Let be a finite quantum group described by
with an involutive antipode (I know this is true is the commutative or cocommutative case. I am not sure at this point how restrictive it is in general. The compact matrix quantum groups have this property so it isn’t a terrible restriction.)
. Under the assumption of finiteness, there is a unique Haar state,
on
.
Representation Theory
A representation of is a linear map
that satisfies
The dimension of is given by
. If
has basis
then we can define the matrix elements of
by
One property of these that we will use it that .
Two representations and
are said to be equivalent,
, if there is an invertible intertwiner between them. An intertwiner between
and
is a map
such that
We can show that every representation is equivalent to a unitary representation.
Timmermann shows that if is a maximal family of pairwise inequivalent irreducible representation that
is a basis of
. When we refer to “the matrix elements” we always refer to such a family. We define the span of
as
, the space of matrix elements of
.
Given a representation , we define its conjugate,
, where
is the conjugate vector space of
, by
so that the matrix elements of are
.
Timmermann shows that the matrix elements have the following orthogonality relations:
- If
and
are inequivalent then
for all
and
.
- If
is such that the conjugate,
, is equivalent to a unitary matrix (this is the case in the finite dimensional case), then we have
This second relation is more complicated without the assumption and refers to the entries and trace of an intertwiner
from
to the coreprepresention with matrix elements
. If
, then this intertwiner is simply the identity on
and so the the entries
and the trace is
.
Denote by the set of unitary equivalence classes of irreducible unitary representations of
. For each
, let
be a representative of the class
where
is the finite dimensional vector space on which
acts.
Diaconis-Van Daele Fourier Theory
We define a map by
We define
I think in the finite dimensional case that but I don’t think I necessarily need this.
Van Daele shows that this map allows us to give the structure of a quantum group with Haar state given by
He also proves a Plancherel theorem which says that
where the star involution in is given by
Given a representation (
), following Wang we define the Fourier Transform of
at the representation
as the map
by
Diaconis-Van Daele Inversion Theorem
Let be the counit of
and
. Then we have
where the sum is over the irreducible representations of .
Proof: Both sides are linear in so it suffices to check
for
. The left-hand side reads
To calculate the right-hand-side, we calculate for a given representation the trace of . Let
and calculate
This is zero unless . If
then we have
How much of is sent to
:
Now times this trace is
and so we are done
Now there are two convolution theorems at play. The first is Van Daele’s:
Van Daele’s Convolution Theorem
For all we have
where is a rather messy convolution in
and
is the nice convolution got from
:
We also have something we can salvage from Timmermann (third line) which combined with this yields:
Diaconis-Van Daele Convolution Theorem
For a representation of
and
we have
Proof:
Van Daele Plancherel Theorem
For all , we have
As it happens, I should point out that there is a Van Daele Inversion Theorem which says that
where (and so an element of the dual goes in the
) and the antipode on
is given by
I haven’t used this… yet.
Lemma
Where the sum is over irreducible and unitary representations,
Proof: The proof uses the convolution theorem of Van Daele and the definition of to find
Now use the Diaconis-Van Daele Inversion Theorem
Two more results that will be used in the final proof.
Proposition
Suppose that is a state, then where
is the trivial representation,
, we have
.
Proof:
Proposition
Suppose that is a non-trivial and irreducible representation, then
.
Proof: A calculation:
Note that is the matrix element of the trivial representation and
is not equivalent to the trivial representation. Therefore, by the first orthogonality relation
and so as required
Note in particular that . One more result and definition before we prove the upper bound lemma.
Proposition
If is unitary, then the map,
, given by
is a
-homomorphism.
Proof: Let us call the map by
: we want to show that
, where the first involution is in
and the second is in
. First take
. We have
Now looking at the other quantity:
Considering that the involution in is the conjugate-transpose this is enough to show the result
Definition
Define as the norm on
got from the inner product on
given by
i.e.
Quantum Diaconis-Shahshahani (Upper Bound) Lemma
Suppose that is a state and
a natural number. Then
where the sum is over all non-trivial, irreducible representations.
Proof: Writing
Now using the above lemma, and the fact that the map is a
-homomorphism, we have that this is given by
where the sum is over all irreducible representations.
Now note that
If , the trivial representation, then this yields zero as both terms are one. If
is non-trivial, then
and we have:
To get the result, apply the Diaconis-Van Daele Convolution Theorem times
What is Next?
The norm that we are measuring with is not necessarily the most natural. I want/need to find a norm,
, on
that is perhaps natural in that lower bounds on
are available. Presumably it will be the case that
,
where is some constant dependent on
or perhaps even
.
After this I want to look at this stuff in the cocommutative case…. and the classical case.
Also I heard that there might be a family of quantum groups (of ‘Kac-Paljutkin’-type) on which I could study families of random walks…
Leave a comment
Comments feed for this article