In this paper, we construct a kind of new braided monoidal category over two Hom-Hopf algerbas (H,α) and (B,β) and associate it with two nonlinear equations. We first introduce the notion of an (H,B)-Hom-Long dimodule and show that the Hom-Long dimodule category BHL is an autonomous category. Second, we prove that the category BHL is a braided monoidal category if (H,α) is quasitriangular and (B,β) is coquasitriangular and get a solution of the quantum Yang-Baxter equation. Also, we show that the category BHL can be viewed as a subcategory of the Hom-Yetter-Drinfeld category H⊗BH⊗BHYD. Finally, we obtain a solution of the Hom-Long equation from the Hom-Long dimodules.
Citation: Shengxiang Wang, Xiaohui Zhang, Shuangjian Guo. The Hom-Long dimodule category and nonlinear equations[J]. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(1): 362-381. doi: 10.3934/era.2022019
[1] | Baoling Guan, Xinxin Tian, Lijun Tian . Induced 3-Hom-Lie superalgebras. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(8): 4637-4651. doi: 10.3934/era.2023237 |
[2] | Shanshan Liu, Abdenacer Makhlouf, Lina Song . The full cohomology, abelian extensions and formal deformations of Hom-pre-Lie algebras. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(8): 2748-2773. doi: 10.3934/era.2022141 |
[3] | Dingguo Wang, Xiaohui Zhang . On quasi-monoidal comonads and their corepresentations. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(8): 3153-3171. doi: 10.3934/era.2022160 |
[4] |
Bing Sun, Liangyun Chen, Yan Cao .
On the universal |
[5] | Yaguo Guo, Shilin Yang . Projective class rings of the category of Yetter-Drinfeld modules over the 2-rank Taft algebra. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(8): 5006-5024. doi: 10.3934/era.2023256 |
[6] | Min Li . Long-wavelength limit for the Green–Naghdi equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(7): 2700-2718. doi: 10.3934/era.2022138 |
[7] | Yang Liu . Long-time behavior of a class of viscoelastic plate equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2020, 28(1): 311-326. doi: 10.3934/era.2020018 |
[8] | Xiaoju Zhang, Kai Zheng, Yao Lu, Huanhuan Ma . Global existence and long-time behavior of solutions for fully nonlocal Boussinesq equations. Electronic Research Archive, 2023, 31(9): 5406-5424. doi: 10.3934/era.2023274 |
[9] | J. Vanterler da C. Sousa, Kishor D. Kucche, E. Capelas de Oliveira . Stability of mild solutions of the fractional nonlinear abstract Cauchy problem. Electronic Research Archive, 2022, 30(1): 272-288. doi: 10.3934/era.2022015 |
[10] | Lianbing She, Nan Liu, Xin Li, Renhai Wang . Three types of weak pullback attractors for lattice pseudo-parabolic equations driven by locally Lipschitz noise. Electronic Research Archive, 2021, 29(5): 3097-3119. doi: 10.3934/era.2021028 |
In this paper, we construct a kind of new braided monoidal category over two Hom-Hopf algerbas (H,α) and (B,β) and associate it with two nonlinear equations. We first introduce the notion of an (H,B)-Hom-Long dimodule and show that the Hom-Long dimodule category BHL is an autonomous category. Second, we prove that the category BHL is a braided monoidal category if (H,α) is quasitriangular and (B,β) is coquasitriangular and get a solution of the quantum Yang-Baxter equation. Also, we show that the category BHL can be viewed as a subcategory of the Hom-Yetter-Drinfeld category H⊗BH⊗BHYD. Finally, we obtain a solution of the Hom-Long equation from the Hom-Long dimodules.
The study of Hom-algebras can be traced back to Hartwig, Larsson and Silvestrov's work in [1], where the notion of Hom-Lie algebra in the context of q-deformation theory of Witt and Virasoro algebras [2] was introduced, which plays an important role in physics, mainly in conformal field theory. Hom-algebras and Hom-coalgebras were introduced by Makhlouf and Silvestrov [3] as generalizations of ordinary algebras and coalgebras in the following sense: the associativity of the multiplication is replaced by the Hom-associativity and similar for Hom-coassociativity. They also defined the structures of Hom-bialgebras and Hom-Hopf algebras, and described some of their properties extending properties of ordinary bialgebras and Hopf algebras in [4,5]. In [6], Caenepeel and Goyvaerts studied Hom-bialgebras and Hom-Hopf algebras from a categorical view point, and called them monoidal Hom-bialgebras and monoidal Hom-Hopf algebras respectively, which are different from the normal Hom-bialgebras and Hom-Hopf algebras in [4]. Many more properties and structures of Hom-Hopf algebras have been developed, see [7,8,9,10] and references cited therein.
Later, Yau [11,12] proposed the definition of quasitriangular Hom-Hopf algebras and showed that each quasitriangular Hom-Hopf algebra yields a solution of the Hom-Yang-Baxter equation. The Hom-Yang-Baxter equation reduces to the usual Yang-Baxter equation when the twist map is trivial. Several classes of solutions of the Hom-Yang-Baxter equation were constructed from different respects, including those associated to Hom-Lie algebras [11,13,14,15], Drinfelds (co)doubles [16,17,18], and Hom-Yetter-Drinfeld modules [19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26].
It is well-known that classical nonlinear equations in Hopf algebra theory including the quantum Yang-Baxter equation, the Hopf equation, the pentagon equation, and the Long equation. In [27], Militaru proved that each Long dimodule gave rise to a solution for the Long equation. Long dimodules are the building stones of the Brauer-Long group. In the case where H is commutative, cocommutative and faithfully projective, the Yetter-Drinfeld category HHYD is precisely the Long dimodule category HHL. Of course, for an arbitrary H, the categories HHYD and HHL are basically different. In [28], Chen et al. introduced the concept of Long dimodules over a monoidal Hom-bialgebra and discussed its relation with Hom-Long equations. Later, we [29] extended Chen's work to generalized Hom-Long dimodules over monoidal Hom-Hopf algebras and obtained a kind solution for the quantum Yang-Baxter equation. For more details about Long dimodules, see [30,31,32,33] and references cited therein.
The main purpose of this paper is to construct a new braided monoidal category and present solutions for two kinds of nonlinear equations. Different to our previous work in [29], in the present paper we do all the work over Hom-Hopf algebras, which is more unpredictable than the monoidal version. Since Hom-Hopf algebras and monoidal Hom-Hopf algebras are different concepts, it turns out that our definitions, formulas and results are also different from the ones in [29]. Most important, we associate quantum Yang-Baxter equations and Hom-Long equations to the Hom-Long dimodule categories.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section 1, we recall some basic definitions about Hom-(co)modules and (co)quasitriangular Hom-Hopf algebras.
In Section 2, we first introduce the notion of (H,B)-Hom-Long dimodules over Hom-bialgebras (H,α) and (B,β), then we show that the Hom-Long dimodule category BHL forms an autonomous category (see Theorem 2.6) and prove that the category is equivalent to the category of left B∗op⊗H-Hom-modules (see Theorem 2.7).
In Section 3, for a quasitriangular Hom-Hopf algebra (H,R,α) and a coquasitriangular Hom-Hopf algebra (B,⟨|⟩,β), we prove that the Hom-Long dimodule category BHL is a subcategory of the Hom-Yetter-Drinfeld category H⊗BH⊗BHYD (see Theorem 3.5), and show that the braiding yields a solution for the quantum Yang-Baxter equation (see Corollary 3.2).
In Section 4, we prove that the category HM over a triangular Hom-Hopf algebra (resp., HM over a cotriangular Hom-Hopf algebra) is a Hom-Long dimodule subcategory of BHL (see Propositions 4.1 and 4.2). We also show that the Hom-Long dimodule category BHL is symmetric in case (H,R,α) is triangular and (B,⟨|⟩,β) is cotriangular (see Theorem 4.3).
In Section 5, we introduce the notion of (H,α)-Hom-Long dimodules and obtain a solution for the Hom-Long equation (see Theorem 5.10).
Throughout this paper, k is a fixed field. Unless otherwise stated, all vector spaces, algebras, modules, maps and unadorned tensor products are over k. For a coalgebra C, the coproduct will be denoted by Δ. We adopt a Sweedler's notation △(c)=c1⊗c2, for any c∈C, where the summation is understood. We refer to [34,35] for the Hopf algebra theory and terminology.
We now recall some useful definitions in [3,4,5,12,36,37].
Definition 1.1. A Hom-algebra is a quadruple (A,μ,1A,α) (abbr. (A,α)), where A is a k-linear space, μ:A⊗A⟶A is a k-linear map, 1A∈A and α is an endmorphism of A, such that
(HA1)α(aa′)=α(a)α(a′);α(1A)=1A,(HA2)α(a)(a′a″)=(aa′)α(a″);a1A=1Aa=α(a) |
are satisfied for a,a′,a″∈A. Here we use the notation μ(a⊗a′)=aa′.
Definition 1.2. Let (A,α) be a Hom-algebra. A left (A,α)-Hom-module is a triple (M,⊳,ν), where M is a linear space, ⊳:A⊗M⟶M is a linear map, and ν is an endmorphism of M, such that
(HM1)ν(a⊳m)=α(a)⊳ν(m),(HM2)α(a)⊳(a′⊳m)=(aa′)⊳ν(m);1A⊳m=ν(m) |
are satisfied for a,a′∈A and m∈M.
Let (M,⊳M,νM) and (N,⊳N,νN) be two left (A,α)-Hom-modules. Then a linear morphism f:M⟶N is called a morphism of left (A,α)-Hom-modules if f(h⊳Mm)=h⊳Nf(m) and νN∘f=f∘νM.
Definition 1.3. A Hom-coalgebra is a quadruple (C,Δ,ϵ,β) (abbr. (C,β)), where C is a k-linear space, Δ:C⟶C⊗C, ϵ:C⟶k are k-linear maps, and β is an endmorphism of C, such that
(HC1)β(c)1⊗β(c)2=β(c1)⊗β(c2);ϵ∘β=ϵ;(HC2)β(c1)⊗c21⊗c22=c11⊗c12⊗β(c2);ϵ(c1)c2=c1ϵ(c2)=β(c) |
are satisfied for c∈C.
Definition 1.4. Let (C,β) be a Hom-coalgebra. A left (C,β)-Hom-comodule is a triple (M,ρ,μ), where M is a linear space, ρ:M⟶C⊗M (write ρ(m)=m(−1)⊗m(0),∀m∈M) is a linear map, and μ is an endmorphism of M, such that
(HCM1)μ(m)(−1)⊗μ(m)(0)=β(m(−1))⊗μ(m(0)),ϵ(m(−1))m(0)=μ(m);(HCM2)β(m(−1))⊗m(0)(−1)⊗m(0)(0)=m(−1)1⊗m(−1)2⊗μ(m(0)) |
are satisfied for all m∈M.
Let (M,ρM,μM) and (N,ρN,μN) be two left (C,β)-Hom-comodules. Then a linear map f:M⟶N is called a map of left (C,β)-Hom-comodules if f(m)(−1)⊗f(m)(0)=m(−1)⊗f(m(0)) and μN∘f=f∘μM.
Definition 1.5. A Hom-bialgebra is a sextuple (H,μ,1H,Δ,ϵ,γ) (abbr. (H,γ)), where (H,μ,1H,γ) is a Hom-algebra and (H,Δ,ϵ,γ) is a Hom-coalgebra, such that Δ and ϵ are morphisms of Hom-algebras, i.e.,
Δ(hh′)=Δ(h)Δ(h′);Δ(1H)=1H⊗1H;ϵ(hh′)=ϵ(h)ϵ(h′);ϵ(1H)=1. |
Furthermore, if there exists a linear map S:H⟶H such that
S(h1)h2=h1S(h2)=ϵ(h)1HandS(γ(h))=γ(S(h)), |
then we call (H,μ,1H,Δ,ϵ,γ,S) (abbr. (H,γ,S)) a Hom-Hopf algebra.
Definition 1.6. ([36]) Let (H,β) be a Hom-bialgebra, (M,⊳,μ) a left (H,β)-module with action ⊳:H⊗M⟶M,h⊗m↦h⊳m and (M,ρ,μ) a left (H,β)-comodule with coaction ρ:M⟶H⊗M,m↦m(−1)⊗m(0). Then we call (M,⊳,ρ,μ) a (left-left) Hom-Yetter-Drinfeld module over (H,β) if the following condition holds:
(HYD)h1β(m(−1))⊗(β3(h2)⊳m(0)=(β2(h1)⊳m)(−1)h2⊗(β2(h1)⊳m)(0), |
where h∈H and m∈M.
When H is a Hom-Hopf algebra, then the condition (HYD) is equivalent to
(HYD)′ρ(β4(h)⊳m)=β−2(h11β(m(−1)))S(h2)⊗(β3(h12)⊳m0). |
Definition 1.7. ([36]) Let (H,β) be a Hom-bialgebra. A Hom-Yetter-Drinfeld category HHYD is a pre-braided monoidal category whose objects are left-left Hom-Yetter-Drinfeld modules, morphisms are both left (H,β)-linear and (H,β)-colinear maps, and its pre-braiding C−,− is given by
CM,N(m⊗n)=β2(m(−1))⊳ν−1(n)⊗μ−1(m0), | (1.1) |
for all m∈(M,μ)∈HHYD and n∈(N,ν)∈HHYD.
Definition 1.8. A quasitriangular Hom-Hopf algebra is a octuple (H,μ,1H,Δ,ϵ,S,β,R) (abbr. (H,β,R)) in which (H,μ,1H,Δ,ϵ,S,β) is a Hom-Hopf algebra and R=R(1)⊗R(2)∈H⊗H, satisfying the following axioms (for all h∈H and R=r):
(QHA1)ϵ(R(1))R(2)=R(1)ϵ(R(2))=1H,(QHA2)Δ(R(1))⊗β(R(2))=β(R(1))⊗β(r(1))⊗R(2)r(2),(QHA3)β(R(1))⊗Δ(R(2))=R(1)r(1)⊗β(r(2))⊗β(R(2)),(QHA4)Δcop(h)R=RΔ(h),(QHA5)β(R(1))⊗β(R(2))=R(1)⊗R(2), |
where Δcop(h)=h2⊗h1 for all h∈H. A quasitriangular Hom-Hopf algebra (H,R,β) is called triangular if R−1=R(2)⊗R(1).
Definition 1.9. A coquasitriangular Hom-Hopf algebra is a Hom-Hopf algebra (H,β) together with a bilinear form ⟨|⟩ on (H,β) (i.e., ⟨|⟩∈ Hom(H⊗H,k)) such that the following axioms hold:
(CHA1)⟨hg|β(l)⟩=⟨β(h)|l2⟩⟨β(g)|l1⟩,(CHA2)⟨β(h)|gl⟩=⟨h1|β(g)⟩⟨h2|β(l)⟩,(CHA3)⟨h1|g1⟩g2h2=h1g1⟨h2|g2⟩,(CHA4)⟨1|h⟩=⟨h|1⟩=ϵ(h),(CHA5)⟨β(h)|β(g)⟩=⟨h|g⟩, |
for all h,g,l∈H. A coquasitriangular Hom-Hopf algebra (H,⟨|⟩,β) is called cotriangular if ⟨|⟩ is convolution invertible in the sense of ⟨h1|g1⟩⟨g2|h2⟩=ϵ(h)ϵ(g), for all h,g∈H.
In this section, we will introduce the notion of Hom-Long dimodules and prove that the Hom-Long dimodule category is an autonomous category.
Definition 2.1. Let (H,α) and (B,β) be two Hom-bialgebras. A left-left (H,B)-Hom-Long dimodule is a quadruple (M,⋅,ρ,μ), where (M,⋅,μ) is a left (H,α)-Hom-module and (M,ρ,μ) is a left (B,β)-Hom-comodule such that
ρ(h⋅m)=β(m(−1))⊗α(h)⋅m(0), | (2.1) |
for all h∈H and m∈M. We denote by BHL the category of left-left (H,B)-Hom-Long dimodules, morphisms being H-linear B-colinear maps.
Example 2.2. Let (H,α) and (B,β) be two Hom-bialgebras. Then (H⊗B,α⊗β) is an (H,B)-Hom-Long dimodule with left (H,α)-action h⋅(g⊗x)=hg⊗β(x) and left (B,β)-coaction ρ(g⊗x)=x1⊗(α(g)⊗x2), where h,g∈H,x∈B.
Proposition 2.3. Let (M,μ),(N,ν) be two (H,B)-Hom-Long dimodules, then (M⊗N,μ⊗ν) is an (H,B)-Hom-Long dimodule with structures:
h⋅(m⊗n)=h1⋅m⊗h2⋅n,ρ(m⊗n)=β−2(m(−1)n(−1))⊗m(0)⊗n(0), |
for all m∈M,n∈N and h∈H.
