Today Travis Schedler posted a nice paper on the arXiv
“A Hopf algebra quantizing a necklace Lie algebra
canonically associated to a quiver”. I heard the first time about
necklace Lie algebras from Jacques Alev who had heard a talk by Kirillov
who constructed an infinite dimensional Lie algebra on the monomials in
two non-commuting variables X and Y (upto cyclic permutation of the
word, whence ‘necklace’). Later I learned that this Lie algebra was
defined by Maxim Kontsevich for the free algebra in an even number of
variables in his “Formal (non)commutative symplectic geometry” paper
(published in the Gelfand seminar proceedings 1993). Later I extended
this construction together with Raf Bocklandt in “Necklace Lie algebras and non-commutative symplectic
geometry” (see also Victor Ginzburg’s paper “Non-commutative symplectic geometry, quiver
varieties and operads”. Here, the necklace Lie algebra appears from
(relative) non-commutative differential forms on a symmetric quiver and
its main purpose is to define invariant symplectic flows on quotient
varieties of representations of the quiver.
Travis Schedler
extends this construction in two important ways. First, he shows that
the Lie-algebra is really a Lie-bialgebra hence there is some sort of
group-like object acting on all the representation varieties. Even more
impoprtant, he is able to define a quantization of this structure
defining a Hopf algebra. In this quantization, necklaces play a role
similar to that of (projected) flat links in the plane whereas their
quantization (necklaces with a height) are similar to genuine links in
3-space.
Sadly, at the moment there is no known natural
representations for this Hopf algebra playing a similar role to the
quotient varieties of quiver-varieties in the case of the necklace Lie
bialgebra.
Category: featured
Can
it be that one forgets an entire proof because the result doesn’t seem
important or relevant at the time? It seems the only logical explanation
for what happened last week. Raf Bocklandt asked me whether a
classification was known of all group algebras l G which are
noncommutative manifolds (that is, which are formally smooth a la Kontsevich-Rosenberg or, equivalently, quasi-free
a la Cuntz-Quillen). I said I didn’t know the answer and that it looked
like a difficult problem but at the same time it was entirely clear to
me how to attack this problem, even which book I needed to have a look
at to get started. And, indeed, after a visit to the library borrowing
Warren Dicks
lecture notes in mathematics 790 “Groups, trees and projective
modules” and browsing through it for a few minutes I had the rough
outline of the classification. As the proof is basicly a two-liner I
might as well sketch it here.
If l G is quasi-free it
must be hereditary so the augmentation ideal must be a projective
module. But Martin Dunwoody proved that this is equivalent to
G being a group acting on a (usually infinite) tree with finite
group vertex-stabilizers all of its orders being invertible in the
basefield l. Hence, by Bass-Serre theory G is the
fundamental group of a graph of finite groups (all orders being units in
l) and using this structural result it is then not difficult to
show that the group algebra l G does indeed have the lifting
property for morphisms modulo nilpotent ideals and hence is
quasi-free.
If l has characteristic zero (hence the
extra order conditions are void) one can invoke a result of Karrass
saying that quasi-freeness of l G is equivalent to G being
virtually free (that is, G has a free subgroup of finite
index). There are many interesting examples of virtually free groups.
One source are the discrete subgroups commensurable with SL(2,Z)
(among which all groups appearing in monstrous moonshine), another
source comes from the classification of rank two vectorbundles over
projective smooth curves over finite fields (see the later chapters of
Serre’s Trees). So
one can use non-commutative geometry to study the finite dimensional
representations of virtually free groups generalizing the approach with
Jan Adriaenssens in Non-commutative covers and the modular group (btw.
Jan claims that a revision of this paper will be available soon).
In order to avoid that I forget all of this once again, I’ve
written over the last couple of days a short note explaining what I know
of representations of virtually free groups (or more generally of
fundamental algebras of finite graphs of separable
l-algebras). I may (or may not) post this note on the arXiv in
the coming weeks. But, if you have a reason to be interested in this,
send me an email and I’ll send you a sneak preview.
After yesterday’s post I had to explain today what
point-modules and line-modules are and that one can really
describe them as points in a (commutative) variety. Seemingly, the
present focus on categorical methods scares possibly interested students
away and none of them seems to know that this non-commutative projective
algebraic geometry once dealt with very concrete examples.
Let
us fix the setting : A will be a quadratic algebra, that is, A is
a positively graded algebra, part of degree zero the basefield k,
generated by its homogeneous part A_1 of degree one (which we take to be
of k-dimension n 1) and with all defining relations quadratic in these
generators. Take m k-independent linear terms (that is, elements of A_1)
: l1,…,lm and consider the graded left A-module
L = A/(Al1 + ... + Alm)
Clearly, the Hilbert series of this
module (that is, the formal power series in t with coefficient of t^a
the k-dimension of the homogeneous part of L of degree a) starts off
with
Hilb(L,t) = 1 + (n+1-m) t + ...
and
we call L a linear d-dimensional module if the Hilbert series is
the power series expansion of
1/(1-t)^{d +1} = 1 + (d+1)t +(d
+1)(d +2)/2 t^2 ...
In particular, if d=0 (that is, m=n) then L
is said to be a point-module and if d=1 (that is, m=n-1) then L
is said to be a line-module. To a d-dimensional linear module L
one can associate a d-dimensional linear subspace of ordinary (that is,
commutative) projective n-space P^n. To do this, identify
P^n = P(A 1^*)
the projective space of the n 1 dimensional space of
linear functions on the homogeneous part of degree one. Then each of the
linear elements li determines a hyperplane V(li) in P^n and the
intersection of the m hyperplanes V(l1),…,V(lm) is the wanted
subspace. In particular, to a point-module corresponds a point in
P^n and to a line-module a line in P^n. So, where
is the non-commutativity of A hidden? Well, if P is a point-module
P = P0 + P1 + P2 +...
(with all components P_a one dimensional)
then the twisted module
P' = P1 + P2 + P3 + ...
is
again a point-module and the map P–>P’ defines an automorphism on the
point variety. In low dimensions, it is often possible to
reconstruct A from the point-variety and automorphism. In higher
dimensions, one has to consider also the higher dimensional linear
modules.
When I explained all this (far clumsier as it was a
long time since I worked with this) I was asked for an elementary text
on all this. ‘Why hasn’t anybody written a book on all this?’ Well,
Paul Smith wrote such a book so have a look at his
homepage. But then, it turned out that the version one can download from
one of his course pages is a more recent and a lot more
categorical version. There is no more sight of a useful book on
non-commutative projective spaces and their linear modules which might
give starting students an interesting way to learn some non-commutative
algebra and the beginnings of algebraic geometry (commutative and
non-commutative). So, hopefully Paul still has the old version around
and will make it available… The only webpage on this I could find in
short time are the slides of a talk by Michaela Vancliff.
Yesterday morning I thought that I could use some discussions I had a
week before with Markus Reineke to begin to make sense of one
sentence in Kontsevich’ Arbeitstagung talk Non-commutative smooth
spaces :
It seems plausible that Borcherds’ infinite rank
algebras with Monstrous symmetry can be realized inside Hall-Ringel
algebras for some small smooth noncommutative
spaces
However, as I’m running on a 68K RAM-memory, I
didn’t recall the fine details of all connections between the monster,
moonshine, vertex algebras and the like. Fortunately, there is the vast
amount of knowledge buried in the arXiv and a quick search on Borcherds gave me a
list of 17 papers. Among
these there are some delightful short (3 to 8 pages) expository papers
that gave me a quick recap on things I once must have read but forgot.
Moreover, Richard Borcherds has the gift of writing at the same time
readable and informative papers. If you want to get to the essence of
things in 15 minutes I can recommend What
is a vertex algebra? (“The answer to the question in the title is
that a vertex algebra is really a sort of commutative ring.”), What
is moonshine? (“At the time he discovered these relations, several
people thought it so unlikely that there could be a relation between the
monster and the elliptic modular function that they politely told McKay
that he was talking nonsense.”) and What
is the monster? (“3. It is the automorphism group of the monster
vertex algebra. (This is probably the best answer.)”). Borcherds
maintains also his homepage on which I found a few more (longer)
expository papers : Problems in moonshine and Automorphic forms and Lie algebras. After these
preliminaries it was time for the real goodies such as The
fake monster formal group, Quantum vertex algebras and the like.
After a day of enjoyable reading I think I’m again ‘a point’
wrt. vertex algebras. Unfortunately, I completely forgot what all this
could have to do with Kontsevich’ remark…
Tomorrow
I’ll start with the course Projects in non-commutative geometry
in our masterclass. The idea of this course (and its companion
Projects in non-commutative algebra run by Fred Van Oystaeyen) is
that students should make a small (original if possible) work, that may
eventually lead to a publication.
