arXiv:math/9806063v2 [math.QA] 22 Jun 1998
A RECONSTRUCTION RESULT FOR THE R-MATRIX QUANTIZATIONS OF SU(N)
TEODOR BANICA
Abstract. We use reconstruction techniques of Woronowicz and Kazhdan-Wenzl for proving that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the compact quantum groups having the same representation semiring as SU(N) and a certain class of Hecke symmetries considered by Gurevich.
In [12] Woronowicz developed a Tannaka-Krein type duality for the compact quan-tum groups, and used it for definingq-deformations (withq ≥0) of the HopfC∗-algebra C(SU(N)), and for classifying the finite dimensional irreducible representations of the corresponding quantum groups SUq(N). He established an isomorphism of the form
R+(SUq(N))≃R+(SU(N)), whereR+denotes the representation semiring, i.e. the set of equivalence classes of finite dimensional irreducible representations, endowed with the usual sum and tensor product of representations. For the relation of SUq(N) with the Drinfeld-Jimbo algebra UqslN, and of the above-mentioned isomorphism with the Lusztig-Rosso isomorphism R+(U
qslN)≃R+(slN), see [8].
In this paper we will extend the construction of SUq(N) and the computation of
R+(SUq(N)) to the most general setting. We will prove that the compact quantum groups G satisfying R+(G) ≃ R+(SU(N)) are in one-to-one correspondence with a certain class of Hecke symmetries considered by Gurevich [4]. The relation of the Hecke symmetry R with the quantum group that we construct, say SUR(N), can be understood in two ways.
1. In [6] Kazhdan and Wenzl classified the rigid monoidal semisimple C-categories having the Grothendieck semiring isomorphic to R+(SU(N)). We will find necessary and sufficient conditions on a Hecke symmetry R to define a monoidal functor FR : Cτ
N,q →vectC, whereCN,qτ is one of the categories from [6]. ThusSUR(N) can be viewed
as the quantum group corresponding via duality ([12]) to the pair (Cτ
N,q, FR).
2. The algebra C(SUR(N)) will be defined in fact directely with generators and relations, in a way similar to the one used in [12] for definingC(SUq(N)). We mention that this last description can be suitably modified into a construction in the spirit of [3]: more precisely,SUR(N) arises as a “compact form” of the quantum groupSLR(N) constructed in [4].
One can ask if the Hecke symmetries we consider, or, equivalently, if the compact quantum groups we construct, can be completely classified. The caseN = 2 is elemen-tary (see [1]). For N = 3 the situation is much more complicated - see [9] and [7]. For
N ≥4 it seems that very less is known on this subject. We would like to mention that there are also two related problems:
1. The isomorphismϕR:R+(SU(N))≃R+(SUR(N)) is not necessarely dimension-preserving (see [1]). Note also that the Prop. 6.1 in [2] shows that ϕR has to increase
the dimensions. It is not clear what are the functionsd:R+(SU(N))→Nwhich may be written as dim◦ϕR, for some Hecke symmetry R.
2. It is easy to see that the compact quantum groups G such that there exists a dimension-preserving isomorphism R+(G) ≃ R+(SU(2)) are exactly the ones defined in [11]. We mention that an easy computation shows that the negative values of the deformation parameter µused in [11] correspond to positive values of the parameter q, but to the value τ =−1 of the “twist” from [6]. It is not clear for N ≥3 what values of the twist can arise from compact quantum groups.
These examples and results suggest the following conjecture: for anyN ≥2, for any
q ∈(0,1], and for any function d: R+(SU(N))→ Nthere are finitely many compact quantum groups G such that there exists an isomorphism ϕ :R+(G) ≃R+(SUR(N)) such that dim ◦ϕ = d, and which correspond to the parameter q (this q ∈ (0,1] is uniquely determined by G, cf. e.g. [6]). We mention that when N ≥ 3 and d is the usual dimension of representations, Woronowicz stated in the end of [12] a much more stronger conjecture, with “only one (i.e. SUq(N))” at the place of “finitely many”.
1. Hecke symmetries
Let q∈C∗ be such that q = 1 or q is not a root of unity. We will use the standard
notations [m]q = qm−1
q−1 and [m]q! = [1]q[2]q...[m]q.
The Hecke algebraHn(q) is defined with generators 1, T1, ..., Tn−1 and relations
TiTj =TjTi if |i−j |>1,
TiTi+1Ti =Ti+1TiTi+1 if 1≤i < n−1, (Ti−q)(Ti+ 1) = 0 f or 1≤i < n. The unit of Hn(q) will be sometimes denoted by 1n.
For any elementσof the symmetric groupSnan elementTσ ∈Hn(q) could be defined as follows. Choose any presentation of σ as a product of elementary transpositions
σi = (i, i+ 1) ∈ Sn, σ = σi1...σil that has the shortest lenght l = l(σ) and define
Tσ := Ti1...Til. It is well known that Tσ does not depend on a choice of a shortest
decomposition σ=σi1...σil.
