Right coideal subalgebras of Nichols algebras and the Duflo order on the Weyl
groupoid
I. Heckenberger
István Heckenberger,
Mathematisches Institut,
Universität Köln,
Weyertal 86-90,
D-50931 Köln, Germany
[email protected]
and
H.-J. Schneider
Hans-Jürgen Schneider,
Mathematisches Institut,
Universität München,
Theresienstr. 39,
D-80333 Munich, Germany
[email protected]
Abstract.
We study graded right coideal subalgebras
of Nichols algebras of semisimple Yetter-Drinfeld modules.
Assuming that the Yetter-Drinfeld module admits all reflections and
the Nichols algebra is decomposable, we construct an injective order
preserving and order reflecting map between
morphisms of the Weyl groupoid and graded right coideal subalgebras of the
Nichols algebra. Here morphisms are ordered with respect to right Duflo
order and right coideal subalgebras are ordered with respect to
inclusion. If the Weyl groupoid is finite, then we prove that the Nichols
algebra is decomposable and the above map is bijective.
In the special case of
the Borel part of quantized enveloping algebras
our result implies a conjecture of Kharchenko.
Key words and phrases:
Hopf algebra, quantum group, root system, Weyl group
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification:
17B37,16W30;20F55
The work of I.H. is supported by DFG within a Heisenberg fellowship
Introduction
It is well-known that quantum groups do not have “enough” Hopf subalgebras.
Instead the larger class of right (or left) coideal subalgebras should be
studied. A right coideal subalgebra E⊂A of a Hopf algebra A with
comultiplication Δ is a subalgebra of A with Δ(E)⊂E⊗A.
1. Right coideal subalgebras of quantized enveloping algebras
U≥0.
Let g be a
semisimple complex Lie algebra,
Π a basis of its root system with respect to a fixed Cartan
subalgebra, and
U=Uq(g)
the quantized enveloping algebra of g
in the sense of [Jan96, Ch. 4].
We assume that q is not a root of unity.
Let U+ and U0
be the subalgebras of U
generated by the sets {Eα∣α∈Π} and {Kα,Kα−1∣α∈Π}, respectively, and let U≥0=U+U0.
For any element w of the Weyl group W of g
let U+[w]⊂U+ be the subspace defined in [Jan96, 8.24]
in terms of root vectors constructed via Lusztig’s automorphisms.
We prove in Thm. 7.3, see also Cor. 6.13,
the following:
The map w↦U+[w]U0 defines an order preserving bijection between W and the set of all right coideal subalgebras of
U≥0 containing U0, where right coideal subalgebras are ordered by inclusion and W is ordered by the Duflo order.
If E1⊂E2 are right coideal subalgebras of U≥0 containing U0, then E2 is free over E1 as a right module.
Recall that
if w1,w2 are elements in W, then w1≤Dw2
in the (right) Duflo order
if and only if any
reduced expression of w1 can be extended to a reduced expression of w2
beginning with w1.
In particular, the number of right coideal subalgebras of U≥0
containing U0 is equal to the order of the Weyl group W. This last
statement was conjectured by Kharchenko in
[Kha09] for
simple Lie algebras g. The conjecture was proven
for g of type An [KS08],
Bn [Kha09] and G2 [Pog09]
by combinatorial calculations using Lyndon words. In these papers right
coideal subalgebras are classified in terms of certain
subsets of positive roots.
The subspaces U+[w]⊂U+ are familiar objects in quantum groups.
Among others, they are used by Lusztig
[Lus93] to establish a PBW basis for U+, by De Concini, Kac and
Procesi [CKP95]
to introduce quantum Schubert calculus,
and are identified by Yakimov [Yak09]
as quotients of quantized Bruhat cell translates
[Jos95, Gor00].
It was essentially well-known that U+[w]U0 is a right coideal subalgebra of
U≥0: proofs and indications in this direction can be found in
[LS90], [CKP95, 2.2], [CP92, 9.3],
[AJS94]. The arguments often use case by case considerations and
reduction to the rank two case, and sometimes they work only in the h-adic
setting.
The algebras U+[w] are known to depend only on w
and not on the chosen reduced expression of w,
see e. g. [Lus93, 40.2.1] and [Jan96, 8.21].
With our systematic approach to graded right coideal subalgebras
we offer a new way to study U+
without the usual case by case considerations, and
intrinsically
characterize
the algebras
U+[w] and their ordering with respect to inclusion.
With the necessary modifications,
our results also apply to the small quantum groups
of semisimple Lie algebras where q is a root of unity, and to multiparameter
versions of U, see Cor. 6.17 and Rem. 7.4.
2. Right coideal subalgebras of Nichols algebras.
The paper is written in the very general context of Nichols algebras B(M)
of semisimple Yetter-Drinfeld modules M∈HHYD, where H is an arbitrary
Hopf algebra with bijective antipode.
Nichols algebras, also called quantum symmetric algebras,
see [Ros98],
appear as fundamental objects
in the classification theory of
Hopf algebras [AS98, AS02, AS05],
in particular of Hopf algebras which are generated by
group-like and skew-primitive elements.
For example, in the setting of quantized enveloping algebras,
M=⊕α∈ΠkEα is a Yetter-Drinfeld
module over U0, and B(M)=U+.
Finite-dimensional Nichols algebras of diagonal type
are classified in [Hec09].
Recently, much progress in the understanding of finiteness properties of
Nichols algebras of nonabelian group type
has been achieved, see e. g. [AFGV09b, AFGV09a],
[HS08] and references therein.
In rather general situations
(if M admits all reflections, see Sect. 6)
one can associate a Weyl groupoid W(M) to M, see [AHS08],
[HS08].
In case of the Borel part of a quantized Kac-Moody algebra g,
W(M) is essentially the Weyl group of g.
Under the assumption that W(M) is finite,
we prove in Cor. 6.13 a PBW-theorem
for the Nichols algebra B(M) and its right
coideal subalgebras, where the subalgebra generated by a root vector in the
quantum group case is replaced by the Nichols algebra of a finite-dimensional
irreducible Yetter-Drinfeld module. As a consequence we can show that the
real roots associated with W(M) satisfy the axioms of a root system
in the sense of [HY08b], see also [HS08].
In Thm. 6.14
we provide generalizations of results of
Levendorskii and Soibelman [LS90, LS91] on
coproducts and commutators of root vectors.
Our proofs are new even for U+,
since they are free of case by case calculations, and do not
use the braid relations for Lusztig’s automorphisms.
We note that a PBW-theorem for right coideal subalgebras of character Hopf
algebras (where the braiding is diagonal)
is obtained by Kharchenko in terms of Lyndon words, see
[Kha08]. For Nichols algebras of diagonal type a PBW theorem in the
spirit of Lusztig was proven by the first author and Yamane
[HY08a].
The main results in this paper rely
on the crucial coproduct formula in Thm. 4.2. For
quantum groups this formula amounts to an explicit computation of the braided
coproduct of U+ in the image of Tα(U+) as a subalgebra of U.
Our formula has the advantage to involve only algebra maps, and hence it is
well-suited to study coideal subalgebras.
To provide more details, let θ∈N,
let M1,…,Mθ be finite-dimensional irreducible objects in
HHYD, and M=(M1,…,Mθ). The goal is to understand the
Nichols algebra
[TABLE]
as a Hopf algebra in the braided category HHYD.
Let Zθ be the free abelian group of rank θ with
standard basis α1,…,αθ. The Nichols algebra B(M) is
Zθ-graded where deg(Mi)=αi for all 1≤i≤θ.
First we define reflection operators Ri,
1≤i≤θ. Assume that for all j=i,
[TABLE]
Define aiiM=2. Then (aijM)i,j∈{1,…,θ}
is a generalized Cartan matrix. Let siM∈Aut(Zθ) be
the corresponding reflection.
Define Ri(M)i=Mi∗, and
[TABLE]
and let
Ri(M)=(Ri(M)1,…,Ri(M)θ).
Finally let KiM=B(M)coB(Mi),
where the coinvariant elements are defined with respect to the projection of B(M) onto B(Mi).
By [AHS08, Thm. 3.12] there is an algebra isomorphism
[TABLE]
which is the identity on all Rj(M)j⊂KiM#B(Mi∗).
By the coproduct formula in
Thm. 4.2, ΩiM becomes an
isomorphism of Zθ-graded braided Hopf algebras.
In Prop. 7.1 we show that in the quantum group case the
inverse of ΩiM can be identified with Lusztig’s automorphism
Tαi restricted to U+.
Assume that all iterations of the construction M↦Rj(M) are
well-defined. In [AHS08], [HS08, Thm. 6.10] the Weyl
groupoid W(M) of M is defined. The objects of W(M) are sequences of
isomorphism classes [N]=([N1],…,[Nθ]) where the sequence of
Yetter-Drinfeld modules (N1,…,Nθ) is obtained from M by
iterating the operations Rj. The morphisms are generated by elementary
reflections siN:Ri(N)→N.
Then our main result
on right coideal subalgebras
in the general case,
see Thm. 6.15 and Cor. 6.17,
says the following.
Assume that the Weyl groupoid of M is finite.
Then there exists an order preserving bijection ϰM
between the set of morphisms
of W(M) with target [M]
and the set of N0θ-graded right coideal subalgebras of B(M)#H containing H,
where right coideal subalgebras are ordered with respect to inclusion and
the morphisms are ordered by the Duflo order.
The map ϰM also exists for non-finite W(M),
if we assume that B(M) is decomposable, see Def. 6.8.
Then ϰM
is always injective, order preserving and order reflecting by
Thm. 6.12.
Acknowledgement.
The first author would like to thank S. Kolb for interesting discussions on
coideal subalgebras of Uq(g).
1. Weyl groupoids and the Duflo order
Recall the definition of the Weyl groupoid of a root system from
[CH09, Sect. 2], see also [HS08, Sect. 5].
Let I be a non-empty finite set and (αi)i∈I
the standard basis of ZI.
Let X be a non-empty set, and for all i∈I and X∈X let
ri:X→X be a map and AX=(ajkX)j,k∈I
a generalized Cartan matrix.
The quadruple
[TABLE]
is called a Cartan scheme if
- (C1)
ri2=id for all i∈I,
2. (C2)
aijX=aijri(X) for all X∈X
and i,j∈I.
Let C=C(I,X,(ri)i∈I,(AX)X∈X) be a
Cartan scheme. For all i∈I, X∈X define siX∈Aut(ZI) by
[TABLE]
Recall that a groupoid is a category where all morphisms are isomorphisms.
