Is there any Lie algebra structure on the sheaf of sections of adjoint bundle
Let $X$ be an irreducible smooth projective variety over $mathbb{C}$.
Let $G$ be an affine algebraic group over $mathbb{C}$.
Let $p : E_G longrightarrow X$ be a holomorphic principal $G$-bundle on $X$. Let $ad(E_G) = E_G times^G mathfrak{g}$ be the adjoint vector bundle of $E_G$ associated to the adjoint representation $ad : G longrightarrow End(mathfrak{g})$ of $G$ on its Lie algebra $mathfrak{g}$. The fibers of $ad(E_G)$ are $mathbb{C}$-linearly isomorphic to $mathfrak{g}$.
Consider $ad(E_G)$ as a sheaf of $mathcal{O}_X$-modules on $X$.
Question: Is there any $mathcal{O}_X$-bilinear homomorphism
$[,] : ad(E_G)times ad(E_G) to ad(E_G)$ giving a Lie algebra structure on the sheaf $ad(E_G)$?
ag.algebraic-geometry principal-bundles
add a comment |
Let $X$ be an irreducible smooth projective variety over $mathbb{C}$.
Let $G$ be an affine algebraic group over $mathbb{C}$.
Let $p : E_G longrightarrow X$ be a holomorphic principal $G$-bundle on $X$. Let $ad(E_G) = E_G times^G mathfrak{g}$ be the adjoint vector bundle of $E_G$ associated to the adjoint representation $ad : G longrightarrow End(mathfrak{g})$ of $G$ on its Lie algebra $mathfrak{g}$. The fibers of $ad(E_G)$ are $mathbb{C}$-linearly isomorphic to $mathfrak{g}$.
Consider $ad(E_G)$ as a sheaf of $mathcal{O}_X$-modules on $X$.
Question: Is there any $mathcal{O}_X$-bilinear homomorphism
$[,] : ad(E_G)times ad(E_G) to ad(E_G)$ giving a Lie algebra structure on the sheaf $ad(E_G)$?
ag.algebraic-geometry principal-bundles
add a comment |
Let $X$ be an irreducible smooth projective variety over $mathbb{C}$.
Let $G$ be an affine algebraic group over $mathbb{C}$.
Let $p : E_G longrightarrow X$ be a holomorphic principal $G$-bundle on $X$. Let $ad(E_G) = E_G times^G mathfrak{g}$ be the adjoint vector bundle of $E_G$ associated to the adjoint representation $ad : G longrightarrow End(mathfrak{g})$ of $G$ on its Lie algebra $mathfrak{g}$. The fibers of $ad(E_G)$ are $mathbb{C}$-linearly isomorphic to $mathfrak{g}$.
Consider $ad(E_G)$ as a sheaf of $mathcal{O}_X$-modules on $X$.
Question: Is there any $mathcal{O}_X$-bilinear homomorphism
$[,] : ad(E_G)times ad(E_G) to ad(E_G)$ giving a Lie algebra structure on the sheaf $ad(E_G)$?
ag.algebraic-geometry principal-bundles
Let $X$ be an irreducible smooth projective variety over $mathbb{C}$.
Let $G$ be an affine algebraic group over $mathbb{C}$.
Let $p : E_G longrightarrow X$ be a holomorphic principal $G$-bundle on $X$. Let $ad(E_G) = E_G times^G mathfrak{g}$ be the adjoint vector bundle of $E_G$ associated to the adjoint representation $ad : G longrightarrow End(mathfrak{g})$ of $G$ on its Lie algebra $mathfrak{g}$. The fibers of $ad(E_G)$ are $mathbb{C}$-linearly isomorphic to $mathfrak{g}$.
Consider $ad(E_G)$ as a sheaf of $mathcal{O}_X$-modules on $X$.
Question: Is there any $mathcal{O}_X$-bilinear homomorphism
$[,] : ad(E_G)times ad(E_G) to ad(E_G)$ giving a Lie algebra structure on the sheaf $ad(E_G)$?
ag.algebraic-geometry principal-bundles
ag.algebraic-geometry principal-bundles
asked Dec 10 at 15:37
Anonymous
1286
1286
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
A principal $G$-bundle gives a monoidal functor from the category of representations of $G$ to the category of vector bundles. In particular, it takes the morphism
$$
[-,-] colon mathfrak{g} otimes mathfrak{g} to mathfrak{g}
$$
of $G$-representations (for the adjoint action) to a morphism of vector bundles
$$
[-,-] colon ad(E_G) otimes ad(E_G) to ad(E_G).
$$
By functoriality, it is skew-symmetric and satisfies the Jacobi identity, hence provides the sheaf $ad(E_G)$ with a Lie algebra structure.
Can you please show how the Jacobi identity follows from functoriality?
