guide:203101203b: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div class="d-none"><math> | |||
\newcommand{\mathds}{\mathbb}</math></div> | |||
{{Alert-warning|This article was automatically generated from a tex file and may contain conversion errors. If permitted, you may login and edit this article to improve the conversion. }} | |||
In connection with our axiomatization questions for the quadruplets <math>(S,T,U,K)</math>, we can construct now the correspondences <math>S\to U</math>, in the following way: | |||
{{proofcard|Theorem|theorem-1|The quantum isometry groups of the basic spheres are | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\xymatrix@R=15mm@C=14mm{ | |||
S^{N-1}_{\mathbb R,+}\ar[r]&S^{N-1}_{\mathbb C,+}\\ | |||
S^{N-1}_\mathbb R\ar[r]\ar[u]&S^{N-1}_\mathbb C\ar[u] | |||
} | |||
\qquad | |||
\item[a]ymatrix@R=8mm@C=15mm{\\ \to} | |||
\qquad | |||
\item[a]ymatrix@R=16mm@C=18mm{ | |||
O_N^+\ar[r]&U_N^+\\ | |||
O_N\ar[r]\ar[u]&U_N\ar[u]} | |||
</math> | |||
modulo identifying, as usual, the various <math>C^*</math>-algebraic completions. | |||
|We have 4 results to be proved, and following <ref name="bgo">T. Banica and D. Goswami, Quantum isometries and noncommutative spheres, ''Comm. Math. Phys.'' '''298''' (2010), 343--356.</ref>, <ref name="bg1">J. Bhowmick and D. Goswami, Quantum isometry groups: examples and computations, ''Comm. Math. Phys.'' '''285''' (2009), 421--444.</ref> and related papers, where this result was established in its above form, we can proceed as follows: | |||
\underline{<math>S^{N-1}_{\mathbb C,+}</math>}. Let us first construct an action <math>U_N^+\curvearrowright S^{N-1}_{\mathbb C,+}</math>. We must prove here that the variables <math>X_i=\sum_jx_j\otimes u_{ji}</math> satisfy the defining relations for <math>S^{N-1}_{\mathbb C,+}</math>, namely: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\sum_ix_ix_i^*=\sum_ix_i^*x_i=1 | |||
</math> | |||
By using the biunitarity of <math>u</math>, we have the following computation: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\begin{eqnarray*} | |||
\sum_iX_iX_i^* | |||
&=&\sum_{ijk}x_jx_k^*\otimes u_{ji}u_{ki}^*\\ | |||
&=&\sum_jx_jx_j^*\otimes1\\ | |||
&=&1\otimes1 | |||
\end{eqnarray*} | |||
</math> | |||
Once again by using the biunitarity of <math>u</math>, we have as well: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\begin{eqnarray*} | |||
\sum_iX_i^*X_i | |||
&=&\sum_{ijk}x_j^*x_k\otimes u_{ji}^*u_{ki}\\ | |||
&=&\sum_jx_j^*x_j\otimes1\\ | |||
&=&1\otimes1 | |||
\end{eqnarray*} | |||
</math> | |||
Thus we have an action <math>U_N^+\curvearrowright S^{N-1}_{\mathbb C,+}</math>, which gives <math>G^+(S^{N-1}_{\mathbb C,+})=U_N^+</math>, as desired. | |||
\underline{<math>S^{N-1}_{\mathbb R,+}</math>}. Let us first construct an action <math>O_N^+\curvearrowright S^{N-1}_{\mathbb R,+}</math>. We already know that the variables <math>X_i=\sum_jx_j\otimes u_{ji}</math> satisfy the defining relations for <math>S^{N-1}_{\mathbb C,+}</math>, so we just have to check that these variables are self-adjoint. But this is clear from <math>u=\bar{u}</math>, as follows: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
X_i^* | |||
=\sum_jx_j^*\otimes u_{ji}^* | |||
=\sum_jx_j\otimes u_{ji} | |||
=X_i | |||
</math> | |||
Conversely, assume that we have an action <math>G\curvearrowright S^{N-1}_{\mathbb R,+}</math>, with <math>G\subset U_N^+</math>. The variables <math>X_i=\sum_jx_j\otimes u_{ji}</math> must be then self-adjoint, and the above computation shows that we must have <math>u=\bar{u}</math>. Thus our quantum group must satisfy <math>G\subset O_N^+</math>, as desired. | |||
\underline{<math>S^{N-1}_\mathbb C</math>}. The fact that we have an action <math>U_N\curvearrowright S^{N-1}_\mathbb C</math> is clear. Conversely, assume that we have an action <math>G\curvearrowright S^{N-1}_\mathbb C</math>, with <math>G\subset U_N^+</math>. We must prove that this implies <math>G\subset U_N</math>, and we will use a standard trick of Bhowmick-Goswami <ref name="bg1">J. Bhowmick and D. Goswami, Quantum isometry groups: examples and computations, ''Comm. Math. Phys.'' '''285''' (2009), 421--444.</ref>. We have: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\Phi(x_i)=\sum_jx_j\otimes u_{ji} | |||
