Following the paper by Ayala, Francis, and Tanaka: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.0848.pdf

If we are talking about knots we are talking about framed 3-manifolds with a framed 1-dimensional sub-manifold and trivialized normal bundle.

Lets assume the monoidal category is dg-vector spaces with $\otimes$.

Corollary 0.3. says there is an equivalence between framed $1\subset3$ disk-algebras and a triple $(A,B,\alpha)$ where $A$ is a 3-disk algebra ($E_3$-algebra), $B$ is a 1-disk algebra ($E_1$-algebra or $A_\infty$) and $$\alpha:HC_*(A)\to HC^*(B)$$ is a map of 2-disk algebras.

My questions are: If $A$ and $B$ are commutative algebras (concentrated in degree 0) over some field $\mathbb{k}$ (smooth, if you wish) then $A$ is in particular also $E_3$ and $B$ is $E_1$.

1) What kind of map should $\alpha$ be in this case?

2) If we take $HC_*$ to mean the hochschild chain complex of $A$ then $HC_*(A)$ is concentrated in (homological) non-negative degree and $HC^*(B)$ is concentrated in non-positive degree. Should our map have to respect degrees of elements or is there some sort of degree shift going on?

3) It seems this structure should make $B$ an $A$-module (in the usual sense). This should be a ring map from $A$ into $End(B)$ or a series of compatible linear maps one such being $A\otimes A\otimes B\to B$. Is there a way to see this from the map $\alpha$?


1 Answer 1


Let me start with the second question:

2) The map $\alpha$ will indeed respect the degrees. You should think of it as a map between two $E_2$-algebras in unbounded chain-complexes (whose domain happens to be concentrated in non-negative degrees, while its codomain is concentrated in non-positive degrees).

1) As a result of (2), the data of the map $\alpha$ is actually equivalent to the data of a map of discrete commutative algebras $A \to B$. To see this, observe that the inclusion $\iota_{\leq 0}: {\rm Ch}_{\leq 0}(\mathbb{k}) \to {\rm Ch}(\mathbb{k})$ of non-positively graded chain-complexes into unbounded chain-complexes has a left adjoint $\tau_{\leq 0}: {\rm Ch}(\mathbb{k}) \to {\rm Ch}(\mathbb{k})_{\leq 0}$, the truncation functor. Both $\iota_{\leq 0}$ and $\tau_{\leq 0}$ are symmetric monoidal functors and descend to an adjunction between $E_2$-algebras in ${\rm Ch}(\mathbb{k})$ and $E_2$-algebras ${\rm Ch}(\mathbb{k})_{\leq 0}$. This means that the data of an $E_2$-algebra map $\alpha: HC_*(A) \to HC^*(B)$ is equivalent to the data of an $E_2$-algebra map $A = \tau_{\leq 0}HC_*(A) \to HC^*(B)$. A similar argument using cotruncation instead of truncation shows that the data of such a map is equivalent to the data of an $E_2$-algebra map $A \to \tau^{\geq 0}HC^*(B) = B$. Since $A$ and $B$ are discrete this is the same as a map of commutative algebras.

3) Suppose $A$ was an $E_1$-algebra and $B$ a chain-complex (which we can think of as an $E_0$-algebra object in ${\rm Ch}(\mathbb{k})$). Then the structure of an $A$-module on $B$ is given by a map of $E_1$-algebras $A \to {\rm End}(B)$. This is because the monoidal structure on ${\rm Ch}(\mathbb{k})$ is closed, i.e., admits a compatible system of internal mapping objects. If $A$ is now an $E_2$-algebra and $B$ is an $E_1$-algebra, then we can think of $A$ as an $E_1$-algebra in $E_1$-algebras, and so there is an associated notion of an action of $A$ on $B$ (in $E_1$-algebras) in which case one usually says that $B$ has the structure of an $A$-algebra. However, the induced tensor product on $E_1$-algebras is not a closed monoidal structure: given two $E_1$-algebras $B,B'$, there is no internal mapping object ${\rm Map}(B,B')$ in $E_1$-algebras. Nonetheless, there is still an object which controls $A$-actions on $B$, and that is the center $HC^*(B)$ of $B$, considered as an $E_2$-algebra. In particular, $A$-algebra structures on $B$ are classified by $E_2$-algebra maps $A \to HC^*(B)$. Note that for $A$, as an $E_1$-algebra object ${\rm Alg}_{E_1}({\rm Ch}(\mathbb{k}))$, there is also the associated notion of an $A$-bimodule structure on a given $B \in {\rm Alg}_{E_1}({\rm Ch}(\mathbb{k}))$. This, in turn, can be described by a map of $E_2$-algebras $A^{\rm op} \otimes A \to HC^*(B)$. Now let's consider the case at hand where $A$ is an $E_3$-algebra and $B$ is an $E_1$-algebra. Then we can think of $A$ as an $E_2$-algebra in $E_1$-algebras. Now, just like associative algebras have the associated notion of a bimodule, for $E_2$-algebras there is the analogous notion of an $E_2$-module. Roughly speaking, an $E_2$-action of $A$ on $B$ means a "continuous family" of $A$-actions on $B$ parameterized by the circle (with suitable compatibilities with the $E_2$-structure of $A$). If $A$ is an $E_2$-algebra in ${\rm Alg}_{E_1}({\rm Ch}(\mathbb{k}))$ and $B$ is an object of ${\rm Alg}_{E_1}({\rm Ch}(\mathbb{k}))$ then the data of an $E_2$-action of $A$ on $B$ will be given by an $E_2$-algebra map of the form $\alpha: HC_*(A) \to HC^*(B)$. When $A$ and $B$ are discrete commutative algebras this is the same as just an $A$-algebra structure on $B$, which, in turn, is given by a map of commutative algebras $A \to B$.

  • $\begingroup$ If B is only a discrete associative algebra then the map is instead a map from A into Z(B) (where Z is the center)? $\endgroup$ May 23, 2018 at 0:49
  • $\begingroup$ Also, when would a situation (3,1) occur where HC_*(A) would have non-trivial stuff in negative degrees so that it is not just a map from A? $\endgroup$ May 26, 2018 at 0:07
  • $\begingroup$ This all makes so much more sense now. Coming back to it now. $\endgroup$ Jun 29, 2019 at 11:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

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