6
$\begingroup$

In the paper, page 28, Definition 4.2.1, the compatibility condition for a Yetter-Drinfeld module over $H$ is $$ h_{(1)} v_{(-1)} \otimes h_{(2)}.v_{(0)} = (h_{(1)}.v)_{(-1)}h_{(2)} \otimes (h_{(1)}.v)_{(0)}, v \in V, h \in H. $$ On the other hand, in the article, the compatibility condition for a Yetter-Drinfeld module over $H$ is $$ \delta(h.v) = h_{(1)} v_{(-1)} S(h_{(3)}) \otimes h_{(2)}.v_{(0)}, v \in V, h \in H. $$ Are the two conditions equivalent? Thank you very much.

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Assume that the second equation holds. Then \begin{align*} \delta(h_{1}.v)=(h_{1}. v)_{-1}\otimes(h_{1}.v)_{0}=h_{1,1}v_{-1}Sh_{1,3}\otimes h_{1,2}. v_{0} \end{align*} and therefore $$ (h_{1}.v)_{-1}h_{2}\otimes(h_{1}.v)_{0}=h_{1,1}v_{-1}Sh_{1,3}h_{2}\otimes h_{1,2}.v_{0}=h_{1}v_{-1}\otimes h_{2}.v_{0}. $$ Conversely, assume that the first equation holds. Then \begin{align*} (m\otimes &id)(h_{11}v_{-1}\otimes Sh_2\otimes(h_{12}.v_0) )\\ &=(m\otimes id)\left( (h_{11}.v)_{-1}h_{12}\otimes Sh_2\otimes (h_{11}. v)_0 \right)\\ &=(h_1.v)_{-1}h_2Sh_3\otimes (h_1.v)_0\\ &=(h.v)_{-1}\otimes (h.v)_0. \end{align*}

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ thank you very much. Why $ h_{1,1}v_{−1}Sh_{1,3}h_2 \otimes h_{1,2}.v_0=h_1 v_{−1} \otimes h_2.v_0 $? $\endgroup$ – Jianrong Li Jun 16 '16 at 1:01
  • $\begingroup$ Because S is the antipode. $\endgroup$ – Leandro Vendramin Jun 16 '16 at 12:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Use the coassociativity, we have $$ h_{11} v_{-1} S(h_{1,3}) h_2 \otimes h_{1,2}.v_0 \\ = h_1 v_{-1} S(h_3) h_4 \otimes h_2.v_0 \\ = h_1 v_{-1} \epsilon(h_3) \otimes h_2.v_0 \\ = h_1 v_{-1} \otimes \epsilon(h_3) h_2.v_0 \\ = h_1 v_{-1} \otimes h_2.v_0 $$ $\endgroup$ – Jianrong Li Aug 6 '16 at 7:46

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.