Tag: quivers

non-(commutative) geometry

Published June 21, 2006 by lievenlb

Now
that my non-geometry
post is linked via the comments in this
string-coffee-table post which in turn is available through a
trackback from the Kontsevich-Soibelman
paper it is perhaps useful to add a few links.

The little
I’ve learned from reading about Connes-style non-commutative geometry is
this : if you have a situation where a discrete group is acting with a
bad orbit-space (for example, $GL_2(\mathbb{Z})$ acting on the whole
complex-plane, rather than just the upper half plane) you can associate
to this a $C^*$-algebra and study invariants of it and interprete them
as topological information about this bad orbit space. An intruiging
example is the one I mentioned and where the additional noncommutative
points (coming from the orbits on the real axis) seem to contain a lot
of modular information as clarified by work of Manin&Marcolli and
Zagier. Probably the best introduction into Connes-style
non-commutative geometry from this perspective are the Lecture on
Arithmetic Noncommutative Geometry by Matilde Marcolli. To
algebraists : this trick is very similar to looking at the
skew-group algebra $\mathbb{C}[x_1,\ldots,x_n] * G$ if
you want to study the _orbifold_ for a finite group action on affine
space. But as algebraist we have to stick to affine varieties and
polynomials so we can only deal with the case of a finite group,
analysts can be sloppier in their functions, so they can also do
something when the group is infinite.

By the way, the
skew-group algebra idea is also why non-commutative algebraic
geometry enters string-theory via the link with orbifolds. The
easiest (and best understood) example is that of Kleinian singularities.
The best introduction to this idea is via the Representations
of quivers, preprojective algebras and deformations of quotient
singularities notes by Bill Crawley-Boevey.

Artin-style non-commutative geometry aka
non-commutative projective geometry originated from the
work of Artin-Tate-Van den Bergh (in the west) and Odeskii-Feigin (in
the east) to understand Sklyanin algebras associated to elliptic curves
and automorphisms via ‘geometric’ objects such as point- (and
fat-point-) modules, line-modules and the like. An excellent survey
paper on low dimensional non-commutative projective geometry is Non-commutative curves and surfaces by Toby
Stafford and
Michel Van den Bergh. The best introduction is the (also
neverending…) book-project Non-
commutative algebraic geometry by Paul Smith who
maintains a
noncommutative geometry and algebra resource page page (which is
also available from the header).

Non-geometry
started with the seminal paper ‘Algebra extensions and
nonsingularity’, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 8 (1995), 251-289 by Joachim
Cuntz and Daniel Quillen but which is not available online. An
online introduction is Noncommutative smooth
spaces by Kontsevich and Rosenberg. Surely, different people have
different motivations to study non-geometry. I assume Cuntz got
interested because inductive limits of separable algebras are quasi-free
(aka formally smooth aka qurves). Kontsevich and Soibelman want to study
morphisms and deformations of $A_{\infty}$-categories as they explain in
their recent
paper. My own motivation to be interested in non-geometry is the
hope that in the next decades one will discover new exciting connections
between finite groups, algebraic curves and arithmetic groups (monstrous
moonshine being the first, and still not entirely understood,
instance of this). Part of the problem is that these three topics seem
to be quite different, yet by taking group-algebras of finite or
arithmetic groups and coordinate rings of affine smooth curves they all
turn out to be quasi-free algebras, so perhaps non-geometry is the
unifying theory behind these seemingly unrelated topics.

non-geometry

Published June 16, 2006 by lievenlb

Here’s
an appeal to the few people working in Cuntz-Quillen-Kontsevich-whoever
noncommutative geometry (the one where smooth affine varieties
correspond to quasi-free or formally smooth algebras) : let’s rename our
topic and call it non-geometry. I didn’t come up with
this term, I heard in from Maxim Kontsevich in a talk he gave a couple
of years ago in Antwerp. There are some good reasons for this name
change.

The term _non-commutative geometry_ is already taken by
much more popular subjects such as _Connes-style noncommutative
differential geometry_ and _Artin-style noncommutative algebraic
geometry_. Renaming our topic we no longer have to include footnotes
(such as the one in the recent Kontsevich-Soibelman
paper) :

We use “formal” non-commutative geometry
in tensor categories, which is different from the non-commutative
geometry in the sense of Alain Connes.

or to make a
distinction between _noncommutative geometry in the small_ (which is
Artin-style) and _noncommutative geometry in the large_ (which in
non-geometry) as in the Ginzburg notes.

Besides, the stress in _non-commutative geometry_ (both in Connes-
and Artin-style) in on _commutative_. Connes-style might also be called
‘K-theory of $C^*$-algebras’ and they use the topological
information of K-theoretic terms in the commutative case as guidance to
speak about geometrical terms in the nocommutative case. Similarly,
Artin-style might be called ‘graded homological algebra’ and they
use Serre’s homological interpretation of commutative geometry to define
similar concepts for noncommutative algebras. Hence, non-commutative
geometry is that sort of non-geometry which is almost
commutative…

But the main point of naming our subject
non-geometry is to remind us not to rely too heavily on our
(commutative) geometric intuition. For example, we would expect a
manifold to have a fixed dimension. One way to define the dimension is
as the trancendence degree of the functionfield. However, from the work
of Paul Cohn (I learned about it through Aidan Schofield) we know that
quasi-free algebras usually do’nt have a specific function ring of
fractions, rather they have infinitely many good candidates for it and
these candidates may look pretty unrelated. So, at best we can define a
_local dimension_ of a noncommutative manifold at a point, say given by
a simple representation. It follows from the Cunz-Quillen tubular
neighborhood result that the local ring in such a point is of the
form

$M_n(\mathbb{C} \langle \langle z_1,\ldots,z_m \rangle
\rangle) $

(this s a noncommutative version of the classical fact
than the local ring in a point of a d-dimensional manifold is formal
power series $\mathbb{C} [[ z_1,\ldots,z_d ]] $) but in non-geometry both
m (the _local_ dimension) and n (the dimension of the simple
representation) vary from point to point. Still, one can attach to the
quasi-free algebra A a finite amount of data (in fact, a _finite_ quiver
and dimension vector) containing enough information to compute the (n,m)
couples for _all_ simple points (follows from the one quiver to rule them
all paper or see this for more
details).

In fact, one can even extend this to points
corresponding to semi-simple representations in which case one has to
replace the matrix-ring above by a ring Morita equivalent to the
completion of the path algebra of a finite quiver, the _local quiver_ at
the point (which can also be computer from the one-quiver of A. The
local coalgebras of distributions at such points of
Kontsevich&Soibelman are just the dual coalgebras of these local
algebras (in math.RA/0606241 they
merely deal with the n=1 case but no doubt the general case will appear
in the second part of their paper).

The case of the semi-simple
point illustrates another major difference between commutative geometry
and non-geometry, whereas commutative simples only have self-extensions
(so the distribution coalgebra is just the direct sum of all the local
distributions) noncommutative simples usually have plenty of
non-isomorphic simples with which they have extensions, so to get at the
global distribution coalgebra of A one cannot simply add the locals but
have to embed them in more involved coalgebras.

The way to do it
is somewhat concealed in the
third version of my neverending book (the version that most people
found incomprehensible). Here is the idea : construct a huge uncountable
quiver by taking as its vertices the isomorphism classes of all simple
A-representations and with as many arrows between the simple vertices S
and T as the dimension of the ext-group between these simples (and
again, these dimensions follow from the knowledge of the one-quiver of
A). Then, the global coalgebra of distributions of A is the limit over
all cotensor coalgebras corresponding to finite subquivers). Maybe I’ll
revamp this old material in connection with the Kontsevich&Soibelman
paper(s) for the mini-course I’m supposed to give in september.

why nag? (1)

Published March 26, 2006 by lievenlb

Let us
take a hopeless problem, motivate why something like non-commutative
algebraic geometry might help to solve it, and verify whether this
promise is kept.

Suppose we want to know all solutions in invertible
matrices to the braid relation (or Yang-Baxter equation)

$X Y X = Y X Y$

All such solutions (for varying size of matrices)
form an additive Abelian category $\mathbf{rep}~B_3$ , so a big step forward would be to know all its
simple solutions (that is, those whose matrices cannot be brought in
upper triangular block form). A literature check shows that even this
task is far too ambitious. The best result to date is the classification
due to Imre Tuba and
Hans Wenzl of simple solutions of which the matrix size is at most
5.

