7
$\begingroup$

Let $k$ be a field and $A$ a nonnegatively graded ring over $k$. Assume $A_0 = k.$ We have a bigrading on $\operatorname{Ext}(k,k)$ (one corresponding to homological degree, one corresponding to the grading on $A$). We assume $A$ is Koszul, i.e., that $\operatorname{Ext}^{ij}(k,k)=0$ whenever $i\neq j$.

Following Beilinson-Ginzburg-Soergel, "Koszul duality patterns in representation theory", we can define the algebra $E(A)=\oplus\operatorname{Ext}^{ii}(k,k).$ They also define the quadratic dual, $A^{!}$. Their Theorem 2.10.1 then states that $E(A)=A^{!\operatorname{opp}}$.

On the other hand, the start of chapter $2$ of "Quadratic Algebras", Polishchuk&Positselski states instead that $E(A)=A^{!}$. Why is there this disparity? This is probably something stupid, but I can't figure it out.

(On a related note: I'm also confused as to how BGS is using the functor $\operatorname{RHom}(k,-)$ to go from $D(A-\operatorname{mof})$ to $D(A^{!}-\operatorname{mof});$ I would have assumed that applying that functor would give you a module over $\operatorname{RHom}(k,k)$, which is formal and thus should just correspond to $E(A)$, not $A^{!}$. Could someone clarify this as well?)

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Applying $\text{RHom}(k, -)$ gives you a right module over $\text{RHom}(k, k)$. $\endgroup$ Jan 11, 2015 at 8:58
  • $\begingroup$ @QiaochuYuan: I'm admittedly mostly familiar with the classical case where $\operatorname{Ext}^i(k,k)$ vanishes, and there $RHom(k,-)$ gives you a left module; why is this case different? $\endgroup$
    – dhy
    Jan 11, 2015 at 10:51
  • $\begingroup$ This case isn't different; you always get a right module from a construction of this form. $\endgroup$ Jan 11, 2015 at 10:55
  • $\begingroup$ @QiaochuYuan: I just checked and you're right... I'm suddenly really confused as to how I've gotten away with thinking that it was left module for a while... $\endgroup$
    – dhy
    Jan 11, 2015 at 10:57

1 Answer 1

8
$\begingroup$

Let $A$ be a quadratic graded algebra over a field $k$ with finite-dimensional components $A_n$ and $A_0=k$. Then the construction of the quadratic dual algebra $A^!$ involves setting $A^!_1$ to be the dual $k$-vector space to $A_1$ and the subspace of quadratic relations in $A^!$ to be the orthogonal complement to the subspace of quadratic relations $R\subset A_1\otimes A_1$. The orthogonal complement is taken with respect to a natural nondegenerate pairing between the vector spaces $A_1\otimes A_1$ and $A_1^*\otimes A_1^*$.

Accordingly, the definition of the algebra $A^!$ depends on the choice of this pairing, or in other words, on the choice of a natural isomorphism $(A_1\otimes A_1)^*\simeq A_1^*\otimes A_1^*$. There are, basically, two options: one can set $\langle f\otimes g, u\otimes v\rangle=\langle f,u\rangle\langle g,v\rangle$ or $\langle f\otimes g, u\otimes v\rangle=\langle f,v\rangle\langle g,u\rangle$. Switching between these two choices replaces the algebra $A^!$ with the opposite algebra.

In our book, the convention is to use the first of these two pairings, which leads to $E(A)=A^!$. This looks like the natural choice for as long as you work with quadratic algebras over a field. However, when you replace a field with a noncommutative ring (e.g., a noncommutative semisimple algebra) in the role of $A_0$, the choice-of-pairing issue becomes the one of constructing a natural isomorphism $$Hom_{A_0}(A_1\otimes_{A_0}A_1,A_0)\simeq Hom_{A_0}(A_1,A_0)\otimes_{A_0} Hom_{A_0}(A_1,A_0),$$ where $Hom_{A_0}$ denotes the homomorphisms of (say) left $A_0$-modules. Then it turns out that the only such isomorphism is a particular case of the natural isomorphism $$Hom_{A_0}(U\otimes_{A_0}V,A_0)\simeq Hom_{A_0}(V,A_0)\otimes_{A_0} Hom_{A_0}(U,A_0)$$ for $A_0$-$A_0$-bimodules $U$ and $V$ that are finitely generated and projective as left $A_0$-modules. Notice that $U$ and $V$ switch places from the left-hand side to the right-hand side of the latter formula, which basically means that the only one of the above two commutative pairings that admits a noncommutative generalization is the second one.

A simple way to distinguish between the two opposite versions of the quadratic dual algebra in the case of a noncommutative ring $A_0$ is to look on the degree-zero components. Notice that $Ext^0_A(A_0,A_0) = Hom_{A_0}(A_0,A_0)=A_0^{opp}$ is the opposite ring to $A_0$ (if $Ext_A$ denotes the $Ext$ of left $A$-modules), while the algebra $A^!$ would be probably defined in such a way that $A^!_0=A_0$. Then the algebras $E(A)$ and $A^!$ cannot possibly be isomorphic, but only anti-isomorphic.

One of the consequences of these complications is that the functors $A\longmapsto A^!$ and $A\longmapsto A^{opp}$ do not commute with each other when the ring $A_0$ is noncommutative. Furthermore, if the functor $A\longmapsto A^!$ is defined in such a way that $A^!_0=A_0$ rather than $A_0^{opp}$, then this functor is not self-inverse when $A_0$ is noncommutative. Instead, one has $(A^{!opp})^{!opp}=A$. One can also say that the functor $A\longmapsto A^!$ comes in two versions, the left and the right one, $A\longmapsto A^!$ and $A\longmapsto {}^!\!A$, with $(A^!)_0=A_0=({}^!\!A)_0$ and ${}^!\!A=((A^{opp})^!)^{opp}$, which are inverse to each other, ${}^!(A^!)=A=({}^!\!A)^!$.

$\endgroup$

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.