The Weyl groupoid of C is the groupoid
W(C) with Ob(W(C))=X, where the morphisms are
generated by all siX (considered as morphism in Hom(X,ri(X))
with i∈I, X∈X.
Then siri(X)siX=idX in Hom(X,X). We will write si instead
of siX if X is uniquely determined by the context.
For any groupoid G and any X∈Ob(G) let
[TABLE]
Let C be a Cartan scheme and let X∈X.
Following [Kac90, §5.1] we say that
[TABLE]
is the set of real roots (of X), where w∈Hom(W(C),X)
is
interpreted as an element in Aut(ZI).
A real root α∈ΔXre is called positive, if α∈N0I. The set of positive real roots is denoted by Δ+Xre.
Remark 1.1*.*
Weyl groupoids associated to Nichols algebras satisfy
additional properties which do not follow from the axioms of Cartan schemes,
see Thm. 6.15.
For example,
cf. [CH09, Pf. of Thm. 6.1],
let
X={X1,X2,X3}, I={1,2}, r1(Xi)=Xσ(i),
r2(Xi)=Xτ(i), where σ=(12), τ=(23).
Let
[TABLE]
Then C(I,X,(ri)i∈I,(AX)X∈X) is a Cartan scheme
with finitely many real roots
[TABLE]
where kα1+lα2 is abbreviated by 1k2l for all k,l∈Z.
Observe that ΔX3re contains the real root α1−α2, and
hence
C(I,X,(ri)i∈I,(AX)X∈X)
does not admit a root system in the sense of the following
definition.
We say that
[TABLE]
is a root system of type C
if C=C(I,X,(ri)i∈I,(AX)X∈X)
is a Cartan scheme and ΔX⊂ZI, where X∈X,
are subsets such that
- (R1)
ΔX=(ΔX∩N0I)∪−(ΔX∩N0I)
for all X∈X,
2. (R2)
ΔX∩Zαi={αi,−αi} for all i∈I,
X∈X,
3. (R3)
siX(ΔX)=Δri(X) for all i∈I, X∈X,
4. (R4)
(rirj)mi,jX(X)=X for all i,j∈I and
X∈X such that i=j and
mi,jX:=#(ΔX∩(N0αi+N0αj)) is finite.
If R(C,(ΔX)X∈X) is a root system of type C,
then W(R):=W(C) is called the Weyl groupoid of R.
The elements of Δ+X:=ΔX∩N0I and
Δ−X:=−Δ+X are called positive and
negative roots, respectively.
Note that (R3) implies that w(ΔY)=ΔX
for all X,Y∈X and w∈Hom(Y,X).
Recall that a groupoid G is connected,
if for all X,Y∈Ob(G)
the set Hom(Y,X) is non-empty. It is finite,
if Hom(G) is finite.
The following claim was proven in [CH09, Lemma 2.11].
Lemma 1.2**.**
Let C be a Cartan scheme and R a root system of type C.
Assume that W(R) is connected.
Then the following are equivalent.
- (1)
ΔX* is finite for at least one
X∈Ob(W(R)).
*
2. (2)
ΔXre* is finite for at least one
X∈Ob(W(R)).*
3. (3)
Hom(W(R),X)* is finite for at least one
X∈Ob(W(R)).*
4. (4)
The groupoid W(R) is finite.
Further,
(1)–(3) hold for one X∈Ob(W(R))
if and only if they hold for all X∈Ob(W(R)).
Remark 1.3*.*
The equivalence of (1), (2), and (4) was stated and proven in
[CH09, Lemma 2.11]. Clearly, (4) implies (3).
For the proof of the implication (4)⇒(1) in
[CH09, Lemma 2.11] one needs only to assume (3), and hence
all claims of Lemma 1.2 are equivalent.
Let C be a Cartan scheme and R a root system of type C.
Then R is called finite, see [CH09, Def. 2.20],
if ΔX is finite for all X∈Ob(W(R)). If W(R) is connected, then this is equivalent
to the conditions in Lemma 1.2.
Let ℓ denote the
length function on Weyl groupoids of root systems: for each X∈X
and each w∈Hom(W(R),X) let
[TABLE]
Proposition 1.4**.**
[CH09, Prop. 2.12]**
Let C be a Cartan scheme and R a root system of type C.
Let X∈X, m∈N0, and i1,…,im∈I such that
ℓ(w)=m for w=si1⋯sim∈Hom(W(R),X).
Then the roots
[TABLE]
are positive and pairwise distinct. If
R is finite
and w∈Hom(W(R),X) is the unique longest element,
then {βk∣1≤k≤ℓ(w)}=Δ+X.
Prop. 1.4 implies in particular that the set of roots of a
finite root system is uniquely determined by its Cartan scheme and coincides
with the set of real roots.
Definition 1.5**.**
Let X and I be non-empty sets, (ri)i∈I a family of
maps ri:X→X, and (mi,jX)i,j∈I,X∈X
a family of numbers in N∪{∞}
such that mi,iX=1 and
(rirj)mi,jX(X)=X for all X∈X and i,j∈I with mi,jX<∞.
111This slight extension of notation is compatible with (R4) and
(C1).
Let G be a groupoid with Ob(G)=X, and let
(siX)i∈I,X∈X be a family of morphisms siX∈Hom(X,ri(X)). We say that (G,(siX)i∈I,X∈X)
satisfies the Coxeter relations if
[TABLE]
for all X∈X and i,j∈I with mi,jX<∞.
In particular, Eq. (1.2)
means for i=j that siri(X)siX=idX
for all X∈X and i∈I.
Let W be a groupoid and (siX)i∈I,X∈X a family of
morphisms as above. We say that (W,(siX)i∈I,X∈X)
is a Coxeter groupoid, if
- (1)
(W,(siX)i∈I,X∈X) satisfies the Coxeter relations,
and
2. (2)
for each pair (G,(tiX)i∈I,X∈X) satisfying the Coxeter relations (with the same X,
I, (ri) and (mi,jX) as for W) there is a unique functor
F:W→G such that F is the identity on
X=Ob(W)=Ob(G) and
F(siX)=tiX for all i∈I, X∈X.
The universal property of a Coxeter groupoid
(W,(siX)i∈I,X∈X)
implies that Hom(W) is generated by the morphisms siX∈Hom(X,ri(X)), where i∈I and X∈X.
For the rest of this section
let C=C(I,X,(ri)i∈I,(AX)X∈X) be a Cartan scheme and
let R=R(C,(ΔX)X∈X) be a root system of type C.
Theorem 1.6**.**
[HY08b, Thm. 1]**
For all i,j∈I and X∈X let
[TABLE]
Then (W(R),(siX)i∈I,X∈X) is a Coxeter groupoid
with respect to (mi,jX).
Definition 1.7**.**
For all X∈X,
m∈N and (i1,…,im)∈Im let
Λ+X()=∅ and
[TABLE]
Lemma 1.8**.**
*Let m∈N, i1,…,im∈I, X∈X, and Y=ri1(X).
Then
*
[TABLE]
Proof.
The claim follows from Def. 1.7 and basic properties of
the map si1Y.
∎
The sets Λ+X(i1,…,im) ultimately describe the
elements of Hom(W(R),X).
Proposition 1.9**.**
Let X∈X,
m,m′∈N0 and i1,…,im,i1′,…,im′′∈I. The
following are equivalent.
- (1)
Λ+X(i1,…,im)=Λ+X(i1′,…,i′m′),
2. (2)
si1⋯sim=si1′⋯sim′′*
in Hom(W(R),X).*
Moreover, #Λ+X(i1,…,im)=ℓ(idXsi1⋯sim).
Proof.
Let V denote the category with Ob(V)=X and morphisms
[TABLE]
for all Y,Z∈X. Composition of morphisms
is defined via concatenation:
[TABLE]
for all Y,Z∈X,
n,p∈N0 and j1,…,jn,k1,…,kp∈I
with Z=rj1⋯rjn(Y). First we prove that V is indeed a
category.
Let n,n′,p,p′∈N0, j1,…,jn, j1′,…,jn′′,
k1,…,kp, k1′,…,kp′′∈I
and Z∈X such that
[TABLE]
and idZsj1⋯sjn=idZsj1′⋯sjn′′,
where Y=rjn⋯rj1(Z).
The definition of Λ+Z implies that
[TABLE]
and hence the composition is independent of the choice of representatives.
Clearly, the composition is associative, and (Λ+Z(),idZ) is the
identity for any Z∈X, and hence V is a category.
Moreover, Hom(V) is generated by the morphisms (Λ+Z(i),siri(Z)) with i∈I and Z∈X,
which are invertible since Λ+Z(i,i)=∅.
Thus V is a groupoid.
Let Z∈X and i,j∈I. Assume that
mi,jZ<∞. Then
[TABLE]
since the entries βk of ΛZ(i,j,i,j,…,i,j)
are the elements of
(Zαi+Zαj)∩ΔZ, each appearing
with multiplicity one, see [HY08b, Lemma 6].
In the special case, where i=j, we have ΛZ(i,i)=(αi,−αi).
Hence the pair
[TABLE]
satisfies the Coxeter relations in the sense of Def. 1.5.
By Thm. 1.6, there is a functor from W(R) to V
which maps siri(Z) to (Λ+Z(i),siri(Z))
for each Z∈X and
i∈I. This proves the implication
(2)⇒(1) in the claim of the lemma.
We prove (1)⇒(2). Assume that
Λ+X(i1,…,im)=Λ+X(i1′,…,i′m′).
Using that
[TABLE]
for all Z∈X and n∈N0, i,j1,…,jn∈I,
we may assume that m′=0.
By the first part of the lemma we may restrict to
the case when idXsi1⋯sim is a reduced expression, that is,
ℓ(idXsi1⋯sim)=m.
Then we have to show that m=0.
The roots
[TABLE]
where 1≤k≤m,
are pairwise distinct and positive by
Prop. 1.4. Hence the assumption
Λ+X(i1,…,im)=∅ implies the desired claim m=0.
The last assertion of the lemma follows from the first one and from
Prop. 1.4.
∎
Let X,Y∈X, w∈Hom(Y,X), m∈N0, and
i1,…,im∈I such that w=si1⋯sim.
Let Λ+X(w)=Λ+X(i1,…,im). This notation is
justified by Prop. 1.9.
Corollary 1.10**.**
Let X,Y∈X, w∈Hom(Y,X), and i∈I. Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
By Prop. 1.9, ℓ(siXw)=ℓ(w)+1 if and only if
#Λ+ri(X)(siXw)=#Λ+X(w)+1. Then the claim holds
by Lemma 1.8.
∎
Definition 1.11**.**
Let X∈X.
