### Introduction

Every finite quantum group has finite dimensional algebra of functions:

$\displaystyle F(G)=\bigoplus_{j=1}^m M_{n_j}(\mathbb{C})$.

At least one of the factors must be one-dimensional to account for the counit $\varepsilon:F(G)\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$, and if this factor is denoted $\mathbb{C}e_1$, the counit is given by the dual element $e^1$. There may be more and so reorder the index $j\mapsto i$ so that $n_i=1$ for $i=1,\dots,m_1$, and $n_i>1$ for $i>m_1$:

$\displaystyle F(G)=\left(\bigoplus_{i=1}^{m_1} \mathbb{C}e_{i}\right)\oplus \bigoplus_{i=m_1+1}^m M_{n_i}(\mathbb{C})=:A_1\oplus B$,

Denote by $M_p(G)$ the states of $F(G)$. The pure states of $F(G)$ arise as pure states on single factors.

In the case of the Kac-Paljutkin and Sekine quantum groups, the convolution powers of pure states exhibit a periodicity of sorts. Recall for these quantum groups that $B$ consists of a single matrix factor.

In these cases, for pure states of the form $e^i$, that is supported on $A_1$ (and we can say a little more than is necessary), the convolution remains supported on $A_1$ because

$\Delta(A_1)\subset A_1\otimes A_1+B\otimes B$.

If we have a pure state $\nu$ supported on $B=M_{\sqrt{\dim B}}(\mathbb{C})$, then because

$\Delta(B)\subset A_1\otimes B+B\otimes A_1$,

then $\nu\star\nu$ must be supported on, because of $\Delta(A_1)\subset A_1\otimes A_1+B\otimes B$, $A_1$.

Inductively all of the $\nu^{\star 2k}$ are supported on $A_1$ and the $\nu^{\star 2k+1}$ are supported on $B$. This means that the convolutions powers of a pure state, in these cases, cannot converge to the Haar state.

The question is, do the results above about the image of $A_1$ and $B$ under the coproduct hold more generally? I believe that the paper of Kac and Paljutkin shows that this is the case whenever $B$ consists of a single factor… but does it hold more generally?

To find out we go back and do some sandboxing with the paper of Kac and Paljutkin. Which is a pleasure because that paper is beautiful. The blue stuff is my own scribbling.

## Finite Ring Groups

Let $G$ be a finite quantum group with notation on the algebra of functions as above. Note that $A_1$ is commutative. Let

$p=\sum_{i=1}^{m_1}e_i$,

which is a central idempotent.

### Lemma 8.1

$S(p)=p$.

Proof: If $S(\mathbf{1}_G-p)p\neq 0$, then for some $i>m_1$, and $f\in M_{n_i}(\mathbb{C})$, the mapping $f\mapsto S(f)p$ is a non-zero homomorphism from $M_{n_i}(\mathbb{C})$ into commutative $A_1$ which is impossible.

If $S(\mathbf{1}_G-p)p=g\neq 0$, then one of the $S(I_{n_i})\in A_1\oplus B$, with ‘something’ in $A_1$. Using the centrality and projectionality of $p$, we can show that the given map is indeed a homomorphism.

It follows that $S(p)p=p\Rightarrow S(S(p)p)=S(p)=S(p)p=S(p)$, and so $p=S(p)$ $\bullet$

### Lemma 8.2

$(p\otimes p)\Delta(p)=p\otimes p$

Proof: Suppose that $(p\otimes p)\Delta(f)=b$ for some non-commutative $f\in M_{n_i}(\mathbb{C})$. This means that there exists an index $k$ such that $f_{(1)_k}\otimes f_{(2)_k}\in A_1\otimes A_1$. Then for that factor,

$f\mapsto \Delta(f)(p\otimes p)$

is a non-null homomorphism from the non-commutative into the commutative.

We see that $(p\otimes p)\Delta(f)=0$ for all $f\in B$. Putting $a=\mathbf{1}-p$ we get the result $\bullet$

The following says that $p$ is a group-like projection. We know from previous work that if a state is supported on a group-like projection that it will remain supported on it. In particular, any state supported on $A_1$ will remain there.

### Lemma 8.3

$(p\otimes \mathbf{1}_G)\Delta(p)=p\otimes p=(\mathbf{1}_G\otimes p)\Delta(p)$.

