Is Super Commutativity Essential in Defining a Super Lie Module?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Korybut
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition module
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition and implications of super Lie modules as presented in Alice Rogers' textbook "Supermanifolds theory and applications." Participants explore the necessity of supercommutativity in the definition of super Lie modules, examining the algebraic structures involved and the consequences of their properties.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the definition of super Lie modules, noting that it assumes ##AU \in \mathfrak{u}## for ##A \in \mathbb{A}## and ##U \in \mathfrak{u}##, and presents a series of transformations that suggest the need for supercommutativity.
  • Another participant provides a series of equations that demonstrate the manipulation of terms involving super Lie brackets, expressing difficulty in verifying the original poster's calculations.
  • A third participant reiterates the same equations and highlights that the definition of the algebra ##\mathbb{A}## does not explicitly require supercommutativity, suggesting this may be an oversight in the textbook.
  • Some participants argue that supercommutativity is essential for compatibility reasons, as it affects the ability to switch the order of terms in calculations involving Lie multiplication.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of supercommutativity in defining super Lie modules. While some argue it is essential, others point out that the textbook does not explicitly state this requirement, leading to an unresolved debate.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights potential limitations in the textbook's definition, particularly regarding the assumptions about supercommutativity and its implications for the calculations presented. There is also a noted dependence on the definitions used in the context of super algebras and super Lie algebras.

Korybut
Messages
74
Reaction score
4
TL;DR
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Korybut
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Korybut
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!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
16K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K