Form, n∈N define a morphism of algebras
Hm(q)×Hn(q)→Hm+n(q), (a, b)7→a⊙b
by (Ti,1n)7→Tifor 1≤i < mand (1m, Tj)7→Tm+j for 1≤j < n. Letσm,n ∈Sm+nbe the permutation given by i7→i+n if 1≤i≤m and i7→i−m if m+ 1≤i≤m+n. Then the “braiding” Sm,n := (−1)mnT
σm,n ∈Hm+n(q) satisfies (see [6], Lemma 5.1):
Sm,n(a⊙b) = (b⊙a)Sm,n if a∈Hm(q), b∈Hn(q). (1n⊙ Sm,p)(Sm,n⊙1p) =Sm,n+p for every m, n, p. (Sm,p⊙1n)(1m⊙ Sn,p) =Sm+n,p for every m, n, p.
It is well-known thatHk(q) is semisimple and isomorphic to the group algebraCSk. LetYk be the set of Young diagrams havingk boxes and{eλ}λ∈Yk be the set of central
minimal idempotents in Hk(q) as constructed in the section 2 of [10]. The parity idempotent is the one corresponding to the column havingk boxes and is given by the well-known formula
ek := ([k]q−1!)−1 X
σ∈Sk
(−q)−l(σ)T σ
Definition 1.1. A Hecke symmetry is a linear operator R∈ L(Cn⊗Cn)satisfying the
Yang-Baxter equation R1R2R1 =R2R1R2 and the Hecke condition(R−q)(R+ 1) = 0. It defines for every k a representation πk : Hk(q) → L((Cn)⊗k) by Ti 7→ idi−1 ⊗R⊗
idk−i−1, where idm :=id(Cn)⊗m. The projection πk(ek) will be denoted by Pk.
The linear space Λk
− := Im(Pk) could be thought as an analogue of the space of
antisymmetric tensors in (Cn)⊗k. IfR ∈ L(Cn⊗Cn) is a Hecke symmetry satisfying
PN+1 = 0, PN 6= 0 for some N ∈N then the following conditions are equivalent : (∗)rank(PN) = 1.
(∗∗)ψ 7→(ψ⊗id)(R) defines a bijection L(Cn)∗ → L(Cn). If these conditions are satisfied then for every k < N the pairing
Im(Pk)×Im(PN−k)→Im(PN), (x, y)7→PN(x⊗y)
is nondegenerate. This Poincar´e type duality is due to Gurevich (see Prop. 3.6, 3.9, 3.10 in [4]).
We will prove in this section the following result :
Proposition 1.1. If R ∈ L(Cn⊗Cn) is a Hecke q-symmetry then following two
con-ditions are equivalent :
(ia) For every k the central minimal idempotents killed by πk are exactly the ones
corresponding to Young diagrams having > N rows. (ib) PN+1= 0, PN 6= 0.
If q ∈ (0,1] and R ∈ L(Cn⊗Cn) is a Hecke q-symmetry which is self-adjoint with
respect to the canonical Hilbert space structure of Cn ⊗ Cn, then the following two
conditions are equivalent :
(iia) PN+1 = 0, rank(PN) = 1.
(iib) ψ 7→(ψ⊗id)R is a bijection L(Cn)∗ → L(Cn) and there exists a faithful state
ϕ on L(Cn) such that (id⊗ϕ)R =qN[N]−1 q id. Define the following elements ofHk(q) :
αk:= 1−q−1Tk−1+q−2Tk−2Tk−1+...+ (−q−1)k−1T1...Tk−1
βk := 1−q−1Tk−1+q−2Tk−1Tk−2+...+ (−q−1)k−1Tk−1...T1
γk:= 1−q−1T1+q−2T2T1+...+ (−q−1)k−1Tk−1...T1
δk := 1−q−1T1+q−2T1T2 +...+ (−q−1)k−1T1...Tk−1
Lemma 1.1. (i) e2
k=ek and Tσek =ekTσ = (−1)l(σ)ek, ∀σ∈Sk.
(ii) [k]q−1ek =αk(ek
−1⊙1) = (ek−1⊙1)βk =γk(1⊙ek−1) = (1⊙ek−1)δk.
(iii) ek=ek(ek−1⊙1) = (ek−1⊙1)ek =ek(1⊙ek−1) = (1⊙ek−1)ek.
(iv) [k+ 1]q−1(1⊙ek)ek+1 = (1⊙ek)−q−k[k]q(1⊙ek)T1(1⊙ek).
(v) [k+ 1]qek+1 =q[k]q(ek⊙1)(1⊙ek) +S1,k(1⊙ek).
Proof. For (i,ii) see the section 3 in [6] and/or the section 2 in [4]. (iii) follows by multiplying the equalities in (ii) by 1⊙ek−1 and ek−1⊙1, which are idempotents by (i). For (iv) remark first that γk+1 = 1−q−1(1⊙γk)T1. Also by definition of γk and by (i) we get ekγk = 1−q
−k
1−q−1ek so
[k+ 1]q−1(1⊙ek)ek+1 = (1⊙ek)γk+1(1⊙ek) =
(1⊙ek)−q−1(1⊙ek)(1⊙γk)T
(1⊙ek)−q−k[k]q(1⊙ek)T
1(1⊙ek).
For (v) remark that by definitions we have γk+1 = γk ⊙ 1 + (−q−1)kTk...T1 and S1,k = (−1)kTσ1,k = (−1)
kT
σk...σ1 = (−1)
kT
k...T1 so
[k+ 1]q−1ek+1 =γk+1(1⊙ek) = (γk⊙1 +q−kS1,k)(1⊙ek) =
(γk⊙1)(1⊙ek) +q−kS1,k(1⊙ek) =
(γk⊙1)[(1⊙ek−1 ⊙1)(1⊙ek)] +q−kS1,k(1⊙ek) = [(γk⊙1)(1⊙ek−1 ⊙1)](1⊙ek) +q−kS1,k(1⊙ek) =
[k]q−1(ek⊙1)(1⊙ek) +q−kS1,k(1⊙ek). 2
Lemma 1.2. SupposeR is a Hecke symmetry such that PN+1 = 0andrank(PN) = 1.
If {e1, ..., en} is the standard basis of Cn and ξ = Pni=1ei ⊗xi = Pni=1yi ⊗ei is a
non-zero vector in Im(PN), then x1, ..., xn (resp. y1, ..., yn) are linearly independent.
Proof. By Lemma 1.1 (iii) (id1⊗PN−1)PN =PN so (id1 ⊗PN−1)ξ =ξ and all xi’s are in the image of PN−1. The Poincar´e type duality of Gurevich says for k = 1 that the pairing Cn×Im(P
N−1) → Cξ, (e, x) 7→ PN(e⊗x) is non-degenerate, so the xi’s
are linearly independent. Same proof for the yi’s. 2
Recall that the Markov traces on Hk(q) are the ones whose compositions with the surjection from the braid group are invariant under Markov moves, and give the Homfly polynomial for links. One definition is the following (see [5]). The linear map
h+h′⊗h′′ 7→h+h′T
n−1h′′
defines a bijection Hn−1(q)⊕(Hn−1(q)⊗Hn−2(q)Hn−1(q))→Hn(q), so for every z ∈C
there is a linear map ψn−1,n
z : Hn(q) → Hn−1(q), well-defined by h +h′Tn−1h′′ 7→
h+zh′h′′. The (unique) Markov trace of modulus z onHk(q) could be defined as the
composition
ψk
z :=ψ1z,2◦...◦ψzk−1,k :Hk(q)→H1(q) =C
It was shown in the section 3 of [10] that the central minimal idempotents in Hk(q) having nonzero weights with respect to the Markov trace of modulus qN[N]−1
q are exactly the ones corresponding to Young diagrams having ≤N rows.
Lemma 1.3. Let R be a Hecke symmetry satisfying PN+1 = 0, PN 6= 0. Choose e :
C→(Cn)⊗N andp: (Cn)⊗N →Csuch thatpe=idandIm(ep)⊂Im(P
N)and define
ϕ∈ L(Cn)∗ by ϕ(x) =p(x⊗id
N−1)e. Then ϕ(id) = 1 and (id⊗ϕ)(R) =qN[N]−q1id.
Proof. The Lemma 1.1 (iv) says for k =N that
qN[N]−1
q (id⊗PN) = (id⊗PN)(R⊗idN−1)(id⊗PN) and now using pe=id, PNe =e and pPN =p we get ϕ(id) = 1 and
(id⊗ϕ)(R) = (id⊗p)(R⊗idN−1)(id⊗e) = (id⊗p)(id⊗PN)(R⊗idN−1)(id⊗PN)(id⊗e) = (id⊗p)qN[N]−1
q (id⊗PN)(id⊗e) =qN[N]−q1id. 2
Lemma 1.4. Let R be a Hecke symmetry and ϕ a linear unital form on L(Cn)
sat-isfying (id⊗ϕ)(R) =z ·id. Then ϕ⊗kπ
k is the Markov trace of modulus z on Hk(q), ∀k ≥1.
Proof. Ify ∈Hn+1(q), y=h+h′Tnh′′ with h, h′, h′′ ∈Hn(q) then (idn⊗ϕ)πn+1(y) =
(idn⊗ϕ)[(πn(h)⊗id1) + (πn(h′)⊗id1)(idn−1⊗R)(πn(h′′)⊗id1)] =
πn(h) +πn(h′)[(id
n⊗ϕ)(idn−1⊗R)]πn(h′′) =
πn(h) +zπn(h′)πn(h′′) =π
nψzn+1,n(y) and the equality ϕ⊗kπ
k =ψkz follows by recurrence on k. 2
Proof. (ia) =⇒ (ib)is trivial.
(ib)=⇒ (ia)Fixk ∈Nand letY−
k (resp. Y +
k ) be the set of Young diagrams having ≤ N (resp. > N) rows. As PN+1 = 0 and PN 6= 0, the preceding Lemmas show that the Markov trace of modulus qN[N]−1
q on Hk(q) factorises through πk. In particular the idempotents corresponding to diagrams in Y−
k , which have nonzero weights with respect to this trace, are not killed by πk.
It remains to show that if λ∈Yk+ then πk(eλ) = 0. If k≤N then Y +
k =∅, so there is nothing to prove. Assume that k > N and consider the inclusion i : HN+1 ֒→ Hk given byx7→x⊙1k−N−1 (1k−N−1 is the unit ofHk−N−1). Then the idempotenti(eN+1) decomposes in Hk as
P
λ∈Ykfλ, with fλ :=i(eN+1)eλ, and it is clear from the Young
graph (which describes the inclusions x 7→ x⊙1 of the Hecke algebras, see [5], figure 3.3) that the idempotentsfλ are zero forλ∈Yk− and nonzero forλ∈Y
+
k . By applying
πk we get
P
λ∈Yk+πk(fλ) = PN+1⊗idk−N−1 = 0, so allπk(fλ)’s are zero. Now for every
λ ∈ Yk+ the restriction of πk to the factor eλHk(q) is zero on the nonzero idempotent
fλ, so this restriction is zero andπk(eλ) = 0.
(iia) =⇒ (iib) By the equivalence (∗)⇔ (∗∗), the mapψ 7→(ψ⊗id)R is bijective. Define e: C→ (Cn)⊗N by e(z) = zξ and p : (Cn)⊗N →C by p=e∗. As all Pk’s are
now self-adjoint projections (see their definition), ep =PN so Lemma 1.3 applies and shows that
ϕ(x) :=p(x⊗idN−1)e=<(x⊗idN−1)ξ, ξ > verifies (id⊗ϕ)(R) = qN[N]−1
q id. Also ϕ is clearly positive and unital. Write ξ =
P
ei⊗xi. The Lemma 1.2 shows thatx1, ..., xnare linearly independent, so the matrix
X =< xi, xj >ij is non-singular andϕ :x7→T r(xX) is faithful.
(iib) =⇒ (iia) Lemma 1.4 applies and shows that ϕ⊗kπ
k is the Markov trace of modulus qN[N]−1
q on Hk(q), ∀k. Moreover ϕ⊗k is positive on Im(πk), so the central minimal idempotents of Hk(q) killed by πk are the exactly the ones which are killed by the Markov trace of modulus qN[N]−1
q , i.e. the ones corresponding to diagrams having> N rows [10]. In particular PN+1 = 0 andPN 6= 0, and by the the equivalence
(∗)⇔(∗∗) we have also rank(PN) = 1. 2
2. Reconstruction of the monoidal functor
In [6] the rigid monoidal semisimple C-categories having the Grothendieck semiring isomorphic toR+(SU(N)) were classified (see the section 1 in [6] for all the terminology concerning categories). These are monoidal categories Cτ
N,q indexed by a N-th root of unity τ and by a complex number q ∈ C∗ (which is equal to 1 or is not a root of
unity, and which is unique up to q 7→q−1). If τ = 1 thenC1
N,q is the category of finite dimensional representations of the quantum SLN. If moreover q ∈ (0,1] then CN,q1 is
the category of representations of S√qU(N), where SµU(N) is the object defined by
Woronowicz in [12] (see [8]). See the section 1 in [6] for the precise definition of Cτ N,q ; we will use in this paper the following proposition as “definition” for Cτ
N,q (where X is the object corresponding to the standard representation of SU(N)) :
Proposition 2.1. (see [6]) The pair (C, Y) := (Cτ
N,q, X) satisfies :
(1) C is a strict monoidal C-category and Y ∈Obj(C).
(2)C is semisimple and any simple object in C is a subobject ofY⊗k for somek ∈N.
(3) There exist arrows
R∈End(Y⊗2), e∈Hom(Y⊗0, Y⊗N
), p∈Hom(Y⊗N
, Y⊗0) such that :
(3a) For every k ∈ N, Ti 7→ idY⊗i−1 ⊗R ⊗idY⊗k−i−1 defines a representation πk :
Hk(q)→End(Y⊗k) which kills exactly the central minimal idempotents corresponding
to Young diagrams having > N rows.
(3b) pe=idY⊗0, ep=πN(eN)and (p⊗idY)πN+1(S1,N)(idY ⊗e) =τ idY.
(3c) The smallest monoidal subcategory of C containing the arrows e, p, R and idY is
the full subcategory of C having {Y⊗k |k≥0} as objects.
(3d) πk is surjective for every k ∈N.
Note that by (3a) R has to satisfy R1R2R1 =R2R1R2 and (R−q)(R+ 1) = 0. We will prove in this section the following converse - ifN, q, τ,C, Y satisfy the above conditions except maybe for(3d) then (3d) is also satisfied, τN = 1 and C is monoidal equivalent to Cτ
N,q (see Prop. 2.3).
We begin with some notations. Let Aτ
N,q be the full subcategory of CN,qτ having {X⊗k|k ≥0}as objects. Let ∆Aτ
N,q be the subcategory ofAτN,q obtained by deleting all the arrows in Hom(X⊗n, X⊗m) for m 6= n. Then Aτ
N,q and ∆AτN,q are obviously monoidal categories. For simplicity we use the notation 1k =idX⊗k.
