<ph f="cmr"> </ph><ph f="cmbx">Irreducibility of commuting variety associated with </ph> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mo>(</mo> <mo mathvariant="fraktur">s</mo> <msub> <mrow> <mo mathvariant="fraktur">o</mo> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>n</mi> <mo>+</mo> <mi>m</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>,</mo> <mo mathvariant="fraktur">s</mo> <msub> <mrow> <mo mathvariant="fraktur">o</mo> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>n</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>⊕</mo> <mo mathvariant="fraktur">s</mo> <msub> <mrow> <mo mathvariant="fraktur">o</mo> </mrow> <mrow> <mi>m</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>)</mo> </math>

### Oksana Yakimova

Introduction

The ground field $\mathbb{k}$  is algebraically closed and of characteristic zero. Let $\mathfrak{g}$  be a reductive algebraic Lie algebra over $\mathbb{k}$  and $\sigma$  an involutory automorphism of $\mathfrak{g}$  . Then $\mathfrak{g}={\mathfrak{g}}_{0}\oplus {\mathfrak{g}}_{1}$  is the direct sum of $\sigma$  -eigenspaces. Here ${\mathfrak{g}}_{0}$  is a reductive subalgebra and ${\mathfrak{g}}_{1}$  is a ${\mathfrak{g}}_{0}$  -module.
Let $G$  be the adjoint group of $\mathfrak{g}$  and ${G}_{0}\subset G$  a connected subgroup with $Lie{G}_{0}={\mathfrak{g}}_{0}$  . The commuting variety of $\left(\mathfrak{g},{\mathfrak{g}}_{0}\right)$  is the following set:
$ℭ\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)=\left\{\left(x,y\right)\in {\mathfrak{g}}_{1}×{\mathfrak{g}}_{1}|\left[x,y\right]=0\right\}.$  The problem whether $ℭ\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)$  is irreducible was considered by Panyushev [5, [6and Sabourin-Yu [8, [9. Suppose $\mathfrak{g}$  is simple. Then the known results are
• $\bullet$  if the rank of the symmetric pair $\left(\mathfrak{g},{\mathfrak{g}}_{0}\right)$  is equal to the semisimple rank of $\mathfrak{g}$  (called the maximal rank case), then the corresponding commuting variety is irreducible, [5;
• $\bullet$  if the rank of $\left(\mathfrak{g},{\mathfrak{g}}_{0}\right)$  equals $1$  , then $ℭ\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)$  is irreducible only in one case, namely, $\left(\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{m+1},\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{m}\right)$  , [6, [8;
• $\bullet$  for $\left(\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{l}}_{2n},\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{p}}_{2n}\right)$  and $\left({E}_{6},{F}_{4}\right)$  the corresponding commuting variety is irreducible, [6;
• $\bullet$  if $\left(\mathfrak{g},{\mathfrak{g}}_{0}\right)=\left(\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{2+m},\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{2}\oplus \mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{m}\right)$  , then $ℭ\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)$  is irreducible, [9.
For all other symmetric pairs the problem is open. Here we extend the result of [9to all symmetric pairs $\left(\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{n+m},\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{n}\oplus \mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{m}\right)$  . The scheme of the proof is similar to that of [9. But as it often happens, the argument in a general situation is shorter and simpler, than in a particular case.

1 Commuting variety

The commuting variety $ℭ\left(\mathfrak{g}\right)=\left\{\left(x,y\right)\in \mathfrak{g}×\mathfrak{g}|\left[x,y\right]=0\right\}$  of a reductive Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$  was considered by Richardson in [7, where he shows that $ℭ\left(\mathfrak{g}\right)$  coincides with the closure of $G\left(\mathfrak{t}×\mathfrak{t}\right)$  for any Cartan subalgebra $\mathfrak{t}\subset \mathfrak{g}$  , and is therefore irreducible. It is not yet known whether $ℭ\left(\mathfrak{g}\right)$  is normal or whether the ideal of $ℭ\left(\mathfrak{g}\right)$  is generated by quadrics.