Proof: Since $\Delta$ is a homomorphism, $\Delta(p)$ is an idempotent in $F(G)\otimes F(G)$I  do not understand nor require the rest of the proof.

### Lemma 8.4

$A_1=F(G_1)$ is the algebra of functions on finite group with elements $i=1,\dots,m_1$, and we write $e_i=\delta_i$. The coproduct is given by $(p\otimes p)\Delta$.

We have:

$(p\otimes p)\Delta(e_i)=\sum_{t\in G_1}\delta_{it^{-1}}\otimes \delta_t$,

$S(\delta_i)=\delta_{i^{-1}}$,

$\varepsilon(e_i)=\delta_{i,1}$,

as $e_1=\delta_e$.

The element $\Delta(\delta_i)$ is a sum of four terms, lying in the subalgebras:

$A_1\otimes A_1,\,B\otimes B,\,A_1\otimes B,\,B\otimes A_1$.

We already know what is going on with the first summand. Denote the second by $P_i$. From the group-like-projection property, the last two summands are zero, so that

$\Delta(\delta_i$=\sum_{t\in G_1}\delta_{t}\otimes \delta_{t^{-1}i}+P_i\$.

Since the $\delta_i$ are symmetric ($\delta_i^*=\delta_i$) mutually orthogonal idempotents, $P_i$ has similar properties:

$P_i^*=P_i,\,P_i^2=P_i,\,P_iP_j=0$

for $i\neq j$.

At this point Kac and Paljutkin restrict to $B=M_{n_{i+1}}(\mathbb{C})$, that is there is only one summand. Here we try to keep arbitrarily (finitely) many summands in $B$.

Let the summand $M_{n_i}(\mathbb{C})$ have matrix units $E_{mn}^i$, where $m,n=1,\dots,n_i$Kac and Paljutkin now do something which I think is a little dodgy, but basically that the integral over $G$ is equal on each of the $\delta_i$, equal on each of the $E_{mm}^i$, and then zero off the diagonal.

It does follow from above that each $P_i\in B\otimes B$ is a projection.

Now I am stuck!

This sandbox is going to take from a variety of sources, mostly Shuzhou Wang.

## C*-Ideals

Let $J\subset C(X)$ be a closed (two-sided) ideal in a non-commutative unital $C^*$-algebra $C(X)$. Such an ideal is self-adjoint and so a non-commutative $C^*$-algebra $J=C(S)$. The quotient map is given by $\pi:C(X)\rightarrow C(X)/C(S)$, $f\mapsto f+J$, where $f+J$ is the equivalence class of $f$ under the equivalence relation:

$f\sim_{J} g\Rightarrow g-f\in C(S)$.

Where we have the product

$(f+J)(g+J)=fg+J$,

and the norm is given by:

$\displaystyle\|f+J\|=\sup_{j\in C(S)}\|f+j\|$,

the quotient $C(X)/ C(S)$ is a $C^*$-algebra.

Consider now elements $j_1,\,j_2\in C(S)$ and $f_1,\, f_2\in C(X)$. Consider

$j_1\otimes f_1+f_2\otimes j_2\in C(S)\otimes C(X)+C(X)\otimes C(S)$.

The tensor product $\pi\otimes \pi:C(X)\otimes C(X)\rightarrow (C(X)/C(S))\otimes (C(X)/ C(S))$. Now note that

$(\pi\otimes\pi)(j_1\otimes f_1+f_2\otimes j_2)=(0+J)\otimes(f_1+J)+$

$(f_2+J)\otimes(0+J)=0$,

by the nature of the Tensor Product ($0\otimes a=0$). Therefore $C(X)\otimes C(S)+C(S)\otimes C(X)\subset \text{ker}(\pi\otimes\pi)$.

### Definition

A WC*-ideal (W for Woronowicz) is a C*-ideal $J=C(S)$ such that $\Delta(J)\subset \text{ker}(\pi\otimes\pi)$, where $\pi$ is the quotient map $C(G)\rightarrow C(G)/C(S)$.

Let $F(G)$ be the algebra of functions on a classical group $G$. Let $H\subset G$. Let $J$ be the set of functions which vanish on $H$: this is a C*-ideal. The kernal of $\pi:F(G)\rightarrow F(G)/J$ is $J$.

