Tag: simples

Hexagonal Moonshine (2)

Published July 11, 2007 by lievenlb

Delving into finite dimensional representations of the modular group $\Gamma = PSL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $ it is perhaps not too surprising to discover numerical connections with modular functions. Here, one such strange observation and a possible explanation.

Using the _fact_ that the modular group $\Gamma = PSL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $ is the free group product $C_2 \ast C_3 $ it is fairly easy to see that the variety of all n-dimensional representations $\mathbf{rep}_n~\Gamma $ is smooth (though it contains several connected components). Some of these components will contain simple representations, some will not. Anyway, we are not interested in all n-dimensional representations but in the isomorphism classes of such representations. The best algebraic approximation to this problem is by studying the quotient varieties

$\mathbf{iss}_n~\Gamma = \mathbf{rep}_n~\Gamma // GL(n) $

under the action of $GL(n) $ by basechange. Geometric invariant theory tells us that the points of this quotient variety correspond to isoclasses of semi-simple n-dimensional representations (whence the notation $\mathbf{iss}_n $). Again, these quotient varieties split into several connected components, some of which will have an open subset of points corresponding to simple representations.

It is a natural idea to compute the codimension of subvariety of proper semi-simples in the component of maximal dimension containing simple representations. _M-geometry_ allows you to reduce such calculation to quiver-problems. Anyway, if one does this for small values of n one obtains the following sequence of codimension-numbers (starting with $n=1 $

0,1,1,1,1,3,1,3,3,3,3,5,3,5,5,5,5,7,5,7,…

which doesnt seem too exciting before you feed it to Sloan’s integer sequences encyclopedia when one discovers that it is precisely sequence A063195 which gives the dimensions of weight 2n _cuspidal newforms_
for $\Gamma_0(6) $…

The optimistic “moonshine”-interpretation of this might be that these newforms can be viewed somehow as functions on the varieties of finite dimensional $\Gamma $-representations having the property that they pick out generic simple representations as their non-zeroes.

Be that as it may (one never knows in these matters), here a more down-to-earth explanation. The sequence A063195 obviously has a 6-periodicity behaviour so it suffices to understand why the codimension-sequence should have a similar feature (modulo computing the first few terms of it and observing the coincidence with the first few terms of A063195).

The modular group has exactly 6 one-dimensional representations and if one calculates their clan as in hexagonal moonshine (1) one obtains the hexagonal quiver

[tex]\xymatrix{& \vtx{S_1} \ar@/^/[dl] \ar@/^/[dr] & \\ \vtx{S_6} \ar@/^/[ur] \ar@/^/[d] & & \vtx{S_2} \ar@/^/[ul] \ar@/^/[d] \\ \vtx{S_5} \ar@/^/[u] \ar@/^/[dr] & & \vtx{S_3} \ar@/^/[u] \ar@/^/[dl] \\ & \vtx{S_4} \ar@/^/[ur] \ar@/^/[ul] & }[/tex]

M-geometry tells us that this clan contains enough information to determine the components of $\mathbf{rep}_n~\Gamma $ that contain simple representations. They correspond to dimension-vectors of this hexagonal quiver, say

$~(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4,a_5,a_6) $

such that $a_i \leq a_{i-1}+a_{i+1} $. Moreover, the component is of maximal dimension if the components $a_i $ are evenly spread over the six vertices.
This then explains that the codimension sequence we are interested in must satisfy 6-periodicity.

Reference

This post corrects the erroneous statement made in math.AG/0610587 that the codimension sequence are the dimensions of weight 2n modular forms. The day the paper hit the arXiv I informed the author of the mistakes he made and told him how they could be corrected. Having waited 9 months I’ve given up hope that a revision/correction is imminent.

Leave a Comment

Hexagonal Moonshine (1)

Published June 18, 2007 by lievenlb

Over at the Arcadian Functor, Kea is continuing her series of blog posts on M-theory (the M is supposed to mean either Monad or Motif). A recurrent motif in them is the hexagon and now I notice hexagons popping up everywhere. I will explain some of these observations here in detail, hoping that someone, more in tune with recent technology, may have a use for them.

The three string braid group $B_3 $ is expected to play a crucial role in understanding monstrous moonshine so we should know more about it, for example about its finite dimensional representations. Now, _M geometry_ is pretty good at classifying finite dimensional representations provided the algebra is “smooth” which imples that for every natural number n the variety $\mathbf{rep}_n~A $ of n-dimensional representations of A is a manifold. Unfortunately, the group algebra $A=\mathbb{C} B_3 $ of the three string braid group is singular as we will see in a moment and the hunt for singularities in low dimensional representation varieties will reveal hexagons.

One Comment

recap and outlook

Published May 7, 2007 by lievenlb

After a lengthy spring-break, let us continue with our course on noncommutative geometry and $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $-representations. Last time, we have explained Grothendiecks mantra that all algebraic curves defined over number fields are contained in the profinite compactification
$\widehat{SL_2(\mathbb{Z})} = \underset{\leftarrow}{lim}~SL_2(\mathbb{Z})/N $ of the modular group $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $ and in the knowledge of a certain subgroup G of its group of outer automorphisms. In particular we have seen that many curves defined over the algebraic numbers $\overline{\mathbb{Q}} $ correspond to permutation representations of $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $. The profinite compactification $\widehat{SL_2}=\widehat{SL_2(\mathbb{Z})} $ is a continuous group, so it makes sense to consider its continuous n-dimensional representations $\mathbf{rep}_n^c~\widehat{SL_2} $ Such representations are known to have a finite image in $GL_n(\mathbb{C}) $ and therefore we get an embedding $\mathbf{rep}_n^c~\widehat{SL_2} \hookrightarrow \mathbf{rep}_n^{ss}~SL_n(\mathbb{C}) $ into all n-dimensional (semi-simple) representations of $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $. We consider such semi-simple points as classical objects as they are determined by – curves defined over $\overline{Q} $ – representations of (sporadic) finite groups – modlart data of fusion rings in RCTF – etc… To get a feel for the distinction between these continuous representations of the cofinite completion and all representations, consider the case of $\hat{\mathbb{Z}} = \underset{\leftarrow}{lim}~\mathbb{Z}/n \mathbb{Z} $. Its one-dimensional continuous representations are determined by roots of unity, whereas all one-dimensional (necessarily simple) representations of $\mathbb{Z}=C_{\infty} $ are determined by all elements of $\mathbb{C} $. Hence, the image of $\mathbf{rep}_1^c~\hat{\mathbb{Z}} \hookrightarrow \mathbf{rep}_1~C_{\infty} $ is contained in the unit circle

and though these points are very special there are enough of them (technically, they form a Zariski dense subset of all representations). Our aim will be twofold : (1) when viewing a classical object as a representation of $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $ we can define its modular content (which will be the noncommutative tangent space in this classical point to the noncommutative manifold of $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $). In this way we will associate noncommutative gadgets to our classical object (such as orders in central simple algebras, infinite dimensional Lie algebras, noncommutative potentials etc. etc.) which give us new tools to study these objects. (2) conversely, as we control the tangentspaces in these special points, they will allow us to determine other $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $-representations and as we vary over all classical objects, we hope to get ALL finite dimensional modular representations. I agree this may all sound rather vague, so let me give one example we will work out in full detail later on. Remember that one can reconstruct the sporadic simple Mathieu group $M_{24} $ from the dessin d’enfant

