Advertisement

Theoretical and Mathematical Physics

, Volume 198, Issue 2, pp 215–238 | Cite as

Cluster Realization of Positive Representations of a Split Real Quantum Borel Subalgebra

  • I. C.-H. IpEmail author
Article
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

our previous work, we studied positive representations of split real quantum groups \(\mathcal{U}_{q\widetilde{q}}(\mathfrak{g}_\mathbb{R})\) restricted to their Borel part and showed that they are closed under taking tensor products. But the tensor product decomposition was only constructed abstractly using the GNS representation of a C*-algebraic version of the Drinfeld–Jimbo quantum groups. Here, using the recently discovered cluster realization of quantum groups, we write the decomposition explicitly by realizing it as a sequence of cluster mutations in the corresponding quiver diagram representing the tensor product.

Keywords

positive representation split real quantum group modular double quantum cluster algebra tensor category 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    V. G. Drinfel’d, “Hopf algebras and the quantum Yang–Baxter equation,” Sov. Math. Dokl., 32, 254–258 (1985).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Jimbo, “A q–difference analogue of U(g) and the Yang–Baxter equation,” Lett. Math. Phys., 10, 63–69 (1985).ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    I. B. Frenkel and I. C. H. Ip, “Positive representations of split real quantum groups and future perspectives,” Int. Math. Res. Notices, 2014, No. 8, 2126–2164 (2014).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. D. Faddeev, “Discrete Heisenberg–Weyl group and modular group,” Lett. Math. Phys., 34, 249–254 (1995); arXiv:hep–th/9504111v1 (1995).ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. D. Faddeev, “Modular double of quantum group,” in: Conférence Moshé Flato 1999 (Math. Phys. Stud., Vol. 21, G. Dito and D. Sternheimer, eds.), Vol. 1, Kluwer, Dordrecht (2000), pp. 149–156; arXiv:math/9912078v1 (1999).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. G. Bytsko and K. Teschner, “R–operator, co–product, and Haar–measure for the modular double of Uq(sl(2,R)),” Commun. Math. Phys., 240, 171–196 (2003); arXiv:math/0208191v2 (2002).ADSCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. Ponsot and J. Teschner, “Liouville bootstrap via harmonic analysis on a noncompact quantum group,” arXiv:hep–th/9911110v2 (1999).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. Ponsot and J. Teschner, “Clebsch–Gordan and Racah–Wigner coefficients for a continuous series of representations of Uq(sl(2, R)),” Commun. Math. Phys., 224, 613–655 (2001); arXiv:math/0007097v2 (2000).ADSCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    I. C.H. Ip, “Positive representations of split real simply–laced quantum groups,” arXiv:1203.2018v3 [math.RT] (2012).zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    I. C.H. Ip, “Positive representations of non–simply–laced split real quantum groups,” J. Algebra, 425, 245–276 (2015).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    I. C. H. Ip, “Representation of the quantum plane, its quantum double, and harmonic analysis on GL+ q (2,R),” Selecta Math., n.s., 19, 987–1082 (2013).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    K. Schmüdgen, “Operator representations of R2q,” Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci., 28, 1029–1061 (1992).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. Schrader and A. Shapiro, “Continuous tensor categories from quantum groups I: Algebraic aspects,” arXiv:1708.08107v1 [math.RT] (2017).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    I. C.H. Ip, “Cluster realization of Uq(g) and factorizations of the universal R–matrix,” Selecta Math., n.s., 24, 4461–4553 (2018); arXiv:1612.05641v3 [math.QA] (2016).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. Schrader and A. Shapiro, “A cluster realization of Uq(sln) from quantum character varieties,” arXiv: 1607.00271v3 [math.QA] (2016).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    I. C.H. Ip, “On tensor product of positive representations of split real quantum Borel algebra U q˜t(bR),” Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 370, 4177–4200 (2018).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    I. Frenkel and H. Kim, “Quantum Teichmüller space from quantum plane,” Duke Math. J., 161, 305–366 (2012).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    N. Reshetikhin and V. Turaev, “Ribbon graphs and their invariants derived from quantum groups,” Commun. Math. Phys., 127, 1–26 (1990).ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    N. Reshetikhin and V. G. Turaev, “Invariants of 3–manifolds via link polynomials and quantum groups,” Invent. Math., 103, 547–597 (1991).ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    V. V. Fock and A. B. Goncharov, “Cluster X–varieties, amalgamation, and Poisson–Lie groups,” in: Algebraic Geometry and Number Theory (Progr. Math., Vol. 253, V. Ginzburg, ed.), Birkhäuser, Boston, Mass. (2006), pp. 27–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    I. Le, “An approach to cluster structures on moduli of local systems for general groups,” arXiv:1606.00961v2 [math.RT] (2016).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    R. M. Kashaev, “Heisenberg double and pentagon relation,” St. Petersburg Math. J., 8, 585–592 (1997).MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    L. D. Faddeev and R. M. Kashaev, “Quantum dilogarithm,” Modern Phys. Lett. A, 9, 427–434 (1994); arXiv: hep–th/9310070v1 (1993).ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. Berenstein, S. Fomin, and A. Zelevinsky, “Cluster algebras III: Upper bounds and double Bruhat cells,” Duke Math. J., 126, 1–52 (2005).MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsHong Kong University of Science and TechnologyHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations