Ideals in Enveloping Algebras of Loop Algebras

Our proof is inductive: on the ith step we prove that for every unital commutative ring A and every nonzero f\in A[z_1, \ldots, z_i], there exist a nonzero coefficient c of f and n\ge0 such that c\FPol_n(z_1, \ldots, z_n)\in I_f. The base case i=0 (that is, f\in A) is trivial. We also provide a separate argument for the case i=1. The general argument works only from step 2 onward.

Case i=1. In this case f\in A[z_1]. Write f=f_0 + f_1 z_1 + \dots + f_d z_1^d with f_j\in A and f_d \neq 0, so d = \deg f. We claim that f_d \FPol_{d+1}(z_1, \dots, z_{d+1}) \in I_f. To see this, let

Since f(z_1), \dots, f(z_{d+1}) \in I_f, expanding the determinant in the first expression for F along the bottom row we see that F \in I_f. On the other hand, the determinants in the sum expansion of F on the right hand side of (?) vanish for j = 0, \dots, d-1, and so

This finishes the case i=1.

Now we give the induction step. Let i\ge1 and let f\in A[z_1,\ldots, z_{i+1}] with f\ne0.

Since

we can apply the induction hypothesis with base ring A[z_1]. Let \Sg'_\infty := \Stab_{\Sg_\infty}(z_1) \leq \Sg_\infty and let I'_f = \sum_{\sigma \in \Sg'_\infty} \mathcal A \sigma(f). By induction, there is c \in A[z_1] \setminus \{0\} and n \geq 0 so that

Further, c is a coefficient of f when we think of f as a polynomial in the variables z_2, \dots, z_{i+1} with coefficients in A[z_1]. Note that I'_f \subseteq I_f and that the A-coefficients of c are a subset of the A-coefficients of f, up to sign.

Now, C \in A[z_1, \dots, z_{n+1}] \cong A[z_2, \dots, z_{n+1}][z_1]. We apply the i=1 case, with coefficient ring A[z_2, \dots, z_{n+1}]. There are thus m \geq 0 and a nonzero coefficient c' of C so that c' \FPol_m(z_1, z_{n+2}, \dots, z_{n+m}) \in I_f. Here c' is an A[z_2, \dots, z_{n+1}]-coefficient of C = c \FPol_n(z_2, \dots, z_{n+1}), so c' = c'' \FPol_n(z_2, \dots, z_{n+1}), where c'' is an A-coefficient of c \in A[z_1], and thus, up to sign, an A-coefficient of f.

From the definition (?) of the determinants \FPol_k and the fact that

we see that c'' \FPol_{n+m}(z_1, \dots, z_{n+m}) \in I_f.

This follows from the facts that the intersection of the maximal ideals of {\Bbbk}[t_1^{\pm 1}, \dots, t_n^{\pm 1}] is trivial, and that 0 is the only element of \Ua(\mathfrak g) which annihilates all representations of \mathfrak g.

Let {\rm U} = \Ua(\mathfrak g), with augmentation ideal {\rm U}_+, and let R = \im \Phi_1 \subseteq {\rm U}[t,t^{-1}]. Let {\rm U}_+[t,t^{-1}] denote the ideal of {\rm U}(\mathfrak g)\otimes {\Bbbk}[t,t^{-1}] generated by {\rm U}_+. Since \mathfrak g[t, t^{-1}] \subseteq R it is not hard to see that R= {\Bbbk} \oplus {\rm U}_+ [t, t^{-1}].

Let Z = Z({\rm U}) be the centre of {\rm U} and let \ell be the rank of \mathfrak g: that is, \ell is the dimension of a Cartan subalgebra of \mathfrak g. Then (see for example [Dix, Theorem 7.3.8(ii)]) there are algebraically independent \Omega_1, \dots, \Omega_\ell, which we can choose to lie in {\rm U}_+, so that Z = {\Bbbk}[\Omega_1, \dots, \Omega_\ell]. Since the \Omega_i lie in {\rm U}_+, note that Z_+:= {\rm U}_+\cap Z is the ideal of Z generated by \Omega_1, \dots, \Omega_{\ell} and is contained in R. Furthermore,

Let K = Z_+ {\rm U}[t, t^{-1}], and let J = \Phi_1^{-1}(K).

