arxiv: v1 [math.ag] 12 Jul 2017

Frobenius splitting of thick flag manifolds of Kac-Moody algebras Syu Kato arxiv:1707.03773v1 [math.ag] 12 Jul 2017 July 13, 2017 Abstract We explain that the Plücker relations provide the defining equations of the thick flag manifold associated to a Kac-Moody algebra. This naturally transplant the result of Kumar-Mathieu-Schwede about the Frobenius splitting of thin flag manifolds to the thick case. As a consequence, we provide a description of the global sections of line bundles of a thick Schubert variety as conjectured in Kashiwara-Shimozono [Duke Math. J. 148 (2009)]. This also yields the existence of a compatible basis of thick Demazure modules, and the projective normality of the thick Schubert varieties. Introduction The geometry of flag manifolds of a Lie algbera g are ubiquitous in representation theory. In case g is a Kac-Moody algebra, we have two versions of flag varieties X and X, that we call the thin and thick flag manifolds, respectively (see e.g. [12]). They coincide when g is of finite type, and in this case we have X = X = Proj λ L(λ), (0.1) where λ runs over all dominant integral weights and L(λ) denotes the corresponding integrable highest weight representation of g. The isomorphism (0.1) islessobviouswhengisnotfinite typesince L(λ)is nolongerfinite-dimensional. In fact, the both of X and X are quotients of certain Kac-Moody groups G associated to g, and we can ask whether we have G = Speck[G] (0.2) as an enhancement of (0.1), where k[g] is the coordinate ring of G (cf. Kac- Peterson [7]). However, Kashiwara [8, 6] explains that none of the choice of G can satisfy (0.2) for any version of a reasonably natural commutative ring k[g]. The goal of this paper is to explain that despite the above situation, we can still understand the geometry of Kac-Moody flag varieties as infinite type schemes so that we can deduce subtle consequences in representation theory. Department of Mathematics, Kyoto University, Oiwake Kita-Shirakawa Sakyo Kyoto 606-8502 JAPAN E-mail:syuchan@math.kyoto-u.ac.jp 1

To explain what we mean by this, we introduce some more notation: The scheme X admits a natural action of the subgroup B of G that corresponds to the non-negative part of g, and the set of B-orbits of X is in natural bijection with the Weyl group W of g. Hence, we can represent a B-orbit closure of X by X w for some w W. For each integral weight λ of g, we have an associated line bundle O X (λ) and its restriction O X w(λ) to X w. The main result in this paper is: Theorem A (. =Theorem1.11andTheorem2.15). For an arbitrary Kac-Moody algebra, the thick flag manifold X admits the presentation (0.1) as schemes. Similar result holds for each B-orbit closure of X. As Kashiwara s embedding of X into the Grassmanian[8, 4] factors through a highest weight integrable module, Theorem A asserts that it is a closed embedding. This affirmatively answers the question in [8, 4.5.6 4.5.7]. The thin flag variety X forms a dense subset of X (see e.g. Kashiwara- Tanisaki [12, 1.3]). This implies that the projective coordinate ring of X (as an ind-scheme) is the completion of that of X (as a honest scheme). Therefore, we can transplant the Frobenius splitting of X (or its ind-pieces) to that of X provided in Kumar-Schwede [14]: Corollary B (. = Corollary 2.9). For an arbitrary Kac-Moody algebra over a field k of positive characteristic, the thick flag manifold X admits a Frobenius splitting that is compatible with the B-orbits. As X is an infinite type scheme, we do not have the Serre vanishing theorem. This means that we cannot obtain the higher cohomology vanishing of X w for ample line bundles by using Corollary B through standard arguments. Nevertheless, we can deduce some conclusions on the level of global sections as: Theorem C (. = Theorem 2.13, 2.15, and Corollary 2.18, 2.19). For each w W, we have: 1. the natural restriction map is surjective; 2. the image of the inclusion Γ(X,O X (λ)) Γ(X w,o X w(λ)) (0.3) Γ(X w,o X w(λ)) Γ(X,O X (λ)) = L(λ) obtained as the dual of (0.3) is cyclic as a LieB-module; 3. the scheme X w is projectively normal; 4. the LieB-submodules {Γ(X w,o X w(λ)) } w W forms a distributive lattice. We remark that Theorem C 4) should be also obtained as a combination of Kashiwara s crystal basis theory [10] and Littelmann s path model theory [15] when g is symmetrizable. However, the only reference the author is aware beyond the finite case is the affine case presented in Ariki-Kreimann-Tsuchioka [1, 6] (as stated there, the proofsof this part aredue to Kashiwaraand Sagaki). We also note that Theorem C 1) and 2) are (parts of a) conjecture in Kashiwara-Shimozono [11, 9] when g in affine. The remaining part is precisely the vanishing of higher cohomology of an ample line bundle. The author hopes to study this in his future research. 2

