A few questions about Kontsevich formality - MathOverflow most recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net 2013-05-18T13:26:22Z http://mathoverflow.net/feeds/question/32889 http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdf http://mathoverflow.net/questions/32889/a-few-questions-about-kontsevich-formality A few questions about Kontsevich formality Kevin Lin 2010-07-22T03:35:15Z 2012-01-10T13:26:01Z <p>[K] refers to Kontsevich's paper "Deformation quantization of Poisson manifolds, I".</p> <h2>Background</h2> <p>Let $X$ be a smooth affine variety (over $\mathbb{C}$ or maybe a field of characteristic zero) or resp. a smooth (compact?) real manifold. Let $A = \Gamma(X; \mathcal{O}_X)$ or resp. $C^\infty(X)$. </p> <p>Denote the dg <em>Lie algebra</em> of polyvector fields on $X$ (with Schouten-Nijenhuis bracket and zero differential) by $T$. Denote the dg <em>Lie algebra</em> of the shifted Hochschild cochain complex of $A$ (with Gerstenhaber bracket and Hochschild differential) by $D$.</p> <p>Then the Hochschild-Konstant-Rosenberg theorem states that there is a quasi-isomorphism of dg <em>vector spaces</em> from $T$ to $D$. However, the HKR map is <em>not</em> a map of dg <em>Lie algebras</em>. It is <em>not</em> a map of dg <em>algebras</em>, either (where the multiplication on $T$ is given by the wedge product and the multiplication on $D$ is given by the cup product of Hochschild cochains).</p> <p>I believe "Kontsevich formality" refers to the statement that, while the HKR map is not a quasi-isomorphism --- or even a morphism --- of dg <em>Lie algebras</em>, there is an $L_\infty$ quasi-isomorphism $U$ from $T$ to $D$, and therefore $D$ is in fact formal as a dg <em>Lie algebra</em>.</p> <p>The first "Taylor coefficient" of the $L_\infty$ morphism $U$ is precisely the HKR map (see section 4.6.2 of [K]).</p> <p>Moreover, this quasi-isomorphism $U$ is compatible with the dg <em>algebra</em> structures on $T$ and $D$ (see section 8.2 of [K]), and it yields a "corrected HKR map" which is a dg algebra quasi-isomorphism. The "correction" comes from the square root of the $\hat{A}$ class of $X$. See <a href="http://mathoverflow.net/questions/14861/is-there-a-refinement-of-the-hochschild-kostant-rosenberg-theorem-for-cohomology/" rel="nofollow">this previous MO question</a>.</p> <h2>Questions</h2> <p>(0) Are all of my statements above correct?</p> <p>(1) In what way is the $L_\infty$ morphism $U$ compatible with the dg <em>algebra</em> structures? I don't understand what this means.</p> <p>(2) When $X$ is a smooth (compact?) real manifold, I think that all of the statements above are proved in [K]. When $X$ is a smooth affine variety, I think that the statements should all still be true. Where can I find proofs? </p> <p>(3) Moreover, the last section of [K] suggests that the statements are all still true when $X$ is a smooth <em>possibly non-affine</em> variety. For a general smooth variety, though, instead of taking the Hochschild cochain complex of $A = \Gamma(X;\mathcal{O}_X)$, presumably we should take the Hochschild cochain complex of the (dg?) derived category of $X$. Is this correct? If so, where can I find proofs?</p> <p>In the second-to-last sentence of [K], Kontsevich seems to claim that the statements for varieties are corollaries of the statements for real manifolds, but I don't see how this can possibly be true. In the last sentence of the paper, he says that he will prove these statements "in the next paper", but I'm not sure which paper "the next paper" is, nor am I even sure that it exists, since "Deformation quantization of Poisson manifolds, II" doesn't exist.</p> <p>P.S. I am not sure how to tag this question. Feel free to tag it as you wish.</p> http://mathoverflow.net/questions/32889/a-few-questions-about-kontsevich-formality/33140#33140 Answer by Kevin Lin for A few questions about Kontsevich formality Kevin Lin 2010-07-23T21:28:24Z 2010-07-23T21:28:24Z <p>Theorem 11 in Section 4.4 of <a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/0901.0069v2" rel="nofollow">this survey</a> by Dolgushev, Tamarkin, and Tsygan answers my question (2).</p> <p>Theorem 12 kind of addresses my question (3), but the approach there seems to be different from the approach that I am imagining. I am more interested in the Hochschild complex of the derived category. However, I would not be surprised if the Hochschild complex of the derived category of the variety is related to the "sheaf of Hochschild complexes" on the variety, probably the former is the global sections of the latter?</p> http://mathoverflow.net/questions/32889/a-few-questions-about-kontsevich-formality/33904#33904 Answer by Timo Schürg for A few questions about Kontsevich formality Timo Schürg 2010-07-30T09:40:03Z 2010-07-30T09:40:03Z <p>Its only a reference, and I don't feel competent to give a summary. I think the answer to question 1 can be found in <a href="http://www.math.jussieu.fr/~keller/publ/emalca.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.math.jussieu.fr/~keller/publ/emalca.pdf</a> . At least it mentions the analogy to the Duflo isomorphism, which is similiar to what you are asking about. It also takes a map of vector spaces, does some magic and it ends up being a map of algebras. </p> http://mathoverflow.net/questions/32889/a-few-questions-about-kontsevich-formality/33937#33937 Answer by Daniel Pomerleano for A few questions about Kontsevich formality Daniel Pomerleano 2010-07-30T19:38:14Z 2010-07-30T19:44:37Z <p>I would guess that the the proper statement to understand (1) which mixes the Lie structure and the algebra structure is that this map is some sort of map of homotopy Gerstenhaber algebras. I don't really know this stuff(or anything else), but my impression based upon work of Fred Cohen is that the precise statement is that this should be a map of modules over the homology of the little disc operad E2, which I guess acts on the Hochschild cochains by the proof of the Deligne Conjecture. </p> http://mathoverflow.net/questions/32889/a-few-questions-about-kontsevich-formality/34002#34002 Answer by James Griffin for A few questions about Kontsevich formality James Griffin 2010-07-31T10:54:06Z 2010-07-31T10:54:06Z <p>To (1): Daniel is right, there is a map of homotopy Gerstenhaber algebras between the two algebras. However the full story is quite complicated and to show that the hochschild cochains form a homotopy Gerstenhaber algebra is hard, it's known as the Deligne conjecture. I don't know the details of the proof.</p> <p>Recall that a Poisson algebra is a commutative algebra with a Lie bracket and these two products satisfy a Leibniz identity. A Gerstenhaber algebra is a bit like a Poisson algebra, except the Lie bracket is of degree 1 not 0. The bracket satisfies a graded Leibniz identity wrt to the commutative algebra structure.</p> <p>The formality morphism as homotopy Gerstenhaber algebras restricts to a formality morphism as homotopy Lie algebras and to a formality morphism as homotopy commutative algebras.</p> <p>In my view the simplest proof of the formality of the Hochschild cochains of a nice enough algebra as a homotopy Gerstenhaber algebra is contained in</p> <p><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/math.KT/0605141" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/abs/math.KT/0605141</a></p> http://mathoverflow.net/questions/32889/a-few-questions-about-kontsevich-formality/81891#81891 Answer by DamienC for A few questions about Kontsevich formality DamienC 2011-11-25T14:47:48Z 2012-01-10T13:26:01Z <p>Hi Kevin, even if the question is answered I would like to add a few remarks. </p> <p><strong>(0)</strong> the claim that </p> <blockquote> <p>this quasi-isomorphism $U$ is compatible with the dg algebra structures on $T$ and $D$</p> </blockquote> <p>is not exactly true. It is compatible only on tangent cohomology. </p> <p><strong>(1)</strong> I agree with Daniel and James that there exists a $G_\infty$-quasi-isomorphism between $T$ and $D$ (this implies compatibility at the level of tangent cohomology, and is strictly stronger). But until recently this was not known if Kontsevich's $L_\infty$-quasi-isomorphism can be upgraded to a $G_\infty$-one. <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.3520" rel="nofollow">A recent paper of Willwacher</a> solves (in a positive way) this question (EDIT: Willwacher makes the comparison with Tamarkin's $G_\infty$-quasi-isomorphism in Section 10). </p> <p><strong>(2)</strong> the proof for smooth affine varieties is essentially the same as the one for smooth differentiable manifolds. Both rely </p> <ul> <li><p>either on the exitence of a connection in the tangent bundle (see the papers of Dolgushev, e.g. <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0307212" rel="nofollow">this one</a>). </p></li> <li><p>or (equivalently) on acyclicity of sheaves of sections of bundles (see e.g. my <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.2725" rel="nofollow">paper with Michel Van den Bergh</a>). </p></li> </ul> <p><strong>(3)</strong> references are </p> <ul> <li><p><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0310399" rel="nofollow">Yekutieli's paper</a> and <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0603200" rel="nofollow">Van den Bergh'sone</a> for smooth algebraic varieties. </p></li> <li><p>my <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0504372" rel="nofollow">paper with Dolgushev and Halbout</a> for complex manifolds. </p></li> <li><p>the <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0708.2725" rel="nofollow">above paper</a> with Van den Bergh for a uniform approach to smooth, complex and algebraic settings (using Lie algebroids). </p></li> <li><p><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0605141" rel="nofollow">Dolgushev-Tamarkin-Tsygan paper</a> for the $G_\infty$ version (see also <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.4510" rel="nofollow">another paper with Van den Bergh</a>). </p></li> </ul> <blockquote> <p>For a general smooth variety, though, instead of taking the Hochschild cochain complex of $A=\Gamma(X;\mathcal O_X)$, presumably we should take the Hochschild cochain complex of the (dg?) derived category of $X$. Is this correct?</p> </blockquote> <p>One could do this, but one instead works on the sheaf level. Consider $T$ and $D$ as sheaves and prove that they are $L_\infty$- (or $G_\infty$-)quasi-isomorphic as sheaves of DG Lie (or $G_\infty$)-algebras. </p> <p><strong>(3+$\epsilon$)</strong> "Deformation quantization of Poisson manifolds, II" does not exist, but there is <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0106006" rel="nofollow">"Deformation quantization of algebraic varieties"</a> (quite sketchy). You might also be interested by the very inspiring paper <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/math/9904055" rel="nofollow">"Operads and motives in deformation quantization"</a>. </p>