(1), (2). Let n \geq 1. We have \Phi_1(J^n) = K^n = (Z_+)^n{\rm U}[t, t^{-1}]. For m \geq 0, let

so K^n = \bigcup K(n, m). We can write

Since the \Omega_j t^i are (central) in R, thus K(n,m) is an ideal of R. Further, since t \not\in R, no \Omega_k^n t^{m+1} is in K(n,m). In more detail, \Ua is free over Z by Kostant’s theorem [Dix, Theorem 8.2.4], and in particular Z is a Z-summand of \Ua. If \Omega_k^n t^{m+1} \in K(n,m), projecting this to Z by taking the \mathfrak g-trivial component of (?), we find

This is clearly false.

Thus \{K(n,m) \}_m is an infinite strictly ascending chain of ideals whose union is K^n, showing that K^n is not finitely generated as a two-sided ideal of R. Thus J^n is not finitely generated either. It follows by standard associated graded arguments that \gr (J^n) is not finitely generated as a Poisson ideal of \Sa(\Lg).

We next prove (4) for n=1. Without loss of generality, we may let \Omega := \Omega_1 be the (unique) quadratic Casimir element of {\rm U}: that is, if \{ g^1, \dots, g^d\} is a basis of \mathfrak g, with dual basis \{ g_1, \dots, g_d\} (with respect to the Killing form) then

Let \omega = \gr \Omega \in \Sa^2(\mathfrak g). The formula for \omega is the same as (?), but notice that \Omega \in {\rm U} and so g^i , g_i may not commute in the formula for \Omega.

Now, \Phi_1 respects canonical filtrations: that is, \Phi_1(\Ua_{\leq i}(\Lg)) \subseteq {\rm U}_{\leq i}[t,t^{-1}] for all i and so \Phi_1 induces a graded Poisson homomorphism \underline{\Phi}: \Sa(\Lg) \to \Sa(\mathfrak g)[t, t^{-1}], where \underline{\Phi}(g s^i) = g t^i for all g \in \mathfrak g. (Here the grading on \Sa(\mathfrak g)[t, t^{-1}] is by giving elements of \mathfrak g degree 1 and giving t degree 0.) The kernel of \underline{\Phi} is \gr(\ker \Phi_1) and so is contained in the Poisson ideal \gr J of \Sa(\Lg).

Since the elements \Omega t^i are in R, we have \omega t^i \in \underline{\Phi}((\gr J)_2) for all i \in \mathbb{Z}. These elements are Poisson central and linearly independent, so the \mathfrak g-trivial component of \underline{\Phi}((\gr J)_2), considered as a representation of \Lg under the adjoint action, is an infinite direct sum of one-dimensional representations. As a result, \underline{\Phi}((\gr J)_2) is not finitely generated.

Now let n \geq 2 and consider ((\gr J)^n)_{2n}. It is easy to see that \underline{\Phi}(((\gr J)^n)_{2n}) \supseteq \bigoplus_{i \in \mathbb{Z}} {\Bbbk} \omega^n t^i, which again is not finitely generated. Thus ((\gr J)^n)_{2n} is not finitely generated either.

Finally, for (3), if (\gr J)^n were a finitely generated Poisson ideal, its lowest-degree piece ((\gr J)^n)_{2n} would be a finitely generated subrepresentation of \Sa^{2n}(\Lg), contradicting (4).

In either case J is preserved by the adjoint action of H, and so the same is true for J \cap \Sa(E).

If J \vartriangleleft \Ua(\Lg) then by Theorem 2.1(1) the natural map \Sa(E) \to \Ua(\Lg)/J is not injective and so J \cap \Sa(E)\neq (0). The proof if J is a Poisson ideal of \Sa(\Lg) is the same, using Theorem 2.1(2).

Both parts come from the observation that

Thus V (respectively, W) is an H-submodule if and only if \Theta^{e^k}_\star(V) (respectively, \Theta^{e^k}_{\Sg ; \star}(W)) is closed under multiplication by all z_1^j + \cdots + z_k^j. But the power sums \{z_1^j + \cdots + z_k^j \mid j \in \mathbb{Z}\} generate the ring \mathcal Z_k^{\Sg_k} of invariant Laurent polynomials.