1 Defining equations of thick flag manifolds We work over a field k unless stated otherwise. Let I be a finite set and let C = (c ij ) i,j I be a GCM ([6, 1.1]). Let g be the Kac-Moody algebra associated to C. In particular, we have its Cartan subalgebra h of dimension 2 I rankc. Let {E i,f i } i I be the Kac-Moody generators of g so that [E i,f j ] = δ ij α i h for i,j I. Let us consider a lattice X that contains the root lattice of g so that X Z k = h. Let Q be the coroot lattice of g. Let n,n g be the Lie subalgebras generated by {E i } i I and {F i } i I, respectively. Set r := I. We assume that there exists a natural pairing, : Q X Z so that α i,α j = c ij and we can choose 1,..., r X so that α i, j = δ ij and α i,x = Z. We set H := Speck[e λ λ X ]. We have LieH = h. For each α X, we define We set g α := {X g Ad(h)X = α(h)x, h H}, multα := dim g α. + := {α X \{0} g α n}, := +. We have reflections {s i } i I on Aut(X ) that generates a Coxeter group W. We denote its length function by l, and the Bruhat order by < (cf. Kumar [13, Definition 1.3.15]). We have a subset + re := + W{α i } i I +. Each α + re gives a reflection s α W defined through the conjugation of a simple reflection. We have multα = 1 for α + re, and we have sl(2) = g α kα g α as Lie algebras in this case. We define the pro-unipotent groups as N + := exp g α, N := exp g α. α + α They are accompanied by dense subgroups N + N + and N N obtained by replacing with. We set B + := H N + and B := H N. Let N(H) denote the group generated by H and the normalizers of H inside SL(2) or PGL(2) arising from each simple root, whose quotient by H is W. We have a translation of elements of B ± under the action of N(H), defined partially (see [13, 6.1]). The positive Kac-Moody group G + is defined as the amalgam of B + and N(H), while the negative Kac-Moody group G is defined as the amalgam of B and N(H). For each J I, we have a partial amalgam B ± B ± J G ±, that we call the parabolic subgroup corresponding to J. For each α + re, we have a one-parameter unipotent subgroup ρ α : G a B + so that hρ α (z)h 1 = ρ α (α(h)z) for every z G a and h H. Similarly, we have a one-parameter unipotent subgroup ρ α : G a B. For each i I, we define SL(2,i) as the connected and simply connected algebraic group with an identification Lie SL(2,i) = ke i kα i kf i. We 3

understand that a representation of an algebraic group is always algebraic. Note that the complete reducibility of representations always hold for split torus (and we never deal with non-split torus in this paper). Definition 1.1 (integrable highest weight modules). A (U(h), H)-module M is said to be a weight module if M admits a semi-simple h-action that integrates to the algebraic H-action. In this case, we denote by M µ M the H-weight space of weight µ X. We call M restricted if we have dim M λ < for every λ X. A (U(g),H)-module M is said to be a highest weight module if M is a weight module as a (U(h),H)-module and M carries a U(g)-module generator that is a (U(b), H)-eigenvector. A (U(g),H)-module M is said to be an integrable module if it is a restricted weight module, we have Span k {E (n) i F (m) i v} < for each v M and i I, and it integrates to an algebraic SL(2, i)-action that is compatible with the H-action. Let U Z (g) (resp. U Z (b) or U Z (n)) be the Chevalley-Kostant Z-form of the enveloping algebra of g generated by E (n) i,f (n) i (i I,n Z 0 ) and h (resp. and h, or F (n) i ), and let U(g) (resp. U(b) or U(n )) be its specialization E (n) i to k (see e.g. Tits [19] or Mathieu [17, Chapter I]). We have a non-dengenerate k-linear pairing (, ) : U(n ) k[ N ] k. Lemma 1.2. Let M be an integrable U(g)-module. Then, every U(g)-submodule of M is again integrable. We define P := i I Z i and P + := i I Z 0 i. For each λ P +, we have a Verma module M(λ) defined as: M(λ) = U(g) U(b) C λ. The Verma modules are restricted weight modules and are generated by a unique vector v λ with H-weight λ. We define L(λ) := M(λ)/ i I U(g)F ( α i,λ +1) i v λ. Lemma 1.3. For each λ P +, the module L(λ) is the maximal integrable quotient of M(λ). Proof. The assertionis [13, Lemma 2.1.7]when chark = 0. Its proofalsoasserts that every integrable module is a quotient of L(λ) for chark > 0 (as an effect of our definition of integrality). For each i I, the module M(λ)/U(g)F ( α i,λ +1) i v λ is SL(2,i)-integrable (recall that the pro-unipotent radical of the parabolic subgroup corresponding to i I is SL(2, i)-stable by the GCM condition α i,α j 0 when i j [6, 1.1]). Hence, we deduce that L(λ) is integrable. This proves the assertion. 4

Corollary 1.4. For each λ P +, the H-character of L(λ) obeys the Weyl-Kac character formula. Proof. This is [13, Theorem 8.3.1] when char k = 0. When char k > 0, the arguments in [17] asserts that some integrable submodule of L(λ) obtained as a successive application of Demazure-Joseph functors obeys the Weyl-Kac character formula. As such a submodule contains v λ, it must be the whole L(λ). For each w W and λ P +, we have a unique non-zero vector v wλ L(λ) of weight wλ. We define the thin Demazure module and thick Demazure module as: L w (λ) := U(n)v wλ, L w (λ) := U(n)v wλ L(λ). These admit H-eigenspace decompositions. We define the tensor product of two restricted weight modules M,N as: M N := λ,µ X M λ N µ. We define the dual of a restricted weight module M as: M := λ X M λ, for which the natural inclusion M M defines a H-submodule. The completion of a restricted weight module M is defined as: M := λ X M λ. It is straight-forwardtosee that if M admits a Liealgebraaction that containsh that prolongs to the H-action, then so are M and M. Note that the H-action on M is H-finite. The canonical non-degenerate pairing (, ) identifies M(λ) with a rank one k[ N ]-module. This also induces an inclusion L(λ) M(λ) = k[ N ] k k λ λ P +. Note that M(λ) naturally admits an action of U(g), with unique H-eigen cocyclic vector of weight λ. This induces an inclusion L(λ) M(λ) = k[ N ] k λ k[ B ], (1.1) λ P + λ P + λ P + where the RHS is a commutative ring. Lemma 1.5. For each λ,µ P +, we have a unique U(g)-module morphism m λ,µ : L(λ) L(µ) L(λ+µ) that makes λ P + L(λ) into an integral commutative ring. Moreover, this ring is generated by i I L( i). 5

Proof. By the comparison of the defining equation, we have a unique U(g)- module map (up to scalar) m λ,µ : L(λ+µ) L(λ) L(µ) that respects the H-weight decomposition. By taking the dual, we obtain the desired map. Each L(λ) is a quotient of M(λ), and we have an isomorphism M(λ) = k[ N ] k k λ as U(n )-modules. The B -equivariant multiplication of k[ B ] is uniquely determined by that of the N -fixed elements, that is k[x ]. It follows that the inclusion (1.1) respects the product structure. Hence, λ P + L(λ) is a commutative ring. It is integral as k[ N ] is so. The last assertion follows by Mathieu [18, Corollaire 2]. We denote the ring λ P + L(λ) by R. We define where our Proj is the P + -graded proj. X := ProjR, Corollary 1.6. For each w W and λ,µ P +, the multiplication map m λ,µ of R induces a U(n)-module map and a U(n )-modules map m λ,µ : L w (λ) L w (µ) L w (λ+µ), m λ,µ : L w (λ) L w (µ) L w (λ+µ) that are surjective and satisfy the associativity condition. Proof. By the dual of Lemma 1.5, we have L(λ+µ) L(λ) L(µ). By m λ,µ (v w(λ+µ)) = v wλ v wµ, we deduce that the inclusion L(λ + µ) L(λ) L(µ) yields inclusions L w (λ + µ) L w (λ) L w (µ) and L w (λ + µ) L w (λ) L w (µ). Hence, the multiplication map m λ,µ induce well-defined surjective maps m λ,µ : L w (λ) L w (µ) L w (λ+µ), m λ,µ : L w (λ) L w (µ) L w (λ+µ) that define quotient rings of R (and hence they satisfy the associativity conditions). For each w W, we have two commutative algebras: R w := L w (λ), and R w := L w (λ), λ P + λ P + whose multiplications are given in Corollary 1.6. The thin flag manifolds and its Schubert varieties dealt in the following results are these found in [13, Theorem 8.2.2 and Theorem 8.3.12]. In particular, we have natural line bundles O Xw (λ) for each w W and λ P. Theorem 1.7 (Kumar [13] and Mathieu [18, 14]). The ring R w is the multigraded projective coordinate ring of the thin Schubert variety X w. For each λ P +, we have { H i (X w,o Xw (λ)) L w (λ) (i = 0) = {0} (i > 0). 6

The analogous assertion holds for the thin-schubert varieties of the generalized flag manifold for every J I by setting R w,j := L w (λ). λ P +, α j,λ =0,j J Proof. The case chark = 0 is in [13]. The case chark > 0 follows by [14, Proposition 5.3] that yields a variant of [2, Theorem 3.1.1] and the fact that H 0 (X w,o Xw (λ)) is a cyclic U(n)-module generated by a H-eigenvector of weight wλ. Corollary 1.8. We have an action of B + on X w. Proof. We have a natural action of B+ on each of L w (λ) (λ P + ). Since dim L w (λ) <, this induces an action of B+ on L w (λ), and hence on the multi-graded projective coordinate ring of X w. Lemma 1.9. The set of H-fixed points of X is in bijection with W. Proof. A H-fixed point x of X gives a collection of non-zero H-eigenvectors {v λ } λ P + λ P + L(λ) so that m λ,µ (v λ+µ ) = v λ v µ for λ,µ P + by Lemma 1.5. By Theorem 1.7, there exists w W so that x X w. It follows that Xw H = X H. w W The set of H-fixed points of Xw H is in common among all characteristic and is a subset of the translation of {[v λ ]} λ P+ by N G +(H) that descends to W (see [13]). Therefore, we conclude that X H is in bijection with W. By examining the stabilizer, we deduce that B x w = N x w = A for each w W. We denote N x w X by O w and denote N + x w = N + x w X by O w. We set X w := O w X and call it the thick Schubert variety corresponding to w W. Proposition 1.10. The subset O e X is obtained by inverting finitely many rational functions on X e. In other words, O e is a standard open set of X in the terminology of [3]. Proof. By (1.1), inverting the unique H-weight λ vector v λ L(λ) (up to scalar) yields λ P + (v λ) 1 L(λ) = U(n ) = k[ N ] as algebras, where the second isomorphism is through the Hopf algebra structure of U(n ). We can rearrange {v λ } λ P + so that it is closed under the multiplication. It follows that O e = X\{v i = 0} i I as required. Theorem 1.11. The set of closed points of X is naturally in bijection with the thick flag manifold defined in [8, 5.8]. 7

Proof. We borrow some notation from the proof of Proposition 1.10. We set X := w W Ow X and E := X\X. Note that X is the thick affine flag manifolds in the sense of [8, Corollary 4.5.5, 5.8]. Thanks to Proposition 1.10, the set E is contained in the locus that vλ = 0 for some λ P +. Note that E admits natural SL(2,i)-action for each i I as R does. It follows that E {vλ = 0}. w W By considering the condition to be global sections, we deduce that H 0 (X,O X (λ)) L(λ) M(λ) as H 0 (X,O X (λ)) is a cyclic U(n )-module generated by v λ so that we have F ( α i,λ +1) i v λ = 0 for each i I by a SL(2,i)-calculation (it is actually an equality by the definition of X). For each λ P +, we have natural (rational) maps ψ λ : X P(H 0 (X,O X (λ)) ) P(L(λ) ). Claim A. The map ψ λ sends E to P(M ), where M H 0 (X,O X (λ)) is a U(g)-stable H-submodule that does not contain H-weight {wλ} w W -part for each λ P +. Proof. Assume to the contrary to deduce contradiction. Then, we have some x E so that ψ λ (x) P(M ) for every U(g)-stable H-submodule that does not contain H-weight {wλ} w W -part. Then, applying SL(2,i)-action repeatedly, we obtain a point y E so that ψ λ (y) {vλ 0}. This is a contradiction and we conclude the result. We return to the proof of Theorem 1.11. By taking the G m -action that shrinks N, we deduce that E H X H =. This forces E = (our G m -action always send a point to a limit point as the set of H-weight of L(λ) in contained in λ Z 0 + ), and we conclude the assertion. Corollary 1.12 (of the proof of Theorem 1.11). We have X = w W Ow. Corollary 1.13. We have X w = O w, and the thin flag manifold X of g is obtained as w W X w. Proof. The assertion is a consequence of the embedding X X as seen in Kashiwara-Tanisaki [12, 1.3 and Appendix A]. Theorem 1.14 (Kashiwara [8] 4 and Kashiwara-Tanisaki [12] 1.3). For each w,v W, we have: 1. O w X v if and only if w v; 2. O w X v if and only if w v. 8

2 Frobenius splitting of thick flag manifolds We retain the setting of the previous section. Let B := N + H B +. For each i I, we have an overgroup B B i B + i so that LieP i = kfi LieB. Let i = (i 1,i 2,...,i l ) I l be a sequence. We have a Bott-Samuelson-Demazure- Hansen variety Z(i) := B i1 B B i2 B B B il /B. In case w = s i1 s i2 s il satisfies l(w) = l (i.e. i is a reduced expression of w), we have the BSDH resolution (see e.g. [13, Chapter VIII]) π i : Z(i) (g 1,g 2,...,g l ) g 1 g 2 g l B/B X w. The variety Z(i) admits a left B-action, that makes π i into a B-equivariant morphism. For each 1 k l, we define a B-stable divisor H k Z(i) by requiring g k B for (g 1,g 2,...,g l ) Z(i). Note that H k is naturally isomophic to Z(i k ), where i k I l 1 is obtained from i by omitting the k-th entry. In addition, every subword i = (i j1,...,i j l ) I l of i (so that 1 j 1 < j 2 < < j l < l) gives us a B-equivariant embedding described as j 1 1 j 2 j 1 1 {}}{{}}{ Z(i ) (g 1,...,g l ) ( 1,...,1,g j1, 1...,1,g j2,...) Z(i). Definition 2.1 (Frobenius splitting). Let X be a variety defined over a field k with positive characteristic. Let Fr be the (relative) Frobenius endomorphism of X(thatinducesak-linearendomorphism). Wehaveanaturalinclusionı : O X Fr O X. A Frobenius splitting of X is a O X -linear morphism φ : Fr O X O X so that the composition φ ı is the identity. Definition 2.2 (Compatible splitting). Let Y X be an inclusion of varieties defined over k. A Frobenious splitting φ of X is said to be compatible with Y if φ(fr I Y ) I Y. Remark 2.3. A Frobenius splitting of X compatible with Y induces a Frobenius splitting of Y (see e.g. [2, Remark 1.1.4 (ii)]). Definition 2.4 (B-canonical splitting). Let X be a variety equipped with an B-action. A Frobenius splitting φ is said to be B-canonical if it is H-fixed, and each i I yields ρ αi (z)φ(ρ αi ( z p )f) = where φ i,j Hom OX (Fr O X,O X ). p 1 j=0 1 j! zj φ i,j (f), (2.1) Theorem 2.5 ([2] Exercise 4.1.E.2). For each i I l, there exists a unique B- canonical splitting of Z(i) that is compatible with the subvarieties Z(i ) obtained by subwords i of i. Corollary 2.6. In the setting of Theorem 2.5, the restriction of the B-canonical splitting to Z(i ) is B-canonical. Proof. The condition of B-canonical splitting is preserved by the restriction to a B-stable compatibly split subset. 9

Lemma 2.7. For each w W, the ring R and R w admits a B-canonical splitting. Proof. The assertion for R w is a consequence of Theorem 2.5, together with [13, Theorem 8.2.2] (cf. [14]) and [2, Exercise 1.1.E.1]. Choose a series of sequences i k I k (k 1) so that 1. i k is obtained from i k+1 by omitting the first entry: 2. k 1 π i k (Z(i k )) = X. Let w k W be so that X wk = π ik (Z(i k )) (that exists as Z(i k ) is irreducible). Then, we have L(λ) = lim k L wk (λ). This induces a dense inclusion of algebras R lim k R wk, where the LHS is the H-finite part of the RHS. In view of [2, Exercise 1.1.E.1] and[13, Theorem 8.1.13], Corollary 2.6 induces a Frobenius splitting of lim R wk. k Since our splitting preserves the H-weights, it descends to the H-finite part R as required. Corollary 2.8. The ring R admits a B -canonical splitting. Proof. We retain the setting of the proof of Lemma 2.7. Our ring R is a H- finite graded algebra that admits a B-canonical splitting. Note that R admits a rational action of SL(2,k) associated to each real root vector of n (through the sl(2)-triple) as each L(λ) is integrable. Hence, [2, Excercise 4.1 (1)] forces the B + -canonical splitting of R induces a B -canonical splitting as desired. Corollary 2.9. For each w W, the B -canonical splitting of X is compatible with O w. Proof. According to Kumar-Schwede [14], the essential part of this proof traces back to a result of Olivier Mathieu. As the author has no access to it, he cites it from[14]. There, they assume that g is symmetrizable. The author believes that there is no place where symmetrizability is essentially used throughout the proof ([13] together with [17, 18]; compare [13, Remark 7.1.16] and [18, Corollaire 2]). By the same reasoning as in [14, Proof of Proposition 5.3 Assertion II], the H-fixed point of X splits compatibly with our B-canonical splitting (as the difference here and there are only the topology of k[ N ], that actually exists only when we modify the argument of [14] to form a projective system). Here a B -stable homogeneous ideal of R corresponds to a B -stable subspace of X as R is H-finite. Therefore, the ideal generated by B -orbits of O w = w v O v is preserved by our B -canonical splitting thanks to [2, Proposition 4.1.8] (as explained in [14, Proof of Proposition 5.3 Assertion III]). 10

Corollary 2.10. For each w W, the scheme O w is integral. Proof. Apply [2, Proposition 1.2.1] to Corollary 2.9. Thanks to Theorem 1.11, the multi-homogeneous coordinate ring of X define line bundles O X (λ) indexed by P. Each of them restricts to a line bundle on X w. Let J I. We set P J + := {λ P + α i,λ = 0, i J}. Consider the subring R J := L(λ) R. λ P + J We set X J := ProjR J. We have natural map that is B -equivariant. π J : X X J, Lemma 2.11. Let J I. The morphism π J is surjective. We have a B - canonical splitting of X J that is compatible with the B -orbits. Proof. The B -canonical splitting of X induces that of X J through the description of its projective coordinate ring. This must be compatible with the Zariski closure of the image of B -orbits. Hence, it remains to show that π J is surjective. Fix w W. By Theorem 1.7, the analogous map to π J defined for X w is surjective. The same proof as Corollary 1.9 (relying on [13]) implies X H J π J (X H ). Hence, the same argument as in Theorem 1.11 yields that every B - orbit of X J is the image of a B -orbit of X as required. Theorem 2.12(Kashiwara[9]Theorem5.2.1and[11] 8). Assumethat chark = 0. For each λ P +, we have { H i (X,O X (λ)) L(λ) (i = 0) = {0} (i > 0). Proof. The case g is symmetrizable is [9] Theorem 5.2.1. The Kempf resolution presented in [11, (8.6)] is valid for arbitrary Kac-Moody algebras, and the comparison with the BGG resolution for arbitrary Kac-Moody algebras [5] imply the desired description of cohomology. Theorem 2.13 ([11] second part of Conjecture 8.10). For each λ P + and w,v W so that v < w, the natural restriction map is surjective. H 0 (X v,o X v(λ)) H 0 (X w,o X w(λ)) Proof. We set J := {i I α i,λ = 0}. The fiber of π J is the thick flag manifold of the Kac-Moody subalgebra corresponding to J, and we have (π J ) O X (λ) = O XJ (λ) by [8]. Hence, the assertion reduces to the surjectivity of H 0 (X v J,O X v J (λ)) H0 (X w J,O X w J (λ)), 11

where X w J := π J(X w ) for each w W. We omit the subscript in the below for simplicity. Note that O XJ (λ) = O X (λ) is ample. By the associativity of the restriction maps (and Theorem 1.14), we can assume v = e. For each v W and w W, we have a restriction map ϕ v w : H 0 (X v,o X v(λ)) H 0 (X v X w,o Xv X w (λ)). Recall that we have X = w X w X, that is a Zariski dense embedding. It follows that the subset X v X X v is again Zariski dense. Therefore, the inverse limit of {ϕ v w} w yields an inclusion ϕ v : H 0 (X v,o X v(λ)) H 0 (X v X,O Xv X(λ)). (2.2) Let Ψ + be a finite set. Let us consider a Z-linear functional h on + X (H) Z R so that 0 < h(α i ) for each i I and h(ψ) < 1. Then, the subset + (h) := {β + h(β) < 1} + is finite, and every Z 0 -linear combination of elements of + \ + (h) does not belong to + (h). For each w W, the set of H-weights of i I L w( i) is finite, and hence so is the set Ψ w of positive roots obtained by the difference of two H-weights of i I L w( i). Applying the above construction, we can find a division + = + 1 + 2 ( + 1 is + (h) obtained by setting Ψ = Ψ w ) so that every x N factors into x = x 1 x 2, where x 2 is the product of one-parameter subgroup corresponding to + 2, and This implies L w ( i) x 1 L w ( i) = {v L w ( i) x 1 v = v}. X v X w = B x v Bx w = B x v Bx w, where the most RHS is the definition of the Richardson variety in [14] (when J = ). Now [14, Proposition 5.3] (it is standard to deduce the the parabolic case in view of [2, 1.1.12 1.1.14]) and [2, Theorem 1.2.8] yields that the map H 0 (X v X w,o Xv X w (λ)) H 0 (X v X w,o X v X w (λ)) is surjective for every w,v,v W so that v v when chark > 0. Since the both of (X v X w ) and (X v X w ) are finite type schemes, [2, Corollary 1.6.3] lifts this surjection to the case of chark = 0. Hence, we deduce a surjection H 0 (X v X,O Xv X(λ)) H 0 (X v X,O X v X (λ)) for every v,v W so that v v by taking the inverse limits with respect to surjective inverse systems (so that they satisfies the Mittag-Leffler condition), regardless of the characteristic. For arbitrary chark, the space H 0 (X v,o X v(λ)) is H-finite since H 0 (X v,o X v(λ)) H 0 (O v,o O v(λ)) = k[o v ] k k λ. 12