For all Y,Z∈X and x∈Hom(Y,X), y∈Hom(Z,Y)
we write x≤Dxy (in Hom(W(R),X)) if and only
if ℓ(xy)=ℓ(x)+ℓ(y). Then ≤D is a partial order on
Hom(W(R),X) which is called the (right) Duflo order.
The definition stems from the corresponding notion for Weyl groups of
semisimple Lie algebras, see [Mel04], [Jos95, A 1.2].
The Duflo order is also known as the weak order [BB05].
Remark 1.12*.*
As for the right Duflo order for Weyl groups, ≤D is the weakest
partial order on W(R) such that
x≤Dxsi for all x∈Hom(W(R)) and i∈I with
ℓ(x)<ℓ(xsi).
The following theorem gives a characterization of the right Duflo order.
Theorem 1.13**.**
Let X∈X and let w1,w2∈Hom(W(R),X).
Then w1≤Dw2 if and only if
Λ+X(w1)⊂Λ+X(w2),
Proof.
We proceed by induction on ℓ(w1). If w1=idX, then
Λ+X(w1)=∅ and w1≤Dw2,
and hence the claim holds.
If ℓ(w1)=1, then w1=siri(X) for
some i∈I, and hence Λ+X(w1)=αi.
By definition, w1≤Dw2 if and only if
ℓ(w2)=1+ℓ(siXw2). Hence
the claim holds by Cor. 1.10.
Assume now that ℓ(w1)>1. Let i∈I
with ℓ(w1)=ℓ(w)+1 for w=siXw1.
Then
[TABLE]
by Cor. 1.10. Thus Lemma 1.8 implies that
Λ+X(w1)⊂Λ+X(w2) if and only if
[TABLE]
Induction hypothesis, (1.6) and Cor. 1.10
imply that the relations in
(1.7) are equivalent to
[TABLE]
Since (1.8)
implies that w1≤Dw2, the if part of the claim holds.
Further, w1≤Dw2 implies that
[TABLE]
that is, that (1.8) holds.
Therefore the only if part of the claim holds as well.
∎
2. Braided Hopf algebras and Nichols algebras
Let k be a field and let H be a Hopf algebra over k with
bijective antipode. Let HHYD denote the category of Yetter-Drinfeld modules
over H.
Let R be a bialgebra in HHYD. We use the Sweedler notation for the
coaction δ:R→H⊗R and the coproduct ΔR:R→R⊗R in the
following form: δ(r)=r(−1)⊗r(0), ΔR(r)=r(1)⊗r(2) for all
r∈R.
Let R be a Hopf algebra in HHYD with antipode SR.
Let R#H be the bosonization of R,
see e. g. [AHS08, Sect. 1.4].
Recall that R#H is a Hopf algebra with projection πH:R#H→H, and
[TABLE]
for all r,r′∈R, h,h′∈H,
where Δ(a)=a(1)⊗a(2) for all a∈R#H.
Let S denote the antipode of the Hopf algebra R#H. Then
[TABLE]
and SR∈End(R) is a morphism in HHYD satisfying
[TABLE]
for all r,s∈R.
If S is bijective, then the map SR−1:R→R,
[TABLE]
is a morphism in HHYD and is inverse to SR. Moreover,
[TABLE]
In this case, Eqs. (2.4), (2.5) are equivalent to
[TABLE]
for all r,s∈R.
Remark 2.1*.*
(i) Let A be a Hopf algebra. Then Aop is a Hopf algebra if and
only if the antipode S of A is bijective. In this case S−1 is the
antipode of Aop.
(ii) Let B be a bialgebra in HHYD with a coalgebra filtration
[TABLE]
Then B is a Hopf algebra in HHYD, and the antipodes of B and B#H
are bijective. Indeed,
[TABLE]
is a coalgebra filtration of B#H and
[TABLE]
is a coalgebra filtration of (B#H)op. Since H and Hop are Hopf
algebras, B#H and (B#H)op are Hopf algebras by
[Mon93, Lemma 5.2.10]. By Part (i) the antipode of B#H is
bijective. Hence SB is bijective with inverse given in
Eq. (2.6) (for R=B).
∎
Let E⊂R be a subspace. We say that E is a right coideal
subalgebra of R in HHYD if E⊂R is a subobject in HHYD
and a subalgebra (containing 1)
with ΔR(E)⊂E⊗R. If H is the trivial 1-dimensional
Hopf algebra, we follow the traditional terminology and call
E a right coideal subalgebra of R.
Let G be a group.
We say that a right coideal subalgebra E of a (braided) Hopf algebra R
is G-graded, if R=⊕g∈GRg is a G-graded algebra
and E=⊕g∈G(E∩Rg).
For any G-graded algebras A,B, and any algebra map f:A→B we say
that f is a homomorphism of G-graded algebras, if
f(Ag)⊂Bg for all g∈G.
Lemma 2.2**.**
Let B⊂R be a Hopf subalgebra in HHYD. Assume that there exists
a morphism π:R→B of Hopf algebras in HHYD
such that π∣B=idB.
Let RcoB={r∈R∣r(1)⊗π(r(2))=r⊗1}.
Let E⊂R be a right coideal subalgebra in HHYD
such that B⊂E. Then the multiplication map
(RcoB∩E)⊗B→E is an isomorphism.
Proof.
The inverse of the multiplication map is given by
[TABLE]
for all r∈E.
∎
Proposition 2.3**.**
Let R be a Hopf algebra in HHYD.
(i) Let E⊂R.
If E is a right coideal subalgebra of R in HHYD, then
E#H is a right coideal subalgebra of R#H.
(ii) Let E′ be a right coideal subalgebra of R#H with H⊂E′.
Then
E=E′coH is a right coideal subalgebra of R in HHYD
with E′=E#H.
(iii) Let G be a group, and assume that the algebra
R=⊕g∈GRg is G-graded and Rg∈HHYD for all g∈G.
Then R#H=⊕g∈G(R#H)g is G-graded
with (R#H)g=Rg#H. Let E⊂R be a subobject in HHYD.
Then
E is a G-graded subalgebra of R if and only if E#H is a
G-graded subalgebra of R#H.
Proof.
(i) and (iii) follow from Eqs. (2.1), (2.2).
(ii) is a special case of Lemma 2.2 with H=k1 and B=H.
∎
Let V∈HHYD. Assume that dimkV<∞.
Then V∗∈HHYD with the following properties:
[TABLE]
for all h∈H, v∈V, f∈V∗, see e.g. [AHS08, Sect. 1.2].
Let B(V) and B(V∗) denote the Nichols algebra of V and V∗,
respectively. These are N0-graded braided Hopf algebras in HHYD with
degree 1 parts B1(V)≃V, B1(V∗)≃V∗ and with k
as degree [math] part.
Since the antipode of H is bijective, the antipodes of
B(V), B(V∗), B(V)#H and B(V∗)#H are bijective by
Remark 2.1(ii).
The evaluation map between V∗ and V induces a bilinear form
[TABLE]
see [AHS08, Sect. 1.5] for the origins.
This pairing is non-degenerate, and it satisfies the equations
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
for all f,g∈B(V∗), v,w∈B(V), h∈H.
Let {bα} and {bα} be N0-graded
dual bases of B(V∗) and B(V),
respectively. Eqs. (2.14)-(2.17) imply the
following for all h∈H, v∈B(V), f∈B(V∗).
[TABLE]
Let K∈B(V)#HB(V)#HYD. We write
[TABLE]
for the left coaction of B(V)#H on x∈K.
Then K∈HHYD, where the action is the restriction of the action
of B(V)#H to H, and the coaction is
[TABLE]
and πH:B(V)#H→H is the canonical projection.
Let δB(V):K→B(V)⊗K,
[TABLE]
We use modified Sweedler notation for δB(V) in the form
[TABLE]
The map δB(V) is H-linear and H-colinear
via diagonal action and coaction.
We are going to study the right action of B(V)#H on K defined by
[TABLE]
Lemma 2.4**.**
Let K∈B(V)#HB(V)#HYD.
(i)
Let x∈K, v,w∈B(V) and h∈H. Then
[TABLE]
(ii) For all f∈V∗ and x∈K let
∂fL(x)=⟨f,x(−1)⟩x(0).
Then ∂fL(x)∈K and
[TABLE]
for all f∈V∗, x∈K, v∈B(V).
(iii) Suppose that K is a B(V)#H-module algebra. Then
[TABLE]
for all v∈B(V) and x,y∈K.
Proof.
(i) By the relations of B(V)#H,
[TABLE]
Using the Yetter-Drinfeld structure of K we obtain that
[TABLE]
where the fourth relation follows from v∈B(V), and the last one from
the definitions of δ and ◃. Eq. (2.33) holds since
S−1 is an algebra antiautomorphism of B(V)#H.
(ii) Let f∈V∗, v∈B(V), and x∈K.
Let ϑ:B(V∗)#H→B(V∗)
be the linear map with ϑ(w#h)=wε(h) for all
w∈B(V∗), h∈H. It is well-known that ϑ(w)=w(1)πH(S(w(2))) for all w∈B(V∗)#H. We get
[TABLE]
which proves (ii). In the latter transformations,
the third equation follows from the fact that f is of degree 1 in
B(V∗), and hence the pairing of a homogeneous product with f
vanishes if the sum
of the degrees of the factors is not 1. Further, the fourth equation
is obtained from (id⊗πH)Δ(v)=v⊗1 and from the definition
of ϑ. In the fifth equation, the definition of ϑ
and of ∂fL(x) is used. The last equation comes from
Eq. (2.14) and the facts that f has degree 1 and each
element of V is primitive.
(iii) Let v∈B(V) and x,y∈K. Then
[TABLE]
since K is a B(V)#H-module algebra.
∎
We extend the definition of ∂fL given in Lemma 2.4.
Note that B(V) is a coalgebra.
For any left B(V)-comodule L and any f∈V∗ let ∂fL:L→L be the map defined by
[TABLE]
where δB(V)(x)=x(−1)⊗x(0).
Lemma 2.5**.**
Let L be a left B(V)-comodule.
Let L0⊂L and let ⟨L0⟩ be the smallest left
B(V)-subcomodule of L containing
L0. Then ⟨L0⟩ is the smallest subspace of L which
contains L0 and is stable under the maps ∂fL, f∈V∗.
Proof.
By assumption,
[TABLE]
The non-degeneracy of the pairing ⟨⋅,⋅⟩ between
B(V∗) and B(V), see (2.12),
implies that
[TABLE]
Eq. (2.17) further implies that
[TABLE]
This proves the lemma.
∎
3. The algebra map R
Let V,V′∈HHYD and W=V⊕V′ with dimkW<∞.