</math> | |||
By multiplying this formula with itself we obtain: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\Phi(x_ix_k)=\sum_{jl}x_jx_l\otimes u_{ji}u_{lk} | |||
</math> | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\Phi(x_kx_i)=\sum_{jl}x_lx_j\otimes u_{lk}u_{ji} | |||
</math> | |||
Since the variables <math>x_i</math> commute, these formulae can be written as: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\Phi(x_ix_k)=\sum_{j < l}x_jx_l\otimes(u_{ji}u_{lk}+u_{li}u_{jk})+\sum_jx_j^2\otimes u_{ji}u_{jk} | |||
</math> | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\Phi(x_ix_k)=\sum_{j < l}x_jx_l\otimes(u_{lk}u_{ji}+u_{jk}u_{li})+\sum_jx_j^2\otimes u_{jk}u_{ji} | |||
</math> | |||
Since the tensors at left are linearly independent, we must have: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
u_{ji}u_{lk}+u_{li}u_{jk}=u_{lk}u_{ji}+u_{jk}u_{li} | |||
</math> | |||
By applying the antipode to this formula, then applying the involution, and then relabelling the indices, we succesively obtain: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
u_{kl}^*u_{ij}^*+u_{kj}^*u_{il}^*=u_{ij}^*u_{kl}^*+u_{il}^*u_{kj}^* | |||
</math> | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
u_{ij}u_{kl}+u_{il}u_{kj}=u_{kl}u_{ij}+u_{kj}u_{il} | |||
</math> | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
u_{ji}u_{lk}+u_{jk}u_{li}=u_{lk}u_{ji}+u_{li}u_{jk} | |||
</math> | |||
Now by comparing with the original formula, we obtain from this: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
u_{li}u_{jk}=u_{jk}u_{li} | |||
</math> | |||
In order to finish, it remains to prove that the coordinates <math>u_{ij}</math> commute as well with their adjoints. For this purpose, we use a similar method. We have: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\Phi(x_ix_k^*)=\sum_{jl}x_jx_l^*\otimes u_{ji}u_{lk}^* | |||
</math> | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\Phi(x_k^*x_i)=\sum_{jl}x_l^*x_j\otimes u_{lk}^*u_{ji} | |||
</math> | |||
Since the variables on the left are equal, we deduce from this that we have: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\sum_{jl}x_jx_l^*\otimes u_{ji}u_{lk}^*=\sum_{jl}x_jx_l^*\otimes u_{lk}^*u_{ji} | |||
</math> | |||
Thus we have <math>u_{ji}u_{lk}^*=u_{lk}^*u_{ji}</math>, and so <math>G\subset U_N</math>, as claimed. | |||
\underline{<math>S^{N-1}_\mathbb R</math>}. The fact that we have an action <math>O_N\curvearrowright S^{N-1}_\mathbb R</math> is clear. In what regards the converse, this follows by combining the results that we already have, as follows: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\begin{eqnarray*} | |||
G\curvearrowright S^{N-1}_\mathbb R | |||
&\implies&G\curvearrowright S^{N-1}_{\mathbb R,+},S^{N-1}_\mathbb C\\ | |||
&\implies&G\subset O_N^+,U_N\\ | |||
&\implies&G\subset O_N^+\cap U_N=O_N | |||
\end{eqnarray*} | |||
</math> | |||
Thus, we conclude that we have <math>G^+(S^{N-1}_\mathbb R)=O_N</math>, as desired.}} | |||
Let us discuss now the construction <math>U\to S</math>. In the classical case the situation is very simple, because the sphere <math>S=S^{N-1}</math> appears by rotating the point <math>x=(1,0,\ldots,0)</math> by the isometries in <math>U=U_N</math>. Moreover, the stabilizer of this action is the subgroup <math>U_{N-1}\subset U_N</math> acting on the last <math>N-1</math> coordinates, and so the sphere <math>S=S^{N-1}</math> appears from the corresponding rotation group <math>U=U_N</math> as an homogeneous space, as follows: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
S^{N-1}=U_N/U_{N-1} | |||
</math> | |||
In functional analytic terms, all this becomes even simpler, the correspondence <math>U\to S</math> being obtained, at the level of algebras of functions, as follows: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
C(S^{N-1})\subset C(U_N)\quad,\quad | |||
x_i\to u_{1i} | |||
