Timeline for $h$-adic Completion of $U_q(\frak{sl}_2)$?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 17, 2013 at 17:44 | comment | added | Abtan Massini | Sorry problem with the editing - should be now ok. | |
| Mar 17, 2013 at 17:43 | history | edited | Abtan Massini | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 101 characters in body; added 5 characters in body
|
| Mar 17, 2013 at 16:34 | comment | added | Abtan Massini | @Adrien: Sorry, the question was very badly written, it should be better now. | |
| Mar 17, 2013 at 16:33 | history | edited | Abtan Massini | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 97 characters in body
|
| Mar 17, 2013 at 16:20 | comment | added | Adrien | Alexander> But $U_q$ is not a deformation of $U$, even if $q$ is a variable. Abtan> I'm confused about the objects you're considering: your $U_{\hbar}(\mathfrak g)$ is just the trivial deformation of $U(\mathfrak g)$, and not what people usually mean when they write $U_{\hbar}(\mathfrak g)$ (though they are indeed non canonically isomorphic as algebras). And if I understand correctly the second algebra you look at is $U_q(\mathfrak g)[[\hbar]]$ for some complex number $q$, and in particular without any relation between $q$ and $\hbar$, is it really what you meant ? | |
| Mar 17, 2013 at 12:37 | history | edited | Abtan Massini | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 58 characters in body
|
| Mar 17, 2013 at 11:49 | comment | added | Alexander Chervov | Second Cohomology of semisinple lie alg vanishes. So any deformation is trivial. So the two algs are isomorphic. | |
| Mar 17, 2013 at 11:22 | history | asked | Abtan Massini | CC BY-SA 3.0 |