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

I have a general question regarding quantum groups. It seems to me that the representation theory of the algebra $\mathcal{U}_q(\widehat{\mathfrak{sl}}_{e-1})$ has many parallels with the representation theory of $\mathfrak{sl}_{e-1}$. Why is it this algebra which shares so much in common with $\mathfrak{sl}_{e-1}$ rather than its universal enveloping algebra $\mathcal{U}_q(\mathfrak{sl}_{e-1})$? ($\mathcal{U}_q(\widehat{\mathfrak{sl}}_{e-1})$ is the quantised universal enveloping algebra of the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{sl}_{e-1}\otimes \mathbb{C}[t,t^{-1}]\oplus \mathbf{C}c\oplus \mathbf{C}d$).


Edit: Let me try to formulate the question more precisely. Let $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{sl}_{e-1}\otimes \mathbb{C}[t,t^{-1}]\oplus \mathbb{C}c\oplus \mathbb{C}d$ and let $U_q(\mathfrak{g})$ be its quantised universal enveloping algebra. Then the representation theory of $U_q(\mathfrak{g})$ has a lot in common with the representation theory of $\mathfrak{sl}_{e-1}$, for example there is a theory of integrable highest weight modules for the two objects and their finite-dimensional irreducible modules have a similar appearance. I am wondering why it is this algebra which shares properties with $\mathfrak{sl}_{e-1}$, rather than its own quantised universal enveloping algebra $U_q(\mathfrak{sl}_{e-1})$. If this doesn't make sense, then I mustn't understand something!

share|improve this question
    
There is a bit of a problem with mathjax at the moment. Bear with us. –  David Roberts Sep 19 '11 at 7:33
    
The formatting problem was just a matter of putting backquotes around the TeX expressions, which is often necessary when you have underscores between the dollar signs. –  Kevin Walker Sep 19 '11 at 13:17
3  
Clinton- I don't follow your question. The representation theory of $\mathfrak{sl}_e$ (as a Lie algebra) and that of $U(\mathfrak{sl}_e)$ (as an associative algebra) are the same thing (they are equivalent categories). For this question to make sense, you need to clarify what distinction you're making. –  Ben Webster Sep 19 '11 at 15:32
    
Yes I understand that. My question is why is the representation theory of the universal enveloping algebra $U(\mathfrak{g})$ so similar to the representation theory of $\mathfrak{sl}_e$, where $\mathfrak{g}$ is the Lie algebra above. –  Clinton Boys Sep 19 '11 at 22:49
    
the quantised universal enveloping algebra* –  Clinton Boys Sep 19 '11 at 22:50
show 6 more comments

1 Answer 1

Hm, are you asking about the similarities between the representation theory of non quantum affine algebras ( $\mathcal{U}(\widehat{\mathfrak{sl}}_{e-1})$) and that of the quantum group \$\mathcal{U}q(\mathfrak{sl}{e-1})$ corresponding to the finite dimensional simple Lie algebra?

That similarity is part of a wider pattern, see the famous picture on the cover of the Etingof, Frenkel and Kirillov book on Representation theory:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=LrIpQIpvRzMC&oi=fnd&pg=PR13&dq=etingof+representation+theory&ots=g_V9CpeCYe&sig=44-V8VxDAV6DFQSA8nE-zH4dCsg

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.