Let $\left(\mathfrak{g},{\mathfrak{g}}_{0}\right)$  be a symmetric pair and $\mathfrak{c}\subset {\mathfrak{g}}_{1}$  a maximal abelian subspace consisting of semisimple elements. Any such subspace is called a Cartan subspace of ${\mathfrak{g}}_{1}$  . All Cartan subspaces are ${G}_{0}$  -conjugate, see [3. The dimension of $\mathfrak{c}$  is called the rank of the symmetric pair $\left(\mathfrak{g},{\mathfrak{g}}_{0}\right)$  . It is well-known that ${ℭ}_{0}=\overline{{G}_{0}\left(\mathfrak{c}×\mathfrak{c}\right)}$  is the unique irreducible component of $ℭ\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)$  of maximal dimension, see [5,Sect.3. Here $dimℭ\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)=dim{\mathfrak{g}}_{1}+dim\mathfrak{c}$  . It follows that $ℭ\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)$  is irreducible if and only if $ℭ\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)={ℭ}_{0}$  .
The irreducibility problem for $ℭ\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)$  was first considered by Panyushev in [5. As was mentioned above, $ℭ\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)$  is not always irreducible. On the other hand, in some particular cases one can say more about properties of $ℭ\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)$  . If $\left(\mathfrak{g},{\mathfrak{g}}_{0}\right)$  is a symmetric pair of maximal rank, then $ℭ\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)$  is a normal complete intersection and the ideal of $ℭ\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)$  in $\mathbb{k}\left[{\mathfrak{g}}_{1}×{\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right]$  is generated by quadrics, see [5.
Let $n$  be a non-negative integer. The set ${\mathfrak{g}}_{1}^{\left(n\right)}=\left\{\xi \in {\mathfrak{g}}_{1}|dim{G}_{0}\xi =n\right\}$  is locally closed. Irreducible components of ${\mathfrak{g}}_{1}^{\left(n\right)}$  are called ${G}_{0}$  -sheets of ${\mathfrak{g}}_{1}$  . The following statement is well-known for the specialists, but we include a proof here for the sake of completeness.
Lemma 1. Let $S$  be a ${G}_{0}$  -sheet of ${\mathfrak{g}}_{1}$  containing semisimple elements. Suppose for each semisimple $h\in S$  we have $\left(\left\{h\right\}×\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}{\right)}_{h}\right)\subset {ℭ}_{0}$  . Then $\left(\left\{x\right\}×\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}{\right)}_{x}\right)\subset {ℭ}_{0}$  for each $x\in S$  .
• Proof. Let $x\in S$  . Since $S$  contains semisimple elements, they form a dense subset. Therefore, we can find a morphism $\gamma :\mathbb{k}\to S$  such that $\gamma \left(0\right)=x$  and $\gamma \left(t\right)$  is semisimple for each $t\ne 0$  .
Then $\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}{\right)}_{x}={lim}_{t\to 0}\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}{\right)}_{\gamma \left(t\right)}$  , where the limit is taken in an appropriate Grassmannian. For each $y\in \left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}{\right)}_{x}$  , we can define elements $y\left(t\right)\in \left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}{\right)}_{\gamma \left(t\right)}$  such that $y={lim}_{t\to 0}y\left(t\right)$  . Since $\left(x,y\right)={lim}_{t\to 0}\left(\gamma \left(t\right),y\left(t\right)\right)$  and $\left(\gamma \left(t\right),y\left(t\right)\right)\in {ℭ}_{0}$  for each $t\ne 0$  , we conclude that $\left(x,y\right)\in {ℭ}_{0}$  .

2 Semisimple and nilpotent elements in ${\mathfrak{g}}_{1}$

In this section $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{n+m}$  , ${\mathfrak{g}}_{0}=\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{n}\oplus \mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{m}$  . Let $V={\mathbb{k}}^{n+m}$  be a vector space of the defining representation of $\mathfrak{g}$  . Then we have a ${G}_{0}$  -invariant decomposition $V={V}_{a}\oplus {V}_{b}$  , where ${V}_{a}={\mathbb{k}}^{n}$  , ${V}_{b}={\mathbb{k}}^{m}$  , and ${\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\sim ={\mathbb{k}}^{n}\otimes {\mathbb{k}}^{m}$  as a ${G}_{0}$  -module. Denote by $\left(,\right)$  the non-degenerate symmetric $\mathfrak{g}$  -invariant bilinear form on $V$  .
Let ${\mathfrak{g}}_{h}$  be the centraliser of an element $h\in {\mathfrak{g}}_{1}$  . Then $\sigma$  induces the symmetric decomposition $\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{h}\right)=\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{0}{\right)}_{h}\oplus \left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}{\right)}_{h}$  , where $\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{0}{\right)}_{h}$  is the centraliser of $h$  in ${\mathfrak{g}}_{0}$  . First we describe centralisers ${\mathfrak{g}}_{h}$  and $\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{0}{\right)}_{h}$  of semisimple elements $h\in {\mathfrak{g}}_{1}$  .
