B Is Super Commutativity Essential in Defining a Super Lie Module?

  • B
  • Thread starter Thread starter Korybut
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition module
Korybut
Messages
71
Reaction score
3
TL;DR Summary
Is supercommutativity is necessary?
Hello!

I have some troubles with the definition of the so called super Lie module. In Alice Rogers' textbook "Supermanifolds theory and applications" definition goes as follows

Suppose that ##\mathbb{A}## is a super algebra and that #\mathfrak{u}# is a super Lie algebra which is also a super ##\mathbb{A}## module such that
## [AU_1,U_2]=A[U_1,U_2]##
for all ##A## in ##\mathbb{A}## and ##U_1,U_2## in ##\mathfrak{u}##. Then ##\mathfrak{u}## is said to be super Lie module over ##\mathbb{A}##.

According to this definition I assume that ##AU\in \mathfrak{u}## for ##A\in \mathbb{A}## and ##U\in \mathfrak{u}##. However if one considers chain of transformations
##[AU_1,BU_2]=A[U_1,BU_2]=-(-)^{|U_1|\, (|B|+|U_2|)}A[BU_2,U_1]=...##

##-(-)^{|U_1|\, (|B|+|U_2|)}AB[U_2,U_1]=(-)^{|B|\, |U_1|}AB[U_1,U_2]##
On the other hand one can do it differently
##[AU_1,BU_2]=-(-)^{|AU_1|\, |BU_2|}[BU_2,AU_1]=...=(-)^{|A| \, |B|} (-)^{|B|\, |U_1|}BA[U_1,U_2]##
If someone adds supercommutativity of the algebra #\mathbb{A}# in definition than everything is fine.

Book also provides an example

Suppose that ##\mathfrak{u}## is a super Lie algebra, and that ##\mathbb{A}## is a super algebra. Then ##\mathbb{A}\otimes \mathfrak{u}## is a super Lie module over ##\mathbb{A}##, with bracket defined by
##[AX,BY]=(-)^{|B|\, |X|} AB[X,Y].##

This example is not clear also due to same issue.

In definition of left(right) super #\mathbb{A}#-module algebra is supposed to be super sommutative (which may be relaxed I suppose). However this not required or written explicitly in definition or example of super Lie module.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I get the following equations

\begin{align}
[A.U_1,B.U_2]&=A.[U_1,B.U_2]\\&=(-1)^{|U_1||B.U_2|}A.[B.U_2,U_1]\\&=(-1)^{|U_1||B.U_2|}A.B.[U_2,U_1]\\&=(-1)^{|U_1||B.U_2|}(-1)^{|U_2||U_1|}A.B.[U_1,U_2]\\
&=(-1)^{|U_1||B|}A.B.[U_1,U_2]\\[6pt]
[A.U_1,B.U_2]&=(-1)^{|A.U_1||B.U_2|}[B.U_2,A.U_1]\\&=(-1)^{|A.U_1||B.U_2|}(-1)^{|U_2||A|}B.A.[U_2,U_1]\\
&=(-1)^{|A||B|+|U_1||B|}B.A.[U_1,U_2]\\&=(-1)^{|U_1||B|}A.B.[U_1,U_2]
\end{align}

but have difficulties checking yours. I used the first result from (24) to (25) and the fact that we are only allowed to pull out the "scalar" at the first position of the bracket.
 
fresh_42 said:
I get the following equations

\begin{align}
[A.U_1,B.U_2]&=A.[U_1,B.U_2]\\&=(-1)^{|U_1||B.U_2|}A.[B.U_2,U_1]\\&=(-1)^{|U_1||B.U_2|}A.B.[U_2,U_1]\\&=(-1)^{|U_1||B.U_2|}(-1)^{|U_2||U_1|}A.B.[U_1,U_2]\\
&=(-1)^{|U_1||B|}A.B.[U_1,U_2]\\[6pt]
[A.U_1,B.U_2]&=(-1)^{|A.U_1||B.U_2|}[B.U_2,A.U_1]\\&=(-1)^{|A.U_1||B.U_2|}(-1)^{|U_2||A|}B.A.[U_2,U_1]\\
&=(-1)^{|A||B|+|U_1||B|}B.A.[U_1,U_2]\\&=(-1)^{|U_1||B|}A.B.[U_1,U_2]
\end{align}

but have difficulties checking yours. I used the first result from (24) to (25) and the fact that we are only allowed to pull out the "scalar" at the first position of the bracket.
I do get the same results as you actually. But moving from line (8) to (9) you have used supercommutativity ##AB=(-1)^{|A|\, |B|}BA## but according to the textbook's definition algebra ##\mathbb{A}## is not necessarily super commutative it is just any super algebra. Perhaps author forgot to add this fact in the definition.
 
I think super commutativity is inevitable for compatibility reasons. The calculation uses the Lie multiplication to switch the order between ##A.B.U## and ##B.A.U##. This has to be leveled.
 
fresh_42 said:
I think super commutativity is inevitable for compatibility reasons. The calculation uses the Lie multiplication to switch the order between ##A.B.U## and ##B.A.U##. This has to be leveled.
One more time thanks for your help!
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...

Similar threads

Back
Top