Proof. From Theorem 4.8 in [21], (M⊗N,μ⊗ν) is both a left (H,α)-Hom-module and a left (B,β)-Hom-comodule. It remains to check that the compatibility condition (2.1) holds. For any m∈M,n∈N and h∈H, we have
ρ(h⋅(m⊗n))=β((h1⋅m)(−1)(h2⋅n)(−1))⊗(h1⋅m)(0)⊗(h2⋅n)(0)=β−1(m(−1)n(−1))⊗α(h1)⋅m(0)⊗α(h2)⋅n(0)=β((m⊗n)(−1))⊗α(h)⋅((m⊗n)(0)), |
as desired. This completes the proof.
Proposition 2.4. The Hom-Long dimodule category BHL is a monoidal category, where the tensor product is given in Proposition 2.3, the unit I=(k,id), the associator and the constraints are given as follows:
aU,V,W:(U⊗V)⊗W→U⊗(V⊗W),(u⊗v)⊗w→μ−1(u)⊗(v⊗ω(w)),lV:k⊗V→V,k⊗v→kν(v),rV:V⊗k→V,v⊗k→kν(v), |
for u∈(U,μ)∈BHL,v∈(V,ν)∈BHL,w∈(W,ω)∈BHL.
Proof. Straightforward.
Proposition 2.5. Let H and B be two Hom-Hopf algebras with bijective antipodes. For any Hom-Long dimodule (M,μ) in BHL, set M∗=Homk(M,k), with the (H,α)-Hom-module and the (B,β)-Hom-comodule structures:
θM∗:H⊗M∗⟶M∗,(h⋅f)(m)=f(SHα−1(h)⋅μ−2(m)),ρM∗:M∗⟶B⊗M∗,f(−1)⊗f(0)(m)=S−1Bβ−1(m(−1))⊗f(μ−2(m(0))), |
and the Hom-structure map μ∗ of M∗ is μ∗(f)(m)=f(μ−1(m)). Then M∗ is an object in BHL. Moreover, BHL is a left autonomous category.
Proof. It is not hard to check that (M∗,θM∗,μ∗) is an (H,α)-Hom-module and (M∗,ρM∗,μ∗) is a (B,β)-Hom-comodule. Further, for any f∈M∗, m∈M, h∈H, we have
(h⋅f)(−1)⊗(h⋅f)(0)(m)=S−1Bβ−1(m(−1))⊗(h⋅f)(μ−2(m(0)))=S−1Bβ−1(m(−1))⊗f(SHα−1(h)⋅μ−4(m(0))),β(f(−1))⊗(α(h)⋅f(0))(m)=β(f(−1))⊗f(0)(SH(h)⋅μ−2(m))=β(S−1Bβ−2(m(−1)))⊗f(μ−2(SHα(h)⋅μ−2(m(0))))=S−1Bβ−1(m(−1))⊗f(SHα−1(h)⋅μ−4(m(0))). |
Thus M∗∈BHL.
Moreover, for any f∈M∗ and m∈M, one can define the left evaluation map and the left coevaluation map by
evM:f⊗m⟼f(m),coevM:1k⟼∑ei⊗ei, |
where ei and ei are dual bases in M and M∗ respectively. Next, we will show that (M∗,evM,coevM) is the left dual of M.
It is easy to see that evM and coevM are morphisms in BHL. For this, we need the following computation
(rM∘(idM⊗evM)∘aM,M∗,M∘(coevM⊗idM)∘l−1M)(m)=(rM∘(idM⊗evM)∘aM,M∗,M)(∑i(ei⊗ei)⊗μ−1(m))=(rM∘(idM⊗evM))(∑iμ−1(ei)⊗(ei⊗m))=rM(∑iμ−1(ei)⊗ei(m))=rM(μ−1(m)⊗1k)=m. |
Similarly, we get
(lM∗∘(evM⊗idM∗)∘a−1M∗,M,M∗∘(idM∗⊗coevM)∘r−1M∗)(f)=(lM∗∘(evM⊗idM∗)∘a−1M∗,M,M∗)(∑iμ∗−1(f)⊗(ei⊗ei))=(lM∗∘(evM⊗idM∗))(∑if⊗ei)⊗μ∗−1(ei))=lM∗(∑if(ei)⊗μ∗−1(ei))=lM∗(1k⊗μ∗−1(f))=f. |
So BHL admits the left duality. The proof is finished.
Theorem 2.6. The Hom-Long dimodule category BHL is an autonomous category.
Proof. By Proposition 2.5, it is sufficient to show that BHL is also a right autonomous category. In fact, for any (M,μ)∈BHL, its right dual (∗M,~coevM,~evM) is defined as follows:
∙ ∗M=Homk(M,k) as k-modules, with the Hom-module and Hom-comodule structures:
(h⋅f)(m)=f(S−1Hα−1(h)⋅μ−2(m)),f(−1)⊗f(0)(m)=SBβ−1(m(−1))⊗f(μ−2(m(0))), |
where f∈∗M, m∈M, and the Hom-structure map μ∗ of ∗M is μ∗(f)(m)=f(μ−1(m));
∙ The right evaluation map and the right coevaluation map are given by
~evM:m⊗f⟼f(m),~coevM:1k⟼∑ai⊗ai, |
where ai and ai are dual bases of M and ∗M respectively. By similar verification in Proposition 2.5, one may check that BHL is a right autonomous category, as required. This completes the proof.
Recall from [17] that for any finite dimensional Hom-Hopf algebra B, B∗ is also a Hom-Hopf algebra with the following structures
(f∗g)(y):=f(β−2(y1))g(β−2(y2)),ΔB∗(f)(xy):=f(β−2(xy)),1B∗:=ϵ,ϵB∗(f):=f(1H),SB∗:=S∗,αB∗(f):=f∘β−1, |
where x,y∈H, f,g∈B∗.
Theorem 2.7. If B is a finite dimensional Hom-Hopf algebra, then the Hom-Long dimodule category BHL is identified to the category of left B∗op⊗H-Hom-modules, where B∗op⊗H means the usual tensor product Hom-Hopf algebra.
Proof. Define the functor Ψ from B∗op⊗HM to BHL by
Ψ(M):=Mask−module,Ψ(f):=f, |
where (M,μ,⇁) is a B∗op⊗H-Hom-module, f:M→N is a morphism of B∗op⊗H-Hom-modules. Further, the H-action on M is defined by
h⋅m:=(ϵB⊗h)⇁m,forallm∈M,h∈H, |
and the B-coaction on M is given by
m(−1)⊗m(0):=∑ei⊗(ei⊗1H)⇁m, |
where ei and ei are dual bases of B and B∗ respectively.
First, we will show (M,μ,⋅) is a left (H,α)-Hom-module. Actually, for any m∈M, h,g∈H, we have 1H⋅m=(ϵB⊗1H)⇁m=μ(m), and
α(h)⋅(g⋅m)=(ϵB⊗α(h))⇁((ϵB⊗g)⇁m)=(ϵB⊗hg)⇁μ(m)=(hg)⋅μ(m), |
which implies (M,μ,⋅)∈HM.
Second, one can show that (M,μ)∈BM in a similar way.
At last, for any m∈M, h∈H, we have
(h⋅m)(−1)⊗(h⋅m)(0)=∑ei⊗(ei⊗1H)⇁(h⋅m)=∑ei⊗(ei⊗α(h))⇁μ(m)=∑β(ei)⊗((ϵB⊗1H)(ei⊗h)⇁μ(m)=∑β(ei)⊗((ϵB⊗h)(ei⊗1H)⇁μ(m)=∑β(ei)⊗α(h)⋅((ei⊗1H)⇁μ(m))=β(m(−1))⊗α(h)⋅m(0), |
which implies (M,μ)∈BHL.
Conversely, for any object (M,μ), (N,ν), and morphism f:U→V in BHL, one can define a functor Φ from BHL to B∗op⊗HM
Φ(M):=Mask−modules,Φ(f):=f, |
where the (B∗op⊗H,β∗⊗α)-Hom-module structure on M is given by
(p⊗h)⇁m=p(m(−1))h⋅μ−1(m(0)), |
for all p∈B∗,h∈H,m∈M. It is straightforward to check that (M,μ,⇁) is an object in BHL to B∗op⊗HM, and hence Φ is well defined.
Note that Φ and Ψ are inverse with each other. Hence the conclusion holds.
In this section, we will prove that the Hom-Long dimodule category BHL over a quasitriangular Hom-Hopf algebra (H,R,α) and a coquasitriangular Hom-Hopf algebra (B,⟨|⟩,β) is a braided monoidal subcategory of the Hom-Yetter-Drinfeld category H⊗BH⊗BHYD.
