This morning,
Michel Van den Bergh posted an interesting paper on the arXiv
entitled Double
Poisson Algebras. His main motivation was the construction of a
natural Poisson structure on quotient varieties of representations of
deformed multiplicative preprojective algebras (introduced by
Crawley-Boevey and Shaw in Multiplicative
preprojective algebras, middle convolution and the Deligne-Simpson
problem) which he achieves by extending his double Poisson structure
on the path algebra of the quiver to the 'obvious' universal
localization, that is the one by inverting all 1+aa⋆ for a an
arrow and a⋆ its double (the one in the other direction).
For me the more interesting fact of this paper is that his double
bracket on the path algebra of a double quiver gives finer information
than the _necklace Lie algebra_ as defined in my (old) paper with Raf
Bocklandt Necklace
Lie algebras and noncommutative symplectic geometry. I will
certainly come back to this later when I have more energy but just to
wet your appetite let me point out that Michel calls a _double bracket_
on an algebra A a bilinear map
{{−,−}} : A×A→A⊗A
which is a derivation in the _second_
argument (for the outer bimodulke structure on A) and satisfies
{{a,b}}=–{{b,a}}o with (u⊗v)0=v⊗u
Given such a double bracket one can define an ordinary
bracket (using standard Hopf-algebra notation)
{a,b}=∑{{a,b}}(1){{a,b}}(2)
which makes A into
a Loday
algebra and induces a Lie algebra structure on A/[A,A]. He then
goes on to define such a double bracket on the path algebra of a double
quiver in such a way that the associated Lie structure above is the
necklace Lie algebra.
Tag: noncommutative
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 CQ
determines a (non-commutative) manifold M, then the path algebra C˜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∈M as fiber the linear dual (TpM)∗ of
the tangent space. So, why do we claim that C˜Q
corresponds to the cotangent bundle of CQ? Fix a dimension vector
α=(m,n) then the representation space
repα Q=Mn×m(C)⊕Mn(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_ Mn×m(C)×Mm×n(C)→C : (A,B)↦tr(AB) Mn(C)×Mn(C)→C : (C,D)↦tr(CD) and therefore the linear dual
repα Q∗=Mm×n(C)⊕Mn(C) which is
the representation space repα Qs 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 repα Q T∗repα Q=repα ˜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˜Q
can be viewed as a non-commutative symplectic manifold with the
symplectic structure determined by the non-commutative 2-form
ω=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 CQ 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