– Vít Tuček
Dec 10 at 16:25
@VítTuček: The Jacobian identity says that the sum of three maps $ad(E_G) otimes ad(E_G) otimes ad(E_G) to ad(E_G)$ vanishes. These maps come from three maps $mathfrak{g} otimes mathfrak{g} otimes mathfrak{g} to mathfrak{g}$. The sum of the latter maps is zero, hence so is the sum of the former maps.
– Sasha
Dec 10 at 16:41
So monoidal functors are automatically additive?
– Vít Tuček
Dec 10 at 17:25
No, certainly not. You need additivity and the functor also needs to be symmetric monoidal, not just monoidal, to preserve skew-symmetry and the Jacobi identity.
– Qiaochu Yuan
Dec 10 at 21:38
add a comment |
Yes. It boils down to natural isomorphism $ad(E_G) otimes ad(E_G) simeq E_G times^G (mathfrak{g}otimes mathfrak{g})$ which allows you to compose tensor product of sections with the bracket on $mathfrak{g}otimes mathfrak{g}$.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f317337%2fis-there-any-lie-algebra-structure-on-the-sheaf-of-sections-of-adjoint-bundle%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
A principal $G$-bundle gives a monoidal functor from the category of representations of $G$ to the category of vector bundles. In particular, it takes the morphism
$$
[-,-] colon mathfrak{g} otimes mathfrak{g} to mathfrak{g}
$$
of $G$-representations (for the adjoint action) to a morphism of vector bundles
$$
[-,-] colon ad(E_G) otimes ad(E_G) to ad(E_G).
$$
By functoriality, it is skew-symmetric and satisfies the Jacobi identity, hence provides the sheaf $ad(E_G)$ with a Lie algebra structure.
Can you please show how the Jacobi identity follows from functoriality?
– Vít Tuček
Dec 10 at 16:25
@VítTuček: The Jacobian identity says that the sum of three maps $ad(E_G) otimes ad(E_G) otimes ad(E_G) to ad(E_G)$ vanishes. These maps come from three maps $mathfrak{g} otimes mathfrak{g} otimes mathfrak{g} to mathfrak{g}$. The sum of the latter maps is zero, hence so is the sum of the former maps.
– Sasha
Dec 10 at 16:41
So monoidal functors are automatically additive?
– Vít Tuček
Dec 10 at 17:25
No, certainly not. You need additivity and the functor also needs to be symmetric monoidal, not just monoidal, to preserve skew-symmetry and the Jacobi identity.
– Qiaochu Yuan
Dec 10 at 21:38
add a comment |
A principal $G$-bundle gives a monoidal functor from the category of representations of $G$ to the category of vector bundles. In particular, it takes the morphism
$$
[-,-] colon mathfrak{g} otimes mathfrak{g} to mathfrak{g}
$$
of $G$-representations (for the adjoint action) to a morphism of vector bundles
$$
[-,-] colon ad(E_G) otimes ad(E_G) to ad(E_G).
$$
By functoriality, it is skew-symmetric and satisfies the Jacobi identity, hence provides the sheaf $ad(E_G)$ with a Lie algebra structure.
Can you please show how the Jacobi identity follows from functoriality?
– Vít Tuček
Dec 10 at 16:25
@VítTuček: The Jacobian identity says that the sum of three maps $ad(E_G) otimes ad(E_G) otimes ad(E_G) to ad(E_G)$ vanishes. These maps come from three maps $mathfrak{g} otimes mathfrak{g} otimes mathfrak{g} to mathfrak{g}$. The sum of the latter maps is zero, hence so is the sum of the former maps.
– Sasha
Dec 10 at 16:41
So monoidal functors are automatically additive?
– Vít Tuček
Dec 10 at 17:25
No, certainly not. You need additivity and the functor also needs to be symmetric monoidal, not just monoidal, to preserve skew-symmetry and the Jacobi identity.
– Qiaochu Yuan
Dec 10 at 21:38
add a comment |
A principal $G$-bundle gives a monoidal functor from the category of representations of $G$ to the category of vector bundles. In particular, it takes the morphism
$$
[-,-] colon mathfrak{g} otimes mathfrak{g} to mathfrak{g}
$$
of $G$-representations (for the adjoint action) to a morphism of vector bundles
$$
[-,-] colon ad(E_G) otimes ad(E_G) to ad(E_G).
$$
By functoriality, it is skew-symmetric and satisfies the Jacobi identity, hence provides the sheaf $ad(E_G)$ with a Lie algebra structure.
A principal $G$-bundle gives a monoidal functor from the category of representations of $G$ to the category of vector bundles. In particular, it takes the morphism
$$
[-,-] colon mathfrak{g} otimes mathfrak{g} to mathfrak{g}
$$
of $G$-representations (for the adjoint action) to a morphism of vector bundles
$$
[-,-] colon ad(E_G) otimes ad(E_G) to ad(E_G).
$$
By functoriality, it is skew-symmetric and satisfies the Jacobi identity, hence provides the sheaf $ad(E_G)$ with a Lie algebra structure.
answered Dec 10 at 15:51
Sasha
20.2k22654
20.2k22654
Can you please show how the Jacobi identity follows from functoriality?