(1) Let K = \sum_{\sigma \in \Sg}\sigma(J), which is an \Sg-invariant ideal of \mathcal Z. Since K is \Sg-invariant, \Ryn(K) = K \cap Z^{\Sg}. Further, as \Ryn (\sigma(p)) = \Ryn (p) for all p \in \mathcal Z and we are in characteristic 0, we have \Ryn(J) = \Ryn(K).

(2) This follows from (1), the Nullstellensatz, and the observation that restriction (that is intersecting with \mathcal Z^{\Sg}) gives a bijection between maximal \Sg-invariant ideals of \mathcal Z and maximal ideals of \mathcal Z^{\Sg}, as both are in bijection with \Sg-orbits in ({\Bbbk}^\times)^k.

(1), (2) follow from the definition of \lceil I \rceil. For the first equality of (3), observe that as \Ryn is \mathcal Z^{\Sg}-linear, \Ryn(I\mathcal Z) = I \Ryn(\mathcal Z) = I, so I \subseteq \lceil I \rceil. The second equality is Lemma 4.8(1) combined with (1).

For (4), both \sqrt{\lceil I \rceil} and \sqrt{I \mathcal Z} are \Sg-invariant radical ideals of \mathcal Z whose restriction to \mathcal Z^{\Sg} is I, and the statement follows from Lemma 4.8(2).

Clearly the right-hand side is contained in the left-hand side. For the other containment, it suffices to show that for all a \in I, p \in \mathcal Z_k, and q \in \mathcal Z_\ell, we have

By (?),

Since I \subseteq \lceil I \rceil by Lemma 4.9(3) and \Ryn_\ell(q) is \Sg_\ell-invariant, \Ryn_k(ap) \otimes \Ryn_\ell(q) \in I \otimes \mathcal Z_\ell^{\Sg_\ell}, as we need.

By Lemma 4.6, all \Theta^{\Sg ; \star}_{e^k}(I_k) are H-subrepresentations of \Sa(E), so (1) is equivalent to the statement that \bigoplus_{k\ge0}\Theta^{\Sg ; \star}_{e^k}(I_k) is an ideal of \Sa(E). To understand what this means, we must consider how multiplication in \Sa(E) interacts with the \Theta-maps. If a \in \Sa^k(E), b \in \Sa^j(E), then

using (?). So (1) is equivalent to the statement that

for all j , k \geq 1, where we have used Lemma 4.10. This says precisely that (1) \iff (2). Then (2) \iff (3) is immediate.

(1) Let \ell \geq k. Certainly (\lyr_k I_\star ) \mathcal Z_\ell \subseteq I_\star, so

where we have used Lemma 4.8 for the final equality. This means by definition that \lyr_k I_* \subseteq \lceil \lyr_\ell I_* \rceil, so the result follows by Lemma 4.12.

(2) First, \Theta^{e^k}_{\Sg ; \star}( \gr_k I^\star ) \vartriangleleft \mathcal Z_k^{\Sg_k} by Lemma 4.6, and thus \lceil \Theta^{e^k}_{\Sg ; \star}( \gr_k I^\star ) \rceil makes sense and is an \Sg_k-invariant ideal of \mathcal Z_k. Since I^\star is an H-ideal, by condition (3) of Lemma 4.12 we have \lceil \Theta^{e^k}_{\Sg ; \star}( \gr_k I^\star ) \rceil \subseteq \lceil \Theta^{e^\ell}_{\Sg ; \star}( \gr_\ell I^\star ) \rceil for all \ell \geq k, so the union in the definition of \lceil \Theta \rceil_\star(I^\star) is an increasing union. It follows that \lceil \Theta \rceil_\star(I^\star) is an \Sg_\infty-invariant ideal of \mathcal Z_\infty. The final statement is then immediate.

(2) We have 1= \Theta_{\Sg; \star}^{e^d}(e_0^d) \in\Theta_*(I^*). The rest follows.