For fixed matrix size n, finding solutions in $\mathbf{rep}~B_3$ is the same as solving a system of $n^2$ cubic
polynomial relations in $2n^2$
unknowns, which quickly becomes a daunting task. Algebraic geometry
tells us that all solutions, say $\mathbf{rep}_n~B_3$ form an affine closed subvariety of $n^2$ -dimensional affine space. If we assume that $\mathbf{rep}_n~B_3$ is a smooth variety (that is, a manifold) and
if we know one solution explicitly, then we can use the tangent space in
this point to linearize the problem and to get at all solutions in a
neighborhood.

So, here is an idea : assume that $\mathbf{rep}~B_3$ itself would be a non-commutative manifold, then
we might linearize our problem by considering tangent spaces and obtain
new solutions out of already known ones. But, what is a non-commutative
manifold? Well, by the above we at least require that for all integers n
the commutative variety $\mathbf{rep}_n~B_3$ is a commutative manifold.

But, there
is still some redundancy in our problem : if $(X,Y)$ is a
solution, then so is any conjugated pair $(g^{-1}Xg,g^{-1}Yg)$ where $g \in GL_n$ is a basechange matrix. In categorical terms, we are only
interested in isomorphism classes of solutions. Again, if we fix the
size n of matrix-solutions, we consider the affine variety $\mathbf{rep}_n~B_3$ as a variety with a $GL_n$ -action
and we like to classify the orbits of simple solutions. If $\mathbf{rep}_n~B_3$ is a manifold then the theory of Luna slices
provides a method, both to linearize the problem as well as to reduce
its complexity. Instead of the tangent space we consider the normal
space N to the $GL_n$ -orbit
(in a suitable solution). On this affine space, the stabilizer subgroup
$GL(\alpha)$ acts and there is a natural one-to-one
correspondence between $GL_n$ -orbits
in $\mathbf{rep}_n~B_3$ and $GL(\alpha)$ -orbits in the normal space N (at least in a
neighborhood of the solution).

So, here is a refinement of the
idea : we would like to view $\mathbf{rep}~B_3$ as a non-commutative manifold with a group action
given by the notion of isomorphism. Then, in order to get new isoclasses
of solutions from a constructed one we want to reduce the size of our
problem by considering a linearization (the normal space to the orbit)
and on it an easier isomorphism problem.

However, we immediately
encounter a problem : calculating ranks of Jacobians we discover that
already $\mathbf{rep}_2~B_3$ is not a smooth variety so there is not a
chance in the world that $\mathbf{rep}~B_3$ might be a useful non-commutative manifold.
Still, if $(X,Y)$ is a
solution to the braid relation, then the matrix $(XYX)^2$
commutes with both X and Y.

If $(X,Y)$ is a
simple solution, this means that after performing a basechange, $C=(XYX)^2$ becomes a scalar matrix, say $\lambda^6 1_n$ . But then, $(X_1,Y_1) = (\lambda^{-1}X,\lambda^{-1}Y)$ is a solution to

$XYX = YXY , (XYX)^2 = 1$

and all such solutions form a
non-commutative closed subvariety, say $\mathbf{rep}~\Gamma$ of $\mathbf{rep}~B_3$ and if we know all (isomorphism classes of)
simple solutions in $\mathbf{rep}~\Gamma$ we have solved our problem as we just have to
bring in the additional scalar $\lambda \in \mathbb{C}^*$ .

Here we strike gold : $\mathbf{rep}~\Gamma$ is indeed a non-commutative manifold. This can
be seen by identifying $\Gamma$
with one of the most famous discrete infinite groups in mathematics :
the modular group $PSL_2(\mathbb{Z})$ . The modular group acts by Mobius
transformations on the upper half plane and this action can be used to
write $PSL_2(\mathbb{Z})$ as the free group product $\mathbb{Z}_2 \ast \mathbb{Z}_3$ . Finally, using
classical representation theory of finite groups it follows that indeed
all $\mathbf{rep}_n~\Gamma$ are commutative manifolds (possibly having
many connected components)! So, let us try to linearize this problem by
looking at its non-commutative tangent space, if we can figure out what
this might be.

Here is another idea (or rather a dogma) : in the
world of non-commutative manifolds, the role of affine spaces is played
by $\mathbf{rep}~Q$ the representations of finite quivers Q. A quiver
is just on oriented graph and a representation of it assigns to each
vertex a finite dimensional vector space and to each arrow a linear map
between the vertex-vector spaces. The notion of isomorphism in $\mathbf{rep}~Q$ is of course induced by base change actions in all
of these vertex-vector spaces. (to be continued)