(\nu )}\theta _i^\nu (\stackrel{~}{V})𝒵(𝔤)[S^1]`$ is a monomorphism and its image coincides with the isotypical component of $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu )`$ in the socle of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}[S^1]`$. Then the restriction of $`\varphi `$ on $`\mathrm{Soc}L𝒵(𝔤)[S^1]`$ is a monomorphism and $`\mathrm{Soc}\stackrel{~}{𝒰}[S^1]=\varphi (\mathrm{Soc}L𝒵(𝔤)[S^1])`$. Using the equality $`\mathrm{Soc}L𝒵(𝔤)[S^1]=\mathrm{Soc}(L𝒵(𝔤)[S^1])`$ and 3.1.2, one concludes that $`\varphi `$ is a monomorphism. From 3.2.3, it follows that $`L𝒵(𝔤)[S^1]`$ is an injective module in $`\mathrm{in}`$. Since the image of $`\psi `$ contains $`\mathrm{Soc}\stackrel{~}{𝒰}[S^1]`$, $`\psi `$ is a bijection. The lemma is proven. ∎

#### 4.7.3.

Corollary.   If $`H`$ satisfies the assumption of Lemma 4.5.1 then $`(\mathrm{ad}\stackrel{~}{𝒰})(HT)`$ is a generic harmonic space.

###### Proof.

By Lemma 4.5.1, $`L:=(\mathrm{ad}\stackrel{~}{𝒰})(HT)`$ fulfills the condition (a) of Lemma 4.7.2.

Fix $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$ and choose a basis $`\theta _1^,\mathrm{},\theta _r`$ of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},L)`$. Observe that $`r=dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0`$. The injectivity of the map $`L𝒵(𝔤)\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$, induced by the multiplication, implies the $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-linear independence of $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _r`$ in $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$. Since the $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-rank of the latter is equal to $`r`$, the collection $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _r`$ forms a $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-basic system of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$. Then, by 4.6.1, $`det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V};L)0`$. By Lemma 4.7.2, $`(\mathrm{ad}\stackrel{~}{𝒰})(HT)`$ is a generic harmonic space. ∎

#### 4.7.4.

Theorem.   An $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-submodule $`L`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ is a generic harmonic space iff

$$\begin{array}{cc}(a)\hfill & L_{\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}}\mathrm{E}(\stackrel{~}{V})^{dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0}\hfill \\ \text{and}\hfill & \text{one of the following conditions holds}\hfill \\ (b)\hfill & \stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V};L)0\hfill \\ (c)\hfill & \text{ the multiplication map provides an embedding }L𝒵(𝔤)\stackrel{~}{𝒰}.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

By Lemma 4.7.2, $`L`$ satisfying (a) and (b) is a generic harmonic space. Arguing as in Corollary 4.7.3 one concludes that $`L`$ satisfying (a) and (b) is also a generic harmonic space.

It remains to show that any generic harmonic space $`L`$ fulfills the conditions (a)-(c). The condition (c) obviously holds. Moreover, for any $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$ a basis $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _r`$ of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},L)`$ is a $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-basic system of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$. Therefore $`det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V};L)0`$ and so (b) holds as well.

To verify the condition (a), let us show that all generic harmonic spaces are pairwise isomorphic as $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-modules. Indeed, let $`L`$ and $`L^{}`$ be generic harmonic spaces. Since $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ is countably dimensional, one can choose the corresponding sets $`S,S^{}𝒵(𝔤)\{0\}`$ having countable number of elements. Take a maximal ideal $`m`$ of $`𝒵(𝔤)`$ such that $`m(SS^{})=\mathrm{}`$. Then as $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-modules $`L\stackrel{~}{𝒰}/(m\stackrel{~}{𝒰})L^{}`$. In Corollary 4.7.3 we construct a generic harmonic space satisfying (a). Hence all generic harmonic spaces satisfy the condition (a). The theorem is proven. ∎

#### 4.7.5.

Now we can formulate the following “receipt”. For each $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$ fix a $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-basic system $`\theta _1^{\stackrel{~}{V}},\mathrm{},\theta _r^{\stackrel{~}{V}}`$ of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$. The module $`_{\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr};j}T^2\theta _j^{\stackrel{~}{V}}(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ has an injective envelope inside an injective $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}T`$. This injective envelope is a generic harmonic space by Theorem 4.7.4.

#### 4.7.6.

Combining 4.6.4 and the proof of Lemma 4.7.2, one obtains the

#### 4.7.7.

Corollary.   Let $`L`$ be a generic harmonic space and $`S𝒵(𝔤)\{0\}`$ satisfies the following property: for any $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$ there exists $`sS`$ such that $`𝒫(𝓈)=𝓉^\mathcal{2}𝓆`$ where $`q`$ is a maximal $`W.`$-invariant divisor of $`\left(det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V};L)\right)^{|W|}`$. Then the multiplication map provides an isomorphism $`L𝒵(𝔤)[S^1]\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{~}{𝒰}[S^1]`$.

## 5. Application to the description of Verma module annihilators

In this section we prove Theorem 5.2 which provides a connection between PRV determinants and the annihilators of simple modules.

### 5.1.

Proposition.   For a simple strongly typical Verma module$`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ the following conditions are equivalent:

(i) For any $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$ one has $`det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V})(\lambda )0`$.

(ii)The natural map $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}F(\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ),\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ))`$ is surjective and

$$F(\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ),\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ))_{\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}}\mathrm{E}(\stackrel{~}{V})^{dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0}.$$

###### Proof.

Fix a strongly typical $`\lambda `$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ is simple. Denote by $`f`$ the natural map $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}F(\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ),\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ))`$.

Let us show that (ii) implies (i). Indeed, if both conditions of (ii) hold then $`F(\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ),\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ))`$ is projective in $`\mathrm{in}`$ and so $`f`$ has a left inverse $`f^1`$. Denote by $`N`$ the image of $`f^1`$. Take $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$ and choose a basis $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _r`$ of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},N)`$. By Remark 4.4.5, $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _r`$ is a $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-basic system of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$. Denote by $`C`$ the corresponding PRV matrix. Since the restriction of $`f`$ to $`N`$ is a monomorphism $`\mathrm{corank}C(\lambda )=0`$, by 4.6.6. Hence $`detC(\lambda )0`$ and so $`det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V})(\lambda )0`$ as required.

Let us show that (i) implies (ii). Suppose that (i) holds. By Corollary 4.6.7, $`f(\mathrm{Soc}\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$ coincides with the socle of $`F(\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ),\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ))`$. The socle of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ is a completely reducible $`𝔤`$-module and so it contains a submodule $`L`$ such that the restriction of $`f`$ gives an isomorphism $`L\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{Soc}F(\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ),\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ))`$. The central element $`T^2`$ acts on $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ by a non-zero scalar $`t(\lambda )^2`$ (because $`\lambda `$ is strongly typical) and thus one can choose $`L`$ lying in $`T^2\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$. By 3.3.2, $`T\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ is an injective $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-submodule of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ and so it contains an injective envelope $`\mathrm{E}(L)`$ of $`L`$. The restriction of $`f`$ to $`\mathrm{E}(L)`$ is a monomorphism because the restriction of $`f`$ to $`L`$ is a monomorphism. Therefore $`f(\mathrm{E}(L))`$ is an injective module containing the socle of $`F(\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ),\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ))`$. Using 3.1.1, one concludes that the restriction of $`f`$ provides an isomorphism $`\mathrm{E}(L)\stackrel{}{}F(\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ),\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ))`$. In particular, $`f`$ is surjective and the $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module $`F(\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ),\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ))`$ is injective in $`\mathrm{in}`$. Combining these facts and 11.1.5, one obtains (ii). ∎

### 5.2.

Theorem.   Suppose that $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$ is strongly typical and $`det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V})(\lambda )0`$ for all $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$. Then $`\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )=\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤)}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$.

###### Proof.

For each $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu )\mathrm{Irr}`$ choose $`p_\nu det𝒥(\nu )`$ such that $`p_\nu (\lambda )0`$. Let $`\theta _1^\nu ,\mathrm{},\theta _{r(\nu )}^\nu \mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ),\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$ be a $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-basic system such that the determinant of the PRV matrix corresponding to this system is equal to $`p_\nu `$. Let $`q_\nu `$ be the maximal $`W.`$-invariant divisor of $`p_\nu ^{|W|}`$ and $`z_\nu 𝒵(𝔤)`$ be such that $`𝒫(𝓏_\nu )=𝓉^\mathcal{2}𝓆_\nu `$. Note that $`z_\nu \mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤)}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ since $`(t^2p_\nu )(\lambda )0`$.

Let $`S`$ be the multiplicative closure of the set $`\{T^2;z_\nu |\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu )\mathrm{Irr}\}`$ . Denote by $`A`$ the localization of $`𝒵(𝔤)`$ by $`S`$ and by $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_A`$ the localization of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ by $`S`$. The action of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ can be canonically extended to the action of the localized algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_A`$ since $`S\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤)}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )=\mathrm{}`$ . The action of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ can be canonically extended to the action of the localized algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_A`$ acts on $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$. Clearly, the ideal $`\mathrm{Ann}_A\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ is maximal in $`A`$.

Let us show that $`\mathrm{Ann}_{\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_A}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )=\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_A\mathrm{Ann}_A\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$. Combining 4.7.5 and Corollary 4.7.7, one concludes the existence of $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-submodule $`H`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ such that

(5)
$$\mathrm{Soc}H=\underset{\nu :\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu )\mathrm{Irr}}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{r(\nu )}{}}T^2\mathrm{Im}\theta _\nu ^i$$

and that the multiplication map induces an isomorphism $`HA\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_A`$. To verify $`\mathrm{Ann}_{\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_A}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )=\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_A\mathrm{Ann}_A\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ it is enough to check that $`H\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )=0`$. Observe that $`det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu );H)=p_\nu t^{2r(\nu )}`$ and so $`det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ),H)(\lambda )0`$ for all $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu )\mathrm{Irr}`$. Then, by 4.6.6,

$$(\underset{i=1}{\overset{r(\nu )}{}}\mathrm{Im}\theta _\nu ^i)\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )=0.$$

that is $`\mathrm{Soc}H\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )=0`$. Therefore $`H\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )=0`$ as required. Hence $`\mathrm{Ann}_{\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_A}\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )=\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_A\mathrm{Ann}_A\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$.

Take $`u\mathrm{Ann}_{\stackrel{~}{𝒰}}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$. Write $`u=_{i=1}^mu_iz_i`$ where $`u_iH,z_i\mathrm{Ann}_A\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$. Choose $`zS`$ such that $`zu_i\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ and $`zz_i𝒵(𝔤)`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$. Observe that $`zz_i\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤)}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$. Therefore

$$z^2u=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(zu_i)(zz_i)\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤)}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda ).$$

Recall that $`S\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤)}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )=\mathrm{}`$ and so $`(z^2c)\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤)}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ for a certain non-zero scalar $`c`$. Hence $`u\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤)}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$. This completes the proof. ∎

### 5.3. PRV determinants and Shapovalov form factorization

Assume that for some $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$ the set $`det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ contains a non-zero polynomial $`p`$ whose all irreducible factors are either a divisor of a Shapovalov form (see 2.5.8) or a divisor of $`t`$. An irreducible factor of a Shapovalov form takes either a form $`(\alpha ^{}(\rho ,\alpha )n)`$ (a first type factor) for some non-isotropic positive root $`\alpha `$ and some $`n^+`$ or a form $`(\alpha ^{}(\rho ,\alpha ))`$ (a second type factor) for some isotropic positive root $`\alpha `$. Note that the factors of the second type are divisors of $`t`$. Observe that for $`n0`$ the element

$$s_\alpha .(\alpha ^{}(\rho ,\alpha )n)=\alpha ^{}+(\rho ,\alpha )n$$

is neither a divisor of a Shapovalov form nor a divisor of $`t`$. This forces the maximal $`W.`$-invariant factor of $`p^{|W|}`$ to be a divisor of $`t^m`$ for some $`m`$.

Then 4.7.4– 4.7.5 imply

#### 5.3.1.

Theorem.   Assume that for any $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$ there exists a non-zero element in $`det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ whose any irreducible factor is either a divisor of a Shapovalov form or a divisor of $`t`$. Then there exists an $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-submodule $`H`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ such that

$$H_{\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}}\mathrm{E}(\stackrel{~}{V})^{dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0}$$

and the multiplication map induces an isomorphism $`H𝒵(𝔤)[T^2]\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{~}{𝒰}[T^2]`$.

Recall that $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ is simple iff all Shapovalov forms are non-zero at the point $`\lambda `$. Theorem 5.2 yields

#### 5.3.2.

Theorem.   Assume that for any $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$ there exists a non-zero element in $`det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ whose any irreducible factor is either a divisor of a Shapovalov form or a divisor of $`t`$. Then the annihilator of $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ is centrally generated provided $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ being simple strongly typical.

As it is shown in \[GL1\] the condition of the last two theorems holds for $`𝔤=𝔬𝔰𝔭(1,2n)`$. We will prove that this condition also holds for the basic classical Lie superalgebras of type I. Contrary to the case $`𝔬𝔰𝔭(1,2n)`$, the proof is not based on the calculations of PRV determinants.

## 6. The basic classical Lie superalgebras of type I.

Throughout this section $`𝔤`$ is a basic classical Lie superalgebras of type I that is $`𝔤=𝔤𝔩(m,n),𝔰𝔩(m,n),𝔭𝔰𝔩(n,n)`$ or $`𝔤=𝔬𝔰𝔭(2,n)`$. We describe some common properties of these superalgebras which are used in the next section.

### 6.1. Notation

The Lie superalgebras of type I are $``$-graded. We denote by $`𝔤_r`$ ($`r`$) the corresponding homogeneous component of $`𝔤`$ and by $`𝔤_{\overline{0}}`$ (resp., $`𝔤_{\overline{1}}`$) the even (resp., the odd) part of $`𝔤`$.

One has $`𝔤_0=𝔤_{\overline{0}}`$ and $`𝔤_{\overline{1}}=𝔤_1+𝔤_1`$. In particular, both superalgebras $`𝔤_{\pm 1}`$ are supercommutative and the exterior algebras $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤_{\pm 1}`$ are naturally embedded into $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$. One has $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}=\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝔤_1)𝒰\mathcal{\Lambda }(𝔤_\mathcal{1})`$. As $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤_0`$-modules $`𝔤_{\pm 1}`$ are irreducible and dual one to another.

All odd roots are isotropic and so the notion of “typical” coincide with the notion of “strongly typical”.

Extend the above $``$-grading on $`U(𝔤)`$; evidently $`U(𝔤)_r=0`$ if $`|r|>dim𝔤_1`$. Moreover for $`r=dim𝔤_1`$ one has $`U(𝔤)_{\pm r}=𝒰\mathcal{\Lambda }^𝓇(𝔤_{\pm \mathcal{1}})`$. By default, “the degree” of an element of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ means its degree with respect to this $``$-grading.

#### 6.1.1. Distinguished triangular decomposition

Set $`𝔫_d^\pm :=𝔫_0^\pm +𝔤_{\pm 1}`$. The decomposition $`𝔤=𝔫_d^{}𝔥𝔫_d^+`$ is called a distinguished  triangular decomposition. By default, all highest weight modules, positive/negative roots, Harish-Chandra projection $`𝒫`$ and PRV matrices/determinants are constructed with respect to the distinguished triangular decomposition.

Note that $`(\rho ,\alpha )=(\rho _0,\alpha )`$ for any $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^+=\mathrm{\Omega }(𝔤_1)`$ is $`W`$-invariant. In particular, $`w.\mu =w(\mu +\rho _0)\rho _0`$ for any $`wW`$ and $`\mu 𝔥^{}`$.

The Verma modules constructed using a distinguished triangular decomposition have the following nice structure: $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\mu )=\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0𝔫_1^+}^𝔤M(\mu )`$ where the action of $`𝔫_1^+`$ on $`M(\mu )`$ is assumed to be trivial.

#### 6.1.2.

For $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_0^+`$ denote by $`e_\alpha `$ (resp., $`f_\alpha `$) an element of the weight $`\alpha `$ (resp., $`\alpha `$) of $`𝔤`$. For $`\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_1^+`$ (resp., $`\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_1^{}`$) denote by $`x_\beta `$ (resp., $`y_\beta `$) an element of the weight $`\beta `$ of $`𝔤`$.

Denote by $`I`$ the set of the positive odd roots with a fixed total order. Then $`\{x_i\}_{iI}`$ (resp., $`\{y_i\}_{iI}`$) is a basis of $`𝔤_1`$ (resp., $`𝔤_1`$). For any $`JI`$ set $`x_J:=_{iJ}x_i`$, $`y_J:=_{iJ}y_i`$ where the products are taken with respect to the total order on $`I`$. If we change the order of factors in the product $`y_J`$ the result is equal either to $`y_J`$ or to $`(y_J)`$, since $`𝔤_{\pm 1}`$ are supercommutative. Note that $`yy_I=xx_I=0`$ for any $`y𝔤_1,x𝔤_1`$.

Evidently $`x_I\mathrm{\Lambda }^{top}𝔤_1`$, $`y_I\mathrm{\Lambda }^{top}𝔤_1`$ and so $`x_I,y_I`$ are invariant with respect to the adjoint action of $`[𝔤_0,𝔤_0]`$. Moreover $`x_Iy_I`$ is $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤_0`$-invariant due to the duality $`𝔤_1^{}𝔤_1`$.

#### 6.1.3.

Sometimes we will deal with a non-distinguished triangular decomposition $`𝔤=𝔫^{}𝔥𝔫^+`$. We shall use the following notation: $`𝔟:=𝔥+𝔫^+`$; $`𝒫_𝔟`$ will be the Harish-Chandra projection with respect to this triangular decomposition, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝔟)`$ will be the set of non-zero roots of $`𝔟`$ and also

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I_+:& =I\mathrm{\Delta }(𝔟),\hfill \\ \hfill I_{}:& =II_+,\hfill \\ \hfill t_𝔟:& =𝒫_𝔟(𝒯)\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill t_𝔟:& =_{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_1\mathrm{\Delta }_𝔟}(\beta ^{}+(\beta ,\rho )).\hfill \end{array}$$

As before, the triangular decomposition of $`𝔤_0`$ is assumed to be fixed and all triangular decompositions of $`𝔤`$ which we consider are compatible with this triangular decomposition of $`𝔤_0`$.

#### 6.1.4. Case $`𝔭𝔰𝔩(n,n)`$

This case is rather special. A Cartan algebra of $`𝔤=𝔭𝔰𝔩(n+n\epsilon )`$ is “too small” and a distinguished triangular decomposition does not fit the definition given in 2.2. Moreover the restriction of the Harish-Chandra projection determined by the distinguished triangular decomposition to the zero weight space is not an algebra homomorphism: for instance, both $`y_I,x_I`$ have zero weight, $`𝒫(𝓎_{})=𝒫(𝓍_{})=\mathcal{0}`$ however $`𝒫(𝓍_{}𝓎_{})=𝓉`$—see Corollary 6.3.3.