Lemma 2.1. Let N ∈ N and q ∈ C∗ be such that q = 1 or q is not a root of unity.
Suppose that (C, Y) satisfies (1,3a) for these N, q.
Let τ′ be a N-th root of unity. Apply the Proposition 2.1. to (Cτ′
N,q, X) and choose
R′, e′, p′ as in (3) and defineπ′
kas in (3a). Then there exists a faithful monoidal functor
f : ∆Aτ′
N,q → C
sending X 7→Y and R′ 7→R.
Proof. By (3a) for every k there exists an isomorphism of algebras fk : Im(πk′) →
Im(πk) which is well-defined by π′
k(x) 7→ πk(x). It is also clear that f2(R′) = R and
fk+s(a⊗b) =fk(a)⊗fs(b) for every k, s and a ∈End(X⊗k), b ∈End(X⊗s). By (3d) we have Im(π′
k) = End(X⊗k), so a faithful monoidal functor f could be defined by
f(X⊗k) =Y⊗k and f =f
k on the arrows in End(X⊗k). 2
Lemma 2.2. Let N ∈N, τ ∈ C and q ∈C∗ be such that q = 1 or q is not a root of
unity. If (C, Y) satisfies the conditions (1,3a,3b) then (i) (p⊗1k)πk+N(Sk,N)(1k⊗e) =τk1k for every k ≥1.
Proof. (i) Denote by τk the arrow in End(Y⊗k) defined in (i). Then using the properties of the braiding we get (this is the proof of 5.2 in [6]):
τk+1 = (p⊗1k+1)(ep⊗1k+1)π(Sk+1,N)(1k+1⊗e) =
(p⊗1k+1)(ep⊗1k+1)(π(S1,N)⊗1k)(11⊗π(Sk,N))(1k+1⊗e) = (p⊗1k+1)(π(S1,N)⊗1k)(11⊗ep⊗1k)(11⊗π(Sk,N))(1k+1⊗e) = (τ1⊗1k)(11⊗τk) =τ1⊗τk.
so by recurrence τk = τ1⊗k for every k. On the other hand (3b) says exactly that
τ1 =τ11, so τk=τk1k for every k.
(ii) Choose a N-th root of unity τ′ and apply Lemma 2.1. to get arrows R′, p′, e′ in
Cτ′
N,q, representations π′k : Hk(q) → End(X⊗k) and a functor f : ∆Aτ
′
N,q → C. By (i) applied to (Cτ′
N,q, X) with k=N we get (p′⊗1N)π′
2N(SN,N)(1N ⊗e′) = (τ′)N1N = 1N
By multiplying to the left with e′⊗e′p′ and to the right with e′p′ ⊗p′ we get π′
2N(SN,N(eN ⊙eN)) = π′2N(eN ⊙eN)
By applying the functorf this remains true with π2N instead ofπ2′N :
π2N(SN,N(eN ⊙eN)) = π2N(eN ⊙eN)
Now by multiplying to the left withp⊗1N and to the right with 1N⊗ewe getτNep=ep. But τN =τN1N by the point(i) and asep6= 0 by (3a) we get τN = 1. 2
Proposition 2.2. Let N ∈ N, τ ∈ C and q ∈ C∗ be such that q = 1 or q is not a
root of unity. If (C, Y) satisfies the conditions (1,3a,3b) then τN = 1 and the functor
f : ∆Aτ
N,q → C defined in Lemma 2.1 for τ′ :=τ has a faithful monoidal extension to Aτ
N,q.
Proof. The proof below is an adaptation of the proof of 2.2.b) in [6].
Given m, k, p∈ N such that p =m+αN =k+βN with α, β ∈ N, define (cf. [6], page 122-123) the following maps :
Hpm,k :Hom(Y⊗ m
, Y⊗k
)→End(Y⊗p
), a7→(e⊗β
⊗1k)a(p⊗α ⊗1m) Θm,kp :End(Y⊗
p
)→Hom(Y⊗m
, Y⊗k
), b7→(p⊗β⊗
1k)b(e⊗α⊗ 1m) Define by analogous formulas (Hm,k
p )′ and (Θm,kp )′ in CN,qτ . It is clear that the compo-sitions Θm,k
p Hpm,k and (Θm,kp )′(Hpm,k)′ are the identities. To every arrowa ∈Hom(X⊗m, X⊗k) ofAτ
N,qwe associate an arrowF(a)∈Hom(Y⊗m, Y⊗k) ofC in the following way. Firstly remark that by(3c)we haveHom(X⊗m, X⊗k) ={0}
for m 6=k (modN), so let p be such that p =m+αN =k+βN with α, β ∈ N and define
Fp(a) := Θm,kp ◦f◦(H m,k p )′(a)
It is clear that Fp+N(a) =Fp(a), so Fp(a) does not depend onp ; we call itF(a). Note also that ifm =k then Fp(a) =Fm(a) =f(a), so F extends f.