This
dessin determines a 24-dimensional permutation representation (of
$M_{24} $ as well of $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $) which
decomposes as the direct sum of the trivial representation and a simple
23-dimensional representation. We will see that the noncommutative
tangent space in a semi-simple representation of
$SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $ is determined by a quiver (that is, an
oriented graph) on as many vertices as there are non-isomorphic simple
components. In this special case we get the quiver on two points
$\xymatrix{\vtx{} \ar@/^2ex/[rr] & & \vtx{} \ar@/^2ex/[ll]
\ar@{=>}@(ur,dr)^{96} } $ with just one arrow in each direction
between the vertices and 96 loops in the second vertex. To the
experienced tangent space-reader this picture (and in particular that
there is a unique cycle between the two vertices) tells the remarkable
fact that there is **a distinguished one-parameter family of
24-dimensional simple modular representations degenerating to the
permutation representation of the largest Mathieu-group**. Phrased
differently, there is a specific noncommutative modular Riemann surface
associated to $M_{24} $, which is a new object (at least as far
as I’m aware) associated to this most remarkable of sporadic groups.
Conversely, from the matrix-representation of the 24-dimensional
permutation representation of $M_{24} $ we obtain representants
of all of this one-parameter family of simple
$SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $-representations to which we can then perform
noncommutative flow-tricks to get a Zariski dense set of all
24-dimensional simples lying in the same component. (Btw. there are
also such noncommutative Riemann surfaces associated to the other
sporadic Mathieu groups, though not to the other sporadics…) So this
is what we will be doing in the upcoming posts (10) : explain what a
noncommutative tangent space is and what it has to do with quivers (11): what is the noncommutative manifold of $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $? and what is its connection with the Kontsevich-Soibelman coalgebra? (12); is there a noncommutative compactification of $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $? (and other arithmetical groups) (13) : how does one calculate the noncommutative curves associated to the Mathieu groups? (14) : whatever comes next… (if anything).

Leave a Comment

anabelian geometry

Published March 22, 2007 by lievenlb

Last time we saw
that a curve defined over $\overline{\mathbb{Q}} $ gives rise
to a permutation representation of $PSL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $ or one
of its subgroups $\Gamma_0(2) $ (of index 2) or
$\Gamma(2) $ (of index 6). As the corresponding
monodromy group is finite, this representation factors through a normal
subgroup of finite index, so it makes sense to look at the profinite
completion of $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $, which is the inverse limit
of finite
groups $\underset{\leftarrow}{lim}~SL_2(\mathbb{Z})/N $
where N ranges over all normalsubgroups of finite index. These
profinte completions are horrible beasts even for easy groups such as
$\mathbb{Z} $. Its profinite completion
is

$\underset{\leftarrow}{lim}~\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z} =
\prod_p \hat{\mathbb{Z}}_p $

where the right hand side
product of p-adic integers ranges over all prime numbers! The
_absolute Galois group_
$G=Gal(\overline{\mathbb{Q}}/\mathbb{Q}) $ acts on all curves
defined over $\overline{\mathbb{Q}} $ and hence (via the Belyi
maps ans the corresponding monodromy permutation representation) there
is an action of $G $ on the profinite completions of the
carthographic groups.

This is what Grothendieck calls anabelian
algebraic geometry

Returning to the general
case, since finite maps can be interpreted as coverings over
$\overline{\mathbb{Q}} $ of an algebraic curve defined over
the prime field $~\mathbb{Q} $ itself, it follows that the
Galois group $G $ of $\overline{\mathbb{Q}} $ over
$~\mathbb{Q} $ acts on the category of these maps in a
natural way.
For instance, the operation of an automorphism
$~\gamma \in G $ on a spherical map given by the rational
function above is obtained by applying $~\gamma $ to the
coefficients of the polynomials P , Q. Here, then, is that
mysterious group $G $ intervening as a transforming agent on
topologico- combinatorial forms of the most elementary possible
nature, leading us to ask questions like: are such and such oriented
maps ‚conjugate or: exactly which are the conjugates of a given
oriented map? (Visibly, there is only a finite number of these).
I considered some concrete cases (for coverings of low degree) by
various methods, J. Malgoire considered some others ‚ I doubt that
there is a uniform method for solving the problem by computer. My
reflection quickly took a more conceptual path, attempting to
apprehend the nature of this action of G.
One sees immediately
that roughly speaking, this action is expressed by a certain
outer action of G on the profinite com- pactification of the
oriented cartographic group $C_+^2 = \Gamma_0(2) $ , and this
action in its turn is deduced by passage to the quotient of the
canonical outer action of G on the profinite fundamental group
$\hat{\pi}_{0,3} $ of
$(U_{0,3})_{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}} $ where
$U_{0,3} $ denotes the typical curve of genus 0 over the
prime field Q, with three points re- moved.
This is how my
attention was drawn to what I have since termed anabelian
algebraic geometry, whose starting point was exactly a study
(limited for the moment to characteristic zero) of the action of
absolute Galois groups (particularly the groups Gal(K/K),
where K is an extension of finite type of the prime field) on
(profinite) geometric fundamental groups of algebraic varieties
(defined over K), and more particularly (break- ing with a
well-established tradition) fundamental groups which are very far
from abelian groups (and which for this reason I call
anabelian).
Among these groups, and very close to
the group $\hat{\pi}_{0,3} $ , there is the profinite
compactification of the modular group $Sl_2(\mathbb{Z}) $,
whose quotient by its centre ±1 contains the former as congruence
subgroup mod 2, and can also be interpreted as an oriented
cartographic group, namely the one classifying triangulated
oriented maps (i.e. those whose faces are all triangles or
monogons).

and a bit further, on page
250

I would like to conclude this rapid outline
with a few words of commentary on the truly unimaginable richness
of a typical anabelian group such as $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $
doubtless the most remarkable discrete infinite group ever
encountered, which appears in a multiplicity of avatars (of which
certain have been briefly touched on in the present report), and which
from the point of view of Galois-Teichmuller theory can be
considered as the fundamental ‚building block‚ of the
Teichmuller tower
The element of the structure of
$Sl_2(\mathbb{Z}) $ which fascinates me above all is of course
the outer action of G on its profinite compactification. By
Bielyi’s theorem, taking the profinite compactifications of subgroups
of finite index of $Sl_2(\mathbb{Z}) $, and the induced
outer action (up to also passing to an open subgroup of G), we
essentially find the fundamental groups of all algebraic curves (not
necessarily compact) defined over number fields K, and the outer
action of $Gal(\overline{K}/K) $ on them at least it is
true that every such fundamental group appears as a quotient of one
of the first groups.
Taking the anabelian yoga
(which remains conjectural) into account, which says that an anabelian
algebraic curve over a number field K (finite extension of Q) is
known up to isomorphism when we know its mixed fundamental group (or
what comes to the same thing, the outer action of
$Gal(\overline{K}/K) $ on its profinite geometric
fundamental group), we can thus say that
all algebraic
curves defined over number fields are contained in the profinite
compactification $\widehat{SL_2(\mathbb{Z})} $ and in the
knowledge of a certain subgroup G of its group of outer
automorphisms!

