guide:776d839156: 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. }} | |||
Before getting into more about inner faithfulness, let us first go back to the stationary models. These models are quite restrictive, because <math>G</math> must be coamenable. However, there are many interesting examples of coamenable compact quantum groups, and in order to better understand these examples, and also in order to construct some new examples, our idea will be that of looking for stationary models for them. We first have: | |||
{{proofcard|Theorem|theorem-1|For <math>\pi:C(G)\to M_K(C(T))</math>, the following are equivalent: | |||
<ul><li> <math>Im(\pi)</math> is a Hopf algebra, and <math>(tr\otimes\int_T)\pi</math> is the Haar integration on it. | |||
</li> | |||
<li> <math>\psi=(tr\otimes\int_X)\pi</math> satisfies the idempotent state property <math>\psi*\psi=\psi</math>. | |||
</li> | |||
<li> <math>T_e^2=T_e</math>, <math>\forall p\in\mathbb N</math>, <math>\forall e\in\{1,*\}^p</math>, where: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
(T_e)_{i_1\ldots i_p,j_1\ldots j_p}=\left(tr\otimes\int_T\right)(U_{i_1j_1}^{e_1}\ldots U_{i_pj_p}^{e_p}) | |||
</math> | |||
</li> | |||
</ul> | |||
If these conditions are satisfied, we say that <math>\pi</math> is stationary on its image. | |||
|Given a matrix model <math>\pi:C(G)\to M_K(C(T))</math> as in the statement, we can factorize it via its Hopf image, as in Definition 16.6 above: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\pi:C(G)\to C(H)\to M_K(C(T)) | |||
</math> | |||
Now observe that the conditions (1,2,3) in the statement depend only on the factorized representation: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\nu:C(H)\to M_K(C(T)) | |||
</math> | |||
Thus, we can assume in practice that we have <math>G=H</math>, which means that we can assume that <math>\pi</math> is inner faithful. With this assumption made, the general integration formula from Theorem 16.8 applies to our situation, and the proof of the equivalences goes as follows: | |||
<math>(1)\implies(2)</math> This is clear from definitions, because the Haar integration on any compact quantum group satisfies the idempotent state equation, namely: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\psi*\psi=\psi | |||
</math> | |||
<math>(2)\implies(1)</math> Assuming <math>\psi*\psi=\psi</math>, we have, for any <math>r\in\mathbb N</math>: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\psi^{*r}=\psi | |||
</math> | |||
Thus Theorem 16.8 gives <math>\int_G=\psi</math>, and by using Theorem 16.3, we obtain the result. | |||
In order to establish now <math>(2)\Longleftrightarrow(3)</math>, we use the following elementary formula, which comes from the definition of the convolution operation: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\psi^{*r}(u_{i_1j_1}^{e_1}\ldots u_{i_pj_p}^{e_p})=(T_e^r)_{i_1\ldots i_p,j_1\ldots j_p} | |||
</math> | |||
<math>(2)\implies(3)</math> Assuming <math>\psi*\psi=\psi</math>, by using the above formula at <math>r=1,2</math> we obtain that the matrices <math>T_e</math> and <math>T_e^2</math> have the same coefficients, and so they are equal. | |||
<math>(3)\implies(2)</math> Assuming <math>T_e^2=T_e</math>, by using the above formula at <math>r=1,2</math> we obtain that the linear forms <math>\psi</math> and <math>\psi*\psi</math> coincide on any product of coefficients <math>u_{i_1j_1}^{e_1}\ldots u_{i_pj_p}^{e_p}</math>. Now since these coefficients span a dense subalgebra of <math>C(G)</math>, this gives the result.}} | |||
As a first illustration, we will apply this criterion to certain models for the quantum groups <math>O_N^*,U_N^*</math>. We first have the following result: | |||
{{proofcard|Proposition|proposition-1|We have a matrix model as follows, | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
C(O_N^*)\to M_2(C(U_N))\quad,\quad | |||
u_{ij}\to\begin{pmatrix}0&v_{ij}\\ \bar{v}_{ij}&0\end{pmatrix} | |||
</math> | |||
where <math>v</math> is the fundamental corepresentation of <math>C(U_N)</math>, as well as a model as follows, | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
C(U_N^*)\to M_2(C(U_N\times U_N))\quad,\quad | |||
u_{ij}\to\begin{pmatrix}0&v_{ij}\\ w_{ij}&0\end{pmatrix} | |||
</math> | |||
where <math>v,w</math> are the fundamental corepresentations of the two copies of <math>C(U_N)</math>. | |||
|It is routine to check that the matrices on the right are indeed biunitaries, and since the first matrix is also self-adjoint, we obtain models as follows: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
C(O_N^+)\to M_2(C(U_N)) | |||
</math> | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
C(U_N^+)\to M_2(C(U_N\times U_N)) | |||
</math> | |||
Consider now antidiagonal <math>2\times2</math> matrices, with commuting entries, as follows: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
X_i=\begin{pmatrix}0&x_i\\ y_i&0\end{pmatrix} | |||
</math> | |||
We have then the following computation: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\begin{eqnarray*} | |||
X_iX_jX_k | |||
&=&\begin{pmatrix}0&x_i\\ y_i&0\end{pmatrix} | |||
\begin{pmatrix}0&x_j\\ y_j&0\end{pmatrix} | |||
\begin{pmatrix}0&x_k\\ y_k&0\end{pmatrix}\\ | |||
&=&\begin{pmatrix}0&x_iy_jx_k\\ y_ix_jy_k&0\end{pmatrix} | |||
\end{eqnarray*} | |||
</math> | |||
Since this quantity is symmetric in <math>i,k</math>, we obtain from this: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
X_iX_jX_k=X_kX_jX_i | |||
</math> | |||
Thus, our models above factorize as claimed.}} | |||
We can now formulate our first concrete modelling theorem, as folllows: | |||
{{proofcard|Theorem|theorem-2|The above antidiagonal models, namely | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
C(O_N^*)\to M_2(C(U_N)) | |||
</math> | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
C(U_N^*)\to M_2(C(U_N\times U_N)) | |||
</math> | |||
are both stationary. | |||
|We first discuss the case of <math>O_N^*</math>. We use Theorem 16.9 (3). Since the fundamental representation is self-adjoint, the matrices <math>T_e</math> with <math>e\in\{1,*\}^p</math> are all equal. We denote this common matrix by <math>T_p</math>. According to the definition of <math>T_p</math>, we have: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
(T_p)_{i_1\ldots i_p,j_1\ldots j_p} | |||
=\left(tr\otimes\int_H\right)\left[\begin{pmatrix}0&v_{i_1j_1}\\\bar{v}_{i_1j_1}&0\end{pmatrix}\ldots\ldots\begin{pmatrix}0&v_{i_pj_p}\\\bar{v}_{i_pj_p}&0\end{pmatrix}\right] | |||
</math> | |||
Since when multipliying an odd number of antidiagonal matrices we obtain an atidiagonal matrix, we have <math>T_p=0</math> for <math>p</math> odd. Also, when <math>p</math> is even, we have: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\begin{eqnarray*} | |||
(T_p)_{i_1\ldots i_p,j_1\ldots j_p} | |||
&=&\left(tr\otimes\int_H\right)\begin{pmatrix}v_{i_1j_1}\ldots\bar{v}_{i_pj_p}&0\\0&\bar{v}_{i_1j_1}\ldots v_{i_pj_p}\end{pmatrix}\\ | |||
&=&\frac{1}{2}\left(\int_Hv_{i_1j_1}\ldots\bar{v}_{i_pj_p}+\int_H\bar{v}_{i_1j_1}\ldots v_{i_pj_p}\right)\\ | |||
&=&\int_HRe(v_{i_1j_1}\ldots\bar{v}_{i_pj_p}) | |||
\end{eqnarray*} | |||
</math> | |||
We have <math>T_p^2=T_p=0</math> when <math>p</math> is odd, so we are left with proving that we have <math>T_p^2=T_p</math>, when <math>p</math> is even. For this purpose, we use the following formula: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
Re(x)Re(y)=\frac{1}{2}\left(Re(xy)+Re(x\bar{y})\right) | |||
</math> | |||
By using this identity for each of the terms which appear in the product, and multi-index notations in order to simplify the writing, we obtain: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\begin{eqnarray*} | |||
&&(T_p^2)_{ij}\\ | |||
&=&\sum_{k_1\ldots k_p}(T_p)_{i_1\ldots i_p,k_1\ldots k_p}(T_p)_{k_1\ldots k_p,j_1\ldots j_p}\\ | |||
&=&\int_H\int_H\sum_{k_1\ldots k_p}Re(v_{i_1k_1}\ldots\bar{v}_{i_pk_p})Re(w_{k_1j_1}\ldots\bar{w}_{k_pj_p})dvdw\\ | |||