Lemma 2. Let $h\in {\mathfrak{g}}_{1}$  be a semisimple element. Then the symmetric pair $\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{h},\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{0}{\right)}_{h}\right)$  is a direct sum $\left({\oplus }_{i=1}^{r}\left(\mathfrak{g}{\mathfrak{l}}_{{k}_{i}},\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{{k}_{i}}\right)\right)\oplus \left(\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{n+m-2k},\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{n-k}\oplus \mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{m-k}\right)$  , where $k={\sum }_{i}{k}_{i}$  .
• Proof. Recall several well-known facts about semisimple elements of $\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{n+m}$  . Let ${v}_{\lambda }\in V$  be an eigenvector of $h$  such that $h\cdot {v}_{\lambda }=\lambda {v}_{\lambda }$  and $\lambda \ne 0$  . Since $h$  preserves the symmetric form $\left(,\right)$  , we have $\left({v}_{\lambda },{v}_{\lambda }\right)=0$  . Also if $h\cdot v=\lambda v$  , $h\cdot w=\mu w$  , then $\left(v,w\right)\ne 0$  only if $\lambda =-\mu$  .
Let $\left\{±{\lambda }_{i},0|i=1,\dots ,r\right\}$  be the set of the eigenvalues of $h$  . Then there is an orthogonal $h$  -invariant decomposition $V=\left({V}_{{\lambda }_{1}}\oplus {V}_{-{\lambda }_{1}}\right)\oplus \dots \oplus \left({V}_{{\lambda }_{r}}\oplus {V}_{-{\lambda }_{r}}\right)\oplus {V}_{0}.$  Here each ${V}_{{\lambda }_{i}}$  is an isotropic subspace, $\left({V}_{{\lambda }_{i}},{V}_{±{\lambda }_{j}}\right)=0$  if ${\lambda }_{i}\ne ±{\lambda }_{j}$  and $\left({V}_{0},{V}_{±{\lambda }_{i}}\right)=0$  for each ${\lambda }_{i}$  . Therefore ${\mathfrak{g}}_{h}\subset \left({\oplus }_{i=1}^{r}\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{o}\left({V}_{{\lambda }_{i}}\oplus {V}_{-{\lambda }_{i}}\right)\right)\oplus \mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{o}\left({V}_{0}\right)$  . More precisely, if $dim{V}_{{\lambda }_{i}}={k}_{i}$  and $k={\sum }_{i}{k}_{i}$  , then ${\mathfrak{g}}_{h}=\left({\oplus }_{i}\mathfrak{g}{\mathfrak{l}}_{{k}_{i}}\right)\oplus \mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{n+m-2k}$  .
Now it remains to describe $\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{0}{\right)}_{h}=\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{h}{\right)}^{\sigma }$  . We may assume that $\sigma$  is a conjugation by a diagonal matrix $A\in {O}_{n+m}$  such that $A{|}_{{V}_{a}}=-id$  and $A{|}_{{V}_{b}}=id$  . Since $\sigma \left(h\right)=-h$  , we have $A\cdot {V}_{{\lambda }_{i}}={V}_{-{\lambda }_{i}}$  and $A\cdot {V}_{0}={V}_{0}$  . Moreover, $A$  determines a non-degenerate symmetric form $\left(,{\right)}_{A}$  on each ${V}_{{\lambda }_{i}}$  by the formula $\left(v,w{\right)}_{A}=\left(v,A\cdot w\right)$  . Therefore, each $\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{o}\left({V}_{{\lambda }_{i}}\oplus {V}_{-{\lambda }_{i}}\right)$  is $\sigma$  -invariant, $\left(\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{o}\left({V}_{{\lambda }_{i}}\oplus {V}_{-{\lambda }_{i}}\right){\right)}^{\sigma }\sim =\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{{k}_{i}}\oplus \mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{{k}_{i}}$  , and $\left(\mathfrak{g}{\mathfrak{l}}_{{k}_{i}}{\right)}^{\sigma }=\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{{k}_{i}}$  . Finally, the restriction $A{|}_{{V}_{0}}$  has signature $\left(n-k,m-k\right)$  . Thus $\left(\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{n+m-2k}{\right)}^{\sigma }=\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{n-k}\oplus \mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{m-k}$  .
