10
$\begingroup$

I am wondering if there is a nice presentation of the Hochschild cohomology of $A_n$ the Weyl algebra. It is known that $H^m(A_n,A_n)=0$ for $m>0$, and thus it is rigid. A proof can be found in Sridharan, but this proof seems to be doing a lot more and is fairly complicated.

I was wondering if there was a simpler way to see this fact specifically. Essentially, I am being a bit lazy.

Thanks!

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

19
$\begingroup$

(I write $HH^\bullet(\Lambda)$ what you write $H^\bullet(\Lambda,\Lambda)$. When I become Emperor of Notation, everyone will!)

Since $A_n\cong A_1\otimes\cdots\otimes A_1$, the Künneth formula for Hochschild cohomology (which is proved in Cartan-Eilenberg, Theorem XI.3.1, for example) tells you that $HH^\bullet(A_n)\cong HH^\bullet(A_1)^{\otimes n}$. It is enough, then, to compute $HH^\bullet(A_1)$.

The computation of the whole of $HH^\bullet(A_1)$ is not difficult to carry out directly.

You can climb on the shoulders of others and do the following, too. First, it is easy to check that the center of $A_1$ is $k$, so that $HH^0(A_1)=k$. Second, Jacques Dixmier shows, in his Algèbres enveloppentes, that every derivation of $A_1$ is inner, so that $HH^1(A_1)=0$. Finally, the algebra $A_1$ is a Calabi-Yau algebra of global dimension $2$, so in particular it satisfied van den Bergh duality and $HH^2(A_1)=HH_0(A_1)$. The latter vector space is $A_1/[A_1,A_1]$, and a pleasurable computation shows this is zero.

Alternatively, in view of Calabi-Yau-ness of $A_n$, now of global dimension $2n$, we have that $HH^\bullet(A_n)=HH_{2n-\bullet}(A_n)$, and a theorem of Wodzicki tells us that $HH_{2n-\bullet}(A_n)$ is isomorphic to the algebraic de Rham cohomology of $n$-dimensional affine space $\mathbb A^n$, which is just $k$. This way we get $HH^\bullet(A_n)=k$ in one big swoop.

$\endgroup$
10
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ You're a cool dude. And to be honest, I also prefer HH. Thanks. :) $\endgroup$
    – B. Bischof
    Jun 28, 2011 at 23:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Mariano, in your paper on cohomology of GWAs, does your result hold for higher "dimensional" GWAs(I mean multiple central elements and automorphisms)? I may be being dumb. $\endgroup$
    – B. Bischof
    Jul 25, 2011 at 17:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Additionally, after finding this paper: I reiterate my previous comment. $\endgroup$
    – B. Bischof
    Jul 25, 2011 at 18:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Bischof: regarding GWAs: the method should work, but I don't know what the end result will be. In particular, you surely can get a resolution by the same means. $\endgroup$ Jul 25, 2011 at 18:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It is not true that HH^1(A)=0 implies A is a projective bimodule. It is very easyy to construct counterexamples for that claim. (It is true that if H^1(A,M)=0 for all A-bimodules M, then A is projective, but that is rather irrelevant here) In any case, the Weyl álgebras are definitely not projective as bimodules over themselves. $\endgroup$ Apr 13, 2014 at 21:25
11
$\begingroup$

Since the Weyl algebra is a deformation of the polynomial ring in two variables, there is a short transparent proof using deformation theory, cf. M. Gerstenhaber and A. Giaquinto, On the cohomology of the Weyl algebra, the quantum plane, and the q-Weyl algebra, arXiv:1208.0346.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Murray. After asking this question many moons ago, I chatted with Anthony about this. I also chatted with you about this once, long ago. I appreciate the reference, however. $\endgroup$
    – B. Bischof
    Mar 11, 2016 at 15:31
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Welcome to MO, Professor Gerstenhaber. $\endgroup$
    – Todd Trimble
    Mar 11, 2016 at 15:31
  • $\begingroup$ Although I'm not certain I've looked at this paper carefully, so I am again thankful for the reference. $\endgroup$
    – B. Bischof
    Mar 11, 2016 at 15:33

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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