&=&\frac{1}{2}\int_H\int_H\sum_{k_1\ldots k_p}Re(v_{i_1k_1}w_{k_1j_1}\ldots\bar{v}_{i_pk_p}\bar{w}_{k_pj_p})+Re(v_{i_1k_1}\bar{w}_{k_1j_1}\ldots\bar{v}_{i_pk_p}w_{k_pj_p})dvdw\\ | |||
&=&\frac{1}{2}\int_H\int_HRe((vw)_{i_1j_1}\ldots(\bar{v}\bar{w})_{i_pj_p})+Re((v\bar{w})_{i_1j_1}\ldots(\bar{v}w)_{i_pj_p})dvdw | |||
\end{eqnarray*} | |||
</math> | |||
Now since <math>vw\in H</math> is uniformly distributed when <math>v,w\in H</math> are uniformly distributed, the quantity on the left integrates up to <math>(T_p)_{ij}</math>. Also, since <math>H</math> is conjugation-stable, <math>\bar{w}\in H</math> is uniformly distributed when <math>w\in H</math> is uniformly distributed, so the quantity on the right integrates up to the same quantity, namely <math>(T_p)_{ij}</math>. Thus, we have: | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
\begin{eqnarray*} | |||
(T_p^2)_{ij} | |||
&=&\frac{1}{2}\Big((T_p)_{ij}+(T_p)_{ij}\Big)\\ | |||
&=&(T_p)_{ij} | |||
\end{eqnarray*} | |||
</math> | |||
Summarizing, we have obtained that for any <math>p</math>, the condition <math>T_p^2=T_p</math> is satisfied. Thus Theorem 16.9 applies, and shows that our model is stationary, as claimed. As for the proof of the stationarity for the model for <math>U_N^*</math>, this is similar.}} | |||
As a second illustration, regarding <math>H_N^*,K_N^*</math>, we have: | |||
{{proofcard|Theorem|theorem-3|We have a stationary matrix model as follows, | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
C(H_N^*)\to M_2(C(K_N))\quad,\quad | |||
u_{ij}\to\begin{pmatrix}0&v_{ij}\\ \bar{v}_{ij}&0\end{pmatrix} | |||
</math> | |||
where <math>v</math> is the fundamental corepresentation of <math>C(K_N)</math>, as well as a stationary model | |||
<math display="block"> | |||
C(K_N^*)\to M_2(C(K_N\times K_N))\quad,\quad | |||
u_{ij}\to\begin{pmatrix}0&v_{ij}\\ w_{ij}&0\end{pmatrix} | |||
</math> | |||
where <math>v,w</math> are the fundamental corepresentations of the two copies of <math>C(K_N)</math>. | |||
|This follows by adapting the proof of Proposition 16.10 and Theorem 16.11 above, by adding there the <math>H_N^+,K_N^+</math> relations. All this is in fact part of a more general phenomenon, concerning half-liberation in general, and we refer here to <ref name="bb4">T. Banica and J. Bichon, Matrix models for noncommutative algebraic manifolds, ''J. Lond. Math. Soc.'' '''95''' (2017), 519--540.</ref>, <ref name="bdu">J. Bichon and M. Dubois-Violette, Half-commutative orthogonal Hopf algebras, ''Pacific J. Math.'' '''263''' (2013), 13--28.</ref>.}} | |||
Summarizing, we have some interesting theory and examples for both the stationary models, and for the general inner faithful models. | |||
==General references== | |||
{{cite arXiv|last1=Banica|first1=Teo|year=2024|title=Introduction to quantum groups|eprint=1909.08152|class=math.CO}} | |||
==References== | |||
{{reflist}} |
Latest revision as of 00:43, 22 April 2025
Before getting into more about inner faithfulness, let us first go back to the stationary models. These models are quite restrictive, because [math]G[/math] must be coamenable. However, there are many interesting examples of coamenable compact quantum groups, and in order to better understand these examples, and also in order to construct some new examples, our idea will be that of looking for stationary models for them. We first have:
For [math]\pi:C(G)\to M_K(C(T))[/math], the following are equivalent:
- [math]Im(\pi)[/math] is a Hopf algebra, and [math](tr\otimes\int_T)\pi[/math] is the Haar integration on it.
- [math]\psi=(tr\otimes\int_X)\pi[/math] satisfies the idempotent state property [math]\psi*\psi=\psi[/math].
- [math]T_e^2=T_e[/math], [math]\forall p\in\mathbb N[/math], [math]\forall e\in\{1,*\}^p[/math], where:
[[math]] (T_e)_{i_1\ldots i_p,j_1\ldots j_p}=\left(tr\otimes\int_T\right)(U_{i_1j_1}^{e_1}\ldots U_{i_pj_p}^{e_p}) [[/math]]
If these conditions are satisfied, we say that [math]\pi[/math] is stationary on its image.