– Vít Tuček
Dec 10 at 16:25
@VítTuček: The Jacobian identity says that the sum of three maps $ad(E_G) otimes ad(E_G) otimes ad(E_G) to ad(E_G)$ vanishes. These maps come from three maps $mathfrak{g} otimes mathfrak{g} otimes mathfrak{g} to mathfrak{g}$. The sum of the latter maps is zero, hence so is the sum of the former maps.
– Sasha
Dec 10 at 16:41
So monoidal functors are automatically additive?
– Vít Tuček
Dec 10 at 17:25
No, certainly not. You need additivity and the functor also needs to be symmetric monoidal, not just monoidal, to preserve skew-symmetry and the Jacobi identity.
– Qiaochu Yuan
Dec 10 at 21:38
add a comment |
Can you please show how the Jacobi identity follows from functoriality?
– Vít Tuček
Dec 10 at 16:25
@VítTuček: The Jacobian identity says that the sum of three maps $ad(E_G) otimes ad(E_G) otimes ad(E_G) to ad(E_G)$ vanishes. These maps come from three maps $mathfrak{g} otimes mathfrak{g} otimes mathfrak{g} to mathfrak{g}$. The sum of the latter maps is zero, hence so is the sum of the former maps.
– Sasha
Dec 10 at 16:41
So monoidal functors are automatically additive?
– Vít Tuček
Dec 10 at 17:25
No, certainly not. You need additivity and the functor also needs to be symmetric monoidal, not just monoidal, to preserve skew-symmetry and the Jacobi identity.
– Qiaochu Yuan
Dec 10 at 21:38
Can you please show how the Jacobi identity follows from functoriality?
– Vít Tuček
Dec 10 at 16:25
Can you please show how the Jacobi identity follows from functoriality?
– Vít Tuček
Dec 10 at 16:25
@VítTuček: The Jacobian identity says that the sum of three maps $ad(E_G) otimes ad(E_G) otimes ad(E_G) to ad(E_G)$ vanishes. These maps come from three maps $mathfrak{g} otimes mathfrak{g} otimes mathfrak{g} to mathfrak{g}$. The sum of the latter maps is zero, hence so is the sum of the former maps.
– Sasha
Dec 10 at 16:41
@VítTuček: The Jacobian identity says that the sum of three maps $ad(E_G) otimes ad(E_G) otimes ad(E_G) to ad(E_G)$ vanishes. These maps come from three maps $mathfrak{g} otimes mathfrak{g} otimes mathfrak{g} to mathfrak{g}$. The sum of the latter maps is zero, hence so is the sum of the former maps.
– Sasha
Dec 10 at 16:41
So monoidal functors are automatically additive?
– Vít Tuček
Dec 10 at 17:25
So monoidal functors are automatically additive?
– Vít Tuček
Dec 10 at 17:25
No, certainly not. You need additivity and the functor also needs to be symmetric monoidal, not just monoidal, to preserve skew-symmetry and the Jacobi identity.
– Qiaochu Yuan
Dec 10 at 21:38
No, certainly not. You need additivity and the functor also needs to be symmetric monoidal, not just monoidal, to preserve skew-symmetry and the Jacobi identity.
– Qiaochu Yuan
Dec 10 at 21:38
add a comment |
Yes. It boils down to natural isomorphism $ad(E_G) otimes ad(E_G) simeq E_G times^G (mathfrak{g}otimes mathfrak{g})$ which allows you to compose tensor product of sections with the bracket on $mathfrak{g}otimes mathfrak{g}$.
add a comment |
Yes. It boils down to natural isomorphism $ad(E_G) otimes ad(E_G) simeq E_G times^G (mathfrak{g}otimes mathfrak{g})$ which allows you to compose tensor product of sections with the bracket on $mathfrak{g}otimes mathfrak{g}$.
add a comment |
Yes. It boils down to natural isomorphism $ad(E_G) otimes ad(E_G) simeq E_G times^G (mathfrak{g}otimes mathfrak{g})$ which allows you to compose tensor product of sections with the bracket on $mathfrak{g}otimes mathfrak{g}$.
Yes. It boils down to natural isomorphism $ad(E_G) otimes ad(E_G) simeq E_G times^G (mathfrak{g}otimes mathfrak{g})$ which allows you to compose tensor product of sections with the bracket on $mathfrak{g}otimes mathfrak{g}$.
answered Dec 10 at 16:24
Vít Tuček
4,99711748
4,99711748
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f317337%2fis-there-any-lie-algebra-structure-on-the-sheaf-of-sections-of-adjoint-bundle%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown