9
$\begingroup$

My apologies for a slightly vague question here. Let us fix a Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$ over a field $k$. Consider the symmetric monoidal category $\operatorname{Rep}_{k}^{\otimes}(\mathfrak{g})$ of representations of $\mathfrak{g}$. If you wish, you may consider variants of this with dg-categories, stable $(\infty, 1)$-categories etc. There is an element $\mathfrak{g}^{ad}$ of this category, moreover it is a Lie algebra object with respect to the monoidal product $\otimes$. Is there some way to characterize this representation categorically? Feel free to add additional structure so that the answer is positive, basically I'd like to know if there is a sensible axiomatization of "(symmetric monoidal) category with adjoint object".

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ As $g^{ad}$ determines the Lie algebra structure of $g$, it does make sense to think that the category of representations is determined by $g^{ad}$. In particular: Rep(g) is enriched over itself; a g representation V is the same as a morphism of g modules $g^{ad}\to Aut_k(V)$. Can this help? $\endgroup$ Jun 11, 2019 at 15:12
  • $\begingroup$ @andrea thanks for this observation! I'm a bit unsure about it however. Certainly a g-rep is a hom of lie algebras g--->End(V). If we try to say this "internally" we could hope that (writing Map for the enrichment over itself) there is a unique g-module map from adj to Map(V). Is this what u're saying? I don't think it's true as can eg be seen with a one dimensional g. Nonetheless I think that since there is a natural map adj--->Map(V) maybe something can be salvaged $\endgroup$
    – EBz
    Jun 11, 2019 at 15:48
  • $\begingroup$ If $\mathfrak{g} = \mathrm{Lie}\,G$ is the Lie algebra of some simply connected semisimple algebraic group $G$ over $k$, then one can reconstruct $G$, and thus $\mathfrak{g}$, from its monoidal category of representations using the tannakian formalism, see jmilne.org/math/xnotes/tc.pdf. I don't know if the general case can be done similarly... $\endgroup$
    – Wille Liou
    Jun 11, 2019 at 16:13
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ A more internal point of view is that $U(\mathfrak g)$ as an algebra equipped with the adjoint action can be recovered as the canonical end $\int_X End(X)$ where $End$ in general means internal endomorphism algebras, which for $\mathfrak g$-mod are just the usual $End$ equipped with the adjoint action. This should be easy to recover $g^{ad}$ from that. $\endgroup$
    – Adrien
    Jun 11, 2019 at 17:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For $g=sl(2)$, the adjoint representation has integer spin, and so it's tensor products (and summs and summands), you miss the 1/2 spin representation $V=\mathbb C^2$, the "defining" representation of sl2. So, I doubt you could recover the complete representation theory from the adjoint representation un general. $\endgroup$ Jun 13, 2019 at 20:38

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

For reference, here is the answer suggested by Adrien above.

Let $(C, \otimes) $ be an abelian complete and co-complete Cartesian-closed symmetric monoidal category over a field $k$. We write $Map$ for internal mapping objects and $\mathbb{1}$ for the unit.

An augmented algebra in $(C, \otimes) $ is an associative unital algebra object, $X$ together with a map of algebras $\eta:X\rightarrow\mathbb{1}$. We define the cotangent object of $(X, \eta)$ as $\Omega_{\eta}X:= ker(\eta) /ker(\eta) ^{2}$.

We now define the adjoint object of $C$ as the cotangent object of the categorical end, $\int_{C} Map$, at its natural augmentation. (The augmentation is induced from the map $\int_{C} Map\rightarrow End(\mathbb{1})\cong\mathbb{1}$).

In the case of lie algebras the end is $(U\mathfrak{g})^{ad}$ and so we have $$\mathfrak{g}^{ad} = \Omega_{\eta}\int_{Rep(\mathfrak{g})} Map$$.

Edit. This is incorrect, as pointed out in the comments. Adrien's comments above still suffice to produce $U\mathfrak{g}^{ad}$ categorically, however the attempt in this post to leverage this to a construction of $\mathfrak{g}^{ad}$ is flawed.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don't think that this is completely correct. In $U(\mathfrak{g})$, you have $ab-ba=[a,b]$, and so $[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]\subset ker(\eta)^2$, so you will obtain the abelianisation of $\mathfrak{g}$. In general, reconstruction of $\mathfrak{g}$ from $U(\mathfrak{g})$ is a difficult problem (I believe it is partially an open question to determine if the associative algebra isomorphism $U(\mathfrak{g})\cong U(\mathfrak{h})$ implies a Lie algebra isomorphism $\mathfrak{g}\cong\mathfrak{h}$). $\endgroup$ Apr 19, 2021 at 7:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you, you are absolutely correct of course, and I've edited the post to reflect this. $\endgroup$
    – EBz
    Apr 19, 2021 at 9:52
  • $\begingroup$ INdeed, as I said in my comment I think the trick is to consider $U_2$ the end of the $End(V\otimes W)$. Note thta this is in general larger than $U\otimes U$. Nevertheless you get by universal property a map $\Delta: U \rightarrow U_2$. In the case at hand of course this map factor through the coproduct but I don't know how to see this categorically (but you don't need that). You also have maps $l,r:U\rightarrow U_2$ from the action of $U$ on $V,W$ respectively. Then $\mathfrak g$ should be the kernel of $\Delta-l -r$. $\endgroup$
    – Adrien
    Apr 19, 2021 at 10:46

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.