3
$\begingroup$

Let $A$, $B$ be two commutative and associative $\mathbb k$-algebras and let $A_\hbar:=A[[\hbar]]$, $B_\hbar:=B[[\hbar]]$ be the corresponding ring of formal series. Of sense [Deformation theory and quantization I; F. Bayen, M. Flato, C. Frønsdal, A. Lichnerowicz, D.Sternheimer; 1978] or [Deformation quantization of Poisson manifolds, I; M. Kontsevich; 1997; http://arxiv.org/abs/q-alg/9709040 ] we consider two star products $*_1$ and $*_2$ on $A$ and $B$. Then $(A_\hbar, *_1)$ and $(B_\hbar, *_2)$ are two associative $\mathbb k [[\hbar]]$-algebras. One can say that $*_1$ and $*_2$ are "weak equivalents" if there is an algebra $\mathbb k [[\hbar]]$-isomorphism between $(A_\hbar, *_1)$ and $(B_\hbar, *_2)$. We also can say that $*_1$ and $*_2$ are "equivalents" if there is a sequence $\{T_r:A\to B\}_{r\in \mathbb N}$ of $\mathbb k$-maps such that

i) $T_0:A\to B$ is an algebra isomorphism.

ii) For all $a,b\in A_\hbar$, $T(a *_1 b)=T(a)*_2T(b)$, where $T:=T_0+T_1\hbar+T_2\hbar^2+\cdots$

It is clear (for me I guess) that "equivalent" implies "weak equivalent" and if we have that $A=B$, then the notion of "equivalent" coincide with the usual one given by [BFFLS].

I have two questions:

1) "Weak equivalence" implies "equivalence" ?

2) If a Lie group $G$ acts on $A$ and $B$, so this action extend $\mathbb k[[\hbar]]$-linearly on $A_\hbar$ and $B_\hbar$. Suppose that $*_1$ and $*_2$ are equivalents, $T:(A_\hbar,*_1)\to (B_\hbar,*_2)$, and suppose also that $T$ is a $G$-morphism. What we can say about the $T_r$ of $T$ ? Are they $G$-morphisms ?

Any comment(s) would be highly appreciated. I'll be so glad if you know and point me some references about this subject. Thank you in advance.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

to 1) A $\mathbb{k}[[\hbar]]$-linear map between $A[[\hbar]]$ and $B[[\hbar]]$ is necessarily of the form $T = T_0 + \hbar T_1 + \cdots$ with $T_r\colon A \longrightarrow B$ being $\mathbb{k}$-linear and extended $\mathbb{k}[[\hbar]]$-linearily as usual. The proof is rather straightforward, you can find it eg. in my book :)

Then, a $\mathbb{k}[[\hbar]]$-linear map $T$ is invertible iff $T_0$ is invertible. So 1) and 2) are equivalent.

The notion of equivalence of deformations, however, is usually taken to be more strict in the case where $A = B$. Then one requires that $T_0$ is even the identity and not just invertible. The usual classification of star products on Poisson manifolds uses this version, originally developt by Gerstenhaben in his "Deformation of rings and algebras"-papers.

to 2) Since the group $G$ acts in each order of $\hbar$ with the classical action, all the $T_r$ have to be $G$-invariant themselves, once $T$ is invariant. There are a lot of papers on the classification of $G$-invariant star products where you can find these kind of statements, eg. by Bieliavsky-Cahen-Gutt, Neumaier, Fedosov, ...

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.