6
$\begingroup$

There are at least a couple of definitions in the literature for an $E_2$-algebra, also known as a homotopy Gerstenhaber algebra, also known as $G_{\infty}$-algebra.

Suppose $V$ is a graded vector space. Let $S(V), \text{Lie}(v)$ denote the graded symmetric algebra and the graded free Lie algebra of $V$ respectively and $S_+(V)$ be the symmetric algebra in strictly positive degree.

$\textbf{Definition (Tamarkin)}$ A $G_{\infty}$-algebra structure on $V$ is a degree $+1$ map $$ \delta: S_+(\text{Lie}(V^*[1])[1]) \rightarrow S_+(\text{Lie}(V^*[1])[1]) $$ which behaves as a derivation of both $\cdot$ and $[\,,]$ such that $\delta^2 = 0$.

Unpacking this leads to saying that we have a collection of maps $$ m_{k_1, \dots, k_n}: V^{\otimes k_1} \otimes \dots \otimes V^{\otimes k_n} \rightarrow V$$ of degree $3-(k_1 + \dots k_n + n)$ obeying appropriate symmetry and associativity relations.

The second definition pertains to algebras over the little disk operad. Let $D_2(k)$ denote the configuration space of $k$ little disks inside a big disk and let $\text{Chains}_{\bullet}(D_2(k))$ be the singular chain complex. Letting $\mathcal{P}(k) = \text{Chains}_{\bullet}(D_2(k))$, one can define an operadic structure on this collection of vector spaces. This leads one to the

$\textbf{Definition (Getzler-Jones?)}$ An $E_2$-algebra is an algebra over the operad $\text{Chains}(D_2)$.

How can one show that these two definitions are equivalent?

Short of a full proof of equivalence, it would be nice to understand a description of the cycle in $D_2(k_1 + \dots +k_n)$ which corresponds to the map $m_{k_1, \dots, k_n}$. For example: if one were working in $H_{\bullet}(D_2)$, the homology operad, one associates to the point class in configuration space of two disks the operation $\cdot = m_2$, and to the cycle involving one little disk going around the other the bracket $[\,,] = m_{1,1}$ in the Gerstenhaber algebra. Is there an explicit description of the cycle corresponding to $m_{k_1, \dots, k_n}$?

$\endgroup$
10
$\begingroup$

The equivalence between these two notions is nontrivial, since it amounts to a choice of formality isomorphism for the operad of little disks.

Let $D_2$ be the little disks operad. The easy part of the equivalence is to show that $G_\infty$ algebras are equivalent to algebras over the operad $H_*(D_2)$. If you take the operad of graded $\mathbb Q$ vector spaces, $H_*(D_2)$, its algebras are Gerstenhaber algebras-- this can be seen by computing the homology of the configuration spaces. Then Koszul self-duality for the Gerstenhaber operad gives the relationship between $G_\infty$ algebras and Gerstenhaber algebras. I.e. every $G_\infty$ algebra may be rectified to an algebra over $H_*(D_2)$.

Let $C_*(D_2)$ be chains on the little disk operad. To obtain an equivalence between $C_*(D_2)$ algebras and $H_*(D_2)$ algebras, one needs to choose a zig-zag of quasi-isomorphisms between the two operads. These formality isomorphisms are difficult to construct, and there are many possible choices, because these operads admit a large automorphism group. See Kontsevich's paper, https://arxiv.org/abs/math/9904055, for a discussion.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the answer. Please take a look at the edits I made. $\endgroup$ – Ahsan Feb 19 at 19:50
3
$\begingroup$

Here are the operads that are involved in that game:

  • the operad $D_2$ of little disks, which is a topological operad.

  • its chain operad $C_{-*}(D_2,\mathbb{k})$, which is an operad in cochain complexes (of $\mathbb{k}$-modules).

  • its homology operad $H_{-*}(D_2,\mathbb{k})$, which is known to be isomorphic to the Gerstenhaber operad $G^{\mathbb{k}}$, which is itself a binary quadratic operad satisfying the Koszul property.

  • the minimal resolution of $G^{\mathbb{k}}$ is the operad $G^{\mathbb{k}}_\infty$ governing ($\mathbb{k}$-linear) $G_\infty$-algebras.

Being a resolution, $G^{\mathbb{k}}_\infty$ is obviously quasi-isomorphic to $G^{\mathbb{k}}$. As Phil Tosteson mentions in his answer, the difficult part relies on proving that $C_{-*}(D_2,\mathbb{k})$ is formal. It's only proven over a field $\mathbb{k}$ of characteristic zero, and it's actually not formal for $\mathbb{k}=\mathbb{F}_p$ (see e.g. the introduction of https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.09191.pdf). To my knowledge, there are essentially two different proofs:

Note that the formality quasi-isomorphisms from these two proofs happen to coincide, after the correct "choice of associator" has been made. See https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1789.

Finally, I don't think it is meaningful to ask which cycle corresponds to the map $m_{k_1,\dots,k_n}$. The reason is that $m_{k_1,\dots,k_n}$ is not closed. You may ask if they are represented by nice chains... I don't know the answer to that question (and I suspect that it is close to be as hard as proving the formality itself), but for the $m_{1,\dots,1}$ the answer is known:

  • first observe that $D_2$ is weakly homotopy equivalent to the operad of compactified configuration spaces of points in the plane.

  • $m_{1,\dots,1}$ (with $n$ "$1$"s) can be represented by the top-dimensional/fundamental cell of the compactified configuration space $\overline{C}_n\simeq D_2(n)$ of $n$-points in the plane.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! In $\overline{C}_n$ is the group of dilations and overall translations implicitly modded out? So that the fundamental cell of $\overline{C}_n$ is $2n-3$ dimensional? $\endgroup$ – Ahsan Feb 21 at 1:58
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, the group we use to mod out is the semi-direct product of translations of (real, positive) dilations. hence, yes, the dimension of the top dimensional cell is 2n-3. $\endgroup$ – DamienC Feb 21 at 13:48
  • $\begingroup$ Great. It might be worth asking this as a separate question, but what is the argument that there is a morphism of operads from the $L_{\infty}$-operad to the suboperad of top dimensional cells in the compactified configuration space? If you know any references I'd appreciate it. $\endgroup$ – Ahsan Feb 21 at 15:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't have a reference in mind, but I think the argument is not so difficult. As a graded operad (ie without the differential), the $L_\infty$-operad is free. So, you define a morphism of graded operads sending $m_{1,\dots,1}$ to the top dimensional cell in $\overline{C}_n$. Then you check that it is compatible with the differentials (intuitively, the boundary of the top dimensional cell is a union of products of top-dimensional cells of $\overline{C}_m$'s for $m<n$. $\endgroup$ – DamienC Feb 22 at 9:58

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.