You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Research Updates’ category.

Finally cracked this egg.

Preprint here.

I thought I had a bit of a breakthrough. So, consider the algebra of a functions on the dual (quantum) group $\widehat{S_3}$. Consider the projection:

$\displaystyle p_0=\frac12\delta^e+\frac12\delta^{(12)}\in F(\widehat{S_3})$.

Define $u\in M_p(\widehat{S_3})$ by:

$u(\delta^\sigma)=\langle\text{sign}(\sigma)1,1\rangle=\text{sign}(\sigma)$.

Note

$\displaystyle T_u(p_0)=\frac12\delta^e-\frac12 \delta^{(12)}:=p_1$.

Note $p_1=\mathbf{1}_{\widehat{S_3}}-p_0=\delta^0-p_0$ so $\{p_0,p_1\}$ is a partition of unity.

I know that $p_0$ corresponds to a quasi-subgroup but not a quantum subgroup because $\{e,(12)\}$ is not normal.

This was supposed to say that the result I proved a few days ago that (in context), that $p_0$ corresponded to a quasi-subgroup, was as far as we could go.

For $H\leq G$, note

$\displaystyle p_H=\frac{1}{|H|}\sum_{h\in H}\delta^h$,

is a projection, in fact a group like projection, in $F(\widehat{G})$.

Alas note:

$\displaystyle T_u(p_{\langle(123)\rangle})=p_{\langle (123)\rangle}$

That is the group like projection associated to $\langle (123)\rangle$ is subharmonic. This should imply that nearby there exists a projection $q$ such that $u^{\star k}(q)=0$ for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$… also $q_{\langle (123)\rangle}:=\mathbf{1}_{\widehat{S_3}}-p_{\langle(123)\rangle}$ is subharmonic.

This really should be enough and I should be looking perhaps at the standard representation, or the permutation representation, or $S_3\leq S_4$… but I want to find the projection…

Indeed $u(q_{(123)})=0$…and $u^{\star 2k}(q_{\langle (123)\rangle})=0$.

The punchline… the result of Fagnola and Pellicer holds when the random walk is is irreducible. This walk is not… back to the drawing board.

I have constructed the following example. The question will be does it have periodicity.

Where $\rho:S_n\rightarrow \text{GL}(\mathbb{C}^3)$ is the permutation representation, $\rho(\sigma)e_i=e_{\sigma_i}$, and $\xi=(1/\sqrt{2},-1/\sqrt{2},0)$, $u\in M_p(G)$ is given by:

$u(\sigma)=\langle\rho(\sigma)\xi,\xi\rangle$.

This has $u(\delta^e)=1$ (duh), $u(\delta^{(12)})=-1$, and otherwise $u(\sigma)=-\frac12 \text{sign}(\sigma)$.

The $p_0,\,p_1$ above is still a cyclic partition of unity… but is the walk irreducible?

The easiest way might be to look for a subharmonic $p$. This is way easier… with $\alpha_\sigma=1$ it is easy to construct non-trivial subharmonics… not with this $u$. It is straightforward to show there are no non-trivial subharmonics and so $u$ is irreducible, periodic, but $p_0$ is not a quantum subgroup.

It also means, in conjunction with work I’ve done already, that I have my result:

Definition Let $G$ be a finite quantum group. A state $\nu\in M_p(G)$ is concentrated on a cyclic coset of a proper quasi-subgroup if there exists a pair of projections, $p_0\neq p_1$, such that $\nu(p_1)=1$, $p_0$ is a group-like projection, $T_\nu(p_1)=p_0$ and there exists $d\in\mathbb{N}$ ($d>1$) such that $T_\nu^d(p_1)=p_1$.

## (Finally) The Ergodic Theorem for Random Walks on Finite Quantum Groups

A random walk on a finite quantum group is ergodic if and only if the driving probability is not concentrated on a proper quasi-subgroup, nor on a cyclic coset of a proper quasi-subgroup.

The end of the previous Research Log suggested a way towards showing that $p_0$ can be associated to an idempotent state $\int_S$. Over night I thought of another way.

Using the Pierce decomposition with respect to $p_0$ (where $q_0:=\mathbf{1}_G-p_0$),

$F(G)=p_0F(G)p_0+p_0F(G)q_0+q_0F(G)p_0+q_0F(G)q_0$.

