Example of a group whose quantum isometry group does not depend on the generating set
Arnab Mandal

TL;DR
This paper demonstrates that the quantum isometry group of the group C*-algebra for the integers remains unchanged regardless of the symmetric generating set, but this invariance does not hold for higher-dimensional integer lattices.
Contribution
It proves the invariance of the quantum isometry group for the integer group and shows the failure of this invariance for higher-dimensional free abelian groups.
Findings
Quantum isometry group of $C_r^*(bZ)$ is independent of the generating set.
Invariance does not extend to $bZ^n$ for $n>1$.
Results highlight differences in quantum symmetries between one-dimensional and higher-dimensional groups.
Abstract
In this article we have shown that the quantum isometry group of , denoted by as in \cite{gos_man}, with respect to a symmetric generating set does not depend on the generating set . Moreover, we have proved that the result is no longer true if the group is replaced by for .
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
**Example of a group whose quantum isometry group does not depend on the generating set **
Arnab Mandal
Abstract
In this article we have shown that the quantum isometry group of , denoted by as in [16], with respect to a symmetric generating set does not depend on the generating set . Moreover, we have proved that the result is no longer true if the group is replaced by for .
1 Introduction
Quantum groups are very important mathematical entities which appear in several areas of mathematics and physics, often as same kind of generalised symmetry objects. Beginning from the pioneering work by Drinfeld, Jimbo, Manin, Woronowicz and others nearly three decades ago ([14] [18], [24] and references therein) there is now a vast literature on quantum groups both from algebraic and analytic (operator algebraic) viewpoints. Generalizing group actions on spaces, notions of (co)actions of quantum groups on possibly noncommutative spaces have been formulated and studied by many mathematicians. In this context, S.Wang [23] came up with the definition of quantum automorphism groups of certain mathematical structures (typically finite sets, matrix algebras etc.) and such quantum groups have been studied in depth since then. Later on, a number of mathematicians including Banica, Bichon and others ([1] [9] and references therein) developed a theory of quantum automorphism groups of finite metric spaces and finite graphs. With a more geometric setup in 2009, Goswami [15] defined and proved existence of an analogue of the group of isometries of a Riemannian manifold, in the framework of the so-called compact quantum groups à la Woronowicz. In fact, he considered the more general setting of noncommutative manifold, given by spectral triples defined by Connes [12] and under some mild regularity conditions, he proved the existence of a universal compact quantum group (termed as the quantum isometry group) acting on the -algebra underlying the noncommutative manifold such that the action also commutes with a natural analogue of Laplacian of the spectral triple. Furthermore, Goswami and Bhowmick formulated [7] the notion of a quantum group analogue of the group of orientation preserving isometries and its existence as the universal object in a suitable category was proved. After that, several authors studied quantum isometry groups of different spectral triples in recent years.
In literature, we have an interesting as well as important spectral triple on [11], coming from the word length of a finitely generated discrete group corresponding to a symmetric generating set, say S. There have been several articles already on computations and study of the quantum isometry groups of such spectral triples, e.g. ([3], [5], [8], [16], [17], [13], [21], [22] and references therein). We denote it by as in [16]. It is already known that in general and are not isomorphic for different choices of and . Indeed, they are drastically different for certain choices of generating sets. For instance, if we choose n such that , then the group is isomorphic to . Consider the generating sets and respectively for . The underlying -algebra of is noncommutative by Theorem 4.10 of [16]. On the other hand, is the doubling of corresponding to the automorphism given by from [8]. Hence its underlying -algebra is commutative. They are non-isomorphic even in the vector space level. In this context, it is quite natural to find out the groups whose quantum isometry group does not depend on the generating set. Our main goal of this article is to provide one such example.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we recall some definitions and necessary facts regarding to compact quantum groups, quantum isometry groups and the doubling procedure of a compact quantum group. Section 3 contains the main results of this paper. In Theorem 3.1 we have proved that the quantum isometry group of remains unchanged if we change the generating sets. Theorem 3.11 tells us that this is no longer true if is replaced by for .
2 Preliminaries
First of all, we fix some notational convention. The algebraic tensor product and spatial (minimal) -tensor product are denoted by and respectively throughout the article. We’ll use the leg-numbering notation. Let be a complex Hilbert space, the -algebra of compact operators on it, and a unital -algebra. The multiplier algebra has two natural embeddings into , one obtained by extending the map and the second one is obtained by composing this map with the flip on the last two factors. We will write and for the images of an element under these two maps respectively. We’ll denote by the Hilbert -module obtained by completing with respect to the norm induced by the valued inner product , where and .