Given a matrix model [math]\pi:C(G)\to M_K(C(T))[/math] as in the statement, we can factorize it via its Hopf image, as in Definition 16.6 above:
Now observe that the conditions (1,2,3) in the statement depend only on the factorized representation:
Thus, we can assume in practice that we have [math]G=H[/math], which means that we can assume that [math]\pi[/math] is inner faithful. With this assumption made, the general integration formula from Theorem 16.8 applies to our situation, and the proof of the equivalences goes as follows:
[math](1)\implies(2)[/math] This is clear from definitions, because the Haar integration on any compact quantum group satisfies the idempotent state equation, namely:
[math](2)\implies(1)[/math] Assuming [math]\psi*\psi=\psi[/math], we have, for any [math]r\in\mathbb N[/math]:
Thus Theorem 16.8 gives [math]\int_G=\psi[/math], and by using Theorem 16.3, we obtain the result.
In order to establish now [math](2)\Longleftrightarrow(3)[/math], we use the following elementary formula, which comes from the definition of the convolution operation:
[math](2)\implies(3)[/math] Assuming [math]\psi*\psi=\psi[/math], by using the above formula at [math]r=1,2[/math] we obtain that the matrices [math]T_e[/math] and [math]T_e^2[/math] have the same coefficients, and so they are equal.
[math](3)\implies(2)[/math] Assuming [math]T_e^2=T_e[/math], by using the above formula at [math]r=1,2[/math] we obtain that the linear forms [math]\psi[/math] and [math]\psi*\psi[/math] coincide on any product of coefficients [math]u_{i_1j_1}^{e_1}\ldots u_{i_pj_p}^{e_p}[/math]. Now since these coefficients span a dense subalgebra of [math]C(G)[/math], this gives the result.
As a first illustration, we will apply this criterion to certain models for the quantum groups [math]O_N^*,U_N^*[/math]. We first have the following result:
We have a matrix model as follows,
It is routine to check that the matrices on the right are indeed biunitaries, and since the first matrix is also self-adjoint, we obtain models as follows:
Consider now antidiagonal [math]2\times2[/math] matrices, with commuting entries, as follows:
We have then the following computation:
Since this quantity is symmetric in [math]i,k[/math], we obtain from this:
Thus, our models above factorize as claimed.
We can now formulate our first concrete modelling theorem, as folllows:
The above antidiagonal models, namely
We first discuss the case of [math]O_N^*[/math]. We use Theorem 16.9 (3). Since the fundamental representation is self-adjoint, the matrices [math]T_e[/math] with [math]e\in\{1,*\}^p[/math] are all equal. We denote this common matrix by [math]T_p[/math]. According to the definition of [math]T_p[/math], we have:
Since when multipliying an odd number of antidiagonal matrices we obtain an atidiagonal matrix, we have [math]T_p=0[/math] for [math]p[/math] odd. Also, when [math]p[/math] is even, we have:
We have [math]T_p^2=T_p=0[/math] when [math]p[/math] is odd, so we are left with proving that we have [math]T_p^2=T_p[/math], when [math]p[/math] is even. For this purpose, we use the following formula:
By using this identity for each of the terms which appear in the product, and multi-index notations in order to simplify the writing, we obtain:
Now since [math]vw\in H[/math] is uniformly distributed when [math]v,w\in H[/math] are uniformly distributed, the quantity on the left integrates up to [math](T_p)_{ij}[/math]. Also, since [math]H[/math] is conjugation-stable, [math]\bar{w}\in H[/math] is uniformly distributed when [math]w\in H[/math] is uniformly distributed, so the quantity on the right integrates up to the same quantity, namely [math](T_p)_{ij}[/math]. Thus, we have:
Summarizing, we have obtained that for any [math]p[/math], the condition [math]T_p^2=T_p[/math] is satisfied. Thus Theorem 16.9 applies, and shows that our model is stationary, as claimed. As for the proof of the stationarity for the model for [math]U_N^*[/math], this is similar.
As a second illustration, regarding [math]H_N^*,K_N^*[/math], we have:
We have a stationary matrix model as follows,
Summarizing, we have some interesting theory and examples for both the stationary models, and for the general inner faithful models.
General references
Banica, Teo (2024). "Introduction to quantum groups". arXiv:1909.08152 [math.CO].