Let $\delta_s\in J$ so that $s\not\in H$. Note that

$\displaystyle\Delta(\delta_s)=\sum_{t\in G}\delta_{st^{-1}}\otimes\delta_t$

and so

$\displaystyle(\pi\otimes \pi)\Delta(\delta_s)=\sum_{t\in G}\pi(\delta_{st^{-1}})\otimes \pi(\delta_t)$.

Note that $\pi(\delta_t)=0+J$ if $t\not\in H$. It is not possible that both $st^{-1}$ and $t$ are in $H$: if they were $st^{-1}\cdot t\in H$, but $st^{-1}\cdot t=s$, which is not in $H$ by assumption. Therefore one of $\pi(\delta_{st^{-1}})$ or $\pi(\delta_t)$ is equal to zero and so:

$(\pi\otimes\pi)\Delta(\delta_s)=0$,

and so by linearity, if $f$ vanishes on a subgroup $H$,

$\Delta(f)\subset \text{ker}(\pi\otimes\pi)$.

In this way, WC*-ideals generalise functions which vanish on distinguished subgroups. In fact, without checking all the details, I imagine that first isomorphism theorem can show that $F(G)/ J=F(H)$. Let $\pi_H:F(G)\rightarrow F(H)$ be the ring homomorphism

$\displaystyle\pi_H\left(\sum_{t\in G}a_t\delta_t\right)=\sum_{t\in H}a_t\delta_t$.

Then $\text{ker}\,\pi_H=J$, $\text{im}\,\pi_H=F(H)$, and so we have the isomorphism of rings, which presumably carries forward to the algebras of functions level…

Just some notes on section 1 of this paperFlags and notes are added but mistakes are mine alone.

#### Definition

Let $C(G)$ be the algebra of continuous functions on a compact matrix quantum group. Such an object is given by a matrix $u=\{u_{ij}\}_{i,j=1}^N$ which generates $C(G)$ as a C*-algebra. Furthermore, there exists a C*-algebra homomorphism $\Delta:C(G)\rightarrow C(G)\otimes C(G)$ such that

$\displaystyle \Delta(u_{ij})=\sum_{k=1}^N u_{ik}\otimes u_{kj}$,

and both $u$ and $u^T$ are invertible in $M_N(C(G))$.

Any subgroup $G\subset \text{GL}(N,\mathbb{C})$ is such an object, with the $u_{ij}\in C(G)$ given by $u_{ij}(g)=g_{ij}\in\mathbb{C}$. Furthermore

$\mathrm{C}_{\text{comm}}\langle u_{ij}\rangle \cong C(G)$.

We say that $\rho=(\rho_{ij})_{i,j=1}^{d_\rho}\in M_{d_{\rho}}(C(G))$ is a representation if it is invertible and

$\displaystyle \Delta(\rho_{ij})=\sum_{k=1}^{d_\rho}\rho_{ik}\otimes\rho{kj}$.

The transpose $\rho^T=(\rho_{ji})_{i,j=1}^N\in M_{d_{\rho}}(C(G))$ is also invertible and so we have:

#### Proposition

The C*algebra generated by the $\rho_{ij}$ is also the algebra of continuous functions on a compact matrix quantum group.

## Background

I am trying to prove an Ergodic Theorem for Random Walks on Finite Quantum Groups. A random walk on a quantum group driven by $\nu\in M_p(G)$ is ergodic if the convolution powers $(\nu^{\star k})_{k\geq 0}$ converge to the Haar state $\int_G$.

The classical theorem for finite groups:

#### Ergodic Theorem for Random Walks on Finite Groups

A random walk on a finite group $G$ driven by a probability $\nu\in M_p(G)$ is ergodic if and only if $\nu$ is not concentrated on a proper subgroup nor the coset of a proper normal subgroup.

Not concentrated on a proper subgroup gives irreducibility. A random walk is irreducible if for all $g\in G$, there exists $k\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $\nu^{\star k}(\{g\})>0$.

Not concentrated on the coset of a proper normal subgroup gives aperiodicity. Something which should be equivalent to aperiodicity is if

$p:=\gcd\{k>0:\nu^{\star k}(e)>0\}$

is equal to one (perhaps via invariance $\mathbb{P}[\xi_{i+1}=t|\xi_{i}=s]=\mathbb{P}[\xi_{i+1}=th|\xi_{i}=sh]$).

