Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let $V$ be a finite dimensional vector space and let $R$ be a linear invertible mapping from $V \otimes V$ to itself. If we fix a basis $\{e_i\}_{i=1,2, \cdots ,n}$ then we have $N^4$ complex numbers $R^{mn}_{ij}$ such that $$ R(e_i \otimes e_j) = \sum_{m,n=1}^N R_{ij}^{mn} e_m \otimes e_n.$$

As is well-known, we can use the numbers $R^{ij}_{mn}$ to construct a bialgebra $A(R)$, called the FTR-bialgebra associated to $R$. We will describe here just the algebra structure of $A(R)$: Let $\mathbb{C}\langle u^i_j \rangle$ denote the free algebra over $\mathbb{C}$ generated by $u^i_j$ and let ${\cal J}(R)$ be the bi-ideal generated by the elements $$ I^{ij}_{mn} = \sum R^{ji}_{kl} u^k_m u^l_n - \sum u^i_k u^j_l R^{lk}_{mn}, \qquad i,j,m,n = 1, \ldots ,N. $$ Then we define $$ A(R) = \mathbb{C}\langle u^i_j \rangle/{\cal J}(R). $$

Now in Section 10.1.2 of their book Quantum Groups and their Representations, Klimyk and Schmudgen claim that if $R$ is a solution of the Quantum Yang Baxter Equation $$ R_{12}R_{13}R_{23} = R_{23}R_{13}R_{12}, $$ then the bialgebra is coquasi-triangular with a unique universal r-form for which $$ r(u^i_j \otimes u^k_l) = R^{ik}_{jl}. $$ The crucial step in establishing this is to show that $r({\cal J}(R) \otimes u^k_l) = r(u^k_l \otimes {\cal J}(R)) = 0$. Using the elementary properties of $r$, they prove that $$r(I^{ij}_{nm} \otimes u^k_l) = \sum_{r,s,x}R^{ji}_{rs}R^{rk}_{nx}R^{sx}_{ml} - \sum_{r,s,x} R^{ik}_{rx}R^{jx}_{sl}R^{sr}_{nm}.$$ The fact that $R$ satisfies the Quantum Yang Baxter equation then easily implies that this sum vanishes.

The proof that $r(u^k_l \otimes {\cal J}(R)) = 0$ is left as an excercise. Now it routine to show that $$ r(u^k_l \otimes I^{ij}_{mn}) = \sum_{r,s,x} R^{ji}_{rs}R^{kr}_{xn}R^{xs}_{lm} - \sum_{r,s,x} R^{ki}_{xr}R^{xj}_{ls}R^{sr}_{nm}. $$ However, I cannot see why the Yang-Baxter Equation implies that this vanishes.

I had hoped to use the proof of this fact to resolve the difficulty in this question. Indeed if we have $$ R^{ij}_{mn} = q^{-\frac{1}{2}}(q^{\delta_{ij}}\delta_{im}\delta_{jn} + (q-q^{-1})\theta(i-j)\delta_{in}\delta_{jm}), \qquad i,j,m,n = 1,2, $$ we get the $2 \times 2$ quantum matrices. Since $I^{12}_{22}$ is easily shown to give $ab - qba$, the proof would imply that $P_{u^2_1}(ab-qba)$ vanishes (where we are using the $P$ notation of the other question). However, $$ r(u^2_1 \otimes I^{12}_{22}) = \sum_{r,s,x} R^{21}_{rs}R^{2r}_{x2}R^{xs}_{12} - \sum_{r,s,x} R^{21}_{xr}R^{x1}_{1s}R^{sr}_{22} = R^{21}_{21}R^{22}_{22}R^{21}_{12} + R^{21}_{12}R^{21}_{12}R^{12}_{12} - R^{21}_{12}R^{12}_{12}R^{22}_{22} = (q-q^{-1})^2 \neq 0. $$

