Skip to content →

Tag: moduli

reading backlog

One of the things I like most about returning from a vacation is to
have an enormous pile of fresh reading : a week's worth of
newspapers, some regular mail and much more email (three quarters junk).
Also before getting into bed after the ride I like to browse through the
arXiv in search for interesting
This time, the major surprise of my initial survey came
from the newspapers. No, not Bush again, _that_ news was headline
even in France. On the other hand, I didn't hear a word about Theo Van
Gogh being shot and stabbed to death
in Amsterdam. I'll come
back to this later.
I'd rather mention the two papers that
somehow stood out during my scan of this week on the arXiv. The first is
Framed quiver moduli,
cohomology, and quantum groups
by Markus
. By the deframing trick, a framed quiver moduli problem is
reduced to an ordinary quiver moduli problem for a dimension vector for
which one of the entries is equal to one, hence in particular, an
indivisible dimension vector. Such quiver problems are far easier to
handle than the divisible ones where everything can at best be reduced
to the classical problem of classifying tuples of $n \\times n$ matrices
up to simultaneous conjugation. Markus deals with the case when the
quiver has no oriented cycles. An important examples of a framed moduli
quiver problem _with_ oriented cycles is the study of
Brauer-Severi varieties of smooth orders. Significant progress on the
description of the fibers in this case is achieved by Raf Bocklandt,
Stijn Symens and Geert Van de Weyer and will (hopefully) be posted soon.

The second paper is Moduli schemes of rank
one Azumaya modules
by Norbert Hoffmann and Urich Stuhler which
brings back longforgotten memories of my Ph.D. thesis, 21 years

Leave a Comment


[Last time][1] we saw that for $A$ a smooth order with center $R$ the
Brauer-Severi variety $X_A$ is a smooth variety and we have a projective
morphism $X_A \rightarrow \mathbf{max}~R$ This situation is
very similar to that of a desingularization $~X \rightarrow
\mathbf{max}~R$ of the (possibly singular) variety $~\mathbf{max}~R$.
The top variety $~X$ is a smooth variety and there is a Zariski open
subset of $~\mathbf{max}~R$ where the fibers of this map consist of just
one point, or in more bombastic language a $~\mathbb{P}^0$. The only
difference in the case of the Brauer-Severi fibration is that we have a
Zariski open subset of $~\mathbf{max}~R$ (the Azumaya locus of A) where
the fibers of the fibration are isomorphic to $~\mathbb{P}^{n-1}$. In
this way one might view the Brauer-Severi fibration of a smooth order as
a non-commutative or hyper-desingularization of the central variety.
This might provide a way to attack the old problem of construction
desingularizations of quiver-quotients. If $~Q$ is a quiver and $\alpha$
is an indivisible dimension vector (that is, the component dimensions
are coprime) then it is well known (a result due to [Alastair King][2])
that for a generic stability structure $\theta$ the moduli space
$~M^{\theta}(Q,\alpha)$ classifying $\theta$-semistable
$\alpha$-dimensional representations will be a smooth variety (as all
$\theta$-semistables are actually $\theta$-stable) and the fibration
$~M^{\theta}(Q,\alpha) \rightarrow \mathbf{iss}_{\alpha}~Q$ is a
desingularization of the quotient-variety $~\mathbf{iss}_{\alpha}~Q$
classifying isomorphism classes of $\alpha$-dimensional semi-simple
representations. However, if $\alpha$ is not indivisible nobody has
the faintest clue as to how to construct a natural desingularization of
$~\mathbf{iss}_{\alpha}~Q$. Still, we have a perfectly reasonable
hyper-desingularization $~X_{A(Q,\alpha)} \rightarrow
\mathbf{iss}_{\alpha}~Q$ where $~A(Q,\alpha)$ is the corresponding
quiver order, the generic fibers of which are all projective spaces in
case $\alpha$ is the dimension vector of a simple representation of
$~Q$. I conjecture (meaning : I hope) that this Brauer-Severi fibration
contains already a lot of information on a genuine desingularization of
$~\mathbf{iss}_{\alpha}~Q$. One obvious test for this seemingly
crazy conjecture is to study the flat locus of the Brauer-Severi
fibration. If it would contain info about desingularizations one would
expect that the fibration can never be flat in a central singularity! In
other words, we would like that the flat locus of the fibration is
contained in the smooth central locus. This is indeed the case and is a
more or less straightforward application of the proof (due to [Geert Van
de Weyer][3]) of the Popov-conjecture for quiver-quotients (see for
example his Ph.D. thesis [Nullcones of quiver representations][4]).
However, it is in general not true that the flat-locus and central
smooth locus coincide. Sometimes this is because the Brauer-Severi
scheme is a blow-up of the Brauer-Severi of a nicer order. The following
example was worked out together with [Colin Ingalls][5] : Consider the
order $~A = \begin{bmatrix} C[x,y] & C[x,y] \\ (x,y) & C[x,y]
\end{bmatrix}$ which is the quiver order of the quiver setting
$~(Q,\alpha)$ $\xymatrix{\vtx{1} \ar@/^2ex/[rr] \ar@/^1ex/[rr]
& & \vtx{1} \ar@/^2ex/[ll]} $ then the Brauer-Severi fibration
$~X_A \rightarrow \mathbf{iss}_{\alpha}~Q$ is flat everywhere except
over the zero representation where the fiber is $~\mathbb{P}^1 \times
\mathbb{P}^2$. On the other hand, for the order $~B =
\begin{bmatrix} C[x,y] & C[x,y] \\ C[x,y] & C[x,y] \end{bmatrix}$
the Brauer-Severi fibration is flat and $~X_B \simeq \mathbb{A}^2 \times
\mathbb{P}^1$. It turns out that $~X_A$ is a blow-up of $~X_B$ at a
point in the fiber over the zero-representation.