The corner $p_0F(G)p_0$ is a hereditary $\mathrm{C}^*$-subalgebra of $F(G)$. This implies that if $0\leq b\in p_0F(G)p_0$ and for $a\in F(G)$, $0\leq a\leq b\Rightarrow a\in p_0F(G)p_0$.

Let $\rho:=\nu^{\star d}$. We know from Fagnola and Pellicer that $T_\rho(p_0)=p_0$ and $T_\rho(p_0F(G)p_0)=p_0F(G)p_0$.

By assumption in the background here we have an irreducible and periodic random walk driven by $\nu\in M_p(G)$. This means that for all projections $q\in 2^G$, there exists $k_q\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $\nu^{\star k_q}(q)>0$.

Define:

$\displaystyle \rho_n=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=1}^n\rho^{\star k}$.

Define:

$\displaystyle n_0:=\max_{\text{projections, }q\in p_0F(G)p_0}\left\{k_q\,:\,\nu^{\star k_q}(q)> 0\right\}$.

The claim is that the support of $\rho_{n_0}$, $p_{\rho_{n_0}}$ is equal to $p_0$.

We probably need to write down that:

$\varepsilon T_\nu^k=\nu^{\star k}$.

Consider $\rho^{\star k}(p_0)$ for any $k\in\mathbb{N}$. Note

\begin{aligned}\rho^{\star k}(p_0)&=\varepsilon T_{\rho^{\star k}}(p_0)=\varepsilon T^k_\rho(p_0)\\&=\varepsilon T^k_{\nu^{\star d}}(p_0)=\varepsilon T_\nu^{kd}(p_0)\\&=\varepsilon(p_0)=1\end{aligned}

that is each $\rho^{\star k}$ is supported on $p_0$. This means furthermore that $\rho_{n_0}(p_0)=1$.

Suppose that the support $p_{\rho_{n_0}}. A question arises… is $p_{\rho_{n_0}}\in p_0F(G)p_0$? This follows from the fact that $p_0\in p_0F(G)p_0$ and $p_0F(G)p_0$ is hereditary.

Consider a projection $r:=p_0-p_{\rho_{n_0}}\in p_0F(G)p_0$. We know that there exists a $k_r\leq n_0$ such that

$\nu^{\star k_r}(p_0-p_{\rho_{n_0}})>0\Rightarrow \nu^{\star k_r}(p_0)>\nu^{\star k_r}(p_{\rho_{n_0}})$.

This implies that $\nu^{\star k_r}(p_0)>0\Rightarrow k_r\equiv 0\mod d$, say $k_r=\ell_r\cdot d$ (note $\ell_r\leq n_0$):

\begin{aligned}\nu^{\star \ell_r\cdot d}(p_0)&>\nu^{\star \ell_r\cdot d}(p_{\rho_{n_0}})\\\Rightarrow (\nu^{\star d})^{\star \ell_r}(p_0)&>(\nu^{\star d})^{\star \ell_r}(p_{\rho_{n_0}})\\ \Rightarrow \rho^{\star \ell_r}(p_0)&>\rho^{\star \ell_r}(p_{\rho_{n_0}})\\ \Rightarrow 1&>\rho^{\star \ell_r}(p_{\rho_{n_0}})\end{aligned}

By assumption $\rho_{n_0}(p_{\rho_{n_0}})=1$. Consider

$\displaystyle \rho_{n_0}(p_{\rho_{n_0}})=\frac{1}{n_0} \sum_{k=1}^{n_0}\rho^{\star k}(p_{\rho_{n_0}})$.

For this to equal one every $\rho^{\star k}(p_{\rho_{n_0}})$ must equal one but $\rho^{\star \ell_r}(p_{\rho_{n_0}})<1$.

Therefore $p_0$ is the support of $\rho_{n_0}$.

Let $\rho_\infty=\lim \rho_n$. We have shown above that $\rho^{\star k}(p_0)=1$ for all $k\in\mathbb{N}$. This is an idempotent state such that $p_0$ is its support (a similar argument to above shows this). Therefore $p_0$ is a group like projection and so we denote it by $\mathbf{1}_S$ and $\int_S=d\mathcal{F}(\mathbf{1}_S)$!

Today, for finite quantum groups, I want to explore some properties of the relationship between a state $\nu\in M_p(G)$, its density $a_\nu$ ($\nu(b)=\int_G ba_\nu$), and the support of $\nu$, $p_{\nu}$.