Theorem 3.1. Let (H,R,α) be a quasitriangular Hom-Hopf algebra and (B,⟨|⟩,β) a coquasitriangular Hom-Hopf algebra. Then the category BHL is a braided monoidal category with braiding
CM,N:M⊗N→N⊗M,m⊗n→⟨m(−1)|n(−1)⟩R(2)⋅ν−2(n(0))⊗R(1)⋅μ−2(m(0)), | (3.1) |
for all m∈(M,μ)∈BHL and n∈(N,ν)∈BHL.
Proof. We will first show that the braiding CM,N is a morphism in BHL. In fact, for any m∈M,n∈N and h∈H, we have
CM,N(h1⋅m⊗h2⋅n)=⟨(h1⋅m)(−1)|(h2⋅n)(−1)⟩R(2)⋅ν−2(h2⋅n)(0)⊗R(1)⋅μ−2(h1⋅m)(0)(2.1)=⟨β(m(−1))|β(n(−1))⟩R(2)⋅ν−2(α(h2)⋅n(0))⊗R(1)⋅μ−2(α(h1)⋅m(0))(HM2)=⟨m(−1)|n(−1)⟩α−1(R(2)h2)⋅ν−1(n(0))⊗α−1(R(1)h1)⋅μ−1(m(0)),h⋅CM,N(m⊗n)=⟨m(−1)|n(−1)⟩h⋅(R(2)⋅ν−2(n(0))⊗R(1)⋅μ−2(m(0)))=⟨m(−1)|n(−1)⟩h1⋅(α−1(R(2))⋅ν−2(n(0)))⊗h2⋅(α−1(R(1))⋅μ−2(m(0)))(HM2)=⟨m(−1)|n(−1)⟩α−1(h1R(2))⋅ν−1(n(0))⊗α−1(h2R(1))⋅μ−1(m(0))(QHA4)=⟨m(−1)|n(−1)⟩α−1(R(2)h2)⋅ν−1(n(0))⊗α−1(R(1)h1)⋅μ−1(m(0)). |
The third equality holds since ⟨|⟩ is β-invariant and the fifth equality holds since R is α-invariant. So CM,N is left (H,α)-linear. Similarly, one may check that CM,N is left (B,β)-colinear.
Now we prove that the braiding CM,N is natural. For any (M,μ),(M′,μ′), (N,ν),(N′,ν′) ∈BHL, let f:M→M′ and g:N→N′ be two morpshisms in BHL, it is sufficient to verify the identity (g⊗f)∘CM,N=CM′,N′∘(f⊗g). For this purpose, we take m∈M,n∈N and do the following calculation:
(g⊗f)∘CM,N(m⊗n)=⟨m(−1)|n(−1)⟩(g⊗f)(R(2)⋅ν−2(n(0))⊗R(1)⋅μ−2(m(0)))=⟨m(−1)|n(−1)⟩g(R(2)⋅ν−2(n(0)))⊗f(R(1)⋅μ−2(m(0)))=⟨m(−1)|n(−1)⟩R(2)⋅g(ν−2(n(0)))⊗R(1)⋅f(μ−2(m(0))),CM′,N′∘(f⊗g)(m⊗n)=CM′,N′(f(m)⊗g(n))=⟨f(m)(−1)|g(n)(−1)⟩R(2)⋅ν−2(g(n)(0))⊗(R(1)⋅μ−2(f(m)(0))=⟨m(−1)|n(−1)⟩R(2)⋅ν−2(g(n(0)))⊗R(1)⋅μ−2(f(m(0)))=⟨m(−1)|n(−1)⟩R(2)⋅g(ν−2(n(0)))⊗R(1)⋅f(μ−2(m(0))). |
The sixth equality holds since f,g are left (B,β)-colinear. So the braiding CM,N is natural, as needed.
Next, we will show that the braiding CM,N is an isomorphsim with inverse map
C−1M,N:N⊗M→M⊗N,n⊗m→⟨S−1(m(−1))|n(−1)⟩S(R(1))⋅μ−2(m(0))⊗R(2)⋅ν−2(n(0)). |
For any m∈M,n∈N, we have
C−1M,N∘CM,N(m⊗n)=⟨m(−1)|n(−1)⟩C−1M,N(R(2)⋅ν−2(n(0))⊗R(1)⋅μ−2(m(0)))=⟨m(−1)|n(−1)⟩⟨S−1(β−1(m(0)(−1)))|β−1(n(0)(−1))⟩S(r(1))⋅μ−2(α(R(2))⋅μ−2(m(0)(0)))⊗r(2)⋅ν−2(α(R(1))⋅ν−2(n(0)(0)))(HCM2)=⟨β−1(m(−1)1)|β−1(n(−1)1)⟩⟨S−1(β−1(m(−1)2))|β−1(n(−1)2)⟩S(r(1))⋅(α−1(R(2))⋅μ−3(m(0)))⊗r(2)⋅(α−1(R(1))⋅ν−3(n(0)))(HM2)=⟨m(−1)1|n(−1)1⟩⟨S−1(m(−1)2)|n(−1)2⟩α−1(S(r(1))R(2))⋅μ−2(m(0))⊗α−1(r(2)R(1))⋅ν−2(n(0))(CHA1)=⟨S−1(β−1(m(−1)2))β−1(m(−1)1)|β(n(−1))⟩1H⋅μ−2(m(0))⊗1H⋅ν−2(n(0))=⟨β−2(S−1(m(−1)2)m(−1)1)|n(−1)⟩1H⋅μ−2(m(0))⊗1H⋅ν−2(n(0))=⟨ϵ(m(−1))1H|n(−1)⟩μ−1(m(0))⊗ν−1(n(0))=ϵ(m(−1))ϵ(n(−1))μ−1(m(0))⊗ν−1(n(0))=m⊗n. |
The second equality holds since ρ(R(2)⋅ν−2(n(0)))=β−1(n(0)(−1))⊗α(R(2))⋅n(0)(0) and the fifth equality holds since R−1=S(r(1))⊗r(2).
Now let us verify the hexagon axioms (H1,H2) from Section XIII. 1.1 of [38]. We need to show that the following diagram (H1) commutes for any (U,μ),(V,ν),(W,ω)∈BHL:
![]() |
For this purpose, let u∈U,v∈V,w∈W, then we have
aV,U,W∘CU,V⊗W∘aU,V,W((u⊗v)⊗w)=aV,U,W∘CU,V⊗W(μ−1(u)⊗(v⊗ω(w)))=⟨β−1(u(−1))|β−2(v(−1))β−1(w(−1))⟩aV,U,W(R(2)⋅(ν−2⊗ω−2)(v(0)⊗ω(w(0)))⊗R(1)⋅μ−3(u(0)))=⟨β(u(−1))|v(−1)β(w(−1))⟩aV,U,W(R(2)⋅(ν−2(v(0))⊗ω−1(w(0)))⊗R(1)⋅μ−3(u(0)))=⟨β(u(−1))|v(−1)β(w(−1))⟩α−1(R(2)1)⋅ν−3(v(0))⊗(R(2)2⋅ω−1(w(0))⊗α(R(1))⋅μ−2(u(0)))(QHA3)=⟨β(u(−1))|v(−1)β(w(−1))⟩r(2)⋅ν−3(v(0))⊗(α(R(2))⋅ω−1(w(0))⊗(R(1)r(1))⋅μ−2(u(0))) |
and
(idV⊗CU,W)∘aV,U,W∘(CU,V⊗idW)((u⊗v)⊗w)=⟨u(−1)|v(−1)⟩(idV⊗CU,W)∘aV,U,W((R(2)⋅ν−2(v(0))⊗R(1)⋅μ−2(u(0)))⊗w)=⟨u(−1)|v(−1)⟩(idV⊗CU,W)α−1(R(2))⋅ν−3(v(0))⊗(R(1)⋅μ−2(u(0))⊗ω(w))=⟨u(−1)|v(−1)⟩⟨β−1(u(0)(−1))|β(w(−1))⟩α−1(R(2))⋅ν−3(v(0))⊗(r(2)⋅ω−1(w(0))⊗r(1)⋅μ−2(α(R(1))⋅μ−2(u(0)(0))))(HCM2)=⟨β−1(u(−1)1)|v(−1)⟩⟨β−1(u(−1)2)|β(w(−1))⟩α−1(R(2))⋅ν−3(v(0))⊗(r(2)⋅ω−1(w(0))⊗α−1(r(1)R(1))⋅μ−2(u(0)))(CHA2)=⟨u(−1)|β−1(v(−1))w(−1)⟩α−1(R(2))⋅ν−3(v(0))⊗(r(2)⋅ω−1(w(0))⊗α−1(r(1)R(1))⋅μ−2(u(0)))=⟨β(u(−1))|v(−1)β(w(−1))⟩R(2)⋅ν−3(v(0))⊗(α(r(2))⋅ω−1(w(0))⊗(r(1)R(1))⋅μ−2(u(0))) |
Since r=R, it follows that aV,U,W∘CU,V⊗W∘aU,V,W=(idV⊗CU,W)∘aV,U,W∘(CU,V⊗idW), that is, the diagram (H1) commutes.