We prove firstly that F is a functor. For simplicity we write Hm,k
p =Hp etc. when there is no confusion. It is clear from the definitions that
Im(Hpm,k) ={x∈End(Y⊗ p
)|x=πp(e⊙β
N ⊙1k)x πp(e⊙ α
A similar formula holds in Cτ
N,q, so f induces a bijection between the image of (Hpm,k)′ and the image of Hm,k
p . It follows that for every arrow a in AτN,q we have f Hp′(a) =
HpFp(a). This gives ∀a, barrows in AτN,q
Fp(b◦a) = Θpf H′
p(b◦a) = Θpf(Hp′(b)◦Hp′(a)) = Θp(f H′
p(b)◦f Hp′(a)) = Θp(HpFp(b)◦HpFp(a)) = ΘpHp(Fp(b)◦Fp(a)) = Fp(b)◦Fp(a).
Note also that f H′
p(a) = HpFp(a) implies Fp(a) = 0 =⇒a = 0. In other words, by defining also F(X⊗m) :=Y⊗m then F :Aτ
N,q → C is a faithful functor extending f. It remains to prove that F is a monoidal functor, i.e. that F(a⊗b) =F(a)⊗F(b) for alla, b. As a⊗b = (a⊗1s)(1k⊗b) for somek and sit is enough to prove it for pairs (a, b) of the form (1k, b) or (a,1s). For (a,1s) it is clear. Let B be the set of arrows b
such that F(1k⊗b) = 1k⊗F(b), ∀k ∈ N. The conclusion comes from the following five remarks :
- as F is a functor, B is stable by composition of arrows. - every arrow b in Aτ
N,q is equal to Θ′pHp′(b), hence to a composition of Hp′(b) ∈
End(X⊗p) with arrows of the form 1k⊗e′ ⊗1s and 1k⊗p′⊗1s.
- as F extends f and f is monoidal, each End(X⊗p) is in B. - formula (i) in Lemma 2.2 shows that 1k⊗p′⊗1s is in B : Fk+N+s(1k⊗p′⊗1s) =
Θk+N+sfk+N+s[(e′⊗1k⊗1s)(1k⊗p′⊗1s)] =
Θk+N+sfk+N+sπN′ +k+s[τ−k(Sk,N⊙1s)(1k⊙eN ⊙1s)] = Θk+N+sπN+k+s[τ−k(Sk,N⊙1s)(1k⊙eN ⊙1s)] =
Θk+N+s[(e⊗1k⊗1s)(1k⊗p⊗1s)] = 1k⊗p⊗1s.
- by the same proof F(1k⊗e′⊗1s) = 1k⊗e⊗1s. 2
Proposition 2.3. If N, q, τ,C, Y satisfy (1,2,3a,3b,3c) thenτN = 1 and there exists a
monoidal equivalence Cτ
N,q → C sending X 7→Y.
Proof. The Proposition 2.2 applies and gives a faithful monoidal functorF :Aτ N,q → C sending X 7→Y, R′ 7→R,e′ 7→ e and p′ 7→ p. By construction of Aτ
N,q and by (3c),
F can be viewed as a monoidal equivalence between the the full subcategory of Cτ N,q having {X⊗k | k ≥ 0} as objects and the full subcategory of C having {Y⊗k | k ≥ 0} as objects. Now (1) and (2) show that Proposition 2.1 in [6] applies, and gives an extension of F which is a monoidal equivalence between Cτ
N,q and C. 2
3. R-matrix quantizations of C(SU(N))
Recall [12] that a compact matrix quantum group is a pair (A, u), whereAis a unital
C∗-algebra andu∈Mn(A) is an invertible matrix such that :
- the coefficients uij of u generate in A a dense ∗-subalgebra, called As. - there exists a C∗-morphism δ:A →A⊗minA sending u
ij 7→
P
uik⊗ukj.
- there exists a linear antimultiplicative map κ : As → As such that κ(κ(a∗)∗) = a for all a∈As and such that (Id⊗κ)(u) =u−1.
In this case As is a Hopf C-algebra with comultiplication δ, antipode κ and counit defined by e : uij 7→ δij. We call representations of (A, u) the finite dimensional non degenerate corepresentations of the Hopf algebra As, i.e. the invertible matrices r ∈
L(V)⊗Assatisfying (id⊗δ)r=r12r13, where V is a finite dimensional complex vector space. In particular u is a representation of (A, u), which is called the fundamental one. The trivial representation 1A∈M1(A) will be denoted by 1.
The elements of the representation semiring R+(A) are equivalence classes of repre-sentations of (A, u) and the operations onR+(A) are the usual sumr+p:=diag(r, p) and tensor product r⊗p:=r13p23.
rep(A) is the monoidal category of representations of (A, u), i.e. the underlying monoidal category of the concrete monoidal W∗-category Rep(A) from [12]. It is a
rigid strict monoidal semisimple C-category.
An isomorphism of compact matrix quantum groups (A, u) →(B, v) is a ∗-algebra isomorphism As → Bs sending u 7→ QvQ−1 for some scalar matrix Q. If U, V are semirings and u ∈ U, v ∈ V, an isomorphism (U, u) → (V, v) is an isomorphism of semirings U →V sending u7→v.
LetZ ∈R+(SU(N)) be the standard representation of SU(N) onCN.
Theorem 3.1. If q ∈ (0,1], n ∈ N and R ∈ L(Cn ⊗Cn) is a Hecke q-symmetry
satisfying the equivalent conditions (iia,iib) of the Proposition 1.1 then
A(R) := C∗ <(u
ij)i,j=1...n | u unitary, u⊗Nξ=ξ >
(whereξ is a norm one vector in Im(PN)) is a compact matrix quantum group and the
following conditions are equivalent : (a) (R+(A(R)), u)≃(R+(SU(N)), Z).
(b) the fundamental representation u is irreducible.
(c) ∃λ∈C such that< x⊗ξ, ξ⊗y >=λ < x, y >, ∀x, y ∈Cn.
(d) the quantum determinant [4] associated toR is central.
Conversely, each compact matrix quantum group (A, v) satisfying the equality
(R+(A), v)≃(R+(SU(N)), Z) arises in this way.
The definition of A(R) has to be understood as follows. Let L be the free complex algebra on 2n2 variables {u
ij, u∗ij}i,j=1...n and define an involution on it by uij 7→ u∗ij. Let{e1, ..., en}be the standard basis ofCnand suppose thatξ=
P
ξk1...kNek1⊗...⊗ekN.
LetJ ⊂Lbe the two-sided ∗-ideal generated by the 2n2+nN relations
X
k
u∗
klukm =
X
k
umku∗lk =δlm1L,
X
k1...kN
ul1k1...ulNkNξk1...kN =ξl1...lN1L
Then the matrix u = (uij) is unitary in Mn(C)⊗(L/J), so its coefficients uij are of norm ≤ 1 for every C∗-seminorm on L/J and the envelopping C∗-algebra of L/J is
well-defined. We call it A(R).
Let us prove firstly that (A(R), u) is a compact matrix quantum group. Indeed, Woronowicz already proved that universalC∗-algebras of this kind are compact matrix
quantum groups, provided ξ is “left and right non-degenerate” in the following sense - if ξ = Pei ⊗xi =
P
yi ⊗ ei then x1, ..., xn (resp. y1, ..., yn) have to be linearly independent (see [12], Th. 1.4 and its proof p. 60-61; in fact the result was stated there for n = N, but this equality was nowhere used in the proof). The Lemma 1.2 says exactly that this non-degeneracy condition is satisfied.
Lemma 3.1. Let e : C → (Cn)⊗N be the map z 7→ zξ and define p := e∗ and 1k :=
id(Cn)⊗k. If (p⊗11)(11⊗e)∈C11 then
(i) (p⊗11)πN+1(S1,N)(11⊗e) =τ11 for some N-th root of unity τ. (ii) R ∈End(u⊗2).
Proof. (i)Lemma 1.1 (v) gives for k=N
q[N]q(PN ⊗11)(11⊗PN) +πN+1(S1,N)(11⊗PN) = 0
Thus (p⊗11)(11⊗e) and (p⊗11)πN+1(S1,N)(11⊗e) are linearly dependent, so the last one is also inC11. Now Prop. 2.2 applies with C =vectC and Y =Cn and gives (i).
(ii)Ase⊗12 =τ−2πN+2(S2,N)(12⊗e) it’s easy to see that the following two conditions are equivalent :
(a) (12⊗p)(e⊗12) =α12+βR for some α∈Cand β ∈C∗.
(b) πN+2[(12⊙eN)S2,N(12⊙eN)] = πN+2[(α′12 +β′T)⊙eN] for some α′ ∈ C and
β′ ∈C∗.
Now Lemma 2.1 applied for τ′ = 1 gives a monoidal functor f : ∆A1
N,q → vectC,
whose existence shows that if (a′), (b′) are the similar equivalent conditions in C1 N,q then (b′) ⇐⇒ (b). Now C1
N,q = rep(S√qU(N)) (see [8]) and the formula in [12], page 66 is exactly (a′). Thus (a) is true and since (1
2 ⊗ p)(e ⊗12) ∈ End(u⊗2) we get
R∈End(u⊗2). 2
Proof. Note that(c) is equivalent to
(c1) (p⊗11)(11⊗e)∈C11.
The implication(a)=⇒(b)is trivial. Also(b)=⇒ (c1)is trivial, as (p⊗11)(11⊗e)∈
End(u) =C11. Let us prove (c1) =⇒ (a).
Recall that A(R) is a compact matrix quantum group due to the Th. 1.4 in [12]. The proof of this theorem ([12], p. 60-61) shows also that the full subcategory R0 of
rep(A(R)) having{u⊗k|k ≥0}as objects could be described as follows. R
0 is (via the forgetful functor) the smallest monoidal subcategory of vectChaving{(Cn)⊗k |k≥0}
as objects and containing the arrowse, p,11 defined in the Lemma 3.1.