I also want to learn about the interaction between these object, the stochastic operator

$\displaystyle T_\nu=(\nu\otimes I)\circ \Delta$,

and the result

$T_\nu(a)=S(a_\nu)\overline{\star}a$,

where $\overline{\star}$ is defined as (where $\mathcal{F}:F(G)\rightarrow \mathbb{C}G$ by $a\mapsto (b\mapsto \int_Gba)$).

$\displaystyle a\overline{\star}b=\mathcal{F}^{-1}\left(\mathcal{F}(a)\star\mathcal{F}(b)\right)$.

An obvious thing to note is that

$\nu(a_\nu)=\|a_\nu\|_2^2$.

Also, because

\begin{aligned}\nu(a_\nu p_\nu)&=\int_Ga_\nu p_\nu a_\nu=\int_G(a_\nu^\ast p_\nu^\ast p_\nu a_\nu)\\&=\int_G(p_\nu a_\nu)^\ast p_\nu a_\nu\\&=\int_G|p_\nu a_\nu|^2\\&=\|p_\nu a_\nu\|_2^2=\|a_\nu\|^2\end{aligned}

That doesn’t say much. We are possibly hoping to say that $a_\nu p_\nu=a_\nu$.

## Quasi-Subgroups that are not Subgroups

Let $G$ be a finite quantum group. We associate to an idempotent state $\int_S$quasi-subgroup $S$. This nomenclature must be included in the manuscript under preparation.

As is well known from the GNS representation, positive linear functionals can be associated to closed left ideals:

$\displaystyle N_{\rho}:=\left\{ f\in F(G):\rho(|f|^2)=0\right\}$.

In the case of a quasi-subgroup, $S\subset G$, my understanding is that by looking at $N_S:=N_{\int_S}$ we can tell if $S$ is actually a subgroup or not. Franz & Skalski show that:

Let $S\subset G$ be a quasi-subgroup. TFAE

• $S\leq G$ is a subgroup
• $N_{\int_S}$ is a two-sided or self-adjoint or $S$ invariant ideal of $F(G)$
• $\mathbf{1}_Sa=a\mathbf{1}_S$

I want to look again at the Kac & Paljutkin quantum group $\mathfrak{G}_0$ and see how the Pal null-spaces $N_{\rho_6}$ and $N_{\rho_7}$ fail these tests. Both Franz & Gohm and Baraquin should have the necessary left ideals.

### The Pal Null-Space $N_{\rho_6}$

The following is an idempotent probability on the Kac-Paljutkin quantum group:

$\displaystyle \rho_6(f)=2\int_{\mathfrak{G}_0}f\cdot (e_1+e_4+E_{11})$.

Hence:

$N_{\rho_6}=\langle e_1,e_3,E_{12},E_{22}\rangle$.

If $N_{\rho_6}$ were two-sided, $N_{\rho_6}F(\mathfrak{G}_0)\subset N_{\rho_6}$. Consider $E_{21}\in F(\mathfrak{G}_0)$ and

$E_{12}E_{21}=E_{11}\not\in N_{\rho_6}$.

We see problems also with $E_{12}$ when it comes to the adjoint $E_{12}^{\ast}=E_{21}\not\in N_{\rho_6}$ and also $S(E_{12})=E_{21}\not\in N_{\rho_6}$. It is not surprise that the adjoint AND the antipode are involved as they are related via:

$S(S(f^\ast)^\ast)=f$.

In fact, for finite or even Kac quantum groups, $S(f^\ast)=S(f)^\ast$.

Can we identity the support $p$? I think we can, it is (from Baraquin)

$p_{\rho_6}=e_1+e_4+E_{11}$.

This does not commute with $F(G)$:

$E_{21}p_{\rho_6}=E_{21}\neq 0=p_{\rho_6}E_{21}$.

The other case is similar.

Back before Christmas I felt I was within a week of proving the following:

Ergodic Theorem for Random Walks on Finite Quantum Groups

A random walk on a finite quantum group $G$ is ergodic if and only if $\nu$ is not concentrated on a proper quasi-subgroup, nor the coset of a ?normal ?-subgroup.

