![MathJax Logo](/templates/jsp/_style2/_tandf/pb2/images/math-jax.gif)
Abstract
We study the existence of post-Lie algebra structures on pairs of Lie algebras , where one of the algebras is perfect non-semisimple, and the other one is abelian, nilpotent non-abelian, solvable non-nilpotent, simple, semisimple non-simple, reductive non-semisimple or complete non-perfect. We prove several nonexistence results, but also provide examples in some cases for the existence of a post-Lie algebra structure. Among other results we show that there is no post-Lie algebra structure on
, where
is perfect non-semisimple, and
is
. We also show that there is no post-Lie algebra structure on
, where
is perfect and
is reductive with a 1-dimensional center.
2020 MATHEMATICS SUBJECT CLASSIFICATION:
1 Introduction
Post-Lie algebras and Post-Lie algebra structures (or PA-structures) on pairs of Lie algebras have been studied in many areas of mathematics during the last years. PA-structures are a natural generalization of pre-Lie algebra structures on Lie algebras, which arise among other things from affine manifolds and affine actions on Lie groups, crystallographic groups, étale affine representations of Lie algebras, quantum field theory, operad theory, Rota-Baxter operators, and deformation theory of rings and algebras. There is a large literature on pre-Lie and post-Lie algebras, see for example [Citation5–9, Citation12, Citation14, Citation18] and the references therein. For a survey on pre-Lie algebra respectively post-Lie algebra structures see [Citation2, Citation11].
In the present article we study the existence question of post-Lie algebra structures on pairs of Lie algebras , where one Lie algebra is perfect and the other one is abelian, nilpotent, solvable, simple, semisimple, reductive, complete or perfect. In all but three cases we can solve the existence question and generalize our previous results for semisimple Lie algebras to perfect Lie algebras. However, for these three cases of
, namely where
is perfect non-semisimple, and
is either nilpotent, simple, or semisimple, we are not able solve the existence question in general. We conjecture that there do not exist post-Lie algebra structures in these cases. For some special families of examples we can prove this conjecture.
The outline of this paper is as follows. In the second section we provide basic results on perfect Lie algebras, including a classification of complex perfect Lie algebras of dimension . We also recall the basic notions for post-Lie algebra structures. In the third section we study the existence question for pairs
where
is perfect. If
is nilpotent, then we show for perfect Lie algebras
of dimension 6, that there exist no post-Lie algebra structures on
. We also prove, using the classification of complex perfect Lie algebras in low dimension, that there is no post-Lie algebra structure on
, where
. We find post-Lie algebra structures on
for examples of reductive Lie algebras
, and show that such structures do not exist for reductive Lie algebras
with a 1-dimensional center. In the fourth section we study the existence question for pairs
where
is perfect. Here we often find post-Lie algebra structures and are able to solve the existence problem in all cases.
2 Preliminaries
Let be a finite-dimensional Lie algebra over a field K. Denote by
the center of
, by
the solvable radical of
, and by
the nilradical of
. A Lie algebra
is called perfect, if
. Every semisimple Lie algebra over a field of characteristic zero is perfect. The converse does not hold. It is well known that the solvable radical of a perfect Lie algebra is nilpotent. One can also give a necessary and sufficient condition for a Levi decomposition of
, so that
is perfect.
Proposition 2.1.
Let be a Levi decomposition of a Lie algebra
and consider
with
as an
-module. Then
is perfect if and only if V does not contain the trivial 1-dimensional
-module.
The lowest-dimensional example of a complex perfect non-semisimple Lie algebra is of dimension 5. Here
has Lie brackets given by
, and
is the natural representation of
. The Lie brackets of
are given by
his Lie algebra is perfect and has a non-trivial solvable radical. Its center is trivial. We also give an example of a non-semisimple perfect Lie algebra with non-trivial center. For this, let
and
be the Heisenberg Lie algebra, with
. Consider the following semidirect sum of
and
, given by the following Lie brackets in the basis
:
We denote this Lie algebra by .