At this moment the students
have seen the following : definition and examples of quasi-free algebras
(aka formally smooth algebras, non-commutative curves), their
representation varieties, their connected component semigroup and the
Euler-form on it. Last week, Markus Reineke used all this in his mini-course
Rational points of varieties associated to quasi-free
algebras. In it, Markus gave a method to compute (at least in
principle) the number of points of the non-commutative Hilbert
scheme and the varieties of simple representations over a
finite field. Here, in principle means that Markus demands a lot of
knowledge in advance : the number of points of all connected components
of all representation schemes of the algebra as well as of its scalar
extensions over finite field extensions, together with the action of the
Galois group on them … Sadly, I do not know too many examples were all
this information is known (apart from path algebras of quivers).
Therefore, it seems like a good idea to run through Markus’
calculations in some specific examples were I think one can get all this
: free products of semi-simple algebras. The motivating examples
being the groupalgebra of the (projective) modular group
PSL(2,Z) = Z(2) * Z(3) and the free matrix-products $M(n,F_q) *
M(m,F_q)$. I will explain how one begins to compute things in these
examples and will also explain how to get the One
quiver to rule them all in these cases. It would be interesting to
compare the calculations we will find with those corresponding to the
path algebra of this one quiver.
As Markus set the good
example of writing out his notes and posting them, I will try to do the
same for my previous two sessions on quasi-free algebras over the next
couple of weeks.
Again I
spend the whole morning preparing my talks for tomorrow in the master
class. Here is an outline of what I will cover :
– examples of
noncommutative points and curves. Grothendieck’s characterization of
commutative regular algebras by the lifting property and a proof that
this lifting property in the category alg of all l-algebras is
equivalent to being a noncommutative curve (using the construction of a
generic square-zero extension).
– definition of the affine
scheme rep(n,A) of all n-dimensional representations (as always,
l is still arbitrary) and a proof that these schemes are smooth
using the universal property of k(rep(n,A)) (via generic
matrices).
– whereas rep(n,A) is smooth it is in general
a disjoint union of its irreducible components and one can use the
sum-map to define a semigroup structure on these components when
l is algebraically closed. I’ll give some examples of this
semigroup and outline how the construction can be extended over
arbitrary basefields (via a cocommutative coalgebra).
–
definition of the Euler-form on rep A, all finite dimensional
representations. Outline of the main steps involved in showing that the
Euler-form defines a bilinear form on the connected component semigroup
when l is algebraically closed (using Jordan-Holder sequences and
upper-semicontinuity results).
After tomorrow’s
lectures I hope you are prepared for the mini-course by Markus Reineke on non-commutative Hilbert schemes
next week.
Today I
did prepare my lectures for tomorrow for the NOG master-class on
non-commutative geometry. I\’m still doubting whether it is worth TeXing
my handwritten notes. Anyway, here is what I will cover tomorrow :
– Examples of l-algebras (btw. l is an
arbitrary field) : matrix-algebras, group-algebras lG of finite
groups, polynomial algebras, free and tensor-algebras, path algebras
lQ of a finite quiver, coordinaterings O(C) of affine smooth
curves C etc.
– Refresher on homological algebra : free and
projective modules, exact sequences and complexes, Hom and Ext groups
and how to calculate them from projective resolutions, interpretation of
Ext^1 via (non-split) short exact sequences and stuff like that.
– Hochschild cohomology and noncommutative differential forms.
Bimodules and their Hochschild cohomology, standard complex and
connection with differential forms, universal bimodule of derivations
etc.
– Non-commutative manifolds. Interpretation of low degree
Hochschild cohomology, characterization of non-commutative points as
separable l-algebras and examples. Formally smooth algebras
(non-commutative curves) characterised by the lifting property for
square-free extensions and a proof that formally smooth algebras are
hereditary.
Next week I will cover the representation
varieties of formally smooth algebras and the semigroup on their
connected (or irreducible) components.
We have seen that a non-commutative $l$-point is an
algebra$P=S_1 \\oplus … \\oplus S_k$with each $S_i$ a simple
finite dimensional $l$-algebra with center $L_i$ which is a separable
extension of $l$. The centers of these non-commutative points (that is
the algebras $L_1 \\oplus … \\oplus L_k$) are the open sets of a
Grothendieck-topology on
$l$. To define it properly, let $L$ be the separable closure of $l$
and let $G=Gal(L/l)$ be the so called absolute
Galois group. Consider the
category with objects the finite $G$-sets, that is : finite
sets with an action of $G$, and with morphisms the $G$-equivariant
set-maps, that is: maps respecting the group action. For each object
$V$ we call a finite collection of morphisms $Vi \\mapsto V$ a
cover of $V$ if the images of the finite number of $Vi$ is all
of $V$. Let $Cov$ be the set of all covers of finite $G$-sets, then
this is an example of a Grothendieck-topology as it satisfies
the following three conditions :
(GT1) : If
$W \\mapsto V$ is an isomorphism of $G$-sets, then $\\{ W \\mapsto
V \\}$ is an element of $Cov$.