If $\nu$ is concentrated on the coset a proper normal subgroup $N\rhd G$, specifically on $Ng\neq Ne$, then we have periodicity ($Ng\rightarrow Ng^2\rightarrow \cdots\rightarrow Ng^{o(g)}=Ne\rightarrow Ng\rightarrow \cdots$), and $p=o(g)$, the order of $g$.

In Markov chain theory, ergodicity is equivalent to irreduciblity and aperiodicity.

The theorem in the quantum case should look like:

#### Ergodic Theorem for Random Walks on Finite Quantum Groups

A random walk on a finite quantum group $G$ driven by a state $\nu\in M_p(G)$ is ergodic if and only if “X”.

## Irreducibility

At the moment I have some part of X;the irreducibility bit. As is well known since Pal (1996), it is possible to have a probability not concentrated on a quantum subgroup be reducible. This led Franz & Skalski to generalise quantum subgroups to group-like-projections, which I will say correspond to quasi-subgroups following Kasprzak & Sołtan.

I have shown that if $\nu$ is concentrated on a proper quasi-subgroup $S$, in the sense that $\nu(P_S)=1$ for a group-like-projection $P_S$, that so are the $\nu^{\star k}$. The analogue of irreducible is that for all $q$ projections in $F(G)$, there exists $k\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $\nu^{\star k}(q)>0$. If $\nu$ is concentrated on a quasi-subgroup $S$, then for all $k$, $\nu^{\star k}(Q_S)=0$, where $Q_S=\mathbf{1}_G -P_S$.

I have also shown on the other hand that if the random walk is reducible that it must be concentrated on a proper quasi-subgroup. Franz & Skalski show that group-like-projections also have a correspondence with idempotent states. The Césaro Means

$\displaystyle \nu_n:=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=1}^n\nu^{\star k}$,

converge to an idempotent state $\nu_\infty$. If $\nu^{\star k}(q)=0$ for all $k$ then the $\nu_{\infty}(q)=0$ also, so that $\nu_\infty\neq \int_G$ (as the Haar state is faithful). I was able to prove that $\nu$ is supported on the quasi-subgroup given by the idempotent $\nu_\infty$.

I believe this result — irreducible if and only if not concentrated on a quasi-subgroup — holds more generally than just in finite quantum groups.

Just some notes on the pre-print. I am looking at this paper to better understand this pre-print. In particular I am hoping to learn more about the support of a probability on a quantum group. Flags and notes are added but mistakes are mine alone.

#### Abstract

From this paper I will look at:

• lattice operations on $\mathcal{I}(G)$, for $G$ a LCQG (analogues of intersection and generation)

## 1. Introduction

Idempotent states on quantum groups correspond with “subgroup-like” objects. In this work, on LCQG, the correspondence is with quasi-subgroups (the work of Franz & Skalski the correspondence was with pre-subgroups and group-like projections).

Let us show the kind of thing I am trying to understand better.

Let $F(G)$ be the algebra of function on a finite quantum group. Let $\nu,\,\mu\in M_p(G)$ be concentrated on a pre-subgroup $S$. We can associate to $S$ a group like projection $p_S$.

Let, and this is another thing I am trying to understand better, this support, the support of $\nu$ be ‘the smallest’ (?) projection $p\in F(G)$ such that $\nu(p)=1$. Denote this projection by $p_\nu$. Define $p_\mu$ similarly. That $\mu,\,\nu$ are concentrated on $S$ is to say that $p_\nu\leq p_S$ and $p_\mu\leq p_S$.

Define a map $T_\nu:F(G)\rightarrow F(G)$ by

$a\mapsto p_\nu a$ (or should this be $ap_\nu$ or $p_\nu a p_\nu$?)

We can decompose, in the finite case, $F(G)\cong \text{Im}(T_\nu)\oplus \ker(T_\nu)$

Claim: If $\nu$ is concentrated on $S$$\nu(ap_S)=\nu(a)$I don’t have a proof but it should fall out of something like $p_\nu\leq p_S\Rightarrow \ker p_\nu\subseteq \ker p_S$ together with the decomposition of $F(G)$ above. It may also require that $\int_G$ is a trace, I don’t know. Something very similar in the preprint.

