11
$\begingroup$

I read the following motivation for quantum groups on wikipedia:

The discovery of quantum groups was quite unexpected, since it was known for a long time that compact groups and semisimple Lie algebras are "rigid" objects, in other words, they cannot be "deformed".

Why is that? Could one point me towards the concerned theorems?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Apparently someone already asked a similar question math.stackexchange.com/questions/876663/…, however it got an answer. $\endgroup$ – Anne O'Nyme Apr 4 '15 at 15:20
  • $\begingroup$ I can't be sure exactly what the author meant, but given a semisimple Lie algebra with a root system, roots are only allowed to be at very particular angles to one another. See here. To me, this seems to be the "rigidity" mentioned in your quoted passage. $\endgroup$ – André 3000 Apr 4 '15 at 15:37
10
$\begingroup$

Here's an algebraic approach to deformations:

Definition. Let $({\mathfrak g},[-,-])$ be a finite-dimensional Lie algebra over a field ${\mathbb k}$. An infinitesimal deformation (of order $2$) of ${\mathfrak g}$ is a ${\mathbb k}[t]/(t^2)$-Lie algebra structure on ${\mathfrak g}\otimes_{\mathbb k} {\mathbb k}[t]/(t^2)$ restricting to ${\mathfrak g}$ upon annihilating $t$.

In other words, we seek for Lie brackets $\widetilde{[-,-]}$ on ${\mathfrak g}\otimes_{\mathbb k} {\mathbb k}[t]/(t^2)$ which have the form $$(\ddagger)\qquad\widetilde{[X,Y]_\psi}\ \ =\ \ [X,Y] + t\psi(X,Y)\quad\text{ for some }\quad \psi: {\mathfrak g}\otimes_{\mathbb k}{\mathfrak g}\to{\mathfrak g};$$ however, not any such $\psi$ will yield a Lie algebra structure, since the validity of antisymmetry and the Jacobi identity will put restrictions on it - see below.

Note that there is always the constant deformation given by the ${\mathbb k}[t]/(t^2)$-linear extension of $$\widetilde{[X,Y]}_\text{triv}\quad:=\quad [X,Y]\quad\text{ for }\quad X,Y\in{\mathfrak g}.$$

Definition. A morphism of infinitesimal deformations $$({\mathfrak g}\otimes_{\mathbb k}{\mathbb k}[t]/(t^2),\widetilde{[-,-]})\to ({\mathfrak g}\otimes_{\mathbb k}{\mathbb k}[t]/(t^2),\widehat{[-,-]})$$ is a homomorphism of ${\mathbb k}[t]/(t^2)$-Lie algebras restricting to the identity on ${\mathfrak g}$ upon annihilating $t$.

In particular, call an infinitesimal deformation trivial if it is isomorphic to the constant deformation.

Theorem: Any infinitesimal deformation of a semisimple Lie algebra is trivial.

This follows from Lie algebra cohomology once one has made the above notions more explicit.

  1. A bilinear map $\psi: {\mathfrak g}\otimes_{\mathbb k}{\mathfrak g}\to{\mathfrak g}$ gives rise to a Lie algebra structure on ${\mathfrak g}\otimes_{\mathbb k}{\mathbb k}[t]/(t^2)$ via $(\ddagger)$ if and only if it is antisymmetric and a $2$-cocycle in the Cartan-Eilenberg complex computing the Lie algebra cohomology $\text{H}^{\ast}({\mathfrak g};({\mathfrak g},\text{ad}))$ of the adjoint representation.

  2. An isomorphism of deformations between the constant deformation and $({\mathfrak g}\otimes_{\mathbb k}{\mathbb k}[t]/(t^2),\widetilde{[-,-]}_\psi)$ has the form $X\mapsto X + t\varphi(X)$ for some $\varphi: {\mathfrak g}\to{\mathfrak g}$, and this morphism being compatible with the bracket turns out to be equivalent to $\psi=\text{d}\varphi$ in the Chevalley-Eilenberg complex.

Hence, if $\text{H}^2({\mathfrak g};({\mathfrak g},\text{ad}))=0$, any infinitesimal deformation is trivial. For semisimple Lie algebras, this is the case by the following

Theorem (Whitehead). If ${\mathfrak g}$ is semisimple, then $\text{H}^2({\mathfrak g};V)=0$ for all f.d. representations $V$ of ${\mathfrak g}$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Great answer. I always wondered precisely how these deformations were defined. Is it obvious that the quantum enveloping algebras correspond to such an infinitesimal deformation? $\endgroup$ – Tobias Kildetoft Apr 4 '15 at 17:07
  • $\begingroup$ @Hanno Very nice, though with my background the final argument related to Cartan Eilenberg complex and so are somewhat obscure... Btw how is the bracket $\widehat{[-,-]}$ defined? And referring to the remark above, I just though that one deformed the UEA instead of the algebra itself because that yielded non-trivial deformations? $\endgroup$ – Anne O'Nyme Apr 6 '15 at 8:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AnneO'Nyme: Given some $\psi: {\mathfrak g}\otimes{\mathfrak g}\to{\mathfrak g}$, you can define a bracket from it via $(\ddagger)$, with its antisymmetry being equivalent to the antisymmetry of $\psi$ and with the Jacobi identity being equivalent to $\psi$ being a $2$-cocycle in the CE-complex. The brackets $\widehat{[-,-]}$ and $\widetilde{[-,-]}$ are just two so obtained brackets. $\endgroup$ – Hanno Apr 6 '15 at 8:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AnneO'Nyme: Concerning last question, I agree: the quantum group is a deformation of the UEA as an algebra (not as a Hopf algebra), and in this context, nontrivial deformations do exist. $\endgroup$ – Hanno Apr 6 '15 at 8:26
  • $\begingroup$ @TobiasKildetoft: Thank you! Yes I think so - the quantum group should correspond to some Hochschild cohomology class of the ordinary UEA, although I haven't checked that. $\endgroup$ – Hanno Apr 6 '15 at 8:27

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.