</math> | |||
In general now, the homogeneous space interpretation of <math>S</math> as above fails, due to a number of subtle algebraic and analytic reasons, explained in <ref name="bss">T. Banica, A. Skalski and P.M. So\l tan, Noncommutative homogeneous spaces: the matrix case, ''J. Geom. Phys.'' '''62''' (2012), 1451--1466.</ref> and related papers. However, we can have some theory going by using the functional analytic viewpoint, with an embedding <math>x_i\to u_{1i}</math> as above. Let us start with the following observation: | |||
{{proofcard|Proposition|proposition-1|For the basic spheres, we have a diagram as follows, | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\xymatrix@R=50pt@C=50pt{ | |||
C(S)\ar[r]^\Phi\ar[d]^\alpha&C(S)\otimes C(U)\ar[d]^{\alpha\otimes id}\\ | |||
C(U)\ar[r]^\Delta&C(U)\otimes C(U) | |||
} | |||
</math> | |||
where the map on top is the affine coaction map, | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\Phi(x_i)=\sum_jx_j\otimes u_{ji} | |||
</math> | |||
and the map on the left is given by <math>\alpha(x_i)=u_{1i}</math>. | |||
|The diagram in the statement commutes indeed on the standard coordinates, the corresponding arrows being as follows, on these coordinates: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\xymatrix@R=50pt@C=50pt{ | |||
x_i\ar[r]\ar[d]&\sum_jx_j\otimes u_{ji}\ar[d]\\ | |||
u_{1i}\ar[r]&\sum_ju_{1j}\otimes u_{ji} | |||
} | |||
</math> | |||
Thus by linearity and multiplicativity, the whole the diagram commutes.}} | |||
We therefore have the following result: | |||
{{proofcard|Theorem|theorem-2|We have a quotient map and an inclusion as follows, | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
U\to S_U\subset S | |||
</math> | |||
with <math>S_U</math> being the first row space of <math>U</math>, given by | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
C(S_U)= < u_{1i} > \subset C(U) | |||
</math> | |||
at the level of the corresponding algebras of functions. | |||
|At the algebra level, we have an inclusion and a quotient map as follows: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
C(S)\to C(S_U)\subset C(U) | |||
</math> | |||
Thus, we obtain the result, by transposing.}} | |||
We will prove in what follows that the inclusion <math>S_U\subset S</math> constructed above is an isomorphism. This will produce the correspondence <math>U\to S</math> that we are currently looking for. In order to do so, we will use the uniform integration over <math>S</math>, which can be introduced, in analogy with what happens in the classical case, in the following way: | |||
{{defncard|label=|id=|We endow each of the algebras <math>C(S)</math> with its integration functional | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\int_S:C(S)\to C(U)\to\mathbb C | |||
</math> | |||
obtained by composing the morphism of algebras given by | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
x_i\to u_{1i} | |||
</math> | |||
with the Haar integration functional of the algebra <math>C(U)</math>.}} | |||
In order to efficiently integrate over the sphere <math>S</math>, and in the lack of some trick like spherical coordinates, we need to know how to efficiently integrate over the corresponding quantum isometry group <math>U</math>. There is a long story here, going back to the papers of Weingarten <ref name="wei">D. Weingarten, Asymptotic behavior of group integrals in the limit of infinite rank, ''J. Math. Phys.'' '''19''' (1978), 999--1001.</ref>, then Collins-\'Sniady <ref name="csn">B. Collins and P. \'Sniady, Integration with respect to the Haar measure on unitary, orthogonal and symplectic groups, ''Comm. Math. Phys.'' '''264''' (2006), 773--795.</ref> in the classical case, and to the more recent papers <ref name="bb+">T. Banica, S.T. Belinschi, M. Capitaine and B. Collins, Free Bessel laws, ''Canad. J. Math.'' '''63''' (2011), 3--37.</ref>, <ref name="bbc">T. Banica, J. Bichon and B. Collins, The hyperoctahedral quantum group, ''J. Ramanujan Math. Soc.'' '''22''' (2007), 345--384.</ref>, and then <ref name="bsp">T. Banica and R. Speicher, Liberation of orthogonal Lie groups, ''Adv. Math.'' '''222''' (2009), 1461--1501.</ref>, in the quantum group case. Following <ref name="bsp">T. Banica and R. Speicher, Liberation of orthogonal Lie groups, ''Adv. Math.'' '''222''' (2009), 1461--1501.</ref>, we have: | |||
{{proofcard|Theorem|theorem-3|Assuming that a compact quantum group <math>G\subset U_N^+</math> is easy, coming from a category of partitions <math>D\subset P</math>, we have the Weingarten formula | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\int_Gu_{i_1j_1}^{e_1}\ldots u_{i_kj_k}^{e_k}=\sum_{\pi,\sigma\in D(k)}\delta_\pi(i)\delta_\sigma(j)W_{kN}(\pi,\sigma) | |||
</math> | |||
for any indices <math>i_r,j_r\in\{1,\ldots,N\}</math> and any exponents <math>e_r\in\''ptyset,*\''</math>, where <math>\delta</math> are the usual Kronecker type symbols, and where | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
W_{kN}=G_{kN}^{-1} | |||
</math> | |||
is the inverse of the matrix <math>G_{kN}(\pi,\sigma)=N^{|\pi\vee\sigma|}</math>. | |||
|Let us arrange indeed all the integrals to be computed, at a fixed value of the exponent <math>k=(e_1\ldots e_k)</math>, into a single matrix, of size <math>N^k\times N^k</math>, as follows: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
P_{i_1\ldots i_k,j_1\ldots j_k}=\int_Gu_{i_1j_1}^{e_1}\ldots u_{i_kj_k}^{e_k} | |||
</math> | |||
According to the construction of the Haar measure of Woronowicz <ref name="wo1">S.L. Woronowicz, Compact matrix pseudogroups, ''Comm. Math. Phys.'' '''111''' (1987), 613--665.</ref>, explained in chapter 2, this matrix <math>P</math> is the orthogonal projection onto the following space: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
Fix(u^{\otimes k})=span\left(\xi_\pi\Big|\pi\in D(k)\right) | |||
</math> | |||
In order to compute this projection, consider the following linear map: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
E(x)=\sum_{\pi\in D(k)} < x,\xi_\pi > \xi_\pi | |||
</math> | |||
Consider as well the inverse <math>W</math> of the restriction of <math>E</math> to the following space: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
span\left(T_\pi\Big|\pi\in D(k)\right) | |||
</math> | |||
By a standard linear algebra computation, it follows that we have: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
P=WE | |||
</math> | |||
But the restriction of <math>E</math> is the linear map corresponding to <math>G_{kN}</math>, so <math>W</math> is the linear map corresponding to <math>W_{kN}</math>, and this gives the result. See <ref name="bsp">T. Banica and R. Speicher, Liberation of orthogonal Lie groups, ''Adv. Math.'' '''222''' (2009), 1461--1501.</ref>.}} | |||
Following <ref name="bgo">T. Banica and D. Goswami, Quantum isometries and noncommutative spheres, ''Comm. Math. Phys.'' '''298''' (2010), 343--356.</ref>, we can now integrate over the spheres <math>S</math>, as follows: | |||
{{proofcard|Proposition|proposition-2|The integration over the basic spheres is given by | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\int_Sx_{i_1}^{e_1}\ldots x_{i_k}^{e_k}=\sum_\pi\sum_{\sigma\leq\ker i}W_{kN}(\pi,\sigma) | |||
</math> | |||
with <math>\pi,\sigma\in D(k)</math>, where <math>W_{kN}=G_{kN}^{-1}</math> is the inverse of <math>G_{kN}(\pi,\sigma)=N^{|\pi\vee\sigma|}</math>. | |||
|According to our conventions, the integration over <math>S</math> is a particular case of the integration over <math>U</math>, via <math>x_i=u_{1i}</math>. By using the formula in Theorem 3.9, we obtain: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\begin{eqnarray*} | |||
\int_Sx_{i_1}^{e_1}\ldots x_{i_k}^{e_k} | |||
&=&\int_Uu_{1i_1}^{e_1}\ldots u_{1i_k}^{e_k}\\ | |||
&=&\sum_{\pi,\sigma\in D(k)}\delta_\pi(1)\delta_\sigma(i)W_{kN}(\pi,\sigma)\\ | |||
&=&\sum_{\pi,\sigma\in D(k)}\delta_\sigma(i)W_{kN}(\pi,\sigma) | |||
\end{eqnarray*} | |||
</math> | |||
Thus, we are led to the formula in the statement.}} | |||
Again following <ref name="ba1">T. Banica, Liberations and twists of real and complex spheres, ''J. Geom. Phys.'' '''96''' (2015), 1--25.</ref>, <ref name="bgo">T. Banica and D. Goswami, Quantum isometries and noncommutative spheres, ''Comm. Math. Phys.'' '''298''' (2010), 343--356.</ref>, we have the following key result: | |||
{{proofcard|Theorem|theorem-4|The integration functional of <math>S</math> has the ergodicity property | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\left(id\otimes\int_U\right)\Phi(x)=\int_Sx | |||
</math> | |||
where <math>\Phi:C(S)\to C(S)\otimes C(U)</math> is the universal affine coaction map. | |||
|In the real case, <math>x_i=x_i^*</math>, it is enough to check the equality in the statement on an arbitrary product of coordinates, <math>x_{i_1}\ldots x_{i_k}</math>. The left term is as follows: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\begin{eqnarray*} | |||
\left(id\otimes\int_U\right)\Phi(x_{i_1}\ldots x_{i_k}) | |||
&=&\sum_{j_1\ldots j_k}x_{j_1}\ldots x_{j_k}\int_Uu_{j_1i_1}\ldots u_{j_ki_k}\\ | |||
&=&\sum_{j_1\ldots j_k}\ \sum_{\pi,\sigma\in D(k)}\delta_\pi(j)\delta_\sigma(i)W_{kN}(\pi,\sigma)x_{j_1}\ldots x_{j_k}\\ | |||
&=&\sum_{\pi,\sigma\in D(k)}\delta_\sigma(i)W_{kN}(\pi,\sigma)\sum_{j_1\ldots j_k}\delta_\pi(j)x_{j_1}\ldots x_{j_k} | |||
\end{eqnarray*} | |||
</math> | |||
Let us look now at the last sum on the right. The situation is as follows: | |||
(1) In the free case we have to sum quantities of type <math>x_{j_1}\ldots x_{j_k}</math>, over all choices of multi-indices <math>j=(j_1,\ldots,j_k)</math> which fit into our given noncrossing pairing <math>\pi</math>, and just by using the condition <math>\sum_ix_i^2=1</math>, we conclude that the sum is 1. | |||
(2) The same happens in the classical case. Indeed, our pairing <math>\pi</math> can now be crossing, but we can use the commutation relations <math>x_ix_j=x_jx_i</math>, and the sum is again 1. | |||
Thus the sum on the right is 1, in all cases, and we obtain: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\left(id\otimes\int_U\right)\Phi(x_{i_1}\ldots x_{i_k}) | |||
=\sum_{\pi,\sigma\in D(k)}\delta_\sigma(i)W_{kN}(\pi,\sigma) | |||
</math> | |||
On the other hand, another application of the Weingarten formula gives: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\begin{eqnarray*} | |||
\int_Sx_{i_1}\ldots x_{i_k} | |||
&=&\int_Uu_{1i_1}\ldots u_{1i_k}\\ | |||
&=&\sum_{\pi,\sigma\in D(k)}\delta_\pi(1)\delta_\sigma(i)W_{kN}(\pi,\sigma)\\ | |||
&=&\sum_{\pi,\sigma\in D(k)}\delta_\sigma(i)W_{kN}(\pi,\sigma) | |||
\end{eqnarray*} | |||
</math> | |||
Thus, we are done with the proof of the result, in the real case. In the complex case the proof is similar, by adding exponents everywhere. See <ref name="ba1">T. Banica, Liberations and twists of real and complex spheres, ''J. Geom. Phys.'' '''96''' (2015), 1--25.</ref>, <ref name="bgo">T. Banica and D. Goswami, Quantum isometries and noncommutative spheres, ''Comm. Math. Phys.'' '''298''' (2010), 343--356.</ref>.}} | |||
Still following <ref name="ba1">T. Banica, Liberations and twists of real and complex spheres, ''J. Geom. Phys.'' '''96''' (2015), 1--25.</ref>, <ref name="bgo">T. Banica and D. Goswami, Quantum isometries and noncommutative spheres, ''Comm. Math. Phys.'' '''298''' (2010), 343--356.</ref>, we can now deduce a useful abstract characterization of the integration over the spheres, as follows: | |||
{{proofcard|Theorem|theorem-5|There is a unique positive unital trace <math>tr:C(S)\to\mathbb C</math> satisfying | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
(tr\otimes id)\Phi(x)=tr(x)1 | |||
</math> | |||
where <math>\Phi</math> is the coaction map of the corresponding quantum isometry group, | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\Phi:C(S)\to C(S)\otimes C(U) | |||
</math> | |||
and this is the canonical integration, as constructed in Definition 3.8. | |||
|First of all, it follows from the Haar integral invariance condition for <math>U</math> that the canonical integration has indeed the invariance property in the statement, namely: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
(tr\otimes id)\Phi(x)=tr(x)1 | |||
</math> | |||
In order to prove now the uniqueness, let <math>tr</math> be as in the statement. We have: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\begin{eqnarray*} | |||
tr\left(id\otimes\int_U\right)\Phi(x) | |||
&=&\int_U(tr\otimes id)\Phi(x)\\ | |||
&=&\int_U(tr(x)1)\\ | |||
&=&tr(x) | |||
\end{eqnarray*} | |||
</math> | |||
On the other hand, according to Theorem 3.11, we have as well: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
tr\left(id\otimes\int_U\right)\Phi(x) | |||
=tr\left(\int_Sx\right) | |||
=\int_Sx | |||
</math> | |||
We therefore conclude that <math>tr</math> equals the standard integration, as claimed.}} | |||
Getting back now to our axiomatization questions, we have: | |||
{{proofcard|Theorem|theorem-6|The operation <math>S\to S_U</math> produces a correspondence as follows, | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\xymatrix@R=15mm@C=15mm{ | |||
S^{N-1}_{\mathbb R,+}\ar[r]&S^{N-1}_{\mathbb C,+}\\ | |||
S^{N-1}_\mathbb R\ar[r]\ar[u]&S^{N-1}_\mathbb C\ar[u]} | |||
\qquad | |||
\item[a]ymatrix@R=8mm@C=15mm{\\ \to} | |||
\qquad | |||
\item[a]ymatrix@R=17mm@C=16mm{ | |||
O_N^+\ar[r]&U_N^+\\ | |||
O_N\ar[r]\ar[u]&U_N\ar[u] | |||
} | |||
</math> | |||
between basic unitary groups and the basic noncommutative spheres. | |||
|We use the ergodicity formula from Theorem 3.11, namely: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\left(id\otimes\int_U\right)\Phi=\int_S | |||
</math> | |||
We know that <math>\int_U</math> is faithful on <math>\mathcal C(U)</math>, and that we have: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
(id\otimes\varepsilon)\Phi=id | |||
</math> | |||
The coaction map <math>\Phi</math> follows to be faithful as well. Thus for any <math>x\in\mathcal C(S)</math> we have: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\int_Sxx^*=0\implies x=0 | |||
</math> | |||
Thus <math>\int_S</math> is faithful on <math>\mathcal C(S)</math>. But this shows that we have: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
S=S_U | |||
</math> | |||
Thus, we are led to the conclusion in the statement.}} | |||
==General references== | |||
{{cite arXiv|last1=Banica|first1=Teo|year=2024|title=Affine noncommutative geometry|eprint=2012.10973|class=math.QA}} | |||
==References== | |||
{{reflist}} |
Latest revision as of 20:40, 22 April 2025
In connection with our axiomatization questions for the quadruplets [math](S,T,U,K)[/math], we can construct now the correspondences [math]S\to U[/math], in the following way:
The quantum isometry groups of the basic spheres are
We have 4 results to be proved, and following [1], [2] and related papers, where this result was established in its above form, we can proceed as follows:
\underline{[math]S^{N-1}_{\mathbb C,+}[/math]}. Let us first construct an action [math]U_N^+\curvearrowright S^{N-1}_{\mathbb C,+}[/math]. We must prove here that the variables [math]X_i=\sum_jx_j\otimes u_{ji}[/math] satisfy the defining relations for [math]S^{N-1}_{\mathbb C,+}[/math], namely:
By using the biunitarity of [math]u[/math], we have the following computation:
Once again by using the biunitarity of [math]u[/math], we have as well:
Thus we have an action [math]U_N^+\curvearrowright S^{N-1}_{\mathbb C,+}[/math], which gives [math]G^+(S^{N-1}_{\mathbb C,+})=U_N^+[/math], as desired.
\underline{[math]S^{N-1}_{\mathbb R,+}[/math]}. Let us first construct an action [math]O_N^+\curvearrowright S^{N-1}_{\mathbb R,+}[/math]. We already know that the variables [math]X_i=\sum_jx_j\otimes u_{ji}[/math] satisfy the defining relations for [math]S^{N-1}_{\mathbb C,+}[/math], so we just have to check that these variables are self-adjoint. But this is clear from [math]u=\bar{u}[/math], as follows:
Conversely, assume that we have an action [math]G\curvearrowright S^{N-1}_{\mathbb R,+}[/math], with [math]G\subset U_N^+[/math]. The variables [math]X_i=\sum_jx_j\otimes u_{ji}[/math] must be then self-adjoint, and the above computation shows that we must have [math]u=\bar{u}[/math]. Thus our quantum group must satisfy [math]G\subset O_N^+[/math], as desired.
\underline{[math]S^{N-1}_\mathbb C[/math]}. The fact that we have an action [math]U_N\curvearrowright S^{N-1}_\mathbb C[/math] is clear. Conversely, assume that we have an action [math]G\curvearrowright S^{N-1}_\mathbb C[/math], with [math]G\subset U_N^+[/math]. We must prove that this implies [math]G\subset U_N[/math], and we will use a standard trick of Bhowmick-Goswami [2]. We have:
By multiplying this formula with itself we obtain:
Since the variables [math]x_i[/math] commute, these formulae can be written as:
Since the tensors at left are linearly independent, we must have:
By applying the antipode to this formula, then applying the involution, and then relabelling the indices, we succesively obtain:
Now by comparing with the original formula, we obtain from this:
In order to finish, it remains to prove that the coordinates [math]u_{ij}[/math] commute as well with their adjoints. For this purpose, we use a similar method. We have:
Since the variables on the left are equal, we deduce from this that we have:
Thus we have [math]u_{ji}u_{lk}^*=u_{lk}^*u_{ji}[/math], and so [math]G\subset U_N[/math], as claimed.
\underline{[math]S^{N-1}_\mathbb R[/math]}. The fact that we have an action [math]O_N\curvearrowright S^{N-1}_\mathbb R[/math] is clear. In what regards the converse, this follows by combining the results that we already have, as follows:
Thus, we conclude that we have [math]G^+(S^{N-1}_\mathbb R)=O_N[/math], as desired.
Let us discuss now the construction [math]U\to S[/math]. In the classical case the situation is very simple, because the sphere [math]S=S^{N-1}[/math] appears by rotating the point [math]x=(1,0,\ldots,0)[/math] by the isometries in [math]U=U_N[/math]. Moreover, the stabilizer of this action is the subgroup [math]U_{N-1}\subset U_N[/math] acting on the last [math]N-1[/math] coordinates, and so the sphere [math]S=S^{N-1}[/math] appears from the corresponding rotation group [math]U=U_N[/math] as an homogeneous space, as follows:
In functional analytic terms, all this becomes even simpler, the correspondence [math]U\to S[/math] being obtained, at the level of algebras of functions, as follows:
In general now, the homogeneous space interpretation of [math]S[/math] as above fails, due to a number of subtle algebraic and analytic reasons, explained in [3] and related papers. However, we can have some theory going by using the functional analytic viewpoint, with an embedding [math]x_i\to u_{1i}[/math] as above. Let us start with the following observation:
For the basic spheres, we have a diagram as follows,
The diagram in the statement commutes indeed on the standard coordinates, the corresponding arrows being as follows, on these coordinates:
Thus by linearity and multiplicativity, the whole the diagram commutes.
We therefore have the following result:
We have a quotient map and an inclusion as follows,
At the algebra level, we have an inclusion and a quotient map as follows:
Thus, we obtain the result, by transposing.
We will prove in what follows that the inclusion [math]S_U\subset S[/math] constructed above is an isomorphism. This will produce the correspondence [math]U\to S[/math] that we are currently looking for. In order to do so, we will use the uniform integration over [math]S[/math], which can be introduced, in analogy with what happens in the classical case, in the following way:
We endow each of the algebras [math]C(S)[/math] with its integration functional
In order to efficiently integrate over the sphere [math]S[/math], and in the lack of some trick like spherical coordinates, we need to know how to efficiently integrate over the corresponding quantum isometry group [math]U[/math]. There is a long story here, going back to the papers of Weingarten [4], then Collins-\'Sniady [5] in the classical case, and to the more recent papers [6], [7], and then [8], in the quantum group case. Following [8], we have:
Assuming that a compact quantum group [math]G\subset U_N^+[/math] is easy, coming from a category of partitions [math]D\subset P[/math], we have the Weingarten formula
Let us arrange indeed all the integrals to be computed, at a fixed value of the exponent [math]k=(e_1\ldots e_k)[/math], into a single matrix, of size [math]N^k\times N^k[/math], as follows:
According to the construction of the Haar measure of Woronowicz [9], explained in chapter 2, this matrix [math]P[/math] is the orthogonal projection onto the following space:
In order to compute this projection, consider the following linear map:
Consider as well the inverse [math]W[/math] of the restriction of [math]E[/math] to the following space:
By a standard linear algebra computation, it follows that we have:
But the restriction of [math]E[/math] is the linear map corresponding to [math]G_{kN}[/math], so [math]W[/math] is the linear map corresponding to [math]W_{kN}[/math], and this gives the result. See [8].