Denote by $\mathfrak{N}\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)$  the nullcone of ${G}_{0}:{\mathfrak{g}}_{1}$  , i.e., the set of all nilpotent elements in ${\mathfrak{g}}_{1}$  .
Recall several standard facts concerning nilpotent elements in $\mathfrak{g}\mathfrak{l}\left(V\right)$  . Suppose $e\in \mathfrak{g}\mathfrak{l}\left(V\right)$  is nilpotent and $m=dimKer\left(e\right)$  . Then by the theory of Jordan normal form, there are vectors ${w}_{1},\dots ,{w}_{m}\in V$  and non-negative integers ${d}_{1},\dots ,{d}_{m}$  such that ${e}^{{d}_{i}+1}\cdot {w}_{i}=0$  and $\left\{{e}^{s}\cdot {w}_{i}|1\le i\le m,0\le s\le {d}_{i}\right\}$  is a basis for $V$  . Let ${V}_{i}\subset V$  be a linear span of $\left\{{w}_{i},e\cdot {w}_{i},\dots ,{e}^{{d}_{i}}\cdot {w}_{i}\right\}$  . Then the spaces $\left\{{V}_{i}\right\}$  are called the Jordan (or cyclic) spaces of the nilpotent element $e$  and $V={\oplus }_{i=1}^{m}{V}_{i}$  .
Lemma 3. Suppose $e\in \mathfrak{N}\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)$  . Then the cyclic vectors $\left\{{w}_{i}{\right\}}_{i=1}^{m}$  and hence the cyclic spaces $\left\{{V}_{i}\right\}$  's can be chosen such that the following properties are satisfied:
• (i) there is an involution $i↦{i}^{*}$  on the set $\left\{1,...,m\right\}$  such that ${d}_{i}={d}_{{i}^{*}}$  , $i={i}^{*}$  if and only if $dim{V}_{i}$  is odd, and $\left({V}_{i},{V}_{j}\right)=0$  if $i\ne {j}^{*}$  ;
• (ii) $\sigma \left({w}_{i}\right)=±{w}_{i}$  .
• Proof. Part (i) is a standard property of the nilpotent orbits in $\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{o}\left(V\right)$  , see, for example, [1,Sect. 5.1or [2,Sect. 1. Then part (ii) says that in the presence of the involution $\sigma$  cyclic vectors for $e\in \mathfrak{N}\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)$  can be chosen to be $\sigma$  -eigenvectors, see [4,Prop. 2.
For each $e\in \mathfrak{N}\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)$  we choose cyclic vectors $\left\{{w}_{i}\right\}$  as prescribed by Lemma  3 . Say that ${e}^{s}\cdot {w}_{i}$  has type $a$  if $\sigma \left({e}^{s}\cdot {w}_{i}\right)=-{e}^{s}\cdot {w}_{i}$  , i.e., ${e}^{s}\cdot {w}_{i}\in {V}_{a}$  ; and ${e}^{s}\cdot {w}_{i}$  has type $b$  if ${e}^{s}\cdot {w}_{i}\in {V}_{b}$  .
Since $\sigma \left(e\right)=-e$  , if ${e}^{s}\cdot {w}_{i}\in {V}_{a}$  , then ${e}^{s+1}\cdot {w}_{i}\in {V}_{b}$  and vice versa. Therefore each string $〈{w}_{i},e\cdot {w}_{i},\dots ,{e}^{{d}_{i}}\cdot {w}_{i}〉$  has one of the following types:
$aba\dots ab$  , $bab\dots ba$  , $aba\dots ba$  , $bab\dots ab$  .
Let $e\in \mathfrak{N}\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)$  . There is an $\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{l}}_{2}$  -triple $\left\{e,f,h\right\}$  such that $f\in {\mathfrak{g}}_{1}$  and $h\in {\mathfrak{g}}_{0}$  . Recall that $e$  is called even if the eigenvalues of $ad\left(h\right)$  on $\mathfrak{g}$  are even. An element $e\in \mathfrak{N}\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)$  is said to be $\sigma$  -distinguished (in other notations $\mathfrak{p}$  or $\left(-1\right)$  -distinguished) if $\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}{\right)}_{e}$  contains no semisimple elements of $\left[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}\right]$  .
Lemma 4. In case $\left(\mathfrak{g},{\mathfrak{g}}_{0}\right)=\left(\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{n+m},\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{n}\oplus \mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{m}\right)$  each $\sigma$  -distinguished element $e\in \mathfrak{N}\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)$  is even.
• Proof. Let $\left\{{V}_{i}\right\}$  be the cyclic spaces of $e\in \mathfrak{N}\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)$  chosen as prescribed by Lemma  3 . Suppose there is an even-dimensional ${V}_{i}$  . According to [4,Prop. 2, if ${V}_{i}$  has type $aba\dots ab$  , then ${V}_{{i}^{*}}$  has type $bab\dots ba$  , i.e., if $\sigma \left({w}_{i}\right)=-{w}_{i}$  , then $\sigma \left({w}_{{i}^{*}}\right)={w}_{{i}^{*}}$  . Let $\mathfrak{l}$  be a Levi subalgebra of $\left(\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{o}\left({V}_{i}\oplus {V}_{{i}^{*}}\right){\right)}_{e}$  . We may assume that $\mathfrak{l}$  is $\sigma$  -invariant. Then $\mathfrak{l}=\mathfrak{s}\mathfrak{l}\left(\mathbb{k}{w}_{i}\oplus \mathbb{k}{w}_{{i}^{*}}\right)\sim =\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{l}}_{2}$  . The restriction of $\sigma$  defines a symmetric decomposition $\mathfrak{l}={\mathfrak{l}}_{0}\oplus {\mathfrak{l}}_{1}$  , where ${\mathfrak{l}}_{0}={\mathfrak{l}}^{\sigma }=\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{2}$  . Therefore ${\mathfrak{l}}_{1}=\mathfrak{l}\cap {\mathfrak{g}}_{1}$  contains semisimple elements. This means that $e$  is not $\sigma$  -distinguished. Hence, all ${V}_{i}$  are odd-dimensional and $e$  is even.

3 $ℭ\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)$  is irreducible

In this section we prove that $ℭ\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)$  is irreducible in case $\left(\mathfrak{g},{\mathfrak{g}}_{0}\right)=\left(\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{n+m},\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{n}\oplus \mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{m}\right)$  .
The following lemma is taken from [9, but the proof given here is shorter. Note that this lemma is valid for any symmetric pair $\left(\mathfrak{g},{\mathfrak{g}}_{0}\right)$  .
Lemma 5. Suppose $e\in \mathfrak{N}\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)$  is even. Then $e$  belongs to a ${G}_{0}$  -sheet containing semisimple elements.
• Proof. Let $\left(e,f,h\right)$  be an $\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{l}}_{2}$  -triple such that $f\in {\mathfrak{g}}_{1}$  , $h\in {\mathfrak{g}}_{0}$  . Since $e$  is even, we have $dim{\mathfrak{g}}_{h}=dim{\mathfrak{g}}_{e}$  . Set $e\left(t\right):=e-{t}^{2}f$  for $t\in \mathbb{k}$  . If $t\ne 0$  , then $e\left(t\right)$  is semisimple and conjugated to $th$  . Therefore $dim{\mathfrak{g}}_{e\left(t\right)}=dim{\mathfrak{g}}_{h}=dim{\mathfrak{g}}_{e}$  . Clearly $e\left(0\right)=e={lim}_{t\to 0}e\left(t\right)$  and the ${G}_{0}$  -sheet containing $e$  contains also semisimple elements $e\left(t\right)$  .
Suppose $\left(\mathfrak{g},{\mathfrak{g}}_{0}\right)=\left(\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{n+m},\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{n}\oplus \mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{m}\right)$  and let $\mathfrak{c}\subset {\mathfrak{g}}_{1}$  be a Cartan subspace.
Theorem 1. The commuting variety $ℭ\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)$  is irreducible.
• Proof. Recall that ${ℭ}_{0}=\overline{{G}_{0}\left(\mathfrak{c}×\mathfrak{c}\right)}$  . Following the original proof of Richardson [7(see also [6,Sect. 2), we show by induction on $dim\mathfrak{c}$  that $ℭ\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)={ℭ}_{0}$  . The base of induction is the rank $1$  case $\left(\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{n+1},\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{n}\right)$  , where the irreducibility of $ℭ\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)$  is proved in [6, [8. Let $\left(x,y\right)\in ℭ\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)$  .
