Consider a coquasitriangular Hopf-algebra $(H,\mu,\eta,\Delta,\epsilon, S)$ over a field $\mathbb F$ with characteristic zero and the braided monoidal category $\mathcal C$ of $H$-right-comodules. We explicitly denote the coquasitriangular form of $H$ by $r$ and its convolution inverse by $r'$. A lengthy calculation yields the result that $H$ can be "transmutated" into an Hopf-algebra object in $\mathcal C$ by considering it as a comodule algebra over itself by the coadjoint coaction and redefining its multiplication and antipode. That is: $(H,\overline \mu,\eta, \Delta,\epsilon, \overline S)$ with \begin{align*} \overline \mu &: H \otimes_\mathcal C H \rightarrow H , h\otimes g \mapsto h_{(2)}g_{(2)} r(S(h_{(1)})h_{(3)} \otimes S(g_{(1)}))\\ \overline S &: H \rightarrow H , S(h_{(2)})r(S^2(h_{(3)})S(h_{(1)}) \otimes h_{(4)}) \end{align*} and comodule structure given by \begin{align*} \delta: H \rightarrow H \otimes_\mathbb F H, h \mapsto h_{(2)}\otimes S(h_{(1)})h_{(3)} \end{align*} is a Hopf-algebra object in $\mathcal C$.

What I would be interested in is a conceptual understanding of this method and some of its properties:

  1. Why is the coaction set to be the coadjoint coaction ?
  2. Is there a general technique involved in finding the fitting multiplication and antipode?
  3. What properties of the original Hopf algebra are preserved? 3a) Is there a connection between the category of modules over $\overline H$ and the category of (Yetter-Drinfeld) modules over $H$?
  4. Can this process be iterated?
  5. Is this construction functorial?
  1. First, it is maybe worth mentioning that the transmutated (or covariantized Hopf algebra) can be motivated by generalizing a result for (co)commutative Hopf algebras). Observe thatin the case where $H$ is commutative, there is no need to covariantize the product as $H$ already becomes a module algebra with respect to the coadjoint coaction.

This is why the coadjoint action is used. Coquasi-triangular conceptually means "almost commutative" for a Hopf algebra.

Another conceptual use of $\underline{H}$ is that it gives a way to view the Drinfeld double of Hopf algebras as a bosonozation. This, again, generalizes a result where the transmutation is not necessary for (co)commutative Hopf algebras and involves the (co)adjoing (co)action. See Majid's book [Foundations of Quantum Group Theory, Theorem 7.4.5] or the original papers.

  1. Yes, it is much more natural to understand such a construction after learning about a variation of Tannaka--Krein reconstruction within braided monoidal categories. An exposition of this can be found in Majid's book [Foundations of Quantum Group Theory] in Chapter 9.4. It may be worth reading the earlier sections of Chapter 9 first.

The point of the transmutation is then to find a braided Hopf algebra $\underline{H}$ within the category of $H$-comodules such that modules over it within this category capture all $H$-comodules. This can be done and the answer is the structure you describe. $\underline{H}$ is $H$ itself as a coalgebra, but it will need this new, "transmutated" product.

  1. $\underline{H}$ will be "braided commutative" in some sense, see Majid's book, 9.4.10.

  2. This is a good question. I suppose not in an obvious way on $H$. What can be done is to study the Hopf algebra bosonization (Radford biproduct) $\underline{H}\rtimes H$ and then covariantize this, as it should again be dual quasi-triangular due to $\underline{H}$ is in some sense braided commutative. But this would have to be investigated more carefully.

  3. You could look at the construction of $B(H_1,H)$ for a Hopf algebra inclusion $H_1\to H$ in Majid's book. The result is a braided Hopf algebra in $H_1$-comodules. This is not a full answer to functoriality of course, but it goes into that direction.

  • $\begingroup$ I don't think that in general $\underline{H}-comod(H-comod)\cong H-comod$ is true in general. Take as an example $H=\Bbbk[x]$. Then the coadjoint coaction is trivial (due to commutativity and cocommutativity). Also by commutativity, $\underline{\Bbbk[y]}=\Bbbk[y]$, where I denote the generator by $y$ to avoid confusion. Now, the category $\underline{H}-comod(H-comod)$ is equivalent to $\Bbbk[x,y]-comod$, which is not equivalent to $\Bbbk[x]-comod$. $\endgroup$ – Zahlendreher Jul 29 '17 at 13:25
  • $\begingroup$ What is true though is that there is a functor $H-comod\to \underline{H}-comod(H-comod)$. The coaction of $\underline{H}$ is the same as the original one of $H$. $\endgroup$ – Zahlendreher Jul 29 '17 at 13:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What is quite interesting though is that $\underline{H}-mod(H-comod)$ is equivalent to the category of Yetter-Drinfeld modules, the center of $H-comod$. $\endgroup$ – Zahlendreher Jul 29 '17 at 13:26
  • $\begingroup$ This is really interesting. I modified my original question accordingly because this deserves to be added to the answer. thank you for sharing your insights. $\endgroup$ – SeHa Jul 29 '17 at 14:00

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.