Now we specialize our attention to the case k = Q. In case v = e, the LHS of (2.2) is given in Theorem 2.12, and the RHS is given in [13]. In particular, the LHS is the H-finite part of the RHS. Therefore, the commutative diagram H 0 (X,O X (λ)) H 0 (X X,O X X (λ)) H 0 (X v,o X v(λ)) H 0 (X v X,O Xv X(λ)) yields the surjectivity of the left vertical arrow, that is our assertion when chark = 0. We have the higher cohomology vanishing of an ample line bundle O(λ) on X v X w by [2, Thorem 1.2.8]. Taking account into the surjectivity of the transition maps, the same is true when we (negatively) twist line bundles by the divisor obtained as a reduced union of the boundary of X v X w (cf. [14]). They stratify H 0 (X w,o(λ)), whose character is independent of chark since it is given by the Demazure character formula (cf. [13, Chapter VIII]). Therefore, the semi-continuity argument (and the rigidity of the torus characters) implies that the character of the RHS of (2.2) is independent of chark. The construction of the inclusion of (2.2) is uniform on chark and its image is dense when char k = 0. Hence, the semi-continuity argument (applied to H-eigenspacewise) yields that the LHS of (2.2) is dense in the RHS for every chark. This transplant our conclusion to chark > 0 as required. Corollary 2.14. Let Y,Y be reduced unions of thick Schubert varieties so that Y Y. Then, the natural restriction map is surjective for each λ P +. H 0 (Y,O Y (λ)) H 0 (Y,O Y (λ)) Proof. We can formally replace X v X w with reduced unions of them (that are compatibly split along the intersections by the canonical splitting) in the proof of Theorem 2.13 to deduce the assertion. The following is a consequence of Theorem 2.13 as described in [11, 8] after Conjecture 8.10 (when g is of affine type). Theorem 2.15. For each λ P +, we have H 0 (X w,o X w(λ)) = L w (λ). Proof. We first deal with the case chark = 0. Combining Theorem 2.12 and Theorem 2.13, we have H 0 (X w,o X w(λ)) L(λ). In addition, the integrality of X w implies that H 0 (X w,o X w(λ)) is cyclic as it is a U(n )-module with H-eigen cyclic vector v wλ. These imply our result when chark = 0. The case of chark > 0 follows by the same argument as in the last paragraph in the proof of Theorem 2.13. 13

Theorem 2.16 (Kashiwara-Shimozono[11] Proposition 3.2). For each w W, the scheme X w is normal. Proof. The argument in [11, Proposition 3.2] is stated for symmetrizable g and chark = 0, but it is actually valid for an arbitrary case. Corollary 2.17. For each w W, we have an isomorphism X w = ProjR w. In particular, X w is projectively normal. Proof. The first assertion is the direct consequence of Theorem 2.15 since X w is a closed subscheme of X. We prove the second assertion. Corollary 1.6 and Lemma 1.5 asserts that the ring R w is generated by i I Lw ( i). This verifies a sufficient condition of projective normality(see e.g. Hartshorne[4, Chapter II, Exercise 5.14] for singly graded case) in the presence of the normality of X w. Therefore, we conclude the assertion. The following result implies that {L w (λ)} w W forms a filtration of L(λ) for each λ P +, that is previously recorded when g is of affine type (see [1, Theorem 6.23]). An analogous result is known for {L w (λ)} w W by the works of many people (cf. Littelmann [16, 8] and Kumar [13, VIII]). Corollary 2.18. For each finite subset S W, there exist another subset S W so that L w (λ) = L v (λ). v S w S Proof. Let T W and set X(T) := w T Xw. We have a sequence of maps O X (λ) O X(T) (λ) w T O X w. Thanks to Corollary 2.14, we deduce Γ(X,O X w(λ)) Γ(X,O X(T) (λ)) Γ(X,O X (λ)) = L(λ). w T L w (λ) = w T Morover, the restriction of the composition maps to a direct summand L w (λ) yields the standard embedding. Thus, we conclude Γ(X,O X(T) (λ)) = w T L w (λ) L(λ). (2.3) Let us divide S = S 1 S 2, and we set Y i := w S i X w for i = 1,2, where the intersection is the scheme-theoretic intersection. By [2, Proposition 1.2.1], the scheme Y i (i = 1,2) and the scheme-theoretic intersection Y := Y 1 Y 2 are reduced. Since Y is B -stable, we have Y = X(S ) for some S W. We have a short exact sequence 0 O X(S )(λ) O Y1 (λ) O Y2 (λ) O Y1 Y 2 (λ) 0. 14

