Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter January 19, 2016

Unitary spherical representations of Drinfeld doubles

  • Yuki Arano EMAIL logo

Abstract

We study irreducible spherical unitary representations of the Drinfeld double of the q-deformation of a connected simply connected compact Lie group, which can be considered as a quantum analogue of the complexification of the Lie group. In the case of SUq(3), we give a complete classification of such representations. As an application, we show the Drinfeld double of the quantum group SUq(2n+1) has property (T), which also implies central property (T) of the dual of SUq(2n+1).

Funding statement: This work was supported by a Research Fellowship of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and the Program for Leading Graduate Schools, MEXT, Japan.

A Central property (T) for discrete quantum groups

In [5], a central Haagerup property and a central completely contractive approximation property for discrete quantum groups are introduced. In this appendix we define in a similar way a central property (T). For basic definitions, we refer the reader to [5].

Let G be a compact quantum group. Let Cu(G) be the universal function algebra on G and C(G) the reduced function algebra. We denote the character algebra in Cu(G) by Cu(Char(G)).

Definition A.1.

We say G^ has central property (T) if the following holds:

If a net of central states (ωi)Cu(G)* converges to ε in the weak*-topology, then it converges in norm.

Remark A.2.

According to [14, Theorem 3.1], property (T) in the sense of [8] is equivalent to the following:

If a net of states (ωi) converges to ε in the weak*-topology, then it converges in norm.

In particular, property (T) implies central property (T).

We start with the following standard observation. For standard properties of the Fell topology on the unitary dual of a C*-algebra, we refer the reader to [6].

Lemma A.3.

Let A be a C*-algebra and χ a *-character of A. Then the following are equivalent.

  1. The character χ is isolated in the unitary dual of A.

  2. If a net of states (ωi) converges to χ in the weak*-topology, then it converges in norm.

  3. There exists a central projection pχ in A such that for any aA,

    apχ=χ(a)pχ.

Proof.

The equivalence (i) (ii) is immediate from the definition of the topology on the unitary dual. For the implication (ii) (iii) see [3, Theorem 17.2.4]. (The proof works for general C*-algebras.)

We show (iii) (i). Applying [6, Proposition 3.2.1] to A=pχA(1-pχ)A, we can decompose the unitary dual of A into a disjoint union of those of pχA and (1-pχ)A. Since the unitary dual of pχA is {χ}, χ is isolated. ∎

For ωCu(G)*, one can define a multiplier Tωu on Cu(G) by

Tωu:=(ωid)Δu.

Then since ω=εTωu, we get

ω=Tωu.

If we start with a central multiplier Tu on Cu(G), that is, a completely bounded map from Cu(G) to itself which is equivariant under the left-right action of G, then ωT:=εTu is a central state. Hence we get a one-to-one correspondence between central completely bounded multipliers and central bounded functionals which preserves the norm.

In particular, we get the following.

Proposition A.4.

The following are equivalent.

  1. The quantum group G^ has central property (T).

  2. If a net of central completely positive multipliers (Tiu) on Cu(G) converges to the identity pointwisely, then it converges in norm.

In the completely same way as in [9, Proposition 6.3], we get the following.

Proposition A.5.

Let G and H be compact quantum groups which are monoidally equivalent. Then we have a one-to-one correspondence between central completely bounded multipliers on Cu(G) and Cu(H) preserving the norm and the weak*-topology.

In particular, if G^ has central property (T), so does H^.

In the Kac type case, central property (T) is equivalent to original property (T). To show this, we need the following lemma.

Lemma A.6.

Let G be a compact quantum group of Kac type. Then there exists a conditional expectation

E:Cu(G)Cu(Char(G))

such that

E(uijπ)=1dimπχ(π)δij.

Proof.

Let us consider the left and right regular representations:

λ^,ρ^:C(G)B(L2(G)).

Notice that

(λ^(x(1))ρ^(x(2))Ω,Ω)=ε(x),

where Ω is the canonical cyclic vector in L2(G).

First, we claim

α:Cu(G)(C(G)C(G))maxC(G):x(x(3)x(1))x(2)

is injective. Using Fell’s absorption, we get that

π:(C(G)C(G))maxC(G)B(L2(G)L2(G))Cu(G),
xyzλ^(y)ρ^(z(1))λ^(x)ρ^(z(3))z(2)

is a well-defined representation. Now

id=(ωΩωΩid)πα

shows α is injective.

Finally, consider the φφ-preserving conditional expectation

EΔ:C(G)C(G)Δ(C(G)).

Then the image of (EΔid)α is α(Cu(CharG)) and

E=α-1(EΔid)α

is the desired conditional expectation. ∎

Proposition A.7.

Let G be a compact quantum group of Kac type. Then the following are equivalent.

  1. The quantum group G^ has property (T).

  2. The quantum group G^ has central property (T).

  3. If a net of states (ωi) on the character algebra Cu(Char(G)) converges to ε in the weak*-topology, it converges in norm.

Proof.

As we observed, (i) implies (ii).

To show that (ii) implies (iii), suppose G^ has property (T). Take a net of states (ωi) on Cu(Char(G)) converging to ε in the weak*-topology. By Lemma A.6, there exists a conditional expectation

E:Cu(G)Cu(Char(G)).

Then (ωiE) is a net of central states on Cu(G) converging to ε in the weak*-topology. Hence it converges in norm. Since ωiE is nothing but ωi on Cu(Char(G)), the net (ωi) converges to ε in norm.

To show that (iii) implies (i), take the projection pεCu(Char(G)) as in Lemma A.3. We claim xpε=pεx=ε(x)pε. To see this, embed Cu(G) into B(H) for a Hilbert space H. Then

χ(π)pεξ=ε(χ(π))pεξ=dim(π)pεξ.

Since uiiπ is a contraction, this shows

uiiπpεξ=pεξ.

In a similar way,

(uiiπ)*pεξ=pεξ.

Since k(ukiπ)*ukjπ=1, we have

uijπpεξ=δijpεξ,

that is,

xpε=ε(x)pε.

Taking * of the formula, we get pε is central. Again from Lemma A.3, G^ has property (T). ∎

Proposition A.8.

Suppose the Drinfeld double D(G) has property (T). Then G^ has central property (T).

Proof.

Thanks to Lemma A.3, the assumption is equivalent to the following: If a net of states on 𝒪(G)cc(G^) converges to the counit εD, then it converges in norm.

Take central states ω,μ on Cu(G). Let π:Cu(G)M(C0u(D^(G))) be the *-homomorphism extending 𝒪(G)M(𝒪(G)cc(G^)). Then since ω=Indωπ, we have

ω-μ=(Indω-Indμ)πIndω-Indμ.

In particular, for a net of central states (ωi), if (Indωi) converges to Indω in norm, then (ωi) converges to ω in norm.

Hence if we have a net of central states (ωi) converging to ε in the weak*-topology, then (Indωi) converges to εD=Indε in the weak*-topology. By assumption, it converges in norm, which turns out to be the convergence of (ωi) to ε in norm, which is desired. ∎

Corollary A.9.

The discrete quantum group SUq(2n+1)^ has central property (T).

As another application of Theorem 7.4, we get the following restriction on unitary fiber functors of Rep(SUq(3)).

Proposition A.10.

Let F:Rep(SUq(3))Hilbf be a unitary fiber functor. Let xRep(SUq(3)) be the fundamental representation of SUq(3). Then we have either

dimF(x)=q2+1+q-2𝑜𝑟dimF(x)q+1+q-1.

Proof.

In [5], it is shown that for any compact quantum group G,

ω:𝒪(G):uijπdim(π)dimq(π)δij

is a central state.

For a unitary fiber functor F, take the corresponding quantum group G which is monoidally equivalent to SUq(3). Then by Proposition A.5,

ωF:uijπdimF(π)dimq(π)δij

is a central state on SUq(3). On the other hand, the central state corresponding to νX is nothing but

ων:uijπTr(Kν)dimq(π)δij.

Put N:=dimF(x) and find t0 such that

N=qt+1+q-t.

Then ωtρ=ωF. Therefore it is positive definite if and only if tρ is in the list in Theorem 7.4, hence t1 or t=2. ∎

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to express his gratitude to Kenny De Commer, Hironori Oya and Makoto Yamashita for many fruitful discussions. He is grateful to Kenny De Commer, Yasuyuki Kawahigashi, Christian Voigt, Makoto Yamashita and Robert Yuncken for many valuable comments and pointing out mistakes and typos in the draft version of this paper. He also appreciates the supervision of Yasuyuki Kawahigashi. He is also greatly indebted to the anonymous referee and Joachim Cuntz for correcting a large number of errors in an earlier version of the manuscript.

References

[1] P. Baumann, Another proof of Joseph and Letzter’s separation of variables theorem for quantum groups, Transform. Groups 5 (2000), no. 1, 3–20. 10.1007/BF01237175Search in Google Scholar

[2] M. Brannan, Approximation properties for free orthogonal and free unitary quantum groups, J. reine angew. Math. 672 (2012), 223–251. 10.1515/CRELLE.2011.166Search in Google Scholar

[3] N. P. Brown and N. Ozawa, C*-algebras and finite-dimensional approximations, Grad. Stud. Math. 88, American Mathematical Society, Providence 2008. 10.1090/gsm/088Search in Google Scholar

[4] K. De Commer, Private communication. Search in Google Scholar

[5] K. De Commer, A. Freslon and M. Yamashita, CCAP for universal discrete quantum groups, Comm. Math. Phys. 331 (2014), no. 2, 677–701. 10.1007/s00220-014-2052-7Search in Google Scholar

[6] J. Dixmier, C*-algebras, North-Holland Math. Libr. 15, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1977. Search in Google Scholar

[7] M. Duflo, Represéntations unitaire irrédutibles des groupes simples complexes de rang deux, Bull. Soc. Math. France 107 (1979), no. 1, 55–96. 10.24033/bsmf.1885Search in Google Scholar

[8] P. Fima, Kazhdan’s property T for discrete quantum groups, Internat. J. Math. 21 (2010), no. 1, 47–65. 10.1142/S0129167X1000591XSearch in Google Scholar

[9] A. Freslon, Examples of weakly amenable discrete quantum groups, J. Funct. Anal. 265 (2013), no. 9, 2164–2187. 10.1016/j.jfa.2013.05.037Search in Google Scholar

[10] Y. Isono, Examples of factors which have no Cartan subalgebras, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 367 (2015), no. 11, 7917–7937. 10.1090/tran/6321Search in Google Scholar

[11] A. Joseph, Quantum groups and their primitive ideals, Ergeb. Math. Grenzgeb. (3) 29, Springer, Berlin 1995. 10.1007/978-3-642-78400-2Search in Google Scholar

[12] A. W. Knapp, Representation theory of semisimple groups. An overview based on examples, Princeton Math. Ser. 36, Princeton University Press, Princeton 1986. 10.1515/9781400883974Search in Google Scholar

[13] U. Krähmer, FRT-duals as quantum enveloping algebras, J. Algebra 264 (2003), no. 1, 68–81. 10.1016/S0021-8693(03)00116-9Search in Google Scholar

[14] D. Kyed, A cohomological description of property (T) for quantum groups, J. Funct. Anal. 261 (2011), no. 6, 1469–1493. 10.1016/j.jfa.2011.05.010Search in Google Scholar

[15] P. Podleś and S. L. Woronowicz, Quantum deformation of Lorentz group, Comm. Math. Phys. 130 (1990), no. 2, 381–431. 10.1007/BF02473358Search in Google Scholar

[16] W. Pusz, Irreducible unitary representations of quantum Lorentz group, Comm. Math. Phys. 152 (1993), no. 3, 591–626. 10.1007/BF02096620Search in Google Scholar

[17] A. Van Daele, Discrete quantum groups, J. Algebra 180 (1996), no. 2, 431–444.10.1006/jabr.1996.0075Search in Google Scholar

[18] C. Voigt and R. Yuncken, On the principal series representations of quantized complex semisimple groups, in preparation. Search in Google Scholar

[19] S. L. Woronowicz, Compact quantum groups, Symétries quantiques (Les Houches 1995), North-Holland, Amsterdam (1998), 845–884. Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2014-12-04
Revised: 2015-08-31
Published Online: 2016-01-19
Published in Print: 2018-09-01

© 2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 23.4.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/crelle-2015-0079/html
Scroll to top button