2.1 Compact quantum groups
In this subsection we recall some standard definitions related to compact quantum groups. We recommend [24], [19] for more details.
Definition 2.1
A compact quantum group (CQG in short) is a pair , where is a unital - algebra and is a unital -homomorphism (called the comultiplication), such that
* as homomorphism (coassociativity).* 2. 2.
The spaces and are dense in .
Sometimes we may denote the CQG simply as , if is clear from the context.
Definition 2.2
A CQG morphism from to another is a unital -homomorphism such that .
Definition 2.3
We say that a CQG acts on a unital -algebra if there is a unital -homomorphism (called action) satisfying the following:
. 2. 2.
Linear span of is norm-dense in .
Definition 2.4
Let be a CQG. A unitary representation of on a Hilbert space is a -linear map from to the Hilbert module such that
, where . 2. 2.
. 3. 3.
* is dense in .*
Given such a unitary representation we have a unitary element belonging to given by satisfying .
2.2 Quantum isometry groups
In [15] Goswami introduced the notion of quantum isometry group of a spectral triple satisfying certain regularity conditions. We refer to [15], [7], [3] for the original formulation of quantum isometry groups and its various avatars including the quantum isometry group for orthogonal filtrations.
Definition 2.5
Let be a spectral triple of compact type (a la Connes). Consider the category whose objects are , where is a CQG having a unitary representation U on the Hilbert space satisfying the following:
* commutes with .* 2. 2.
* for all and is any state on , where for .*
A morphism between two such objects and is a CQG morphism such that . If a universal object exists in then we denote it by and the corresponding largest Woronowicz subalgebra for which is faithful, where is the unitary representation of , is called the quantum group of orientation preserving isometries and denoted by .
Let us state Theorem of [7] which gives a sufficient condition for the existence of .
Theorem 2.6
Let be a spectral triple of compact type. Assume that has one dimensional kernel spanned by a vector which is cyclic and separating for and each eigenvector of belongs to . Then QISO exists.
Here we briefly discuss a specific case of interest for us. For more details see Section 2.2 of [16]. Let be a finitely generated discrete group with a symmetric generating set not containing the identitity of (symmetric means if and only if ) and let be the corresponding word length function. We define an operator by , where denotes the vector in which takes value at the point and [math] at all other points. Observe that forms an orthonormal basis of . Let be the canonical trace on the group -algebra given by , where e is the identity element of the group . Connes first considered this spectral triple , in [11]. It is easy to check that , is a spectral triple using Lemma 1.1 of [20]. Moreover, QISO, exists by Theorem 2.6, taking as the cyclic separating vector for . Note that its action (say) on is determined by
[TABLE]
where the matrix is called the fundamental unitary of .
2.3 Doubling of a CQG
We briefly recall the doubling procedure of a compact quantum group from [13], [21]. Let be a CQG with a CQG-automorphism such that . The doubling of this CQG, say , is given by (direct sum as a -algebra), and the coproduct is defined by the following, where we have denoted the injections of onto the first and second coordinate in by and respectively, i.e.
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
3 Main Results
Before going to the main theorem we make one convention. Inverse of any element is denoted by . We will also follow the same convention for where .
Theorem 3.1
For any symmetric generating set , the quantum isometry group is isomorphic to with respect to the automorphism given by .
*Proof :
*Let us assume that is any generating set for , i.e. . Without loss of generality we can assume that and . We would like to mention here that the largest number and the smallest number of the generating set will play a crucial role in the proof. For each there exists positive integers such that . Moreover, as . Now the action of on is defined as
[TABLE]
The fundamental unitary is of the form
[TABLE]
Our aim is to show that it reduces to the following:
[TABLE]
i.e. only the diagonal block survives and others become zero. First we will show that it reduces to the form
[TABLE]
i.e. . Using the antipode . We break the proof into a number of lemmas.
Lemma 3.2
**
*Proof :
*Consider the term forall . Comparing the coefficients of and on both sides of the relation we obtain as the right hand side of the equation does not contain any terms with coefficients and as well.
Our goal is to show that and are normal . Then by Lemma 3.2 one can conclude .
Lemma 3.3
If for some , then
*Proof :
*Using the relation comparing the coefficient of on both sides we have . Applying the antipode we obtain . This implies
We state three auxiliary lemmas (Lemma 3.4 to Lemma 3.6) whose proof will follow by exactly the same arguments used in Lemma 3.3. We omit the proofs.
Lemma 3.4
If , then
Lemma 3.5
If , then
Lemma 3.6
If , then
Lemma 3.7
.
*Proof :
*Comparing the coefficients of and from the relation one can get . Applying the antipode we have which implies . Similarly we can get from the relation .