(1) Let J_k := \Theta^{e^k}_{\Sg ; \star}(\gr_k I^\star ) for all k\ge0. By definition, \Theta_\star (I^\star) is the \Sg_\infty-ideal of \mathcal Z_\infty generated by \sum_k J_k. By Lemma 4.12, for all \ell \geq k we have \Ryn_\ell(J_k \mathcal Z_\ell) \subseteq J_\ell and \lceil J_k\rceil\subseteq\lceil J_\ell\rceil. It follows that

for all \ell \geq k. Applying \Theta^\star and (Proof), we see that \Theta^\star\lceil\Theta\rceil_\star(I^\star)\subseteq \Sat(I^\star).

We now check that \Sat(I^\star)\subseteq \Theta^\star\lceil\Theta\rceil_\star(I^\star). By (Proof) and Lemma 4.10, for all k\ge 0 we have

This implies that for all k\ge0 we have \Theta^{e^k}_{\Sg ; \star}(\gr_k \Sat(I^\star)) \subseteq \mathcal Z_k^{\Sg_k}\cap \lceil\Theta\rceil_\star(I^\star) as needed.

The hypothesis of statement (2) fails for I^\star and hence \Sat(I^\star)\ne\Sa(E). As I^\star is graded, \Sat(I^\star)\subseteq \sqrt{I^\star} and so the statement follows from (1).

(4) By definition,

This is contained in \sqrt{I_\star} by Lemma 4.9(4).

Consider I_\star:=\lceil \Theta \rceil_\star(I^\star). It is easy to see that (I_\star\cap\mathcal Z_n), n\ge 1, is a symmetrisation-invariant chain of ideals in the sense of [AH]: that is, \sigma \cdot(I_*\cap \mathcal Z_n)\subseteq I_*\cap \mathcal Z_m for all m\ge n and \sigma\in\Sg_m. This and [AH, Theorem 4.7] imply that this chain stabilises modulo the symmetric group: that is, there exists N such that for all m \ge N the \Sg_m-ideal I_\star\cap \mathcal Z_m of \mathcal Z_m is generated by I_\star\cap\mathcal Z_N.

For all n\ge 0 we clearly have I_\star\cap\mathcal Z_n=\bigcup_{m\ge n} (\lceil \Theta^{e^{m}}_{\Sg ; \star}(\gr_m I^\star ) \rceil\cap\mathcal Z_n). Thanks to Lemma 4.12,

if m_1\ge m_2\ge n. Thus

is an ascending chain of ideals of \mathcal Z_N. By the noetherianity of \mathcal Z_N there exists N'\ge N such that

In this way we attach N' to N.

Let m \geq N' \geq N. Then the \Sg_m-ideal of \mathcal Z_m generated by I_\star\cap\mathcal Z_N=\lceil \Theta^{e^{N'}}_{\Sg ; \star}(\gr_{N'} I^\star ) \rceil\cap \mathcal Z_N equals I_\star\cap\mathcal Z_m: that is I_\star\cap\mathcal Z_m is the smallest \Sg_m-ideal of \mathcal Z_m containing \lceil \Theta^{e^{N'}}_{\Sg ; \star}(\gr_{N'} I^\star)\rceil. The latter condition together with Lemma 4.12 implies that \gr_m I^\star \subseteq \Sa(E) \gr_{N'}I^\star for all m\ge N'. Thus

as needed.

Let I^\star_1\subseteq I^\star_2\subseteq\dots be an ascending chain of H-ideals in \Sa(E). Consider I^\star:=\bigcup_nI^\star_n. By Theorem 5.3 I^\star is generated by \gr_0I^\star, \gr_1 I^\star, \dots, \gr_{N}I^\star for some N\ge0. By Lemma 4.6 and the noetherianity of \mathcal Z_k^{\Sg_k} there are d_0, d_1, \dots, d_N\ge 0 such that \gr_k I^\star=\gr_k I^\star_{d_k} for all 0\le k\le N. Thus I^\star=I^\star_n for all n\ge\max_k(d_k).

Choose f\in I_\star\setminus(0). Assume that f\in\mathcal Z_i, i\ge0. Then for some N we have (z_1z_2\ldots z_i)^Nf\in\mathcal A where \mathcal A is as in Proposition 2.5. By Proposition 2.5, \FPol_k\in I_\star for some k. It remains to note that \FPol_k\mid\FPol_{k+1}.

