text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In light of recent astronomical observations, it has been suggested that our universe will asymptotically approach a de Sitter spacetime . This realization has sparked a sense of urgency in resolving the quantum-gravitational mysteries of de Sitter space . With prompting from the very successful anti-de Sitter/conformal field theory correspondence , much of this work has focused on finding a holographic description  of de Sitter space. In particular, there has been much ado about establishing an analogous duality; that is, the so-called dS/CFT correspondence . (Also see, for instance, -.) Although there has been considerable success along this line, the proposed duality is still marred by various ambiguities. For example, a dual boundary theory that appears to be a non-unitary one , a conspicuous absence of measurable quantities (at least those with operational meaning to a de Sitter observer ), and logistic breakdowns  that can be attributed to the finite entropy of de Sitter space .

The above issues should probably be viewed as significant philosophical roadblocks as opposed to mere technical difficulties. Which is to say, their resolution will, in all likelihood, necessitate dramatic departures from our current ways of thinking. Hence, it may be an appropriate juncture to “take a step back” and re-enforce our understanding of de Sitter space at a semi-classical level. With this as our mind-set, let us now proceed to consider the central topic of the paper; namely, de Sitter radiation as a semi-classical tunneling process.

First, let us briefly review the concept of tunneling as it applies to a radiating black hole. According to this interpretation, Hawking radiation  can be attributed to the spontaneous creation of particles at a point just inside of the black hole horizon. One of the particles then tunnels out to the opposite side of the horizon, where it emerges with positive energy. Meanwhile, the negative-energy “partner” remains behind and effectively lowers the mass of the black hole.

The above point of view formed the foundation for a program of study that was initiated by Kraus and Wilczek (KW) 111For further developments and generalizations, see -. For other perspectives on radiation via tunneling, see . and is central to the current work. The essence of the KW methodology is a dynamical treatment of black hole radiation. More to the point, KW considered the effects of a self-gravitating matter shell propagating outwards through a spherically symmetric black hole horizon. Two particularly significant points of this work are as follows. (i) The background geometry is allowed to fluctuate so that the formalism incorporates a black hole of varying mass. In this manner, the total energy of the spacetime is naturally conserved. Notably, energy conservation is often overlooked in other formal treatments of Hawking radiation . (ii) Boundary conditions are imposed by foliating the spacetime with somewhat unconventional “Painleve coordinates” . Significantly, these coordinates are regular at the horizon, as well as stationary but not static (i.e., time-reversal asymmetry is manifest). This gauge seems quite appropriate for describing the geometry of a slowly-evaporating black hole.

Let us now return the discussion to de Sitter space. As it is well known, there are many similarities between the thermodynamic properties of a de Sitter cosmological horizon and those of a black hole horizon . Hence, it would seem natural to extend the tunneling picture and KW treatment to the background radiation associated with de Sitter space. Just such a study was recently carried out by Parikh  with considerable success. This author, however, focused on the interesting but unphysical case of 3-dimensional de Sitter space. The main purpose of the current paper is to generalize considerations to a de Sitter spacetime of arbitrary dimensionality. We will also provide some commentary on the dS/CFT correspondence in the context of this study.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we consider a radiating cosmological horizon in an empty, $`n`$+2-dimensional de Sitter spacetime and, with guidance from , calculate the semi-classical emission rate. The consistency of the derived expression is then verified for the case of $`n=3`$. We accomplish this by extrapolating the emission spectrum and comparing the lowest order term with standard de Sitter thermodynamics. In Section 3, we further extend the formalism to a Schwarzschild-de Sitter spacetime. Here, we also comment on thermal stability and touch upon the subject of dS/CFT renormalization group flows . In Section 4, we take a step towards the ethereal and reconsider the tunneling picture from an outside-of-the-horizon perspective. The dS/CFT correspondence provides the motivating factor for this portion of the analysis. Finally, Section 5 contains a brief summary.

## 2 De Sitter Tunneling

Let us begin by considering an $`n`$+2-dimensional de Sitter spacetime (with $`n1`$). There are many different coordinate systems that can be used to provide a local description of de Sitter space , including the following explicitly static coordinates:

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{r^2}{l^2}\right)dt^2+\left(1\frac{r^2}{l^2}\right)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2.$$
(1)
Here, $`l`$ is the curvature radius of de Sitter space (i.e., $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=n(n+1)/2l^2`$ is the positive cosmological constant), $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2`$ represents an $`n`$-dimensional spherical hypersurface of unit radius, and the non-angular coordinates range according to $`0rl`$ and $`\mathrm{}t+\mathrm{}`$. Keep in mind that the boundary at $`r=l`$ describes a cosmological horizon for an observer located at $`r=0`$.