To study the absolute
Galois group $Gal(\overline{\mathbb{\mathbb{Q}}}/\mathbb{Q}) $ one
investigates its action on dessins denfants. Each dessin will be part of
a finite family of dessins which form one orbit under the Galois action
and one needs to find invarians to see whether two dessins might belong
to the same orbit. Such invariants are called _Galois invariants_ and
quite a few of them are known.

Among these the easiest to compute
are

the valency list of a dessin : that is the valencies of all
vertices of the same type in a dessin
the monodromy group of a dessin : the subgroup of the symmetric group $S_d $ where d is
the number of edges in the dessin generated by the partitions $\tau_0 $
and $\tau_1 $ For example, we have seen
before that the two
Mathieu-dessins

form a Galois orbit. As graphs (remeber we have to devide each
of the edges into two and the midpoints of these halfedges form one type
of vertex, the other type are the black vertices in the graphs) these
are isomorphic, but NOT as dessins as we have to take the embedding of
them on the curve into account. However, for both dessins the valency
lists are (white) : (2,2,2,2,2,2) and (black) :
(3,3,3,1,1,1) and one verifies that both monodromy groups are
isomorphic to the Mathieu simple group $M_{12} $ though they are
not conjugated as subgroups of $S_{12} $.

Recently, new
Galois invariants were obtained from physics. In Children’s drawings
from Seiberg-Witten curves
the authors argue that there is a close connection between Grothendiecks
programme of classifying dessins into Galois orbits and the physics
problem of classifying phases of N=1 gauge theories…

Apart
from curves defined over $\overline{\mathbb{Q}} $ there are
other sources of semi-simple $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $
representations. We will just mention two of them and may return to them
in more detail later in the course.

Sporadic simple groups and
their representations There are 26 exceptional finite simple groups
and as all of them are generated by two elements, there are epimorphisms
$\Gamma(2) \rightarrow S $ and hence all their representations
are also semi-simple $\Gamma(2) $-representations. In fact,
looking at the list of ‘standard generators’ of the sporadic
simples

(here the conjugacy classes of the generators follow the
notation of the Atlas project) we see that all but
possibly one are epimorphic images of $\Gamma_0(2) = C_2 \ast
C_{\infty} $ and that at least 12 of then are epimorphic images
of $PSL_2(\mathbb{Z}) = C_2 \ast
C_3 $.

Rational conformal field theories Another
source of $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $ representations is given by the
modular data associated to rational conformal field theories.

These
representations also factor through a quotient by a finite index normal
subgroup and are therefore again semi-simple
$SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $-representations. For a readable
introduction to all of this see chapter 6 \”Modular group
representations throughout the realm\” of the
book Moonshine beyond the monster the bridge connecting algebra, modular forms and physics by Terry
Gannon. In fact, the whole book
is a good read. It introduces a completely new type of scientific text,
that of a neverending survey paper…

Leave a Comment

noncommutative curves and their maniflds

Published March 17, 2007 by lievenlb

Last time we have
seen that the noncommutative manifold of a Riemann surface can be viewed
as that Riemann surface together with a loop in each point. The extra
loop-structure tells us that all finite dimensional representations of
the coordinate ring can be found by separating over points and those
living at just one point are classified by the isoclasses of nilpotent
matrices, that is are parametrized by the partitions (corresponding
to the sizes of the Jordan blocks). In addition, these loops tell us
that the Riemann surface locally looks like a Riemann sphere, so an
equivalent mental picture of the local structure of this
noncommutative manifold is given by the picture on teh left, where the surface is part of the Riemann surface
and a sphere is placed at every point. Today we will consider
genuine noncommutative curves and describe their corresponding
noncommutative manifolds.

Here, a mental picture of such a
_noncommutative sphere_ to keep in mind would be something
like the picture on the right. That is, in most points of the sphere we place as before again
a Riemann sphere but in a finite number of points a different phenomen
occurs : we get a cluster of infinitesimally nearby points. We
will explain this picture with an easy example. Consider the
complex plane $\mathbb{C} $, the points of which are just the
one-dimensional representations of the polynomial algebra in one
variable $\mathbb{C}[z] $ (any algebra map $\mathbb{C}[z] \rightarrow \mathbb{C} $ is fully determined by the image of z). On this plane we
have an automorphism of order two sending a complex number z to its
negative -z (so this automorphism can be seen as a point-reflexion
with center the zero element 0). This automorphism extends to
the polynomial algebra, again induced by sending z to -z. That
is, the image of a polynomial $f(z) \in \mathbb{C}[z] $ under this
automorphism is f(-z).

With this data we can form a noncommutative
algebra, the _skew-group algebra_ $\mathbb{C}[z] \ast C_2 $ the
elements of which are either of the form $f(z) \ast e $ or $g(z) \ast g $ where
$C_2 = \langle g : g^2=e \rangle $ is the cyclic group of order two
generated by the automorphism g and f(z),g(z) are arbitrary
polynomials in z.

The multiplication on this algebra is determined by
the following rules

$(g(z) \ast g)(f(z) \ast e) = g(z)f(-z) \astg $ whereas $(f(z) \ast e)(g(z) \ast g) = f(z)g(z) \ast g $

$(f(z) \ast e)(g(z) \ast e) = f(z)g(z) \ast e $ whereas $(f(z) \ast g)(g(z)\ast g) = f(z)g(-z) \ast e $

That is, multiplication in the
$\mathbb{C}[z] $ factor is the usual multiplication, multiplication in
the $C_2 $ factor is the usual group-multiplication but when we want
to get a polynomial from right to left over a group-element we have to
apply the corresponding automorphism to the polynomial (thats why we
call it a _skew_ group-algebra).

Alternatively, remark that as
a $\mathbb{C} $-algebra the skew-group algebra $\mathbb{C}[z] \ast C_2 $ is
an algebra with unit element 1 = 1\aste and is generated by
the elements $X = z \ast e $ and $Y = 1 \ast g $ and that the defining
relations of the multiplication are

$Y^2 = 1 $ and $Y.X =-X.Y $

hence another description would
be

$\mathbb{C}[z] \ast C_2 = \frac{\mathbb{C} \langle X,Y \rangle}{ (Y^2-1,XY+YX) } $

It can be shown that skew-group
algebras over the coordinate ring of smooth curves are _noncommutative
smooth algebras_ whence there is a noncommutative manifold associated
to them. Recall from last time the noncommutative manifold of a
smooth algebra A is a device to classify all finite dimensional
representations of A upto isomorphism Let us therefore try to
determine some of these representations, starting with the
one-dimensional ones, that is, algebra maps from

$\mathbb{C}[z] \ast C_2 = \frac{\mathbb{C} \langle X,Y \rangle}{ (Y^2-1,XY+YX) } \rightarrow \mathbb{C} $

Such a map is determined by the image of X and that of
Y. Now, as $Y^2=1 $ we have just two choices for the image of Y
namely +1 or -1. But then, as the image is a commutative algebra
and as XY+YX=0 we must have that the image of 2XY is zero whence the
image of X must be zero. That is, we have only
two one-dimensional representations, namely $S_+ : X \rightarrow 0, Y \rightarrow 1 $
and $S_- : X \rightarrow 0, Y \rightarrow -1 $

This is odd! Can
it be that our noncommutative manifold has just 2 points? Of course not.
In fact, these two points are the exceptional ones giving us a cluster
of nearby points (see below) whereas most points of our
noncommutative manifold will correspond to 2-dimensional
representations!

So, let’s hunt them down. The
center of $\mathbb{C}[z]\ast C_2 $ (that is, the elements commuting with
all others) consists of all elements of the form $f(z)\ast e $ with f an
_even_ polynomial, that is, f(z)=f(-z) (because it has to commute
with 1\ast g), so is equal to the subalgebra $\mathbb{C}[z^2]\ast e $.

The
manifold corresponding to this subring is again the complex plane
$\mathbb{C} $ of which the points correspond to all one-dimensional
representations of $\mathbb{C}[z^2]\ast e $ (determined by the image of
$z^2\ast e $).

We will now show that to each point of $\mathbb{C} – { 0 } $
corresponds a simple 2-dimensional representation of
$\mathbb{C}[z]\ast C_2 $.

If a is not zero, we will consider the
quotient of the skew-group algebra modulo the twosided ideal generated
by $z^2\ast e-a $. It turns out
that

$\frac{\mathbb{C}[z]\ast C_2}{(z^2\aste-a)} =
\frac{\mathbb{C}[z]}{(z^2-a)} \ast C_2 = (\frac{\mathbb{C}[z]}{(z-\sqrt{a})}
\oplus \frac{\mathbb{C}[z]}{(z+\sqrt{a})}) \ast C_2 = (\mathbb{C}
\oplus \mathbb{C}) \ast C_2 $

where the skew-group algebra on the
right is given by the automorphism g on $\mathbb{C} \oplus \mathbb{C} $ interchanging the two factors. If you want to
become more familiar with working in skew-group algebras work out the
details of the fact that there is an algebra-isomorphism between
$(\mathbb{C} \oplus \mathbb{C}) \ast C_2 $ and the algebra of $2 \times 2 $ matrices $M_2(\mathbb{C}) $. Here is the
identification

$~(1,0)\aste \rightarrow \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix} $

$~(0,1)\aste \rightarrow \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} $

$~(1,0)\astg \rightarrow \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix} $

$~(0,1)\astg \rightarrow \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 0 \end{bmatrix} $

so you have to verify that multiplication
on the left hand side (that is in $(\mathbb{C} \oplus \mathbb{C}) \ast
C_2 $) coincides with matrix-multiplication of the associated
matrices.

Okay, this begins to look like what we are after. To
every point of the complex plane minus zero (or to every point of the
Riemann sphere minus the two points ${ 0,\infty } $) we have
associated a two-dimensional simple representation of the skew-group
algebra (btw. simple means that the matrices determined by the images
of X and Y generate the whole matrix-algebra).

In fact, we
now have already classified ‘most’ of the finite dimensional
representations of $\mathbb{C}[z]\ast C_2 $, namely those n-dimensional
representations

$\mathbb{C}[z]\ast C_2 =
\frac{\mathbb{C} \langle X,Y \rangle}{(Y^2-1,XY+YX)} \rightarrow M_n(\mathbb{C}) $

for which the image of X is an invertible $n \times n $ matrix. We can show that such representations only exist when
n is an even number, say n=2m and that any such representation is
again determined by the geometric/combinatorial data we found last time
for a Riemann surface.

That is, It is determined by a finite
number ${ P_1,\dots,P_k } $ of points from $\mathbb{C} – 0 $ where
k is at most m. For each index i we have a positive
number $a_i $ such that $a_1+\dots+a_k=m $ and finally for each i we
also have a partition of $a_i $.

That is our noncommutative
manifold looks like all points of $\mathbb{C}-0 $ with one loop in each
point. However, we have to remember that each point now determines a
simple 2-dimensional representation and that in order to get all
finite dimensional representations with det(X) non-zero we have to
scale up representations of $\mathbb{C}[z^2] $ by a factor two.
The technical term here is that of a Morita equivalence (or that the
noncommutative algebra is an Azumaya algebra over
$\mathbb{C}-0 $).

What about the remaining representations, that
is, those for which Det(X)=0? We have already seen that there are two
1-dimensional representations $S_+ $ and $S_- $ lying over 0, so how
do they fit in our noncommutative manifold? Should we consider them as
two points and draw also a loop in each of them or do we have to do
something different? Rememer that drawing a loop means in our
geometry -> representation dictionary that the representations
living at that point are classified in the same way as nilpotent
matrices.

Hence, drawing a loop in $S_+ $ would mean that we have a
2-dimensional representation of $\mathbb{C}[z]\ast C_2 $ (different from
$S_+ \oplus S_+ $) and any such representation must correspond to
matrices

$X \rightarrow \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix} $ and $Y \rightarrow \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} $

But this is not possible as these matrices do
_not_ satisfy the relation XY+YX=0. Hence, there is no loop in $S_+ $
and similarly also no loop in $S_- $.

However, there are non
semi-simple two dimensional representations build out of the simples
$S_+ $ and $S_- $. For, consider the matrices

$X \rightarrow \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix} $ and $Y \rightarrow \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{bmatrix} $

then these
matrices _do_ satisfy XY+YX=0! (and there is another matrix-pair
interchanging $\pm 1 $ in the Y-matrix). In erudite terminology this
says that there is a _nontrivial extension_ between $S_+ $ and $S_- $
and one between $S_- $ and $S_+ $.

In our dictionary we will encode this
information by the picture

$\xymatrix{\vtx{}
\ar@/^2ex/[rr] & & \vtx{} \ar@/^2ex/[ll]} $

where the two
vertices correspond to the points $S_+ $ and $S_- $ and the arrows
represent the observed extensions. In fact, this data suffices to finish
our classification project of finite dimensional representations of
the noncommutative curve $\mathbb{C}[z] \ast C_2 $.

Those with Det(X)=0
are of the form : $R \oplus T $ where R is a representation with
invertible X-matrix (which we classified before) and T is a direct
sum of representations involving only the simple factors $S_+ $ and
$S_- $ and obtained by iterating the 2-dimensional idea. That is, for
each factor the Y-matrix has alternating $\pm 1 $ along the diagonal
and the X-matrix is the full nilpotent Jordan-matrix.

So
here is our picture of the noncommutative manifold of the
noncommutative curve $\mathbb{C}[z]\ast C_2 $ : the points are all points
of $\mathbb{C}-0 $ together with one loop in each of them together
with two points lying over 0 where we draw the above picture of arrows
between them. One should view these two points as lying
infinetesimally close to each other and the gluing
data

$\xymatrix{\vtx{} \ar@/^2ex/[rr] & & \vtx{}
\ar@/^2ex/[ll]} $

contains enough information to determine
that all other points of the noncommutative manifold in the vicinity of
this cluster should be two dimensional simples! The methods used
in this simple minded example are strong enough to determine the
structure of the noncommutative manifold of _any_ noncommutative curve.

So, let us look at a real-life example. Once again, take the
Kleinian quartic In a previous
course-post we recalled that
there is an action by automorphisms on the Klein quartic K by the
finite simple group $PSL_2(\mathbb{F}_7) $ of order 168. Hence, we
can form the noncommutative Klein-quartic $K \ast PSL_2(\mathbb{F}_7) $
(take affine pieces consisting of complements of orbits and do the
skew-group algebra construction on them and then glue these pieces
together again).