Consider the \Sg_\infty-ideal \Theta_\star(I^\star). By Theorem 5.2, there is N so that as an \Sg_\infty-ideal, \Theta_\star(I^\star) is generated by

Further, by Theorem 5.8 there is k so that \FPol_k \in \Theta_\star(I^\star), so, possibly increasing N, we have

By Corollary 5.11, for all \ell \geq \max(k, N), we have

Let \ell \geq \max(k,N). Then

By Lemma 4.12, this is contained in \Theta^{e^\ell}_{\Sg ; \star}(\gr_\ell I^\star), and applying \Theta_{e^\ell}^{\Sg ; \star} we obtain that D_\ell \in \gr_\ell I^\star.

This is a direct consequence of Lemma 4.2 and Theorem 5.15.

It might be easier to write than to read this proof.

Let’s consider a single monomial on the left-hand side of  (?). We have

Combining this with (?), for p \in \mathcal Z_q^{\Sg_q} we have

Since p\in\mathcal Z_q^{\Sg_q}, when we collect terms the (polynomial) coefficient of \prod\limits_i b_{i\{s_{\hat q_i+1}\}}b_{i\{s_{\hat q_i+2}\}}\dots b_{i\{s_{\hat q_i+q_i}\}} is always a positive integer multiple of p(t_{s_1}, \dots, t_{s_{|q|}}). Thus all the coefficients vanish if and only if p(t_{s_1}, \dots, t_{s_{|q|}})=0 for all choices of s_i, in other words, if and only if p vanishes on \Delta^{|q|}_n. (Here we use that \Delta^{|q|}_n \supseteq \Delta^{|q|}_{n-1} \supseteq \dots.)

The last statement follows from Theorem 5.10.

(1) is because \Delta_n^{|q|} =({\Bbbk}^\times)^{|q|}.

(2) The second equality follows from (1) and (?). By Remark 3.6,

is contained in \bigcap_n \ker \Phi_n and the first equality follows.

(1) Let p \in \mathcal Z_\ell. Since \Ryn_{n+1}(p \FPol_{n+1}) is \Sg_{n+1}-invariant, it is divisible by \FPol_{n+1}^2 by (?). Thus

By (Proof) and Lemma 4.10,

The proof of (2) is similar.

(3) now follows from Proposition 6.8.

This follows from Lemma 6.13, Proposition 6.8, and Corollary 5.11.

We pick a basis b_1, \dots, b_d of \mathfrak g such that b_1=e and each b_i is a highest weight vector for a Borel subalgebra \mathfrak b_i of \mathfrak g. Since the adjoint action of \mathfrak g on \Ua(\mathrm{L}\mathfrak g) is rational, it gives rise to the adjoint action of a semisimple algebraic group G whose Lie algebra is isomorphic to \mathfrak g. Such a group G acts transitively on the set of Borel subalgebras of \mathfrak g. Thus for all i there is g_i \in G so that g_i e = b_i.

For all i, we have \Theta-maps which identify

Recall that D_{k+1} = \Theta_{e^{k+1}}^{\Sg; \star}(\FPol^2_{k+1}). Because every two-sided ideal of \Ua(\mathrm{L}\mathfrak g) is stable under the adjoint action of \mathfrak g, it is also stable under the natural action of G. Applying the g_i, we see that for all i the two-sided ideal of \Ua(\mathrm{L}\mathfrak g) generated by \Theta_{b_i^{k+1}}^{\Sg; \star}(\FPol_{k+1}^2) is equal to J.