Let π:B(W)#H→B(V)#H denote the Hopf algebra
projection corresponding to the decomposition W=V⊕V′, and let
[TABLE]
be the algebra of right coinvariants with respect to the right coaction
of B(V)#H.
Then K is a braided Hopf
algebra in B(V)#HB(V)#HYD, and hence the results in the
previous section apply.
Recall from [AHS08, Def. 2.5, Remark 2.7]
that K#B(V∗) is an algebra
in HHYD such that the multiplication map K⊗B(V∗)→K#B(V∗)
is an isomorphism of left K-modules and right B(V∗)-modules,
and
[TABLE]
for all f∈B(V∗), x∈K. For brevity we will often write xf
instead of
x#f for all x∈K and f∈B(V∗).
Note that if f∈V∗ and x∈K then
[TABLE]
by Eqs. (3.2), (2.36).
Let ad denote the left adjoint action of B(W)#H on itself.
Assume that dim(adB(V)#H)(x)<∞ for all x∈V′.
Since K is generated as an algebra by (adB(V)#H)(V′),
see [AHS08, Prop. 3.6],
the left adjoint action of B(V)#H on K is locally finite.
Let R:K⊗K→K⊗(K#B(V∗)) be the linear map with
[TABLE]
for all x,y∈K, where {bα} and {bα} are dual bases of the
N0-graded algebras B(V∗) and B(V),
respectively,
and ◃ is defined in Eq. (2.30).
By the local finiteness of the left adjoint action of B(V)#H on K, the
sum in Eq. (3.4) is finite for all x,y∈K.
Since 1◃v=ε(v)1
for all v∈B(V)#H, we conclude that
[TABLE]
Let R:K⊗K#B(V∗)→K⊗K#B(V∗) be the linear map with
[TABLE]
for all x∈K and y∈K#B(V∗). Then
[TABLE]
Indeed,
[TABLE]
where the third equation follows from Eq. (2.26).
Lemma 3.1**.**
For all x,y∈K and h∈H,
[TABLE]
Proof.
By Eqs. (3.4), (2.18) and (2.31),
[TABLE]
for all h∈H and x,y∈K.
Similarly, Eqs. (3.4), (2.32) and (2.20)
imply that
[TABLE]
for all x,y∈K.
∎
The vector space K⊗K is an algebra in HHYD with product
[TABLE]
for all x,y,z,w∈K. Note that this is the usual product of K⊗K in
B(V)#HB(V)#HYD. Similarly, K#B(V∗)⊗K#B(V∗)
is an algebra in HHYD with product
[TABLE]
for all x,y,z,w∈K#B(V∗).
Theorem 3.2**.**
The map R:K⊗K→K#B(V∗)⊗K#B(V∗)
is an algebra map in HHYD.
Proof.
The map R is a morphism in HHYD by Lemma 3.1.
Further,
[TABLE]
for all x,y,z∈K by Eq. (3.5). Hence it suffices to show that
[TABLE]
for all x,y∈K. Let x,y∈K. Then
[TABLE]
This proves Eq. (3.12). Further,
[TABLE]
This proves Eq. (3.13), and the proof of the theorem is
completed.
∎
4. Reflections of Nichols algebras
Let θ∈N and I={1,2,…θ}.
Let Fθ denote the set of θ-tuples of finite-dimensional
irreducible objects in HHYD,
and let
Xθ denote the set of θ-tuples of
isomorphism classes of finite-dimensional irreducible objects in HHYD.
For each M=(M1,…,Mθ)∈Fθ
let [M]=([M1],…,[Mθ])∈Xθ denote the corresponding
θ-tuple of isomorphism classes.
Let {α1,…,αθ} be the standard basis of Zθ.
For all M=(M1,…,Mθ)∈Fθ
define an algebra grading by N0θ
on the Nichols algebra B(M):=B(M1⊕⋯⊕Mθ)
by degMj=αj for all j∈I, see [AHS08, Rem. 2.8].
We call this the standard N0θ-grading of B(M).
Let i∈I and M∈Fθ. Let
[TABLE]
Clearly, Mj⊂KiM for all j∈I∖{i}.
As in [HS08, Def. 6.4]
we say that M is i-finite if
(adB(Mi)#H)(Mj) is finite-dimensional for all
j∈I∖{i}. Note that if N∈Fθ with [M]=[N] then
M is i-finite if and only if N is i-finite.
Proposition 4.1**.**
[AHS08, Prop. 3.6]**
Let i∈I and M∈Fθ. Assume that M is i-finite.
(i) The algebra KiM is generated by ⊕j∈I∖{i}(adB(Mi))(Mj).
(ii) The left adjoint action of B(Mi) on KiM is locally finite.
Let us recall some crucial definitions introduced
in [AHS08, Sect. 3.4].
Let i∈I and M∈Fθ.
If M is not i-finite, let Ri(M)=M.
Otherwise let
aijM∈Z, where j∈I,
and M′=(M1′,…,Mθ′)∈(HHYD)θ be given by
[TABLE]
and let
[TABLE]
By [AHS08, Thm. 3.8],
Mj′ is finite-dimensional and irreducible for all j∈I,
and hence M′∈Fθ.
Let Ri(M)=M′ in this case. Note that [Ri(M)]=[Ri(N)] in
Xθ for all
N∈Fθ with [N]=[M]. Thus we may define
[TABLE]
and these definitions provide us with maps Rj:Fθ→Fθ, rj:Xθ→Xθ for all j∈I. Further, if N∈Fθ with
[M]=[N] and M is i-finite, then aijM=aijN for all j∈I,
and siM=siN. Thus we may write aij[M] and si[M] instead of
aijM and siM if needed.
Let i∈I and M∈Fθ. Assume that M is i-finite.
Let
[TABLE]
be the unique algebra map which is the identity on all Mj′⊂KiM#B(Mi∗), where
j∈I — see [AHS08, Prop. 3.14].
Then ΩiM is a map in HHYD and
[TABLE]
for all xα∈KiM#B(Mi∗) of degree α∈Zθ,
where KiM⊂B(M) is graded by the standard grading of B(M)
and degMi∗=−αi. Further, ΩiM is bijective
and
[TABLE]
by the last paragraph of the proof of [AHS08, Thm. 3.12].
By [AHS08, Eq. (3.37)] the restriction of
SB(Ri(M))ΩiM to Mj
defines an isomorphism
[TABLE]
in HHYD, and there is a canonical isomorphism φiiM:Mi→Ri2(M)i=Mi∗∗ in HHYD, see [AHS08, Rem. 1.4]. Let
[TABLE]
be the family of these isomorphisms.
The following property of ΩiM will be one of the main ingredients to
characterize right coideal subalgebras of Nichols algebras.
Theorem 4.2**.**
Let M∈Fθ and i∈I. Assume that M is i-finite. Then
the following diagram is commutative:
[TABLE]
that is,
[TABLE]
for all x∈KiM.
Proof.
For all j∈I∖{i} and k∈N
let
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
for all j∈I∖{i} and x∈Lj
by [AHS08, Eq. (3.11)].
By [AHS08, Prop. 3.14],
ΩiM:KiM#B(Mi∗)→B(Ri(M)) is an algebra map.
By Thm. 3.2, R is an algebra map.
By Prop. 4.1(i), KiM is generated as an algebra
by ∪j=iLj.
Hence it suffices to prove that Eq. (4.10) holds
for all x∈Lj, j∈I∖{i}.
Let j∈I∖{i} and let x∈Lj.
Eq. (4.12) implies that ΔKiM(x)=1⊗x+x⊗1.
Hence
[TABLE]
by Eqs. (3.4), (3.5) and since ΩiM∣B(Mi∗)=id.
Since M is i-finite, Prop. 4.1(ii) tells that
the left adjoint action of B(Mi) on KiM is locally
finite. Then [AHS08, Thm. 3.8] can be applied, that is,
Lj1−aijM generates
Lj as a B(Mi)-comodule. By Lemma 2.5
it suffices to show that the set of solutions of
Eq. (4.10) contains Lj1−aijM and is stable under the
maps ∂fL for all f∈Mi∗.
Suppose first that x∈Lj1−aijM. Then
[TABLE]
by Eq. (4.13) and since ΩiM(x)∈Ri(M)j.
Thus the set of solutions of
Eq. (4.10) contains Lj1−aijM.
Let k∈N, k≤1−aijM. Assume that
Eq. (4.10) holds for all x∈Ljk. That is,
[TABLE]
Let y∈Ljk and f∈Mi∗.
We have to prove that Eq. (4.14) holds for x=∂fL(y).
Since ∂fL(y)=fy−y(0)(S−1(y(−1))⋅f)
in KiM#B(Mi∗) by Eq. (3.3),
and since ΩiM is an algebra map in HHYD
with ΩiM∣B(Mi∗)=id, we obtain that
[TABLE]
By applying the product rule in B(Ri(M))⊗B(Ri(M))
this becomes
[TABLE]
In the last expression, the first line equals 1⊗ΩiM(∂fL(y)) and the second is zero. We rewrite all other terms such that
the second tensor factors contain only bα.
Eqs. (2.25) and (2.15) and the definition of
◃ yield that
[TABLE]
Eq. (2.24) implies that
[TABLE]
and from Eq. (2.21) we conclude that
[TABLE]
On the other hand,
[TABLE]
Comparing coefficients in front of bα we conclude that
Eq. (4.14) holds for x=∂fL(y) if equation
[TABLE]
holds in KiM#B(Mi∗) for all b∈B(Mi).
Using Eq. (3.2) with f∈Mi∗,
Eq. (4.15) becomes equivalent to
[TABLE]
The latter is true by Lemma 2.4(ii). Thus
Eq. (4.14) (and hence Eq. (4.10))
holds for x=∂fL(y) and hence for all x∈Lj. This finishes the proof of the theorem.
∎
5. Right coideal subalgebras of Nichols algebras
Let θ∈N and M=(M1,…,Mθ)∈Fθ.
Let
K(M) denote the set of all N0θ-graded
right coideal subalgebras of B(M) in HHYD, where B(M) is graded
by the standard N0θ-grading, see Sect. 4.
For all α∈Zθ let tα=t1n1⋯tθnθ∈N0[t1±1,…,tθ±1],
where α=∑i∈Iniαi.
For any N∈Fθ and any N0θ-graded
object X=⊕α∈N0θXα⊂B(N)
in HHYD let
[TABLE]
be the (multivariate) Hilbert series of X.
There is a Z-linear action
of GL(θ,Z) on Z[t1±1,…,tθ±1] via gtα=tg(α) for all g∈GL(θ,Z), α∈Zθ.
This extends to a partially defined Z-linear action
of GL(θ,Z) on Z[[t1,…,tθ]]:
the action of each
g∈GL(θ,Z) is well-defined on the subring of
Z[[t1,…,tθ]] consisting of those formal power series
∑α∈N0θaαtα, where aα∈Z for
all α and aα=0 if g(α)∈/N0θ.
We start our considerations of right coideal subalgebras
with general lemmata.
Lemma 5.1**.**
Let M∈Fθ and let E be an N0θ-graded
right coideal of B(M) in HHYD. If E=k1,
then there exists i∈I
such that Mi⊂E.
Proof.
Let pr1:B(M)→M1⊕⋯⊕Mθ
be the N0-graded projection
to the homogeneous elements of degree 1. Recall that the map
[TABLE]
is injective.
By assumption, ΔB(M)(E)⊂E⊗B(M),
and E=k1. Thus
[TABLE]
and hence E∩(M1⊕⋯⊕Mθ)=0.
Since E is N0θ-graded, there exists i∈I
such that E∩Mi=0. Since E∈HHYD and Mi∈HHYD is
irreducible, this implies that Mi⊂E.
∎
Lemma 5.2**.**
Let M∈Fθ, i∈I, and E∈K(M).
Then Mi⊂E if and only if SB(M)(E)⊂KiM.
Proof.
The homogeneous subspace of KiM of degree αi is [math],
hence SB(M)(E)⊂KiM implies that Mi⊂E. Conversely, assume that Mi⊂E and let π:B(M)→B(Mi) be the canonical map.
Then Mi⊂π(E) since E is N0θ-homogeneous.
Since π(E) is a right coideal of B(Mi), we conclude that
π(E)=k1 by Lemma 5.1
and hence
[TABLE]
On the other hand, SB(M)(E) is a left coideal subalgebra of B(M), and by Eq. (5.2) it is contained in B(M)coB(Mi)=KiM which proves the lemma.
∎
Corollary 5.3**.**
Let M∈Fθ, i∈I, and E∈K(Ri(M)). Assume that M
is i-finite and Ri(M)i⊂E.
Then (ΩiM)−1(E)⊂KiM.
Proof.
Since M is i-finite
the map ΩiM is bijective, see Sect. 4.
Since Ri(M)i⊂E, Lemma 5.2 yields that
[TABLE]
where the last equation holds by Eq. (4.7). The relation
(5.3) gives the claim.
∎
Lemma 5.4**.**
Let M∈Fθ and i∈I. Suppose that M is not i-finite.
Then there exist infinitely many N0θ-graded
right coideal subalgebras of B(M) in HHYD which do not contain
any Mj with j∈I∖{i}.
Proof.
Let k∈I∖{i} such that dim(adB(Mi))(Mk)=∞. For all n∈N let
En be the subalgebra of B(M) generated by
(adBn(Mi))(Mk) and Mi. By assumption, En=0 for all
n∈N. By construction, En⊂Em for all m≤n and
[TABLE]
Hence E1⊃E2⊃⋯ is a strictly decreasing sequence of
nontrivial N0θ-graded subalgebras of B(M) in HHYD
with En∩M=Mi for all n∈N.
It remains to prove that each En is a right
coideal of B(M). But this is true since ΔB(M)(x)∈En⊗B(M) for each generator x of En by Eq. (4.12).
∎
Recall that KiM is a Hopf algebra in the braided category
B(Mi)#HB(Mi)#HYD. Its comultiplication is denoted by
ΔKiM.
Assume that M is i-finite. Regard KiM#B(Mi∗)
as a Hopf algebra in HHYD,
such that the algebra map
ΩiM:KiM#B(Mi∗)→B(Ri(M)) is an isomorphism of
Hopf algebras in HHYD.
Lemma 5.5**.**
Let M∈Fθ and i∈I.
Assume that M is i-finite. Let F⊂KiM be a subalgebra in
HHYD. Then the following are equivalent:
- (1)
FB(Mi)* is a right coideal subalgebra of B(M) in HHYD.*
2. (2)
F* is a right coideal subalgebra of KiM in
B(Mi)#HB(Mi)#HYD, and (adMi)(F)⊂F.*
3. (3)
F* is a right coideal subalgebra of KiM#B(Mi∗) in HHYD.*
Proof.
Assume (1) and let E=FB(Mi). Then F=E∩KiM, and
(adMi)(F)⊂F since Mi⊂E. Let π:B(M)→B(Mi) be the canonical map. Since
[TABLE]
we obtain that ΔKiM(E∩KiM)⊂E⊗KiM. This proves
(2). Similarly, (2) implies (1).
Assume (2). By definition and Thm. 4.2
the restriction of the comultiplication of KiM#B(Mi∗) to KiM
is given by the map
[TABLE]
Hence F is a right coideal subalgebra of KiM#B(Mi∗) in HHYD.
Conversely, assume (3). Let π′=ε⊗idB(Mi∗):KiM#B(Mi∗)→B(Mi∗). Then π′ is an
algebra map by Eq. (3.2). Let x∈F. Since F is a right
coideal subalgebra of KiM#B(Mi∗) and (id⊗π′)ΔKiM(x)=x⊗1 for all x∈KiM, it follows that
[TABLE]
Since F is also an H-module,
F is stable under the adjoint action ⋅ of B(Mi).
Since RΔKiM(F)⊂F⊗(KiM#B(Mi∗))
by assumption,
it follows from (3.7) that F is a right coideal subalgebra
of KiM in B(Mi)#HB(Mi)#HYD.
∎
Recall from Eq. (4.8) that for all i∈I and M∈Fθ,
φiM:M→Ri2(M) is a
family of isomorphisms of objects in HHYD. Let B(φiM):B(M)→B(Ri2(M)) be the induced isomorphism of braided Hopf algebras
in HHYD.
The following theorem is the key result in the proof of
Thms. 6.12,
6.15. When M is i-finite we will use the isomorphisms
[TABLE]
to define bijections between the right coideal subalgebras of B(M) and of B(Ri(M)).
Theorem 5.6**.**
Let M∈Fθ and i∈I. Assume that M is
i-finite. Then the maps
σiM:K(M)→K(Ri(M))
defined for all E∈K(M) by
[TABLE]
and σˉiRi(M):K(Ri(M))→K(M)
defined for all E∈K(Ri(M)) by
[TABLE]
are bijective. More precisely, the following hold.
(1) For all E∈K(M),
Mi⊂E if and only if Ri(M)i⊂σiM(E).
For all E∈K(Ri(M)),
Ri(M)i⊂E if and only if
Mi⊂σˉiRi(M)(E).
(2) σˉiRi(M)σiM=idK(M),
σiMσˉiRi(M)=idK(Ri(M)).
Proof.
By Cor. 5.3 the maps σiM and σˉiRi(M)
are well-defined in the sense that σiM(E)⊂B(Ri(M))
for all E∈K(M) and
σˉiRi(M)(E)⊂B(M) for all E∈K(Ri(M)).
It remains to prove (1) and that
σiM maps K(M) to K(Ri(M)) and
σˉiRi(M) maps K(Ri(M)) to K(M).
Then the equations in (2) follow from Lemma 2.2.
We prove that σiM(E)∈K(Ri(M)) for all E∈K(M), and
that the part of (1) regarding σiM holds. The
analogous claims for σˉiRi(M) can be shown similarly.
Let E∈K(M). Assume first that Mi⊂E,
and let F=E∩KiM.
Since KiM is an N0θ-graded algebra
in HHYD, F is an N0θ-graded
subalgebra of B(M) in HHYD. Further,
E=FB(Mi) by Lemma 2.2.
By Lemma 5.5 (1)⇒(3), and
since ΩiM:KiM#B(Mi∗)→B(Ri(M)) is
an isomorphism of N0θ-graded Hopf algebras in HHYD,
we conclude that ΩiM(F)∈K(Ri(M)).
Further, Ri(M)i⊂ΩiM(F)
by (4.6) and
since (E∩KiM)−αi=0.
Assume now that Mi⊂E.
Since B(φiN):B(N)→B(Ri2(N)) is an
isomorphism of N0θ-graded braided Hopf algebras,
we conclude that
Ri2(M)i⊂E and
B(φiM)(E)∈K(Ri2(M)).
Further, Ri2(M) is i-finite.
Let
F=(ΩiRi(M))−1(B(φiM)(E)).
Then F⊂KiRi(M) by Cor. 5.3. Further, F is an
N0θ-graded subalgebra of KiRi(M) and a right coideal
subalgebra of KiRi(M)#B(Ri(M)i∗)
in HHYD by the definition of the
braided Hopf algebra structure of KiRi(M)#B(Ri(M)i∗).
By Lemma 5.5 (3)⇒(1),
σiM(E)=FB(Ri(M)i)∈K(Ri(M)).
Clearly, Ri(M)i⊂σiM(E), and hence we are done.
∎
Corollary 5.7**.**
Let M∈Fθ, i∈I, and E1,E2∈K(M).
Assume that M is i-finite and that HE1=HE2.
Then HσiM(E1)=HσiM(E2).
Proof.
Note that Mi=B(M)αi is irreducible in HHYD.
Hence Mi⊂E1 if and only if Mi⊂E2,
since HE1=HE2.
Assume first that Mi⊂E1. By Lemma 2.2,
El≃(El∩KiM)⊗B(Mi) as N0θ-graded objects in HHYD for l∈{1,2}.
Hence the claim follows from Thm. 5.6 and (4.6).
The case Mi⊂E1 is treated similarly.
∎
Corollary 5.8**.**
Let M∈Fθ and let i∈I. Then K(M) is finite if and
only if K(Ri(M)) is finite. In this case M is i-finite, and
K(M) and K(Ri(M)) have the same cardinality.
Proof.
If M is not i-finite, then Ri(M)=M, and hence
K(M)=K(Ri(M)) is infinite by Lemma 5.4.
If M is i-finite, then
the claim follows from the bijectivity of σiM in
Thm. 5.6.
∎
6. Construction of right coideal subalgebras
Let θ∈N and M=(M1,…,Mθ)∈Fθ.
Let
[TABLE]
where Ri and ri, i∈I, are defined in Sect. 4.
We say that M admits all reflections, if N is i-finite for all N∈Fθ(M) and
i∈I.
This is for example the case if (M1⊕⋯⊕Mθ)⊗m
is semisimple in HHYD for all m≥1 and the Gelfand-Kirillov
dimension of B(M) is finite, see [HS08, Thms. I, III].
Also, Cor. 5.8 and the definition of Fθ(M) yield the following.
Proposition 6.1**.**
Let M∈Fθ. Assume that K(M) is finite.
Then M admits all reflections.
Recall from [AHS08] the following crucial result.
Theorem 6.2**.**
[AHS08]**, [HS08, Thm. 6.10]
Let M∈Fθ.
If M admits all reflections, then C(M)=(I,Xθ(M),(ri∣Xθ(M))i∈I,(AX)X∈Xθ(M)) is a Cartan scheme.
Therefore, if M∈Fθ(M) and M admits all reflections, then we may attach
the Weyl groupoid W(M):=W(C(M)) to M. Later on, for brevity we will write
ri instead of ri∣Xθ(M).
In this section we associate a right coideal subalgebra
EN(w) of B(N) to any N∈Fθ(M) and w∈Hom(W(M),[N]).
Recall that k1∈K(N) for all N∈Fθ.
By Thm. 5.6, σˉiRi(N):K(Ri(N))→K(N) is a
bijection for all N∈Fθ and i∈I, where N is i-finite.
Definition 6.3**.**
Let M∈Fθ. Assume that M admits all reflections.
For all N∈Fθ(M),
m∈N0, i1,…,im∈I, let
EN()=k1 and
[TABLE]
Lemma 6.4**.**
Let M∈Fθ. Assume that M admits all reflections.
Let N∈Fθ(M),
m∈N0, and i1,…,im∈I.
Then
EN(i1,…,im) is the unique element E∈K(N)
with HE=HEN(i1,…,im).
Proof.
By Thm. 5.6,
[TABLE]
Let E∈K(N) with HE=HEN(i1,…,im), and let
E′=σimRim−1⋯Ri1(N)⋯σi1N(E).
By Cor. 5.7 the Hilbert series of E′ and of
σimRim−1⋯Ri1(N)⋯σi1N(EN(i1,…,im)) coincide. Hence HE′=1, and therefore
E′=k1.
Thus
[TABLE]
This proves the lemma.
∎
Definition 6.5**.**
Let M∈Fθ. Assume that M admits all reflections.
Let N∈Fθ(M), m∈N0 and i1,…,im,j∈I.
Let TjRj(N):B(Rj(N))→B(N) be the composition of the linear maps
[TABLE]
For all 1≤l≤m define βl[N](i1,…,im)∈Δ[N]re and Nl(i1,…,im)∈HHYD by
[TABLE]
(where β1N(i1,…,im)=αi1, and N1(i1,…,im)=Ni1).
We say that (i1,…,im) is N-admissible if
for all 1≤k≤m−1 and 1≤l≤m−k,
[TABLE]
Equivalently, (i1,…,im) is N-admissible if and only if
[TABLE]
Lemma 6.6**.**
Let M∈Fθ, and assume that M admits all reflections.
Let m∈N0, i1,…,im∈I and N∈Fθ(M).
Assume that (i1,…,im) is N-admissible. For all 1≤l≤m let
βl=βl[N](i1,…,im), and
Nβl=Nl(i1,…,im).
Then
- (1)
β1,…,βm* are pairwise distinct elements in N0θ.*
2. (2)
For all 1≤l≤m, Nβl⊂EN(i1,…,im) is a finite-dimensional irreducible
subobject in HHYD
of degree βl, and Nβl≃Ril−1⋯Ri2Ri1(N)il in HHYD.
3. (3)
For all 1≤l≤m, the subalgebra k⟨Nβl⟩ of B(N) generated by Nβl is isomorphic to B(Nβl) as an algebra and as an N0θ-graded object in HHYD, where Nβl has degree βl.
4. (4)
The multiplication map k⟨Nβm⟩⊗⋯⊗k⟨Nβ1⟩→EN(i1,…,im)
is an isomorphism of N0θ-graded objects in HHYD.
Proof.
The cases m=0,1 are
clear since Nαi1=Ni1, and EN(i1)=B(Ni1) by
Thm. 5.6. Let m>1 and assume that (i1,…,im) is
N-admissible. Then (i2.…,im) is Ri1(N)-admissible. To prove
the Lemma for (i1,…,im) we may assume by induction that (1)–(4)
hold for (i2,…,im), that is, if we define
[TABLE]
for all 1≤l≤m−1, then
- (a)
γ1,…,γm−1 are pairwise distinct elements in N0θ.
2. (b)
For all 1≤l≤m−1, Ri1(N)γl⊂ERi1(N)(i2,…,im)⊂B(Ri1(N)) is an irreducible finite-dimensional subobject in HHYD of degree γl.
3. (c)
For all 1≤l≤m−1, the subalgebra k⟨Ri1(N)γl⟩ of B(Ri1(N)) generated by Ri1(N)γl is isomorphic to B(Ri1(N)γl) as an algebra and as an N0θ-graded object in HHYD, where Ri1(N)γl has degree γl.
4. (d)
The multiplication map
[TABLE]
is an isomorphism of N0θ-graded objects in HHYD.
By Definition 6.3
[TABLE]
By assumption, αi1=γl for all 1≤l≤m−1.
Hence by degree reasons it follows from (d) that
Ri1(N)i1⊂ERi1(N)(i2…,im), since by (b) Ri1(N)γl has
degree γl for all 1≤l≤m−1, and γ1,…,γm−1∈N0θ by (a).
Then
[TABLE]
and
(Ωi1N)−1(ERi1(N)(i2,…,im))⊂Ki1N by
Thm. 5.6.
Thus the multiplication map
[TABLE]
is bijective. Moreover the restriction of the map Ti1Ri1(N) to
ERi1(N)(i2,…,im) is the restriction of the algebra
isomorphism (Ωi1N)−1. Therefore we obtain from (d) that the
multiplication map
[TABLE]
is bijective. Since
Ti1Ri1(N)(Ri1(N)γl)=Nβl+1
for all 1≤l≤m−1,
(4) follows from the bijectivity of the map in Eq. (6.2).
Note that si1ri1([N])(γl)=βl+1 for all 1≤l≤m−1. By (4.6) the subspace
Ti1Ri1(N)(Ri1(N)γl)=(Ωi1N)−1(Ri1(N)γl)=Nβl+1 of B(N)
has degree
βl+1 for all 1≤l≤m−1. By definition Nβ1=Ni1 has degree β1=αi1.
It now follows from (4) that βl∈N0θ for all 1≤l≤m. Thus (1) holds by
the characterization of N-admissibility via Eq. (6.1).
Finally,
(2) and (3) follow from (b) and (c) since (Ωi1N)−1 is an
algebra isomorphism in HHYD, and the change of grading is
given by (4.6).
∎
Lemma 6.7**.**
Let M∈Fθ, and assume that M admits all reflections.
Let m∈N0, i1,…,im∈I and N∈Fθ(M). For all
1≤l≤m let
βl=βl[N](i1,…,im).
- (1)
Let j∈I and assume that αj∈/{β1,…,βm} and that (i1,…,im) is N-admissible. Then (j,i1,…,im) is Rj(N)-admissible.
2. (2)
Assume that αj∈{β1,…,βm} for all j∈I and that (i1,…,im) is N-admissible. Then EN(i1,…,im)=B(N).
3. (3)
Assume that C(M) is the Cartan scheme of a root system. Then
(i1,…,im) is N-admissible if and only if id[N]si1⋯sim is a reduced expression.
Proof.
(1) holds by definition, and (2) follows from Lemma
6.6 (2) since Nj⊂EN(i1,…,im) for all j∈I implies that EN(i1,…,im)=B(N).
Suppose in (3) that (i1,…,im) is N-admissible. Then id[N]si1⋯sim is a reduced expression
by Lemma 6.6 (1) and Prop. 1.9. Conversely,
suppose that id[N]si1⋯sim is a reduced expression. Then
β1,…,βm are pairwise distinct elements in
N0θ by Prop. 1.4.
Hence (i1,…,im) is N-admissible.
∎
We recall a notion from [HS08].
Definition 6.8**.**
Let N∈Fθ. Then the
Nichols algebra B(N) of N is called decomposable
if there exist a totally ordered index set (L,≤) and a family
(Wl)l∈L of finite-dimensional irreducible N0θ-graded objects in
HHYD
such that
[TABLE]
as N0θ-graded objects in HHYD, where degNi=αi
for 1≤i≤θ.
In such a decomposition the isomorphism classes of the
Yetter-Drinfeld modules Wl and
their degrees in N0θ are uniquely determined by
[HS08, Lemma 4.7], and we define the positive roots
Δ+[N]
and the roots Δ[N] of [N] by
[TABLE]
In [HS08] we showed
Theorem 6.9**.**
[HS08, Thm. 6.11]**
Let M∈Fθ and assume that M admits all reflections and that
B(M) is decomposable. Then
B(N) is decomposable for all N∈Fθ(M), and
R(M)=(C(M),(ΔX)X∈Xθ(M))
is a root system of type C(M).
Corollary 6.10**.**
Let M∈Fθ and assume that M admits all reflections and that
B(M) is decomposable.
Let N∈Fθ(M) and λ∈Δ+[N]re.
- (1)
There is exactly one l(λ)∈L with λ=degWl(λ) in (6.3).
2. (2)
Let
P∈Fθ(M),
w=id[N]si1⋯sim∈Hom([P],[N])
be a reduced expression and i∈I
such that w(αi)=λ. Let Nλ=Nm+1(i1,…,im,i)⊂B(N). Then degNλ=λ, Wl(λ)≃Pi≃Nλ in HHYD, and k⟨Nλ⟩≅B(Wl(λ)) as algebras and N0θ-graded objects in
HHYD.
3. (3)
Let j∈I, μ=sjN(λ), Q=Rj(N),
and assume that λ=αj. Similarly to
Nλ in (2), define Qμ using a
reduced expression of an element w′∈Hom(W(M),[Q]). Then Nλ≃Qμ in HHYD.
Proof.
(1) is shown in [HS08, Lemma 7.1 (1)], and in (2),
Wl(λ)≃Pi by [HS08, Lemma 7.1 (2)]. Since
id[N]si1⋯sim is a reduced expression, (i1,…,im) is
N-admissible by Lemma 6.7 (3). Then
(i1,…,im,i) is N-admissible: Indeed,
λ=βm+1[N](i1,…,im,i)∈N0θ, and hence it
differs from all −βl[N](i1,…,im,i) with 1≤l≤m by
Lemma 6.6 (1).
The remaining part of (2)
follows from Lemma 6.6 since
P≃Rim⋯Ri1(N).
Now we prove (3).
Since λ=αj, μ∈Δ+[P]re, and
hence Qμ can be defined.
By (2), Qμ is independent of the choice of w′. Hence we may choose
w′=sjw. Then (2) yields that
Nλ≃Pi and Qμ≃Pi in HHYD, which proves
the claim.