The above coordinates fail, of course, to cover the entire de Sitter manifold. Eq.(1) does, however, precisely cover the so-called “southern causal diamond” , which is the region of spacetime that is fully accessible to an observer at the south pole ($`r=0`$). A particularly attractive feature of this coordinate gauge is the existence of a timelike Killing vector ($`_t`$), thus leading to a sensible notion of time evolution for a south-pole observer. Note that such a timelike Killing vector is notoriously absent in any global description of de Sitter space.

As discussed in Section 1, it is most convenient, in the tunneling picture, to use stationary coordinates that are manifestly asymmetric under time reversal. In the case of a Schwarzschild black hole, the following Painleve coordinates  have been utilized for just this purpose :

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{2M}{r}\right)d\tau ^22\sqrt{\frac{2M}{r}}d\tau dr+dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_2^2.$$
(2)
Along with the above-mentioned properties, this system has the distinguishing features of horizon regularity and flat constant-time surfaces. Further note that such coordinates comply with the perspective of a free-falling observer, who is expected to experience nothing out of the ordinary upon passing through the horizon.

To obtain an analogous coordinate system for de Sitter space or “Painleve-de Sitter” coordinates , we first employ the following transformation:

$$t=\tau +f(r),$$
(3)
so that the static metric (1) takes on the form:

$`ds^2=`$ $``$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l^2}}\right)d\tau ^22{\displaystyle \frac{df}{dr}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l^2}}\right)d\tau dr`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l^2}}\right)^1\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{df}{dr}}\right)^2\right]dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2.`$
Next, we enforce that constant-$`\tau `$ slices reduce to $`n`$+1-dimensional flat space (i.e., $`dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2`$), so that:

$$\frac{df}{dr}=\pm \frac{r}{l}\left(1\frac{r^2}{l^2}\right)^1.$$
(5)
Hence, we can rewrite the metric (4) as:

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{r^2}{l^2}\right)d\tau ^22\frac{r}{l}d\tau dr+dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2,$$
(6)
up to an arbitrary choice of sign in the off-diagonal term.

Clearly, these “new” coordinates exhibit all of the priorly discussed features of Painleve coordinates; including horizon ($`r=l`$) regularity and time-reversal asymmetry. The feature of horizon regularity has special significance in de Sitter space, as the revised coordinates are no longer restricted to the southern causal diamond. In fact, Eq.(6) covers the entire causal future (of an observer at $`r=0`$), which translates to precisely one half of the complete de Sitter manifold. Meanwhile, one can describe the remaining half (or the causal past) by “flipping” the sign in front of the off-diagonal term. In this sense, the Painleve-de Sitter coordinate system is closely related to de Sitter planar coordinates ; a point which has been elaborated on in . Of further interest, $`_\tau `$ is a Killing vector throughout the Painleve-de Sitter system, although this vector changes character (timelike $``$ spacelike) upon passing through the horizon.

For later usage, let us evaluate the radial, null geodesics described by Eq.(6). Under these conditions ($`d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2=ds^2=0`$), we can re-express this line element as follows:

$$(\dot{r})^22\frac{r}{l}\dot{r}\left(1\frac{r^2}{l^2}\right)=0,$$
(7)
where a dot denotes differentiation with respect to $`\tau `$. Solving the quadratic, we then have:

$$\dot{r}=\frac{r}{l}\pm 1,$$
(8)
where the $`+/`$ sign can be identified with outgoing/incoming radial motion.

With the de Sitter cosmological horizon (at $`r=l`$) in mind, let us now focus on a semi-classical treatment of the associated radiation, as advocated in (for instance) . First of all, we adopt the picture of a pair of particles spontaneously created just outside of the horizon. The positive-energy particle tunnels through the horizon to emerge as an inward-moving, self-gravitating energy shell; whereas the negative-energy particle remains behind and effectively lowers the energy of the background spacetime. Because of the infinite blue-shift near the horizon, the emerging energy shell can be treated as a point particle; meaning that a WKB-type of approximation may be appropriately employed. For sake of simplicity, we will further invoke an “s-wave” approximation; in particular, we assume a massless shell and symmetry with respect to the angular coordinates.

Given this semi-classical, WKB framework, it has been shown that the logarithm of the emission rate ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) can be expressed in terms of the imaginary part of the “total” (particle plus gravitational) action, $``$ . More specifically:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }e^{2Im}.$$
(9)
Alternatively, one can re-express this relation in the following spectral form:

$$\frac{\omega }{T(\omega )}2Im,$$
(10)
where $`\omega >0`$ is the particle energy and $`T(\omega )`$ can be identified with the effective temperature.

For a positive-energy s-wave, the imaginary part of the action has been found to have a conveniently simple form :

$$Im=Im𝑑\tau \dot{r}p_r=Im_{r_i}^{r_f}_0^{p_r}𝑑p_r^{}𝑑r,$$
(11)
where $`p_r`$ is the canonical momentum (conjugate to $`r`$). Also, $`r_i`$ and $`r_f`$ indicate (roughly) the point of particle creation and the classical turning point of motion.

To proceed with an explicit calculation, it is useful to apply Hamilton’s equation:

$$\dot{r}=\frac{dH}{dp_r}=\frac{d(E\omega )}{dp_r}=\frac{d\omega }{dp_r}.$$
(12)
Here, $`E`$ represents the total conserved energy of the system, whereas $`E\omega `$ can be regarded as the (varying) gravitational energy stored in the background spacetime. Let us re-emphasize that, by keeping $`E`$ fixed, energy conservation will be enforced in a natural way.

Substituting Eq.(12) into Eq.(11), we find:

$$Im=Im_{r_i}^{r_f}_0^\omega \frac{d\omega ^{}dr}{\dot{r}}.$$
(13)
Before evaluating the above integral, we must necessarily obtain an expression for $`\dot{r}`$ as a function of $`\omega ^{}`$. The form of this expression depends on the answer to the following question: what effective metric does the energy shell see as it propagates through the background spacetime? Considering that the de Sitter background loses some of its energy to the propagating shell, we propose that the effective metric in question is that of a Schwarzschild-de Sitter geometry. The reasoning is somewhat subtle and based on the observation that the total energy of a Schwarzschild-de Sitter spacetime is always more negative than that of empty de Sitter space. That is to say, the energy of a Schwarzschild-de Sitter spacetime is known to decrease with increasing black hole mass . Although counter-intuitive, this inverted correspondence can be attributed to a negative binding energy between a positive-mass object and a de Sitter gravitational field .

With the above discussion in mind, let us now consider Schwarzschild-de Sitter static coordinates:

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{r^2}{l^2}\frac{Mϵ_n}{r^{n1}}\right)dt^2+\left(1\frac{r^2}{l^2}\frac{Mϵ_n}{r^{n1}}\right)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2,$$
(14)
where $`ϵ_n16\pi G_{n+2}/n𝒱_n`$ and $`M`$ is the conserved mass . (Also, $`G_{n+2}`$ is Newton’s constant and $`𝒱_n`$ is the volume of the spherical hypersurface described by $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2`$.) It is a straightforward process to generalize the prior Painleve-de Sitter formalism for this black hole spacetime. In particular, Eq.(6) and Eq.(8) should respectively be modified as follows:

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{r^2}{l^2}\frac{Mϵ_n}{r^{n1}}\right)d\tau ^22\sqrt{\frac{r^2}{l^2}+\frac{Mϵ_n}{r^{n1}}}d\tau dr+dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2,$$
(15)
$$\dot{r}=\sqrt{\frac{r^2}{l^2}+\frac{Mϵ_n}{r^{n1}}}\pm 1.$$
(16)
On the basis of our prior discussion, it follows directly that the positive-energy shell sees the effective metric of Eq.(15), although with $`M`$ replaced by $`\omega ^{}`$. The same substitution in Eq.(16) yields the desired expression for $`\dot{r}`$ as a function of $`\omega ^{}`$. (Note that we must choose the negative sign in Eq.(16), as the shell is propagating from larger to smaller $`r`$.) Thus, we can now rewrite Eq.(13) in the following explicit manner:

$$Im=Im_{r_i}^{r_f}_0^\omega \frac{d\omega ^{}dr}{\sqrt{\frac{r^2}{l^2}+\frac{ϵ_n(\omega ^{}i\delta )}{r^{n1}}}1}.$$
(17)
Here, we have also added a small imaginary part to the effective energy (i.e., $`\omega ^{}\omega ^{}i\delta `$ with $`\delta <<1`$), so that the above integral can be evaluated via contour techniques. Let us further point out that $`\delta >0`$ is to be implied, as this choice ensures that the positive-frequency solution ($`e^{i\omega \tau }`$) decays exponentially in time.