Thanks to Proposition 6.8, for any q \in \mathbb Z_{\ge0}^d we have \Ker \Phi_{dk}\cap \Ua(\Lg)_{q}=\Theta^{\Sg; \star}_{b^q}(\I(\Delta_{dk}^{|q|})\cap\mathcal Z_q^{\Sg_q}), and this intersection is nonzero if and only if |q| \geq dk+1. Let q \in \mathbb Z_{\ge0}^d with |q| \geq dk+1 and let r\in\ker\Phi_{dk}\cap \Ua(\Lg)_{q}. Then

for some p_I\in\mathcal Z_{q}. Note that the left-hand side belongs to \mathcal Z_q^{\Sg_q}=\im \Ryn_q. Thus it is enough to show that

Recall the notation \hat q_i = q_1 + \dots + q_{i-1}. By the pigeonhole principle there exists 1 \leq \beta \leq d such that the interval [\hat q_\beta+1, \hat q_{\beta+1}] contains at least k+1 numbers out of i_1<i_2<\dots<i_{dk+1}. Let them be i_{w_-}, \dots, i_{w_+}. Then \FPol_{k+1}(z_{i_{w_-}}, \dots, z_{i_{w_+}}) divides \FPol_{dk+1}(z_{i_1}, \dots, z_{i_{dk+1}})p_I. This and Lemma 6.13 imply the desired result.

Fix a Borel subalgebra \mathfrak b of \mathfrak g, a Cartan subalgebra \mathfrak h of \mathfrak b, a highest weight vector e \in \mathfrak b, and h \in \mathfrak h so that [h, e] = e. Recall that E= e\otimes{\Bbbk}[s, s^{-1}] is an abelian subalgebra of \Lg.

Let J = \Ann_{{\rm U}(\Lg)}(V) and let I = J \cap \Sa(E). Since V is finite-dimensional, it has a highest h-weight, so I \supseteq \Sa^{\geq \ell}(E) for some \ell. Thus I contains the discriminants D_{\ell'} for \ell' \geq \ell. By Proposition 6.15, J \supseteq \ker \Phi_{d\ell}, where recall d = \dim \mathfrak g.

It is enough to check that the natural map \pi: \Ua(\mathrm{L}\mathfrak g)\to \Ua(\bar{\mathfrak k}) sends \Ker \Phi_{k} to 0. Fix a basis \{b_1,\dots, b_d\} of \mathfrak g and consider the \mathbb Z_{\ge0}^d-grading on \Ua(\Lg) from Notation 6.2. Recall from (?) that

and also recall the definitions of the linear bijections

We will suppress some notation and simply refer to the bijections above as \Theta-maps. Likewise, there is a decomposition

where \Ua(\bar{\mathfrak k})_q = \pi(\Ua(\Lg)_q). There are also natural bijections, which we again refer to as \Theta-maps, between

(Here we use \langle p(z_1), \dots, p(z_{|q|})\rangle to denote the ideal of \mathcal Z_q generated by p(z_1), \dots, p(z_{|q|}).) Since \pi respects these decompositions, it suffices to prove that (\ker \Phi_k)_q \subseteq \ker \pi for all q.

Fix q\in \mathbb Z_{\ge0}^d, and set I_{k} to be the \Sg_{|q|}-ideal of \mathcal Z_q generated by \FPol_{k+1}, where recall that

Thanks to Proposition 6.8 and Theorem 5.10, \Ker \Phi_{k}\cap\Ua(\mathrm{L}\mathfrak g)_q is identified under the \Theta-maps with \mathcal Z_{q}^{\Sg_q}\cap I_{k}. Further, the \Theta-maps identify

To prove that \pi sends (\ker \Phi_k)_q to 0, it thus suffices to show that I_k \subseteq \langle p(z_1), \dots, p(z_{|q|})\rangle.

To prove this, we consider a formal polynomial

where p_0, p_1, \dots are free parameters. We set T:={\Bbbk}[p_0, p_1, \dots, p_{k-1}] and let \tilde{{\Bbbk}}:={\Bbbk}(p_0, p_1, \dots, p_{k-1}) be the quotient field of T.

As the next step we need the following.

We recall that p(u) is a monic polynomial of degree k and thus p(u)=u^k+\alpha_{k-1}u^{k-1}+\dots+\alpha_0 for some \alpha_i\in{\Bbbk}. We denote by \mathfrak m the ideal of T generated by p_i-\alpha_i with 0\le i\le k-1. This provides a specialisation map

By right exactness of \otimes,

Thus applying -\otimes_T T/\mathfrak m to the composition

and identifying I_k \otimes T \otimes_T T/\mathfrak m with I_k, we obtain the natural map

Since by Lemma ? the composition (?) is zero, the map (?) is also zero, as needed.