We have also seen that the orbits are classified
under a Belyi-map $K \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^1_{\mathbb{C}} $ and that this map
had the property that over any point of $\mathbb{P}^1_{\mathbb{C}}
– { 0,1,\infty } $ there is an orbit consisting of 168 points
whereas over 0 (resp. 1 and $\infty $) there is an orbit
consisting of 56 (resp. 84 and 24 points).

So what is
the noncommutative manifold associated to the noncommutative Kleinian?
Well, it looks like the picture we had at the start of this
post For all but three points of the Riemann sphere
$\mathbb{P}^1 – { 0,1,\infty } $ we have one point and one loop
(corresponding to a simple 168-dimensional representation of $K \ast
PSL_2(\mathbb{F}_7) $) together with clusters of infinitesimally nearby
points lying over 0,1 and $\infty $ (the cluster over 0
is depicted, the two others only indicated).

Over 0 we have
three points connected by the diagram

$\xymatrix{& \vtx{} \ar[ddl] & \\ & & \\ \vtx{} \ar[rr] & & \vtx{} \ar[uul]} $

where each of the vertices corresponds to a
simple 56-dimensional representation. Over 1 we have a cluster of
two points corresponding to 84-dimensional simples and connected by
the picture we had in the $\mathbb{C}[z]\ast C_2 $ example).

Finally,
over $\infty $ we have the most interesting cluster, consisting of the
seven dwarfs (each corresponding to a simple representation of dimension
24) and connected to each other via the
picture

$\xymatrix{& & \vtx{} \ar[dll] & & \\ \vtx{} \ar[d] & & & & \vtx{} \ar[ull] \\ \vtx{} \ar[dr] & & & & \vtx{} \ar[u] \\ & \vtx{} \ar[rr] & & \vtx{} \ar[ur] &} $

Again, this noncommutative manifold gives us
all information needed to give a complete classification of all finite
dimensional $K \ast PSL_2(\mathbb{F}_7) $-representations. One
can prove that all exceptional clusters of points for a noncommutative
curve are connected by a cyclic quiver as the ones above. However, these
examples are still pretty tame (in more than one sense) as these
noncommutative algebras are finite over their centers, are Noetherian
etc. The situation will become a lot wilder when we come to exotic
situations such as the noncommutative manifold of
$SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $…

One Comment

the noncommutative manifold of a Riemann surface

Published March 16, 2007 by lievenlb

The
natural habitat of this lesson is a bit further down the course, but it
was called into existence by a comment/question by
Kea

I don’t yet quite see where the nc
manifolds are, but I guess that’s coming.

As
I’m enjoying telling about all sorts of sources of finite dimensional
representations of $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $ (and will carry on doing so for
some time), more people may begin to wonder where I’m heading. For this
reason I’ll do a couple of very elementary posts on simple examples of
noncommutative manifolds.

I realize it is ‘bon ton’ these days
to say that noncommutative manifolds are virtual objects associated to
noncommutative algebras and that the calculation of certain invariants
of these algebras gives insight into the topology and/or geometry of
these non-existent spaces. My own attitude to noncommutative geometry is
different : to me, noncommutative manifolds are genuine sets of points
equipped with a topology and other structures which I can use as a
mnemotechnic device to solve the problem of interest to me which is the
classification of all finite dimensional representations of a smooth
noncommutative algebra.

Hence, when I speak of the
‘noncommutative manifold of $SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $’ Im after an object
containing enough information to allow me (at least in principle) to
classify the isomorphism classes of all finite dimensional
$SL_2(\mathbb{Z}) $-representations. The whole point of this course is
to show that such an object exists and that we can make explicit
calculations with it. But I’m running far ahead. Let us start with
an elementary question :

Riemann surfaces are examples of
noncommutative manifolds, so what is the noncommutative picture of
them?

I’ve browsed the Google-pictures a bit and a picture
coming close to my mental image of the noncommutative manifold of a
Riemann surface locally looks like the picture on the left. Here, the checkerboard-surface is part of the Riemann surface
and the extra structure consists in putting in each point of the Riemann
surface a sphere, reflecting the local structure of the Riemann surface
near the point. In fact, my picture is slightly different : I want to
draw a loop in each point of the Riemann surface, but Ill explain why
the two pictures are equivalent and why they present a solution to the
problem of classifying all finite dimensional representations of the
Riemann surface. After all why do we draw and study Riemann
surfaces? Because we are interested in the solutions to equations. For
example, the points of the _Kleinian quartic Riemann
surface_ give us all solutions tex \in
\mathbb{C}^3 $ to the equation $X^3Y+Y^3Z+Z^3X=0 $. If (a,b,c) is such
a solution, then so are all scalar multiples $(\lambda a,\lambda
b,\lambda c) $ so we may as well assume that the Z$coordinate is equal
to 1 and are then interested in finding the solutions tex \in
\mathbb{C}^2 $ to the equation $X^3Y+Y^3+X=0 $ which gives us an affine
patch of the Kleinian quartic (in fact, these solutions give us all
points except for two, corresponding to the _points at infinity_ needed
to make the picture compact so that we can hold it in our hand and look
at it from all sides. These points at infinity correspond to the trivial
solutions (1,0,0) and (0,1,0)).

What is the connection
between points on this Riemann surface and representations? Well, if
(a,b) is a solution to the equation $X^3Y+Y^3+X=0 $, then we have a
_one-dimensional representation_ of the affine _coordinate ring_
$\mathbb{C}[X,Y]/(X^3Y+Y^3+X) $, that is, an algebra
morphism

$\mathbb{C}[X,Y]/(X^3Y+Y^3+X) \rightarrow \mathbb{C} $

defined by sending X to a and Y to b.
Conversely, any such one-dimensonal representation gives us a solution
(look at the images of X and Y and these will be the coordinates of
a solution). Thus, commutative algebraic geometry of smooth
curves (that is Riemann surfaces if you look at the ‘real’ picture)
can be seen as the study of one-dimensional representations of their
smooth coordinate algebras. In other words, the classical Riemann
surface gives us already the classifcation of all one-dimensional
representations, so now we are after the ‘other ones’.

In
noncommtative algebra it is not natural to restrict attention to algebra
maps to $\mathbb{C} $, at least we would also like to include algebra
maps to $n \times n $ matrices $M_n(\mathbb{C}) $. An n-dimensional
representation of the coordinate algebra of the Klein quartic is an
algebra map

$\mathbb{C}[X,Y]/(X^3Y+Y^3+X) \rightarrow M_n(\mathbb{C}) $

That is, we want to find all pairs of $n \times n $ matrices A and B satisfying the following
matrix-identities

$A.B=B.A $ and $A^3.B+B^3+A=0_n $

The
first equation tells us that the two matrices must commute (because we
took commuting variables X and Y) and the second equation really is
a set of $n^2 $-equations in the matrix-entries of A and
B.

There is a sneaky way to get lots of such matrix-couples
from a given solution (A,B), namely by _simultaneous conjugation_.
That is, if $C \in GL_n(\mathbb{C}) $ is any invertible $n \times n $
matrix, then also the matrix-couple $~(C^{-1}.A.C,C^{-1}.B.C) $
satisfies all the required equations (write the equations out and notice
that middle terms of the form $C.C^{-1} $ cancel out and check that one
then obtains the matrix-identities

$C^{-1} A B C = C^{-1} BA C $ and $C^{-1}(A^3B+B^3+A)C = 0_n $

which are satisfied because
(A,B) was supposed to be a solution). We then say that these two
n-dimensional representations are _isomorphic_ and naturally we are
only interested in classifying the isomorphism classes of all
representations.

