0
$\begingroup$

See here. Does it follow immediately that $\mathcal{D}_A(M, M)$ as defined in the link is a filtered, almost commutative ring? How can I visualize this geometrically?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Not so immediately, but rather easily (as far as the modules are of a "good" kind, i.e., projective and finitely generated). It all boils down to prove that, if $$ D\in\mathcal{D}^n_A(B):=\mathcal{D}^n_A(B,B)\, , $$ then the map $$ B\times\cdots\times B\ni(b_1,\ldots,b_n)\stackrel{\mathrm{S}^n(D)}{\longrightarrow}[b_1\cdots [b_n,D]\cdots]\in\mathrm{End}_B(B)\equiv B $$ is $A$-multilinear and, with respect to each entry, it fulfils the Leibniz rule. Since a derivation factors through a $B$-linear map on the $B$-module of differential one-forms $\Lambda^1B$ (in analogy with the "jet modules" I mentioned before), the "$n^\textrm{th}$ symbol" $\mathrm{S}^n(D)$ of $D$ may be also thought of as an element of the $B$-module $$ \mathrm{Sym}^n(\Lambda^1B) \, . $$ Now, to check your claim (EDIT: which is certainly true for $M=B$, see Michael Bachtold's comments below), you need two obvious properties:

1) $D\in\mathcal{D}^n_A(B) $ if and only if $\mathrm{S}^{n+1}(D)=0$;

2) if $D_1\in\mathcal{D}^{n_1}_A(B) $ and $D_2\in\mathcal{D}^{n_2}_A(B) $, then $\mathrm{S}^{n_1+n_2}(D_1\circ D_2)=\mathrm{S}^{n_1}(D_1)\cdot \mathrm{S}^{n_2}(D_2)$, where "$\cdot$" is the product in the graded commutative algebra $\mathrm{Sym}(\Lambda^1B)$.

The general case, i.e., when $D\in \mathcal{D}^n_A(M):=\mathcal{D}^n_A(M,M)$, can be reduced to the previous one by using the identifications $$ \mathcal{D}^n_A(M)\ni D\longleftrightarrow \widehat{D}\in\mathrm{Hom}_B(M, \mathcal{D}^n_A(B,M))\, , $$ where $\widehat{D}(m)(b):=D(bm)$, and $\mathcal{D}^n_A(B,M)\equiv \mathcal{D}^n_A(B)\otimes_B M$, which imply $\mathcal{D}^n_A(M)\equiv \mathcal{D}^n_A(B)\otimes_B\mathrm{End}_B(M)$, but commutativity is not guaranteed (again, see comments below).

If the modules are of a "bad" kind, then I wouldn't know how to deal with them!

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Wouldn't almost commutative require that any two zero order operators $D_1,D_2:M\to M$ commute? $\endgroup$ – Michael Bächtold Jul 7 '15 at 8:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Here's an explicit counterexample: $B=C^\infty(\mathbb{R})$, $M=B\oplus B$ and consider the first order operators $D_1: (f,g)\mapsto (\partial f,g)$ and $D_2: (f,g)\mapsto (\partial g, \partial f)$. Now $[D_1,D_2]$ is of order 2 and not 1, hence $\mathcal{D}(M,M)$ is not almost commutative. So finitely generated an projective is not enough. Maybe invertible $M$ will do. $\endgroup$ – Michael Bächtold Jul 7 '15 at 9:44
2
$\begingroup$

In order for $\mathcal{D}_A(M,M)$ to be almost commutative we need in particular that $\mathcal{D}_A^0(M,M)$ be commutative. But this is also sufficient since the proof of commutativity of the associated graded proceeds by a simple induction on $\mathrm{ord}\, D_1 + \mathrm{ord}\, D_2$ using the Jacobi identity in the form $[b,[D_1,D_2]]=[[b,D_1],D_2]+[D_1,[b,D_2]]$. So finitely generated projective $M$ is not enough as suggested by the previous answer.

If you are interested in the question of characterising those modules $M$ with commutative endomorphism rings here is something:

Călugăreanu, Schultz, Modules with abelian endomorphism rings , Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 82 (2010), 99–112

Concerning the geometric interpretation of the graded in the case $M=B$ (which is also supplied with a Poisson bracket), this is the well-know cotangent space of $\mathrm{Spec} B$ as you might see from G_infinity's answer. You can find out more about it in the literature on D-modules, microlocal analysis or quantization.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

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.