(GT2) : If $\\{ Vi \\mapsto
V \\}$ is in $Cov$ and if for every i also $\\{ Wij \\mapsto Vi \\}$
is in $Cov$, then the collection $\\{ Wij \\mapsto V \\}$ is in
$Cov$.
(GT3) : If $\\{ fi : Vi \\mapsto V \\}$ is in $Cov$
and $g : W \\mapsto V$ is a $G$-morphism, then the fibered
products$Vi x_V W = \\{ (vi,w) in Vi x W : fi(vi)=g(w) \\}$is
again a $G$-set and the collection $\\{ Vi x_V W \\mapsto V \\}$
is in $Cov$.
Now, finite $G$-sets are just
commutative separable $l$-algebras (that is,
commutative $l$-points). To see this, decompose a
finite $G$-set into its finitely many orbits $Oj$ and let $Hj$ be the
stabilizer subgroup of an element in $Oj$, then $Hj$ is of finite
index in $G$ and the fixed field $L^Hj$ is a finite dimensional
separable field extension of $l$. So, a finite $G$-set $V$
corresponds uniquely to a separable $l$-algebra $S(V)$. Moreover, a
finite cover $\\{ W \\mapsto V \\}$ is the same thing as saying
that $S(W)$ is a commutative separable $S(V)$-algebra. Thus,
the Grothendieck topology of finite $G$-sets and their covers
is anti-equivalent to the category of commutative separable
$l$-algebras and their separable commutative extensions.
This raises the natural question : what happens if we extend the
category to all separable $l$-algebras, that is, the category of
non-commutative $l$-points, do we still obtain something like a
Grothendieck topology? Or do we get something like a
non-commutative Grothendieck topology as defined by Fred Van
Oystaeyen (essentially replacing the axiom (GT 3) by a left and right
version). And if so, what are the non-commutative covers?
Clearly, if $S(V)$ is a commutative separable $l$-algebras, we expect
these non-commutative covers to be the set of all separable
$S(V)$-algebras, but what are they if $S$ is itself non-commutative,
that is, if $S$ is a non-commutative $l$-point?
The game of Fox and Geese is usually played on a cross-like
board. I learned about it from the second volume of the first edition of
Winning Ways
for your Mathematical Plays which is now reprinted as number 3 of
the series. In the first edition, Elwyn Berlekamp,
John Conway and
Richard Guy claimed that the value of their
starting position (they play it on an 8×8 chess board with the Geese on
places a1,c1,e1 and g1 and the Fox at place e8) has exact value
1 + 1/on
where on is the class of all ordinal numbers so
1/on is by far the smallest infinitesimal number you can think
of. In this second edition which I bought a week ago, they write about
this :
We remained steadfast in that belief until we heard
objections from John Tromp. We then also received correspondence
from Jonathan Weldon, who seemed to prove to somewhat higher standards
of rigor that
“The value of Fox-and-Geese is 2 +
1/on”
Oops! But of course they try to talk themselves out
of it
Who was right? As often happens when good folks
disagree, the answer is “both!” because it turns out that the parties
are thinking of different things. The Winning Ways argument
supposed an indefinitely long board, while Welton more reasonably
considered the standard 8×8 checkerboard.
Anyway, let us be
happy that the matter is settled now and even more because they add an
enormous amount of new material on the game to this second edition (in
chapter 20; btw. if after yesterday you are still interested in the game of sprouts you might be interested in
chapter 17 of the same volume). Most of the calculations were done with
the combinatorial game suite program of Aaron
Siegel.
The
game of SNORT was invented by Simon Norton. The
rules of its SNORTgo-version are : black and white take turns in
putting a stone on a go-board such that no two stones of different
colour occupy neighbouring spots. In contrast to COLgo it is a
hot game meaning that many of its positions are non-numbers. The picture
on the left is a SNORTgo endgame of exact value
{{3|2}|-1}
and is therefore a fuzzy game meaning that the first player to
move has a winning strategy. Can you find the best move for white? and
for black?
If not, you can always consult the slides of the talk I gave this afternoon for the
WIS-seminar. Afterwards there was a game playing
afternoon but I felt too tired and went home early.