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

Let $\mathfrak{g}$ be a simple Lie algebra over $\mathbb{C}$, and let $N$ be a nilpotent orbit of $\mathfrak{g}$. What is the equivariant cohomology of its closure, $H^*_G(\overline{N})$, with respect to the group $G$ for $\mathfrak{g}$?

Also, $H^*_G(\overline{N})$ has a natural "inner product" which takes value in the quotient field $S$ of $H^*_G(pt)$, defined via the equivariant integration. It would be nice to know this structure too.

I would be happy if I know the answer for the minimal nilpotent orbit for the simply-laced $\mathfrak{g}$.


Let me give the background to my question. Let $H^*_G(pt)=\mathbb{C}[t_1,\ldots,t_r]$ so that $t_1$ has degree 2, ..., $t_r$ has degree $h^\vee$ ($r$ is the rank of $\mathfrak{g}$. As $\mathrm{Spec} H^*_G(pt)= \mathfrak{h}/W$, the standard flat metric on $\mathfrak{h}$ determines a metric on $\mathfrak{h}/W$, which we denote by $\langle .,. \rangle$. Note that the vector field $\partial/\partial t_r$ is unique up to a scalar multiplication. So, $\langle \partial/\partial t_r,\partial/\partial t_r\rangle$ determines a rational function on $\mathfrak{h}/W$, i.e. an element of $S$ (unique up to a scalar multiplication).

Let $N$ be the minimal nilpotent orbit of a simply-laced $\mathfrak{g}$. My collaborators and I calculated $\int_{\overline{N}} 1$. And it equaled $\langle \partial/\partial t_r,\partial/\partial t_r\rangle$.

This suggests that $H^*_G(\overline{N})$ has a natural basis corresponding to $\partial/\partial t_i$, and the inner product given by the equivariant integral equals $\langle.,.\rangle$.

Is this something known in the literature?

share|improve this question
1  
Perhaps you really mean equivariant Borel-Moore homology? That isn't homotopy invariant, and thus doesn't have to be trivial on an orbit closure... –  Ben Webster Oct 31 '11 at 15:18
    
Hmm, that's the word people (e.g. Nakajima) uses in the papers, indeed. What's the difference? I'm sorry for the ignorance. –  Yuji Tachikawa Oct 31 '11 at 15:32
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

First, since $\overline N$ is contractible its equivariant cohomology is the same as for $pt$. The Poincare pairing is uniquely determined by $\int_{\overline N} 1$ (since it is linear with respect to $H^*_G(pt)$).

More precisely, any cohomology class of $\overline N$ has the form $\alpha\cdot 1$ where $\alpha$ is an equivariant cohomology class of $pt$ and $1$ denotes the unit cohomology class in $\overline N$ and we have $$ \langle \alpha\cdot 1,\beta\cdot 1\rangle =\alpha\beta\int_{\overline N} 1. $$

I don't know a good way to compute $\int_{\overline N} 1$ for arbitrary $N$ - other than replacing $\overline N$ by a resolution and using fixed point localization.

By the way, if $\overline N$ is the minimal orbit, then ${\mathbb C}^2\times {\overline N}$ is the same as the Uhlenbeck space of $\mathbb C^2$ of second Chern class 1 - that should give you another way to compute that integral (is it obvious that you get the same answer?)

share|improve this answer
    
Ah, thank you. (That shows how little I know about equivariant cohomology... I need to learn the basics.) In principle you can compute $\int_{\overline N}1$ using the result by McGovern, digizeitschriften.de/dms/img/?PPN=GDZPPN002106523 . I haven't done the calculation for non-minimal orbits. I knew the relation to the Uhlenbeck space, but does it give another way to calculate? –  Yuji Tachikawa Oct 31 '11 at 15:03
    
I guess I can re-ask my question by saying "is there natural bundles/sheaves on nilpotent orbits whose characteristic classes or something would naturally correspond to $\partial/\partial t_i$?" As per the rule of MathOverflow, may be I should ask a separate question, or maybe I should rewrite my question. Thank you very much anyway. –  Yuji Tachikawa Oct 31 '11 at 15:06
    
In fact, I don't understand your computation in the minimal case: the integral $\int_{\overline N} 1$ is supposed to be a rational function of degree $-\dim N=-2r$ whereas your function (if I understand the notation correctly) has degree $-2h^{\vee}$. What am I missing? –  Alexander Braverman Oct 31 '11 at 15:19
    
The minimal nilpotent orbit has complex dimension $2h^\vee-2$, so it gies a function of degree $2-2h^\vee$. On the function side, note that the inner product on $\mathfrak{h}$ has degree $-2$, because $\langle v,w\rangle$ for $v,w\in\mathfrak{h}$ is of degree zero. So $\langle \partial/\partial t_r,\partial/\partial t_r\rangle$ is of degree $2-2h^\vee$. –  Yuji Tachikawa Oct 31 '11 at 15:35
    
Apparently $\partial/\partial t_r$ is called the primitive vector, see kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp/preprint/file/RIMS1414-correction.pdf . It's denoted by $\partial/\partial P_\ell$ there; $\langle \rangle$ is denoted by $I(.,.)$. –  Yuji Tachikawa Oct 31 '11 at 15:39
show 2 more comments

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.