4

Let $(H,m,u,\Delta,\epsilon,S)$ be a Hopf algebra with product $m$, unit $u$, coproduct $\Delta$, counit $\epsilon$ and antipode $S$.

Coproduct of an element:

$$\Delta: H\to H\otimes H,\quad \Delta(h) = \sum h_{(1)}\otimes h_{(2)}$$

Q1 What is the meaning of the sum? Are we summing components of a basis for $H$?


Also, we want $\Delta(m(h_{(1)}\otimes h_{(2)}))=(m\otimes m)((id\otimes \tau \otimes id)((\Delta \otimes \Delta) (h_{(1)}\otimes h_{(2)})))$

Which has:

$$RHS= (m\otimes m)((id\otimes \tau \otimes id)((\Delta \otimes \Delta) (h_{(1)}\otimes h_{(2)})))$$ $$= (m\otimes m)((id\otimes \tau \otimes id)(\sum h_{(1)(1)}\otimes h_{(1)(2)}\otimes h_{(2)(1)}\otimes h_{(2)(2)}))$$ $$= (m\otimes m)(\sum h_{(1)(1)}\otimes h_{(2)(1)}\otimes h_{(1)(2)}\otimes h_{(2)(2)})$$ $$=\sum h_{(1)(1)}h_{(2)(1)}\otimes h_{(1)(2)}h_{(2)(2)}$$

and $$LHS = \Delta( h_{(1)}h_{(2)})= \sum (h_{(1)}h_{(2)})_{(1)}\otimes (h_{(1)}h_{(2)})_{(2)}$$

So an axiom of the hopf algebra, says these are equal. But how does that make sense?

  • For your first question: No, it is just some sum of decomposable tensors. It is a big ambiguous though, as it does not specify what it sums over (or more precisely, what part of the sum depends on the index). – Tobias Kildetoft Feb 17 '16 at 11:48
  • And I am not sure I get our second question. You have two elements in a tensor product, and the requirement is that they are equal. What does not make sense? – Tobias Kildetoft Feb 17 '16 at 11:52
  • @TobiasKildetoft I guess I don't get morally what it means. I will read about 'decomposable tensors' now.

    Also I think it is notational shortening for $\displaystyle \sum_i h_{(1)}^i \otimes h_{(2)}^i$

    – Coalgebra Feb 17 '16 at 12:00
  • What is the $\tau$ that shows up? – Tobias Kildetoft Feb 17 '16 at 12:04
  • @TobiasKildetoft Sorry, that is the twist map $\tau(h_1\otimes h_2) = h_2\otimes h_1$ – Coalgebra Feb 17 '16 at 12:21
  • In that case something is wrong with the way it has been written. There are too many tensor factors on the right hand side for you to apply $(m\otimes m)$ (which requires $4$, but the thing it is applied to has $6$, since id is one, $\tau$ is two, and $(\Delta\otimes \Delta)$ is four). – Tobias Kildetoft Feb 17 '16 at 12:23
  • @TobiasKildetoft I don't see why? Maybe I am wrong, but it seems that: $$\Delta\otimes\Delta: H\otimes H \to H\otimes H\otimes H\otimes H$$, $$id\otimes \tau\otimes id : H\otimes H\otimes H\otimes H \to H\otimes H\otimes H\otimes H$$ then $$m\otimes m: H\otimes H\otimes H\otimes H\to H\otimes H$$ and the LHS takes $H\otimes H \to H \to H\otimes H$ so both are maps $H\otimes H \to H\otimes H$

    Am I missing something here?