Thanks to (2.3) and Corollary 2.14, we conclude a short exact sequence 0 w SL ( ) ( ) w (λ) L w (λ) L w (λ) L w (λ) 0 w S 1 w S 2 w S of g-modules. This proves the assertion by induction on S (since the case S = 1 is apparent from S = S ). Acknowledgement: The author would like to thank Masaki Kashiwara and Shrawan Kumar for helpful correspondences, and Daisuke Sagaki for discussions. This research is supported in part by JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) 26287004. References [1] Susumu Ariki, Victor Kreiman, and Shunsuke Tsuchioka. On the tensor product of two basic representations of U v(ŝle). Adv. Math., 218(1):28 86, 2008. [2] Michel Brion and Shrawan Kumar. Frobenius splitting methods in geometry and representation theory, volume 231 of Progress in Mathematics. Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 2005. [3] A. Grothendieck. Éléments de géométrie algébrique. I. Le langage des schémas. Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math., (4):228, 1960. [4] Robin Hartshorne. Algebraic geometry. Springer- Verlag, 1977. [5] I. Heckenberger and S. Kolb. On the Bernstein-Gelfand-Gelfand resolution for Kac- Moody algebras and quantized enveloping algebras. Transform. Groups, 12(4):647 655, 2007. [6] Victor G. Kac. Infinite-dimensional Lie algebras. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, third edition, 1990. [7] Victor G. Kac and Dale H. Peterson. Regular functions on certain infinite-dimensional groups. In Arithmetic and geometry, Vol. II, volume 36 of Progr. Math., pages 141 166. Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, 1983. [8] Masaki Kashiwara. The flag manifold of Kac-Moody Lie algebra. In Proceedings of the JAMI Inaugural Conference, supplement to Amer. J. Math. the Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989. [9] Masaki Kashiwara. Kazhdan-Lusztig conjecture for a symmetrizable Kac-Moody Lie algebra. In The Grothendieck Festschrift, Vol. II, volume 87 of Progr. Math., pages 407 433. Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, 1990. [10] Masaki Kashiwara. Crystal bases of modified quantized enveloping algebra. Duke Math. J., 73(2):383 413, 1994. [11] Masaki Kashiwara and Mark Shimozono. Equivariant K-theory of affine flag manifolds and affine Grothendieck polynomials. Duke Math. J., 148(3):501 538, 2009. [12] Masaki Kashiwara and Toshiyuki Tanisaki. Kazhdan-Lusztig conjecture for affine Lie algebras with negative level. Duke Math. J., 77(1):21 62, 1995. [13] Shrawan Kumar. Kac-Moody groups, their flag varieties and representation theory, volume 204 of Progress in Mathematics. Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston, MA, 2002. [14] Shrawan Kumar and Karl Schwede. Richardson varieties have Kawamata log terminal singularities. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN, (3):842 864, 2014. [15] Peter Littelmann. Paths and root operators in representation theory. Ann. of Math. (2), 142(3):499 525, 1995. [16] Peter Littelmann. Contracting modules and standard monomial theory for symmetrizable Kac-Moody algebras. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 11(3):551 567, 1998. [17] Olivier Mathieu. Formules de caractères pour les algèbres de Kac-Moody générales. Astérisque, 159 160:1 267, 1988. 15

[18] Olivier Mathieu. Construction d un groupe de Kac-Moody et applications. Compositio Math., 69(1989):37 60, 1989. [19] Jacques Tits. Algebrès de Kac-Moody et groupes associés. Annuaire du College de France (1980 1981) 75 87 et (1981 1982) 91 106. 16