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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Korybut
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition module
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.
 
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!
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
733
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
15K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K