Using classical commutative algebra theory of
Dedekind domains (such as the coordinate ring $\mathbb{C}[X,Y]/(X^3Y+Y^3+X) $)
allows us to give a complete solution to this problem. It says that any
n-dimensional representation is determined up to isomorphism by the
following geometric/combinatorial data

a finite set of points $P_1,P_2,\dots,P_k $ on the Riemann surface with $k \leq n $.
a set of positive integers $a_1,a_2,\dots,a_k $ associated to these pointssatisfying $a_1+a_2+\dots_a_k=n $.
for each $a_i $ a partition of $a_i $ (that is, a decreasing sequence of numbers with total sum
$a_i $).

To encode this classification I’ll use the mental
picture of associating to every point of the Klein quartic a small
loop. $\xymatrix{\vtx{}
\ar@(ul,ur)} $ Don\’t get over-exited about this
noncommutative manifold picture of the Klein quartic, I do not mean to
represent something like closed strings emanating from all points of the
Riemann surface or any other fanshi-wanshi interpretation. Just as
Feynman-diagrams allow the initiated to calculate probabilities of
certain interactions, the noncommutative manifold allows the
initiated to classify finite dimensional representations.

Our
mental picture of the noncommutative manifold of the Klein quartic, that
is : the points of the Klein quartic together with a loop in each point,
will tell the initiated quite a few things, such as : The fact
that there are no arrows between distict points, tells us that the
classification problem splits into local problems in a finite number of
points. Technically, this encodes the fact that there are no nontrivial
extensions between different simples in the commutative case. This will
drastically change if we enter the noncommutative world…

The fact that there is one loop in each point, tells us that
the local classification problem in that point is the same as that of
classifying nilpotent matrices upto conjugation (which, by the Jordan
normal form result, are classified by partitions) Moreover,
the fact that there is one loop in each point tells us that the local
structure of simple representations near that point (that is, the points
on the Kleinian quartic lying nearby) are classified as the simple
representations of the polynmial algebra $\mathbb{C}[x] $ (which are the
points on the complex plane, giving the picture
of the Riemann sphere in each point reflecting the local
neighborhood of the point on the Klein quartic)

In general, the
noncommutative manifold associated to a noncommutative smooth algebra
will be of a similar geometric/combinatorial nature. Typically, it will
consist of a geometric collection of points and arrows and loops between
these points. This data will then allow us to reduce the classification
problem to that of _quiver-representations_ and will allow us to give
local descriptions of our noncommutative manifolds. Next time,
I’ll give the details in the first noncommutative example : the
skew-group algebra of a finite group of automorphisms on a Riemann
surface (such as the simple group $PSL_2(\mathbb{F}_7) $ acting on the
Klein quartic). Already in this case, some new phenomena will
appear…

ADDED : While writing this post
NetNewsWire informed me that over at Noncommutative Geometry they have a
post on a similar topic : What is a noncommutative space.

One Comment

coalgebras and non-geometry 3

Published September 11, 2006 by lievenlb

Last
time we saw that the _coalgebra of distributions_ of a
noncommutative manifold can be described as a coalgebra
Takeuchi-equivalent to the path coalgebra of a huge quiver. This
infinite quiver has as its vertices the isomorphism classes of finite
dimensional simple representations of the qurve A (the coordinate ring
of the noncommutative manifold) and there are as many directed arrows
between the vertices corresponding to the simples S and T as is the
dimension of $Ext^1_A(S,T) $.

The fact that this
coalgebra of distributions is equivalent to the path coalgebra of
_some_ quiver is in the Kontsevich-Soibelman
paper though it would have been nice if they had given reference for
this fact to the paper Wedge Products and
Cotensor Coalgebras in Monoidal Categories by Ardizzoni or to
previous work by P. Jara, D. Llena, L. Merino and D. Stefan,
“Hereditary and formally smooth coalgebras”, Algebr.
Represent. Theory 8 (2005), 363-374. In those papers it is shown that a
coalgebra with coseparable coradical is hereditary if and only if it
is formally smooth if and only if it is a cotensor coalgebra of some
bicomodule.

At first this looks just like the dual version of
the classical result that a finite dimensional hereditary algebra is
Morita equivalent to the path algebra of a quiver (which is indeed what
the proof does) but again the condition that the coradical is
coseparable does not require the coradical to be finite dimensional…
In our case, the coradical is indeed coseparable being the direct sum
over all matrix coalgebras corresponding to the simple representations.
Hence, we can again recover the _points_ of our noncommutative manifold
from the direct summands of the coradical. Fortunately, one can
compute this huge coalgebra of distributions from a small quiver, the
_one quiver to rule them all_, but as I’ve been babbling about all of
this here [numerous
times](http://www.neverendingbooks.org/?s=one+quiver) I’ll let the
interested find out for themselves how you use it (a) to get at the
isoclasses of all simples (hint : morally they are the smooth points of
the quotient varieties of n-dimensional representations and enough tools
have been developed recently to spot some fake simples, that is smooth
proper semi-simple points) and (b) to compute the _ragball_, that is the
huge quiver with vertex set the simples and arows as described
above. Over the years I’ve calculated several one-quivers for a
variety of qurves (such as amalgamated free products of finite groups
and smooth curves). If you are in for a puzzle, try to determine it for
the qurve $~(\mathbb{C}[x] \ast C_2) \ast_{\mathbb{C}
C_2} \mathbb{C} PSL_2(\mathbb{Z}) \ast_{\mathbb{C} C_3}
(\mathbb{C}[x] \ast C_3) $ The answer is a mysterious
hexagon