The first part of this conjecture says that if $\nu$ is concentrated on a quasi-subgroup, then it stays concentrated there. Furthermore, we can show that if the random walk is reducible that the Césaro limit gives a quasi-subgroup on which $\nu$ is concentrated.

The other side of the ergodicity coin is periodicity. In the classical case, it is easy to show that if the driving probability is concentrated on the coset of a proper normal subgroup $N\lhd G$, that the convolution powers jump around a cyclic subgroup of $G/N$.

One would imagine that in the quantum case this might be easy to show but alas this is not proving so easy.

I am however pushing hard against the other side. Namely, that if the random walk is periodic and irreducible, that the driving probability in concentrated on some quasi-normal quasi-subgroup!

The progress I have made depends on work of Fagnola and Pellicer. They show that if the random walk is irreducible and periodic that there exists a partition of unity $\{p_0,p_1,\dots,p_{d-1}\}$ such that $\nu^{\star k}$ is concentrated on $p_{k\mod d}$.

This cyclic nature suggests that $p_0$ might be equal to $\mathbf{1}_N$ for some $N\lhd G$ and perhaps:

$\Delta(p_i)=\sum_{j=0}^{d-1}p_{i-j}\otimes p_j,$

and perhaps there is an isomorphism $G/N\cong C_d$. Unfortunately I have been unable to progress this.

What is clear is that the ‘supports’ of the $p_i$ behave very much like the cosets of proper normal subgroup $N\lhd G$.

As the random walk is assumed irreducible, we know that for any projection $q\in 2^G$, there exists a $k_q\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $\nu^{\star k_q}(q)\neq 0$.

Playing this game with the Haar element, $\eta\in 2^G$, note there exists a $k_\eta\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $\nu^{k_\eta}(\eta)>0$.

Let $\overline{\nu}=\nu^{\star k_\eta}$. I have proven that if $\mu(\eta)>0$, then the convolution powers of $\mu\in M_p(G)$ converge. Convergence is to an idempotent. This means that $\overline{\nu}^{\star k}$ converges to an idempotent $\overline{\nu}_\infty$, and so we have a quasi-subgroup corresponding to it, say $\overline{p}$.

The question is… does $\overline{p}$ coincide with $p_0$?

If yes, is there any quotient structure by a quasi-subgroup? Is there a normal quasi-subgroup that allows such a structure?

Is $\overline{p}$ a subgroup? Could it be a normal subgroup?

As nice as it was to invoke the result that if $e$ is in the support of $\nu$, then the convolution powers of $\nu$ converge, by looking at those papers which cite Fagnola and Pellicer we see a paper that gives the same result without this neat little lemma.

In the case of a finite classical group $G$, we can show that if we have i.i.d. random variables $\zeta_i\sim\nu\in M_p(G)$, that if $\text{supp }\nu\subset Ng$, for $Ng$ a coset of a proper normal subgroup $N\rhd G$, that the random walk on $G$ driven by $\nu$, the random variables:

$\xi_k=\zeta_k\cdots \zeta_1$,

exhibits a periodicity because

$\xi_k\in Ng^{k}$.

This shows that a necessary condition for ergodicity of a random walk on a finite classical group $G$ driven by $\nu\in M_p(G)$ is that the support of $\nu$ not be concentrated on the coset of a proper normal subgroup.

I had hoped that something similar might hold for the case of random walks on finite quantum groups but alas I think I have found a barrier.

Diaconis–Shahshahani Upper Bound Lemma for Finite Quantum GroupsJournal 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 $\widehat{S_n}$ as well as on the truly quantum groups of Sekine.

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.

In May 2017 I wrote down some problems that I hoped to look at in my study of random walks on quantum groups. Following work of Amaury Freslon, a number of these questions have been answered. In exchange for solving these problems, Amaury has very kindly suggested some other problems that I can work on. The below hopes to categorise some of these problems and their status.