Leave a Comment

cotangent bundles

previous post in this sequence was [moduli spaces][1]. Why did we spend
time explaining the connection of the quiver
$Q~:~\xymatrix{\vtx{} \ar[rr]^a & & \vtx{} \ar@(ur,dr)^x} $
to moduli spaces of vectorbundles on curves and moduli spaces of linear
control systems? At the start I said we would concentrate on its _double
quiver_ $\tilde{Q}~:~\xymatrix{\vtx{} \ar@/^/[rr]^a && \vtx{}
\ar@(u,ur)^x \ar@(d,dr)_{x^*} \ar@/^/[ll]^{a^*}} $ Clearly,
this already gives away the answer : if the path algebra $C Q$
determines a (non-commutative) manifold $M$, then the path algebra $C
\tilde{Q}$ determines the cotangent bundle of $M$. Recall that for a
commutative manifold $M$, the cotangent bundle is the vectorbundle
having at the point $p \in M$ as fiber the linear dual $(T_p M)^*$ of
the tangent space. So, why do we claim that $C \tilde{Q}$
corresponds to the cotangent bundle of $C Q$? Fix a dimension vector
$\alpha = (m,n)$ then the representation space
$\mathbf{rep}_{\alpha}~Q = M_{n \times m}(C) \oplus M_n(C)$ is just
an affine space so in its point the tangent space is the representation
space itself. To define its linear dual use the non-degeneracy of the
_trace pairings_ $M_{n \times m}(C) \times M_{m \times n}(C)
\rightarrow C~:~(A,B) \mapsto tr(AB)$ $M_n(C) \times M_n(C)
\rightarrow C~:~(C,D) \mapsto tr(CD)$ and therefore the linear dual
$\mathbf{rep}_{\alpha}~Q^* = M_{m \times n}(C) \oplus M_n(C)$ which is
the representation space $\mathbf{rep}_{\alpha}~Q^s$ of the quiver
$Q^s~:~\xymatrix{\vtx{} & & \vtx{} \ar[ll] \ar@(ur,dr)} $
and therefore we have that the cotangent bundle to the representation
space $\mathbf{rep}_{\alpha}~Q$ $T^* \mathbf{rep}_{\alpha}~Q =
\mathbf{rep}_{\alpha}~\tilde{Q}$ Important for us will be that any
cotangent bundle has a natural _symplectic structure_. For a good
introduction to this see the [course notes][2] “Symplectic geometry and
quivers” by [Geert Van de Weyer][3]. As a consequence $C \tilde{Q}$
can be viewed as a non-commutative symplectic manifold with the
symplectic structure determined by the non-commutative 2-form
$\omega = da^* da + dx^* dx$ but before we can define all this we
will have to recall some facts on non-commutative differential forms.
Maybe [next time][4]. For the impatient : have a look at the paper by
Victor Ginzburg [Non-commutative Symplectic Geometry, Quiver varieties,
and Operads][5] or my paper with Raf Bocklandt [Necklace Lie algebras
and noncommutative symplectic geometry][6]. Now that we have a
cotangent bundle of $C Q$ is there also a _tangent bundle_ and does it
again correspond to a new quiver? Well yes, here it is
$\xymatrix{\vtx{} \ar@/^/[rr]^{a+da} \ar@/_/[rr]_{a-da} & & \vtx{}
\ar@(u,ur)^{x+dx} \ar@(d,dr)_{x-dx}} $ and the labeling of the
arrows may help you to work through some sections of the Cuntz-Quillen



moduli spaces

In [the previous part][1] we saw that moduli spaces of suitable representations
of the quiver $\xymatrix{\vtx{} \ar[rr] & & \vtx{}
\ar@(ur,dr)} $ locally determine the moduli spaces of
vectorbundles over smooth projective curves. There is yet another
classical problem related to this quiver (which also illustrates the
idea of looking at families of moduli spaces rather than individual
ones) : _linear control systems_. Such a system with an $n$ dimensional
_state space_ and $m$ _controls_ (or inputs) is determined by the
following system of linear differential equations $ \frac{d x}{d t}
= A.x + B.u$ where $x(t) \in \mathbb{C}^n$ is the state of the system at
time $t$, $u(t) \in \mathbb{C}^m$ is the control-vector at time $t$ and $A \in
M_n(\mathbb{C}), B \in M_{n \times m}(\mathbb{C})$ are the matrices describing the
evolution of the system $\Sigma$ (after fixing bases in the state- and
control-space). That is, $\Sigma$ determines a representation of the
above quiver of dimension-vector $\alpha = (m,n)$
$\xymatrix{\vtx{m} \ar[rr]^B & & \vtx{n} \ar@(ur,dr)^A} $
Whereas in control theory (see for example Allen Tannenbaum\’s Lecture
Notes in Mathematics 845 for a mathematical introduction) it is natural
to call two systems equivalent when they only differ up to base change
in the state-space, one usually fixes the control knobs so it is not
natural to allow for base change in the control-space. So, at first
sight the control theoretic problem of classifying equivalent systems is
not the same problem as classifying representations of the quiver up to
isomorphism. Fortunately, there is an elegant way round this which is
called _deframing_. That is, for a fixed number $m$ of controls one
considers the quiver $Q_f$ having precisely $m$ arrows from the first to
the second vertex $\xymatrix{\vtx{1} \ar@/^4ex/[rr]^{B_1}
\ar@/^/[rr]^{B_2} \ar@/_3ex/[rr]_{B_m} & & \vtx{n} \ar@(ur,dr)^A} $
and the system $\Sigma$ does determine a representation of this new
quiver of dimension vector $\beta=(1,n)$ by assigning to the arrows the
different columns of the matrix $B$. Isomorphism classes of these
quiver-representations do correspond precisely to equivalence classes of
linear control systems. In [part 4][1] we introduced stable and
semi-stable representations. In this framed-quiver setting call a
representation $(A,B_1,\ldots,B_m)$ stable if there is no proper
subrepresentation of dimension vector $(1,p)$ for some $p \lneq n$.
Perhaps remarkable this algebraic notion has a counterpart in
system-theory : the systems corresponding to stable
quiver-representations are precisely the completely controllable
systems. That is, those which can be brought to any wanted state by
varying the controls. Hence, the moduli space
$M^s_{(1,n)}(Q_f,\theta)$ classifying stable representations is
exactly the moduli space of completely controllable linear systems
studied in control theory. For an excellent account of this moduli space
one can read the paper [Introduction to moduli spaces associated to
quivers by [Christof Geiss][2]. Fixing the number $m$ of controls but
varying the dimensions of teh state-spaces one would like to take all
the moduli spaces $ \bigsqcup_n~M^s_{(1,n)}(Q_f,\theta)$
together as they are all determined by the same formally smooth algebra
$\mathbb{C} Q_f$. This was done in a joint paper with [Markus Reineke][3] called
[Canonical systems and non-commutative geometry][4] in which we prove
that this disjoint union can be identified with the _infinite
Grassmannian_ $ \bigsqcup_n~M^s_{(1,n)}(Q_f,\theta) =
\mathbf{Gras}_m(\infty)$ of $m$-dimensional subspaces of an
infinite dimensional space. This result can be seen as a baby-version of
George Wilson\’s result relating the disjoint union of Calogero-Moser
spaces to the _adelic_ Grassmannian. But why do we stress this
particular quiver so much? This will be partly explained [next time][5].


Leave a Comment

representation spaces

previous part of this sequence was [quiver representations][1]. When $A$
is a formally smooth algebra, we have an infinite family of smooth
affine varieties $\mathbf{rep}_n~A$, the varieties of finite dimensional
representations. On $\mathbf{rep}_n~A$ there is a basechange action of
$GL_n$ and we are really interested in _isomorphism classes_ of
representations, that is, orbits under this action. Mind you, an orbit
space does not always exist due to the erxistence of non-closed orbits
so one often has to restrict to suitable representations of $A$ for
which it _is_ possible to construct an orbit-space. But first, let us
give a motivating example to illustrate the fact that many interesting
classification problems can be translated into the setting of this
non-commutative algebraic geometry. Let $X$ be a smooth projective
curve of genus $g$ (that is, a Riemann surface with $g$ holes). A
classical object of study is $M = M_X^{ss}(0,n)$ the _moduli space
of semi-stable vectorbundles on $X$ of rank $n$ and degree $0$_. This
space has an open subset (corresponding to the _stable_ vectorbundles)
which classify the isomorphism classes of unitary simple representations
$\pi_1(X) = \frac{\langle x_1,\ldots,x_g,y_1,\ldots,y_g
\rangle}{([x_1,y_1] \ldots [x_g,y_g])} \rightarrow U_n(\mathbb{C})$ of the
fundamental group of $X$. Let $Y$ be an affine open subset of the
projective curve $X$, then we have the formally smooth algebra $A =
\begin{bmatrix} \mathbb{C} & 0 \\ \mathbb{C}[Y] & \mathbb{C}[Y] \end{bmatrix}$ As $A$ has two
orthogonal idempotents, its representation varieties decompose into
connected components according to dimension vectors $\mathbf{rep}_m~A
= \bigsqcup_{p+q=m} \mathbf{rep}_{(p,q)}~A$ all of which are smooth
varieties. As mentioned before it is not possible to construct a
variety classifying the orbits in one of these components, but there are
two methods to approximate the orbit space. The first one is the
_algebraic quotient variety_ of which the coordinate ring is the ring of
invariant functions. In this case one merely recovers for this quotient
$\mathbf{rep}_{(p,q)}~A // GL_{p+q} = S^q(Y)$ the symmetric product
of $Y$. A better approximation is the _moduli space of semi-stable
representations_ which is an algebraic quotient of the open subset of
all representations having no subrepresentation of dimension vector
$(u,v)$ such that $-uq+vp < 0$ (that is, cover this open set by $GL_{p+q}$ stable affine opens and construct for each the algebraic quotient and glue them together). Denote this moduli space by $M_{(p,q)}(A,\theta)$. It is an unpublished result of Aidan Schofield that the moduli spaces of semi-stable vectorbundles are birational equivalent to specific ones of these moduli spaces $M_X^{ss}(0,n)~\sim^{bir}~M_{(n,gn)}(A,\theta)$ Rather than studying the moduli spaces of semi-stable vectorbundles $M^{ss}_X(0,n)$ on the curve $X$ one at a time for each rank $n$, non-commutative algebraic geometry allows us (via the translation to the formally smooth algebra $A$) to obtain common features on all these moduli spaces and hence to study $\bigsqcup_n~M^{ss}_X(0,n)$ the moduli space of all semi-stable bundles on $X$ of degree zero (but of varying ranks). There exists a procedure to associate to any formally smooth algebra $A$ a quiver $Q_A$ (playing roughly the role of the tangent space to the manifold determined by $A$). If we do this for the algebra described above we find the quiver $\xymatrix{\vtx{} \ar[rr] & & \vtx{} \ar@(ur,dr)}$ and hence the representation theory of this quiver plays an important role in studying the geometric properties of the moduli spaces $M^{ss}_X(0,n)$, for instance it allows to determine the smooth loci of these varieties. Move on the the [next part. [1]:

Leave a Comment

driven by ambition and sloth

Here’s a part of yesterday’s post by bitch ph.d. :

But first of all I have to figure out what the hell I’m going to teach my graduate students this semester, and really more to the point, what I am not going to bother to try to cram into this class just because it’s my first graduate class and I’m feeling like teaching everything I know in one semester is a realistic and desireable possibility. Yes! Here it all is! Everything I have ever learned! Thank you, and goodnight!

Ah, the perpetual motion machine of last-minute course planning, driven by ambition and sloth!.

I’ve had similar experiences, even with undergraduate courses (in Belgium there is no fixed curriculum so the person teaching the course is responsible for its contents). If you compare the stuff I hoped to teach when I started out with the courses I’ll be giving in a few weeks, you would be more than disappointed.
The first time I taught _differential geometry 1_ (a third year course) I did include in the syllabus everything needed to culminate in an outline of Donaldson’s result on exotic structures on $\mathbb{R}^4 $ and Connes’ non-commutative GUT-model (If you want to have a good laugh, here is the set of notes). As far as I remember I got as far as classifying compact surfaces!
A similar story for the _Lie theory_ course. Until last year this was sort of an introduction to geometric invariant theory : quotient variety of conjugacy classes of matrices, moduli space of linear dynamical systems, Hilbert schemes and the classification of $GL_n $-representations (again, smile! here is the set of notes).
Compared to these (over)ambitious courses, next year’s courses are lazy sunday-afternoon walks! What made me change my mind? I learned the hard way something already known to the ancient Greeks : mathematics does not allow short-cuts, you cannot expect students to run before they can walk. Giving an over-ambitious course doesn’t offer the students a quicker road to research, but it may result in a burn-out before they get even started!

Leave a Comment

nog course outline

Now that the preparation for my undergraduate courses in the first semester is more or less finished, I can begin to think about the courses I’ll give this year in the master class
non-commutative geometry. For a change I’d like to introduce the main ideas and concepts by a very concrete example : Ginzburg’s coadjoint-orbit result for the Calogero-Moser space and its
relation to the classification of one-sided ideals in the first Weyl algebra. Not only will this example give me the opportunity to say things about formally smooth algebras, non-commutative
differential forms and even non-commutative symplectic geometry, but it also involves what some people prefer to call _non-commutative algebraic geometry_ (that is the study of graded Noetherian
rings having excellent homological properties) via the projective space associated to the homogenized Weyl algebra. Besides, I have some affinity with this example.