Leave a Comment

coalgebras and non-geometry 2

Published September 7, 2006 by lievenlb

Last time we
have seen that the _coalgebra of distributions_ of an affine smooth
variety is the direct sum (over all points) of the dual to the etale
local algebras which are all of the form $\mathbb{C}[[
x_1,\ldots,x_d ]] $ where $d $ is the dimension of the
variety. Generalizing this to _non-commutative_ manifolds, the first
questions are : “What is the analogon of the power-series algebra?” and
do all ‘points’ of our non-commutative manifold do have such local
algebras? Surely, we no longer expect the variables to commute, so a
non-commutative version of the power series algebra should be
$\mathbb{C} \langle \langle x_1,\ldots,x_d \rangle \rangle $,
the ring of formal power series in non-commuting variables. However,
there is still another way to add non-commutativity and that is to go
from an algebra to matrices over the algebra. So, in all we would expect
to be our _local algebras_ at points of our non-commutative manifold to
be isomorphic to $M_n(\mathbb{C} \langle \langle x_1,\ldots,x_d
\rangle \rangle) $ As to the second question : _qurves_ (that is,
the coordinate rings of non-commutative manifolds) do have such algebras
as local rings provided we take as the ‘points’ of the non-commutative
variety the set of all _simple_ finite dimensional representations of
the qurve. This is a consequence of the _tubular neighborhood theorem_
due to [Cuntz](http://wwwmath.uni-muenster.de/u/cuntz/cuntz.html) and
[Quillen](http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Mathematicians/Quillen.html). In more details : If A is a qurve, then a simple
$n $-dimensional representation corresponds to an epimorphism
$\pi~:~A \rightarrow S = M_n(\mathbb{C}) $ and if we take
$\mathfrak{m}=Ker(\pi) $, then
$M=\mathfrak{m}/\mathfrak{m}^2 $ is an $S $-bimodule and
the $\mathfrak{m} $-adic completion of A is isomorphic to the
completed tensor-algebra $\hat{T}_S(M) \simeq M_n(\mathbb{C}
\langle \langle x_1,\ldots,x_d \rangle \rangle) $ In contrast with
the commutative case however where the dimension remains constant over
all points, here the numbers n and d can change from simple to simple.
For n this is clear as it gives the dimension of the simple
representation, but also d changes (it is the local dimension of the
variety classifying simple representations of the same dimension). Here
an easy example : Consider the skew group algebra $A =
\mathbb{C}[x] \star C_2 $ with the action given by sending $x
\mapsto -x $. Then A is a qurve and its center is
$\mathbb{C}[y] $ with $y=x^2 $. Over any point $y
\not= 0 $ there is a unique simple 2-dimensional representation of A
giving the local algebra $M_2(\mathbb{C}[[y]]) $. If
$y=0 $ the situation is more complicated as the local structure
of A is given by the algebra $\begin{bmatrix} \mathbb{C}[[y]] &
\mathbb{C}[[y]] \\ (y) & \mathbb{C}[[y]] \end{bmatrix} $ So, over
this point there are precisely 2 one-dimensional simple representations
corresponding to the maximal ideals $\mathfrak{m}_1 =
\begin{bmatrix} (y) & \mathbb{C}[[y]] \\ (y) & \mathbb{C}[[y]]
\end{bmatrix}~\qquad \text{and}~\qquad \mathfrak{m}_2 = \begin{bmatrix}
\mathbb{C}[[y]] & \mathbb{C}[[y]] \\ (y) & (y) \end{bmatrix} $ and
both ideals are idempotent, that is $\mathfrak{m}_i^2 =
\mathfrak{m}_i $ whence the corresponding bimodule $M_i =
0 $ so the local algebra in either of these two points is just
$\mathbb{C} $. Ok, so the comleted local algebra at each point
is of the form $M_n(\mathbb{C}\langle \langle x_1,\ldots,x_d \rangle
\rangle) $, but what is the corresponding dual coalgebra. Well,
$\mathbb{C} \langle \langle x_1,\ldots,x_d \rangle \rangle $ is
the algebra dual to the _cofree coalgebra_ on $V = \mathbb{C} x_1 +
\ldots + \mathbb{C}x_d $. As a vectorspace this is the
tensor-algebra $T(V) = \mathbb{C} \langle x_1,\ldots,x_d
\rangle $ with the coalgebra structure induced by the bialgebra
structure defined by taking all varaibales to be primitives, that is
$\Delta(x_i) = x_i \otimes 1 + 1 \otimes x_i $. That is, the
coproduct on a monomial gives all different expressions $m_1 \otimes
m_2 $ such that $m_1m_2 = m $. For example,
$\Delta(x_1x_2) = x_1x_2 \otimes 1 + x_1 \otimes x_2 + 1 \otimes
x_1x_2 $. On the other hand, the dual coalgebra of
$M_n(\mathbb{C}) $ is the _matrix coalgebra_ which is the
$n^2 $-dimensional vectorspace $\mathbb{C}e_{11} + \ldots +
\mathbb{C}e_{nn} $ with comultiplication $\Delta(e_{ij}) =
\sum_k e_{ik} \otimes e_{kj} $ The coalgebra corresponding to the
local algebra $M_n(\mathbb{C}\langle \langle x_1,\ldots,x_d \rangle
\rangle) $ is then the tensor-coalgebra of the matrix coalgebra and
the cofree coalgebra. Having obtained the coalgebra at each point
(=simple representation) of our noncommutative manifold one might think
that the _coalgebra of non-commutative distributions_ should be the
direct sum of all this coalgebras, summed over all points, as in the
commutative case. But then we would forget about a major difference
between the commutative and the non-commutative world : distinct simples
can have non-trivial extensions! The mental picture one might have
about simples having non-trivial extensions is that these points lie
‘infinitesimally close’ together. In the $\mathbb{C}[x] \star
C_2 $ example above, the two one-dimensional simples have
non-trivial extensions so they should be thought of as a cluster of two
infinitesimally close points corresponding to the point $y=0 $
(that is, this commutative points splits into two non-commutative
points). Btw. this is the reason why non-commutative algebras can be
used to resolve commutative singularities (excessive tangents can be
split over several non-commutative points). While this is still pretty
harmless when the algebra is finite over its center (as in the above
example where only the two one-dimensionals have extensions), the
situation becomes weird over general qurves as ‘usually’ distinct
simples have non-trivial extensions. For example, for the free algebra
$\mathbb{C}\langle x,y \rangle $ this is true for all simples…
So, if we want to continue using this image of points lying closely
together this immediately means that non-commutative ‘affine’ manifolds
behave like compact ones (in fact, it turns out to be pretty difficult
to ‘glue’ together qurves into ‘bigger’ non-commutative manifolds, apart
from the quiver examples of [this old
paper](http://www.arxiv.org/abs/math.AG/9907136)). So, how to bring
this new information into our coalgebra of distributions? Well, let’s
repeat the previous argument not with just one point but with a set of
finitely many points. Then we have a _semi-simple algebra_ quotient
$\pi~:~A \rightarrow S = M_{n_1}(\mathbb{C}) \oplus \ldots \oplus
M_{n_k}(\mathb{C}) $ and taking again
$\mathfrak{m}=Ker(\pi) $ and
$M=\mathfrak{m}/\mathfrak{m}^2 $, then $M $ is again an
S-bimodule. Now, any S-bimodule can be encoded into a _quiver_ Q on k
points, the number of arrows from vertex i to vertex j being the number
of components in M of the form $M_{n_i \times
n_j}(\mathbb{C}) $. Again, it follows from the tubular neighborhood
theorem that the $\mathfrak{m} $-adic completion of A is
isomorphic to the completion of an algebra Morita equivalent to the
_path algebra_ $\mathbb{C} Q $ (being the tensor algebra
$T_S(M) $). As all the local algebras of the points are
quotients of this quiver-like completion, on the coalgebra level our
local coalgebras will be sub coalgebras of the coalgebra which is
co-Morita equivalent (and believe it or not but coalgebraists have a
name for this : _Takeuchi equivalence_) to the _quiver coalgebra_ which
is the vectorspace of the path algebra $\mathbb{C} Q $ with
multiplication induced by making all arrows from i to j skew-primitives,
that is, $\Delta(a) = e_i \otimes a + a \otimes e_j $ where the
$e_i $ are group-likes corresponding to the vertices. If all of
ths is a bit too much co to take in at once, I suggest the paper by Bill
Chin [A brief introduction to coalgebra representation
theory](http://condor.depaul.edu/~wchin/crt.pdf#search=%22%22A%20brief%20introduction%20to%20coalgebra%20representation%20theory%22%22). The
_coalgebra of noncommutative distributions_ we are after at is now the
union of all these Takeuchi-equivalent quiver coalgebras. In easy
examples such as the $\mathbb{C}[x] \star C_2 $-example this
coalgebra is still pretty small (the sum of the local coalgebras
corresponding to the local algebras $M_2(\mathbb{C}[[x]]) $
summed over all points $y \not= 0 $ summed with the quiver
coalgebra of the quiver $\xymatrix{\vtx{} \ar@/^/[rr] & & \vtx{}
\ar@/^/[ll]} $ In general though this is a huge object and we would
like to have a recipe to construct it from a manageable _blue-print_ and
that is what we will do next time.