From here we can do the following. That $p_S$ is a group-like projection means that:

$\Delta (p_s)(\mathbf{1}_G\otimes p_S)=p_S\otimes p_S$

$\Rightarrow \sum p_{S(1)}\otimes (p_{S(2)}p_S)=p_S\otimes p_S$

Hit both sides with $\nu\times \mu$ to get:

$\sum \nu(p_{S(1)})\mu(p_{S(2)}p_S)=\nu(p_S)\mu(p_S)$.

By the fact that $\nu,\,\mu$ are supported on $S$, the right-hand side equals one, and by the as-yet-unproven claim, we have

$\sum \nu(p_{S(1)})\mu(p_{S(2)})=1$.

However this is the same as

$(\nu\otimes\mu)\Delta(p_S)=1\Rightarrow (\nu\star \mu)(p_S)=1$,

in other words $p_{\nu\star \mu}\leq p_S$, that is $\nu\star \mu$ remains supported on $S$. As a corollary, a random walk driven by a probability concentrated on a pre-subgroup $S\subset G$ remains concentrated on $S$.

Slides of a talk given to the Functional Analysis seminar in Besancon.

Some of these problems have since been solved.

### “e in support” implies convergence

Consider a $\nu\in M_p(G)$ on a finite quantum group such that where

$M_p(G)\subset \mathbb{C}\varepsilon \oplus (\ker \varepsilon)^*$,

$\nu=\nu(e)\varepsilon+\psi$ with $\nu(e)>0$. This has a positive density of trace one (with respect to the Haar state $\int_G\in M_p(G)$), say

$\displaystyle a_\nu=\nu(e)\eta+b_\psi\in \mathbb{C}\eta\oplus \ker \varepsilon$,

where $\eta$ is the Haar element.

An element in a direct sum is positive if and only if both elements are positive. The Haar element is positive and so $b_\psi\geq 0$. Assume that $b_\psi\neq 0$ (if $b_\psi=0$, then $\psi=0\Rightarrow \nu=\varepsilon\Rightarrow \nu^{\star k}=\varepsilon$ for all $k$ and we have trivial convergence)

Therefore let

$\displaystyle a_{\tilde{\psi}}:=\frac{b_\psi}{\int_G b_\psi}$

be the density of $\tilde{\psi}\in M_p(G)$.

Now we can explicitly write

$\displaystyle \nu=\nu(e)\varepsilon+(1-\nu(e))\tilde{\psi}$.

This has stochastic operator

$P_\nu=\nu(e)I_{F(G)}+(1-\nu(e))P_{\tilde{\psi}}$.

Let $\lambda$ be an eigenvalue of $P_\nu$ of eigenvector $a$. This yields

$\nu(e)a+(1-\nu(e))P_{\tilde{\psi}}(a)=\lambda a$

and thus

$\displaystyle P_{\tilde{\psi}}a=\frac{\lambda-\nu(e)}{1-\nu(e)}a$.

Therefore, as $a$ is also an eigenvector for $P_{\tilde{\psi}}$, and $P_{\tilde{\psi}}$ is a stochastic operator (if $a$ is an eigenvector of eigenvalue $|\lambda|>1$, then $\|P_\nu a\|_1=|\lambda|\|a\|_1\leq \|a\|_1$, contradiction), we have

$\displaystyle \left|\frac{\lambda-\nu(e)}{1-\nu(e)}\right|\leq 1$

$\Rightarrow |\lambda-\nu(e)|\leq 1-\nu(e)$.

This means that the eigenvalues of $P_\nu$ lie in the ball $B_{1-\nu(e)}(\nu(e))$ and thus the only eigenvalue of magnitude one is $\lambda=1$, which has (left)-eigenvector the stationary distribution of $P_\nu$, say $\nu_\infty$.

If $\nu$ is symmetric/reversible in the sense that $\nu=\nu\circ S$, then $P_\nu$ is self-adjoint and has a basis of (left)-eigenvectors $\{\nu_\infty=:u_1,u_2,\dots,u_{|G|}\}\subset \mathbb{C}G$ and we have, if we write $\nu=\sum_{t=1}^{|G|}a_tu_t$,

$\displaystyle \nu^{\star k}=\sum_{t=1}^{|G|}a_t\lambda_t^ku_t$,

which converges to $a_1\nu_\infty$ (so that $a_1=1$).

