You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Research’ category.
After a long time I have finally completed my PhD studies when I handed in my hardbound thesis (a copy of which you can see here).
It was a very long road but thankfully now the pressure is lifted and I can enjoy my study of quantum groups and random walks thereon for many years to come.
The following is taken (almost) directly from the first draft of my PhD thesis.
The Quantisation Functor
This functor can be used to motivate the correct notion of (the algebra of functions on) a quantum group. Note that the ‘quantised’ objects that are arrived at via this ‘categorical quantisation’ are nothing but the established definitions so this section should be considered as little more than a motivation. The author feels that introductory texts on quantum groups could include these ideas and that is why they are included here. This quantisation is the translation of statements about a finite group, into statements about the algebra of functions on
,
.
This notion of quantisation sits naturally in category theory where two functors — the functor and the dual functor — lead towards a satisfactory quantisation.
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
Taken from An Invitation to Quantum Groups and Duality by Timmermann.
Let be a quantum group with a comultiplication
. We make the following definitions. A corepresentation of
on a complex vector space
is a linear map
that dualises representations with the coassociativity and counit properties:
, and
.
Now we wish to dualise the terms invariant, irreducible, unitary, intertwiner, equivalent, matrix elements. As we want a theory dual to group representation we won’t use Timmermann’s definitions at face value but instead construct them from their group representation counterparts. This might prove difficult. In attempting to dualise group representation theory as quantum group corepresentation theory is ‘everything’ dualised? Our first term here provides a problem. Do we need an invariant corepresentation or a ‘coinvariant representation’?
Invariant
An invariant subspace of a group representation is a subspace
such that
for all
and
.
This means that for the family of linear maps ,
is stable subspace. How this is dualised is important in how we may hope to write a corepresentation as a direct sum of irreducible corepresentations so we need the right definition. Timmermann calls
invariant if
. If we could view the co-representation as a family of endomorphisms on
then we might be able to write down a definition of co-invariant or maybe say that Timmermann’s definition is what we need.
As an example of what we might need to do let be the regular action of a group and let
be the subspace of constant functions. This set is invariant. Thinking about this yields a definition of co-invariant.
A subspace is co-invariant for
if
.
Timmermann’s definition makes good sense. One is confused between invariant co-representation and co-invariant co-representation. I am guessing that Timmermann’s definition will allow us to do what we want.
In Group Representations in Probability and Statistics, Diaconis presents his celebrated Upper Bound Lemma for a random walk on a finite group driven by
. It states that
,
where the sum is over all non-trivial irreducible representations of .
In this post, we begin this study by looking a the (co)-representations of a quantum group . The first thing to do is to write down a satisfactory definition of a representation of a group which we can quantise later. In the chapter on Diaconi-Fourier Theory here we defined a representation of a group as a group homomorphism
While this was perfectly adequate for when we are working with finite groups, it might not be as transparently quantisable. Instead we define a representation of a group as an action
.
such that the map ,
is linear.
Let be a group and let
be the C*-algebra of the group
. This is a C*-algebra whose elements are complex-valued functions on the group
. We define operations on
in the ordinary way save for multiplication
,
and the adjoint . Note that the above multiplication is the same as defining
and extending via linearity. Thence
is abelian if and only if
is.
To give the structure of a quantum group we define the following linear maps:
,
.
,
,
.
The functional defined by
is the Haar state on
. It is very easy to write down the
:
.
To do probability theory consider states on
and form the product state:
.
Whenever is a state of
such that
implies that
, then the distribution of the random variables
converges to
.
At the moment we will use the one-norm to measure the distance to stationary:
.
A quick calculation shows that:
.
When, for example, when
are transpositions in
, then we have
.
Taken from Random Walks on Finite Quantum Groups by Franz & Gohm.
Theorem
Let be a state on a finite quantum group
. Then the Cesaro mean
,
converges to an idempotent state on , i.e. to a state
such that
.
Proof : Let be an accumulation point of
, this exists since the states on
form a compact set. We have
.
I have no idea where the equality comes from.
Choose sequence such that
, we get
and similarly
. By linearity this implies
. If
is another accumulation point of
and
a sequence such that
, then we get
and thus
by symmetry (??). Therefore the sequence
has a unique accumulation point, i.e. it converges
Remark
If is faithful, then the Cesaro limit
is the Haar state on
(prove this).
Remark
Due to cyclicity the sequence does not converge in general. Take, for example, the state
(p.28) on the Kac-Paljutkin quantum group
, then we have
,
but
.
Taken from Random Walks on Finite Quantum Groups by Franz & Gohm
In this section we will show how one can recover a classical Markov chain from a quantum Markov chain. We will apply a folklore theorem that says one gets a classical Markov process, if a quantum Markov process can be restricted to a commutative algebra.
We might like to do more. This result recovers a Markov chain — if the quantum process is in fact a random walk on a finite quantum group can we recover the group, the transition probabilities (yes), the driving probability measure??
Conjecture
If we restrict a random walk on a finite quantum group to a commutative subalgebra we can recover a random walk on a finite group.
For random walks on quantum groups we have the following result.
Theorem 6.1
Let be a finite quantum group
a random walk on a finite dimensional
-comodule algebra
, and
a unital abelian sub-*-algebra of
. The algebra
is isomorphic to the algebra of functions on a finite set, say
where
.
If the transition operator of
leaves
invariant, then there exists a classical Markov chain
with values in
, whose probabilities can be computed as time-ordered moments of
, i.e.
for all and
.
Taken from Random Walks on Finite Quantum Groups by Franz & Gohm
In this section we want to represent the algebras on Hilbert spaces and obtain spatial implementations for the random walk. On a finite quantum group we can introduce an inner product
,
where and
and
is the Haar state. Because the Haar state is faithful we can think of
as a finite dimensional Hilbert space. Further we denote by
the norm associated to this inner product. We consider the linear operator
,
.
It turns out that this operator contains all information about the quantum group and thus it is called its fundamental operator. We discuss some of its properties.

Recent Comments