Lemma 3.8
* with .*
*Proof :
*We will show that forall . By Lemma 3.7 we have . Then forall with will be proved. Other relations will follow by repeating the same line of arguments. Suppose for some fixed , we have for some , where the collection is considered with and . Also assume if is considered then we will not consider . Sometimes the sets and may be empty depending on the choice of the generating set . Note that the collections and are not necessarily singleton but finite. Now from the condition comparing the coefficient of one can deduce
[TABLE]
Multiplying and on the left hand side and right hand side respectively of the equation (3) we get
[TABLE]
Now the relation gives us . By Lemma 3.5 we have . Similarly, as from the assumed condition . Moreover, by Lemma 3.4, Lemma 3.5 and Lemma 3.6 we get
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
as and respectively. Using these relations and Lemma 3.7 the equation (3) reduces to
[TABLE]
This shows that as the left hand side of the equation (3) is the sum of positive elements of a -algebra. Similarly from the relation comparing the coefficient of we get that .
Lemma 3.9
* and are normal .*
*Proof :
*By the unitarity condition of we have
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Thus and by using Lemma 3.8. Hence, . Applying the antipode we get that is normal. Similarly, it can be shown that is normal.
By Lemma 3.2 and Lemma 3.9 we have Repeating the same arguments using from Lemma 3.2 to Lemma 3.9 we can conclude that the fundamental unitary finally reduces to the form as in (1), i.e.
[TABLE]
Note that and all the entries of the fundamental unitary are normal. Moreover for each , and are projections. We also have and . For every and , there exists positive integers and depending on such that . Using this condition one can easily get and . This gives us as . Thus by using that is projection and is normal. Finally we get that as and is normal. Similarly one can deduce that .
We can define the map from to by
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Clearly this gives an isomorphism between two CQG’s. .
Remark 3.10
From now on, the quantum isometry group can be written simply as .
Now we are going to show that the quantum isometry group of for depends on the generating set. We present the case for the simplicity of the exposition. The proof for any can be adapted similarly from the proof of Theorem 3.11. Let and be the two different generating sets for .
Theorem 3.11
* and are not isomorphic to each other.*
*Proof :
*First of all, note that by Proposition 2.29 and Theorem 4.1 of [16] we get that . We will show that is different from . Let us assume that and . The action is defined by
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
The fundamental unitary is of the form
[TABLE]
Note that the product of any two different elements of each row of the fundamental unitary is zero by the similar arguments of Lemma 3.8. Moreover, using Lemma 3.9 we get that all the entries are normal. Using the relation comparing the coefficients of and on both sides we have . Applying the antipode and involution we get . Similarly, comparing the coefficients of and from the same condition we have as well. This gives us as they are normal. Using the antipode and the involution we obtain .
Thus the fundamental unitary reduces to
[TABLE]
Observe that comparing the coefficients of and from the condition . Moreover, as . The underlying -algebra of is generated by the elements and . We also get that and comparing the coefficients of and on both sides from the relation . Clearly, the CQG is identified with . Note that the underlying -algebra of is isomorphic to . The isomorphism is defined as follows:
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where is the standard minimal generating set for . Thus as is isomorphic to . It is clearly not isomorphic with , hence we are done.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] Banica, T: Quantum automorphism groups of small metric spaces, Pacific J. Math. 219 (2005), no. 1, 27–51.
- 2[2] Banica, T: Quantum automorphism groups of homogeneous graphs, J. Funct. Anal. 224 (2005), no. 2, 243–280.
- 3[3] Banica, T and Skalski, A: Quantum symmetry groups of C ∗ superscript 𝐶 C^{*} -algebras equipped with orthogonal filtrations, Proceedings of the LMS, 106 (2013), no. 5, 980-1004.
- 4[4] Banica, T and Skalski, A: Two parameter families of quantum symmetry groups, J.Funct.Anal, 260 (2011), 3252-3282.
- 5[5] Banica, T and Skalski, A: Quantum isometry groups of duals of free powers of cyclic groups. Int.Math.Res.Not, 9 2012, 2094-2122.
- 6[6] Bhowmick, J and Goswami, D: Quantum isometry groups: examples and computations, Comm. Math. Phys, 285 (2009), 421-444.
- 7[7] Bhowmick, J and Goswami, D: Quantum group of orientation preserving Riemannian isometries, J. Funct. Anal, 257 (2009), 2530–2572.
- 8[8] Bhowmick, J and Skalski, A: Quantum isometry groups of noncommutative manifolds associated to group C ∗ superscript 𝐶 C^{*} algebras, J.Geom.Phys, 60 (2010), no.10, 1474-1489.