The Lemma 3.1. applies and shows that R ∈ End(u⊗2). Now rep(A(R)) is easily seen to satisfy the conditions of the Proposition 2.3. Indeed, (1,2) follow from the axioms in [12], p. 37-38, (3a) from the Proposition 1.1, (3b) from the Lemma 3.1 and (3c) from the construction of R0. Thus the Proposition 2.3 applies and shows that rep(A) is tensor equivalent to Cτ
N,q, so we have an isomorphism of Grothendieck semirings R+(A(R))≃R+(SU(N)) sending u7→Z.
For(c1)⇐⇒(d)we recall that the quantum determinant is a certain one-dimensional corepresentation detT of the bialgebra
AR:=C<(tij)i,j=1...n> / < R∈End(T⊗2)>
defined in the first section of [3]. As the operator (p⊗11)(11⊗e) is in both End(u) and in Hom(T ·detT, detT ·T), it follows that the condition (c1) is equivalent to the condition “detT is in the center of AR” from [4].
The proof of the last assertion in the Theorem 3.1 has three steps :
I.We may suppose thatv ∈Mn(As) is unitary. Apply the result in [6] to getq, τ and a monoidal equivalenceEA:CN,qτ →rep(A) sendingX 7→v. LetR∈ L(Cn⊗Cn) be the intertwining operator corresponding to the image by EA of the arrowR′ ∈End(X⊗2).
Then R is a Hecke symmetry, and is in the C∗-algebra ≃ C⊕C of intertwiners of v⊗2, so its spectral projection q−R
q+1 corresponding to the eigenvalue −1 is selfadjoint. This means exactly that for every k the representation πk of Hk(q) defined by R is a non-degenerate C∗-representation in the sense of Prop. 2.9 in [10], so this Proposition
applies and shows thatq∈R∗
+. This implies also thatR =q−(q+1) q−R
q+1 is self-adjoint. By composing EA with the equivalence CN,qτ ≃ CN,qτ −1 we may suppose q ∈(0,1].
II. Let e, p be the intertwining operators corresponding to the images by EA of the arrows e′, p′ in Cτ
N,q. Then pe = idC and ep = πN(eN), so πN(eN) is a rank one projection. Also πN+1(eN+1) = 0, so the first part of the present theorem applies and gives a compact matrix quantum group (A(R), u). By its universal property there exists a canonical surjection f :A(R)→A.
III.Note thatf sendsu7→v, souhas to be irreducible, and by the first part we get a monoidal equivalenceEA(R):CN,qτ →rep(A(R)). Now ifF :rep(A(R))→rep(A) is the functor induced by f, then F EA(R) and EA are equal on R′, and by the property (3d) in Prop. 2.1 they are equal on ∆Aτ
N,q. By the property (2) in the Prop. 2.1f induces an isomorphism at the level of Grothendieck semiringsR+(A(R))→R+(A). It follows thatf maps each basis ofA(R)sconsisting of coefficients of irreducible representations into a basis of As consisting of coefficients of irreducible representations, so f induces
an isomorphism (A(R), u)→(A, v). 2
References
[1] T. Banica, Th´eorie des repr´esentations du groupe quantique compact libre O(n), C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris322(1996), 241-244.
[2] T. Banica, Representations of compact quantum groups and subfactors, math/9804015.
[3] L.D. Faddeev, N.Yu. Reshetikhin and L.A. Takhtadzhyan, Quantization of Lie groups and Lie algebras,Leningrad Math. J.1(1990), 193-225.
[4] D.I. Gurevich, Algebraic aspects of the quantum Yang-Baxter equation, Leningrad Math. J. 2 (1991), 801-828.
[5] V. Jones, Hecke algebra representations of braid groups and link polynomials,Ann. of Math.126 (1987), 335-388.
[6] D. Kazhdan and H. Wenzl, Reconstructing monoidal categories,Adv. in Soviet Math.16(1993), 111-136.
[7] C. Ohn, QuantumSL(3, C)’s with classical representation theory, q-alg/9711005.
[8] M. Rosso, Alg`ebres enveloppantes quantifi´ees, groupes quantiques compacts de matrices et calcul differentiel non-commutatif,Duke Math. J.61(1990), 11-40.
[9] A. Wassermann, Coactions and Yang-Baxter equations for ergodic actions and subfactors, in
Operator Algebras and applications 2, London. Math. Soc. Lect. Notes136(1988), 203-236. [10] H. Wenzl, Hecke algebras of typeAn and subfactors.Invent. Math.92(1988), 349-383.
[11] S.L. Woronowicz, TwistedSU(2) group. An example of a non- commutative differential calculus.
Publ. RIMS Kyoto23(1987), 117-181.
[12] S.L. Woronowicz, Tannaka-Krein duality for compact matrix pseudogroups. Twisted SU(n) groups,Invent. Math.93 (1988), 35-76.
Institut de Math´ematiques de Luminy, Marseille, and
Institut de Math´ematiques de Jussieu, Case 191, Universit´e Paris 6, 4 Place Jussieu, 75005 Paris
