2
$\begingroup$

Before asking my question, let me introduce the relevant terminology.

Throughout, let $(A, \Delta)$ be a compact quantum group.

Definition: A representation $v$ on the Hilbert space $H$ is an element $v\in M(B_0(H)\otimes A)$ such that $(\text{id}\otimes \Delta)(v) = v_{(12)}v_{(13)}$. Here the subscripts with the brackets denote the leg numbering notation.

Definition: An intertwiner from the representation $(H_1, v_1)$ to the representation $(H_2, v_2)$ is an element in $B(H_1,H_2)$ such that $(x\otimes 1)v_1 =v_2(x \otimes 1).$

Definition: A closed subspace $K$ of $H$ is called invariant under the representation $(H,v)$ if $(e\otimes 1)v(e\otimes 1) = v(e\otimes 1)$ where $e$ is the orthogonal projection of $H$ onto $K$.

Question: Let $x: H_1 \to H_2$ be an intertwiner as above. Why Is $\ker(x)$ an invariant subspace of $H_1$?

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

2
$\begingroup$

Let $e$ be the orthogonal projection onto $\ker(x)$. If the result is not true, then there is $\xi\otimes\eta \in H_1\otimes K$ with $$ (e\otimes 1) v_1 (e\xi\otimes\eta) \ne v_1 (e\xi\otimes\eta), $$ because the linear span of such vectors in dense in $H_1\otimes K$. Here $K$ is some auxiliary Hilbert space such that we can regard $A\subseteq\mathcal B(K)$. Similarly, there is $\xi'\otimes\eta'\in H_1\otimes K$ with $$ \bigl((e\otimes 1) v_1 (e\xi\otimes\eta) \bigm| \xi'\otimes\eta'\bigr) \not= \bigl( v_1 (e\xi\otimes\eta) \bigm| \xi'\otimes\eta'\bigr). $$ I write $(\cdot\mid\cdot)$ for the inner-product.

The map $T:\mathbb C \rightarrow K$; $\alpha\mapsto\alpha\eta'$ is bounded, and so there is an adjoint $T^*:K\rightarrow\mathbb C$ which is simply $K \ni \zeta \mapsto (\zeta\mid\eta')$. Then $1\otimes T^*:H_1\otimes K \rightarrow H_1\otimes\mathbb C \cong H_1$ is bounded. Consider $$ \xi'' = (1\otimes T^*)v_1(e\xi\otimes\eta) \in H_1. $$ For any $\xi_0\in H_1$ we have that $(\xi''\mid\xi_0) = (v_1(e\xi\otimes\eta)\mid\xi_0\otimes\eta')$ and hence in particular $$ (\xi''\mid\xi') \ne (\xi''\mid e\xi'). $$

Notice that $(x\otimes 1)v_1(e\otimes 1) = v_2(xe\otimes 1)=0$ and so $(x\otimes 1)v_1(e\xi\otimes\eta) = 0$. Hence $$ 0 = \bigl((x\otimes 1)v_1(e\xi\otimes\eta)\bigm|\xi_0\otimes\eta'\bigr) = \bigl(v_1(e\xi\otimes\eta)\bigm|x^*\xi_0\otimes\eta'\bigr) = (\xi''\mid x^*\xi_0) = (x\xi''\mid\xi_0), $$ for any $\xi_0\in H_1$. This shows that $x\xi''=0$ so $\xi''\in\ker(x)$ so $e\xi''=\xi''$, which gives the required contradiction.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the answer! To be honest, I was expecting the proof to look more "refined". $\endgroup$
    – user167952
    Commented Nov 25, 2020 at 21:32
  • $\begingroup$ @user839372 I haven't it to hand but I think the algebraic compact case is very 'refined'. See Timmermann. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 25, 2020 at 22:58
  • $\begingroup$ @JPMcCarthy I believe he only treats corepresentations, while my question is about representations, but I might be mistaken. $\endgroup$
    – user167952
    Commented Nov 27, 2020 at 21:28
  • $\begingroup$ @user839372 I have supped on the duality Kool Aid so much I did not even notice. You are correct apologies. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 27, 2020 at 21:56
  • $\begingroup$ Nice answer! (+1) I gave another answer below that shows that we can simply recycle the proof of the classical group case. $\endgroup$
    – user160032
    Commented Nov 29, 2020 at 22:18
2
$\begingroup$

While the answer of @Matthew Daws is certainly a good one, I want to give another perspective.


The classical proof for compact groups is rather easy: let $x: (\mathcal{H_1}, \pi_1) \to (\mathcal{H_2}, \pi_2)$ be an intertwiner between representations on the compact group $G$. Then if $g \in G$ and $\xi \in \ker (x)$, we have $$x\pi_1(g)\xi= \pi_2(g)x \xi = 0$$ so that $\pi_1(g)\xi \in \ker(x)$, so the kernel is invariant.


This proof is completely trivial because we have the intertwiner relation $x \pi_1(g) = \pi_2(g)x$ for all $g \in G$. So, one may wonder, if there is a quantum version of this? The answer turns out to be yes. The following facts can all be found in Timmerman's book An invitation to quantum groups and duality (proposition 5.2.7):

If $(H,v)$ is a representation of $(A, \Delta)$, then we can look at the map $$\pi_v: A^* \to \mathcal{M}(\mathcal{B}_0(\mathcal{H})) = \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}): f \mapsto (\text{id}\otimes f)(v).$$ It is shown there that $\mathcal{K}$ is an invariant subspace for $v$ if and only if it is invariant for $\pi_v$.

If $x: \mathcal{H}_1 \to \mathcal{H}_2$ is an intertwiner from $v_1$ to $v_2$, then the relation $$x \pi_{v_1} (f) = \pi_{v_2} (f)x$$ holds for all $f \in A^*$.

Combining these facts, the proof follows exactly as in the classical case!

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, this is definitely a nice (and I am sure "better") perspective. It of course needs more machinery: we have to check all the details about $A^*$ becoming a Banach algebra (which is easy), and that the two notions of "invariant subspace" agree (and I think that might be slightly more involved). $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 30, 2020 at 10:09
  • $\begingroup$ @MatthewDaws I don't think you don't need that $A^*$ is Banach algebra at all. Also, that $\pi_v(f)$ is invariant for all $f \in A^*$ if and only if $v$ is invariant is a rather easy consequence of the equality $(\text{id}\otimes f)((e \otimes 1)v(e \otimes 1)) = e \pi_v(f) e$. $\endgroup$
    – user160032
    Commented Nov 30, 2020 at 22:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You are right about the "Banach algebra" comment. I still think there are various things to check though. You need some "machinery" to even define the slice map $(\text{id}\otimes f)(v)$ and to check that you can pull $(e\otimes 1)$ through the slice. I guess you need some Hahn-Banach like argument to make sure you get "if and only if". These of course are not "hard" results, but if the OP was struggling with the original proof, I'm not sure this is "easier". That was my only point... (But this proof is nice in that the overall "strategy" is much clearer!) $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 1, 2020 at 10:22
  • $\begingroup$ I can agree with that :) $\endgroup$
    – user160032
    Commented Dec 1, 2020 at 10:32

You must log in to answer this question.