A possible treatment to this problem is the following “enlargement of a Cartan subsuperalgebra”. The Lie superalgebra $`𝔤`$ is an ideal in the Lie superalgebra $`\widehat{𝔤}:=𝔤𝔩(n,n)/(X)`$ where $`X`$ stands for the identity matrix. One has $`𝔤_{\overline{1}}=\widehat{𝔤}_1`$ and $`\widehat{𝔤}_0=𝔤_0\times z`$ where $`z`$ is a central element of the Lie algebra $`\widehat{𝔤}_0`$.

Let $`\widehat{𝔥}`$ be a Cartan subsuperalgebra of $`\widehat{𝔤}_0`$ spanned by $`𝔥`$ and $`z`$. One can easily sees that $`\widehat{𝔥}`$ acts semisimply on $`𝔤`$ and a distinguished triangular decomposition of $`𝔤`$ is determined, in a sense of 2.2, by a certain regular element $`h\widehat{𝔥}`$. For $`\mu \widehat{𝔥}^{}`$ set $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}|_\mu :=\{u\stackrel{~}{𝒰}|[h,u]=\mu (h)u,h\widehat{𝔥}\}`$. Then the restriction of the Harish-Chandra projection determined by the distinguished triangular decomposition on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}|_0`$ is an algebra homomorphism because $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}|_0𝒰(𝔫^{}+𝔥)𝔫^{}=\mathcal{0}`$.

It is easy to see that for any weight $`𝔤`$-module $`M`$ one can extend (not uniquely) its $`𝔤`$-module structure to a $`\widehat{𝔤}`$-module structure. This implies that Lemma 4.1.1 remains true for the distinguished triangular decomposition if we define $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}|_0`$ as above. For $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-submodules of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ consider the natural $`\widehat{𝔤}`$-module structure coming from the embedding $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ into $`𝒰(\widehat{𝔤})`$. In the sequel, we substitute the categories $`\mathrm{Irr}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$ for $`𝔤`$ by the same categories for $`\widehat{𝔤}`$ (these $`\widehat{𝔤}`$-categories have the same sets of objects as their $`𝔤`$-analogues but less morphisms). Under these conventions all propositions of Sections 45 remain true for $`𝔤=𝔭𝔰𝔩(n,n)`$.

### 6.2. Useful assertions

The following lemma is an immediate consequence of the supercommutativity of $`𝔤_{\pm 1}`$.

#### 6.2.1.

Lemma.   Let $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ be a $`𝔤`$-module and $`N`$ be its $`𝔤_0`$-submodule such that $`\stackrel{~}{N}=\stackrel{~}{𝒰}N`$. Then the canonical map $`\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤N\stackrel{~}{N}`$ is an isomorphism iff for each collection $`\{v_J\}_{JI}`$ of elements of $`N`$ one has

$$x_I\underset{JI}{}y_Jv_J=0v_J=0,JI.$$

Recall that $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ is typical iff $`t(\lambda )0`$ or, equivalently, $`T\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )0`$. .

#### 6.2.2.

Lemma.   A typical Verma module $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ contains a simple Verma submodule.

###### Proof.

Recall that $`(\rho _0,\alpha )=(\rho ,\alpha )`$ for any $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. Comparing the factorizations of Shapovalov forms (see 2.5.8) for the Lie superalgebras $`𝔤`$ and $`𝔤_0`$, one concludes that a typical $`𝔤`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ is simple iff the $`𝔤_0`$-module $`M(\lambda )`$ is simple. Let $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ be a typical Verma module and $`v`$ be its highest weight vector. Then $`𝒰(𝔫_\mathcal{0}^{})𝓋(\lambda )`$ contains a simple submodule $`M(\lambda ^{})`$. Therefore there exists $`u𝒰(𝔫_\mathcal{0}^{})`$ such that $`𝔫_0^+uv=0`$. The $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤_0`$-invariance of $`𝔤_1`$ yields $`𝔤_1(uv)=u𝔤_1v=0`$. Thus the vector $`uv`$ is primitive and so $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}(uv)`$ is a quotient of $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ^{})`$. The non-zero elements of $`𝒰(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ are non-zero divisors in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ since the non-zero elements of $`𝒮(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ are non-zero divisors in $`𝒮(𝔤)=𝒮(𝔤_\mathcal{0})\mathcal{\Lambda }(𝔤_{\overline{\mathcal{1}}})`$. Thus $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}(uv)\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ^{})`$. Since $`M(\lambda ^{})`$ is simple, $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ^{})`$ is also simple. The lemma is proven. ∎

### 6.3. Element $`T`$

For the classical Lie superalgebras of type I the element $`T`$ takes a very simple form given by the following

#### 6.3.1.

Lemma.   Up to a non-zero scalar $`T=(\mathrm{ad}^{}y_Ix_I)1`$.

###### Proof.

Recall 3.3.2. It is enough to show that if $`v`$ is a generator of a trivial $`𝔤_0`$-module $`V(0)`$ then $`y_Ix_Iv`$ spans a trivial $`𝔤`$-submodule of $`\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤V(0)`$. In other words, one has to verify that $`𝔤(y_Ix_I)\stackrel{~}{𝒰}𝔤_0`$. The $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤_0`$-invariance of $`y_Ix_I`$ forces $`𝔤_0(y_Ix_I)=(y_Ix_I)𝔤_0`$. Moreover $`𝔤_1(y_Ix_I)=0`$. Thus it remains to check that $`x_\beta y_Ix_I\stackrel{~}{𝒰}𝔤_0`$ for any $`\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_1^+`$. Setting $`J:=I\{\beta \}`$ one has

$$x_\beta y_Ix_I=\pm x_\beta y_\beta y_Jx_I=\pm ([x_\beta ,y_\beta ]y_\beta x_\beta )y_Jx_I=\pm ([x_\beta ,y_\beta ]y_Jx_Iy_\beta ((\mathrm{ad}x_\beta ),y_J)x_I)$$

since $`x_\beta x_I=0`$.

The term $`y_Ix_I`$ is of the zero weight and so the weight of $`y_Jx_I`$ is equal to $`\beta `$. The term $`[x_\beta ,y_\beta ]`$ lies in $`𝔥`$; one has $`[[x_\beta ,y_\beta ],x_\beta ]=0`$ since $`x_\beta ^2=0`$. Therefore $`\beta ([x_\beta ,y_\beta ])=0`$ and so $`[x_\beta ,y_\beta ]y_Jx_I=y_Jx_I[x_\beta ,y_\beta ]\stackrel{~}{𝒰}𝔤_0.`$

Let us show that $`y_\beta ((\mathrm{ad}x_\beta )y_J)x_I)\stackrel{~}{𝒰}𝔤_0`$. For any $`\beta ^{}J`$ one has $`(\mathrm{ad}x_\beta )y_\beta ^{}(𝔫_0^{}+𝔫_0^+)`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^r(𝔤_1)`$ is $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤_0`$-invariant for all $`r`$, this implies that

(6)
$$(\mathrm{ad}x_\beta )y_J\mathrm{\Lambda }^{l2}(𝔤_1)(+𝔫_0^{}+𝔫_0^+)$$

where $`l:=dim𝔤_1`$. If $`y_J^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{l2}(𝔤_1)`$ has the same weight as the element $`(\mathrm{ad}x_\beta )y_J`$, then the set $`IJ^{}`$ contains two elements whose sum is equal to $`2\beta `$. Since the multiset $`I`$ contains exactly one element equal to $`\beta `$, this implies $`\beta J^{}`$ that is $`y_\beta y_J^{}=0`$. Then (6) gives

$$y_\beta ((\mathrm{ad}x_\beta )y_J)y_\beta \mathrm{\Lambda }^{l2}(𝔤_1)(𝔫_0^{}+𝔫_0^+)$$

and so

$$y_\beta ((\mathrm{ad}x_\beta )y_J)x_I\mathrm{\Lambda }^{l1}(𝔤_1)(𝔫_0^{}+𝔫_0^+)x_I=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{l1}(𝔤_1)x_I(𝔫_0^{}+𝔫_0^+)\stackrel{~}{𝒰}𝔤_0$$

since $`x_I`$ is $`\mathrm{ad}([𝔤_0,𝔤_0]`$-invariant. The assertion follows. ∎

Take any triangular decomposition $`𝔤=𝔫^{}𝔫𝔫^+`$ and retain notation of 6.1.3.

#### 6.3.2.

Lemma.   Up to a non-zero scalar one has

$$𝒫_𝔟(𝓍__+𝓎__+)𝒫_𝔟(𝓎_{_{}}𝓍_{_{}})=\underset{\beta \mathcal{\Delta }_\mathcal{1}(𝔟)}{}(\beta ^{}+\beta ^{}(\rho _𝔟)).$$

###### Proof.

The right-hand side is equal to $`t_𝔟=𝒫_𝔟(𝒯)`$. By Lemma 6.3.1, up to a non-zero scalar $`T=(\mathrm{ad}^{}x_Iy_I)1`$. Thus one should verify that

$$𝒫_𝔟((\mathrm{ad}^{}𝓎_{}𝓍_{})\mathcal{1})=𝒫_𝔟(𝓍__+𝓎__+)𝒫_𝔟(𝓎_{_{}}𝓍_{_{}})$$

up to a non-zero scalar.

Since $`𝔤_1`$ is supercommutative, $`(\mathrm{ad}^{}x_I)1=2^{dim𝔤_1}x_I`$ and

$$𝒫_𝔟((\mathrm{ad}^{}𝓎_{}𝓍_{})\mathcal{1})=\mathcal{2}^{dim𝔤_\mathcal{1}}𝒫_𝔟((\mathrm{ad}^{}𝓎_{})𝓍_{})=\pm \mathcal{2}^{dim𝔤_\mathcal{1}}𝒫_𝔟((\mathrm{ad}^{}𝓎__+\mathrm{ad}^{}𝓎_{_{}})𝓍_{}).$$

Recall that for $`\alpha I_+`$ one has $`y_\alpha 𝔫^{}`$ and so $`𝒫((𝒶𝒹^{}𝓎_\alpha )𝓊)=\pm 𝒫(𝓊𝓎_\alpha )`$ for all $`u\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$. Therefore, up to a non-zero scalar,

$$𝒫_𝔟((\mathrm{ad}^{}𝓎_{}𝓍_{})\mathcal{1})=𝒫_𝔟(((\mathrm{ad}^{}𝓎_{_{}})𝓍_{})𝓎__+).$$

Similarly for any $`\alpha I_{}`$ one has $`y_\alpha 𝔫^+`$ and so $`𝒫_𝔟(𝓊𝓎_\alpha 𝓎__+)=𝒫_𝔟(\pm 𝓊𝓎__+𝓎_\alpha )=\mathcal{0}`$. Therefore

$$𝒫_𝔟(((\mathrm{ad}^{}𝓎_{_{}})𝓍_{})𝓎__+)=𝒫_𝔟(𝓎_{_{}}𝓍_{}𝓎__+)=\pm 𝒫_𝔟(𝓎_{_{}}𝓍_{_{}}𝓍__+𝓎__+)=\pm 𝒫_𝔟(𝓎_{_{}}𝓍_{_{}})𝒫_𝔟(𝓍__+𝓎__+)$$

where the last equality is a consequence of the fact that the restriction of the Harish-Chandra projection to the zero weight space is an algebra homomorphism. Hence

$$𝒫_𝔟((\mathrm{ad}^{}𝓎_{}𝓍_{})\mathcal{1})=\pm \mathcal{2}^{dim𝔤_\mathcal{1}}𝒫_𝔟(𝓍__+𝓎__+)𝒫_𝔟(𝓎_{_{}}𝓍_{_{}}).$$

The lemma is proven. ∎

#### 6.3.3.

Corollary.   Up to a non-zero scalar one has $`𝒫(𝓍_{}𝓎_{})=𝓉=_{\beta \mathcal{\Delta }_\mathcal{1}^+}(\beta ^{}+\beta ^{}(\rho ))`$.

#### 6.3.4.

Lemma.   If $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$ is such that $`𝒫_𝔟(𝓍__+𝓎__+)(\lambda )=\mathcal{0}`$ then $`x_I\stackrel{~}{M}_𝔟(\lambda )=0`$. If $`𝒫_𝔟(𝓎_{_{}}𝓍_{_{}})(\lambda )=\mathcal{0}`$ then $`y_I\stackrel{~}{M}_𝔟(\lambda )=0`$.

###### Proof.

Both assertions are similar. To verify the first one, fix $`\lambda `$ such that $`𝒫_𝔟(𝓍__+𝓎__+)(\lambda )=\mathcal{0}`$ and set $`\stackrel{~}{M}:=\stackrel{~}{M}_𝔟(\lambda )`$. Denote by $`v`$ a highest weight vector of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. One has

$$x_I\stackrel{~}{M}=x_I𝒰(𝔫_\mathcal{0}^{})\underset{𝒥_\mathcal{1}_+,𝒥_\mathcal{2}_{}}{}𝓍_{𝒥_\mathcal{2}}𝓎_{𝒥_\mathcal{1}}𝓋=𝒰(𝔫_\mathcal{0}^{})\underset{𝒥_\mathcal{1}_+}{}𝓍_{}𝓎_{𝒥_\mathcal{1}}𝓋$$

since $`x_I`$ is $`\mathrm{ad}𝔫_0^{}`$-invariant and $`x_Ix_J=0`$ for $`J\mathrm{}`$. Note that $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_kv=0`$ if $`k>\mathrm{\#}I_{}`$. Therefore $`x_Iy_{J_1}v=0`$ if $`(\mathrm{\#}I\mathrm{\#}J_1)>\mathrm{\#}I_{}`$ that is if $`\mathrm{\#}J_1<\mathrm{\#}I_+`$. Consequently

$$x_I\stackrel{~}{M}=𝒰(𝔫_\mathcal{0}^{})𝓍_{}𝓎__+𝓋=𝒰(𝔫_\mathcal{0}^{})𝓍_{_{}}𝓍__+𝓎__+𝓋=𝒰(𝔫_\mathcal{0}^{})𝓍_{_{}}𝒫_𝔟(𝓍__+𝓎__+)(\lambda )𝓋=\mathcal{0}$$

as required. ∎

## 7. Separation and Annihilation theorems for type I case.

Throughout this section $`𝔤`$ is a basic classical Lie superalgebras of type I that is $`𝔤=𝔤𝔩(m,n),𝔰𝔩(m,n)𝔭𝔰𝔩(n,n)`$ or $`𝔤=𝔬𝔰𝔭(2,n)`$. In this section we establish separation and annihilation type theorems for these algebras.

Retain notation of Section 6. Until 7.3.2 we will deal only with a distinguished triangular decomposition.

### 7.1.

Proposition.   For a typical Verma module $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ one has

$$\begin{array}{cc}\text{(i) }\hfill & F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})_{V\mathrm{Irr}_0}(\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤V)^{dimV|_0}.\hfill \\ \text{(ii)}\hfill & \text{For }H\text{ being a harmonic space of }𝒰(𝔤_\mathcal{0})\text{ the restriction of the natural map }\hfill \\ & \stackrel{~}{𝒰}F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})\text{ to }(\mathrm{ad}\stackrel{~}{𝒰})(Hx_Iy_I)\text{ is a bijection.}\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

Let $`H`$ be a harmonic space of $`𝒰(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$. Recall that $`dim_{𝔤_0}(V,H)=dimV|_0`$ for any $`V\mathrm{Irr}_0`$.

Define the map $`\psi :\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤(H)(\mathrm{ad}\stackrel{~}{𝒰})(Hx_Iy_I)`$ by $`gh(\mathrm{ad}g)(hx_Iy_I)`$. Since $`x_Iy_I`$ is $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤_0`$-invariant, $`Hx_Iy_IH`$ as $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤_0`$-modules and so $`\psi `$ is a $`𝔤`$-epimorphism. Denote by $`f`$ the natural map $`f:\stackrel{~}{𝒰}F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})`$. To prove the theorem it is enough to show that the map $`f\psi :\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤(Hx_Iy_I)F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})`$ is a bijection.

Let $`\mu `$ be the highest weight of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ and $`v`$ be a highest weight vector of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. Then $`M:=𝒰(𝔤_\mathcal{0})𝓋(\mu )`$. By 2.8.2, the restriction of the natural map $`𝒰(𝔤_\mathcal{0})(,)`$ to $`H`$ is bijective.

To prove that $`f\psi `$ is a monomorphism recall Lemma 6.2.1. Let $`\{a_J\}_{JI}H`$ be such that

$$b\stackrel{~}{M}=0\text{ where }b:=\left(\underset{JI}{}(\mathrm{ad}x_Iy_J)(a_Jx_Iy_I)\right).$$

We need to show that $`a_J=0`$ for all $`JI`$. One has $`(\mathrm{ad}y_J)(a_Jx_Iy_I)=y_Ja_Jx_Iy_I`$ since $`𝔤_1y_I=0`$. Therefore

$$b=(\mathrm{ad}x_I)(\underset{JI}{}y_Ja_Jx_Iy_I).$$

Take $`u𝒰(𝔫_\mathcal{0}^{})`$. The equality $`𝔤_1y_I=0`$ implies

$$0=b(y_Iuv)=\left((\mathrm{ad}x_I)(\underset{JI}{}y_Ja_Jx_Iy_I)\right)y_Iuv=\underset{JI}{}\pm y_Ja_Jx_Iy_Ix_Iy_Iuv$$

since $`y_Ix_J^{}y_I=0`$ for $`J^{}I`$ (the degree of $`y_Ix_J^{}y_I`$ is equal to $`r:=\mathrm{\#}J^{}\mathrm{\#}2I`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_r=0`$ for $`r<\mathrm{\#}I`$). By Corollary 6.3.3, $`𝒫(𝓍_{}𝓎_{})=𝓉`$ and so $`x_Iy_Iuv=ux_Iy_Iv=t(\mu )uv`$. Therefore $`b(y_Iuv)=t(\mu )^2_{JI}\pm y_Ja_Juv`$. Hence $`b(y_IM)=t(\mu )^2_{JI}\pm y_Ja_JM`$. Since $`t(\mu )0`$ and $`a_JMM`$, the equality $`b(y_IM)=0`$ implies $`a_JM=0`$ for all $`JI`$. However the $`a_J`$ belong to $`H`$ and $`H\mathrm{Ann}M=0`$ by Theorem 2.8.2. Therefore all $`a_J`$ are equal to zero. Hence $`f\psi `$ is a monomorphism.