Now we check that the diagram (H2) commutes for any (U,μ),(V,ν),(W,ω)∈BHL:
![]() |
In fact, for any u∈U,v∈V,w∈W, we obtain
a−1W,U,V∘CU⊗V,W∘a−1U,V,W(u⊗(v⊗w))=a−1W,U,V∘CU⊗V,W((μ(u)⊗v)⊗ω−1(w))=⟨β−1(u(−1))β−1(v(−2))|β−1(w(−1))⟩a−1W,U,V(R(2)⋅ω−3(w(0))⊗R(1)⋅(μ−1(u(0))⊗ν−2(v(0))))=⟨β(u(−1))v(−1)|β(w(−1))⟩a−1W,U,V(R(2)⋅ω−3(w(0))⊗(R(1)1⋅μ−1(u(0))⊗R(1)2⋅ν−2(v(0))))=⟨β(u(−1))v(−1)|β(w(−1))⟩(ω(R(2)⋅ω−2(w(0)))⊗R(1)1⋅μ−1(u(0)))⊗α−1(R(1)2)⋅ν−3(v(0))=⟨β(u(−1))v(−1)|β(w(−1))⟩(α−1(R(2))⋅ω−2(w(0))⊗R(1)1⋅μ−1(u(0)))⊗α(R(1)2)⋅ν(v(0))(QHA2)=⟨β(u(−1))v(−1)|β(w(−1))⟩(α−1(R(2)r(2))⋅ω−2(w(0))⊗R(1)⋅μ−1(u(0)))⊗α−1(r(1))⋅ν−3(v(0)). |
Also we can get
(CU,W⊗idV)∘a−1U,W,V∘(idU⊗CV,W)(u⊗(v⊗w))=⟨v(−1))|w(−1)⟩(CU,W⊗idV)∘a−1U,W,V(u⊗(R(2)⋅ω−2(w(0))⊗R(1)⋅ν−2(v(0))))=⟨v(−1))|w(−1)⟩(CU,W⊗idV)((μ(u)⊗R(2)⋅ω−2(w(0)))⊗α−1(R(1))⋅ν−3(v(0)))=⟨v(−1))|w(−1)⟩⟨β(u(−1))|β−1(w(0)(−1))⟩(r(2)⋅ω−2(α(R(2))⋅ω−2(w(0)(0)))⊗r(1)⋅μ−1(u(0)))⊗α−1(R(1))⋅ν−3(v(0))(HCM2)=⟨v(−1))|β−1(w(−1)1)⟩⟨β(u(−1))|β−1(w(−1)2)⟩(r(2)⋅(α−1(R(2))⋅ω−3(w(0)))⊗r(1)⋅μ−1(u(0)))⊗α−1(R(1))⋅ν−3(v(0))(CHA1)=⟨u(−1)β−1(v(−1))|w(−1)⟩(α−1(r(2)R(2))⋅ω−2(w(0))⊗r(1)⋅μ−1(u(0)))⊗α−1(R(1))⋅ν−3(v(0)). |
So the diagram (H2) commutes since r=R. This ends the proof.
Corollary 3.2. Under hypotheses of Theorem 3.1, the braiding C is a solution of the quantum Yang-Baxter equation
(idW⊗CU,V)∘aW,U,V∘(CU,W⊗idV)∘a−1W,V,U∘(idU⊗CV,W)∘aU,V,W=aW,V,U∘(CW,V⊗idU)∘a−1W,V,U∘(idV⊗CU,W)∘aV,U,W∘(CU,V⊗idW). |
Proof. Straightforward.
Lemma 3.3. Let (H,R,α) be a quasitriangular Hom-Hopf algebra and (B,⟨|⟩,β) a coquasitriangular Hom-Hopf algebra. Define a linear map
(H⊗B)⊗M→M,(h⊗x)⇀m=⟨x|m(−1)⟩α−3(h)⋅μ−1(m(0)), |
for any h∈H,x∈B and m∈(M,μ)∈BHL. Then (M,μ) becomes a left (H⊗B)-Hom-module.
Proof. It is sufficient to show that the Hom-module action defined above satisfies Definition 1.2. For any h,g∈H,x,y∈B and m∈M, we have
(1H⊗1B)⇀m=⟨1B|m(−1)⟩1H⋅μ−1(m(0))=ϵ(m(−1))m(0)=μ(m). |
That is, (1H⊗1B)⇀m=μ(m). For the equality μ((h⊗x)⇀m)=(α(h)⊗β(x))⇀μ(m), we have
(α(h)⊗β(x))⇀μ(m)=⟨β(x)|β(m(−1))⟩α−2(h)⋅m(0)=⟨x|m(−1)⟩α−2(h)⋅m(0)=μ((h⊗x)⇀m), |
as required. Finally, we check the expression ((h⊗x)(g⊗y))⇀μ(m)=(α(h)⊗β(x))⇀((g⊗y)⇀m). For this, we calculate
(α(h)⊗β(x))⇀((g⊗y)⇀m)=⟨y|m(−1)⟩(α(h)⊗β(x))⋅(α−3(g)⋅μ−1(m(0)))=⟨y|m(−1)⟩⟨β(x)|m(0)(−1)⟩α−2(h)⋅(α−3(g)⋅μ−2(m(0)(0)))(HCM2)=⟨y|β−1(m(−1)1)⟩⟨x|β−1(m(−1)2)⟩α−3(hg)⋅m(0)(CHA1)=⟨xy|β(m(−1))⟩α−3(hg)⋅m(0)=((h⊗x)(g⊗y))⇀μ(m). |
So (M,μ) is a left (H⊗B)-Hom-module. The proof is completed.
Lemma 3.4. Let (H,R,α) be a quasitriangular Hom-Hopf algebra and (B,⟨|⟩,β) a coquasitriangular Hom-Hopf algebra. Define a linear map
¯ρ:M→(H⊗B)⊗M,¯ρ(m)=m[−1]⊗m[0]=R(2)⊗β−3(m(−1))⊗R(1)⋅μ−1(m(0)), |
for any m∈(M,μ). Then (M,μ) becomes a left (H⊗B)-Hom-comodule.
Proof. We first show that ¯ρ satisfies Eq (HCM2). On the one side, we have
Δ(m[−1])⊗μ(m[0])=(R(2)1⊗β−3(m(−1)1))⊗(R(2)2⊗β−3(m(−1)2))⊗α(R(1))⋅m(0)=(α(r(2))⊗β−2(m(−1)))⊗(α(R(2))⊗β−3(m(0)(−1)))⊗α(R(1))(r(1)⋅μ−2(m(0)(0))). |
On the other side, we have
(α⊗β)(m[−1])⊗¯ρ(m[0])=(α(r(2))⊗β−2(m(−1)))⊗(R(2)⊗β−3((r(1)⋅μ−1(m(0)))(−1))⊗R(1)⋅μ−1((r(1)⋅μ−1(m(0)))(0))=(α(r(2))⊗β−2(m(−1)))⊗(R(2)⊗β−3(m(0)(−1)))⊗R(1)⋅(r(1)⋅μ−2(m(0)(0))). |
Since R is α-invariant, we have Δ(m[−1])⊗μ(m[0])=(α⊗β)(m[−1])⊗¯ρ(m[0]), as needed.
For Eq (HCM1), we have
(ϵH⊗ϵB)(m[−1])m[0]=ϵH(R(2))ϵB(m(−1))R(1)⋅μ−1(m(0))=1H⋅m=μ(m),(α⊗β)(m[−1])⊗μ(m[0])=(α(R(2))⊗β−2(m(−1)))⊗μ(R(1)⋅μ−1(m(0)))=R(2)⊗β−3(β(m(−1)))⊗R(1)⋅μ−1(μ(m(0)))=¯ρ(μ(m)), |
as desired. And this finishes the proof.
Theorem 3.5. Let (H,R,α) be a quasitriangular Hom-Hopf algebra and (B,⟨|⟩,β) a coquasitriangular Hom-Hopf algebra. Then the Hom-Long dimodules category BHL is a monoidal subcategory of Hom-Yetter-Drinfeld category H⊗BH⊗BYD.
Proof. Let m∈(M,μ)∈BHL and h∈H. Here we first note that ρ(h⋅μ−1(m(0)))=m(0)(−1)⊗α(h)⋅μ−1(m(0)(0)). It is sufficient to show that the left (H⊗B)-Hom-module action in Lemma 3.3 and the left (H⊗B)-Hom-comodule structure in Lemma 3.4 satisfy the compatible condition Eq (HYD). Indeed, for any h∈H, x∈B, m∈M, we have
(h1⊗x1)(α⊗β)(m[−1])⊗(α3(h2)⊗β3(x2))⇀m[0]=h1α(R(2))⊗x1β−2(m(−1))⊗⟨β3(x2)|(R(1)⋅μ−1(m(0)))(−1)⟩h2⋅μ−1((R(1)⋅μ−1(m(0)))(0))=h1α(R(2))⊗x1β−3(m(−1)1)⊗⟨β3(x2)|m(−1)2⟩h2⋅(R(1)⋅μ−1(m(0)))=h1α(R(2))⊗x1β−3(m(−1)1)⊗⟨x2|β−3(m(−1)2)⟩α−1(h2α(R(1)))⋅m(0)=R(2)h2⊗β−3(m(−1)2)x2⟨x1|β−3(m(−1)1)⟩⊗(α−1(R(1))α−1(h1))⋅m(0)=⟨α2(x1)|m(−1)⟩R(2)h2⊗β−3(m(0)(−1))x2⊗(α−1(R(1))α−1(h1))⋅μ−1(m(0)(0))=⟨α2(x1)|m(−1)⟩(R(2)⊗β−3(α−1(h1)⋅μ−1(m(0))(−1)))(h2⊗x2)⊗R(1)⋅μ−1(α−1(h1)⋅μ−1(m(0))(0))=(α2(h1)⊗β2(x1))⇀m[−1](h2⊗x2)⊗(α2(h1)⊗β2(x1))⇀m[0]. |
So (M,μ)∈H⊗BH⊗BHYD. The proof is completed.
Proposition 3.6. Under hypotheses of Theorem 3.5, BHL is a braided monoidal subcategory of H⊗BH⊗BHYD.
Proof. It is sufficient to show that the braiding in the category BHL is compatible to the braiding in H⊗BH⊗BHYD. In fact, for any m∈(M,μ) and n∈(N,ν), we have
CM,N(m⊗n)=(α2(R(2))⊗β−1(m(−1)))⇀ν(−1)(n)⊗α−1(R(1))⋅μ−2(m(0))=⟨β−1(m(−1))|β−1(n(−1))⟩α−1(R(2))⋅ν−2(n(0))⊗α−1(R(1))⋅μ−2(m(0))=⟨m(−1)|n(−1)⟩R(2)⋅ν−2(n(0))⊗R(1)⋅μ−2(m(0)), |
as desired.This finishes the proof.
In this section, we obtain a sufficient condition for the Hom-Long dimodule category BHL to be symmetric.
Let C be a monoidal category and C a braiding on C. The braiding C is called a symmetry [38,39] if CY,X∘CX,Y=idX⊗Y for all X,Y∈C, and the category C is called symmetric.
Proposition 4.1. Let (H,R,α) be a triangular Hom-Hopf algebra and (B,β) a Hom-Hopf algebra. Then the category HM of left (H,α)-Hom-modules is a symmetric subcategory of BHL under the left (B,β)-comodule structure ρ(m)=1B⊗μ(m), where m∈(M,μ)∈HM, and the braiding is defined as
CM,N:M⊗N→N⊗M,m⊗n→R(2)⋅ν−1(n)⊗R(1)⋅μ−1(m), |
for all m∈(M,μ)∈HM,n∈(N,ν)∈HM.
Proof. It is clear that (M,ρ,μ) is a left (B,β)-Hom-comodule under the left (B,β)-comodule structure given above. Now we check that the left (B,β)-comodule structure satisfies the compatible condition Eq (2.1). For this purpose, we take h∈H,m∈(M,μ)∈HM, and calculate
ρ(h⋅m)=1B⊗μ(h⋅m)=1B⊗α(h)⋅μ(m)=β(m(−1))⊗α(h)⋅m(0). |
So, Eq (2.1) holds. That is, (M,ρ,μ) is an (H,B)-Hom-Long dimodule.
Next we verify that any morphism in HM is left (B,β)-colinear, too. Indeed, for any m∈(M,μ)∈HM and n∈(N,ν)∈HM. Assume that f:(M,μ)→(N,ν) is a morphism in HM, then
(idB⊗f)ρ(m)=1B⊗f(μ(m))=1B⊗ν(f(m))=ρ(f(m)). |
So f is left (B,β)-colinear, as desired. Therefore, HM is a subcategory of BHL.
Finally, we prove that HM is a symmetric subcategory of BHL. Since CM,N(m⊗n)=R(2)⋅ν−1(n)⊗R(1)⋅μ−1(m), for all m∈(M,μ)∈HM and n∈(N,ν)∈HM, we have
CN,M∘CM,N(m⊗n)=CN,M(R(2)⋅ν−1(n)⊗R(1)⋅μ−1(m))=r(2)⋅μ−1(R(1)⋅μ−1(m))⊗r(1)⋅ν−1(R(2)⋅ν−1(n))=r(2)⋅(α−1(R(1))⋅μ−2(m))⊗r(1)⋅(α−1(R(2))⋅ν−2(n))=α−1(r(2)R(1))⋅μ−1(m)⊗α−1(r(1)R(2))⋅ν−1(n)=1H⋅μ−1(m)⊗1H⋅ν−1(n)=m⊗n. |
It follows that the braiding CM,N is symmetric. The proof is completed.
Proposition 4.2. Let (B,⟨|⟩,β) be a cotriangular Hom-Hopf algebra and (H,α) a Hom-Hopf algebra. Then the category BM of left (B,β)-Hom-comodules is a symmetric subcategory of BHL under the left (H,α)-module action h⋅m=ϵ(h)μ(m), where h∈H,m∈(M,μ)∈BM, and the braiding is given by
CM,N:M⊗N→N⊗M,m⊗n→⟨m(−1)|n(−1)⟩ν−2(n(0))⊗μ−2(m(0)), |
for all m∈(M,μ)∈BM,n∈(N,ν)∈BM.
Proof. We first show that the left (H,α)-module action defined above forces (M,μ) to be a left (H,α)-module, but this is easy to check. For the compatible condition Eq (2.1), we take h∈H,m∈(M,μ)∈BM and calculate as follows:
ρ(h⋅m)=1B⊗μ(h⋅m)=1B⊗ϵ(h)μ(m)=β(m(−1))⊗α(h)⋅m(0). |
So, Eq (2.1) holds, as required. Therefore, (M,ρ,μ) is an (H,B)-Hom-Long dimodule.
Now we verify that any morphism in BM is left (H,α)-linear, too. Indeed, for any m∈(M,μ)∈BM and n∈(N,ν)∈BM. Assume that f:(M,μ)→(N,ν) is a morphism in BM, then
f(h⋅m)=f(ϵ(h)μ(m))=ϵ(h)μ(f(m))=h⋅f(m). |
So f is left (H,α)-linear, as desired. Therefore, BM is a subcategory of BHL.
Finally, we show that BM is a symmetric subcategory of BHL. Since CM,N(m⊗n)=⟨m(−1)|n(−1)⟩ν−1(n(0))⊗μ−1(m(0)), for all m∈(M,μ)∈BM and n∈(N,ν)∈BM, then
CN,M∘CM,N(m⊗n)=⟨m(−1)|n(−1)⟩CN,M(ν−1(n(0))⊗μ−1(m(0)))=⟨m(−1)|n(−1)⟩⟨β−1(n(0)(−1))|β−1(m0(−1))⟩(μ−2(m(0)(0))⊗ν−2(n(0)(0))=⟨β−1(m(−1)1)|β−1(n(−1)1)⟩⟨β−1(n(−1)2)|β−1(m(−1)2)⟩μ−1(m(0))⊗ν−1(n(0))=ϵ(m(−1))ϵ(n(−1))μ−1(m(0))⊗ν−1(n(0))=m⊗n, |
where the fourth equality holds since ⟨|⟩ is β-invariant. It follows that the braiding CM,N is symmetric. The proof is completed.
Theorem 4.3. Let (H,α) be a triangular Hom-Hopf algebra and (B,⟨|⟩,β) a cotriangular Hom-Hopf algebra. Then the category BHL is symmetric.