∎
In the next lemma, which will be needed for Thm. 6.12,
we follow the notation in Cor. 6.10.
For each λ∈Δ+[N]re we choose wλ∈Hom(W(M),[N]),
a reduced expression id[N]sj1⋯sjn of
wλ,
and i∈I such that wλ(αi)=λ. Then we define
[TABLE]
By Cor. 6.10, the isomorphism class of Nλ∈HHYD
does not depend on wλ and i.
Lemma 6.11**.**
Let M∈Fθ and N∈Fθ(M). Assume that M admits all
reflections and that B(M) is decomposable.
Let m∈N0, i1,…,im∈I.
Then there exists an isomorphism
[TABLE]
of N0θ-graded objects in HHYD.
Proof.
We proceed by induction on m. Since EN()=k1, the claim holds for
m=0.
Assume now that m>0. Let P=Ri1(N), and assume that
[TABLE]
Case 1: αi1∈/Λ+[P](i2,…,im).
Then Pi1⊂E by degree reasons, and (Ωi1P)−1(E)⊂Ki1N by Cor. 5.3. Hence
[TABLE]
in HHYD. Here the first two equations follow by definition,
and the isomorphism is obtained from Lemma 2.2 and since
(Ωi1N)−1 is a morphism in HHYD.
Now, degPλ=si1P(λ) for all λ∈Λ+[P](i2,…,im) by (4.6).
Further, Nsi1P(λ)≃Pλ in HHYD by
Cor. 6.10 (3).
Thus the claim follows from Lemma 1.8.
Case 2: αi1∈Λ+[P](i2,…,im).
Then E≃(E∩Ki1P)⊗B(Pi1) as N0θ-graded objects in HHYD by Lemma 2.2,
and hence
[TABLE]
as N0θ-graded objects in HHYD
by Eq. (6.5) and [HS08, Lemma 4.8].
Therefore
[TABLE]
as N0θ-graded objects in HHYD,
where degPλ=si1P(λ), see
(4.6). Indeed, the first two
equations hold by definition, and the isomorphism follows from
Eq. (6.6) and since Ωi1P and B(φi1N) are morphisms in HHYD.
By Cor. 6.10 (3) we may replace Pλ by
Nsi1P(λ), and then the claim follows from
Lemma 1.8.
∎
Theorem 6.12**.**
Let M∈Fθ, and assume that M admits all reflections and that
B(M) is decomposable. Let N∈Fθ(M).
Then for all w∈Hom(W(M),[N]) the right coideal subalgebra
[TABLE]
where m≥0 and 1≤i1,…,im≤θ such that
w=id[N]si1⋯sim,
is independent of the choice of
i1,…,im. The map
[TABLE]
is injective, order preserving, and order reflecting, where the set of
morphisms Hom(W(M),[N]) is ordered by the right Duflo
order and right coideal subalgebras are ordered with respect to inclusion.
Proof.
To prove that ϰN is a well-defined map, assume that
w=id[N]si1⋯sim=id[N]sj1⋯sjn in
Hom(W(M),[N]), where 1≤i1,…,im,j1,…jn≤θ, m,n≥0. By Prop. 1.9, Λ+[N](i1,…,im)=Λ+[N](j1,…,jn). Hence by Lemma 6.11 the Hilbert
series of EN(i1,…,im) and of EN(j1,…,jn) coincide, and by
Lemma 6.4 EN(i1,…,im)=EN(j1,…,jn).
Let w,w′∈Hom(W(M),[N]) with EN(w)=EN(w′). Then
Λ+[N](w)=Λ+[N](w′) by Lemma 6.11
and [HS08, Lemma 4.7]. Therefore w=w′
by Prop. 1.9. Thus ϰN is injective.
By Thm. 1.13 ϰN is order preserving and order
reflecting if and only if the following are equivalent for all w1,w2∈Hom(W(M),[N]).
- (1)
EN(w1)⊂EN(w2),
2. (2)
Λ+[N](w1)⊂Λ+[N](w2).
To prove the equivalence of (1) and (2) we proceed by induction on ℓ(w1). If w1=id[N], then EN(w1)=k1,
Λ+[N](w1)=∅ and hence
(1) and (2) are both true. If ℓ(w1)=1, then w1=siri([N]) for
some i∈I. Then Λ+[N](w1)=αi and EN(w1)=B(Ni).
Hence (2) is equivalent to (1)
by Lemma 6.11, since if Ni⊂EN(w2),
then EN(w1)=B(Ni)⊂EN(w2).
Assume now that ℓ(w1)>1. Let i∈I
with ℓ(w1)=ℓ(w)+1 for w=siNw1.
Then
[TABLE]
by Cor. 1.10. Therefore
Lemma 1.8 implies that
(2) holds if and only if
[TABLE]
Since αi=Λ+[N](siri([N])),
the induction hypothesis gives that the relations in (6.8)
are equivalent to
Ni⊂EN(w2), ERi(N)(siNw1)⊂ERi(N)(siNw2).
Since Ni⊂EN(w1) by Lemma 6.11 and
by (6.7), the latter is equivalent to (1) by
Thm. 5.6.
∎
Corollary 6.13**.**
Let M∈Fθ, N∈Fθ(M), and assume that M admits all reflections and that B(M) is decomposable. Let w1,w2∈Hom(W(M),[N])
with EN(w1)⊂EN(w2).
Then there are m,n∈N0, m≤n, and
i1,…,in∈I such that
w1=id[N]si1⋯sim and w2=id[N]si1⋯sin
are reduced expressions. Let
[TABLE]
for all 1≤l≤n. Then
- (1)
For all 1≤l≤n, Nβl⊂B(N) is an irreducible finite-dimensional subobject in HHYD of degree βl, and βk=βl for all k=l.
2. (2)
For all 1≤l≤n, the subalgebra k⟨Nβl⟩ of B(N) generated by Nβl is isomorphic to B(Nβl) as an algebra and as an N0θ-graded object in HHYD, where Nβl has degree βl.
3. (3)
The multiplication maps
[TABLE]
are bijective. In particular, EN(w2) is a free right module over EN(w1).
Proof.
By Thm. 6.12 w1≤Dw2. Hence by definition of the
Duflo order, any reduced presentation w1=id[N]si1⋯sim of
w1 can be extended to a reduced presentation w2=id[N]si1⋯sim⋯sin of w2. Then (1),(2) and (3) follow from Lemma
6.6 and Lemma 6.7 (3).
∎
The following results generalize properties of commutators and coproducts
of PBW generators of quantized enveloping algebras.
Theorem 6.14**.**
Let M∈Fθ, N∈Fθ(M), and assume that M admits all reflections and that B(M) is decomposable. Let n∈N0,
i1,…,in∈I, and w=id[N]si1⋯sin∈Hom(W(M),[N])
such that ℓ(w)=n. For all 1≤l≤n
let βl∈Δ[N]re
and Nβl⊂B(N) as in Lemma 6.6. Then
in EN(w)
[TABLE]
for all 1≤k<l≤n, x∈Nβk, y∈Nβl, and
[TABLE]
for all 1≤l≤n, x∈Nβl.
Proof.
By Cor. 6.13 and the definition of the Nβl,
for the proof of Eq. (6.9) it is enough to consider the case
k=1, l=n. In that case
[TABLE]
since y∈Ki1N and x∈Ni1. Further, deg(adx)(y)=β1+βn. But βm=β1=αi1 for all
2≤m≤n, and hence (adx)(y) has no summand with a factor in
k⟨Nβn⟩.
Now we prove Eq. (6.10).
Since EN(w′)∈K(N) for all w′∈Hom(W(M),[N]), by Cor. 6.13
it suffices to consider the case l=n. Since ΔB(N) is N0θ-graded and B(N) is a connected coalgebra, (that is z∈B(N), degz=0 implies that z∈k,) the claim follows by degree
reasons.
∎
Theorem 6.15**.**
Let M∈Fθ. Then the following are equivalent.
- (1)
K(M)* is finite.*
2. (2)
M* admits all reflections and the length of N-admissible sequences, where N∈Fθ(M), is bounded.*
3. (3)
M* admits all reflections and Δ[M]re is finite.*
Assume the equivalent conditions (1) – (3). Then B(M) is decomposable,
R(M)=(C(M),(ΔXre)X∈Xθ(M))
is a finite root system of type C(M), and for all N∈Fθ(M), the
map
[TABLE]
is bijective.
Proof.
Assume (2), and let t∈N such that t≥m for all N∈Fθ(M) and all N-admissible sequences (i1,…,im). We prove (1),
(3) and the second half of the theorem.
Suppose an m-tuple (i1,…,im) of elements in I is P-admissible
for some P∈Fθ(M). If there exists an element j∈I such that
αj=βl[P](i1,…,im) for all 1≤l≤m, then
(j,i1,…,im) is Rj(P)-admissible by definition,
and t≥m+1.
Let N∈Fθ(M). By the previous paragraph,
there is a largest integer m≥1 such that there is a
P-admissible sequence (im,…,i1) with P=Rim⋯Ri1(N). Hence EP(im,…,i1)=B(P) by Lemma 6.7
(2), and by Lemma 6.6 there is an isomorphism of N0θ-graded objects in HHYD
[TABLE]
where γ1,…,γm are pairwise distinct elements in
N0θ.
This means that the Nichols algebra of P is decomposable. Hence B(M) is
decomposable by [HS08, Lemma 6.8],
and the root system R(M)
exists by Thm. 6.9. Moreover R(M) is finite, and for all
objects X∈Xθ(M), 2m=∣ΔXre∣ and m=∣Δ+Xre∣. This
proves (3).
We note that id[P]sim⋯si1 is a reduced expression by
Lemma 6.7 (3). Therefore the inverse id[N]si1⋯sim is a reduced expression. It cannot be extended to a reduced
expression id[Rj(N)]sjsi1⋯sim, 1≤j≤θ, by Lemma 6.6 (1) since m=∣Δ+Rj(N)re∣.
Thus by Lemma 6.7 (1),(2),
EN(w0)=B(N), where w0=id[N]si1⋯sim.
By Thm. 6.12, ϰN is injective.
To prove surjectivity of ϰN, let E∈K(N). Let w∈Hom(W(M),[N]) be a shortest element such that
E⊂EN(w). Such a w exists, since R(M) is finite, hence
Hom(W(M),[N]) is finite by Lemma 1.2 and
E⊂EN(w0)=B(N).
We prove by induction on ℓ(w) that E=EN(w).
Assume first that ℓ(w)=0. Then k1⊂E⊂EN(id[N])=k1
and hence E=EN(id[N]).