    – Coalgebra Feb 17 '16 at 21:15
  • Ahh, I see what you mean. Please use more brackets to make it clear which parts go together. – Tobias Kildetoft Feb 17 '16 at 23:07
  • @TobiasKildetoft I've added the brackets now, thanks – Coalgebra Feb 21 '16 at 06:09
  • Ok, so intuitively, this identity says that if you start with some decomposable tensor, multiply the elements and then comultiply the product, then you get the same as if you started by comultiplying each factor and then multiplying each pair, except you need to switch the middle factors. To get an idea of why you want to switch the middle factors, consider the easiest example of a group algebra where the elements you are applying these things to are group elements. – Tobias Kildetoft Feb 21 '16 at 11:28
  • 1
    To understand Sweedler's notation, which is how that notation is called, the best thing is to get Sweedler's book and do the exercises in the first chapter. – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Mar 09 '16 at 02:07

1 Answers1

6

Regarding your first question: no we are not summing elements of any base. This is actually the Sweedler's notation for the comultiplication $\Delta: H\to H\otimes H$. What it does, is to suppress the explicit summation indices via the use of the abstract summation indices $_{(1)}$ and $_{(2)}$. So, instead of writting $\Delta(h) = \sum_{i,j=1}^{k} h_{i}\otimes h_{j}$ we use $\Delta(h) = \sum h_{(1)}\otimes h_{(2)}$. This is more abstract, but concrete enough to handle situations in which the conventional sigma notation would produce rather cumbersome expressions. For example, the comultiplication's defining condition is coassociativity i.e. $$(\Delta\circ Id)\circ\Delta=(Id\circ\Delta)\circ\Delta$$ If we apply Sweedler's notation, we get the following equivalent expression of coassociativity at the element's level: $$(\Delta\circ Id)\circ\Delta(h)=(\Delta\circ Id)(\sum h_{(1)}\otimes h_{(2)})=\sum \Delta(h_{(1)})\otimes h_{(2)}$$ and $$(Id\circ\Delta)\circ\Delta(h)=(\Delta\circ Id)(\sum h_{(1)}\otimes h_{(2)})=\sum h_{(1)}\otimes \Delta(h_{(2)})$$ thus, coassociativity means that for any element $h\in H$: $$\sum \Delta(h_{(1)})\otimes h_{(2)}=\sum h_{(1)}\otimes \Delta(h_{(2)})=h_{(1)}\otimes h_{(2)}\otimes h_{(3)}$$ (try expressing this using the usual tensor-like summation indices).

Now, regarding your second question, i guess you are actually talking about the relation: $$\Delta\circ m=(m\otimes m)\circ(Id\otimes \tau \otimes Id)\circ(\Delta \otimes \Delta)$$ which is the part of "compatibility" conditions between the algebraic and coalgebraic structure of $H$, in order for $H$ to be a bialgebra. Notice that both of the above maps (LHS and RHS) are of the form: $H\otimes H\rightarrow H\otimes H$. (see also the diagram below for a more detailed analysis of the maps). Let's compute the LHS: $$\Delta\circ m(g\otimes h)=\Delta(gh)=\sum (gh)_{(1)}\otimes (gh)_{(2)}$$ and the RHS: $$(m\otimes m)\circ(Id\otimes \tau \otimes Id)\circ(\Delta \otimes \Delta)(g\otimes h)= \\ (m\otimes m)\circ(Id\otimes \tau \otimes Id)\Big(\sum g_{(1)}\otimes g_{(2)}\otimes h_{(1)}\otimes h_{(2)}\Big)=(m\otimes m)\Big(\sum g_{(1)}\otimes h_{(1)}\otimes g_{(2)}\otimes h_{(2)}\Big)=\sum g_{(1)}h_{(1)}\otimes g_{(2)}h_{(2)}$$ so your condition (part of the definition of a bialgebra and a Hopf algebra) can now be equivalently written as: $$\Delta(gh)=\sum (gh)_{(1)}\otimes (gh)_{(2)}=\sum g_{(1)}h_{(1)}\otimes g_{(2)}h_{(2)}=\Delta(g)\Delta(h)$$ and actually says that: the comultiplication is an algebra homomorphism, between the algebras $H$ and $H\otimes H$ (equipped with its usual tensor product algebra structure).

An equivalent formulation of the above, is the commutativity of the following diagram:

enter image description here

KonKan
  • 7,572