Leave a Comment

non-geometry

Published June 16, 2006 by lievenlb

Here’s
an appeal to the few people working in Cuntz-Quillen-Kontsevich-whoever
noncommutative geometry (the one where smooth affine varieties
correspond to quasi-free or formally smooth algebras) : let’s rename our
topic and call it non-geometry. I didn’t come up with
this term, I heard in from Maxim Kontsevich in a talk he gave a couple
of years ago in Antwerp. There are some good reasons for this name
change.

The term _non-commutative geometry_ is already taken by
much more popular subjects such as _Connes-style noncommutative
differential geometry_ and _Artin-style noncommutative algebraic
geometry_. Renaming our topic we no longer have to include footnotes
(such as the one in the recent Kontsevich-Soibelman
paper) :

We use “formal” non-commutative geometry
in tensor categories, which is different from the non-commutative
geometry in the sense of Alain Connes.

or to make a
distinction between _noncommutative geometry in the small_ (which is
Artin-style) and _noncommutative geometry in the large_ (which in
non-geometry) as in the Ginzburg notes.

Besides, the stress in _non-commutative geometry_ (both in Connes-
and Artin-style) in on _commutative_. Connes-style might also be called
‘K-theory of $C^*$-algebras’ and they use the topological
information of K-theoretic terms in the commutative case as guidance to
speak about geometrical terms in the nocommutative case. Similarly,
Artin-style might be called ‘graded homological algebra’ and they
use Serre’s homological interpretation of commutative geometry to define
similar concepts for noncommutative algebras. Hence, non-commutative
geometry is that sort of non-geometry which is almost
commutative…

But the main point of naming our subject
non-geometry is to remind us not to rely too heavily on our
(commutative) geometric intuition. For example, we would expect a
manifold to have a fixed dimension. One way to define the dimension is
as the trancendence degree of the functionfield. However, from the work
of Paul Cohn (I learned about it through Aidan Schofield) we know that
quasi-free algebras usually do’nt have a specific function ring of
fractions, rather they have infinitely many good candidates for it and
these candidates may look pretty unrelated. So, at best we can define a
_local dimension_ of a noncommutative manifold at a point, say given by
a simple representation. It follows from the Cunz-Quillen tubular
neighborhood result that the local ring in such a point is of the
form

$M_n(\mathbb{C} \langle \langle z_1,\ldots,z_m \rangle
\rangle) $

(this s a noncommutative version of the classical fact
than the local ring in a point of a d-dimensional manifold is formal
power series $\mathbb{C} [[ z_1,\ldots,z_d ]] $) but in non-geometry both
m (the _local_ dimension) and n (the dimension of the simple
representation) vary from point to point. Still, one can attach to the
quasi-free algebra A a finite amount of data (in fact, a _finite_ quiver
and dimension vector) containing enough information to compute the (n,m)
couples for _all_ simple points (follows from the one quiver to rule them
all paper or see this for more
details).

In fact, one can even extend this to points
corresponding to semi-simple representations in which case one has to
replace the matrix-ring above by a ring Morita equivalent to the
completion of the path algebra of a finite quiver, the _local quiver_ at
the point (which can also be computer from the one-quiver of A. The
local coalgebras of distributions at such points of
Kontsevich&Soibelman are just the dual coalgebras of these local
algebras (in math.RA/0606241 they
merely deal with the n=1 case but no doubt the general case will appear
in the second part of their paper).

The case of the semi-simple
point illustrates another major difference between commutative geometry
and non-geometry, whereas commutative simples only have self-extensions
(so the distribution coalgebra is just the direct sum of all the local
distributions) noncommutative simples usually have plenty of
non-isomorphic simples with which they have extensions, so to get at the
global distribution coalgebra of A one cannot simply add the locals but
have to embed them in more involved coalgebras.

The way to do it
is somewhat concealed in the
third version of my neverending book (the version that most people
found incomprehensible). Here is the idea : construct a huge uncountable
quiver by taking as its vertices the isomorphism classes of all simple
A-representations and with as many arrows between the simple vertices S
and T as the dimension of the ext-group between these simples (and
again, these dimensions follow from the knowledge of the one-quiver of
A). Then, the global coalgebra of distributions of A is the limit over
all cotensor coalgebras corresponding to finite subquivers). Maybe I’ll
revamp this old material in connection with the Kontsevich&Soibelman
paper(s) for the mini-course I’m supposed to give in september.

Leave a Comment

noncommutative topology (4)

Published February 9, 2006 by lievenlb

For a
qurve (aka formally smooth algebra) A a *block* is a (possibly infinite
dimensional over the basefield) left A-module X such that its
endomorphism algebra $D = End_A(X)$ is a division algebra and X
(considered as a right D-module) is finite dimensional over D. If a
block X is finite dimensional over the basefield, we call it a *brick*
(aka a *Schur representation*). We want to endow the set of all blocks
with a topology and look at the induced topology on the subset of
bricks. It is an old result due to Claus Ringel
that there is a natural one-to-one correspondence between blocks of A
and algebra epimorphisms (in the categorical sense meaning that identify
equality of morphisms to another algebra) $A \rightarrow M_n(D) =
End_D(X_D)$. This result is important as it allows us to define a
partial order on teh set of all A-blocks via the notion of
*specialization*. If X and Y are two A-blocks with corresponding
epimorphisms $A \rightarrow M_n(D),~A \rightarrow M_m(E)$ we say that Y
is a specialization of X and we denote $X \leq Y$ provided there is an
epimorphism $A \rightarrow B$ making the diagram below commute

$\xymatrix{& M_n(D) \\\ A \ar[ru] \ar[r] \ar[rd] & B \ar[u]^i
\ar[d]^p \\\ & M_m(E)} $

where i is an inclusion and p is a
onto. This partial ordering was studied by Paul Cohn, George Bergman and
Aidan Schofield who use
the partial order to define the _closed subsets_ of blocks to be
those closed under specialization.

There are two important
constructions of A-blocks for a qurve A. One is Aidan’s construction of
a universal localization wrt. a *Sylvester rank function* (and which
should be of use in noncommutative rationality problems), the other
comes from invariant theory and is related to Markus Reineke’s monoid in
the special case when A is the path algebra of a quiver. Let X be a
GL(n)-closed irreducible subvariety of an irreducible component of
n-dimensional A-representations such that X contains a brick (and hence
a Zariski open subset of bricks), then taking PGL(n)-equivariant maps
from X to $M_n(\mathbb{C})$ determines a block (by inverting all central
elements). Now, take a *sensible* topology on the set of all A-bricks.
I would go for defining as the open wrt. a block X, the set of all
A-bricks which become simples after extending by the epimorphism
determined by a block Y such that $Y \leq X$. (note that this seems to
be different from the topology coming from the partial ordering…).
Still, wrt. this topology one can then again define a *noncommutative
topology* on the Abelian category $\mathbf{rep}~A$ of all finite
dimensional A-representations
but this time using filtrations with successive quotients being bricks
rather than simples.

Leave a Comment