Example 2.2.
The Lie algebra is perfect, but not semisimple. It has a 1-dimensional center.
Indeed, we have , and
is not semisimple. The nilradical
is isomorphic to
as
-module, where V(n) denotes the irreducible
-module of dimension
. It follows from the Lie brackets that
is perfect. We also can derive this from Proposition 2.1. The quotient
is isomorphic to V(2) and does not contain the trivial 1-dimensional module V(1). Hence
is perfect.
In the study of PA-structures for perfect Lie algebras we are also interested in a classification of perfect Lie algebras in low dimensions. Turkowski has classified Lie algebras with non-trivial Levi decomposition up to dimension 8 over the real numbers in [Citation16], where he lists explicit Lie brackets for all algebras. From this work it is not difficult to derive a classification of complex perfect Lie algebras of dimension . We need to add one Lie algebra though, which Turkowski has not in his list. It is the complexification of the algebra
for
, isomorphic to
. Turkowski only allows
.
There is another classification given by Alev, Ooms and Van den Bergh in [Citation1], namely the classification of non-solvable algebraic Lie algebras of dimension over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero. It also contains explicit Lie brackets for all algebras. Since perfect Lie algebras are algebraic, we obtain again a list of complex perfect non-semisimple Lie algebras of dimension
. This list coincides with the (corrected) one by Turkowski. Let
denote the 5-dimensional Heisenberg Lie algebra, with basis
and Lie brackets
Denote by the free-nilpotent Lie algebra with 2 generators and nilpotency class 3, with basis
and Lie brackets
The classification result is as follows.
Proposition 2.3.
Every complex perfect non-semisimple Lie algebra of dimension is isomorphic to one of the following Lie algebras:
Table
Turkowski has also classified in [Citation17] real and complex Lie algebras with non-trivial Levi decomposition in dimension 9. This yields a list of complex perfect Lie algebras of dimension 9. Denote by the free-nilpotent Lie algebra with 3 generators and nilpotency class 2, and by
the 2-step nilpotent Lie algebra with basis
and Lie brackets
Then we have the following result.
Proposition 2.4.
Every complex perfect non-semisimple Lie algebra of dimension 9 is isomorphic to one of the following Lie algebras:
Table
In particular the nilradical of such an algebra always has nilpotency class .
We recall the definition of a post-Lie algebra structure on a pair of Lie algebras over a field K, see [Citation5]:
Definition 2.5.
Let and
be two Lie brackets on a vector space V over K. A post-Lie algebra structure, or PA-structure on the pair
is a K-bilinear product
satisfying the identities:
(1)
(1)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(3) for all
.
Define by the left multiplication operators of the algebra
. By (3), all L(x) are derivations of the Lie algebra
. Moreover, by (2), the left multiplication
is a linear representation of
.
If is abelian, then a post-Lie algebra structure on
corresponds to a pre-Lie algebra structure, or left-symmetric structure on
. In other words, if
for all
, then the conditions reduce to
(4)
(4)
(5)
(5) i.e.,
is a pre-Lie algebra structure on the Lie algebra
.
For semisimple Lie algebras we have the following result on PA-structures on pairs
, see Proposition 2.14 in [Citation5].
Proposition 2.6.
Let be a semisimple Lie algebra. Then a pair
admits a PA-structure if and only if there is an injective Lie algebra homomorphism
such that the map
is bijective. Here
denotes the projection onto the i-th factor for i = 1, 2.
Let us denote the composition of pi and by
for i = 1, 2.
We also recall the following results, see Propositions 2.14 and 2.21 in [Citation9].
Proposition 2.7.
Let be a pair of Lie algebras, where
is complete. Then there is a bijection between PA-structures on
and Rota-Baxter operators R of weight 1 on
. Every such PA-structure is then of the form
. If
and
are not isomorphic, then both
and
are nonzero ideals in
.