Let us show that $`f\psi `$ is surjective. Recall that as $`𝔤_0`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{M}M\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤_1`$. Take a simple finite dimensional $`𝔤_0`$-module $`V`$. Using Frobenius reciprocity and 2.8.2, one obtains

$$\begin{array}{cc}dim\mathrm{Hom}_{𝔤_0}(V,F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M}))\hfill & =dim\mathrm{Hom}_{𝔤_0}(\stackrel{~}{M}V,\stackrel{~}{M})\hfill \\ & =dim\mathrm{Hom}_{𝔤_0}(V\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤_1M,\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤_1M)\hfill \\ & =dim\mathrm{Hom}_{𝔤_0}(V\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤_{\overline{1}},F(M,M))\hfill \\ & =dim\mathrm{Hom}_{𝔤_0}(V\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤_{\overline{1}},H)=dim\mathrm{Hom}_{𝔤_0}(V,\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤_{\overline{1}}H)\hfill \\ & =dim\mathrm{Hom}_{𝔤_0}(V,\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤H)=[\mathrm{Im}(f\psi ):V].\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})`$ is a completely reducible $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤_0`$-module and the multiplicity $`[\mathrm{Im}(f\psi ):V]`$ is finite, this gives $`F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})=\mathrm{Im}(f\psi )`$ and completes the proof. ∎

Retain notation of 4.6.2.

#### 7.1.1.

Corollary.   Let $`H`$ be a harmonic space of $`𝒰(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ and $`L:=(\mathrm{ad}\stackrel{~}{𝒰})(Hx_Iy_I)`$. Then

$$L_{\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}}\mathrm{E}(\stackrel{~}{V})^{dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0}$$

and for any $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$ the determinant $`det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V};L)`$ admits a linear factorization. Moreover each linear factor is a factor of a Shapovalov form.

###### Proof.

Combining Proposition 7.1 and (3) one obtains

$$L_{\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}_f^0}\mathrm{E}(\stackrel{~}{V})^{dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0}.$$

Fix $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$ and set $`p:=PRV(\stackrel{~}{V};L)`$. Recall that $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\mu )`$ is simple iff $`\mu `$ is not a zero of a Shapovalov form. In particular, an atypical Verma module is not simple. Taking into account Corollary 4.1.2, one concludes from Proposition 7.1 that $`p(\mu )0`$ provided that $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\mu )`$ is simple. Thus any zero of $`p`$ is a zero of a Shapovalov form. Since each Shapovalov form admits a factorization into linear factors, this implies that the set of zeroes of $`p`$ lies in a union of countably many hyperplanes which correspond to the linear factors of the Shapovalov forms. Therefore $`p`$ is a product of linear factors which are factors of Shapovalov forms. ∎

### 7.2. Separation theorem

Combining Corollary 7.1.1, Theorem 4.7.4, Corollary 4.7.7 and 5.3 one obtains the following version of Separation Theorem

#### 7.2.1.

Theorem.   Let $`H`$ be a harmonic space of $`𝒰(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$. Then the multiplication map provides an isomorphism $`\left((\mathrm{ad}\stackrel{~}{𝒰})Hx_Iy_I\right)𝒵(𝔤)[T^2]\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{~}{𝒰}[T^2]`$.

### 7.3. Annihilation theorem

In this subsection we prove that $`\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{M}_𝔟(\lambda )`$ is a centrally generated ideal iff $`\stackrel{~}{M}_𝔟(\lambda )`$ is typical.

#### 7.3.1.

Combining Corollary 7.1.1 and Theorem 5.3.2, one concludes that $`\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ is centrally generated if $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ is simple. By Lemma 6.2.2, any typical Verma module $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ contains a simple Verma submodule. This implies that $`\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ is centrally generated if $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ is typical. Using 2.7, it is easy to generalize this statement to any Borel subsuperalgebra $`𝔟`$. Indeed, a typical Verma module $`\stackrel{~}{M}_𝔟(\lambda )`$ is isomorphic to a Verma module $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ^{})`$. Recall that a Verma module $`\stackrel{~}{M}_𝔟(\lambda )`$ is typical iff its annihilator does not contain $`T`$— see 3.3.2. Thus $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ^{})`$ is typical and so $`\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{M}_𝔟(\lambda )=\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ^{})`$ is a centrally generated ideal. Hence $`\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{M}_𝔟(\lambda )`$ is centrally generated provided that $`\stackrel{~}{M}_𝔟(\lambda )`$ is typical.

In the rest of this section we will show that $`\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{M}_𝔟(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤)}\stackrel{~}{M}_𝔟(\lambda )`$ if $`\stackrel{~}{M}_𝔟(\lambda )`$ is atypical that is $`t_𝔟(\lambda )=0`$.

#### 7.3.2.

The proof goes as follows. Take $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$ such that $`t_𝔟(\lambda )=0`$. Set $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }:=\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤)}\stackrel{~}{M}_𝔟(\lambda )`$. The idea is to find $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$ satisfying the following conditions

$$\begin{array}{cc}a)\hfill & \mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})0,\hfill \\ b)\hfill & \stackrel{~}{V}\text{ is typical },\hfill \\ c)\hfill & \theta \mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})\theta (\stackrel{~}{V})\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{M}_𝔟(\lambda ).\hfill \end{array}$$

Assume that $`\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{M}_𝔟(\lambda )`$ is a centrally generated ideal. Then the above conditions imply the equality $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})=\stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$ that yields

$$det𝒥(𝔟,\stackrel{~}{V})𝒫(\stackrel{~}{\chi })det𝒥(𝔟,\stackrel{~}{𝒱}).$$

Since $`det𝒥(𝔟,\stackrel{~}{V})`$ is a non-zero subset of $`𝒮(𝔥)`$ and $`𝒫(\stackrel{~}{\chi })`$ is a subset of $`𝒮(𝔥)`$ which does not contain non-zero scalars, the last inclusion is impossible. Thus $`\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{M}_𝔟(\lambda )`$ is not a centrally generated ideal.

#### 7.3.3.

Retain notation of 6.1.2. There exists $`z𝔥`$ such that $`\mathrm{ad}z`$ acts by zero on $`𝔤_0`$ and by identity (resp., minus identity) on $`𝔤_1`$ (resp., $`𝔤_1`$). Recall that $`\rho _1=\frac{1}{2}_{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_1^+}\beta `$ and so $`2\rho _1(z)=dim𝔤_1`$.

#### 7.3.4.

Lemma.   There exists $`\nu 𝔥^{}`$ such that

$$\begin{array}{cc}a)\hfill & \mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ),\stackrel{~}{𝒰})0,\hfill \\ b)\hfill & \stackrel{~}{V}(\nu )\text{ is typical},\hfill \\ c^{})\hfill & z(\nu )=dim𝔤_1.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

Recall that the condition b) is equivalent to the inequality $`t(\nu )0`$ where $`t=_{\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_1^+}(\beta ^{}+(\rho ,\beta ))`$. Observe that $`z\beta ^{}`$ for any $`\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_1^+`$, since $`\beta ^{}(\beta )=0z(\beta )`$. Thus the restriction of the polynomial $`t`$ on the hyperplane

$$S:=\{\mu 𝔥^{}|z(\mu )=dim𝔤_1,(𝒵(𝔤)𝔥)(\mu )=0\}$$

is a non-zero polynomial (one has $`𝒵(𝔤)𝔥=0`$ apart from the case $`𝔤=𝔤𝔩(m,n)`$).

Consider the set

$$X:=\{\mu 𝔥^{}|\mathrm{Hom}_{𝔤_0}(V(\mu ),𝒰(𝔤_\mathcal{0}))\mathcal{0}\}.$$

It is easy to see that $`X`$ is a Zariski dense subset of the hyperplane

$$\{\mu 𝔥^{}|z(\mu )=0,(𝒵(𝔤)𝔥)(\mu )=0\}=S2\rho _1.$$

Thus $`t(\nu ^{}+2\rho _1)0`$ for a certain $`\nu ^{}X`$. Hence $`\nu :=\nu ^{}+2\rho _1`$ fulfills the conditions b) and c’). Let show that $`\nu `$ satisfies a). Since $`\nu ^{}X`$, there exists a copy $`VV(\nu )`$ inside $`𝒰(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$. Let $`u`$ be a highest weight vector of $`V`$. Then $`ux_I`$ is a non-zero primitive (that is $`(𝔫_0^++𝔤_1)`$-invariant) element of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ having weight $`\nu `$. Therefore the $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-submodule generated by $`ux_I`$ is a finite dimensional quotient of $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\nu )`$. Since $`t(\nu )0`$, a unique finite dimensional quotient of $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\nu )`$ is isomorphic to $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu )`$. Hence $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ),\stackrel{~}{𝒰})0`$. ∎

#### 7.3.5.

Remark.  Similarly there exists a typical simple module $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ with the lowest weight $`\nu `$ such that $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})0`$ and $`z(\nu )=dim𝔤_1`$.

#### 7.3.6.

Fix $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$ such that $`𝒫_𝔟(𝓍__+𝓎__+)(\lambda )=\mathcal{0}`$. Set $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }:=\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤)}\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ and assume that $`\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )=\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$.

Fix $`\nu `$ satisfying the conditions a)—c’) of Lemma 7.3.4. We claim that $`\nu `$ fulfills the condition c) of 7.3.2.

Indeed, let $`v`$ be a highest weight vector of $`\stackrel{~}{V}:=\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu )`$. Take any $`\theta \mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$. By the assumption c’) $`zv=(dim𝔤_1)v`$ that is $`[z,\theta (v)]=(dim𝔤_1)\theta (v)`$. Therefore $`\theta (v)`$ has degree $`dim𝔤_1`$ that is $`\theta (v)𝒰(𝔤_\mathcal{0})𝓍_{}`$. Lemma 6.3.4 asserts that $`x_I\stackrel{~}{M}_𝔟(\lambda )=0`$ and so $`\theta (v)\stackrel{~}{M}_𝔟(\lambda )=0`$. Since $`\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{M}_𝔟(\lambda )`$ is $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-stable, it contains $`\theta (\stackrel{~}{V})`$.

By the assumption $`\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )=\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ and so the element $`\theta (v)`$ can be written in a form $`\theta (v)=z_iu_i`$ where all $`z_i`$ belong to $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$. Without loss of generality we can assume that each element $`u_i`$ has the same weight and the same central character as $`\theta (v)`$ with respect to the adjoint action of $`𝒵(𝔤)\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ is typical, $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ is a unique, up to isomorphism, cyclic module in $`\mathrm{in}`$ with this central character. Therefore $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-span of each $`u_i`$ is isomorphic to $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ that is $`u_i\theta _i(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ for certain $`\theta _i\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$. Since $`u_i`$ has weight $`\nu `$ and $`v`$ spans $`\stackrel{~}{V}|_\nu `$, one can assume that $`u_i=\theta _i(v)`$. Then $`\theta (v)=z_i\theta _i(v)`$ and so $`\theta =z_i\theta _i`$. Hence

$$\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})=\stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰}).$$

Using the fact that $`𝒫_𝔟(𝓏\theta )=𝒫_𝔟(𝓏)𝒫_𝔟(\theta )`$ for any $`z𝒵(𝔤),\theta \mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ),\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$, one concludes $`det𝒥_𝔟(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ))𝒫(\stackrel{~}{\chi })det𝒥_𝔟(\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(\nu ))`$. Since $`det𝒥_𝔟(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ))`$ is a non-zero subset of a polynomial algebra $`𝒮(𝔥)`$ and $`𝒫(\stackrel{~}{\chi })`$ does not contain non-zero scalars, the last inclusion is impossible. Hence Hence $`\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$.

In the case $`𝒫_𝔟(𝓎_{_{}}𝓍_{_{}})(\lambda )=\mathcal{0}`$ the proof is similar: one may choose $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ as in Remark 7.3.5.

Hence we prove that for any triangular decomposition the following theorem holds.

#### 7.3.7.

Theorem.   The annihilator of a Verma module is a centrally generated ideal iff this module is typical.

### 7.4.

Denote by $`\mathrm{Max}A`$ the set of maximal ideals of an algebra $`A`$. In \[PS1\], the following theorem is proven.

#### 7.4.1.

Theorem.   For any $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤)`$ not containing $`T^2`$, there exists $`\chi \mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ such that the algebra $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}/(\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\chi )`$ is the matrix algebra over $`𝒰(𝔤_\mathcal{0})/(𝒰(𝔤_\mathcal{0})\chi _\mathcal{0})`$.

One can deduce from this theorem that the annihilator of a typical Verma module is centrally generated. On the other hand, one can deduce Theorem 7.4.1 from Proposition 7.1 and 7.3.1. In fact, take $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )=0`$. Then $`t(\lambda )0`$ and so

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{𝒰}/(\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\stackrel{~}{\chi })=F(\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ),\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ))=F(M(\lambda )\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤_1^{},M(\lambda )\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤_1^{})=\hfill \\ F(M(\lambda ),M(\lambda ))\mathrm{End}(\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤_1^{})=𝒰(𝔤_\mathcal{0})/(𝒰(𝔤_\mathcal{0})\chi )\mathrm{End}(\mathcal{\Lambda }𝔤_\mathcal{1}^{})\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\chi :=\mathrm{Ann}Z(𝔤_0)M(\lambda )`$. Hence $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}/(\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\chi )`$ is a matrix algebra over $`𝒰(𝔤_\mathcal{0})/(𝒰(𝔤_\mathcal{0})\chi )`$.

## 8. Perfect pairs

In this section we find for each maximal ideal of $`𝒵(𝔤)`$ not containing $`T^2`$ a perfect mate which is a maximal ideal in $`𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ possessing certain properties.

### 8.1.

Denote by $`\mathrm{Max}A`$ the set of maximal ideals of an algebra $`A`$ and by $`A\mathrm{Mod}`$ the full category of left $`A`$-modules. For an $`A`$-module $`N`$ and $`\chi \mathrm{Max}A`$ set

$$N_\chi :=\{vN|\chi ^rv=0,r>>0\}.$$

Call a maximal ideal of $`𝒵(𝔤)`$ a $`𝔤`$-central character. For $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤)`$ (resp., $`\chi \mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0}))`$ set

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}:=\stackrel{~}{𝒰}/(\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\stackrel{~}{\chi }),𝒰_\chi :=𝒰/(𝒰\chi ).$$

We canonically identify the $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$-modules and the (non-graded) $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$-modules annihilated by $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$.

#### 8.1.1.

Definition.  Call $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤)`$ strongly typical if $`T^2\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$.

Throughout this section $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ denotes a strongly typical central character.

#### 8.1.2.

For a fixed triangular decomposition set

$$W(\stackrel{~}{\chi }):=\{\lambda 𝔥^{}|\stackrel{~}{\chi }\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )=0\}.$$

Recall that $`𝒫(𝒵(𝔤))𝒫(𝒯^\mathcal{2})𝒮(𝔥)^{𝒲.}`$ and so $`W(\stackrel{~}{\chi })`$ forms a single $`W.`$-orbit.

Remark that $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ is strongly typical iff any $`\lambda W(\stackrel{~}{\chi })`$ is strongly typical.

For any pair $`(\stackrel{~}{\chi },\chi )\mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤)\times \mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ there is a functor $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi },\chi }:\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}\mathrm{Mod}𝒰_\chi \mathrm{Mod}`$ given by $`\stackrel{~}{N}\stackrel{~}{N}_\chi `$. One of our goals is to prove that any strongly typical $`𝔤`$-central character $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ has a “perfect mate” $`\chi \mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ such that the above functor provides the equivalence of categories. For the basic classical Lie superalgebras of type I this is proven in cite \[PS1\]. In \[G\], we will prove it for the basic classical Lie superalgebras of type II.

For type I case, it turns out that for any $`\lambda W(\stackrel{~}{\chi })`$ $`\chi :=\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})}M(\lambda )`$ is a perfect mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ (provided that $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ is strongly typical)— see also 7.4. This does not hold for type II case.

It is easy to see that if the functor $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\stackrel{~}{\chi },\chi }`$ provides the equivalence of the categories, then $`\chi `$ has, at least, the following properties: for a Verma $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ the $`𝔤_0`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\chi `$ is a Verma $`𝔤_0`$-module and for any $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ the $`𝔤_0`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{N}_\chi `$ is non-zero. We call $`\chi `$ a mate of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ if it possesses the first property and a perfect mate if it possesses both properties. As we shall show in \[G\], these two properties really ensure the equivalence of categories $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}\mathrm{Mod}`$ and $`𝒰_\chi \mathrm{Mod}`$ provided that $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ is strongly typical.

A pair $`(\stackrel{~}{\chi },\chi )\mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤)\times \mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ is called a perfect pair if $`\chi `$ is a perfect mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$.

The goal of this section is to find a perfect mate for any strongly typical $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$. This is done in the following way. Lemma 8.3.4 gives a combinatorial criterion on $`\chi `$ to be a perfect mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$. In 8.5 we fix, for each basic classical Lie superalgebra of type II a triangular decomposition, in terms of which we will describe a perfect mate $`\chi `$ for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$. In 8.6 we consider $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ satisfying a certain genericity condition. For such a “generic” $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ we show that for a suitable $`\lambda W(\stackrel{~}{\chi })`$ the $`𝔤_0`$-central character of $`M(\lambda )`$ is a perfect mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$. The case when $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ is not generic is treated in 8.7. It turns out that for $`𝔤`$ of the types $`B(m,n)`$, $`G(3)`$ any strongly typical $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ is “generic”. The remaining basic classical Lie superalgebras of type II are treated case by case.

### 8.2. Notation

#### 8.2.1.

We say that a $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ has a finite support  $`\mathrm{supp}_{𝒵(𝔤)}\stackrel{~}{N}=\{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\chi }_k\}`$ if for any $`v\stackrel{~}{N}`$ there exist $`r_1,\mathrm{},r_k^+`$ such that $`_i\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i^{r_i}v=0`$. In this case,

$$\stackrel{~}{N}=_i\stackrel{~}{N}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i}$$

and each $`\stackrel{~}{N}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i}`$ is canonically isomorphic to the localization of the module $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ by the maximal ideal $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_i`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ has a finite support and $`0\stackrel{~}{N}^{}\stackrel{~}{N}\stackrel{~}{N}^{\prime \prime }0`$ is an exact sequence then, for any $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}\mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤)`$, the sequence $`0\stackrel{~}{N}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}}^{}\stackrel{~}{N}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}}\stackrel{~}{N}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}}^{\prime \prime }0`$ is also exact.

For a $`𝔤`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ and a maximal ideal $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}\mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤)`$ define $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{}`$-depth of $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ to be a minimal $`r\mathrm{}`$ such that $`(\stackrel{~}{\chi }^{})^r\stackrel{~}{N}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}=0`$.

We adopt the similar notation for $`𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ and $`𝒰`$-modules.