A long time ago I introduced
the moduli spaces for one-sided ideals in the Weyl algebra in Moduli spaces for right ideals of the Weyl algebra and when I was printing a _very_ preliminary version of Ginzburg’s paper
Non-commutative Symplectic Geometry, Quiver varieties, and Operads (probably because he send a preview to Yuri Berest and I was in contact with him at the time about the moduli spaces) the
idea hit me at the printer that the right way to look at the propblem was to consider the quiver

$\xymatrix{\vtx{} \ar@/^/[rr]^a & & \vtx{} \ar@(u,ur)^x \ar@(d,dr)_y \ar@/^/[ll]^b} $

which eventually led to my paper together with Raf Bocklandt Necklace Lie algebras and noncommutative symplectic geometry.

Apart from this papers I would like to explain the following
papers by illustrating them on the above example : Michail Kapranov Noncommutative geometry based on commutator expansions Maxim Kontsevich and Alex Rosenberg Noncommutative smooth
Yuri Berest and George Wilson Automorphisms and Ideals of the Weyl Algebra Yuri Berest and George Wilson Ideal Classes of the Weyl Algebra and Noncommutative Projective
Travis Schedler A Hopf algebra quantizing a necklace Lie algebra canonically associated to a quiver and of course the seminal paper by Joachim Cuntz and Daniel Quillen on
quasi-free algebras and their non-commutative differential forms which, unfortunately, in not available online.

I plan to write a series of posts here on all this material but I will be very
happy to get side-tracked by any comments you might have. So please, if you are interested in any of this and want to have more information or explanation do not hesitate to post a comment (only
your name and email is required to do so, you do not have to register and you can even put some latex-code in your post but such a posting will first have to viewed by me to avoid cluttering of
nonsense GIFs in my directories).

One Comment

NOG master class

Yesterday I made reservations for lecture rooms to run the
master class on non-commutative geometry sponsored by the ESF-NOG project. We have a lecture room on
monday- and wednesday afternoon and friday the whole day which should be
enough. I will run two courses in the program : non-commutative
and projects in non-commutative geometry both 30
hours. I hope that Raf Bocklandt will do most of the work on the
Geometric invariant theory course so that my contribution to it
can be minimal. Here are the first ideas of topics I want to cover in my
courses. As always, all suggestions are wellcome (just add a

non-commutative geometry : As
I am running this course jointly with Markus Reineke and as Markus will give a
mini-course on his work on non-commutative Hilbert schemes, I will explain
the theory of formally smooth algebras. I will cover most of the
paper by Joachim Cuntz and Daniel Quillen “Algebra extensions and
nonsingularity”, Journal of AMS, v.8, no. 2, 1995, 251?289. Further,
I’ll do the first section of the paper by Alexander Rosenberg and Maxim Kontsevich,
Noncommutative smooth spaces“. Then, I will
explain some of my own work including the “One
quiver to rule them all
” paper and my recent attempts to classify
all formally smooth algebras up to non-commutative birational
equivalence. When dealing with the last topic I will explain some of Aidan Schofield‘s paper
Birational classification of moduli spaces of representations of quivers“.

projects in
non-commutative geometry
: This is one of the two courses (the other
being “projects in non-commutative algebra” run by Fred Van Oystaeyen)
for which the students have to write a paper so I will take as the topic
of my talks the application of non-commutative geometry (in particular
the theory of orders in central simple algebras) to the resolution of
commutative singularities and ask the students to carry out the detailed
analysis for one of the following important classes of examples :
quantum groups at roots of unity, deformed preprojective algebras or
symplectic reflexion algebras. I will explain in much more detail three talks I gave on the subject last fall in
Luminy. But I will begin with more background material on central simple
algebras and orders.

Leave a Comment