You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Quantum Groups’ category.

### Introduction

Every finite quantum group has finite dimensional algebra of functions:

.

At least one of the factors must be one-dimensional to account for the counit , and if this factor is denoted , the counit is given by the dual element . There may be more and so reorder the index so that for , and for :

,

Denote by the states of . The *pure *states of 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 consists of a single matrix factor.

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

.

If we have a pure state supported on , then because

,

then must be supported on, because of , .

Inductively all of the are supported on and the are supported on . 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 and under the coproduct hold more generally? I believe that the paper of Kac and Paljutkin shows that this is the case whenever 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 be a finite quantum group with notation on the algebra of functions as above. Note that is commutative. Let

,

which is a central idempotent.

### Lemma 8.1

.

*Proof: *If , then for some , and , the mapping is a non-zero homomorphism from into commutative which is impossible.

If , then one of the , with ‘something’ in . Using the centrality and projectionality of , we can show that the given map is indeed a homomorphism.

It follows that , and so

### Lemma 8.2

*Proof: *Suppose that for some non-commutative . This means that there exists an index such that . Then for that factor,

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

We see that for all . Putting we get the result

The following says that 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 will remain there.

### Lemma 8.3

.

*Proof: *Since is a homomorphism, is an idempotent in . I do not understand nor require the rest of the proof.

### Lemma 8.4

* is the algebra of functions on finite group with elements , and we write . The coproduct is given by .*

We have:

,

,

,

as .

The element is a sum of four terms, lying in the subalgebras:

.

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

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

Since the are symmetric () mutually orthogonal idempotents, has similar properties:

for .

At this point Kac and Paljutkin restrict to , that is there is only one summand. Here we *try *to keep arbitrarily (finitely) many summands in .

Let the summand have matrix units , where . Kac and Paljutkin now do something which I think is a little dodgy, but basically that the integral over is equal on each of the , equal on each of the , and then zero off the diagonal.

It does follow from above that each is a projection.

Now I am stuck!

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

## C*-Ideals

Let be a closed (two-sided) ideal in a non-commutative unital -algebra . Such an ideal is self-adjoint and so a non-commutative -algebra . The quotient map is given by , , where is the equivalence class of under the equivalence relation:

.

Where we have the product

,

and the norm is given by:

,

the quotient is a -algebra.

Consider now elements and . Consider

.

The tensor product . Now note that

,

by the nature of the Tensor Product (). Therefore .

### Definition

A WC*-ideal (W for *Woronowicz*) is a C*-ideal such that , where is the quotient map .

Let be the algebra of functions on a classical group . Let . Let be the set of functions which vanish on : this is a C*-ideal. The kernal of is .

Let so that . Note that

and so

.

Note that if . It is not possible that both and are in : if they were , but , which is not in by assumption. Therefore one of or is equal to zero and so:

,

and so by linearity, if vanishes on a subgroup ,

.

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 . Let be the ring homomorphism

.

Then , , 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 paper. Flags and notes are added but mistakes are mine alone.*

#### Definition

Let be the algebra of continuous functions on a compact matrix quantum group. Such an object is given by a matrix which generates as a C*-algebra. Furthermore, there exists a C*-algebra homomorphism such that

,

and both and are invertible in .

Any subgroup is such an object, with the given by . Furthermore

.

We say that is a *representation *if it is invertible and

.

The transpose is also invertible and so we have:

#### Proposition

The C*algebra generated by the 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 is *ergodic* if the convolution powers converge to the Haar state .

The classical theorem for finite groups:

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

A random walk on a finite group driven by a probability is ergodic if and only if 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 , there exists such that .

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

is equal to one (perhaps via invariance ).

If is concentrated on the coset a proper normal subgroup , specifically on , then we have periodicity (), and , the order of .

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 driven by a state 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 is concentrated on a proper quasi-subgroup , in the sense that for a group-like-projection , that so are the . The analogue of irreducible is that for all projections in , there exists such that . If is concentrated on a quasi-subgroup , then for all , , where .

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

,

converge to an idempotent state . If for all then the also, so that (as the Haar state is faithful). I was able to prove that is supported on the quasi-subgroup given by the idempotent .

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 , for 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 be the algebra of function on a finite quantum group. Let be concentrated on a pre-subgroup . We can associate to a group like projection .

Let, and this is another thing I am trying to understand better, this support, the support of be ‘the smallest’ (?) projection such that . Denote this projection by . Define similarly. That are concentrated on is to say that and .

Define a map by

(or should this be or ?)

We can decompose, in the finite case, .

**Claim: **If is concentrated on , … I don’t have a proof but it should fall out of something like together with the decomposition of above. It may also require that is a trace, I don’t know. Something very similar in the preprint.

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

Hit both sides with to get:

.

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

.

However this is the same as

,

in other words , that is remains supported on . As a corollary, a random walk driven by a probability concentrated on a pre-subgroup remains concentrated on .

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 on a *finite* quantum group such that where

,

with . This has a positive density of trace one (with respect to the Haar state ), say

,

where 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 . Assume that (if , then for all and we have trivial convergence)

Therefore let

be the density of .

Now we can explicitly write

.

This has stochastic operator

.

Let be an eigenvalue of of eigenvector . This yields

and thus

.