The scheme of the proof is very similar to the scheme of proof of Theorems 6.1 and 6.16, although simpler in some details. Let J be a nonzero Poisson ideal of \Sa(\Lg).

Step 1. Let b_1, \dots, b_d be a basis of \mathfrak g so that b_1=e is a highest weight vector. By Lemma 4.2, I:= J \cap \Sa(E) is a nonzero H-ideal of \Sa(E).

Step 2. By Theorem 5.15 we have D_k\in I for all k\gg0.

Step 3. We use the notation of Section ?. The goal for this step is to prove a Poisson analogue of Proposition 6.8. By analogy with (?) and (?), for q\in \mathbb Z_{\ge0}^d we identify \Sa(\mathrm{L}\mathfrak g)_q with \mathcal Z_q^{\Sg_q} through maps

as in  (?). Note that in (?) for \Ua(\mathrm{L}\mathfrak g) the order of variables/factors in the left-hand side product does matter, while for \Sa(\mathrm{L}\mathfrak g) this order is irrelevant. Similarly to Proposition 6.8, this gives the following.

Step 4. We would like to prove the following Poisson analogue of Proposition 6.15.

Combining Step 2 with Propositions ? and ? we get the desired result.

That (1), (2), (5) are mutually equivalent is a well-known folklore result about two-sided sequences, which was also used in the proof of [PS2, Theorem 3.1.1]. Also (3) is clearly equivalent to (4).

To see that (3) and (5) are equivalent, write \widetilde h=\sum\limits_{j=-k}^k\beta_j h_j, where h_j = h\otimes s^j. Then

Now (3) holds if and only if for some \widetilde h = \sum \beta_j h_j, we have \lambda([\widetilde h, e_i]) = 0 for all i, and by the above this is if and only if \lambda \circ \Theta^\star vanishes on (\sum \beta_j z^j) \mathcal Z. This is clearly equivalent to (5) and thus the proof is finished.

(1) Pick \lambda\in E^*. We would like to show first that I_H(\lambda)\ne0 implies (4) of Lemma 8.12. This follows from the next lemma.

Returning to the proof of Proposition 8.13, let A:=\Sa(E), let \mathcal D be the derivations defined by H, let I=I_H(\lambda) and use \lambda\in E^* to define a homomorphism \Sa(E)\to {\Bbbk}. This choice together with Lemma Proof shows that (4) of Lemma 8.12 holds and hence \lambda is local.

We are left to show that if \lambda is local then I_H(\lambda)\ne0. Assume that \lambda is local. Pick \tilde h\in H for \lambda as in (3) of Lemma 8.12. Then [\tilde h, E] is an H-stable subspace of E and [\tilde h, E]\subseteq \mathfrak m_\lambda. This implies that the H-ideal generated by [\tilde h, E] is contained in \mathfrak m_\lambda and hence I_H(\lambda)\ne0.

(2) The argument of (1) implies that I_H(\lambda)\cap E is the maximal H-stable subspace of E\cap \mathfrak m_\lambda. Such a subspace is clearly identified with \mathcal Z p_\lambda under the \Theta-maps.

Let J be the H-ideal of \Sa(E) generated by \Theta^\star(\mathcal Z p_\lambda), which is contained in I_H(\lambda). It is easy to verify that

On the other hand we have \GK(\Sa(E)/I_H(\lambda))\ge\deg p_\lambda by a straightforward analogue of [PS1, Lemma 2.1.1]. This implies that we have a surjection

between two rings of the same GK-dimension. Now, I_H(\lambda) is H-primitive by definition, and thus prime. On the other hand, \Sa(E)/J \cong \Sa(E/\Theta^\star(\mathcal Z p_\lambda)); this is true because \Sa(E) is freely generated by the elements of a basis of E and \Theta^\star(\mathcal Z p_\lambda) provides exactly a family of linear relations on the elements of this basis and thus the quotient is a polynomial ring \Sa(E/\Theta^\star(\mathcal Z p_\lambda)). Thus both rings in (?) are domains and so (?) is an isomorphism.

(3) clearly follows from (2).