## Solved!

• Show that the total variation distance is equal to the projection distance. Amaury has an a third proof. Amaury suggests that this should be true in more generality than the case of $\nu$ being absolutely continuous (of the form $\nu(x)=\int_G xa_{\nu}$ for all $x\in C(G)$ and a unique $a_{\nu}\in C(G)$). If the Haar state is no longer tracial Amaury’s proof breaks down (and I imagine so do the two others in the link above). Amaury believes this is true in more generality and says perhaps the Jordan decomposition of states will be useful here.
• Prove the Upper Bound Lemma for compact quantum groups of Kac type. Achieved by Amaury.
• Attack random walks with conjugate invariant driving probabilitys: achieved by Amaury.
• Look at quantum generalisations of ‘natural’ random walks and shuffles. Solved is probably too strong a word, but Amaury has started this study by looking at a generalisation of the random transposition shuffle. As I suggested in Seoul, Amaury says: “One important problem in my opinion is to say something about analogues of classical random walks on $S_n$ (for instance the random transpositions or riffle shuffle)”. Amaury notes that “we are blocked by the counit problem. We must therefore seek bounds for other distances. As I suggest in my paper, we may look at the norm of the difference of the transition operators. The $\mathcal{L}^2$-estimate that I give is somehow the simplest thing one can do and should be thought of as a “spectral gap” estimate. Better norms would be the norms as operators on $\mathcal{L}^\infty$ or even better, the completely bounded norm. However, I have not the least idea of how to estimate this.”

## Results to be Improved

• I have recently received an email from Isabelle Baraquin, a student of Uwe Franz, pointing out a small error in the thesis (a basis-error with the Kac-Paljutkin quantum groups).
• Recent calculations suggest that the lower bound for the random walk on the dual of $S_n$ is effective at $k\sim (n-1)!$ while the upper bound shows the walk is random at time order $n!$.  This is still a very large gap but at least the lower bound shows that this walk does converge very slowly.
• Get a much sharper lower bound for the random walk on the Sekine family of quantum groups studied in Section 5.7. Projection onto the ‘middle’ of the $M_n(\mathbb{C})$ factor may provide something of use. On mature reflection, recognising that the application of the upper bound lemma is dominated by one set of terms in particular, it should be possible to use cruder but more elegant estimates to get the same upper bound except with lighter calculations (and also a smaller $\alpha$ — see Section 5.7).

## More Questions on Random Walks

• Irreducibility is harder than the classical case (where ‘not concentrated’ on a subgroup is enough). Can anything be said about aperiodicity in the quantum case? (U. Franz).
• Prove an Ergodic Theorem (Theorem 1.3.2) for Finite Quantum Groups. Extend to Compact Quantum Groups. It is expected that the conditions may be more difficult than the classical case. However, it may be possible to use Diaconis-Van Daele theory to get some results in this direction. It should be possible to completely analyse some examples (such as the Kac-Paljutkin quantum group of order 8).This will involve a study of subgroups of quantum groups as well as normal quantum subgroups and cosets.
• Look at a random walk on the Sekine quantum groups with an $n$-dependent driving probability and see if the cut-off phenomenon (Chapter 4) can be detected. This will need good lower bounds for $k\ll t_n$, some cut-off time.
• Convolutions Factorisations of the Random Distribution: such a study may prove fruitful in trying to find the Ergodic Theorem. See Section 6.5.
• Amaury mentions the problem of considering random walks associated to non-central states (in the compact case). “The difficulty is first to build non-central states (I do not have explicit examples at hand but Uwe Franz said he had some) and second to be able to compute their Fourier transform. Then, the computations will certainly be hard but may still be doable.”
• A study of the Cesaro means: see Section 6.6.
• Spectral Analysis: it should be possible to derive crude bounds using the spectrum of the stochastic operator. More in Section 6.2.

## Future Work (for which I do not yet have the tools to attack)

• Amaury/Franz Something perhaps more accessible is to investigate quantum homogeneous spaces. The free sphere is a noncommutative analogue of the usual sphere and a quantum homogeneous space for the free orthogonal quantum group. We can therefore define random walks on it and the whole machinery of Gelfand pairs might be available. In particular, Caspers gave a Plancherel theorem for Gelfand pairs of locally compact quantum groups which should apply here yielding an Upper Bound Lemma and then the problem boils down to something which should be close to my computations. There are probably works around this involving Adam Skalski and coauthors.
• Amaury: If one can prove a more general total variation distance equal to half one norm result, then Amaury suggests one can consider random walks on compact quantum groups which are not of Kac type. The Upper Bound Lemma will then involve matrices $Q$ measuring the modular theory of the Haar state and some (but not all) dimensions in the formulas must be replaced by quantum dimensions. The main problem here is to define explicit central states since there is no Haar-state preserving conditional expectation onto the central algebra. However, there are tools from monoidal equivalence to do this.