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

This is shamelessly close to my other question: A Question on Koszul duality and $B(\infty)$ structures on $HH^*$. Maybe this one will get a better response. Rather than rewrite that one, I am going to ask about a specific aspect of it in more detail. As in that question, it is known that for a space simply connected space M:

$HH^*(C_*(\Omega(M),\mathbb{Q}),C_*(\Omega(M),\mathbb{Q})) \cong HH^*(C^*(M,\mathbb{Q}), C^*(M,\mathbb{Q}))$

as Gerstenhaber algebras.

In particular, this implies that $HH^*(C_*(\Omega(M),\mathbb{Q}),C_*(\Omega(M),\mathbb{Q}))[1] \cong HH^*(C^*(M,\mathbb{Q}), C^*(M,\mathbb{Q}))[1]$ as Lie algebras.

Question:When are the dg-Lie algebra structures on Hochschild cochains: $HCH^*(C_*(\Omega(M),\mathbb{Q}),C_*(\Omega(M),\mathbb{Q}))[1] \cong HCH^*(C^*(M,\mathbb{Q}), C^*(M,\mathbb{Q}))[1]$ quasi-isomorphic.

As I mentioned in that question: this follows from more general results of Keller in the case M is formal and coformal (i.e. the d.g. algebra $C^*(M)$ is equivalent to a graded Koszul algebra).

Now suppose that g is a graded finite dimensional Lie algebra and work over $\mathbb{C}$(or $\mathbb{R}$), which corresponds to M be a $\mathbb{C}$ coformal space, with finite dimensional $\mathbb{C}$ homotopy groups. Let $C^*(g)$ be the Chevalley complex which is a model for $C^*(M)$. Here is an approach for proving the result:

Step 1. We know from this MO question Extension of the formality theorem? that $HCH^*(C^*(g), C^*(g)) \cong (T_{poly},[v,])$ as $L(\infty)$ algebras. Here v is a vector field which corresponds to the d on $C^*(g)$(see that question for a detailed explanation of notation). These notes http://math.univ-lyon1.fr/~calaque/LectureNotes/LectETH.pdf by Damien Calaque are also extremely useful.

Step 2. now $(T_{poly},[v,])$ is canonically isomorphic as a complex $C^*(g,Sym(g))$, that is the Chevalley complex in the Lie algebra module $Sym(g)$.

Step 3. By PBW $Sym(g) \cong Ug$ as g modules.

Step 4. Just as in Step 1, we have an isomorphism between $C^*(g,Ug) \cong HH^*(U(g),U(g))$. To obtain this we think of Ug as the deformation quantization of $Sym(g)$ given by the Kirillov Poisson structure on $g^*$. Ordinarily, this exists as a formal deformation but just like in Step 1, there is no problem setting the formal parameter t=1. Just as in that question, there is an induced $L(\infty)$ map on tangent cohomology groups that is an iso.

Question: Can these steps be generalized to dg-Lie algebras with finite dimensional homology? Note it follows from the cited question that step one generalizes. A generalization of Step 3 is given here in this paper of Baranovsky http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.1396v1.pdf, but it seems tricky to make this work out with the other steps above.

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Hi,

Your Question:When are the dg-Lie algebra structures on Hochschild cochains: HCH∗(C∗(Ω(M),Q),C∗(Ω(M),Q))[1]≅HCH∗(C∗(M,Q),C∗(M,Q))[1] quasi-isomorphic ?

this is always true.

Step 1: From my paper with Felix and Thomas, looking at the proof, you can see that dg-Lie algebra structures on Hochschild cochains: $HCH∗(\Omega C_*(M),\Omega C_*(M))[1]≅HCH∗(C∗(M,Q),C∗(M,Q))[1]$ are quasi-isomorphic Here $\Omega C_*(M)$ is the Adams Cobar construction on the coalgebra C_*(M).

Step 2: There is an quasi-isomorphism of chains algebras called Adams cobar equivalence $\Theta:\Omega C_*(M)\rightarrow C∗(Ω(M)$. In our paper, we prove (very short proof) that this quasi-isomorphism $\Theta$ induces an isomorphism of Gerstenhaber algebras between $HH∗(C∗(Ω(M),Q),C∗(Ω(M),Q))$ and $HH∗(\Omega C_*(M),\Omega C_*(M))$. In particular, we have an isomorphism of graded Lie algebras. You want a dg-Lie algebra isomorphism on Hochschild cochains: HCH∗(C∗(Ω(M),Q),C∗(Ω(M),Q))[1] and HCH∗(\Omega C_(M),\Omega C_(M)). This is true. One of my coauthor had a proof. But it is not in our paper, since I thought it was not interesting and too complicated. But if I remember well, Hamilton and Lazarev proved it in a paper following our paper. I think that Keller proved also in the paper you quote "Derived Invariance of Higher Structures of the Hochschild complex".

ps: There is two versions of my paper with Felix and Thomas, the published squezeed version valid only over a field, and the arxiv longer version with more details.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for your answer! I was confused at Step 1 because the map you call $D_C: HCH^∗(C∗(Ω(M)),C∗(Ω(M)) \to HCH^∗(C∗(M),C∗(M))$ is not a map of dg Lie algebras. But looking at your Arxiv version I see that this is not a problem since you have the section you call $ \Gamma$ which gives the conclusion. –  Daniel Pomerleano Jul 18 '11 at 8:12

Your Answer

 
discard

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.