(1) Suppose there is a semisimple element $h\in {\mathfrak{g}}_{1}$  such that $\left[h,x\right]=\left[h,y\right]=0$  . This assumption is automatically satisfied if either $x$  or $y$  is semisimple. Moreover, if $x$  (or $y$  ) is not nilpotent and $x={x}_{s}+{x}_{n}$  is the Jordan decomposition, then ${x}_{s}\in {\mathfrak{g}}_{1}$  and $\left[{x}_{s},x\right]=0$  , $\left[{x}_{s},y\right]=0$  .
Consider the symmetric pair $\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{h},\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{0}{\right)}_{h}\right)$  . Replacing $\mathfrak{c}$  by a conjugated Cartan subspace, we may assume that $h\in \mathfrak{c}$  . Then $\mathfrak{c}$  is a Cartan subspace of $\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}{\right)}_{h}$  . Also, $x,y\in \left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}{\right)}_{h}$  by the assumption. By Lemma  2 , $\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{h},\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{0}{\right)}_{h}\right)=\left({\oplus }_{i=1}^{r}\left(\mathfrak{g}{\mathfrak{l}}_{{k}_{i}},\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{{k}_{i}}\right)\right)\oplus \left(\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{n+m-2k},\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{n-k}\oplus \mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{m-k}\right)$  .
Note that each $\left(\mathfrak{g}{\mathfrak{l}}_{{k}_{i}},\mathfrak{s}{\mathfrak{o}}_{{k}_{i}}\right)\right)$  is a symmetric pair of maximal rank, hence, the corresponding commuting variety is irreducible, see [5,(3.5)(1). Clearly, the commuting variety corresponding to a direct sum of symmetric pairs is a direct product of the commuting varieties corresponding to the summands. Therefore, using the inductive hypothesis, we conclude that $ℭ\left(\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}{\right)}_{h}\right)$  is irreducible. Thus $\left(x,y\right)\in \overline{\left({G}_{0}{\right)}_{h}\left(\mathfrak{c}×\mathfrak{c}\right)}$  and, hence, $\left(x,y\right)\in {ℭ}_{0}$  .
(2) It remains to consider pairs of commuting nilpotent elements. Suppose first that there is a semisimple element $h\in {\mathfrak{g}}_{1}$  such that $\left[x,h\right]=0$  . Then $\left(x,\left(1-t\right)y+th\right)\in ℭ\left({\mathfrak{g}}_{1}\right)$  for each $t\in \mathbb{k}$  and $\left(1-t\right)y+th$  is nilpotent only for a finite number of $t$  's. Therefore, by part (1), one has $\left(x,\left(1-t\right)y+th\right)\in {ℭ}_{0}$  for almost all $t$  . Since $y={lim}_{t\to 0}\left(1-t\right)y+th$  , we get $\left(x,y\right)\in {ℭ}_{0}$  .
(3) Now we may assume that both $x$  and $y$  are $\sigma$  -distinguished nilpotent elements.
According to Lemma  4 , $x$  is even. Then, by Lemma  5 , $x$  belongs to a ${G}_{0}$  -sheet containing semisimple elements. According to part (1), the assumptions of Lemma  1 are satisfied and it follows that $\left(x,y\right)\in {ℭ}_{0}$  .
References

1. Collingwood D. and McGovern W., Nilpotent orbits in semisimple Lie algebras, Mathematics Series, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1993.
2. Jantzen J.C., Nilpotent orbits in representation theory, Lie theory, Progr. in Math., 228, 1–211, Birkhäuser Boston 2004.
3. Kostant B. and Rallis S., Orbits and representations associated with symmetric spaces, Amer. J. Math. 93(1971), 753–809.
4. Ohta T., Classification of admissible nilpotent orbits in the classical real Lie algebras, J. of Algebra 136(1991), 290–333.
5. Panyushev D., The Jacobian modules of a representation of a Lie algebra and geometry of commuting varieties, Compositio Math. 94(1994), 181–199.
6. Panyushev D., On the irreducibility of commuting varieties associated with involutions of simple Lie algebras, Functional Analysis and its application, 38(2004), 38–44.
7. Richardson R., Commuting varieties of semisimple Lie algebras and algebraic groups, Compositio Math. 38 (1979), 311–327.
8. Sabourin H. and Yu R.W.T., Sur l'irréductibilité de la variété commutante d'une paire symétrique réductive de rang 1, Bull. Sci. Math. 126(2002), 143–150.
9. Sabourin H. and Yu R.W.T., On the irreducibility of the commuting variety of a symmetric pair associated to a parabolic subalgebra with abelian unipotent radical, preprint, arXiv:math.RT/0407354.