#### 8.2.2.

Denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the set of subsets of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^+`$. For $`\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }_1^+`$ set

$$|\gamma |:=\underset{\beta \gamma }{}\beta .$$

Define the action of the Weyl group $`W`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by setting

$$w_{}\gamma :=w(\gamma (\mathrm{\Delta }_1^+\gamma ))\mathrm{\Delta }_1^+.$$

Then

$$|w_{}\gamma |=w(|\gamma |\rho _1)+\rho _1.$$

#### 8.2.3.

As a $`𝔤_0`$-module, a Verma module $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ has a filtration $`0=M_0M_1\mathrm{}M_r=\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ such that the set of factors $`M_{i+1}/M_i`$ coincides with the multiset $`\{M(\lambda \gamma ):\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }\}`$— see \[M1\], 3.2.

It is easy to check that for any $`wW,\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$

(7)
$$w.\lambda |w_{}\gamma |+\rho _0=w(\lambda |\gamma |+\rho _0).$$

Therefore the $`𝔤_0`$-central characters of $`M(w.\lambda |w_{}\gamma |)`$ and $`M(\lambda |\gamma |)`$ coincide. Thus for fixed $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ the multiset of $`𝔤_0`$-central characters of $`\{M(\lambda \gamma ):\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }\}`$ does not depend on the choice of $`\lambda W(\stackrel{~}{\chi })`$.

#### 8.2.4.

Definition.  Call $`\chi \mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ a mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤)`$ if for some $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ satisfying $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )=0`$, the $`𝔤_0`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )_\chi `$ is isomorphic to a Verma module $`M(\lambda |\gamma |)`$ for some $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

One can easily deduce from 8.2.3 that if $`\chi `$ is mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ then for any $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ satisfying $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )=0`$, the $`𝔤_0`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )_\chi `$ is isomorphic to a Verma module $`M(\lambda |\gamma |)`$ for some $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In particular, if $`\chi `$ is mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ then for any $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ satisfying $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }\stackrel{~}{M}=0`$, the $`\chi `$-depth of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is equal to $`1`$.

#### 8.2.5.

Definition.  Let us call $`\chi \mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ a perfect mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤)`$ if it is a mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ and for any non-zero $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ one has $`\stackrel{~}{N}_\chi 0`$.

Definition 8.2.4 is given in terms of the category $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$. However, 2.7 implies that if for some triangular decomposition $`\chi `$ is a mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$, then it is a mate also with respect to all other choices of triangular decomposition.

### 8.3.

Throughout this subsection a strongly typical $`𝔤`$-central character $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ is assumed to be fixed. Our first goal is to reformulate Definition 8.2.5 in terms of category $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$.

#### 8.3.1.

Lemma.   There exist $`\chi _1,\mathrm{},\chi _k\mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ and $`r_1,\mathrm{},r_k^+`$ such that for any $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ one has

$$\stackrel{~}{N}=_1^k\stackrel{~}{N}_{\chi _i}$$

and $`\chi ^{r_i}\stackrel{~}{N}_{\chi _i}=0`$.

###### Proof.

Theorem 2.5 of \[M1\] implies that for any $`x𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ there exist $`z_0,\mathrm{},z_l𝒵(𝔤)`$ (where $`l=\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) such that $`_0^lz_ix^i=0`$ and $`z_l=T^2`$ (notice that 2.1 of \[M1\] contains a misprint; to correct it one has to substitute $`g`$ by $`g^2`$ in 2.1 and in Theorem 2.5). Therefore for any $`x𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ there exists $`c_0,\mathrm{},c_{l1}`$ such that $`x^l+_0^{l1}c_ix^i(𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\stackrel{~}{\chi })`$. Consequently, the ideal $`(𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\stackrel{~}{\chi })`$ has a finite codimension in $`𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ and so there exist $`\chi _1,\mathrm{},\chi _k\mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ and $`r_1,\mathrm{},r_k^+`$ such that

$$(𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\stackrel{~}{\chi })\underset{𝒾=\mathcal{1}}{\overset{𝓀}{}}\chi _𝒾^{𝓇_𝒾}.$$

Then, for any $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\chi _i^{r_i}\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})}\stackrel{~}{N}.$$

The assertion follows. ∎

#### 8.3.2.

Corollary.   If $`\chi `$ is a perfect mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ then

$$\stackrel{~}{N}=\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\stackrel{~}{N}_\chi $$

for any $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`\mathrm{supp}_{𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})}\stackrel{~}{N}`$ is finite, one has $`(\stackrel{~}{N}/(\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\stackrel{~}{N}_\chi ))_\chi =0`$. Hence $`\stackrel{~}{N}/(\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\stackrel{~}{N}_\chi )=0`$ because $`\chi `$ is a perfect mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$. ∎

#### 8.3.3.

Lemma.   If $`\chi \mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ is a mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )_\chi 0`$ for all $`\lambda W(\stackrel{~}{\chi })`$, then $`\chi `$ is a perfect mate.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )_\chi 0`$ for all $`\lambda W(\stackrel{~}{\chi })`$. One has to verify that $`\stackrel{~}{N}_\chi 0`$ for any non-zero $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ is Noetherian, $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ has a simple subquotient $`\stackrel{~}{N}^{}`$. Lemma 8.3.1 implies that $`\stackrel{~}{N}_\chi 0`$ provided $`\stackrel{~}{N}_\chi ^{}0`$. Hence it is enough to check that $`\stackrel{~}{N}_\chi 0`$ for any simple $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$.

Take a simple $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$. The ideal $`\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{N}`$ is primitive and so, according to \[M2\], $`\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{N}=\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{V}`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ is a simple highest weight module. Obviously, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }\stackrel{~}{V}=0`$ and so, by our assumption, $`\stackrel{~}{V}_\chi 0`$. As a $`𝔤_0`$-module, $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ has a finite length. Therefore

$$\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})}\stackrel{~}{N}=\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})}\stackrel{~}{V}=\chi ^{r_1}\chi _2^{r_2}\mathrm{}\chi _k^{r_k}$$

where $`\{\chi ,\chi _2,\mathrm{},\chi _k\}=\mathrm{supp}_{𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})}\stackrel{~}{V},r_1,\mathrm{},r_k^+`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{N}^{}:=\chi _2^{r_2}\mathrm{}\chi _k^{r_k}\stackrel{~}{N}0`$ and $`\chi ^{r_1}\stackrel{~}{N}^{}=0`$. Hence $`\stackrel{~}{N}_\chi 0`$. The lemma is proven. ∎

#### 8.3.4.

Lemma.   Take $`\lambda W(\stackrel{~}{\chi })`$, $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and set $`\chi :=\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})}M(\lambda |\gamma |)`$.

$$\begin{array}{cc}(i)\hfill & \gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }\{\gamma \}(\lambda |\gamma ^{}|+\rho _0)W(\lambda |\gamma |+\rho _0)\chi \text{ is a mate for }\stackrel{~}{\chi }\hfill \\ (ii)\hfill & \text{If }\chi \text{ is a mate for }\stackrel{~}{\chi }\text{ and }\mathrm{Stab}_W(\lambda |\gamma |+\rho _0)\mathrm{Stab}_W(\lambda +\rho )\text{ then }\chi \text{ is a perfect mate}.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

The equivalence (i) follows from 8.2.3.

For (ii) recall Lemma 8.3.3. Suppose that $`\chi `$ is a mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ but it is not a perfect mate. Then $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )_\chi =M(\lambda |\gamma |)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}(w.\lambda )_\chi =0`$ for some $`wW`$. The equality (7), implies that for any $`yW`$

$$\stackrel{~}{M}(y.\lambda )_\chi =M(y.\lambda |y_{}\gamma |).$$

Therefore $`\stackrel{~}{V}(y.\lambda )_\chi `$ is a quotient of $`M(y.\lambda |y_{}\gamma |)`$.

The module $`\stackrel{~}{V}(w.\lambda )`$ is a homomorphic image of $`\stackrel{~}{M}(w.\lambda )`$. Denote the kernel of this homomorphism by $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$. The module $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ has a finite length and the factors of its Jordan-Gölder series have the form $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\mu )`$ for some $`\mu W.\lambda `$ satisfying $`\mu <w\lambda `$. Since $`0=\stackrel{~}{V}(w.\lambda )_\chi =(\stackrel{~}{M}/\stackrel{~}{N}))_\chi `$ one concludes that the $`𝔤_0`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{N}_\chi =\stackrel{~}{M}_\chi =M(w.\lambda |w_{}\gamma |)`$ has a finite filtration such that each factor of this filtration is a quotient of $`M(y.\lambda |y_{}\gamma |)`$ for some $`yW`$ satisfying $`y.\lambda <w.\lambda `$. Therefore

$$w.\lambda |w_{}\gamma |=y.\lambda |y_{}\gamma |$$

for some $`yW`$ satisfying $`y.\lambda <w.\lambda `$. By (7), the above equality is equivalent to the condition $`y^1w\mathrm{Stab}_W(\lambda +\rho _0|\gamma |)`$. However, $`y.\lambda <w.\lambda `$ implies $`y^1w\mathrm{Stab}_W(\lambda +\rho )`$. Thus $`\mathrm{Stab}_W(\lambda +\rho _0|\gamma |)\mathrm{Stab}_W(\lambda +\rho )`$ as required. ∎

### 8.4.

Throughout this subsection a strongly typical $`𝔤`$-central character $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ is assumed to be fixed.

#### 8.4.1. Right version

One may repeat the above reasonings for the right $`𝔤`$-modules. Suppose now that $`(\stackrel{~}{\chi },\chi )`$ is a perfect pair in the “left sense”. We claim that it is a perfect pair in the “right sense”.

Indeed, the superantiautomorphism $`\sigma `$ (see 2.3) provides the duality between the left and the right $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$-modules given by $`NN^\sigma `$:

$$v^\sigma .a:=(1)^{d(a)d(v)}\sigma (a).v,a\stackrel{~}{𝒰},vN.$$

By 2.3.4, $`\sigma `$ stabilizes the elements of $`𝒵(𝔤)`$; thus the restriction of the above duality gives the duality between the left and the right $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$-modules. Since $`\sigma `$ also stabilizes the elements of $`𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$, in order to show that $`(\stackrel{~}{\chi },\chi )`$ is a perfect pair in the “right sense”, it is enough to check that $`\chi `$ is mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ in the “right sense”.

Take a minimal element $`\lambda W(\stackrel{~}{\chi })`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{M}:=\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ is a simple Verma module and $`\stackrel{~}{M}^\sigma `$ is a right simple module which is a Verma module with respect to a suitable triangular decomposition of $`𝔤`$. Since $`\chi `$ is a mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\chi `$ is a Verma $`𝔤_0`$-module, say $`M`$. Then

$${}_{\chi }{}^{}\stackrel{~}{M}_{}^{\sigma }:=\{v\stackrel{~}{M}^\sigma |v.\chi ^r=0,r>>0\}=(\stackrel{~}{M}_\chi )^\sigma =M^\sigma $$

since $`\sigma `$ stabilizes the elements of $`𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$. Therefore $`{}_{\chi }{}^{}\stackrel{~}{M}_{}^{\sigma }`$ is a (right) $`𝔤_0`$-submodule of a (right) Verma $`𝔤`$-module and, at the same time, it is dual to a Verma $`𝔤_0`$-module. Since a Verma $`𝔤`$-module is $`𝒰(𝔫_\mathcal{0}^{})`$\- torsion-free, $`{}_{\chi }{}^{}\stackrel{~}{M}_{}^{\sigma }`$ is a (right) Verma $`𝔤_0`$-module. Hence $`\chi `$ is a mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ in the “right sense”.

#### 8.4.2.

Let $`\chi `$ be a perfect mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ and $`L`$ be a non-zero $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$-bimodule such that $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }.L=L.\stackrel{~}{\chi }=0`$. Let us show that

$${}_{\chi }{}^{}L_{\chi }^{}:=\{vL|\chi ^r.v=v.\chi ^r=0,r>>0\}$$

is non-zero.

Indeed, according to Lemma 8.3.1, there exist pair-wise distinct $`𝔤_0`$-central characters $`\chi _1,\mathrm{},\chi _k`$ and positive integers $`r_1,\mathrm{},r_k`$ such that $`_1^k\chi _i^{r_i}.L=0`$. Recall that $`L_\chi 0`$ since $`(\stackrel{~}{\chi },\chi )`$ is a perfect pair. Thus $`\chi =\chi _i`$ for a certain $`i`$; we can assume that $`\chi =\chi _1`$. One has $`\chi _1^{r_1}+_2^k\chi _i^{r_i}=𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ since $`\chi _1,\mathrm{},\chi _k\mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ are pair-wise distinct. Therefore

$$0L_\chi =\underset{2}{\overset{k}{}}\chi _i^{r_i}.L$$

and it is a right submodule of $`L`$. Clearly

$${}_{\chi }{}^{}L_{\chi }^{}=\{vL_\chi |v.\chi ^r=0,r>>0\}.$$

Using 8.4.1, one obtains $`{}_{\chi }{}^{}L_{\chi }^{}0`$ as required.

### 8.5.

By 8.2.5, to prove the existence of a perfect mate for a strongly typical $`𝔤`$-central character, one can choose any triangular decomposition. Below we describe, for each basic classical Lie superalgebra of type II, a triangular decomposition we choose for the proof. We use notation of Kac— see \[K1\], 2.5.4 for all cases except $`D(1,2,\alpha )`$ where we use $`\delta ,ϵ_1,ϵ_2`$ instead $`ϵ_1,ϵ_2,ϵ_3`$. The chosen triangular decomposition always corresponds to the first “simplest system of simple roots” in \[K1\].

$$\begin{array}{cc}B(m,n):\hfill & 𝔤_0=𝔰𝔬(2m+1)\times 𝔰𝔭(2n)\hfill \\ & \pi =\{\delta _1\delta _2,\mathrm{},\delta _nϵ_1,ϵ_1ϵ_2,\mathrm{},ϵ_{m1}ϵ_m,ϵ_m\},\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Delta }_0^+=\{\delta _i\pm \delta _j;2\delta _i\}_{1i<jn}\{ϵ_i\pm ϵ_j,;ϵ_i\}_{1i<jm},\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Delta }_1^+=\{\delta _i;\delta _i\pm ϵ_j\}_{1in,1jm},\hfill \\ & \rho _1=(m+\frac{1}{2})(\delta _1+\delta _2+\mathrm{}+\delta _n)\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\{\delta _1\delta _2,\mathrm{},2\delta _n\}`$ is a system of simple roots of $`𝔰𝔭(2n)`$ and $`\{ϵ_1ϵ_2,\mathrm{},ϵ_{m1}ϵ_m,ϵ_m\}`$ is a system of simple roots of $`𝔰𝔬(2m+1)`$.

$$\begin{array}{cc}D(m,n):\hfill & 𝔤_0=𝔰𝔬(2m)\times 𝔰𝔭(2n)\hfill \\ & \pi =\{\delta _1\delta _2,\mathrm{},\delta _nϵ_1,ϵ_1ϵ_2,\mathrm{},ϵ_{m1}ϵ_m,ϵ_{m1}+ϵ_m\},\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Delta }_0^+=\{\delta _i\pm \delta _j,2\delta _i\}_{1i<jn}\{ϵ_i\pm ϵ_j\}_{1i<jm},\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Delta }_1^+=\{\delta _i\pm ϵ_j\}_{1in,1jm},\hfill \\ & \rho _1=m(\delta _1+\delta _2+\mathrm{}+\delta _n)\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\{\delta _1\delta _2,\mathrm{},2\delta _n\}`$ is a system of simple roots of $`𝔰𝔭(2n)`$ and $`\{ϵ_1ϵ_2,\mathrm{},ϵ_{m1}ϵ_m,ϵ_{m1}+ϵ_m\}`$ is a system of simple roots of $`𝔰𝔬(2m)`$.

$$\begin{array}{cc}D(2,1,\alpha ):\hfill & 𝔤_0=𝔰𝔩(2)\times 𝔰𝔩(2)\times 𝔰𝔩(2),\hfill \\ & \pi =\{\delta _1+ϵ_1+ϵ_2,2ϵ_1,2ϵ_2\},\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Delta }_0^+=\{2\delta _1;2ϵ_1,2ϵ_2\},\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Delta }_1^+=\{\delta _1\pm ϵ_1\pm ϵ_2\},\hfill \\ & \rho _1=2\delta _1.\hfill \\ & \\ F(4):\hfill & 𝔤_0=𝔰𝔩(2)\times 𝔰𝔬(7),\hfill \\ & \pi =\{\frac{1}{2}(ϵ_1+ϵ_2+ϵ_3+\delta _1),ϵ_1,ϵ_1ϵ_2,ϵ_2ϵ_3\},\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Delta }_0^+=\{\delta _1\}\{ϵ_i,1i3;\pm ϵ_iϵ_j,1i<j3\},\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Delta }_1^+=\{\frac{1}{2}(\delta _1\pm ϵ_1\pm ϵ_2\pm ϵ_3)\},\hfill \\ & \rho _1=2\delta _1\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\delta _1`$ is a simple root of $`𝔰𝔩(2)`$ and $`\{ϵ_1,ϵ_1ϵ_2,ϵ_2ϵ_3\}`$ is a system of simple roots of $`𝔰𝔬(7)`$.

$$\begin{array}{cc}G(3):\hfill & 𝔤_0=𝔰𝔩(2)\times G_2,\hfill \\ & \pi =\{\delta _1+ϵ_1,ϵ_2,ϵ_3ϵ_2\},\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Delta }_0^+=\{2\delta _1\}\{ϵ_2,ϵ_3,ϵ_1,ϵ_3ϵ_2,ϵ_3ϵ_1,ϵ_2ϵ_1\},\hfill \\ & \mathrm{\Delta }_1^+=\{\delta _1;\delta _1\pm ϵ_i,i=1,2,3\},\hfill \\ & \rho _1=\frac{7}{2}\delta _1\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`ϵ_1+ϵ_2+ϵ_3=0`$, $`\{ϵ_2,ϵ_3ϵ_2\}`$ is a system of simple roots of $`G(2)`$ and $`2\delta _1`$ is a simple root of $`𝔰𝔩(2)`$.

The restriction of the non-degenerate invariant bilinear form $`(,)`$ on $`𝔤_0`$ is a non-degenerate invariant bilinear form. Thus

$$(\delta _i,\delta _i^{})=(\delta _i,ϵ_j)=0ii^{}$$

and

$$(ϵ_j,ϵ_j^{})=0jj^{}$$

if $`𝔤`$ is not of the type $`G(3)`$.

Till the end of this section $`𝔤`$ will denote one (unless otherwise specified, an arbitrary one) of the basic classical Lie superalgebras of type II with the fixed triangular decomposition described above.

#### 8.5.1. More notation

For all above root systems denote by $`n`$ the number of $`\delta `$’s and by $`m`$ the number of $`ϵ`$’s (that is $`n=1`$ for $`D(1,2,\alpha ),F(4),G(3)`$ and $`m=2`$ for $`D(1,2,\alpha )`$, $`m=3`$ for $`F(4),G(3)`$). Remark that for all above systems

$$\rho _1=p\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\delta _i$$

for a certain scalar $`p\frac{1}{2}^+`$.