Therefore, as is also an eigenvector for , and is a stochastic operator (if is an eigenvector of eigenvalue , then , contradiction), we have

.

This means that the eigenvalues of lie in the ball and thus the only eigenvalue of magnitude one is , which has (left)-eigenvector the stationary distribution of , say .

If is symmetric/reversible in the sense that , then is self-adjoint and has a basis of (left)-eigenvectors and we have, if we write ,

,

which converges to (so that ).

If is not reversible, it is a standard argument to show that when put in Jordan normal form, that the powers converge and thus so do the

### Total Variation Decrasing

Uses Simeng Wang’s . Result holds for compact Kac if the state has a density.

### Periodic is concentrated on a coset of a proper normal subgroup of

is a minimal projection (coset) in the quotient space of the normal subgroup (to be double checked) given by

### Supported on Subgroup implies Reducible

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

*Diaconis–Shahshahani Upper Bound Lemma for Finite Quantum Groups, *Journal of Fourier Analysis and Applications, doi: 10.1007/s00041-019-09670-4 (earlier preprint available here)

**Abstract**

*A central tool in the study of ergodic random walks on finite groups is the Upper Bound Lemma of Diaconis and Shahshahani. The Upper Bound Lemma uses Fourier analysis on the group to generate upper bounds for the distance to random and thus can be used to determine convergence rates for ergodic walks. The Fourier analysis of quantum groups is remarkably similar to that of classical groups. This allows for a generalisation of the Upper Bound Lemma to an Upper Bound Lemma for finite quantum groups. The Upper Bound Lemma is used to study the convergence of ergodic random walks on the dual group as well as on the truly quantum groups of Sekine.*

In a recent preprint, Haonan Zhang shows that if (where is a Sekine Finite Quantum Group), then the convolution powers, , converges if

.

The algebra of functions is a multimatrix algebra:

.

As it happens, where , the counit on is given by , that is , dual to .

To help with intuition, making the incorrect assumption that is a classical group (so that is commutative — it’s not), because , the statement , implies that for a real coefficient ,

,

as for classical groups .

That is the condition is a quantum analogue of .

Consider a random walk on a classical (the algebra of functions on is commutative) *finite* group driven by a .

The following is a very non-algebra-of-functions-y proof that implies that the convolution powers of converge.

*Proof: *Let be the smallest subgroup of on which is supported:

.

We claim that the random walk on driven by is *ergordic* (see Theorem 1.3.2).

The driving probability is not supported on any proper subgroup of , by the definition of .

If is supported on a coset of proper normal subgroup , say , then because , this coset must be , but this also contradicts the definition of .

Therefore, converges to the uniform distribution on

Apart from the big reason — that this proof talks about points galore — this kind of proof is not available in the quantum case because there exist that converge, but not to the Haar state on any quantum subgroup. A quick look at the paper of Zhang shows that some such states have the quantum analogue of .

So we have some questions:

- Is there a proof of the classical result (above) in the language of the algebra of functions on , that necessarily bypasses talk of points and of subgroups?
- And can this proof be adapted to the quantum case?
- Is the claim perhaps true for all finite quantum groups but not all compact quantum groups?

## Quantum Subgroups

Let be a the algebra of functions on a finite or perhaps compact quantum group (with comultiplication ) and a state on . We say that a quantum group with algebra of function (with comultiplication ) is a quantum subgroup of if there exists a surjective unital *-homomorphism such that:

.

## The Classical Case

In the classical case, where the algebras of functions on and are commutative,

There is a natural embedding, in the classical case, if is open (always true for finite) (thanks UwF) of ,

,

with for , and otherwise.

Furthermore, is has the property that

,

which resembles .

In the case where is a probability on a classical group , supported on a subgroup , it is very easy to see that convolutions remain supported on . Indeed, is the distribution of the random variable

,

where the i.i.d. . Clearly and so is supported on .

We can also prove this using the language of the commutative algebra of functions on , . The state being supported on implies that

.

Consider now two probabilities on but supported on , say . As they are supported on we have

and .

Consider

,

that is is also supported on and inductively .

## Some Questions

Back to quantum groups with non-commutative algebras of functions.

- Can we embed in with a map and do we have , giving the projection-like quality to ?
- Is a suitable definition for being supported on the subgroup .

If this is the case, the above proof carries through to the quantum case.

- If there is no such embedding, what is the appropriate definition of a being supported on a quantum subgroup ?
- If does not have the property of , in this or another definition, is it still true that being supported on implies that is too?

## Edit

UwF has recommended that I look at this paper to improve my understanding of the concepts involved.

Slides of a talk given at the Irish Mathematical Society 2018 Meeting at University College Dublin, August 2018.

**Abstract** *Four generalisations are used to illustrate the topic. The generalisation from finite “classical” groups to finite quantum groups is motivated using the language of functors (“classical” in this context meaning that the algebra of functions on the group is commutative). The generalisation from random walks on finite “classical” groups to random walks on finite quantum groups is given, as is the generalisation of total variation distance to the quantum case. Finally, a central tool in the study of random walks on finite “classical” groups is the Upper Bound Lemma of Diaconis & Shahshahani, and a generalisation of this machinery is used to find convergence rates of random walks on finite quantum groups.*

## Recent Comments