• Keine Ergebnisse gefunden

A tale of dihedral groups, SL(2)q

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Aktie "A tale of dihedral groups, SL(2)q"

Copied!
101
0
0

Wird geladen.... (Jetzt Volltext ansehen)

Volltext

(1)

A tale of dihedral groups, SL(2)

q

, and beyond

Or: Who colored my Dynkin diagrams?

Daniel Tubbenhauer

t1 s

· · · ·

Joint work with Marco Mackaay, Volodymyr Mazorchuk, Vanessa Miemietz and Xiaoting Zhang

February 2019

(2)

LetA(Γ) be the adjacency matrix of a finite, connected, loopless graphΓ. Let Ue+1(X) be the Chebyshev polynomial .

Classification problem (CP).Classify allΓsuch that Ue+1(A(Γ)) = 0.

fore= 2

fore= 4 Smith∼1969. The graphs solutions to (CP) are precisely

ADE graphs fore+ 2 being(at most)the Coxeter number.

Type Am: · · · fore=m−1

Type Dm: · · ·

for e= 2m−4

Type E6:

fore= 10 Type E7:

fore= 16 Type E8:

fore= 28

(3)

LetA(Γ) be the adjacency matrix of a finite, connected, loopless graphΓ. Let Ue+1(X) be the Chebyshev polynomial .

Classification problem (CP).Classify allΓsuch that Ue+1(A(Γ)) = 0.

A3= 1 3 2

A(A3) =

0 0 1

0 0 1

1 1 0

SA3={2 cos(π4),0,2 cos(4)}

U3(X) = (X2 cos(π4))X(X2 cos(4))

fore= 2

fore= 4

ADE graphs fore+ 2 being(at most)the Coxeter number.

Type Am: · · · fore=m−1

Type Dm: · · ·

for e= 2m−4

Type E6:

fore= 10 Type E7:

fore= 16 Type E8:

fore= 28

(4)

LetA(Γ) be the adjacency matrix of a finite, connected, loopless graphΓ. Let Ue+1(X) be the Chebyshev polynomial .

Classification problem (CP).Classify allΓsuch that Ue+1(A(Γ)) = 0.

A3= 1 3 2

A(A3) =

0 0 1

0 0 1

1 1 0

SA3={2 cos(π4),0,2 cos(4)}

D4= 1 4 2

3

A(D4) =

0 0 0 1

0 0 0 1

0 0 0 1

1 1 1 0

SD4={2 cos(π6),02,2 cos(6)}

U3(X) = (X2 cos(π4))X(X2 cos(4))

U5(X) = (X2 cos(π6))(X2 cos(6))X(X2 cos(6))(X2 cos(6))

fore= 2

fore= 4 Smith∼1969. The graphs solutions to (CP) are precisely

ADE graphs fore+ 2 being(at most)the Coxeter number.

Type Am: · · · fore=m−1

Type Dm: · · ·

for e= 2m−4

Type E6:

fore= 10 Type E7:

fore= 16 Type E8:

fore= 28

(5)

LetA(Γ) be the adjacency matrix of a finite, connected, loopless graphΓ. Let Ue+1(X) be the Chebyshev polynomial .

Classification problem (CP).Classify allΓsuch that Ue+1(A(Γ)) = 0.

A3= 1 3 2

A(A3) =

0 0 1

0 0 1

1 1 0

SA3={2 cos(π4),0,2 cos(4)}

D4= 1 4 2

3

A(D4) =

0 0 0 1

0 0 0 1

0 0 0 1

1 1 1 0

SD4={2 cos(π6),02,2 cos(6)}

U3(X) = (X2 cos(π4))X(X2 cos(4))

U5(X) = (X2 cos(π6))(X2 cos(6))X(X2 cos(6))(X2 cos(6)) fore= 2

fore= 4

ADE graphs fore+ 2 being(at most)the Coxeter number.

Type Am: · · · fore=m−1

Type Dm: · · ·

for e= 2m−4

Type E6:

fore= 10 Type E7:

fore= 16 Type E8:

fore= 28

(6)

LetA(Γ) be the adjacency matrix of a finite, connected, loopless graphΓ. Let Ue+1(X) be the Chebyshev polynomial .

Classification problem (CP).Classify allΓsuch that Ue+1(A(Γ)) = 0.

A3= 1 3 2

A(A3) =

0 0 1

0 0 1

1 1 0

SA3={2 cos(π4),0,2 cos(4)}

D4= 1 4 2

3

A(D4) =

0 0 0 1

0 0 0 1

0 0 0 1

1 1 1 0

SD4={2 cos(π6),02,2 cos(6)}

U3(X) = (X2 cos(π4))X(X2 cos(4))

U5(X) = (X2 cos(π6))(X2 cos(6))X(X2 cos(6))(X2 cos(6))

fore= 2

fore= 4

Smith∼1969. The graphs solutions to (CP) are precisely ADE graphs fore+ 2 being(at most)the Coxeter number.

Type Am: · · · fore=m−1

Type Dm: · · ·

fore= 2m−4

Type E6:

for e= 10 Type E7:

for e= 16 Type E8:

for e= 28

(7)

Dihedral representation theory The classical representation theory TheN0-representation theory DihedralN0-representation theory

2 Non-semisimple fusion rings The asymptotic limit Cell modules

The dihedral example

3 Beyond

(8)

The dihedral groups are of Coxeter type I2(e+ 2):

We+2=hs,t|s2=t2= 1, se+2 =. . .| {z }sts

e+2

=w0=. . .| {z }tst

e+2

=te+2i, e.g. : W4=hs,t|s2=t2= 1, tsts=w0=ststi

Example. These are the symmetry groups of regulare+ 2-gons,e.g. fore= 2 the Coxeter complex is:

H

H

H

H F F

F F

1

I will sneak in the Hecke case, later on.

I will explain in a few minutes what cells are. For the moment: Never mind!

Lowest cell. Biggest cell.

s-cell. t-cell.

(9)

The dihedral groups are of Coxeter type I2(e+ 2):

We+2=hs,t|s2=t2= 1, se+2 =. . .| {z }sts

e+2

=w0=. . .| {z }tst

e+2

=te+2i, e.g. : W4=hs,t|s2=t2= 1, tsts=w0=ststi

Example. These are the symmetry groups of regulare+ 2-gons,e.g. fore= 2 the Coxeter complex is:

H

H

H

H F F

F F

1 t s

I will sneak in the Hecke case, later on.

what cells are. For the moment: Never mind!

Lowest cell. Biggest cell.

s-cell. t-cell.

(10)

The dihedral groups are of Coxeter type I2(e+ 2):

We+2=hs,t|s2=t2= 1, se+2 =. . .| {z }sts

e+2

=w0=. . .| {z }tst

e+2

=te+2i, e.g. : W4=hs,t|s2=t2= 1, tsts=w0=ststi

Example. These are the symmetry groups of regulare+ 2-gons,e.g. fore= 2 the Coxeter complex is:

H

H

H

H F F

F F

1 t s

ts

st

I will sneak in the Hecke case, later on.

I will explain in a few minutes what cells are. For the moment: Never mind!

Lowest cell. Biggest cell.

s-cell. t-cell.

(11)

The dihedral groups are of Coxeter type I2(e+ 2):

We+2=hs,t|s2=t2= 1, se+2 =. . .| {z }sts

e+2

=w0=. . .| {z }tst

e+2

=te+2i, e.g. : W4=hs,t|s2=t2= 1, tsts=w0=ststi

Example. These are the symmetry groups of regulare+ 2-gons,e.g. fore= 2 the Coxeter complex is:

H

H

H

H F F

F F

1 t s

ts

st tst sts

I will sneak in the Hecke case, later on.

what cells are. For the moment: Never mind!

Lowest cell. Biggest cell.

s-cell. t-cell.

(12)

The dihedral groups are of Coxeter type I2(e+ 2):

We+2=hs,t|s2=t2= 1, se+2 =. . .| {z }sts

e+2

=w0=. . .| {z }tst

e+2

=te+2i, e.g. : W4=hs,t|s2=t2= 1, tsts=w0=ststi

Example. These are the symmetry groups of regulare+ 2-gons,e.g. fore= 2 the Coxeter complex is:

H

H

H

H F F

F F

1 t s

ts

st tst sts

w0

I will sneak in the Hecke case, later on.

I will explain in a few minutes what cells are. For the moment: Never mind!

Lowest cell. Biggest cell.

s-cell. t-cell.

(13)

The dihedral groups are of Coxeter type I2(e+ 2):

We+2=hs,t|s2=t2= 1, se+2 =. . .| {z }sts

e+2

=w0=. . .| {z }tst

e+2

=te+2i, e.g. : W4=hs,t|s2=t2= 1, tsts=w0=ststi

Example. These are the symmetry groups of regulare+ 2-gons,e.g. fore= 2 the Coxeter complex is:

H

H

H

H F F

F F

1 t s

ts

st tst sts

w0

I will sneak in the Hecke case, later on.

I will explain in a few minutes what cells are.

For the moment: Never mind!

Lowest cell.

s-cell. t-cell.

(14)

The dihedral groups are of Coxeter type I2(e+ 2):

We+2=hs,t|s2=t2= 1, se+2 =. . .| {z }sts

e+2

=w0=. . .| {z }tst

e+2

=te+2i, e.g. : W4=hs,t|s2=t2= 1, tsts=w0=ststi

Example. These are the symmetry groups of regulare+ 2-gons,e.g. fore= 2 the Coxeter complex is:

H

H

H

H F F

F F

1 t s

ts

st tst sts

w0

I will sneak in the Hecke case, later on.

I will explain in a few minutes what cells are.

For the moment: Never mind!

Lowest cell.

Biggest cell.

s-cell. t-cell.

(15)

The dihedral groups are of Coxeter type I2(e+ 2):

We+2=hs,t|s2=t2= 1, se+2 =. . .| {z }sts

e+2

=w0=. . .| {z }tst

e+2

=te+2i, e.g. : W4=hs,t|s2=t2= 1, tsts=w0=ststi

Example. These are the symmetry groups of regulare+ 2-gons,e.g. fore= 2 the Coxeter complex is:

H

H

H

H F F

F F

1 t s

ts

st tst sts

w0

I will sneak in the Hecke case, later on.

I will explain in a few minutes what cells are.

For the moment: Never mind!

Lowest cell.

Biggest cell.

s-cell.

(16)

The dihedral groups are of Coxeter type I2(e+ 2):

We+2=hs,t|s2=t2= 1, se+2 =. . .| {z }sts

e+2

=w0=. . .| {z }tst

e+2

=te+2i, e.g. : W4=hs,t|s2=t2= 1, tsts=w0=ststi

Example. These are the symmetry groups of regulare+ 2-gons,e.g. fore= 2 the Coxeter complex is:

H

H

H

H F F

F F

1 t s

ts

st tst sts

w0

I will sneak in the Hecke case, later on.

I will explain in a few minutes what cells are.

For the moment: Never mind!