Assume now that ℓ(w)>0. Then E=k1 by the minimality of w.
By Lemma 5.1 there exists i∈I such that
Ni⊂E. Then Ni⊂EN(w), and hence
w=siri([N])w′ by Cor. 6.13 with w1=siri([N]) and
w2=w, where w′=siNw and ℓ(w)=ℓ(w′)+1. Further,
σiN(E)⊂σiN(EN(w))=ERi(N)(w′) by Thm. 5.6.
Hence
[TABLE]
for some w′′∈Hom(W(M),ri([N])) by induction hypothesis. Thus
[TABLE]
Hence ϰN is bijective.
In particular, ϰM is bijective. Therefore (1) holds since
Hom(W(M),[M]) is finite by Lemma 1.2.
Finally we prove (1) ⇒ (2) and (3) ⇒ (2).
Assume (1) and let t=#(K(M)).
First, M admits all reflections by
Prop. 6.1. Hence #(K(M))=#(K(N))=t for all N∈Fθ(M) by Cor. 5.8. It follows from Lemma
6.6 (4) that for all N∈Fθ(M) the length of
N-admissible sequences (i1,…,im) is bounded by t since
EN(i1,…,ik)=EN(i1,…,il) for all k,l with
1≤k<l≤m.
Assume (3). Let t=#(ΔMre). Since the Weyl groupoid is connected it
follows that
#(ΔMre)=#(ΔNre)=t for all N∈Fθ(M).
By Lemma 6.6 the length of admissible sequences is bounded by
t.
∎
Corollary 6.16**.**
Let M∈Fθ. Assume that M admits all reflections and that Δ[M]re is
finite. Then B(M) is decomposable and
R(M)=(C(M),(ΔXre)X∈Xθ(M))
is a finite root system of type C(M).
Let w∈Hom(W(M),[M]) be a longest element. Let m=ℓ(w) and
let w=id[M]si1⋯sim be a reduced decomposition.
For each l∈{1,…,m} let βl∈Δ+[M] and Nβl⊂B(M) as in Lemma 6.6.
Then for each l∈{1,…,m} the identity on
Nβl induces an isomorphism
k⟨Nβl⟩≃B(Nβl)
of N0θ-graded objects in HHYD, where Nβl has
degree βl. Further, the multiplication map
[TABLE]
is an isomorphism of N0θ-graded objects in HHYD.
Proof.
The first claim is proven in Thm. 6.15.
The rest follows from
Lemma 6.6 and Lemma 6.7 (3).
∎
Corollary 6.17**.**
Let M∈Fθ. Assume that M admits all reflections and that Δ[M]re is
finite.
Then there exist order preserving bijections between
- (1)
the set of N0θ-graded right coideal subalgebras of B(M)#H containing H,
2. (2)
the set of N0θ-graded right coideal subalgebras of B(M) in HHYD,
3. (3)
Hom(W(M),[M]),
where right coideal subalgebras are ordered with respect to inclusion and
the set
Hom(W(M),[M]) is ordered by the right Duflo
order.
Proof.
See Thm. 6.15 for the bijection between (2) and (3)
and Prop. 2.3 for the bijection between (1) and (2).
∎
Remark 6.18*.*
Assume that W(M) is standard, that is,
for each N∈Fθ(M) we have
aijN=aijM for all i,j∈I. Then Hom(W(M),[M]) can be
identified with the Weyl group W of g, see
[CH09, Thm. 3.3(1)].
7. Right coideal subalgebras of U≥0
In this section we are going to establish a close relationship between the maps
TjRj(M), see Def. 6.5, and Lusztig’s automorphisms
Tα of quantized enveloping algebras.
Let g be a finite-dimensional complex semisimple Lie algebra and let
Π be a basis of the root system with respect to a fixed Cartan subalgebra.
Let W be the Weyl group of g and let (⋅,⋅) be
the invariant scalar product on the real vector space generated by Π
such that (α,α)=2 for all short roots in each component. For
each α∈Π let dα=(α,α)/2.
Let U=Uq(g) be the quantized enveloping algebra of g
in the sense of [Jan96, Ch. 4].
More precisely, let
k be a field with char(k)=2, and if g has a component
of type G2, then assume additionally that char(k)=3. Let q∈k with q=0 and qn=1 for all n∈N.
As a unital associative algebra, U is defined over k
with generators Kα,Kα−1,Eα,Fα,
where α∈Π, and relations given in [Jan96, 4.3].
By [Jan96, Prop. 4.11]
there is a unique Hopf algebra structure on U such that
[TABLE]
For all m∈N, α∈Π let
qα=qdα,
[m]α=(qαm−qα−m)/(qα−qα−1),
[m]α!=∏i=1m[i]α and Eα(m)=Eαm/[m]α!,
Fα(m)=Fαm/[m]α!.
By [Jan96, 8.14] there exist unique algebra automorphisms Tα, α∈Π of U such that
[TABLE]
α=β,
where ad denotes the usual left adjoint action of U on itself.
As in [Jan96, 4.6, 4.22], let U+ and U≥0
be the subalgebras of U
generated by the sets {Eα∣α∈Π} and {Kα,Kα−1,Eα∣α∈Π}, respectively.
Recall that U+∈U0U0YD via the left action ad∣U0 and left
coaction
[TABLE]
Identify now Π with I={1,…,θ}, where θ=#Π
is the rank of g. Let α∈Π.
Following the notation in Sect. 4 we obtain that
M=(kEβ)β∈Π∈Fθ and that Rα(M)=(Rα(M)β)β∈Π∈Fθ, where
[TABLE]
Let
ϑα:M1⊕⋯⊕Mθ→Rα(M)1⊕⋯⊕Rα(M)θ,
[TABLE]
for all β∈Π,
where Eα∗∈(kEα)∗ such that Eα∗(Eα)=1.
Note that
[TABLE]
In particular, [M]=[Rα(M)] in Xθ.
Nevertheless ϑα is an isomorphism
of braided vector spaces. Indeed, the braiding c satisfies
[TABLE]
for all β,γ∈Π because of the W-invariance of (⋅,⋅). Hence B(ϑα):B(M)→B(Rα(M)) is an
isomorphism of N0θ-graded algebras and coalgebras.
Proposition 7.1**.**
Let α∈Π. Let
ια:KαM#B(Mα∗)→U be the linear map with ια(x#(Eα∗)m)=(qα−1−qα−3)mx(FαKα)m
for all x∈KαM, m∈N0.
Then ια is an injective algebra map, and
the following diagram is commutative.
[TABLE]
Proof.
We first prove that ια is an algebra map. By definition, ια∣KαM#1 and ια∣1#B(Mα∗) are algebra maps.
By Prop. 4.1 (i), the algebra KαM
is generated by the elements ad(Eα(n))Eβ, β∈Π∖{α}, 0≤n≤−aαβ, and the algebra B(Mα∗) is generated by Eα∗.
Further,
[TABLE]
for all β∈Π∖{α} and 0≤n≤−aαβ
by Eq. (3.3), where ∂Eα∗L(x)=⟨Eα∗,x(1)⟩x(2) for all x∈KαM.
By [Jan96, 8A.5(2)] we obtain that
∂Eα∗L(Eβ)=0 and
[TABLE]
for all β∈Π∖{α} and 1≤n≤−aαβ.
Since FαKαEβ=q(α,β)EβFαKα for all
β∈Π∖{α},
it suffices to prove that the following relations hold in U.
[TABLE]
where
β∈Π∖{α} and 1≤n≤−aαβ.
The latter equations follow from [Jan96, 8.9 (2)].
The injectivity of ια follows immediately from the triangular
decomposition of U. Since all maps in the diagram (7.10) are algebra
maps, it is enough to check that the diagram commutes on the algebra
generators Eβ, β∈Π, of U+.
This follows directly from the definitions of the maps
involved.
∎
Remark 7.2*.*
Prop. 7.1 implies that the PBW basis of U+ given in
[Jan96, Thm. 8.24] coincides with the PBW basis in
Cor. 6.16. Let us indicate a proof.
First observe that W(M) is standard, since M is a Yetter-Drinfeld
module of Cartan type [AHS08, Rem. 3.27].
This means that for each N∈Fθ(M) we have
aijN=aijM for all i,j∈I. Hence Hom(W(M),[M]) can be
identified with the Weyl group W of g, see
[CH09, Thm. 3.3(1)].
Let α,β,γ∈Π such that ℓ(sαsβsγ)=3. There exists a commutative diagram
[TABLE]
such that the unlabelled vertical arrows are isomorphisms of N0θ-graded algebras and coalgebras. The existence of such maps can
be concluded by considering Fθ as a category, where morphisms between
M,N∈Fθ are bijective maps
f:M1⊕⋯⊕Mθ→N1⊕⋯⊕Nθ preserving the braiding and satisfying
f(Mi)⊂Ni for each i∈I. Then Ri:Fθ→Fθ
becomes a functor, and for example the vertical arrow left to
B(ϑβ) is just
B(Rγ(ϑβ)).
The PBW generators of B(M) constructed in Cor. 6.16
arise as images (at the lower right corner)
of appropriate generators of the Nichols algebras in the
lower line.
Similarly, the PBW generators of B(M) arise by
applying the maps Tα, Tβ, …appropriately
to the algebras B(M) at the diagonal.
Then Prop. 7.1 gives that the images obtained this way
coincide.
Let w be an element of the Weyl group W,
let m=ℓ(w), and let sα1⋯sαm be a reduced
decomposition of w. Recall from [Jan96, 8.24]
that U+[w]⊂U+ is the linear span of the products
[TABLE]
where Eβl=Tα1⋯Tαl−1(Eαl) for all 1≤l≤m.
Theorem 7.3**.**
The map ϰ from W to the set of right coideal subalgebras of
U≥0 containing U0, given by ϰ(w)=U+[w]U0,
is an order preserving bijection.
Proof.
Subalgebras of U≥0 containing U0 are N0θ-graded
by the non-degeneracy of (⋅,⋅) and since q is not a root of
1.
Thus the claim is a special case of Cor. 6.17, see also
Rem. 6.18 for the interpretation of W and
Rem. 7.2 for the equality of the PBW generators in
(7.11) and in Cor. 6.16.
∎
Remark 7.4*.*
In view of Cor. 6.17, the claim of Thm. 7.3
holds also for multiparameter deformations of g if qα is not
a root of 1 for all α∈Π.
Similarly, if qα is a root of 1 for all α∈Π, then
the claim of Thm. 7.3 holds for the (multiparameter version of)
small quantum groups, if we restrict ourselves to N0θ-graded
right coideal subalgebras.