Skip to content →

Tag: Cuntz

cotangent bundles

Published September 9, 2004 by lievenlb

The
previous post in this sequence was [moduli spaces][1]. Why did we spend
time explaining the connection of the quiver
$Q~:~\xymatrix{\vtx{} \ar[rr]^a & & \vtx{} \ar@(ur,dr)^x} $
to moduli spaces of vectorbundles on curves and moduli spaces of linear
control systems? At the start I said we would concentrate on its _double
quiver_ $\tilde{Q}~:~\xymatrix{\vtx{} \ar@/^/[rr]^a && \vtx{}
\ar@(u,ur)^x \ar@(d,dr)_{x^*} \ar@/^/[ll]^{a^*}} $ Clearly,
this already gives away the answer : if the path algebra $C Q$
determines a (non-commutative) manifold $M$, then the path algebra $C
\tilde{Q}$ determines the cotangent bundle of $M$. Recall that for a
commutative manifold $M$, the cotangent bundle is the vectorbundle
having at the point $p \in M$ as fiber the linear dual $(T_p M)^*$ of
the tangent space. So, why do we claim that $C \tilde{Q}$
corresponds to the cotangent bundle of $C Q$? Fix a dimension vector
$\alpha = (m,n)$ then the representation space
$\mathbf{rep}_{\alpha}~Q = M_{n \times m}(C) \oplus M_n(C)$ is just
an affine space so in its point the tangent space is the representation
space itself. To define its linear dual use the non-degeneracy of the
_trace pairings_ $M_{n \times m}(C) \times M_{m \times n}(C)
\rightarrow C~:~(A,B) \mapsto tr(AB)$ $M_n(C) \times M_n(C)
\rightarrow C~:~(C,D) \mapsto tr(CD)$ and therefore the linear dual
$\mathbf{rep}_{\alpha}~Q^* = M_{m \times n}(C) \oplus M_n(C)$ which is
the representation space $\mathbf{rep}_{\alpha}~Q^s$ of the quiver
$Q^s~:~\xymatrix{\vtx{} & & \vtx{} \ar[ll] \ar@(ur,dr)} $
and therefore we have that the cotangent bundle to the representation
space $\mathbf{rep}_{\alpha}~Q$ $T^* \mathbf{rep}_{\alpha}~Q =
\mathbf{rep}_{\alpha}~\tilde{Q}$ Important for us will be that any
cotangent bundle has a natural _symplectic structure_. For a good
introduction to this see the [course notes][2] “Symplectic geometry and
quivers” by [Geert Van de Weyer][3]. As a consequence $C \tilde{Q}$
can be viewed as a non-commutative symplectic manifold with the
symplectic structure determined by the non-commutative 2-form
$\omega = da^* da + dx^* dx$ but before we can define all this we
will have to recall some facts on non-commutative differential forms.
Maybe [next time][4]. For the impatient : have a look at the paper by
Victor Ginzburg [Non-commutative Symplectic Geometry, Quiver varieties,
and Operads][5] or my paper with Raf Bocklandt [Necklace Lie algebras
and noncommutative symplectic geometry][6]. Now that we have a
cotangent bundle of $C Q$ is there also a _tangent bundle_ and does it
again correspond to a new quiver? Well yes, here it is
$\xymatrix{\vtx{} \ar@/^/[rr]^{a+da} \ar@/_/[rr]_{a-da} & & \vtx{}
\ar@(u,ur)^{x+dx} \ar@(d,dr)_{x-dx}} $ and the labeling of the
arrows may help you to work through some sections of the Cuntz-Quillen
paper…

[1]: http://www.neverendingbooks.org/index.php?p=39
[2]: http://www.win.ua.ac.be/~gvdwey/lectures/symplectic_moment.pdf
[3]: http://www.win.ua.ac.be/~gvdwey/
[4]: http://www.neverendingbooks.org/index.php?p=41
[5]: http://www.arxiv.org/abs/math.QA/0005165
[6]: http://www.arxiv.org/abs/math.AG/0010030

2 Comments

algebraic vs. differential nog

Published September 4, 2004 by lievenlb


OK! I asked to get side-tracked by comments so now that there is one I’d better deal with it at once. So, is there any relation between the non-commutative (algebraic) geometry based on formally smooth algebras and the non-commutative _differential_ geometry advocated by Alain Connes?
Short answers to this question might be (a) None whatsoever! (b) Morally they are the same! and (c) Their objectives are quite different!

As this only adds to the confusion, let me try to explain each point separately after issuing a _disclaimer_ that I am by no means an expert in Connes’ NOG neither in $C^* $-algebras. All I know is based on sitting in some lectures by Alain Connes, trying at several times to make sense of his terribly written book and indeed by reading the Landi notes in utter desperation.
(a) _None whatsoever!_ : Connes’ approach via spectral triples is modelled such that one gets (suitable) ordinary (that is, commutative) manifolds into this framework. The obvious algebraic counterpart for this would be a statement to the effect that the affine coordinate ring $\mathbb{C}[X] $ of a (suitable) smooth affine variety X would be formally smooth. Now you’re in for a first shock : the only affine smooth varieties for which this holds are either _points_ or _curves_! Not much of a geometry huh? In fact, that is the reason why I prefer to call formally smooth algebras just _qurves_ …
(b) _Morally they are the same_ : If you ever want to get some differential geometry done, you’d better have a connection on the tangent bundle! Now, Alain Connes extended the notion of a connection to the non-commutative world (see for example _the_ book) and if you take the algebraic equivalent of it and ask for which algebras possess such a connection, you get _precisely_ the formally smooth algebras (see section 8 of the Cuntz-Quillen paper “Algebra extensions and nonsingularity” Journal AMS Vol 8 (1991). Besides there is a class of $C^* $-algebras which are formally smooth algebras : the AF-algebras which also feature prominently in the Landi notes (although they are virtually never affine, that is, finitely generated as an algebra).
(c) _Their objectives are quite different!_ : Connes’ formalism aims to define a length function on a non-commutative manifold associated to a $C^* $-algebra. Non-commutative geometry based on formally smooth algebras has no interest in defining some sort of space associated to the algebra. The major importance of formally smooth algebras (as advocated by Maxim Kontsevich is that such an algebra A can be seen as a _machine_ producing an infinite family of ordinary commutative manifolds via its _representation varieties_ $\mathbf{rep}_n~A $ which are manifolds equipped with a $GL_n $-action. Non-commutative functions and diifferential forms defined at the level of the formally smooth algebra A do determine similar $GL_n $-invariant features on _all_ of these representation varieties at once.

Leave a Comment

path algebras

Published September 3, 2004 by lievenlb

The previous post can be found [here][1].
Pierre Gabriel invented a lot of new notation (see his book [Representations of finite dimensional algebras][2] for a rather extreme case) and is responsible for calling a directed graph a quiver. For example,

$\xymatrix{\vtx{} \ar@/^/[rr] & & \vtx{} \ar@(u,ur) \ar@(d,dr) \ar@/^/[ll]} $

is a quiver. Note than it is allowed to have multiple arrows between vertices, as well as loops in vertices. For us it will be important that a quiver $Q $ depicts how to compute in a certain non-commutative algebra : the path algebra $\mathbb{C} Q $. If the quiver has $k $ vertices and $l $ arrows (including loops) then the path algebra $\mathbb{C} Q $ is a subalgebra of the full $k \times k $ matrix-algebra over the free algebra in $l $ non-commuting variables

$\mathbb{C} Q \subset M_k(\mathbb{C} \langle x_1,\ldots,x_l \rangle) $

Under this map, a vertex $v_i $ is mapped to the basis $i $-th diagonal matrix-idempotent and an arrow

$\xymatrix{\vtx{v_i} \ar[rr]^{x_a} & & \vtx{v_j}} $

is mapped to the matrix having all its entries zero except the $(j,i) $-entry which is equal to $x_a $. That is, in our main example

$\xymatrix{\vtx{e} \ar@/^/[rr]^a & & \vtx{f} \ar@(u,ur)^x \ar@(d,dr)_y \ar@/^/[ll]^b} $

the corresponding path algebra is the subalgebra of $M_2(\mathbb{C} \langle a,b,x,y \rangle) $ generated by the matrices

$e \mapsto \begin{bmatrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix} $ $ f \mapsto \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 \end{bmatrix} $

$a \mapsto \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ a & 0 \end{bmatrix} $ $b \mapsto \begin{bmatrix} 0 & b \\ 0 & 0 \end{bmatrix} $

$x \mapsto \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & x \end{bmatrix} $ $y \mapsto \begin{bmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & y \end{bmatrix} $

The name \’path algebra\’ comes from the fact that the subspace of $\mathbb{C} Q $ at the $(j,i) $-place is the vectorspace spanned by all paths in the quiver starting at vertex $v_i $ and ending in vertex $v_j $. For an easier and concrete example of a path algebra. consider the quiver

$\xymatrix{\vtx{e} \ar[rr]^a & & \vtx{f} \ar@(ur,dr)^x} $

and verify that in this case, the path algebra is just

$\mathbb{C} Q = \begin{bmatrix} \mathbb{C} & 0 \\ \mathbb{C}[x]a & \mathbb{C}[x] \end{bmatrix} $

Observe that we write and read paths in the quiver from right to left. The reason for this strange convention is that later we will be interested in left-modules rather than right-modules. Right-minder people can go for the more natural left to right convention for writing paths.
Why are path algebras of quivers of interest in non-commutative geometry? Well, to begin they are examples of _formally smooth algebras_ (some say _quasi-free algebras_, I just call them _qurves_). These algebras were introduced and studied by Joachim Cuntz and Daniel Quillen and they are precisely the algebras allowing a good theory of non-commutative differential forms.
So you should think of formally smooth algebras as being non-commutative manifolds and under this analogy path algebras of quivers correspond to _affine spaces_. That is, one expects path algebras of quivers to turn up in two instances : (1) given a non-commutative manifold (aka formally smooth algebra) it must be \’embedded\’ in some non-commutative affine space (aka path algebra of a quiver) and (2) given a non-commutative manifold, the \’tangent spaces\’ should be determined by path algebras of quivers.
The first fact is easy enough to prove, every affine $\mathbb{C} $-algebra is an epimorphic image of a free algebra in say $l $ generators, which is just the path algebra of the _bouquet quiver_ having $l $ loops

$\xymatrix{\vtx{} \ar@(dl,l)^{x_1} \ar@(l,ul)^{x_2} \ar@(ur,r)^{x_i} \ar@(r,dr)^{x_l}} $

The second statement requires more work. For a first attempt to clarify this you can consult my preprint [Qurves and quivers][3] but I\’ll come back to this in another post. For now, just take my word for it : if formally smooth algebras are the non-commutative analogon of manifolds then path algebras of quivers are the non-commutative version of affine spaces!

[1]: http://www.neverendingbooks.org/index.php?p=71
[2]: http://www.booxtra.de/verteiler.asp?site=artikel.asp&wea=1070000&sh=homehome&artikelnummer=000000689724
[3]: http://www.arxiv.org/abs/math.RA/0406618

Leave a Comment