Note that (0) is H-primitive since (0) = I_H(\eta) for any non-local \eta \in E^* by Proposition 8.13. Assume I \neq (0) and I is H-primitive then the result follows from Proposition 8.13. Conversely assume I \neq (0) and I is generated by I\cap E. Let p_I be the monic polynomial generator of \Theta_\star(I\cap E) of minimal degree. One can find a local function \lambda\in E^* with p_\lambda=p_I; for such \lambda we have I=I_H(\lambda).

We will show first that if P(\lambda)\ne0 then \lambda is local. Pick a basis b_1, \dots,b_d of \mathfrak g consisting of highest weight vectors as in the proof of Proposition 6.15. By Theorem 2.1(2) we have that P(\lambda)\cap \Sa(b_i\otimes{\Bbbk}[s, s^{-1}])\ne(0) for all i. Note that P(\lambda)\cap \Sa(b_i\otimes{\Bbbk}[s, s^{-1}]) is an H-ideal of \Sa(b_i\otimes{\Bbbk}[s, s^{-1}]) under the obvious definition. By Proposition 8.13, \lambda|_{b_i\otimes{\Bbbk}[s, s^{-1}]} is local for all i and thus \lambda is local as needed.

We will show now that if \lambda is local then P(\lambda)\ne (0). By definition there exists p\in{\Bbbk}[s]\backslash \{0\} so that \lambda|_{p\mathrm{L}\mathfrak g}\equiv0. Note that p\mathrm{L}\mathfrak g is a Lie ideal of \mathrm{L}\mathfrak g and hence the ideal generated by p\mathrm{L}\mathfrak g is Poisson and is contained in P(\lambda). This implies that P(\lambda)\ne0.

This follows by combining [BS, Theorem 1.2(1)], which shows that if \lambda(c) \neq 0 then (c-\lambda(c)) is a maximal Poisson ideal of \Sa(\widehat{\mathfrak g}), and Proposition 8.19.

(1) and (2) are equivalent thanks to the fact that the ideal generated by the Lie ideal p\mathrm{L}\mathfrak g of \Lg is contained in both P(\lambda) and P(\mu).

(2) is equivalent to (3) because of the standard bijection between Poisson primitive ideals and coadjoint G(p)-orbits for the finite-dimensional algebraic Lie algebra \mathrm{L}\mathfrak g/p\mathrm{L}\mathfrak g (see [BrownGordon2003, 3.6, Proposition]).

This is in essence a version of Proposition 8.22. Here we use that if p\in{\Bbbk}[s] and G(p) are as in Notation 8.21, then, as is well known to experts, there is a surjective map LG = G({\Bbbk}[s, s^{-1}])\to G(p) — for a reference, combine [PaninStavrovaVavilov2015, Lemma 8.2] and [Abe1969, Proposition 1.6]. Therefore LG acts on (\Lg)^* and the embedding (\Lg/p\Lg)^*\to (\Lg)^* is compatible with these structures.

By [LSS, Theorem 6.3], for prime Poisson ideals of \Sa(\Lg), Poisson locally closed implies Poisson primitive and Poisson primitive is equivalent to Poisson rational. Thus to prove the theorem for \Sa(\mathrm{L}\mathfrak g), it suffices to prove:

(1) Let I be a prime Poisson ideal of \Sa(\mathrm{L}\mathfrak g) with I \neq (0). If I is Poisson primitive, then I is Poisson locally closed.

(2) The ideal (0) is Poisson primitive but not Poisson locally closed.

For (2), by applying Proposition 8.19 to any non-local \chi \in \Lg^* we see that (0) is Poisson primitive. To show that (0) is not locally closed, one uses a mild modification of the proof of [PS2, Theorem 5.3.1(b)]. We leave the details to the reader.

We now prove (1). Suppose I is Poisson primitive. By Proposition 8.19 there exists a local function \nu\in\mathrm{L}\mathfrak g^* such that I=P(\nu). By the discussion after the proof of [PS2, Theorem 5.3.1], for the proof of [PS2, Theorem 5.3.1] to work it is sufficient that \Sa(\Lg)/P(\nu) has finite Gelfand-Kirillov dimension. Thanks to Theorem 2.1(2) this holds and (1) follows.