Here a Rota-Baxter algebra operator, for a nonassociative algebra over a field K, of weight is a linear operator
satisfying
for all
.
3 PA-structures with ![](//:0)
perfect
In this section we study the existence question of PA-structures on pairs of complex Lie algebras , where
is perfect non-semisimple. We consider 7 different cases for
, namely (a)
is abelian, (b)
is nilpotent non-abelian, (c)
is solvable non-nilpotent, (d)
is simple, (e)
is semisimple non-simple, (f)
is reductive non-semisimple, and (g)
is complete non-perfect.
We start with case (a).
Proposition 3.1.
There is no PA-structure on a pair , where
is perfect and
is abelian.
Proof.
A PA-structure on a pair , where
is abelian, corresponds to a left-symmetric (or pre-Lie algebra) structure on
. By Corollary 21 of [Citation15] there is no such structure on a perfect Lie algebra. □
For case (b) we only have partial results so far. In Proposition 3.6 of [Citation7] we have proved that there is no post-Lie algebra structure on , where
is perfect of dimension 5, namely
, and
is nilpotent. We can generalize this result to perfect Lie algebras
of dimension 6. According to Proposition 2.3, the non-semisimple perfect Lie algebras of dimension 6 are given by
and
.
Proposition 3.2.
Let be a pair of Lie algebras, where
is either
or
, and
is nilpotent. Then there is no PA-structure on
.
Proof.
Let and assume that there exists a PA-structure on
, with the homomorphism
given as in Definition 2.5. Let
be the embedding defined by
. We claim that
. Suppose that this intersection is nonzero. Since it is an ideal in the simple Lie algebra
, this implies that
, so that
. In particular, we have L(s) = 0 for all
. By axiom (1) in Definition 2.5 it follows that
for all
. Hence
has a subalgebra isomorphic to
. This is impossible, because
is nilpotent, so that the claim follows.
We have shown in the proof of Theorem 3.3 in [Citation12] that the Lie algebra , with
has a direct vector space sum decomposition
Since and
are homomorphic images of a perfect Lie algebra, they are perfect. Hence
is perfect. Let
and
. Then we have
. Since
is nonzero and semisimple. Hence
and
. So
is perfect and has nilradical
. By Proposition 2.1,
does not contain the trivial 1-dimensional
-module V(1). Since
, also
does not contain the trivial 1-dimensional
-module V(1). Hence
is a perfect Lie algebra of dimension 9. By Proposition 2.4, the nilpotency class
of
is at most 2. Proposition 4.2 of [Citation5] says, that if
admits a post-Lie algebra structure, and
, then
admits a pre-Lie algebra structure. Since
is perfect, this is impossible by Corollary 21 of [Citation15]. □
Let us again state the last result used in the proof, see also Proposition 3.3 in [Citation7].
Proposition 3.3.
Let be a pair of Lie algebras, where
is perfect and
is 2-step nilpotent. Then there exists no PA-structure on
.
In case (c), we have proved the following result in Proposition 4.4 of [Citation5].
Proposition 3.4.
There is no PA-structure on a pair , where
is perfect and
is solvable non-nilpotent.
For case (d) we start with low-dimensional simple Lie algebras . There is no pair
with
and
perfect non-semisimple, since the only perfect Lie algebra in dimension 3 is simple. The next case is to consider pairs
, where
and
is a perfect non-semisimple Lie algebra of dimension 8. We start with the following result.
Lemma 3.5.
Let be an injective Lie algebra homomorphism. By conjugating with a matrix in
we may assume that the image of i is of the form
Proof.
The vector space becomes an
-module via the embedding i restricted to
. Hence either
, or
as
-module. In the first case we can choose a basis of
such that
by using the natural representation
and
for the basis
of
. A short computation shows that when such a representation extends to
, we obtain one of the forms for
as described above.
In the second case we may assume that and
. It is easy to see that this representation does not extend to one of
. □
Lemma 3.6.
Let be an injective Lie algebra homomorphism. Denote by
the projection of a matrix in
to its i-th column, and by
the projection to its i-th row. Then none of the linear maps
for i = 1, 2, 3 is bijective.
Proof.
It is enough to show the claim for columns. We obtain the result for rows by applying the isomorphism of Lie algebras , given by
, to the result for columns. We will give the proof for
. The other two cases are similar. Note that
is an
-module via j. Hence the map
is actually the map
Because of the annihilator of any vector is non-trivial by Lemma 4.1 in [Citation6], so that the map
is not injective. □
Lemma 3.7.
Let and
be Lie algebras isomorphic to
. Then the ideals of the Lie algebra
are given by
Proof.
It is clear that all of these subspaces are ideals in . Conversely, assume that
is an ideal in
. If
, then
and
is an ideal of
. But the only ideals of
are 0, V(2) and
. So, if
then all ideals are given by
and
.
Now suppose that . We claim that then
. Indeed, suppose that there exists an element x in
. We can write
with
and
, where
. There exists a
such that
, so that
, which is a contradiction. Hence we have
, which leads to the ideals 0, V(2) and
. □
Lemma 3.8.
There is no direct vector space decomposition with subalgebras
and
of
satisfying
and
.
Proof.
Assume that there is such a decomposition . Then after applying a base change we may assume by Lemma 3.5 that
As is a direct vector space sum of
and
we must have that the row projection map
is bijective in the first case, and the column projection map
is bijective in the second case. However, by Lemma 3.6, this is impossible. □
We can now apply these lemmas to PA-structures on pairs with
, where
has a Levi subalgebra isomorphic to
.
Proposition 3.9.
Let and
. Then there is no PA-structure on the pair
.
Proof.
Assume that there exists a PA-structure on with
. Let us write
. By Proposition 2.6 there exists an injective Lie algebra homomorphism
such that
is a bijective linear map. We will examine the possible kernels of j1. Since
is an ideal in
, it must be one of the six possibilities given in Lemma 3.7.
Case 1: . Then
is an isomorphism. Since
is not semisimple, this is a contradiction.
Case 2: . Then j1 is the zero map. Since
has to be bijective,
is an isomorphism. This is impossible.
Case 3: . Then the representation
is faithful. However, the smallest dimension of a faithful representation of
is equal to 4, see [Citation3], Proposition 2.5. This is a contradiction.
Case 4: . Then
has to be injective. However,
contains a 3-dimensional abelian subalgebra, whereas
does not. This is a contradiction.
Case 5: . Then
. Since
is an ideal, which is nonzero as in case 1, we have
. So for every
we can write
with
and
. Then we have
, and
is injective if and only if
. This is equivalent to
with
and
, which is a contradiction to Lemma 3.8.
Case 6: . Then
is not contained in
. So from the six possibilities for the ideal
, there are left 0, V(2) and
. We already know that
must be nonzero. Also,
leads to a contradiction as in case 3. Finally
and
is exactly the symmetric situation to case 5, and so also leads to a contradiction. □
Now we can prove the following result.
Theorem 3.10.
Let be a pair of Lie algebras, where
is perfect non-semisimple and
. Then there is no PA-structure on
.
Proof.
Denote by a Levi subalgebra of
. Then either
or
. In the first case we have
by Proposition 2.3. Then the claim follows by Proposition 3.9. In the second case, by Proposition 2.3,
, where
is isomorphic to one of the following five Lie algebras
Again we are using the maps , and assume that
is bijective. In the first two cases, either j1 or j2 must be injective on the factor V(3), respectively V(5). This contradicts the fact that
does not contain an abelian subalgebra of dimension
.
Assume that . We will look again at the possibilities for
. If it has a non-trivial Levi factor, then
, so that
is bijective. This is a contradiction. Hence we may assume that
is solvable, so that it is contained in
. Here we can view
both as a subalgebra and as a submodule of
. As an
-submodule,
is isomorphic to
, because
, see Example 2.2. The submodule
cannot occur as an ideal, since there is no subalgebra corresponding to it. So we have the following possibilities for
as a submodule:
Case 1: . Then j1 is an isomorphism. This is a contradiction.
Case 2: . Then
is injective. This is impossible, because
has a 3-dimensional abelian subalgebra, see Example 2.2, but
does not have one.
Case 3: . Since
, it follows that j2 induces an injective homomorphism
, which is impossible as in case 2.
Case 4: , with
. Then j2 is injective on
, which is impossible, because
is an abelian subalgebra of dimension 3.
Case 5: . Then
is injective. This is impossible, because
has a 3-dimensional abelian subalgebra, but
does not have one.
Assume that . We claim that at least one of the maps j1, j2 must be injective on
. Otherwise
, so that
, which is a contradiction to the fact that
is bijective. So we may assume that j1 or j2 is injective. This is impossible since
contains a 3-dimensional abelian subalgebra, but
does not have one.
Finally assume that . Then again at least one of the maps j1, j2 must be injective on
. If j1 is not injective on
, then
. We claim that
. In fact, every ideal
of
satisfying
also satisfies
. To see this, note that that
, and that the action of
on
is trivial, since the quotient is 1-dimensional. It follows that the action of
on
coincides with the action on
. By Proposition 2.1 it has no trivial 1-dimensional submodule, since
is perfect. This also implies that
has no trivial 1-dimensional submodule, so that
. Since
it follows that
. Hence if both j1 and j2 are not injective on
, the center
is contained in
and
, so that
. This is a contradiction. Consequently,
is an injection for some i, contradicting the fact that
has a 3-dimensional abelian subalgebra, but
does not have one. □
It is not clear how to generalize this proof for other simple Lie algebras .
For case (e) we can prove the following general result.
Proposition 3.11.
Let be a pair of Lie algebras, where
is perfect non-semisimple and
is semisimple. Assume that we have a Levi decomposition
, where
is a simple subalgebra and V is an irreducible
-module, considered as abelian Lie algebra. Then there is no PA-structure on
.
Proof.
Suppose that there exists a PA-structure on . Then by Proposition 2.7 it is of the form
for a Rota-Baxter operator
of weight 1 on
. Moreover, since
and
are not isomorphic, both
and
are nonzero ideals of
with
We will show that the only ideals of are
. Then it is clear that V is contained in the above intersection, so that V = 0. This is a contradiction. So let
be an ideal of
. Then we obtain a Levi decomposition for
by
Since is an ideal in
, and
is simple, we have either
or
. Also, since
is an
-submodule of V and V is irreducible, we have either
or
.
Case 1: . Then
is either zero or
. It follows that either
or
. But
is not an ideal in
, so that we obtain
.
Case 2: . Then
, which means either
or
.
So we obtain V = 0 and hence a contradiction. □
For we obtain a further result for case (e). In Theorem 4.1 of [Citation9] we have classified all Lie algebras
, such that the pair
with
admits a PA-structure. Here we have used the theory of Rota-Baxter operators. It is easy to see that none of the eight cases for
in this classification yields a perfect, non-semisimple Lie algebra. Hence we obtain the following result.
Proposition 3.12.
Let be a pair of Lie algebras, where
is perfect non-semisimple and
. Then there is no PA-structure on
.
For case (f) consider the perfect non-semisimple Lie algebra . Let
be a basis of
with
, and Lie brackets given as follows:
Example 3.13.
The pair of Lie algebras admits a PA-structure given by
Here is reductive with a 2-dimensional center. Such examples are impossible when
is reductive with a 1-dimensional center, as the following result shows.
Proposition 3.14.
Let be a pair of Lie algebras, where
is perfect and
is reductive with a 1-dimensional center. Then there is no PA-structure on
.
Proof.
Assume that there exists a PA-structure on
. Then by Proposition 2.11 in [Citation5] we have an injective Lie algebra homomorphism
Writing we obtain a direct vector space decomposition
. Note that
is nonzero. Since
is perfect and
and L are homomorphisms,
and
are perfect subalgebras of
. Hence also
is perfect, see the proof of Lemma 2.3 in [Citation13], so that
is perfect. By assumption we have
, where
is semisimple and
is 1-dimensional. Since the commutator and the center of
are characteristic ideals in
, and
is an ideal in
, both
and
are ideals in
. We claim that
for the Lie bracket in
. Since
is an ideal in
, we have
, so that
is a 1-dimensional
-module. However, for a perfect Lie algebra, every 1-dimensional module is trivial. The proof is the same as for a semisimple Lie algebra. Hence we obtain
. It follows that
since
is an ideal in
. Because
is perfect, we have
However, because of we have
. Since
, this implies
. This is a contradiction to
. □
For case (g) we have the following result.
Proposition 3.15.
Let be a pair of Lie algebras, where
is perfect and
is complete non-perfect. Then there is no PA-structure on
.
Proof.
Assume that there exists a PA-structure on . Since
is complete, this PA-structure is given by
for a Rota-Baxter operator R of weight 1. Because
is perfect, it follows by Corollary 2.20 in [Citation9] that
is also perfect. This is a contradiction. □
4 PA-structures with ![](//:0)
perfect
In this section we study the existence question of PA-structures on pairs of complex Lie algebras , where
is perfect non-semisimple. We consider 7 different cases for
, namely (a)
is abelian, (b)
is nilpotent non-abelian, (c)
is solvable non-nilpotent, (d)
is simple, (e)
is semisimple non-simple, (f)
is reductive non-semisimple, and (g)
is complete non-perfect.
For case (a) we have the following result.
Proposition 4.1.
There is no PA-structure on a pair , where
is abelian and
is perfect.
Proof.
Any PA-structure on with
abelian corresponds to an LR-structure on
. However, every Lie algebra admitting an LR-structure is 2-step solvable by Proposition 2.1 in [Citation4]. Hence there exists no PA-structure on
. □
For case (b) we have the following result.
Proposition 4.2.
There is no PA-structure on a pair , where
is nilpotent non-abelian and
is perfect.
Proof.
Assume that there is a PA-structure on . Since
is nilpotent,
must be solvable by Proposition 4.3 in [Citation5]. This is a contradiction. □
For case (c), consider the perfect non-semisimple Lie algebra with the Lie brackets given before Example 3.13. We have a decomposition
into subalgebras
and
. Then by Propositions 2.7 and 2.13 in [Citation9], the Rota-Baxter operator R given by
for all
defines a PA-structure on the pair
, where
is solvable non-nilpotent. The matrix of R is given by
and the Lie brackets of
are given by
and
.
Example 4.3.
The pair of Lie algebras with
and
admits a PA-structure given by
For the cases (d) and (e) we have the following result.
Proposition 4.4.
There is no PA-structure on a pair , where
is semisimple and
is perfect non-semisimple.
Proof.
Assume that there exists a PA-structure on , where
is semisimple. Then by Theorem 3.3 in [Citation12],
is isomorphic to
. This is a contradiction. □
For case (f) we have the following example.
Example 4.5.
The pair of Lie algebras admits a PA-structure given by
Here we use the Lie brackets for as in Example 3.13, and the standard Lie brackets of
for
. This PA-structure can also be realized by the Rota-Baxter operator
for the decomposition
, where
,
and
.
Finally, for case (g) we have the following example.
Example 4.6.
The pair of Lie algebras admits a PA-structure given by
Here is complete non-perfect, and the Lie brackets of
are given by the standard brackets for
, and by
for
.
5 The existence question
We summarize the existence results for post-Lie algebra structures from the previous sections and from the papers [Citation5–10, Citation12] as follows.
Theorem 5.1.
The existence table for post-Lie algebra structures on pairs is given as follows:
Table
A checkmark only means that there is some non-trivial pair of Lie algebras with the given algebraic properties admitting a PA-structure. A dash means that there does not exist any PA-structure on such a pair. Recall that the classes are (to avoid unnecessary overlap) abelian, nilpotent non-abelian, solvable non-nilpotent, simple, semisimple non-simple, reductive non-semisimple and complete non-perfect.
Additional information
Funding
References
- Alev, J., Ooms, A. I., Van den Bergh, M. (2000). The Gelfand-Kirillov conjecture for Lie algebras of dimension at most eight. J. Algebra 227(2):549–581. DOI: 10.1006/jabr.1999.8192.
- Burde, D. (2006). Left-symmetric algebras, or pre-Lie algebras in geometry and physics. Central Eur. J. Math. 4(3):323–357.
- Burde, D., Moens, W. A. (2007). Minimal faithful representations of reductive Lie algebras. Archiv der Math. 89(6):513–523.
- Burde, D., Dekimpe, K., Deschamps, S. (2009). LR-algebras. Contemp. Math. 491:125–140.
- Burde, D., Dekimpe, K., Vercammen, K. (2012). Affine actions on Lie groups and post-Lie algebra structures. Linear Algebra Appl. 437(5):1250–1263. DOI: 10.1016/j.laa.2012.04.007.
- Burde, D., Dekimpe, K. (2013). Post-Lie algebra structures and generalized derivations of semisimple Lie algebras. Mosc. Math. J. 13(1):1–18.
- Burde, D., Dekimpe, K. (2016). Post-Lie algebra structures on pairs of Lie algebras. J. Algebra 464:226–245. DOI: 10.1016/j.jalgebra.2016.05.026.
- Burde, D., Ender, C., Moens, W. A. (2018). Post-Lie algebra structures for nilpotent Lie algebras. Int. J. Algebra Comput. 28(5):915–933. DOI: 10.1142/S0218196718500406.
- Burde, D., Gubarev, V. (2019). Rota–Baxter operators and post-Lie algebra structures on semisimple Lie algebras. Commun. Algebra 47(5):2280–2296.
- Burde, D., Gubarev, V. (2020). Decompositions of algebras and post-associative algebra structures. Int. J. Algebra Comput. 30(3):451–466. DOI: 10.1142/S0218196720500071.
- Burde, D. (2021). Crystallographic actions on Lie groups and post-Lie algebra structures. Commun. Math. 29(1): 67–89. DOI: 10.2478/cm-2021-0003.
- Burde, D., Dekimpe, K., Monadjem, M. (2022). Rigidity results for Lie algebras admitting a post-Lie algebra structure. Int. J. Algebra Comput. 32(08):1495–1511. DOI: 10.1142/S0218196722500679.
- Burde, D., Moens, W. A. (2022). Semisimple decompositions of Lie algebras and prehomogeneous modules. J. Algebra 604:664–681. DOI: 10.1016/j.jalgebra.2022.04.015.
- Ebrahimi-Fard, K., Lundervold, A., Mencattini, I., Munthe-Kaas, H. (2015). Post-Lie algebras and isospectral flows. SIGMA Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl. 11:Paper 093, 16 pp. DOI: 10.3842/SIGMA.2015.093.
- Helmstetter, J. (1979). Radical d’une algèbre symétrique a gauche. Ann. Inst. Fourier 29:17–35. DOI: 10.5802/aif.764.
- Turwokski, P. (1988). Low-dimensional real Lie algebras. J. Math. Phys. 29(10):2139–2144.
- Turkowski, P. (1992). Structure of real Lie algebras. Linear Algebra Appl. 171:197–212. DOI: 10.1016/0024-3795(92)90259-D.
- Vallette, B. (2007). Homology of generalized partition posets. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 208, no. 2 (2007), 699–725.