Following [1], we can now integrate over the spheres [math]S[/math], as follows:
The integration over the basic spheres is given by
According to our conventions, the integration over [math]S[/math] is a particular case of the integration over [math]U[/math], via [math]x_i=u_{1i}[/math]. By using the formula in Theorem 3.9, we obtain:
Thus, we are led to the formula in the statement.
Again following [10], [1], we have the following key result:
The integration functional of [math]S[/math] has the ergodicity property
In the real case, [math]x_i=x_i^*[/math], it is enough to check the equality in the statement on an arbitrary product of coordinates, [math]x_{i_1}\ldots x_{i_k}[/math]. The left term is as follows:
Let us look now at the last sum on the right. The situation is as follows:
(1) In the free case we have to sum quantities of type [math]x_{j_1}\ldots x_{j_k}[/math], over all choices of multi-indices [math]j=(j_1,\ldots,j_k)[/math] which fit into our given noncrossing pairing [math]\pi[/math], and just by using the condition [math]\sum_ix_i^2=1[/math], we conclude that the sum is 1.
(2) The same happens in the classical case. Indeed, our pairing [math]\pi[/math] can now be crossing, but we can use the commutation relations [math]x_ix_j=x_jx_i[/math], and the sum is again 1.
Thus the sum on the right is 1, in all cases, and we obtain:
On the other hand, another application of the Weingarten formula gives:
Thus, we are done with the proof of the result, in the real case. In the complex case the proof is similar, by adding exponents everywhere. See [10], [1].
Still following [10], [1], we can now deduce a useful abstract characterization of the integration over the spheres, as follows:
There is a unique positive unital trace [math]tr:C(S)\to\mathbb C[/math] satisfying
First of all, it follows from the Haar integral invariance condition for [math]U[/math] that the canonical integration has indeed the invariance property in the statement, namely:
In order to prove now the uniqueness, let [math]tr[/math] be as in the statement. We have:
On the other hand, according to Theorem 3.11, we have as well:
We therefore conclude that [math]tr[/math] equals the standard integration, as claimed.
Getting back now to our axiomatization questions, we have:
The operation [math]S\to S_U[/math] produces a correspondence as follows,
We use the ergodicity formula from Theorem 3.11, namely:
We know that [math]\int_U[/math] is faithful on [math]\mathcal C(U)[/math], and that we have:
The coaction map [math]\Phi[/math] follows to be faithful as well. Thus for any [math]x\in\mathcal C(S)[/math] we have:
Thus [math]\int_S[/math] is faithful on [math]\mathcal C(S)[/math]. But this shows that we have:
Thus, we are led to the conclusion in the statement.
General references
Banica, Teo (2024). "Affine noncommutative geometry". arXiv:2012.10973 [math.QA].
References
- 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 T. Banica and D. Goswami, Quantum isometries and noncommutative spheres, Comm. Math. Phys. 298 (2010), 343--356.
- 2.0 2.1 J. Bhowmick and D. Goswami, Quantum isometry groups: examples and computations, Comm. Math. Phys. 285 (2009), 421--444.
- T. Banica, A. Skalski and P.M. So\l tan, Noncommutative homogeneous spaces: the matrix case, J. Geom. Phys. 62 (2012), 1451--1466.
- D. Weingarten, Asymptotic behavior of group integrals in the limit of infinite rank, J. Math. Phys. 19 (1978), 999--1001.
- B. Collins and P. \'Sniady, Integration with respect to the Haar measure on unitary, orthogonal and symplectic groups, Comm. Math. Phys. 264 (2006), 773--795.
- T. Banica, S.T. Belinschi, M. Capitaine and B. Collins, Free Bessel laws, Canad. J. Math. 63 (2011), 3--37.
- T. Banica, J. Bichon and B. Collins, The hyperoctahedral quantum group, J. Ramanujan Math. Soc. 22 (2007), 345--384.
- 8.0 8.1 8.2 T. Banica and R. Speicher, Liberation of orthogonal Lie groups, Adv. Math. 222 (2009), 1461--1501.
- S.L. Woronowicz, Compact matrix pseudogroups, Comm. Math. Phys. 111 (1987), 613--665.
- 10.0 10.1 10.2 T. Banica, Liberations and twists of real and complex spheres, J. Geom. Phys. 96 (2015), 1--25.