If $\nu$ is not reversible, it is a standard argument to show that when put in Jordan normal form, that the powers $P_{\nu}^k$ converge and thus so do the $\nu^{\star k}$ $\bullet$

### Total Variation Decrasing

Uses Simeng Wang’s $\|a\star_Ab\|_1\leq \|a\|_1\|b\|_1$. Result holds for compact Kac if the state has a density.

### Periodic $e^2$ is concentrated on a coset of a proper normal subgroup of $\mathfrak{G}_0$

$e_2+e_4$ is a minimal projection (coset) in the quotient space of the normal subgroup (to be double checked) given by $\langle e_1,e_3\rangle$

### Supported on Subgroup implies Reducible

I have a proof that reducible is equivalent to supported on a pre-subgroup.

• The first piece of advice is to read questions carefully. Don’t glance at a question and go off writing: take a moment to understand what you have been asked to do.
• Don’t use tippex; instead draw a simple line(s) through work that you think is incorrect.
• For equations, check your solution by substituting your solution into the original equation. If your answer is wrong and you know it is wrong: write that on your script.

If you do have time at the end of the exam, go through each of your answers and ask yourself:

2. does my answer make sense?
3. check your answer (e.g. differentiate/antidifferentiate an antiderivative/derivative, substitute your solution into equations, check your answer against a rough estimate, or what a picture is telling you, etc)

## Week 12

On Monday, and Wednesday PM, we finished the module by looking at triple integrals.

The Wednesday 09:00 lecture was a tutorial along with most of Wednesday PM and the Thursday class.

• The first piece of advice is to read questions carefully. Don’t glance at a question and go off writing: take a moment to understand what you have been asked to do.
• Don’t use tippex; instead draw a simple line(s) through work that you think is incorrect.
• For equations, check your solution by substituting your solution into the original equation. If your answer is wrong and you know it is wrong: write that on your script.

If you do have time at the end of the exam, go through each of your answers and ask yourself:

2. does my answer make sense?
3. check your answer (e.g. differentiate/antidifferentiate an antiderivative/derivative, substitute your solution into equations, check your answer against a rough estimate, or what a picture is telling you, etc)

## Assignment 2

Has been corrected and results emailed to you.

Some remarks on common mistakes here.

## Week 11

We had a systems of differential equations tutorial Monday and before looking at double integrals.

## Week 12

We will look at triple integrals and then have one or two tutorials on. Possibly Wednesday 09:00 for double integrals and Thursday for triple integrals.

## Week 13

We will review the Summer 2018 paper.

## Study

Please feel free to ask me questions about the exercises via email or even better on this webpage.

## Exam Papers

These are not always found in your programme selection — most of the time you will have to look here.

## Test 2

Test 2, worth 15% and based on Chapter 3, will now take place Week 12, 30 April. There is a sample test [to give an indication of length and layout only] in the notes (marking scheme) and the test will be based on Chapter 3 only.

More Q. 1s (on the test) can be found on p.112; more Q. 2s on p. 117; more Q. 3s on p.125 and p.172, Q.1; more Q. 4s on p.136, and more Q. 5s on p. 143.

Chapter 3 Summary p. 144.

Please feel free to ask me questions via email or even better on this webpage.

## Homework

Once you are prepared for Test 2 you can start looking at Chapter 4:

• Revision of Integration, p.161.
• p.167, Q. 1-5
• p.182

## Week 11

We had some tutorial time from 18:00-19:00 for further differentiation (i.e. for Test 2, after Easter).

We completed our review of antidifferentiation before starting Chapter 4 proper.

We looked at Integration by Parts and centroids.

For those who could not make it here is some video and slides from what we did after the video died.

## Week 12

We will have some tutorial time from 18:00-19:00 for further differentiation.

We will have Test 2 from 19:00-20:05.

Then we will look at completing the square, centres of gravity, and work.

## Week 13

We will look the Winter 2018 paper at the back of your manual.

## CIT Mathematics Exam Papers

These are not always found in your programme selection — most of the time you will have to look here.