share|improve this question
Kassel's book, if I recall correctly, has all details. –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Aug 17 '10 at 3:02
Clearly, we do have $\sum_{r,s,x} R^{ji}_{rs}R^{kr}_{xn}R^{xs}_{lm} - \sum_{r,s,x} R^{ki}_{xr}R^{xj}_{ls}R^{sr}_{nm}= (R_{23}R_{12}R_{13}-R_{13}R_{12}R_{23})^{kij}_{lnm}$ and $R_{23}R_{12}R_{13}-R_{13}R_{12}R_{23}$ is not yang-Baxter (and it does not have any meaning in terms of braids). –  DamienC Aug 17 '10 at 9:11
Ok, I agree that $ r(u^k_l \otimes I^{ij}_{mn}) = \sum_{r,s,x} R^{ji}_{rs}R^{kr}_{xn}R^{xs}_{lm} - \sum_{r,s,x} R^{ki}_{xr}R^{xj}_{ls}R^{sr}_{nm} = (R_{23}R_{12}R_{13} - R_{13}R_{12}R_{23})^{kij}_{lnm}$, but I don't see why this vanishes. In particular, I don't see why this resolves the specific problem of $R(u^2_1 \otimes I^{12}_{22})$ seeming to not equal zero.. –  Abtan Massini Aug 17 '10 at 12:26
Applying the flip $\tau_{2,3}$ to $$ R_{23}R_{12}R_{13}-R_{13}R_{12}R_{23} $$ we get $$ R_{32}R_{13}R_{12}-R_{12}R_{13}R_{32} $$ which vanishes. –  DamienC Aug 17 '10 at 21:25
I have made some small formatting changes. –  Theo Johnson-Freyd Aug 18 '10 at 3:05
add comment

1 Answer

Let me try to rephrase everything in more modern terms.

First of all $R\in\mathrm{End}(V\otimes V)$. Then let me denote by $U$ the $\mathbb{C}\langle u^i_j \rangle$-valued matrix with entries being $u^i_j$'s ($U\in{\rm End}(V)\langle u^i_j \rangle$).

Now the two-sided ideal $\mathcal J(R)$ is generated by the entries of the matrix $$ M(U):=U_1U_2R-RU_2U_1. $$ This expression lies in ${\rm End}(V\otimes V)\langle u^i_j \rangle\cong{\rm End}(V)\otimes{\rm End}(V)\otimes \mathbb{C}\langle u^i_j \rangle$. Viewing elements of this space as tensors with $3$ components some people rewrite it as follows: $$ U_{1,3}U_{2,3}R_{1,2}-R_{1,2}U_{2,3}U_{1,3}. $$

REMARK: it seems that Klimyk and Schmudgen chose a similar but different $M(U)$, but it is not very important.

Now we want to define $r:\mathbb{C}\langle u^i_j \rangle\otimes \mathbb{C}\langle u^i_j \rangle\to \mathbb{C}$. It is sufficient to define it on generators, and the best way to organize the corresponding coefficients is to give an expression for $$ r(U\otimes U)\in{\rm End}(V)\otimes{\rm End}(V)\cong{\rm End}(V\otimes V). $$ We define naively $r(U\otimes U):=R$.

We then need to check that the elements $r(M(U)\otimes U)$ and $r(U\otimes M(U))$, lying in ${\rm End}(V^{\otimes3})$, vanish. Let me try with the second one.

First part: $$ r(U\otimes U_1U_2R)=r(U\otimes U_1U_2)R_{2,3}=r(U\otimes U_1)r(U\otimes U_2)R_{2,3}=R_{1,2}R_{1,3}R_{2,3} $$

Second part: $$ r(U\otimes RU_2U_1)=R_{2,3}r(U\otimes U_2U_1)=R_{2,3}r(U\otimes U_2)r(U\otimes U_1)=R_{2,3}R_{1,3}R_{1,2} $$

So there is no problem here since we find Yang-Baxter.

Let me try now with the first one.

First part: $$ r(U_1U_2R\otimes U)=r(U_1U_2\otimes U)R_{1,2}=r(U_1\otimes U)r(U_2\otimes U)R_{1,2}=R_{1,3}R_{2,3}R_{1,2} $$

Second part: $$ r(RU_2U_1\otimes U)=R_{1,2}r(U_2U_1\otimes U)=R_{1,2}r(U_2\otimes U)r(U_1\otimes U)=R_{1,2}R_{2,3}R_{1,3} $$

There seems to be a problem here since we find an expression which is not Yang-Baxter: $$ R_{1,3}R_{2,3}R_{1,2}-R_{1,2}R_{2,3}R_{1,3} $$ But there is no: applying the flip $\tau_{1,2}$ we get $$ R_{2,3}R_{1,3}R_{2,1}-R_{2,1}R_{1,3}R_{2,3} $$ which is an avatar of Yang-Baxter (as far as $R^{op}=R^{-1}$).

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.