Proof. For any m∈(M,μ)∈BHL and n∈(N,ν)∈BHL, we have
CN,M∘CM,N(m⊗n)=⟨m(−1)|n(−1)⟩CN,M(R(2)⋅ν−2(n(0))⊗R(1)⋅μ−2(m(0)))=⟨m(−1)|n(−1)⟩⟨β(n(0)(−1))|β(m(0)(−1))⟩r(2)⋅μ−2(α(R(1))⋅μ−2(m(0)(0)))⊗r(1)⋅ν−2(α(R(2))⋅ν−2(n(0)(0)))=⟨β−1(m(−1)1)|β−1(n(−1)1)⟩⟨β−1(n(−1)2)|β−1(m(−1)2)⟩α−1(r(2)R(1))⋅μ−2(m(0))⊗α−1(r(1)R(2))⋅ν−2(n(0))=ϵ(m(−1))ϵ(n(−1))1H⋅μ−2(m(0))⊗1H⋅ν−2(n(0))=ϵ(m(−1))ϵ(n(−1))μ−1(m(0))⊗ν−1(n(0))=m⊗n, |
as desired. This finishes the proof.
In this section, we will present a kind of new solutions of the Hom-Long equation.
Definition 5.1. Let (H,α) be a Hom-bialgebra and (M,μ) a Hom-module over (H,α). Then R∈End(M⊗M) is called the solution of the Hom-Long equation if it satisfies the nonlinear equation:
R12∘R23=R23∘R12, | (5.1) |
where R12=R⊗μ,R23=μ⊗R.
Example 5.2. If R∈End(M⊗M) is invertible, then it is easy to see that R is a solution of the Hom-Long equation if and only if R−1 is too.
Example 5.3. Let (M,μ) be an (H,α)-Hom-module with a basis {m1,m2,⋯,mn}. Assume that μ is given by μ(mi)=aimi, where ai∈k,i=1,2,⋯,n. Define a map
R:M⊗M→M⊗M,R(mi⊗mj)=bijmi⊗mj, |
where bij∈k,i,j=1,2,,⋯,n. Then R is a solution of Eq (5.1). Furthermore, if ai=1, for all i=1,2,⋯,n, then R is a solution of the classical Long equation.
Proposition 5.4. Let (M,μ) be an (H,α)-Hom-module with a basis {m1,m2,⋯,mn}. Assume that R,S∈End(M⊗M,μ⊗μ−1) given by the matrix formula
R(mk⊗ml)=xijklmi⊗μ−1(mj),S(mk⊗ml)=yijklmi⊗μ−1(mj), |
and μ(ml)=zilmi, where xijkl,yijkl,zil∈k. Then S12∘R23=R23∘S12 if and only if
ziuxjkvwypqij=zpixqkjwyijuv, |
for all k,p,q,u,v,w=1,2,⋯,n. In particular, R is a solution of the Hom-Long equation if and only if
ziuxjkvwxpqij=zpixqkjwxijuv. |
Proof. According to the definition of R,S,μ, we have
S12∘R23(mu⊗mv⊗mw)=S12(ziumi⊗xjkvwmj⊗μ−1(mk))=ziuxjkvwypqij(mp⊗μ−1(mq)⊗mk),R23∘S12(mu⊗mv⊗mw)=R23(yijuvmi⊗μ−1(mj)⊗mw)=yijuvzpixqkjw(mp⊗μ−1(mq)⊗mk). |
It follows that S12∘R23=R23∘S12 if and only if ziuxjkvwypqij=zpixqkjwyijuv. Furthermore, R12∘R23=R23∘R12 if and only if ziuxjkvwxpqij=zpixqkjwxijuv. The proof is completed.
In the following proposition, we use the notation: for any F∈End(M⊗M), we denote F12=F⊗μ,F23=μ⊗F,F13=(id⊗τ)∘(F⊗μ)∘(id⊗τ), and τ(123)(x⊗y⊗z)=(z,x,y).
Proposition 5.5. Let (M,μ) be an (H,α)-Hom-module and R∈End(M⊗M). The following statements are equivalent:
(1) R is a solution of the Hom-Long equation.
(2) U=τ∘R is a solution of the equation:
U13∘U23=τ(123)∘U13∘U12. |
(3) T=R∘τ is a solution of the equation:
T12∘T13=T23∘T13∘τ(123). |
(4) W=τ∘R∘τ is a solution of the equation:
τ(123)∘W23∘W13=W12∘W13∘τ(123). |
Proof. We just prove(1)⇔(2), and similar for (1)⇔(3) and (1)⇔(4). Since R=τ∘U, R is a solution of the Hom-Long equation if and only if R12∘R23=R23∘R12, that is,
τ12∘U12∘τ23∘U23=τ23∘U23∘τ12∘U12. | (5.2) |
While τ12∘U12∘τ23=τ23∘τ13∘U13 and τ23∘U23∘τ12=τ23∘τ12∘U13, (5.2) is equivalent to
τ23∘τ13∘U13∘U23=τ23∘τ12∘U13∘U12, |
which is equivalent to U13∘U23=τ(123)∘U13∘U12 from the fact τ23∘τ12=τ(123).
Next we will present a new solution for Hom-Long equation by the Hom-Long dimodule structures. For this, we give the notion of (H,α)-Hom-Long dimodules.
Definition 5.6. Let (H,α) be a Hom-bialgebra. A left-left (H,α)-Hom-Long dimodule is a quadruple (M,⋅,ρ,μ), where (M,⋅,μ) is a left (H,α)-Hom-module and (M,ρ,μ) is a left (H,α)-Hom-comodule such that
ρ(h⋅m)=α(m(−1))⊗α(h)⋅m0, | (5.3) |
for all h∈H and m∈M.
Remark 5.7. Clearly, left-left (H,α)-Hom-Long dimodules is a special case of (H,B)-Hom-Long dimodules in Definition 2.1 by setting (H,α)=(B,β).
Example 5.8. Let (H,α) be a Hom-bialgebra and (M,⋅,μ) be a left (H,α)-Hom-module. Define a left (H,α)-Hom-module structure and a left (H,α)-Hom-comodule structure on (H⊗M,α⊗μ) as follows:
h⋅(g⊗m)=α(g)⊗h⋅μ(m),ρ(g⊗m)=g1⊗g2⊗μ(m), |
for all h,g∈H and m∈M. Then (H⊗M,α⊗μ) is an (H,α)-Hom-Long dimodule.
Example 5.9. Let (H,α) be a Hom-bialgebra and (M,ρ,μ) be a left (H,α)-Hom-comodule. Define a left (H,α)-Hom-module structure and be a left (H,α)-Hom-comodule structure on (H⊗M,α⊗μ) as follows:
h⋅(g⊗m)=hg⊗μ(m),ρ(g⊗m)=m(−1)⊗α(g)⊗m0, |
for all h,g∈H and m∈M. Then (H⊗M,α⊗μ) is an (H,α)-Hom-Long dimodule.
Theorem 5.10. Let (H,α) be a Hom-bialgebra and (M,⋅,ρ,μ) be a (H,α)-Hom-Long dimodule. Then the map
RM:M⊗M→M⊗M,m⊗n↦n(−1)⋅m⊗n0, | (5.4) |
is a solution of the Hom-Long equation, for any m,n∈M.
Proof. For any l,m,n∈M, we calculate
R12M∘R23M(l⊗m⊗n)=R12M(μ(l)⊗n(−1)⋅m⊗n0)=(n(−1)⋅m)(−1)⋅μ(l)⊗(n(−1)⋅m)0⊗μ(n0)=α(m(−1))⋅μ(l)⊗α(n(−1))⋅m0⊗μ(n0),R23M∘R12M(l⊗m⊗n)=R23M(m(−1)⋅l⊗m0⊗μ(n))=μ(m(−1)⋅l)⊗α(n(−1)))⋅m0⊗μ(n0)=α(m(−1))⋅μ(l)⊗α(n(−1))⋅m0⊗μ(n0). |
So we have R12M∘R23M=R23M∘R12M, as desired. And this finishes the proof.
The work of S. Wang is supported by the Anhui Provincial Natural Science Foundation (No. 1908085MA03) and the Key University Science Research Project of Anhui Province (No. KJ2020A0711). The work of X. Zhang is supported by the NSF of China (No. 11801304) and the Young Talents Invitation Program of Shandong Province. The work of S. Guo is supported by the NSF of China (No. 12161013) and Guizhou Provincial Science and Technology Foundation (No. [2019]1050).
The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.