Denote by $`W_1`$ (resp., $`W_2`$) the subgroup of $`W`$ which acts on $`\{\delta _i\}_{i=1}^n`$ (resp., on $`\{ϵ_j\}_{j=1}^m`$). Then $`W=W_1\times W_2`$. Remark that $`W_1`$ is always the group of signed permutations of $`\{\delta _i\}_{i=1}^n`$: for $`B(m,n)`$ and $`D(m,n)`$ it is the Weyl group corresponding to $`𝔰𝔭(2n)`$ and for $`D(1,2,\alpha ),F(4),G(3)`$ it is the Weyl group corresponding to $`𝔰𝔩(2)`$.

For $`\mu 𝔥^{}`$ write

$$\mu =\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}k_i\delta _i+\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}l_jϵ_j$$

and set $`\mu _{\delta _i}:=k_i,\mu _{ϵ_j}:=l_j`$.

Say that $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ is generic if there exists $`\lambda W(\stackrel{~}{\chi })`$ such that $`(\lambda +\rho )_{\delta _i}0`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Remark that $`T^2\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ implies that $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ is generic if $`\delta _1\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ that is in the cases $`B(m,n)`$ and $`G(3)`$.

Define a lexicographic order on $``$ by setting $`c_1>c_2`$ if $`\mathrm{Re}c_1>\mathrm{Re}c_2`$ or $`\mathrm{Re}c_1=\mathrm{Re}c_2`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}c_1>\mathrm{Im}c_2`$.

One can easily sees that for any $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ one has $`0|\gamma |_{\sigma _i}2p`$ and, moreover, $`\gamma =\mathrm{}`$ iff $`|\gamma |_{\sigma _1}=\mathrm{}=|\gamma |_{\sigma _n}=0`$. We will use many times the following easy lemma.

#### 8.5.2.

Lemma.   Let $`d;a_1,\mathrm{},a_s;r_1,\mathrm{},r_s`$ be complex numbers such that $`d,a_1,\mathrm{},a_s>0`$ and $`0r_1,\mathrm{},r_s2d`$. Suppose there exists a signed permutation $`\sigma `$ which maps $`(a_1+d,\mathrm{},a_s+d)`$ to $`(a_1+dr_1,\mathrm{},a_s+dr_s)`$. Then $`\sigma `$ is a usual (non-signed) permutation and $`r_1=\mathrm{}=r_s=0`$.

###### Proof.

The permutation $`\sigma `$ is non-signed because $`a_i+a_j>02d+r_j`$ and so $`a_i+d(a_j+dr_j)`$ for any indexes $`i,j`$. Since $`\sigma `$ is a usual permutation,

$$\underset{i}{\overset{s}{}}(a_i+d)=\underset{1}{\overset{s}{}}(a_i+dr_i)$$

that is $`r_i=0`$. The inequalities $`r_1,\mathrm{},r_s0`$ imply the assertion. ∎

### 8.6. Generic case

Fix a generic central character $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ . Since $`W_1`$ acts by signed permutation on $`\{\delta _i\}_{i=1}^n`$, there exists $`\lambda W(\stackrel{~}{\chi })`$ such that $`(\lambda +\rho )_{\delta _i}>0`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Fix such a $`\lambda `$ and let us show that the $`𝔤_0`$-character of $`M(\lambda )`$ is a perfect mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$.

To verify that the $`𝔤_0`$-central character of $`M(\lambda )`$ is a mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$, recall Lemma 8.3.4 (i). Suppose that

$$(\lambda +\rho _0)=w(\lambda +\rho _0|\gamma |)$$

for some $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma },wW`$ . Write

$$\lambda +\rho =\underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}k_i\delta _i+\underset{1}{\overset{m}{}}l_jϵ_j,|\gamma |=\underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}s_i\delta _i+\underset{1}{\overset{m}{}}r_jϵ_j.$$

Recall that $`k_i>0`$ and $`0s_i2p`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. One has

$$\lambda +\rho _0=\lambda +\rho +\rho _1=(k_i+p)\delta _i+l_jϵ_j$$

and

$$\lambda +\rho _0|\gamma |=(k_i+ps_i)\delta _i+(l_jr_j)ϵ_j.$$

Write $`w=w_1w_2`$ where $`w_1W_1,w_2W_2`$. Then

$$(k_i+p)\delta _i=w_1\left((k_i+ps_i)\delta _i\right)$$

By Lemma 8.5.2, this implies $`s_1=\mathrm{}=s_n=0`$ and thus $`\gamma =\mathrm{}`$. Hence the $`𝔤_0`$-central character of $`M(\lambda )`$ is a mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$.

One has

$$\mathrm{Stab}_W(\lambda +\rho _0)=\mathrm{Stab}_W\left((k_i+p)\delta _i+l_jϵ_j\right)=\mathrm{Stab}_W\left(k_i\delta _i+l_jϵ_j\right)=\mathrm{Stab}_W(\lambda +\rho )$$

since $`p;k_1,\mathrm{},k_n>0`$. Using Lemma 8.3.4 (ii), one concludes that the $`𝔤_0`$-central character of $`M(\lambda )`$ is a perfect mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$.

### 8.7. The case when $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ is not generic.

Suppose that $`𝔤`$ is of the type $`D(m,n),D(1,2,\alpha )`$ or $`F(4)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ is not generic.

#### 8.7.1. Case $`D(m,n)`$.

Since $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ is not generic, for any $`\lambda W(\stackrel{~}{\chi })`$ there exists $`i\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ such that $`(\lambda +\rho )_{\delta _i}=0`$. On the other hand, $`T^2\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ implies $`(\lambda +\rho ,\beta )0`$ for any $`\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_1`$. In particular, $`(\lambda +\rho ,\delta _i+ϵ_j)0`$ and so $`(\lambda +\rho )_{ϵ_j}0`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},m`$. Taking into account that $`W_1`$ acts on $`\{\delta _i\}_1^n`$ by signed permutations and $`W_2`$ acts on $`\{ϵ_j\}_1^m`$ by signed permutations changing even number of signs, one concludes the existence of $`\lambda W(\stackrel{~}{\chi })`$ such that

$$\lambda +\rho =\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}k_i\delta _i+\underset{j=1}{\overset{m}{}}l_jϵ_j$$

where

$$\begin{array}{c}k_1k_2\mathrm{}k_{nd}>k_{nd+1}=k_{nd+2}=\mathrm{}=k_n=0,\hfill \\ l_1l_2\mathrm{}l_{m1}>0,l_{m1}l_m,l_{m1}l_m,l_m0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Fix $`\lambda `$ as above and set

$$\begin{array}{c}\gamma _d:=\{\delta _iϵ_j:nd<in,1jm1\}\{\delta _i\mathrm{sn}(l_m)ϵ_m:nd<in\}\end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{sn}(l_m):=1`$ if $`l_m>0`$ and $`\mathrm{sn}(l_m):=1`$ if $`l_m<0`$.

Let us show that the $`𝔤_0`$-central character of $`M(\lambda |\gamma _d|)`$ is a perfect mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$. To verify that it is a mate suppose that $`(\lambda \gamma _d+\rho _0)=w(\lambda \gamma +\rho _0)`$ for some $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma },wW`$. Write

$$|\gamma |=\underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}s_i\delta _i+\underset{1}{\overset{m}{}}r_jϵ_j.$$

Observe that $`s_i\{0,1,\mathrm{},2m\}`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. One has

(8)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \lambda |\gamma |_d+\rho _0& =\lambda +\rho +(\rho _1|\gamma _d|)\hfill \\ & =_1^{nd}(k_i+m)\delta _i+_1^{m1}(l_j+d)ϵ_j+(l_m+\mathrm{sn}(l_m)d)ϵ_m\hfill \end{array}$$

and

$$\lambda +\rho _0|\gamma |=\underset{1}{\overset{nd}{}}(k_i+ms_i)\delta _i+\underset{nd+1}{\overset{n}{}}(ms_i)\delta _i+\underset{1}{\overset{m}{}}(l_jr_j)ϵ_j.$$

Write $`w=w_1w_2`$ where $`w_1W_1,w_2W_2`$. Then

$$\underset{1}{\overset{nd}{}}(k_i+m)\delta _i=w_1\left(\underset{1}{\overset{nd}{}}(k_i+ms_i)\delta _i+\underset{nd+1}{\overset{n}{}}(ms_i)\delta _i\right).$$

For any indexes $`i,i^{}`$ such that $`1ind<i^{}n`$ one has $`k_i+m>m\pm (ms_i^{})`$. Therefore $`w_1=w_1^{}w_1^{\prime \prime }`$ where $`w_1^{}`$ (resp., $`w_1^{\prime \prime }`$) is a signed permutation of $`\{\delta _i\}_1^{nd}`$ (resp., of $`\{\delta _i\}_{nd+1}^n`$). Then $`_1^{nd}(k_i+m)\delta _i=w_1^{}\left(_1^{nd}(k_i+ms_i)\delta _i\right)`$ and so $`s_1=\mathrm{}=s_{nd}=0`$ by Lemma 8.5.2. On the other hand, $`0=w_1^{\prime \prime }\left(_{nd+1}^n(ms_i)\delta _i\right)`$ gives $`s_{nd}=\mathrm{}=s_n=m`$.

It is easy to see that $`s_1=\mathrm{}=s_{nd}=0`$ implies $`r_j\{0,\pm 1,\mathrm{},\pm d\}`$ for all $`j=1,\mathrm{},m`$.

Suppose that $`l_m>0`$. Then

$$w_2\left(\underset{1}{\overset{m}{}}(l_jr_j)ϵ_j\right)=\underset{1}{\overset{m}{}}(l_j+d)ϵ_j$$

and, by Lemma 8.5.2, $`r_j=d`$ for all $`j=1,\mathrm{},m`$. Thus $`|\gamma |=|\gamma _d|`$. It is easy to check that this implies the required equality $`\gamma =\gamma _d`$.

Suppose that $`l_m<0`$. Then

$$w_2\left(\underset{1}{\overset{m}{}}(l_jr_j)ϵ_j\right)=\underset{1}{\overset{m1}{}}(l_j+d)ϵ_j+(l_md)ϵ_m$$

where $`w_2`$ is a signed permutation of $`\{ϵ_j\}_1^m`$. Then

$$w_2^{}\left(\underset{1}{\overset{m1}{}}(l_jr_j)ϵ_j+(r_ml_m)ϵ_m\right)=\underset{1}{\overset{m1}{}}(l_j+d)ϵ_j+(l_m+d)ϵ_m$$

for another signed permutation $`w_2^{}`$ of $`\{ϵ_j\}_1^m`$. Since $`l_1,\mathrm{},l_{m1},l_m>0`$, Lemma 8.5.2 gives $`r_1=\mathrm{}=r_{m1}=d`$ and $`r_m=d`$. Thus again $`|\gamma |=|\gamma _d|`$ and so $`\gamma =\gamma _d`$. Hence the $`𝔤_0`$-central character of $`M(\lambda |\gamma |_d)`$ is a mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$.

One has

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{Stab}_W(\lambda +\rho )=\mathrm{Stab}_W((_1^{nd}k_i\delta _i+_1^ml_jϵ_j)\hfill \\ =\mathrm{Stab}_W((_1^{nd}(k_i+m)\delta _i+_1^{m1}(l_j+d)ϵ_j+(l_m+\mathrm{sn}(l_m)d)ϵ_m)=\mathrm{Stab}_W(\lambda |\gamma _d|+\rho _0)\hfill \end{array}$$

since $`m;d;k_1,\mathrm{},k_n;l_1,\mathrm{},l_{m1}>\mathrm{sn}(l_m)l_m>0`$. Using Lemma 8.3.4 (ii), one concludes that the $`𝔤_0`$-central character of $`M(\lambda |\gamma |_d)`$ is a perfect mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$.

#### 8.7.2. Case $`D(2,1,\alpha )`$

Set $`\delta :=\delta _1`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ is not generic, $`(\lambda +\rho )_\delta =0`$ for any $`\lambda W(\stackrel{~}{\chi })`$. On the other hand, $`T^2\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ implies $`(\lambda +\rho ,\beta )0`$ for any $`\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_1`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^+=\{\delta \pm ϵ_1\pm ϵ_2\}`$, one obtains $`(\lambda +\rho )_{ϵ_j}0`$ for $`j=1`$ or $`j=2`$. Recall that $`W_2\times _2\times _2`$ where the copies of $`_2`$ act by sign on $`\delta ;ϵ_1;ϵ_2`$ respectively. Therefore there exists $`\lambda W(\stackrel{~}{\chi })`$ such that

$$\lambda +\rho =l_1ϵ_1+l_2ϵ_2$$

where $`l_1,l_20`$ and at least one of $`l_1,l_2`$ is non-zero. Fix such a $`\lambda `$. Both cases $`l_1>0`$ and $`l_2>0`$ are similar so we can assume $`l_10`$. Set

$$\gamma _d:=\{\delta ϵ_1ϵ_2;\delta ϵ_1+ϵ_2\}.$$

Let us show that the $`𝔤_0`$-central character of $`M(\lambda |\gamma _d|)`$ is a perfect mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$.

One has $`\rho _1|\gamma _d|=2ϵ_1`$ and

$$\lambda |\gamma _d|+\rho _0=\lambda +\rho +\rho _1|\gamma _d|=(l_1+2)ϵ_1+l_2ϵ_2.$$

Assume that $`(\lambda |\gamma _d|+\rho _0)W(\lambda |\gamma |+\rho _0)`$ for some $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then $`(\lambda |\gamma |+\rho _0)_{ϵ_1}=\pm (l_1+2)`$ that is $`|\gamma |_{ϵ_1}=l_1\pm (l_1+2)`$. Taking into account that $`l_1>0`$ and that $`|\gamma |_{ϵ_1}\{0,\pm 1,\pm 2\}`$, one concludes $`|\gamma |_{ϵ_1}=2`$. This implies $`\gamma =\gamma _d`$. Hence the $`𝔤_0`$-central character of $`M(\lambda |\gamma _d|)`$ is a mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$. Since $`l_1>0`$

$$\mathrm{Stab}_W(\lambda +\rho )=\mathrm{Stab}_W(l_1ϵ_1+l_2ϵ_2)=\mathrm{Stab}_W((l_1+2)ϵ_1+l_2ϵ_2)=\mathrm{Stab}_W(\lambda |\gamma _d|+\rho _0).$$

By Lemma 8.3.4, the $`𝔤_0`$-central character of $`M(\lambda |\gamma _d|)`$ is a perfect mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$.

#### 8.7.3. Case $`F(4)`$

Set $`\delta :=\delta _1`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ is not generic, $`(\lambda +\rho )_\delta =0`$ for any $`\lambda W(\stackrel{~}{\chi })`$. On the other hand, $`T^2\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ implies $`(\lambda +\rho ,\beta )0`$ for any $`\beta \mathrm{\Delta }_1`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^+=\{\frac{1}{2}(\delta \pm ϵ_1\pm ϵ_2\pm ϵ_3\}`$, one obtains $`(\lambda +\rho )_{ϵ_j}0`$ for some $`j\{1,2,3\}`$. Recall that $`W=W_1\times W_2`$ where $`W_1_2`$ acts by sign on $`\delta `$ and $`W_2`$ is the group of signed permutations of $`\{ϵ_j\}_1^3`$. Therefore there exists $`\lambda W(\stackrel{~}{\chi })`$ such that

$$\lambda +\rho =l_1ϵ_1+l_2ϵ_2+l_3ϵ_3$$

where

$$l_1l_2l_30\&l_10.$$

Fix such a $`\lambda `$. Set

$$\begin{array}{c}\gamma _d:=\{\frac{1}{2}(\delta ϵ_1\pm ϵ_2\pm ϵ_3)\}\text{ if }l_1>l_2,\hfill \\ \gamma _d:=\{\frac{1}{2}(\delta ϵ_1ϵ_2ϵ_3);\frac{1}{2}(\delta +ϵ_1ϵ_2ϵ_3);\frac{1}{2}(\delta ϵ_1+ϵ_2ϵ_3);\frac{1}{2}(\delta ϵ_1ϵ_2+ϵ_3)\}\text{ if }l_1=l_2.\hfill \end{array}$$

We show below that the $`𝔤_0`$-central character of $`M(\lambda |\gamma _d|)`$ is a perfect mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$.

Indeed, assume that $`(\lambda |\gamma _d|+\rho _0)=w(\lambda |\gamma |+\rho _0)`$ for some $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma },wW`$. Write $`|\gamma |=s\delta +_1^3r_jϵ_j`$ and $`w=w_1w_2`$ where $`w_1W_1,w_2W_2`$. One has

$$\lambda |\gamma |+\rho _0=(2s)\delta +\underset{1}{\overset{3}{}}(l_jr_j)ϵ_j.$$

Suppose $`l_1>l_2`$. Then

$$|\gamma _d|=2\delta 2ϵ_1\text{ that is }\lambda |\gamma _d|+\rho _0=(l_1+2)ϵ_1+l_2ϵ_2+l_3ϵ_3.$$

The equality $`(\lambda |\gamma _d|+\rho _0)=w(\lambda |\gamma |+\rho _0)`$ implies $`s=2`$. Thus $`\gamma `$ contains 4 elements and so $`r_1,r_2,r_3\{0;\pm 1;\pm 2\}`$. Then $`l_1+2>l_jr_j`$ for $`j=1,2`$ and $`l_1+2>(l_jr_j)`$ for $`j=1,2,3`$. Thus $`w_2(ϵ_1)=ϵ_1`$ and so $`r_1=2`$. Since $`\gamma `$ contains 4 elements, this implies $`\gamma =\gamma _d`$. Hence the $`𝔤_0`$-central character of $`M(\lambda |\gamma _d|)`$ is a mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$.

Suppose $`l_1=l_2`$. Then

$$|\gamma _d|=2\delta ϵ_1ϵ_2ϵ_3\text{ that is }\lambda |\gamma _d|+\rho _0=\underset{1}{\overset{3}{}}(l_j+1)ϵ_j.$$

Again $`\gamma `$ contains 4 elements and so $`r_1,r_2,r_3\{0;\pm 1;\pm 2\}`$. Assume that $`w_2`$ is not a usual permutation that is $`w_2(ϵ_j)=ϵ_j^{}`$ for some $`j,j^{}`$. Then $`l_j^{}+1=(l_jr_j)`$ that is $`r_j1=l_j^{}+l_j>0`$ because $`l_1=l_2>0`$ and $`l_30`$. Then $`r_j=2`$ and, consequently, $`r_{j^{\prime \prime }}=0`$ for all $`j^{\prime \prime }j`$. In particular, $`w_2`$ can change a sign of at most one of $`ϵ_1,ϵ_2,ϵ_3`$. Therefore $`l_1+1=l_2+1=l_{j^{\prime \prime }}r_{j^{\prime \prime }}`$ for some $`j^{\prime \prime }j`$. Then $`l_1+1=l_j^{}`$ that contradicts to the inequality $`l_1l_3`$. Thus $`w_2`$ is a usual permutation. This implies $`_1^3(l_j+1)=_1^3(l_jr_j)`$ that is $`r_1+r_2+r_3=3`$. Taking into account that $`r_j\{0;\pm 1;\pm 2\}`$ and that the equality of the form $`r_j=\pm 2`$ implies $`r_j^{}=0`$ for $`j^{}j`$, one concludes $`r_1=r_2=r_3=1`$ that is $`|\gamma |=|\gamma _d|`$. It is easy to check that this gives the required equality $`\gamma =\gamma _d`$. Hence the $`𝔤_0`$-central character of $`M(\lambda |\gamma _d|)`$ is a mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$.