Lowest cell.

Biggest cell.

s-cell.

t-cell.

(17)

Dihedral representation theory on one slide.

One-dimensional modules. Mλst, λs, λt∈C, θs7→λs, θt7→λt.

e≡0 mod 2 e6≡0 mod 2

M0,0,M2,0, M0,2,M2,2 M0,0,M2,2

Two-dimensional modules. Mz,z∈C, θs7→(20 0z), θt7→(0 0z2).

e≡0 mod 2 e6≡0 mod 2

Mz,z ∈V±e−{0} Mz,z ∈V±e Ve =roots(Ue+1(X)) andV±e theZ/2Z-orbits under z7→ −z.

The Bott–Samelson (BS) generatorsθs=s+ 1, θt=t+ 1.

There is also a Kazhdan–Lusztig (KL) bases. Explicit formulas do not matter today.

Proposition (Lusztig?).

The list of one- and two-dimensionalWe+2-modules is a complete, irredundant list of simple modules.

I learned this construction from Mackaay in 2017.Example.

M0,0is the sign representation andM2,2is the trivial representation. In casee is odd, Ue+1(X) has a constant term, soM2,0,M0,2are not representations.

Example.

Mz forz being a root of the Chebyshev polynomial is a representation because the braid relation in terms of BS generators

involves the coefficients of the Chebyshev polynomial.

These representations are indexed byZ/2Z-orbits of the Chebyshev roots:

(18)

Dihedral representation theory on one slide.

One-dimensional modules. Mλst, λs, λt∈C, θs7→λs, θt7→λt.

e≡0 mod 2 e6≡0 mod 2

M0,0,M2,0, M0,2,M2,2 M0,0,M2,2

Two-dimensional modules. Mz,z∈C, θs7→(20 0z), θt7→(0 0z2).

e≡0 mod 2 e6≡0 mod 2

Mz,z ∈V±e−{0} Mz,z ∈V±e Ve =roots(Ue+1(X)) andV±e theZ/2Z-orbits under z7→ −z.

The Bott–Samelson (BS) generatorsθs=s+ 1, θt=t+ 1.

There is also a Kazhdan–Lusztig (KL) bases. Explicit formulas do not matter today.

Proposition (Lusztig?).

The list of one- and two-dimensionalWe+2-modules is a complete, irredundant list of simple modules.

I learned this construction from Mackaay in 2017.

Example.

M0,0is the sign representation andM2,2is the trivial representation. In casee is odd, Ue+1(X) has a constant term, soM2,0,M0,2are not representations.

Example.

Mz forz being a root of the Chebyshev polynomial is a representation because the braid relation in terms of BS generators

involves the coefficients of the Chebyshev polynomial. Example.

These representations are indexed byZ/2Z-orbits of the Chebyshev roots:

(19)

Dihedral representation theory on one slide.

One-dimensional modules. Mλst, λs, λt∈C, θs7→λs, θt7→λt.

e≡0 mod 2 e6≡0 mod 2

M0,0,M2,0, M0,2,M2,2 M0,0,M2,2

Two-dimensional modules. Mz,z∈C, θs7→(20 0z), θt7→(0 0z2).

e≡0 mod 2 e6≡0 mod 2

Mz,z ∈V±e−{0} Mz,z ∈V±e Ve =roots(Ue+1(X)) andV±e theZ/2Z-orbits under z7→ −z.

The Bott–Samelson (BS) generatorsθs=s+ 1, θt=t+ 1.

There is also a Kazhdan–Lusztig (KL) bases. Explicit formulas do not matter today. Proposition (Lusztig?).

The list of one- and two-dimensionalWe+2-modules is a complete, irredundant list of simple modules.

I learned this construction from Mackaay in 2017.

Example.

M0,0is the sign representation andM2,2is the trivial representation.

In casee is odd, Ue+1(X) has a constant term, soM2,0,M0,2are not representations.

Example.

Mz forz being a root of the Chebyshev polynomial is a representation because the braid relation in terms of BS generators

involves the coefficients of the Chebyshev polynomial.

These representations are indexed byZ/2Z-orbits of the Chebyshev roots:

(20)

Dihedral representation theory on one slide.

One-dimensional modules. Mλst, λs, λt∈C, θs7→λs, θt7→λt.

e≡0 mod 2 e6≡0 mod 2

M0,0,M2,0, M0,2,M2,2 M0,0,M2,2

Two-dimensional modules. Mz,z∈C, θs7→(20 0z), θt7→(0 0z2).

e≡0 mod 2 e6≡0 mod 2

Mz,z ∈V±e−{0} Mz,z ∈V±e Ve =roots(Ue+1(X)) andV±e theZ/2Z-orbits under z7→ −z.

The Bott–Samelson (BS) generatorsθs=s+ 1, θt=t+ 1.

There is also a Kazhdan–Lusztig (KL) bases. Explicit formulas do not matter today. Proposition (Lusztig?).

The list of one- and two-dimensionalWe+2-modules is a complete, irredundant list of simple modules.

I learned this construction from Mackaay in 2017.Example.

M0,0is the sign representation andM2,2is the trivial representation. In casee is odd, Ue+1(X) has a constant term, soM2,0,M0,2are not representations.

Example.

Mz forz being a root of the Chebyshev polynomial is a representation because the braid relation in terms of BS generators

involves the coefficients of the Chebyshev polynomial.

Example.

These representations are indexed byZ/2Z-orbits of the Chebyshev roots:

(21)

Dihedral representation theory on one slide.

One-dimensional modules. Mλst, λs, λt∈C, θs7→λs, θt7→λt.

e≡0 mod 2 e6≡0 mod 2

M0,0,M2,0, M0,2,M2,2 M0,0,M2,2

Two-dimensional modules. Mz,z∈C, θs7→(20 0z), θt7→(0 0z2).

e≡0 mod 2 e6≡0 mod 2

Mz,z ∈V±e−{0} Mz,z ∈V±e Ve =roots(Ue+1(X)) andV±e theZ/2Z-orbits under z7→ −z.

There is also a Kazhdan–Lusztig (KL) bases. Explicit formulas do not matter today. Proposition (Lusztig?).

The list of one- and two-dimensionalWe+2-modules is a complete, irredundant list of simple modules.

I learned this construction from Mackaay in 2017.Example.

M0,0is the sign representation andM2,2is the trivial representation. In casee is odd, Ue+1(X) has a constant term, soM2,0,M0,2are not representations.

Example.

Mz forz being a root of the Chebyshev polynomial is a representation because the braid relation in terms of BS generators

involves the coefficients of the Chebyshev polynomial.

Example.

These representations are indexed byZ/2Z-orbits of the Chebyshev roots:

(22)

An algebraPwith afixedbasisBP is called a (multi)N0-algebra if xy∈N0BP (x,y∈BP).

AP-moduleMwith afixedbasisBMis called aN0-module if xm∈N0BM (x∈BP,m∈BM).

These areN0-equivalent if there is aN0-valued change of basis matrix.

Example. N0-algebras andN0-modules arise naturally as the decategorification of 2-categories and 2-modules, andN0-equivalence comes from 2-equivalence.

Example.

Group algebras of finite groups with basis given by group elements areN0-algebras. The regular module is aN0-module.

Example.

Fusion rings are with basis given by classes of simples elements areN0-algebras. Key example: K0(Rep(G)) (easyN0-representation theory).

Key example: K0(Repssq(Uq(g)) =Gq) (intricateN0-representation theory). Example.

Hecke algebras of (finite) Coxeter groups with their KL basis areN0-algebras.

TheirN0-representation theory is mostly widely open.

(23)

An algebraPwith afixedbasisBP is called a (multi)N0-algebra if xy∈N0BP (x,y∈BP).

AP-moduleMwith afixedbasisBMis called aN0-module if xm∈N0BM (x∈BP,m∈BM).

These areN0-equivalent if there is aN0-valued change of basis matrix.

Example. N0-algebras andN0-modules arise naturally as the decategorification of 2-categories and 2-modules, andN0-equivalence comes from 2-equivalence.

Example.

Group algebras of finite groups with basis given by group elements areN0-algebras.

The regular module is aN0-module.

Fusion rings are with basis given by classes of simples elements areN0-algebras. Key example: K0(Rep(G)) (easyN0-representation theory).

Key example: K0(Repssq(Uq(g)) =Gq) (intricateN0-representation theory). Example.

Hecke algebras of (finite) Coxeter groups with their KL basis areN0-algebras.

TheirN0-representation theory is mostly widely open.

(24)

An algebraPwith afixedbasisBP is called a (multi)N0-algebra if xy∈N0BP (x,y∈BP).

AP-moduleMwith afixedbasisBMis called aN0-module if xm∈N0BM (x∈BP,m∈BM).

These areN0-equivalent if there is aN0-valued change of basis matrix.

Example. N0-algebras andN0-modules arise naturally as the decategorification of 2-categories and 2-modules, andN0-equivalence comes from 2-equivalence.

Example.

Group algebras of finite groups with basis given by group elements areN0-algebras.

The regular module is aN0-module.

Example.

Fusion rings are with basis given by classes of simples elements areN0-algebras.

Key example: K0(Rep(G)) (easyN0-representation theory).

Key example: K0(Repssq(Uq(g)) =Gq) (intricateN0-representation theory).

Example.

Hecke algebras of (finite) Coxeter groups with their KL basis areN0-algebras.

TheirN0-representation theory is mostly widely open.

(25)

An algebraPwith afixedbasisBP is called a (multi)N0-algebra if xy∈N0BP (x,y∈BP).

AP-moduleMwith afixedbasisBMis called aN0-module if xm∈N0BM (x∈BP,m∈BM).

These areN0-equivalent if there is aN0-valued change of basis matrix.

Example. N0-algebras andN0-modules arise naturally as the decategorification of 2-categories and 2-modules, andN0-equivalence comes from 2-equivalence.

Group algebras of finite groups with basis given by group elements areN0-algebras.

The regular module is aN0-module.

Example.

Fusion rings are with basis given by classes of simples elements areN0-algebras.

Key example: K0(Rep(G)) (easyN0-representation theory).

Key example: K0(Repssq(Uq(g)) =Gq) (intricateN0-representation theory).

Example.

Hecke algebras of (finite) Coxeter groups with their KL basis areN0-algebras.

TheirN0-representation theory is mostly widely open.

(26)

Clifford, Munn, Ponizovski˘ı∼1942++, Kazhdan–Lusztig ∼1979. x≤Lyify appears inzxwith non-zero coefficient forz∈BP. x∼Lyifx≤Lyandy≤Lx.

Lpartitions Pinto left cells L. Similarly for right R, two-sided cells LR or N0-modules.

AN0-moduleMis transitive if all basis elements belong to the same∼L

equivalence class. AnapexofMis a maximal two-sided cell not killing it.

Fact. Each transitiveN0-module has a unique apex.

Hence, one can study them cell-wise.

Example. TransitiveN0-modules arise naturally as the decategorification of simple 2-modules.

Philosophy.

Imagine a graph whose vertices are thex’s or them’s. v1→v2ifv1appears inzv2.

cells = connected components transitive = one connected component

“The atoms ofN0-representation theory”.

Question (N0-representation theory).Classify them! Example.

Group algebras with the group element basis have only one cell,G itself. TransitiveN0-modules areC[G/H] forH⊂G subgroup/conjugacy. The apex isG.

Example.

Fusion rings in general have only one cell since each basis element [Vi] has a dual [Vi] such that [Vi][Vi] contains 1 as a summand.

Cell theory is useless for them! Example (Lusztig ≤2003).

Hecke algebras for the dihedral group with KL basis have the following cells:

1

s ts sts tsts ststs

t st tst stst tstst w0

We will see the transitiveN0-modules in a second.

Left cells. Right cells.

Two-sided cells. Morally.

The further away anN0-algebra is from being semisimple, the more useful and interesting is its cell structure.

(27)

Clifford, Munn, Ponizovski˘ı∼1942++, Kazhdan–Lusztig ∼1979. x≤Lyify appears inzxwith non-zero coefficient forz∈BP. x∼Lyifx≤Lyandy≤Lx.

Lpartitions Pinto left cells L. Similarly for right R, two-sided cells LR or N0-modules.

AN0-moduleMis transitive if all basis elements belong to the same∼L

equivalence class. AnapexofMis a maximal two-sided cell not killing it.

Fact. Each transitiveN0-module has a unique apex.

Hence, one can study them cell-wise.

Example. TransitiveN0-modules arise naturally as the decategorification of simple 2-modules.

Philosophy.

Imagine a graph whose vertices are thex’s or them’s.

v1→v2ifv1appears inzv2.

x1

x2

x3

x4 m1

m2

m3

m4

cells = connected components transitive = one connected component

“The atoms ofN0-representation theory”.

Question (N0-representation theory).Classify them!

Group algebras with the group element basis have only one cell,G itself. TransitiveN0-modules areC[G/H] forH⊂G subgroup/conjugacy. The apex isG.

Example.

Fusion rings in general have only one cell since each basis element [Vi] has a dual [Vi] such that [Vi][Vi] contains 1 as a summand.

Cell theory is useless for them! Example (Lusztig ≤2003).

Hecke algebras for the dihedral group with KL basis have the following cells:

1

s ts sts tsts ststs

t st tst stst tstst w0

We will see the transitiveN0-modules in a second.

Left cells. Right cells.

Two-sided cells. Morally.

The further away anN0-algebra is from being semisimple, the more useful and interesting is its cell structure.

(28)

Clifford, Munn, Ponizovski˘ı∼1942++, Kazhdan–Lusztig ∼1979. x≤Lyify appears inzxwith non-zero coefficient forz∈BP. x∼Lyifx≤Lyandy≤Lx.

Lpartitions Pinto left cells L. Similarly for right R, two-sided cells LR or N0-modules.

AN0-moduleMis transitive if all basis elements belong to the same∼L

equivalence class. AnapexofMis a maximal two-sided cell not killing it.

Fact. Each transitiveN0-module has a unique apex.

Hence, one can study them cell-wise.

Example. TransitiveN0-modules arise naturally as the decategorification of simple 2-modules.

Philosophy.

Imagine a graph whose vertices are thex’s or them’s.

v1→v2ifv1appears inzv2.

x1

x2

x3

x4 m1

m2

m3

m4

cells = connected components transitive = one connected component

“The atoms ofN0-representation theory”.

Question (N0-representation theory).Classify them!

Example.

Group algebras with the group element basis have only one cell,G itself. TransitiveN0-modules areC[G/H] forH⊂G subgroup/conjugacy. The apex isG.

Example.

Fusion rings in general have only one cell since each basis element [Vi] has a dual [Vi] such that [Vi][Vi] contains 1 as a summand.

Cell theory is useless for them! Example (Lusztig ≤2003).

Hecke algebras for the dihedral group with KL basis have the following cells:

1

s ts sts tsts ststs

t st tst stst tstst w0

We will see the transitiveN0-modules in a second.

Left cells. Right cells.

Two-sided cells. Morally.

The further away anN0-algebra is from being semisimple, the more useful and interesting is its cell structure.

(29)

Clifford, Munn, Ponizovski˘ı∼1942++, Kazhdan–Lusztig ∼1979. x≤Lyify appears inzxwith non-zero coefficient forz∈BP. x∼Lyifx≤Lyandy≤Lx.

Lpartitions Pinto left cells L. Similarly for right R, two-sided cells LR or N0-modules.

AN0-moduleMis transitive if all basis elements belong to the same∼L

equivalence class. AnapexofMis a maximal two-sided cell not killing it.

Fact. Each transitiveN0-module has a unique apex.

Hence, one can study them cell-wise.

Example. TransitiveN0-modules arise naturally as the decategorification of simple 2-modules.

Philosophy.

Imagine a graph whose vertices are thex’s or them’s.

v1→v2ifv1appears inzv2.

x1

x2

x3

x4 m1

m2

m3

m4

cells = connected components transitive = one connected component

“The atoms ofN0-representation theory”.

Question (N0-representation theory).Classify them!

Group algebras with the group element basis have only one cell,G itself. TransitiveN0-modules areC[G/H] forH⊂G subgroup/conjugacy. The apex isG.

Example.

Fusion rings in general have only one cell since each basis element [Vi] has a dual [Vi] such that [Vi][Vi] contains 1 as a summand.

Cell theory is useless for them! Example (Lusztig ≤2003).

Hecke algebras for the dihedral group with KL basis have the following cells:

1

s ts sts tsts ststs

t st tst stst tstst w0

We will see the transitiveN0-modules in a second.

Left cells. Right cells.

Two-sided cells. Morally.

The further away anN0-algebra is from being semisimple, the more useful and interesting is its cell structure.

(30)

Clifford, Munn, Ponizovski˘ı∼1942++, Kazhdan–Lusztig ∼1979. x≤Lyify appears inzxwith non-zero coefficient forz∈BP. x∼Lyifx≤Lyandy≤Lx.

Lpartitions Pinto left cells L. Similarly for right R, two-sided cells LR or N0-modules.

AN0-moduleMis transitive if all basis elements belong to the same∼L

equivalence class. AnapexofMis a maximal two-sided cell not killing it.

Fact. Each transitiveN0-module has a unique apex.

Hence, one can study them cell-wise.

Example. TransitiveN0-modules arise naturally as the decategorification of simple 2-modules.

Philosophy.

Imagine a graph whose vertices are thex’s or them’s. v1→v2ifv1appears inzv2.

cells = connected components transitive = one connected component

“The atoms ofN0-representation theory”.

Question (N0-representation theory).Classify them!

Example.

Group algebras with the group element basis have only one cell,G itself.

TransitiveN0-modules areC[G/H] forH⊂G subgroup/conjugacy. The apex isG.

Example.

Fusion rings in general have only one cell since each basis element [Vi] has a dual [Vi] such that [Vi][Vi] contains 1 as a summand.

Cell theory is useless for them! Example (Lusztig ≤2003).

Hecke algebras for the dihedral group with KL basis have the following cells:

1

s ts sts tsts ststs

t st tst stst tstst w0

We will see the transitiveN0-modules in a second.

Left cells. Right cells.

Two-sided cells. Morally.

The further away anN0-algebra is from being semisimple, the more useful and interesting is its cell structure.

(31)

Clifford, Munn, Ponizovski˘ı∼1942++, Kazhdan–Lusztig ∼1979. x≤Lyify appears inzxwith non-zero coefficient forz∈BP. x∼Lyifx≤Lyandy≤Lx.

Lpartitions Pinto left cells L. Similarly for right R, two-sided cells LR or N0-modules.

AN0-moduleMis transitive if all basis elements belong to the same∼L

equivalence class. AnapexofMis a maximal two-sided cell not killing it.

Fact. Each transitiveN0-module has a unique apex.

Hence, one can study them cell-wise.

Example. TransitiveN0-modules arise naturally as the decategorification of simple 2-modules.

Imagine a graph whose vertices are thex’s or them’s. v1→v2ifv1appears inzv2.

cells = connected components transitive = one connected component

“The atoms ofN0-representation theory”.

Question (N0-representation theory).Classify them!

Example.

Group algebras with the group element basis have only one cell,G itself.

TransitiveN0-modules areC[G/H] forH⊂G subgroup/conjugacy. The apex isG. Example.

Fusion rings in general have only one cell since each basis element [Vi] has a dual [Vi] such that [Vi][Vi] contains 1 as a summand.

Cell theory is useless for them!

Example (Lusztig ≤2003).

Hecke algebras for the dihedral group with KL basis have the following cells:

1

s ts sts tsts ststs

t st tst stst tstst w0

We will see the transitiveN0-modules in a second.

Left cells. Right cells.

Two-sided cells. Morally.

The further away anN0-algebra is from being semisimple, the more useful and interesting is its cell structure.

(32)

Clifford, Munn, Ponizovski˘ı∼1942++, Kazhdan–Lusztig ∼1979. x≤Lyify appears inzxwith non-zero coefficient forz∈BP. x∼Lyifx≤Lyandy≤Lx.

Lpartitions Pinto left cells L. Similarly for right R, two-sided cells LR or N0-modules.

AN0-moduleMis transitive if all basis elements belong to the same∼L

equivalence class. AnapexofMis a maximal two-sided cell not killing it.

Fact. Each transitiveN0-module has a unique apex.

Hence, one can study them cell-wise.

Example. TransitiveN0-modules arise naturally as the decategorification of simple 2-modules.

Philosophy.

Imagine a graph whose vertices are thex’s or them’s. v1→v2ifv1appears inzv2.

cells = connected components transitive = one connected component

“The atoms ofN0-representation theory”.

Question (N0-representation theory).Classify them!

Example.

Group algebras with the group element basis have only one cell,G itself.

TransitiveN0-modules areC[G/H] forH⊂G subgroup/conjugacy. The apex isG. Example.

Fusion rings in general have only one cell since each basis element [Vi] has a dual [Vi] such that [Vi][Vi] contains 1 as a summand.

Cell theory is useless for them!

Example (Lusztig ≤2003).

Hecke algebras for the dihedral group with KL basis have the following cells:

1

s ts sts tsts ststs w0

Left cells.

Right cells. Two-sided cells.

Morally.

The further away anN0-algebra is from being semisimple, the more useful and interesting is its cell structure.

(33)

Clifford, Munn, Ponizovski˘ı∼1942++, Kazhdan–Lusztig ∼1979. x≤Lyify appears inzxwith non-zero coefficient forz∈BP. x∼Lyifx≤Lyandy≤Lx.

Lpartitions Pinto left cells L. Similarly for right R, two-sided cells LR or N0-modules.

AN0-moduleMis transitive if all basis elements belong to the same∼L

equivalence class. AnapexofMis a maximal two-sided cell not killing it.

Fact. Each transitiveN0-module has a unique apex.

Hence, one can study them cell-wise.

Example. TransitiveN0-modules arise naturally as the decategorification of simple 2-modules.

Imagine a graph whose vertices are thex’s or them’s. v1→v2ifv1appears inzv2.

cells = connected components transitive = one connected component

“The atoms ofN0-representation theory”.

Question (N0-representation theory).Classify them!

Example.

Group algebras with the group element basis have only one cell,G itself.

TransitiveN0-modules areC[G/H] forH⊂G subgroup/conjugacy. The apex isG. Example.

Fusion rings in general have only one cell since each basis element [Vi] has a dual [Vi] such that [Vi][Vi] contains 1 as a summand.

Cell theory is useless for them!

Example (Lusztig ≤2003).

Hecke algebras for the dihedral group with KL basis have the following cells:

1

s ts sts tsts ststs

t st tst stst tstst w0

Left cells.

Right cells.

Two-sided cells. Morally.

The further away anN0-algebra is from being semisimple, the more useful and interesting is its cell structure.

(34)

Clifford, Munn, Ponizovski˘ı∼1942++, Kazhdan–Lusztig ∼1979. x≤Lyify appears inzxwith non-zero coefficient forz∈BP. x∼Lyifx≤Lyandy≤Lx.

Lpartitions Pinto left cells L. Similarly for right R, two-sided cells LR or N0-modules.

AN0-moduleMis transitive if all basis elements belong to the same∼L

equivalence class. AnapexofMis a maximal two-sided cell not killing it.

Fact. Each transitiveN0-module has a unique apex.

Hence, one can study them cell-wise.

Example. TransitiveN0-modules arise naturally as the decategorification of simple 2-modules.

Philosophy.

Imagine a graph whose vertices are thex’s or them’s. v1→v2ifv1appears inzv2.

cells = connected components transitive = one connected component

“The atoms ofN0-representation theory”.

Question (N0-representation theory).Classify them!

Example.

Group algebras with the group element basis have only one cell,G itself.

TransitiveN0-modules areC[G/H] forH⊂G subgroup/conjugacy. The apex isG. Example.

Fusion rings in general have only one cell since each basis element [Vi] has a dual [Vi] such that [Vi][Vi] contains 1 as a summand.

Cell theory is useless for them!

Example (Lusztig ≤2003).

Hecke algebras for the dihedral group with KL basis have the following cells:

1

s ts sts tsts ststs w0

Left cells. Right cells.

Morally.

The further away anN0-algebra is from being semisimple, the more useful and interesting is its cell structure.

(35)

Clifford, Munn, Ponizovski˘ı∼1942++, Kazhdan–Lusztig ∼1979. x≤Lyify appears inzxwith non-zero coefficient forz∈BP. x∼Lyifx≤Lyandy≤Lx.

Lpartitions Pinto left cells L. Similarly for right R, two-sided cells LR or N0-modules.

AN0-moduleMis transitive if all basis elements belong to the same∼L

equivalence class. AnapexofMis a maximal two-sided cell not killing it.

Fact. Each transitiveN0-module has a unique apex.

Hence, one can study them cell-wise.

Example. TransitiveN0-modules arise naturally as the decategorification of simple 2-modules.

Philosophy.

Imagine a graph whose vertices are thex’s or them’s. v1→v2ifv1appears inzv2.

cells = connected components transitive = one connected component

“The atoms ofN0-representation theory”.

Question (N0-representation theory).Classify them!

Group algebras with the group element basis have only one cell,G itself. TransitiveN0-modules areC[G/H] forH⊂G subgroup/conjugacy. The apex isG.

Example.

Fusion rings in general have only one cell since each basis element [Vi] has a dual [Vi] such that [Vi][Vi] contains 1 as a summand.

Cell theory is useless for them! Example (Lusztig ≤2003).

Hecke algebras for the dihedral group with KL basis have the following cells:

1

s ts sts tsts ststs

t st tst stst tstst w0

We will see the transitiveN0-modules in a second.

Left cells. Right cells.

Two-sided cells.

Morally.

The further away anN0-algebra is from being semisimple, the more useful and interesting is its cell structure.

(36)

N0-modules via graphs.

Construct aW-moduleMassociated to a bipartite graphΓ:

M=Ch1,2,3,4,5i

1 3 2 4 5

H F H

F

F

θ M =

2 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0









, θ M =

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0









The adjacency matrixA(Γ) ofΓis

A(Γ) =

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0









These areWe+2-modules for somee

only ifA(Γ) is killed by the Chebyshev polynomial Ue+1(X). Morally speaking: These are constructed as the simples but with integral matrices having the Chebyshev-roots as eigenvalues. It is not hard to see that the Chebyshev–braid-like relation can not hold otherwise.

Hence, by Smith’s (CP) and Lusztig: We get a representation ofWe+2

ifΓis a ADE Dynkin diagram fore+ 2 being the Coxeter number. That these areN0-modules follows from categorification.

‘Smaller solutions’ are neverN0-modules. Classification.

Complete , irredundant list of transitiveN0-modules ofWe+2:

apex 1 cell s – t cell w0 cell

N0-reps. M0,0 MADE+bicolering fore+ 2 = Cox. num. M2,2

I learned this from/with Kildetoft–Mackaay–Mazorchuk–Zimmermann∼2016.

(37)

N0-modules via graphs.

Construct aW-moduleMassociated to a bipartite graphΓ:

M=Ch1,2,3,4,5i

1 3 2 4 5

θs

action

H F H

F

F

θs Ms=

2 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0













, θt Mt=

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0













A(Γ) =

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0









These areWe+2-modules for somee

only ifA(Γ) is killed by the Chebyshev polynomial Ue+1(X). Morally speaking: These are constructed as the simples but with integral matrices having the Chebyshev-roots as eigenvalues. It is not hard to see that the Chebyshev–braid-like relation can not hold otherwise.

Hence, by Smith’s (CP) and Lusztig: We get a representation ofWe+2

ifΓis a ADE Dynkin diagram fore+ 2 being the Coxeter number. That these areN0-modules follows from categorification.

‘Smaller solutions’ are neverN0-modules. Classification.

Complete , irredundant list of transitiveN0-modules ofWe+2:

apex 1 cell s – t cell w0 cell

N0-reps. M0,0 MADE+bicolering fore+ 2 = Cox. num. M2,2

I learned this from/with Kildetoft–Mackaay–Mazorchuk–Zimmermann∼2016.

(38)

N0-modules via graphs.

Construct aW-moduleMassociated to a bipartite graphΓ:

M=Ch1,2,3,4,5i

1 3 2 4 5

θs

action

H F H

F

F

θ M =

2 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0









, θ M =

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0









The adjacency matrixA(Γ) ofΓis

A(Γ) =

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0









These areWe+2-modules for somee

only ifA(Γ) is killed by the Chebyshev polynomial Ue+1(X). Morally speaking: These are constructed as the simples but with integral matrices having the Chebyshev-roots as eigenvalues. It is not hard to see that the Chebyshev–braid-like relation can not hold otherwise.

Hence, by Smith’s (CP) and Lusztig: We get a representation ofWe+2

ifΓis a ADE Dynkin diagram fore+ 2 being the Coxeter number. That these areN0-modules follows from categorification.

‘Smaller solutions’ are neverN0-modules. Classification.

Complete , irredundant list of transitiveN0-modules ofWe+2:

apex 1 cell s – t cell w0 cell

N0-reps. M0,0 MADE+bicolering fore+ 2 = Cox. num. M2,2

I learned this from/with Kildetoft–Mackaay–Mazorchuk–Zimmermann∼2016.

(39)

N0-modules via graphs.

Construct aW-moduleMassociated to a bipartite graphΓ:

M=Ch1,2,3,4,5i

1 3 2 4 5

θs

action

H F H

F

F

θs Ms=

2 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0













, θt Mt=

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0













A(Γ) =

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0









These areWe+2-modules for somee

only ifA(Γ) is killed by the Chebyshev polynomial Ue+1(X). Morally speaking: These are constructed as the simples but with integral matrices having the Chebyshev-roots as eigenvalues. It is not hard to see that the Chebyshev–braid-like relation can not hold otherwise.

Hence, by Smith’s (CP) and Lusztig: We get a representation ofWe+2

ifΓis a ADE Dynkin diagram fore+ 2 being the Coxeter number. That these areN0-modules follows from categorification.

‘Smaller solutions’ are neverN0-modules. Classification.

Complete , irredundant list of transitiveN0-modules ofWe+2:

apex 1 cell s – t cell w0 cell

N0-reps. M0,0 MADE+bicolering fore+ 2 = Cox. num. M2,2

I learned this from/with Kildetoft–Mackaay–Mazorchuk–Zimmermann∼2016.

(40)

N0-modules via graphs.

Construct aW-moduleMassociated to a bipartite graphΓ:

M=Ch1,2,3,4,5i

1 3 2 4 5

θs

action

H F H

F

F

θ M =

2 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0









, θ M =

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0









The adjacency matrixA(Γ) ofΓis

A(Γ) =

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0









These areWe+2-modules for somee

only ifA(Γ) is killed by the Chebyshev polynomial Ue+1(X). Morally speaking: These are constructed as the simples but with integral matrices having the Chebyshev-roots as eigenvalues. It is not hard to see that the Chebyshev–braid-like relation can not hold otherwise.

Hence, by Smith’s (CP) and Lusztig: We get a representation ofWe+2

ifΓis a ADE Dynkin diagram fore+ 2 being the Coxeter number. That these areN0-modules follows from categorification.

‘Smaller solutions’ are neverN0-modules. Classification.

Complete , irredundant list of transitiveN0-modules ofWe+2:

apex 1 cell s – t cell w0 cell

N0-reps. M0,0 MADE+bicolering fore+ 2 = Cox. num. M2,2

I learned this from/with Kildetoft–Mackaay–Mazorchuk–Zimmermann∼2016.

Referenzen

ÄHNLICHE DOKUMENTE

Rubisco large (LSU) and small (SSU) subunits on SDS–polyacrylamide gels loaded with wheat and maize leaf extracts (a), effect of steam girdling the petiole on the polypeptide pattern

[r]

Memo is required for ErbB2-driven breast carcinoma cell migration, because its downregulation leads to decreased motility of cells expressing the receptor with the tyrosine

Quite a lot of people doing research using quantitative methods, I think, ultimately aim either to prove that we have a problem with migration, in European or Western societies; or

It is only from such a perspective that one can really appreciate the complexity and constituting role not just of the Monte Carlo method but of a broader range of other problems

Morally speaking: These are constructed as the simples but with integral matrices having the Chebyshev-roots as eigenvalues.. It is not hard to see that the

(Coxeter=Weyl: ‘Indecomposable projective functors between singular blocks of O .’) For a quotient of maximal singular type ˜ A 1 non-trivial 2-simples are ADE classified..

Biggest cell.. These are the symmetry groups of regular e + 2-gons, e.g. quantum case) later on... I will explain in a few minutes what