Suppose that $X$ is a smooth manifold, whose $C^{\infty}$-functions we denote by $A$. Let $D_{poly}^*(A):=\bigoplus_{n\geq -1}Hom(A^{\otimes n+1},A)$ be the Lie algebra of polydifferential operators with the Hochschild differential and the Gerstenhaber bracket. A version of the Hochschild-Kostant-Rosenberg theorem shows the cohomology of $D_{poly}^*(A)$ is isomorphic to $\bigoplus_{n\geq -1}\wedge^{n+1}T_X$, polyvector fields. The graded vector space of polyvector fields is also a Lie algebra with the Schouten-Nijenhius bracket. However, the HKR-isomorphism is not a morphism of Lie algebras. The formality theorem of Kontsevich shows the HKR-isomorphism can be corrected to an $L_{\infty}$-morphism whose first term is the HKR-isomorphism. The upshot is this proves star-products on $C^{\infty}(X)$ correspond to formal Poisson structures.

In the article: M. de Wilde and P. B. A Lecomte: An homotopy formula for the Hochschild cohomology, Compositio Mathematica, tome 96, no. 1 (1995), the authors construct an explicit homotopy for the HKR-isomorphism. From this explicit homotopy the authors construct a star-product on $\frak g^*$, the dual of the Lie algebra $\frak g$. My question is the following: can one do the same thing for the general case of a Poisson manifold. In particular, is the explicit homotopy which induces Kontsevich's $L_{\infty}$-quasiisomorphism known? I believe that one has to exist since two $L_{\infty}$-algebras are quasiisomorphic if and only if they are homotopy equivalent. But, can you write down the explicit homotopy from the quasiisomorphism.


The only way I know to construct a formality quasi-morphism for poy-vector fields out of an homotopy is via Tamarkins approach (i.e. $G_\infty$-formality). What Tamrakin does is

  1. prove that there is a suitable $G_\infty$-structure on Hochschild cochains

  2. prove that the obstruction to construct a $G_\infty$-formality step by step is unobstructed. At each step you have to make some choice, and the homotopy for the Hochschild complex of De Wilde-Lecomte gives you a way to do such choices.

But Tamarkin construction (part 1) involves the choice of an associator (i.e. choice of appropriate weights in Kontsevich's $L_\infty$-qausi-isomorphism)... so I think that this is hopeless to construct the formality out of an homotopy.

Moreover, even the other way I don't see how you could associate an homotopy for the Hochschild complex to an $L_\infty$-quasi-isomorphism from $T_{poly}$ to $D_{poly}$.

I might be wrong but I have the feeling that you are mixing two different notions of homotopy: that of higher homotopies in the $L_\infty$-morphism, and that of homotopy retract for the Hochschild cochain complex. In particular, what do you mean by a "homotopy equivalence" between $L_\infty$-algebras (whatever you mean, a homotopy for the Hochschild complex in the sens of De Wilde-Lecomte won't produce an example).

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree with Damien. ;) Could you please let us know the definitions behind "I believe that one has to exist since two $L_\infty$-algebras are quasiisomorphic if and only if they are homotopy equivalent. But, can you write down the explicit homotopy from the quasiisomorphism." $\endgroup$ – Bruno V. May 27 '11 at 12:21
  • $\begingroup$ Hi Damien, Thank you for your reply. The definition of homotopy equivalence that I had in mind was from Fukaya: \emph{Deformation theory, homological algebra, and mirror symmetry} page 44. Then when everything is in the $L_{\infty}$-category quasiisomorphism implies homotopy equivalence (But maybe the converse is not true). My other hope, maybe somewhat naive, was to choose a 'wise' enough homotopy at the chain level and then use an $L_{\infty}$ version of Markl:\emph{Transferring $A_{\infty}$ structures}. If the choice is 'wise' enough then this will imply that $T_{\poly}$ can't have any $\endgroup$ – Jeremy Pecharich May 27 '11 at 16:03
  • $\begingroup$ higher brackets, an explicit $L_{\infty}$-quasiisomorphism, and an $L_{\infty}$-homotopy. But,'wise' might be too difficult to determine. $\endgroup$ – Jeremy Pecharich May 27 '11 at 16:08

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.