[1] |
J. Hartwig, D. Larsson, S. Silvestrov, Deformations of Lie algebras using σ-derivations, J. Algebra, 295 (2006), 314–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalgebra.2005.07.036 doi: 10.1016/j.jalgebra.2005.07.036
![]() |
[2] | N. Hu, q-Witt algebras, q-Lie algebras, q-holomorph structure and representations, Algebr. Colloq, 6 (1999), 51–70. |
[3] |
A. Makhlouf, S. Silvestrov, Hom-algebra structures, J. Gen. Lie Theory Appl., 2 (2008), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.4303/jglta/S070206 doi: 10.4303/jglta/S070206
![]() |
[4] | A. Makhlouf, S. Silvestrov, Hom-Lie admissible Hom-coalgebras and Hom-Hopf algebras, J. Gen. Lie Theory in Mathematics, Physics and beyond., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2009, pp. 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-85332-9-17 |
[5] |
A. Makhlouf, S. Silvestrov, Hom-algebras and Hom-coalgebras, J. Algebra Appl., 9 (2010), 553–589. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219498810004117 doi: 10.1142/S0219498810004117
![]() |
[6] |
S. Caenepeel, I. Goyvaerts, Monoidal Hom-Hopf algebras, Comm. Algebra, 39 (2011), 2216–2240. https://doi.org/10.1080/00927872.2010.490800 doi: 10.1080/00927872.2010.490800
![]() |
[7] |
Y. Chen, X. Zhou, Separable and Frobenius monoidal Hom-algebras, Colloq. Math., 137 (2014), 229–251. https://doi.org/10.4064/cm137-2-8 doi: 10.4064/cm137-2-8
![]() |
[8] |
A. Gohr, On hom-algebras with surjective twisting, J. Algebra, 324 (2010), 1483–1491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalgebra.2010.05.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jalgebra.2010.05.003
![]() |
[9] |
T. Ma, H. Li, T. Yang, Cobraided smash product Hom-Hopf algebras, Colloq. Math., 134 (2014), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.4064/cm134-1-3 doi: 10.4064/cm134-1-3
![]() |
[10] |
X. Zhang, L. Dong, Braided mixed datums and their applications on Hom-quantum groups, Glasg. Math. J., 2018, 60 (2018), 231–251. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017089517000088 doi: 10.1017/S0017089517000088
![]() |
[11] |
D. Yau, The Hom-Yang-Baxter equation, Hom-Lie algebras, and quasi-triangular bialgebras, J. Phys. A, 42 (2009), 165202. https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/42/16/165202 doi: 10.1088/1751-8113/42/16/165202
![]() |
[12] |
D. Yau, Hom-quantum groups Ⅰ: Quasi-triangular Hom-bialgebras, J. Phys. A, 45 (2012), 065203. https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8113/45/6/065203 doi: 10.1088/1751-8113/45/6/065203
![]() |
[13] |
X. Fang, W. Liu, Solutions of the BiHom-Yang-Baxter equation, Sbornik: Mathematics, 209 (2018), 901–918. https://doi.org/10.1070/SM8863 doi: 10.1070/SM8863
![]() |
[14] |
S. Wang, S. Guo, BiHom-Lie superalgebra structures and BiHom-Yang-Baxter equations, Adv. Appl. Clifford Algebr., 30 (2020), Art. 35, 18 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00006-020-01060-0 doi: 10.1007/s00006-020-01060-0
![]() |
[15] |
D. Yau, The Hom-Yang-Baxter equation and Hom-Lie algebras, J. Math. Phys., 52 (2011), 053502. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3571970 doi: 10.1063/1.3571970
![]() |
[16] |
Y. Chen, Z. Wang, L. Zhang, Quasitriangular Hom-Hopf algebras, Colloq. Math., 137 (2014), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.4064/cm137-1-5 doi: 10.4064/cm137-1-5
![]() |
[17] |
X. Zhang, S. Guo, S. Wang, Drinfeld codoubles of Hom-Hopf algebras, Adv. Appl. Clifford Algebr., 29 (2019), Art. 36, 26 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00006-019-0949-0 doi: 10.1007/s00006-019-0949-0
![]() |
[18] |
X. Zhang, W. Wang, X. Zhao, Smash coproducts of monoidal comonads and Hom-entwining structures, Rocky Mountain J. Math., 49 (2019), 2063–2105. https://doi.org/10.1216/RMJ-2019-49-6-2063 doi: 10.1216/RMJ-2019-49-6-2063
![]() |
[19] |
L. Liu, B. Shen, Radford's biproducts and Yetter-Drinfeld modules for monoidal Hom-Hopf algebras, J. Math. Phys., 55 (2014), 031701. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4866760 doi: 10.1063/1.4866760
![]() |
[20] |
T. Ma, L. Liu, L. Chen, Symmetries of (m,n)-Yetter-Drinfeld categories, J. Algebra Appl., 17 (2018), 1850135. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219498818501359 doi: 10.1142/S0219498818501359
![]() |
[21] | T. Ma, Y. Wang, L. Liu, Generalized Radford biproduct Hom-Hopf algebras and related braided tensor categories, J. Math., 37 (2017), 1161–1172. |
[22] |
T. Ma, H. Yang, L. Liu, Q. Chen, On unified Hom-Yetter-Drinfeld categories, J. Geom. Phys., 144 (2019), 81–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomphys.2019.05.015 doi: 10.1016/j.geomphys.2019.05.015
![]() |
[23] |
A. Makhlouf, F. Panaite, Yetter-Drinfeld modules for Hom-bialgebras, J. Math. Phys., 55 (2014), 013501. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4858875 doi: 10.1063/1.4858875
![]() |
[24] | M. You, S. Wang, Constructing new braided T-categories over monoidal Hom-Hopf algebras, J. Math. Phys., 2014, 55 (2014), 111701. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4900824 |
[25] |
Z. Wang, Y. Chen, L. Zhang, The antipode and Drinfel'd double of Hom-Hopf algebras, Sci. Sin. Math., 42 (2012), 1079–1093. https://doi.org/10.1360/012011-138 doi: 10.1360/012011-138
![]() |
[26] |
Y. Chen, L. Zhang, The category of Yetter-Drinfel'd Hom-modules and the quantum Hom-Yang-Baxter equation, J. Math. Phys., 55 (2014), 031702. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4868964 doi: 10.1063/1.4868964
![]() |
[27] | G. Militaru, The Long dimodules category and nonlinear equations, Algebr. Represet. Theor., 1999, 2 (1999), 177–200. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009905324871 |
[28] |
Y. Chen, Z. Wang, L. Zhang. The FRT-type theorem for the Hom-Long equation. Comm. Algebra, 41 (2013), 3931–3948. https://doi.org/10.1080/00927872.2013.781614 doi: 10.1080/00927872.2013.781614
![]() |
[29] |
S. Wang, N. Ding, New braided monoidal categories over monoidal Hom-Hopf algebras, Colloq. Math., 146 (2017), 77–97. https://doi.org/10.4064/cm6706-11-2015 doi: 10.4064/cm6706-11-2015
![]() |
[30] |
S. Wang, New Turaev braided group categories and group Schur-Weyl duality, Appl. Categor. Struct., 21 (2013), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10485-011-9263-2 doi: 10.1007/s10485-011-9263-2
![]() |
[31] | F. Long, The brauer group of dimodule algebras, J. Algebra, 1974, 30 (1974), 559–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-8693(74)90224-5] |
[32] |
D. Lu, Braided Yang-Baxter operators, Comm. Algebra, 27 (1999), 2503–2509. https://doi.org/10.1080/00927879908826576 doi: 10.1080/00927879908826576
![]() |
[33] |
L. Zhang, Long bialgebras, dimodule algebras and quantum Yang-Baxter modules over Long bialgebras, Acta Math. Sin., 22 (2006), 1261–1270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10114-005-0683-5 doi: 10.1007/s10114-005-0683-5
![]() |
[34] | D. Radford, Hopf Algebras, K & E Series on Knots and Everything, Vol. 49, World Scientific, New Jersey, 2012. |
[35] | M. E. Sweedler, Hopf algebras, Benjamin, New York, 1969. |
[36] | H. Li, T. Ma, A construction of the Hom-Yetter-Drinfeld category, Colloq. Math., 2014, 137 (2014), 43–65. https://doi.org/10.4064/cm137-1-4 |
[37] | D. Yau, Module Hom-algebras, arXiv: 0812.4695v1. |
[38] | C. Kassel, Quantum groups, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995. |
[39] |
A. Joyal, R. Street, Braided tensor categories, Adv. Math., 102 (1993), 20–78. https://doi.org/10.1006/aima.1993.1055 doi: 10.1006/aima.1993.1055
![]() |
1. | Hui Wu, Xiaohui Zhang, On the BiHom-Type Nonlinear Equations, 2022, 10, 2227-7390, 4360, 10.3390/math10224360 | |
2. | Shengxiang Wang, Xiaohui Zhang, Shuangjian Guo, Hom-Yang-Baxter equations and Hom-Yang-Baxter systems, 2023, 51, 0092-7872, 1462, 10.1080/00927872.2022.2137518 |