Contents

Idea

The notion of weak bialgebra is a generalization of that of bialgebra in which the comultiplication $\Delta$ is weak in the sense that $\Delta(1)\neq 1\otimes 1$ in general; similarly the compatibility of counit with the multiplication map is weakened (counit might fail to be a morphism of algebras). (Still a special case of sesquialgebra.)

Correspondingly weak Hopf algebras generalize Hopf algebras accordingly. Every weak Hopf algebra defines a Hopf algebroid.

Physical motivation

This kind of structures naturally comes in CFT models relation to quantum groups a root of unity: the full symmetry algebra is not quite a quantum group at root of unity, because if it were one would have to include the nonphysical quantum dimension zero finite-dimensional quantum group representations into the (pre)Hilbert space; those are the zero norm states which do not contribute to physics (like ghosts). If one quotients by these states then the true unit of a quantum group becomes an idempotent (projector), hence one deals with weak Hopf algebras instead as a price of dealing with true, physical, Hilbert space.

Definitions

A weak bialgebra is a tuple $(A,\mu,\eta,\Delta,\epsilon)$ such that $(A,\mu,\eta)$ is an associative unital algebra, $(A,\Delta,\epsilon)$ is a coassociative counital coalgebra and the following compatibilities hold:

(i) the coproduct $\Delta$ is multiplicative $\Delta(x)\Delta(y)= \Delta(x y)$

(ii) the counit $\epsilon$ satisfies weak multiplicativity

$\epsilon(x y z) = \epsilon(x y_{(1)})\epsilon(y_{(2)} z),$
$\epsilon(x y z) = \epsilon(x y_{(2)})\epsilon(y_{(1)} z).$

(iii) Weak comultiplicativity of the unit:

$\Delta^{(2)} (1) = (\Delta(1) \otimes 1)(1\otimes \Delta(1))$
$\Delta^{(2)} (1) = (1 \otimes\Delta(1))(\Delta(1) \otimes 1)$

As usually in the context of coassociative coalgebras, we denoted $\Delta^{(2)} := (id\otimes\Delta)\Delta = (\Delta\otimes id)\Delta$.

A weak $k$-bialgebra $A$ is a weak Hopf algebra if it has a $k$-linear map $S:A\to A$ (which is then called an antipode) such that for all $x\in A$

$x_{(1)} S(x_{(2)}) = \epsilon(1_{(1)} x)1_{(2)},$
$S(x_{(1)})x_{(2)} = 1_{(1)} \epsilon(x 1_{(2)}),$
$S(x_{(1)})x_{(2)} S(x_{(3)}) = S(x)$

Properties

Idempotents (“projections”)

For every weak bialgebra there are $k$-linear maps $\Pi^L,\Pi^R:A\to A$ with properties $\Pi^R\Pi^R = \Pi^R$ and $\Pi^L\Pi^L = \Pi^L$ and defined by

$\Pi^L(x) := \epsilon(1_{(1)} x) 1_{(2)},\,\,\,\, \Pi^R(x) := 1_{(1)}\epsilon(x 1_{(2)}).$

These expressions are already met above in two of the axioms for the antipode. Then $\epsilon(x z) = \epsilon(x 1 z) = \epsilon(x 1_({2}))\epsilon(1_{(1)}z)) = \epsilon(x \epsilon(1_{(1)}z))1_{(2)} = \epsilon(x\Pi^L(z)) = \epsilon(\Pi^R(x)z)$. The images of the idempotents $A^R = \Pi^R(A)$ and $A^L = \Pi^L(R)$ are dual as $k$-linear spaces: there is a canonical nondegenerate pairing $A^L\otimes A^R\to k$ given by $(x,y) \mapsto \epsilon(y x)$.

Also $\Pi^L(x\Pi^L(y)) = \Pi^L(x y)$ and $\Pi^R(\Pi^R(x)y) = \Pi^R(x y)$, and dually $\Delta(A^L)\subset A\otimes A^L$ and $\Delta(A^R)\subset A^R\otimes A$, and $\Delta(1)\in A^R\otimes A^L$.

Relation to fusion categories

Under Tannaka duality (semisimple) weak Hopf algebras correspond to (multi-)fusion categories (Ostrik).

Literature

Weak comultiplications were introduced in

• G. Mack, Volker Schomerus, Quasi Hopf quantum symmetry in quantum theory, Nucl. Phys. B370(1992) 185.

where also weak quasi-bialgebras are considered and physical motivation is discussed in detail. Further work in this vain is in

• G. Böhm, K. Szlachányi, A coassociative $C^\ast$-quantum group with non-integral dimensions, Lett. Math. Phys. 35 (1996) 437–456, arXiv:q-alg/9509008g/abs/q-alg/9509008); Weak $C*$-Hopf algebras: the coassociative symmetry of non-integral dimensions, in: Quantum groups and quantum spaces (Warsaw, 1995), 9-19, Banach Center Publ. 40, Polish Acad. Sci., Warszawa 1997.
• Florian Nill, Axioms for weak bialgebras, math.QA/9805104
• G. Böhm, F. Nill, K. Szlachányi, Weak Hopf algebras. I. Integral theory and $C^\ast$-structure, J. Algebra 221 (1999), no. 2, 385-438, math.QA/9805116 #{BohmNillSzlachanyi}

Now these works are understood categorically from the point of view of weak monad theory:

The relation to fusion categories is discussed in

Revised on November 16, 2015 15:19:30 by Zoran Škoda (161.53.130.104)