If $`l_1>l_2l_30`$ then

$$\mathrm{Stab}_W(\lambda +\rho )=\mathrm{Stab}_W(l_1ϵ_1+l_2ϵ_2+l_3ϵ_3)=\mathrm{Stab}_W((l_1+2)ϵ_1+l_2ϵ_2+l_3ϵ_3)=\mathrm{Stab}_W(\lambda |\gamma _d|+\rho _0).$$

If $`l_1=l_2>0`$ then $`l_30`$ since $`(\lambda +\rho ,\delta +ϵ_1ϵ_2+ϵ_3)0`$. Therefore

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{Stab}_W(\lambda +\rho )& =\mathrm{Stab}_W(l_1ϵ_1+l_2ϵ_2+l_3ϵ_3)\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{Stab}_W((l_1+1)ϵ_1+(l_2+1)ϵ_2+(l_3+1)ϵ_3)=\mathrm{Stab}_W(\lambda |\gamma _d|+\rho _0).\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence the $`𝔤_0`$-central character of $`M(\lambda |\gamma _d|)`$ is a perfect mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$.

## 9. Annihilation Theorem

This section is devoted to the proof of Theorem 9.5.

### 9.1.

Lemma.   Let $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ be a strongly typical Verma module and $`v\stackrel{~}{M}`$ be a primitive vector. Then $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}v`$ is a Verma module. In particular, $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ contains a simple Verma submodule.

###### Proof.

Set $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }:=\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤)}\stackrel{~}{M}`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is strongly typical, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ is also strongly typical and so for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ there exists a perfect mate $`\chi \mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$— see Section 8. Let $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ be a submodule of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ generated by a primitive vector. Then $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ is a quotient of a Verma module $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }\stackrel{~}{M}^{}=0`$. By 8.2.4, $`M^{}:=\stackrel{~}{M}_\chi ^{}`$ is a Verma $`𝔤_0`$-module. Since $`\chi `$ is a perfect mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$, the $`𝔤_0`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{N}_\chi `$ is a non-zero quotient of $`M^{}`$. Taking into account that $`\stackrel{~}{N}_\chi \stackrel{~}{M}`$ is torsion-free over $`𝒰(𝔫_\mathcal{0}^{})`$, one concludes $`\stackrel{~}{N}_\chi =M^{}`$. Thus $`(\stackrel{~}{M}^{}/\stackrel{~}{N})_\chi =0`$ and so $`\stackrel{~}{N}=\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$ is a Verma module.

Recall that $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ has a finite length and so it contains a simple submodule $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$. A highest weight vector of $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ is primitive. Hence $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ is a simple Verma module. ∎

### 9.2.

Lemma.   Let $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ be a strongly typical Verma module and $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$ be a simple submodule of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. Then the natural maps $`F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})F(\stackrel{~}{M}^{},\stackrel{~}{M})`$ and $`F(\stackrel{~}{M}^{},\stackrel{~}{M}^{})\stackrel{}{}F(\stackrel{~}{M}^{},\stackrel{~}{M})`$ are $`𝔤`$-bimodule isomorphisms.

###### Proof.

Denote by $`\iota `$ the natural map $`F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})F(\stackrel{~}{M}^{},\stackrel{~}{M})`$ and by $`\iota ^{}`$ the natural map $`F(\stackrel{~}{M}^{},\stackrel{~}{M}^{})F(\stackrel{~}{M}^{},\stackrel{~}{M})`$ (both maps are induced by the embedding $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$). Both maps are $`𝔤`$-bimodule homomorphisms.

To show that $`\iota ^{}`$ is a bijection and that $`\iota `$ is a monomorphism, we use the following reasoning which is essentially the same as in \[J1\].

By \[J1\], $`F(N_1,N_2)=0`$ if the GK-dimension of any simple quotient of $`N_1`$ is greater than GK-dimension of $`N_2`$ or if the GK-dimension of $`N_1`$ is less than GK-dimension of any simple submodule of $`N_2`$. Moreover, the GK-dimension of a Verma module is equal to the GK-dimension of the algebra $`𝒰(𝔫^{})`$.

Let $`v`$ be a highest weight vector of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ and $`u𝒰(𝔫^{})`$ be such that $`uv`$ is a highest weight vector of $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$ is a Verma module, $`u`$ is a non-zero divisor in $`𝒰(𝔫^{})`$. This implies

$$GKdim\stackrel{~}{M}^{}=GKdim\stackrel{~}{M}>GKdim\stackrel{~}{M}/\stackrel{~}{M}^{}.$$

The only simple quotient of $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$ is $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$ itself; thus the inequality $`GKdim\stackrel{~}{M}^{}>GKdim\stackrel{~}{M}/\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$ implies $`F(\stackrel{~}{M}^{},\stackrel{~}{M}/\stackrel{~}{M}^{})=0`$. Therefore $`\iota ^{}`$ is an epimorphism. Obviously, $`\iota ^{}`$ is a monomorphism. Hence $`\iota ^{}`$ is bijective. By Lemma 9.1, any simple submodule of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is a Verma module. Thus the GK-dimension of $`\stackrel{~}{M}/\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$ is less than the GK-dimension of any simple submodule of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ and so $`F(\stackrel{~}{M}/\stackrel{~}{M}^{},\stackrel{~}{M})=0`$. Consequently, $`\iota `$ is a monomorphism.

It remains to verify the surjectivity of $`\iota `$. Since $`\iota ^{}`$ is bijective, it is enough to check the surjectivity of the composed map $`\iota ^{\prime \prime }:=(\iota ^{})^1\iota :F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})F(\stackrel{~}{M}^{},\stackrel{~}{M}^{})`$. Denote by $`N`$ the cokernel of the map $`\iota ^{\prime \prime }`$. This is a $`𝔤`$-bimodule and its left and right annihilators contain $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }:=\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤)}\stackrel{~}{M}`$. Let $`\chi \mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ be a perfect mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$. Using notation of 8.4.2, one has

$${}_{\chi }{}^{}F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})_\chi \stackrel{}{}F(\stackrel{~}{M}_\chi ,\stackrel{~}{M}_\chi ),_\chi F(\stackrel{~}{M}^{},\stackrel{~}{M}^{})_\chi \stackrel{}{}F(\stackrel{~}{M}_\chi ^{},\stackrel{~}{M}_\chi ^{}).$$

Since $`\chi `$ is a mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$, both $`M:=\stackrel{~}{M}_\chi `$ and $`M^{}:=\stackrel{~}{M}_\chi ^{}`$ are Verma $`𝔤_0`$-modules. For any $`V\mathrm{Irr}_0`$ one has $`\mathrm{Hom}_{𝔤_0}(V,F(M,M))==dimV|_0=\mathrm{Hom}_{𝔤_0}(V,F(M^{},M^{}))`$— see \[J1\], 6.4. Taking into account the injectivity of $`\iota ^{\prime \prime }`$, one concludes that $`\iota ^{\prime \prime }(F(M,M))=F(M^{},M^{})`$ and so $`{}_{\chi }{}^{}N_{\chi }^{}=0`$. Thus $`N=0`$ by 8.4.2. Hence $`\iota ,\iota ^{}`$ are isomorphisms. The lemma is proven. ∎

Using Lemma 9.1 one obtains the

#### 9.2.1.

Corollary.   Let $`\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$ be strongly typical Verma modules and $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$ be a submodule of $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$. Then the $`𝔤`$-bimodules $`F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})`$ and $`F(\stackrel{~}{M}^{},\stackrel{~}{M}^{})`$ are isomorphic.

### 9.3.

Proposition.   If $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is a strongly typical projective (in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$) Verma module then

$$F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})_{\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}}\mathrm{E}(\stackrel{~}{V})^{dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0}.$$

###### Proof.

Step 1. Let us show that for any $`𝔤_0`$-modules $`N_1,N_2`$ the following $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-modules

$$L:=F(\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤N_1,\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤N_2),L^{}:=\mathrm{Coind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤(F(N_1,N_2)\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤_1)$$

are isomorphic.

Indeed, using the Frobenius reciprocity, one obtains

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{Hom}_{𝔤_0}(V,F(\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤N_1,\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤N_2))& \mathrm{Hom}_{𝔤_0}(V,F(N_1,N_2)\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤_1\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤_1)\hfill \\ & \mathrm{Hom}_{𝔤_0}(V,\mathrm{Coind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤(F(N_1,N_2)\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤_1))\hfill \end{array}$$

for any $`V\mathrm{Irr}_0`$. Hence $`LL^{}`$ as $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤_0`$-modules. Note that $`dim\mathrm{Hom}_{𝔤_0}(V,L)<\mathrm{}`$ for all $`V\mathrm{Irr}_0`$.

On the other hand, for any $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$ one has

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},F(\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤N_1,\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤N_2))& \mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤N_1,\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤N_2\stackrel{~}{V}^{})\hfill \\ & \mathrm{Hom}_{𝔤_0}(N_1,\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤N_2\stackrel{~}{V}^{})\mathrm{Hom}_{𝔤_0}(N_1,N_2\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤_1\stackrel{~}{V}^{})\hfill \\ & \mathrm{Hom}_{𝔤_0}(\stackrel{~}{V},F(N_1,N_2)\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤_1)\hfill \\ & \mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\mathrm{Coind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤(F(N_1,N_2)\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤_1)).\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence $`\mathrm{Soc}L\mathrm{Soc}L^{}`$. Since $`L^{}`$ is injective in $`\mathrm{in}`$, it contains a submodule isomorphic to $`L`$. Taking into account the $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤_0`$-isomorphism $`LL^{}`$, one concludes that $`LL^{}`$ as $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-modules.

Step 2. Let $`\chi `$ be a perfect mate of $`\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤)}\stackrel{~}{M}`$. Then $`M:=\stackrel{~}{M}_\chi `$ is a Verma $`𝔤_0`$-module and $`\stackrel{~}{M}=\stackrel{~}{𝒰}M`$ by Corollary 8.3.2. Thus $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is a quotient of $`\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤M`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is projective, it is a direct summand of $`\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤M`$ Then the $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module $`F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})`$ is a direct summand of the $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module $`F(\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤M,\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤M)`$. The last is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{Coind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤(F(M,M)\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤_1)`$ and so is injective in $`\mathrm{in}`$. Hence the $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module $`F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})`$ is injective in $`\mathrm{in}`$.

By Lemma 9.1, $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ contains a simple Verma submodule $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$. Combining Corollary 9.2.1 and 11.1.5 one obtains

$$\mathrm{Soc}F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})\mathrm{Soc}F(\stackrel{~}{M}^{},\stackrel{~}{M}^{})_{\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}}\stackrel{~}{V}^{dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0}.$$

Now the injectivity of $`F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})`$ implies the required assertion. ∎

### 9.4.

Proposition.   If $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ is a strongly typical Verma module then the natural map $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})`$ is surjective.

###### Proof.

Denote by $`N`$ the cokernel of the natural map $`f:\stackrel{~}{𝒰}F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})`$. This is a $`𝔤`$-bimodule and its left and right annihilators contain $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }:=\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤)}\stackrel{~}{M}`$. Let $`\chi \mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ be a perfect mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$. Using notation of 8.4.2 one has $`{}_{\chi }{}^{}F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})_\chi \stackrel{}{}F(\stackrel{~}{M}_\chi ,\stackrel{~}{M}_\chi )`$. Since $`\chi `$ is a mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$, $`M:=\stackrel{~}{M}_\chi `$ is a Verma $`𝔤_0`$-module. As a $`𝔤_0`$-module, $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ has a finite length and so

$$\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})}\stackrel{~}{M}=\chi \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\chi _i^{r_i}$$

where $`\{\chi ,\chi _1,\mathrm{},\chi _k\}=\mathrm{supp}_{𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})}\stackrel{~}{M}`$ and $`r_1,\mathrm{},r_k^+`$. Any element of $`_{i=1}^k\chi _i^{r_i}`$ annihilates $`_{i=1}^k\stackrel{~}{M}_{\chi _i}`$ and acts by scalar on $`\stackrel{~}{M}_\chi `$. Taking into account that the natural map $`𝒰(,)`$ is surjective (see \[J1\], 6.4), one concludes that

$$f(𝒰\underset{𝒾=\mathcal{1}}{\overset{𝓀}{}}\chi _𝒾^{𝓇_𝒾})=_\chi (\stackrel{~}{},\stackrel{~}{})_\chi .$$

and thus $`{}_{\chi }{}^{}N_{\chi }^{}=0`$. By 8.4.2, $`N=0`$ as required. ∎

### 9.5.

Theorem.   For a strongly typical Verma $`𝔤`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$

$$\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{M}=\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤)}\stackrel{~}{M}.$$

###### Proof.

Set $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }:=\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤)}\stackrel{~}{M}`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{\prime \prime }`$ be a projective (in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$) Verma module such that $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }\stackrel{~}{M}^{\prime \prime }=0`$ and let $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$ be a simple submodule of $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{\prime \prime }`$ (by 9.1, $`\stackrel{~}{M}^{}`$ is a Verma module). Combining 9.2.1 and 9.3, one obtains

$$F(\stackrel{~}{M}^{},\stackrel{~}{M}^{})_{\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}}\mathrm{E}(\stackrel{~}{V})^{dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0}.$$

Summarizing 5.1,5.2 and 9.4, one concludes that $`\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{M}^{}=\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ and that the natural map $`f^{}:\stackrel{~}{𝒰}/(\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\stackrel{~}{\chi })F(\stackrel{~}{M}^{},\stackrel{~}{M}^{})`$ is bijective.

Denote by $`f`$ the natural map $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}/(\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\stackrel{~}{\chi })F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})`$ and by $`p`$ the composition map $`f(f^{})^1:F(\stackrel{~}{M}^{},\stackrel{~}{M}^{})F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})`$. Obviously $`p`$ is a $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$-bimodule map. By 9.4, $`p`$ is surjective. Let us show that $`p`$ is bijective.

Let $`\chi `$ be a perfect mate for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$; set $`M:=\stackrel{~}{M}_\chi ,M^{}:=\stackrel{~}{M}_\chi ^{}`$. Using notation of 8.4.2, one has

$${}_{\chi }{}^{}F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})_\chi =F(M,M),_\chi F(\stackrel{~}{M}^{},\stackrel{~}{M}^{})_\chi =F(M^{},M^{})$$

and so $`{}_{\chi }{}^{}F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})_\chi ,_\chi F(\stackrel{~}{M}^{},\stackrel{~}{M}^{})_\chi `$ are isomorphic $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤_0`$-modules. It is easy to see that

$${}_{\chi }{}^{}(\mathrm{Im}p)_{\chi }^{}=p(_\chi F(\stackrel{~}{M}^{},\stackrel{~}{M}^{})_\chi ).$$

Therefore $`p(_\chi F(\stackrel{~}{M}^{},\stackrel{~}{M}^{})_\chi )=_\chi F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})_\chi `$ since $`p`$ is surjective. Taking into account that the multiplicity of each simple $`𝔤_0`$-module $`V`$ in $`F(M,M)`$ is finite, one concludes that the restriction of $`p`$ to $`{}_{\chi }{}^{}F(\stackrel{~}{M}^{},\stackrel{~}{M}^{})_\chi `$ is a monomorphism. Thus $`{}_{\chi }{}^{}(\mathrm{ker}p)_{\chi }^{}=0`$ and $`\mathrm{ker}p=0`$ by 8.4.2. This means that $`p`$ is bijective and so $`f:\stackrel{~}{𝒰}/(\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\stackrel{~}{\chi })F(\stackrel{~}{M},\stackrel{~}{M})`$ is bijective as well. The assertion follows. ∎

### 9.6.

Corollary.   For a strongly typical central character $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒰}/(\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\stackrel{~}{\chi })_{\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}}\mathrm{E}(\stackrel{~}{V})^{dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0}.$$

## 10. Remark about Verma modules.

In this section we study the $`𝔤_0`$-structure of Verma $`𝔤`$-modules.

### 10.1.

Retain notation of Section 8. Take strongly typical $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }\mathrm{Max}𝒵(𝔤)`$ and $`\lambda W(\stackrel{~}{\chi })`$. Recall that as an $`𝔤_0`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ has a finite filtration with the factors $`\{M(\lambda |\gamma |),\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }\}`$. Therefore

(9)
$$\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\stackrel{~}{\chi }𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})=\mathrm{Ann}\stackrel{~}{}(\lambda )𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})=\underset{𝒾}{}\chi _𝒾^{𝓇_𝒾}$$

where the $`\chi _i`$ are the pairwise distinct elements of the multiset $`\{\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})}M(\lambda |\gamma |),\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }\}`$ and the $`r_i`$ are positive integers. Thus for any $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$-module $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$

$$\stackrel{~}{N}=_i\stackrel{~}{N}_{\chi _i},\chi _i^{r_i}\stackrel{~}{N}_{\chi _i}=0.$$

Suppose that $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )=_{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }}M(\lambda \gamma )`$ and so $`𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ acts semisimply on $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$. If, in addition, $`\lambda `$ is strongly typical then (9) implies that $`𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ acts semisimply on any $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_{\stackrel{~}{\chi }}`$-module for $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }=\mathrm{Ann}_{𝒵(𝔤)}\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$.

### 10.2.

Proposition.   For $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ being a simple Verma module the following conditions are equivalent

$$\begin{array}{cc}(i)\hfill & \stackrel{~}{M}=_{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }}M(\lambda |\gamma |)\hfill \\ (ii)\hfill & \gamma ,\gamma ^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(|\gamma ||\gamma ^{}|)\mathrm{\Delta }_0\{0\}(\lambda |\gamma |+\rho _0)W(\lambda |\gamma ^{}|+\rho _0)\hfill \\ (iii)\hfill & M(\lambda |\gamma |)\text{ is simple for any }\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

The implication $`(ii)(i)`$ follows from the fact that any exact sequence $`0M(\mu )NM(\mu )0`$ in $`𝒪`$ splits (see, for instance, 2.5.3).

Let us verify the implication $`(i)(iii)`$. Recall 2.5.6. Since $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ is simple it is isomorphic to $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )^\mathrm{\#}=_{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }}M(\lambda |\gamma |)^\mathrm{\#}`$. The module $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ is $`𝒰(𝔫_\mathcal{0}^{})`$-torsion-free; thus all $`M(\lambda |\gamma |)^\mathrm{\#}`$ are also $`𝒰(𝔫_\mathcal{0}^{})`$-torsion-free. This forces (iii).

The implication $`(iii)(ii)`$ follows from the fact that if $`M(\mu ),M(\mu ^{})`$ are simple Verma $`𝔤_0`$-modules with the same $`𝔤_0`$-central character and $`(\mu \mu ^{})\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ then $`\mu =\mu ^{}`$. This fact can be deduced from \[J2\], A.1.14 and A.1.1 (vii).

Hence the conditions (i),(ii) and (iii) are equivalent provided that $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ is simple. ∎

### 10.3.

Corollary.   If $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ contains a simple typical Verma submodule then the conditions (i) and (ii) are equivalent.

###### Proof.

The implication $`(ii)(i)`$ follows from the same argument as in Proposition 10.2. To verify the implication $`(i)(ii)`$, assume that $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )=M_i`$ is a direct sum of Verma $`𝔤_0`$-modules and that

$$\lambda |\gamma ^{}|+\rho _0=w(\lambda |\gamma ^{\prime \prime }|+\rho _0)$$

for some $`wW`$ and $`\gamma ^{},\gamma ^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ satisfying $`(|\gamma ^{\prime \prime }||\gamma ^{}|)\mathrm{\Delta }_0\{0\}`$. Take $`w^{}W`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{M}(w^{}.\lambda )`$ is a simple submodule of $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$. In the notation of 8.2.2 one has

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill w^{}.\lambda |w_{}^{}\gamma ^{}|+\rho _0& =w^{}(\lambda |\gamma ^{}|+\rho _0)=w^{}w(\lambda |\gamma ^{\prime \prime }|+\rho _0)\hfill \\ & =w^{}w(w^{})^1(w^{}.\lambda |w_{}^{}\gamma ^{\prime \prime }|+\rho _0)\hfill \end{array}$$

by (7). Furthermore $`|w_{}^{}\gamma ^{}||w_{}^{}\gamma ^{\prime \prime }|=w(|\gamma ^{\prime \prime }||\gamma ^{}|)\mathrm{\Delta }_0\{0\}`$. Thus the condition (ii) does not hold for a simple Verma module $`\stackrel{~}{M}(w^{}.\lambda )`$. Therefore $`\stackrel{~}{M}(w^{}.\lambda )`$ has a $`𝔤_0`$-submodule $`N`$ which is isomorphic to a non-splitting extension of $`M(\mu )`$ by $`M(\mu ^{})`$ for some $`\mu ,\mu ^{}\{\lambda |\gamma |:\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }\}`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{M}(w^{}.\lambda )`$ is a submodule of $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$, $`N`$ is a $`𝔤_0`$-submodule of $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$. Since $`N`$ is indecomposable, it is isomorphic to a submodule of a Verma module $`M_i`$. However the Gelfand-Kirillov dimension of any proper quotient of a Verma $`𝔤_0`$-module is strictly less than the Gelfand-Kirillov dimension of $`M(\mu ^{})`$—see \[J1\]. This gives the required contradiction. ∎

Remark.  Recall that a strongly typical Verma module contains a simple strongly typical Verma submodule.

### 10.4.

Denote by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0`$ (resp., $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$) the set of subsets of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^+`$ containing an even (resp., an odd) number of elements. Take an arbitrary $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$ and fix a $`_2`$-grading on a Verma module $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ in such a way that a highest weight vector becomes even. As a $`𝔤_0`$-module, $`\stackrel{~}{M}=\stackrel{~}{M}_0\stackrel{~}{M}_1`$. Let us show that each $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )_j`$ has a finite filtration with factors $`\{M(\lambda \gamma )|\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_j\}`$ ($`j=0,1`$).

Set

$$\begin{array}{c}Q_0(\pi ):=\{_{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }}k_\alpha \alpha |k_\alpha ,_{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_1}k_\alpha \text{ is even}\},\hfill \\ Q_1(\pi ):=\{_{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }}k_\alpha \alpha |k_\alpha ,_{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_1}k_\alpha \text{ is odd}\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that both $`Q_0(\pi ),Q_1(\pi )`$ are $`W`$-stable. We claim that $`Q_0(\pi )Q_1(\pi )=\mathrm{}`$ (for $`𝔤=𝔭𝔰𝔩(n,n)`$ we substitute $`𝔥`$ by $`\widehat{𝔥}`$—see 6.1.4). Indeed, if $`𝔤`$ is of the type I then $`𝔥𝒵(𝔤_\mathcal{0})`$ contains an element $`z`$ such that $`z(\alpha )=1`$ for any $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_1^+`$. Therefore

$$\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }}{}k_\alpha \alpha (z)=\underset{\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_1^+}{}(k_\alpha k_\alpha )$$

and so $`\mu (z)`$ is an even (resp., an odd) integer for $`\mu Q_0(\pi )`$ (resp., $`\mu Q_1(\pi )`$). Let $`𝔤`$ be of the type II. Retain notation of 8.5. One can immediately sees that for $`𝔤F(4)`$ the sum $`_1^n\mu _{\delta _i}`$ is an even (resp., an odd) integer for $`\mu Q_0(\pi )`$ (resp., $`\mu Q_1(\pi )`$). For the remaining case $`𝔤=F(4)`$, $`\mu _{\delta _1}`$ is integer if $`\mu Q_0(\pi )`$ and belongs to the set $`+\frac{1}{2}`$ if $`\mu Q_1(\pi )`$. This implies our claim.

The weights of $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )_0`$ (resp., $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )_1`$) belong to the set $`(\lambda Q_0(\pi ))`$ (resp., $`(\lambda Q_1(\pi ))`$). The weights of $`M(\lambda |\gamma |)`$ belong to $`(\lambda Q_j(\pi ))`$ iff $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_j`$ ($`j=0,1`$). This proves that $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )_j`$ has a finite filtration with the factors $`\{M(\lambda \gamma )|\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }_j\}`$ ($`j=0,1`$).

Using arguments as above, it is easy to show that for $`𝔤`$ of the type II

$$Q_0(\pi )=\mathrm{\Delta }_0$$

and for $`𝔤`$ of the type I

$$Q_0(\pi )\{\mu 𝔥^{}|\mu (z)=0\}=\mathrm{\Delta }_0.$$

This implies that the condition (ii) of Proposition 10.2 is equivalent to the condition

(10)
$$\begin{array}{cccc}\gamma ^{},\gamma ^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Gamma }_j\hfill & (\lambda |\gamma ^{}|+\rho _0)W(\lambda |\gamma ^{\prime \prime }|+\rho _0)\hfill & \hfill & |\gamma ^{}|=|\gamma ^{\prime \prime }|\hfill \end{array}$$

for $`j=0,1`$.

### 10.5.

Remark.  The case $`𝔤=𝔬𝔰𝔭(1,2l)`$ was treated in \[M1\], 3.7 and \[GL2\], 7.2.

## 11. Appendix

This section contains some lemmas used in the main text. We also give an alternative proof of the fact that the $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-rank of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$ is equal to $`dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0`$ for any $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$. This alternative proof does not use Separation Theorem 2.8.1.

### 11.1.

In this subsection we prove some lemmas which were used in the main text.

#### 11.1.1.

Recall that a simple $`𝔤_0`$-module $`V(\lambda )`$ is finite dimensional iff $`\lambda +\rho _0>w(\lambda +\rho _0)`$ for any $`wW,w\mathrm{id}`$. In principle, the similar fact does not hold for simple finite dimensional $`𝔤`$-modules. For instance, there are triangular decompositions such that the corresponding $`\rho `$ is equal to $`0`$ and so $`w.0=0`$ for all $`wW`$ even though $`\stackrel{~}{V}(0)`$ is one-dimensional.

However, if $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ is finite dimensional and strongly typical then $`\lambda >w.\lambda `$ for all $`wW,w\mathrm{id}`$. This can be checked in the following way. Fix a strongly typical weight $`\nu `$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu )`$ is finite dimensional. Write the character formula (1) in the form

(11)
$$D^{}\mathrm{ch}\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu )=\underset{wW}{}\mathrm{sn}(w)e^{w.\nu },\text{ where }D^{}:=(\mathrm{ch}\stackrel{~}{M}(0))^1.$$

Combining the facts that $`\mathrm{Stab}_W(\nu +\rho )`$ is generated by the reflections it contains and that $`\mathrm{ch}\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu )0`$, one obtains $`w.\nu =w^{}.\nu `$ iff $`w=w^{}`$. A strongly typical Verma module $`\stackrel{~}{M}(w.\nu )`$ has a finite filtration with the factors of the form $`\stackrel{~}{V}(w^{}.\nu )`$ where $`w^{}.\nu w.\nu `$. Therefore $`\mathrm{ch}\stackrel{~}{M}(w.\nu )=_w^{}a_{w,w^{}}\mathrm{ch}\stackrel{~}{V}(w^{}.\nu )`$ where $`(a_{w,w^{}})`$ form “an upper triangular matrix” that is $`a_{w,w^{}}=0`$ if $`w^{}.\nu w.\nu `$ and $`a_{w,w}=1`$. Consequently,

$$D^{}\mathrm{ch}\stackrel{~}{V}(w.\nu )=\underset{w^{}}{}b_{w,w^{}}e^{w^{}.\nu }$$

where $`b_{w,w^{}}=0`$ if $`w^{}.\nu w.\nu `$ and $`b_{w,w}=1`$. Comparing the last equality with (11), one obtains $`w^{}.\nu <\nu `$ for all $`w^{}W,w^{}\mathrm{id}`$.

#### 11.1.2.

Lemma.   Assume that $`N_1,N_2`$ are finite dimensional $`𝔥`$-diagonalizable $`𝔤`$-modules and all simple subquotients of $`N_1N_2`$ are typical. Then $`N_1N_2`$ is a completely reducible module.

###### Proof.

Since central characters separate non-isomorphic typical finite dimensional modules, it is enough to show that $`N_1N_2`$ does not contain non-trivial extensions $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ for any typical finite dimensional module $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$. Let $`N`$ be such an extension. Then the highest weight subspace of $`N`$ is two dimensional and admits a basis $`\{v_1,v_2\}`$ such that $`v_1`$ is primitive and $`v_1\stackrel{~}{𝒰}v_2`$. Then $`v_1𝒰(𝔥)v_2`$ and so the action of $`𝔥`$ on $`N`$ is not semisimple. Hence $`N_1N_2`$ does not contain submodule isomorphic to $`N`$. The assertion follows. ∎

#### 11.1.3.

Lemma.   For any simple finite dimensional module $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ and any $`\mu 𝔥^{}`$, the set of $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ is finite dimensional and

$$dim\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\mathrm{Hom}(\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda \mu ),\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda ))=dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_\mu $$

is Zariski dense in $`𝔥^{}`$.

###### Proof.

Fix a simple finite dimensional module $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$. Let $`R`$ be the subset of $`𝔥^{}`$ consisting of the weights $`\lambda `$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ is a typical finite dimensional module and the tensor product $`\stackrel{~}{V}^{}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ is the direct sum of typical simple modules. Let us show that $`R`$ is Zariski dense in $`𝔥^{}`$.

Indeed, take a finite dimensional $`𝔤_0`$-module $`V(\lambda )`$. The induced module $`\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤V(\lambda )`$ has a simple submodule $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda ^{})`$ which is finite dimensional. The $`𝔤_0`$-module $`V(\lambda ^{})`$ is a $`𝔤_0`$-submodule of $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda ^{})`$ and so is a $`𝔤_0`$-submodule of $`\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤V(\lambda )`$. As a $`𝔤_0`$-module $`\mathrm{Ind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤V(\lambda )V(\lambda )\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤_1`$. For finite dimensional $`𝔤_0`$-modules $`L,V(\mu )`$, the inequality $`\mathrm{Hom}_{𝔤_0}(V(\nu ),V(\mu )L)0`$ implies $`(\nu \mu )\mathrm{\Omega }(L)`$. Therefore $`(\lambda \lambda ^{})\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤_1)`$. Thus for any $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$ such that $`V(\lambda )`$ is simple, there exists $`\lambda ^{}\lambda +\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤_1)`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda ^{})`$ is simple. Taking into account that the set of $`\lambda `$’s such that $`dimV(\lambda )<\mathrm{}`$ is Zariski dense in $`𝔥^{}`$, one concludes that the set of $`\lambda `$’s such that $`dim\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )<\mathrm{}`$ is also Zariski dense in $`𝔥^{}`$.

The condition on weight to be atypical is polynomial (see 2.5.2) and so the set of $`\lambda `$’s such that $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ is typical finite dimensional is also Zariski dense. A module $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ is a submodule of $`\mathrm{Coind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤V(\lambda )`$ and so $`\stackrel{~}{V}^{}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ is a submodule of $`\stackrel{~}{V}^{}\mathrm{Coind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤V(\lambda )`$. Again $`\mathrm{Hom}_{𝔤_0}(V(\nu ),\stackrel{~}{V}^{}\mathrm{Coind}_{𝔤_0}^𝔤V(\lambda ))0`$ implies $`(\nu \lambda )\mathrm{\Omega }(\stackrel{~}{V}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤_1)`$. Therefore if $`\stackrel{~}{V}^{}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ has a subquotient isomorphic to $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu )`$, then $`(\nu \lambda )\mathrm{\Omega }(\stackrel{~}{V}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤_1)`$. Using Lemma 11.1.2 and the fact that the set $`\mathrm{\Omega }(\stackrel{~}{V}^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤_1)`$ is finite, we conclude that $`R`$ is Zariski dense in $`𝔥^{}`$.

Frobenius reciprocity gives

$$\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\mathrm{Hom}(\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda \mu ),\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )))\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda \mu ),\stackrel{~}{V}^{}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )).$$

Take $`\lambda R`$ and denote by $`m_\nu `$ the multiplicity of $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu )`$ in the completely reducible module $`\stackrel{~}{V}^{}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$. The character formula (1) gives

$$D\mathrm{ch}(\stackrel{~}{V}^{}\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda ))=\underset{wW}{}\mathrm{sn}(w)e^{w.\lambda }\mathrm{ch}\stackrel{~}{V}^{}=\underset{\nu }{}m_\nu \underset{wW}{}\mathrm{sn}(w)e^{w.\nu }.$$

For typical finite dimensional modules $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ),\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ^{})`$ the equality $`w.\nu =w^{}.\nu ^{}`$ implies $`\nu =\nu ^{}`$ and $`w=w^{}`$ (see 11.1.1). Therefore $`dim\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda \mu ),\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{V}^{})=m_{\lambda \mu }`$ is equal to the coefficient of the term $`e^{\lambda \mu }`$ in the expression $`_{wW}\mathrm{sn}(w)e^{w.\lambda }\mathrm{ch}\stackrel{~}{V}^{}`$. For “sufficiently large” $`\lambda R`$ this coefficient is equal to $`dim\stackrel{~}{V}^{}|_\mu `$. More precisely, take $`\lambda R,w\mathrm{id}`$ and $`\alpha \pi _0`$ such that $`s_\alpha w<w`$. Then $`w^1\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}`$ and so $`(w(\lambda +\rho ),\alpha )=(\lambda +\rho ,w^1\alpha )<0`$ by 11.1.1. Then

$$(\lambda \mu w.\lambda ,\alpha )=(\lambda +\rho \mu ,\alpha )(w(\lambda +\rho ),\alpha )>(\lambda +\rho \mu ,\alpha ).$$

As a consequence, for any $`\lambda `$ belonging to the set

$$R_1:=\{\lambda R|(\lambda ,\alpha )>(\xi +\mu \rho ,\alpha )\xi \mathrm{\Omega }(\stackrel{~}{V}^{}),\alpha \pi _0\}$$

the inclusion $`(\lambda \mu )(w.\lambda +\mathrm{\Omega }(\stackrel{~}{V}^{}))`$ implies $`w=\mathrm{id}`$. Hence $`m_{\lambda \mu }=dim\stackrel{~}{V}^{}|_\mu =dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_\mu `$ for any $`\lambda R_1`$.

For any $`\lambda R`$ and $`\alpha \pi _0`$, the value $`(\lambda ,\alpha )`$ belongs to $`^+`$, since $`𝔤_0`$-module $`V(\lambda )`$ is finite dimensional. Thus $`R_1`$ is obtained from $`R`$ by removing the points lying at finitely many hyperplanes. Taking into account that $`R`$ is Zariski dense in $`𝔥^{}`$, one concludes that $`R_1`$ is also Zariski dense. This completes the proof. ∎

Remark.  In Proposition 11.3.1 we prove a stronger assertion for the particular case $`\mu =0`$.

#### 11.1.4.

Lemma.   For all $`\lambda ,\nu 𝔥^{}`$ and all simple finite dimensional $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ one has

$$dim\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\mathrm{Hom}(\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda \mu ),\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )^\mathrm{\#}))=dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_\mu $$

###### Proof.

Frobenius reciprocity gives

$$\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\mathrm{Hom}(\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda \mu ),\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )^\mathrm{\#}))\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda \mu ),\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )^\mathrm{\#}\stackrel{~}{V}^{}).$$

Using notation of 2.5.1 one has

(12)
$$\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda \mu ),\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )^\mathrm{\#}\stackrel{~}{V}^{})\mathrm{Hom}_𝔟(_{\lambda \mu },\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )^\mathrm{\#}\stackrel{~}{V}^{}).$$

All Verma modules are isomorphic as $`𝔫^{}`$-modules. Therefore their duals are isomorphic as $`𝔫^+`$-modules. Furthermore for any $`\lambda ^{}𝔥^{}`$ the $`𝔟`$-modules $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )^\mathrm{\#}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ^{})^\mathrm{\#}_{\lambda \lambda ^{}}`$ are isomorphic. Taking into account (12), one concludes that

$$k:=dim\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\mathrm{Hom}(\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda \mu ),\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )^\mathrm{\#}))$$

does not depend on $`\lambda `$ (for fixed $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ and $`\mu `$).

Recall that $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda \mu )`$ is a quotient of $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda \mu )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ is a submodule of $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )^\mathrm{\#}`$. Consequently $`kdim\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda \mu ),\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{V}^{})`$ for all $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$. Using Lemma 11.1.3, one obtains $`kdim\stackrel{~}{V}|_\mu `$.

To verify that $`kdim\stackrel{~}{V}|_\mu `$ fix $`\lambda `$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )^\mathrm{\#}`$ is simple. Denote by $`m_1`$ (resp., $`m_2`$) a highest weight vector of $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda \mu )`$ (resp., $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )^\mathrm{\#}`$). Consider a map

$$\begin{array}{c}\iota :\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\mathrm{Hom}(\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda \mu ),\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )^\mathrm{\#}))\stackrel{~}{V}^{}|_\mu \text{ s.t}\hfill \\ \iota (\psi )(v)m_2=\psi (v)(m_1)v\stackrel{~}{V}|_\mu ,\psi \mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\mathrm{Hom}(\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda \mu ),\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )^\mathrm{\#}))\hfill \end{array}$$

Let us show that $`\iota `$ is a monomorphism. Take a non-zero element $`\psi \mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\mathrm{Hom}(\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda \mu ),\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )^\mathrm{\#}))`$. The vector space $`\psi (\stackrel{~}{V})(\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda \mu ))`$ is a non-zero $`𝔤`$-submodule of a simple module $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )^\mathrm{\#}`$; thus it coincides with $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )^\mathrm{\#}`$. One has

$$\psi (\stackrel{~}{V})(M_1)=\psi (\stackrel{~}{V})(𝒰(𝔫^{})𝓂_\mathcal{1})=𝒰(𝔫^{})\psi (\stackrel{~}{𝒱})(𝓂_\mathcal{1})$$

since $`\psi (\stackrel{~}{V})`$ is $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-stable. Therefore $`\psi (\stackrel{~}{V})(m_1)`$ contains the highest weight vector $`m_2`$ that is $`\psi (v)(m_1)=m_2`$ for a certain $`v\stackrel{~}{V}`$. Obviously one can choose $`v`$ be a weight vector; then $`v\stackrel{~}{V}|_\mu `$ and $`\iota (\psi )(v)=1`$. Hence $`\iota `$ is a monomorphism and so $`kdim\stackrel{~}{V}^{}|_\mu =dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_\mu `$ as required. ∎

#### 11.1.5.

Remark.  If $`\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda )`$ is simple, the above lemma gives

$$dim\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\mathrm{Hom}(\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ),\stackrel{~}{M}(\lambda ))=dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0$$

for any simple finite dimensional $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$.

#### 11.1.6.

Lemma.   Let $`A`$ be a polynomial algebra and $`W`$ be a finite group acting on $`A`$. Assume that $`p,p^{}A`$ are such that $`p^{}/p`$ is $`W`$-invariant and let $`q`$ be a maximal $`W`$-invariant divisor of $`p^{|W|}`$. Then there exist $`q^{}A^W`$ such that $`p^{}/p=q^{}/q`$.

###### Proof.

Any non-zero polynomial has a unique factorization into irreducible ones. Let $`a/b`$ be a reduced form of the fraction $`p^{}/p`$. For any $`sW`$ one has $`s(a)/s(b)=a/b`$ and so $`b/s(b)`$ is a scalar. Since $`W`$ is finite, $`1=(b/s(b))^{|W|}=b^{|W|}/s(b^{|W|})`$. Hence $`b^{|W|}A^W`$. Since $`p`$ is divisible by $`b`$, $`p^{|W|}`$ is divisible by $`b^{|W|}`$. Therefore $`q`$ is divisible by $`b^{|W|}`$. Then there exist $`q^{}A`$ such that $`q^{}/q=a/b=p^{}/p`$. The $`W`$-invariance of both $`q`$ and $`p^{}/p`$ implies the $`W`$-invariance of $`q^{}`$. ∎

### 11.2.

In this subsection we present alternative proofs of Corollary 4.5.2 and Theorem 4.7.4.

Another proof of Corollary 4.5.2.

#### 11.2.1.

Fix a subset $`Y`$ of $`\mathrm{Irr}`$ and set $`X:=\{\nu 𝔥^{}|\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu )Y\}`$. For each $`\nu X`$ choose a $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-basic system $`\theta _1^\nu ,\mathrm{},\theta _{s(\nu )}^\nu `$ of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ),\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$. Let $`z_\nu 𝒵(𝔤)`$ be such an element that $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ),\stackrel{~}{𝒰}[z_\nu ^1])`$ is a free $`𝒵(𝔤)[z_\nu ^1]`$-module generated by $`\theta _1^\nu ,\mathrm{},\theta _{s(\nu )}^\nu `$ (such an element exists by Proposition 4.4.3). Let $`S𝒵(𝔤)\{0\}`$ be a multiplicative closed set containing $`\{T^2;z_\nu ,\nu X\}`$. Denote by $`A`$ the localization of $`𝒵(𝔤)`$ on $`S`$ and by $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_A`$ the localization of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ on $`S`$. Both actions $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$ and $`\mathrm{ad}^{}𝔤`$ can be canonically extended to $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_A`$. Note that as $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module (resp., $`\mathrm{ad}^{}𝔤`$-module) $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_A`$ belongs to $`\mathrm{in}`$. For any $`\nu X`$ the localized algebra $`𝒵(𝔤)[z_\nu ^1]`$ is a subalgebra of $`A`$ and so $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ),\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_A)`$ is a free $`A`$-module generated by $`\theta _1^\nu ,\mathrm{},\theta _{s(\nu )}^\nu `$. Clearly $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_A`$ inherits the structure of a superalgebra and its centre is equal to $`A`$. Now we are ready to formulate the

#### 11.2.2.

Lemma.   There exist $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-submodules $`H,N`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_A`$ such that

$$\begin{array}{cc}(i)\hfill & \text{ the multiplication map induces a monomorphism }HA\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_A,\hfill \\ (ii)\hfill & \stackrel{~}{𝒰}_A=HAN,\hfill \\ (iii)\hfill & H_{\nu X}\mathrm{E}(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu )^{s_\nu }),\hfill \\ (iv)\hfill & \mathrm{Soc}H=_{\nu X}_{i=1}^{s(\nu )}\theta _i^\nu (\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu )),\hfill \\ (v)\hfill & \mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ),N)=0\nu X.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

Since $`\theta _1^\nu ,\mathrm{},\theta _{s(\nu )}^\nu `$ is a $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-basic system of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ),\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$, the sum

$$L:=\underset{\nu X}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{s(\nu )}{}}\theta _i^\nu (\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ))$$

is direct. By 3.3.2, the $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module $`T\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ is injective. Since $`T^2𝒵(𝔤)`$, the $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-module $`T^1\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ is an injective submodule of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_A`$. Therefore $`T^1\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ contains an injective envelope $`H`$ of $`L`$ and $`H_{\nu X}\mathrm{E}(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu )^{s_\nu })`$. The multiplication map induces a $`𝔤`$-homomorphism $`\varphi :HA\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_A`$.

Recall that $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ),\stackrel{~}{𝒰}[z_\nu ^1])`$ is a free $`𝒵(𝔤)[z_\nu ^1]`$-module generated by $`\theta _1^\nu ,\mathrm{},\theta _{s(\nu )}^\nu `$ for any $`\nu X`$. Therefore the module $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ),\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_A)`$ is a free $`A`$-module generated by $`\theta _1^\nu ,\mathrm{},\theta _{s(\nu )}^\nu `$. This means that for any $`\nu X`$ the restriction of $`\varphi `$ on $`_{i=1}^{s(\nu )}\theta _i^\nu (\stackrel{~}{V})A`$ is a monomorphism and its image coincides with the isotypical component of $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu )`$ in the socle of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_A`$. Then the restriction of $`\varphi `$ on $`LA`$ is a monomorphism and $`\mathrm{Soc}\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_A=\varphi (LA)N^{}`$ where $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ),N^{})=0`$ for any $`\nu X`$. Recall that $`\mathrm{Soc}H=L`$ and so $`\mathrm{Soc}(HA)=LA`$. Therefore $`\varphi `$ is a monomorphism by 3.1.2. From 3.2.3, it follows that $`HA`$ is an injective module in $`\mathrm{in}`$. Therefore $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_A`$ contains a submodule $`N`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_A=HAN`$. Then $`\mathrm{Soc}\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_A=HA\mathrm{Soc}N`$ and thus $`\mathrm{Soc}NN^{}`$. This completes the proof. ∎

### 11.3.

In this subsection we prove that the $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-rank of the module $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$ is equal to $`dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0`$ for any $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$. Recall that, by Remark 4.4.5, in order to prove this assertion it is suffices to find $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$ such that the image of $`\mathrm{Soc}\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ in $`\mathrm{End}_{}(\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda ))`$ contains an $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-submodule $`L\stackrel{~}{V}^{dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0}`$.

To find this element $`\lambda `$, we use Density Theorem stating the surjectivity of the natural map $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\mathrm{End}(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ for any $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$. As it is shown in Lemma 11.1.3, for any $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$ there exists $`\lambda `$ such that $`\mathrm{End}_{}(\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda ))`$ contains a submodule $`\stackrel{~}{V}^{dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0}`$. This would imply the assertion when $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}=\mathrm{Soc}\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ that is for completely reducible Lie superalgebras (however for these algebras the assertion immediately follows from Separation theorems). The general case requires a certain extra work: one should choose $`\lambda `$ in such a way that any copy of $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ inside the socle of $`\mathrm{End}_{}(\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda ))`$ lies in the image of $`\mathrm{Soc}\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$. This can be done with the help of Proposition 11.3.1.

#### 11.3.1.

Proposition.   For any $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$ the set of $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$ such that $`dim\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )<\mathrm{}`$ and there exists a monomorphism

$$\mathrm{E}(\stackrel{~}{V})^{dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0}\mathrm{End}_{}(\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )).$$

is a Zariski dense subset of $`𝔥^{}`$.

###### Proof.

Fix $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$. For any $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$ denote by $`f_\lambda `$ the natural homomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\mathrm{End}_{}(\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda ))`$ and by $`C_{\stackrel{~}{V}}(\lambda )`$ the isotypical component of $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ in the socle of $`\mathrm{End}_{}(\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda ))`$.

Let $`X`$ be the set of $`\nu 𝔥^{}`$ such that $`dim\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu )\mathrm{Irr}`$ and $`\mathrm{E}(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ))`$ has a subquotient isomorphic to $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$. We claim that $`X`$ is finite. Indeed, $`\mathrm{E}(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ))`$ is a submodule of $`\mathrm{Coind}V(\nu )`$. As $`𝔤_0`$-module, $`\mathrm{Coind}V(\nu )V(\nu )\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤_1`$ and so the weight of any $`𝔤_0`$-primitive weight vector of $`\mathrm{Coind}V(\nu )`$ belongs to the set $`\nu +\mathrm{\Omega }(\mathrm{\Lambda }𝔤_1)`$. Thus the highest weight of $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ belongs to this set for any $`\nu X`$. Therefore $`X`$ is finite.

Retain notation of 4.2. For each $`\nu X`$ choose a $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-basic system $`\theta _1^\nu ,\mathrm{},\theta _{s(\nu )}^\nu `$ of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$. The collection $`\mathrm{\Psi }\theta _1^\nu ,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Psi }\theta _{s(\nu )}^\nu `$ is a $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-basic system of $`(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ and so it is also a $`𝒮(𝔥)`$-basic system of $`(\stackrel{~}{V})𝒮(𝔥)`$ (see Lemma 4.4.2). Denote $`p^\nu `$ a minor of this $`𝒮(𝔥)`$-basic system. Recall that $`X`$ is finite and take $`z𝒵(𝔤)`$ such that $`𝒫(𝓏)=𝓉^\mathcal{2}_{\nu 𝒳}_{𝓌𝒲}𝓌.𝓅^\nu `$. By Proposition 4.4.3, for any $`\nu X`$ the localized module $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ),\stackrel{~}{𝒰})[z^1]`$ is freely generated over $`𝒵(𝔤)[z^1]`$ by $`\{\theta _1^\nu ,\mathrm{},\theta _{s(\nu )}^\nu \}`$. Therefore one can apply Lemma 11.2.2 to the set $`X`$ and the algebra $`A:=𝒵(𝔤)[z^1]`$. This gives $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_A=(HA)N`$ where $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ),N)=0`$ for any $`\nu X`$. Thus $`\mathrm{Soc}N=_{iI}\stackrel{~}{V}(\mu _i)`$ where $`\mu _iX`$ for each $`iI`$. By 3.2.2, $`N`$ is isomorphic to a submodule of $`\mathrm{E}(\mathrm{Soc}N)_{iI}\mathrm{E}(\stackrel{~}{V}(\mu _i))`$. Each module $`\mathrm{E}(\stackrel{~}{V}(\mu _i))`$ does not have a subquotient isomorphic to $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ because $`\mu _iX`$. Therefore $`N`$ also does not have a subquotient isomorphic to $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$.

From Lemma 11.1.3 it follows that the set

$$R:=\{\lambda 𝔥^{}|dim\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )<\mathrm{},C_{\stackrel{~}{V}}(\lambda )=\stackrel{~}{V}^{\stackrel{~}{V}|_0},𝒫(𝓏)(\lambda )\mathcal{0}\}$$

is Zariski dense in $`𝔥^{}`$. Let us show that for any $`\lambda R`$ there exists an injective map required in the proposition.

Take $`\lambda R`$. The module $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ is finite dimensional and, by Density Theorem, the map $`f_\lambda `$ is surjective. Since $`z`$ acts on $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ by a non-zero scalar, one can extend $`f_\lambda `$ to the epimorphism $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}_A\mathrm{End}_{}(\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda ))`$. Taking into account that $`N`$ has no subquotient isomorphic to $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$, one concludes that $`C_{\stackrel{~}{V}}(\lambda )f_\lambda (HA)=f_\lambda (H)`$.

Let us show that the restriction of $`f_\lambda `$ to $`H`$ is a monomorphism. By 3.1.2, it is enough to verify that the restriction of $`f_\lambda `$ to

$$\mathrm{Soc}H=\underset{\nu X}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{s(\nu )}{}}\theta _i^\nu (\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ))$$

is a monomorphism. Since $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu )`$ are pairwise non-isomorphic for different $`\nu `$, it suffices to check that the restriction of $`f_\lambda `$ to $`_{i=1}^{s(\nu )}\theta _i^\nu (\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ))`$ is a monomorphism for each $`\nu X`$. This follows from Corollary 4.1.2. Indeed, fix $`\nu X`$. Recall that $`p_\nu `$ is a non-zero $`s(\nu )\times s(\nu )`$-minor of the matrix $`\left(𝒫(\theta _𝒿(𝓋_𝒾))\right)_{𝒾=\mathcal{1},𝓇}^{𝒿=\mathcal{1},𝓈(\nu )}`$ where $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_r`$ is basis of $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu )|_0`$. Since $`𝒫(𝓏)(\lambda )\mathcal{0}`$ one has $`p^\nu (\lambda )0`$ and so, by Corollary 4.1.2, the restriction of $`f_\lambda `$ on $`_{i=1}^{s(\nu )}\theta _i^\nu (\stackrel{~}{V}(\nu ))`$ is a monomorphism.

Combining the facts that $`H`$ is injective and that $`C_{\stackrel{~}{V}}(\lambda )f_\lambda (H)H`$, one completes the proof. ∎

#### 11.3.2.

Corollary.   For any simple finite dimensional module $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ the $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-rank of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$ is equal to $`dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0`$.

###### Proof.

Set $`r:=dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0`$. By Proposition 11.3.1 one can choose $`\lambda 𝔥^{}`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )`$ is finite dimensional and there exists a monomorphism

$$\varphi :L:=\mathrm{E}(\stackrel{~}{V})^r\mathrm{End}_{}(\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda )).$$

By Density Theorem the natural map $`f_\lambda :\stackrel{~}{𝒰}\mathrm{End}_{}(\stackrel{~}{V}(\lambda ))`$ is surjective. Since $`L`$ is projective in $`\mathrm{in}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ contains a submodule $`L^{}`$ such that the restriction of $`f_\lambda `$ to $`L^{}`$ provides an isomorphism $`L^{}\stackrel{}{}L`$. In the light of Remark 4.4.5, a basis $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _r`$ of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},L)`$ is a $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-basic system of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$. ∎

Another proof of Theorem 4.7.4

#### 11.3.3.

Theorem.   An $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-submodule $`L`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ is a generic harmonic space iff

$$\begin{array}{cc}(a)\hfill & L_{\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}}\mathrm{E}(\stackrel{~}{V})^{dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0}\hfill \\ \text{and}\hfill & \text{one of the following conditions holds}\hfill \\ (b)\hfill & \stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V};L)0\hfill \\ (c)\hfill & \text{ the multiplication map provides an embedding }L𝒵(𝔤)\stackrel{~}{𝒰}.\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

Applying Lemma 11.2.2 for $`Y:=\mathrm{Irr}`$ and $`S:=(𝒵(𝔤)\{0\})`$, we conclude the existence of a generic harmonic space satisfying the condition (a).

Let us show that all generic harmonic spaces are pairwise isomorphic as $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-modules. Indeed, let $`L`$ and $`L^{}`$ be generic harmonic spaces. Since $`\stackrel{~}{𝒰}`$ is countably dimensional, one can choose the corresponding sets $`S,S^{}𝒵(𝔤)\{0\}`$ having countable number of elements. Take a maximal ideal $`m`$ of $`𝒵(𝔤)`$ such that $`m(SS^{})=\mathrm{}`$. Then as $`\mathrm{ad}𝔤`$-modules $`L\stackrel{~}{𝒰}/(m\stackrel{~}{𝒰})L^{}`$. Hence all generic harmonic spaces satisfy the condition (a).

Let $`L`$ be a generic harmonic space. Then the condition (c) obviously holds. Moreover, for any $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$ a basis $`\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _r`$ of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},L)`$ is a $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-basic system of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$. Therefore $`det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V};L)0`$ and so (b) holds as well.

Fix $`L`$ satisfying (a) and (b). For $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$ denote by $`q(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ a maximal $`W.`$-invariant divisor of $`\left(det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V};L)\right)^{|W|}`$. Take $`S𝒵(𝔤)`$ such that $`𝒫(𝒮)`$ consists of the elements $`t^2q(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$. It is easy to deduce from Proposition 4.4.3 that the multiplication map provides an isomorphism $`\mathrm{Soc}L𝒵(𝔤)[S^1]\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{Soc}(\stackrel{~}{𝒰}[S^1])`$. Since $`L`$ is injective, $`L𝒵(𝔤)[S^1]`$ is also injective and so $`L𝒵(𝔤)[S^1]\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{~}{𝒰}[S^1]`$. Hence $`L`$ is a generic harmonic space.

Finally, fix $`L`$ satisfying (a) and (c). For any $`\stackrel{~}{V}\mathrm{Irr}`$ a basis of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},L)`$ contains $`dim\stackrel{~}{V}|_0`$ elements due to the condition (a) and these elements $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-linearly independent due to condition (c). Hence these elements form a $`𝒵(𝔤)`$-basic system of $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝔤(\stackrel{~}{V},\stackrel{~}{𝒰})`$ that is $`det𝒥(\stackrel{~}{V};L)0`$. Thus $`L`$ fulfills the condition (b) as well. This completes the proof. ∎