To explicitly evaluate this integral, let us temporarily treat $`r`$ as a constant and make the following change of variables: $`x=\sqrt{\frac{r^2}{l^2}+\frac{ϵ_n\omega ^{}}{r^{n1}}}`$. This leads to:

$$Im=\frac{2}{ϵ_n}Im_{r_i}^{r_f}r^{n1}𝑑r_{x(0)}^{x(\omega )}\frac{xdx}{x1i\overline{\delta }(r)},$$
(18)
where $`\overline{\delta }(r)=lϵ_n\delta /2r^n0^+`$. Given that $`x`$ monotonically increases with $`\omega ^{}`$ and $`\overline{\delta }>0`$, it is appropriate to integrate in a counter-clockwise direction in the upper half of the complex-$`x`$ plane. Following this prescription, we obtain:

$$Im=\frac{2\pi }{ϵ_n}Imi_{r_i}^{r_f}r^{n1}𝑑r.$$
(19)
The integration over $`r`$ can now be trivially performed to give:

$$Im=\frac{2\pi }{nϵ_n}\left[r_i^nr_f^n\right].$$
(20)
Note that, by construction, $`r_i>r_f`$, and so the sign of $`Im`$ comes out positive as required; cf. Eqs.(9,10). Generating the correct sign in de Sitter thermodynamics is not as trivial as one may think. Indeed, naive application of the first law of thermodynamics to a cosmological horizon can often lead to an erroneous negative sign .

The above formula is the key quantitative result of this paper. We can substantiate its validity by considering a specific value of $`n`$. It is readily shown that the case of $`n=1`$ (i.e., 3-dimensional de Sitter space) is in agreement with the analogous expression found in . Another convenient choice is $`n=3`$ (i.e., 5-dimensional de Sitter space), as the Schwarzschild-de Sitter horizon can then be solved for via a quadratic relation.

With our attention on the $`n=3`$ case, it follows (cf. Eq.(14)) that the Schwarzschild-de Sitter cosmological horizon is described by the largest root of:

$$\frac{r_H^4}{l^2}r_H^2+Mϵ_3=0.$$
(21)
That is:

$$r_H^2(M)=\frac{l^2}{2}\left[1+\sqrt{1\frac{4Mϵ_3}{l^2}}\right].$$
(22)
Recalling our prior definitions of $`r_i`$ and $`r_f`$, we have $`r_i^2=r_H^2(0)=l^2`$ and $`r_f^2=r_H^2(\omega )`$. Hence, Eq.(20) can be re-expressed as:

$$Im=\frac{2\pi l^3}{3ϵ_3}\left[1\frac{1}{2^{3/2}}\left(1+\sqrt{1\frac{4\omega ϵ_3}{l^2}}\right)^{3/2}\right].$$
(23)
When the particle energy is small (i.e., $`\omega <<l^2/ϵ_3`$), the above expression can be expanded to yield:

$$Im=\pi l\omega +𝒪(\omega ^2).$$
(24)
Incorporating the above expansion into Eq.(10), we are able to deduce the temperature of radiation:

$$T(\omega )\frac{1}{2\pi l}+𝒪(\omega ).$$
(25)
Reassuringly, the leading-order, energy-independent term is the well-known background temperature of empty de Sitter space . Meanwhile, the energy-dependent corrections, which can easily be computed to any desired order in $`\omega `$, are indicative of a “greybody” factor in the emission spectrum; that is, a deviation from pure thermality. That such deviations occur for Hawking-like radiation is well known , but this point is rarely stressed in the relevant literature.

As a further check on our formalism (this time for any $`n`$), we can consider the change in entropy during the process of emission. The first law of thermodynamics indicates that:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S=\frac{\omega }{T}2Im=\frac{4\pi }{nϵ_n}\left[r_f^nr_i^n\right],$$
(26)
where we have also applied Eqs.(10,20). We can compare this outcome with that predicted by the Bekenstein-Hawking “area” law , which tells us:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S=S_fS_i=\frac{𝒱_n}{4G_{n+2}}\left[r_f^nr_i^n\right].$$
(27)
Since $`ϵ_n=16\pi G_{n+2}/n𝒱_n`$, these two independent formulations of $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ are, indeed, in perfect agreement.

## 3 Schwarzschild-de Sitter Tunneling

In the discussion to follow, we will consider the implications (on the tunneling picture) when the initial state is described by a Schwarzschild-de Sitter spacetime. Let us, once again, consider the incoming radiation from the cosmological horizon and, for the moment, ignore the outgoing radiation from the black hole horizon. It is readily observed that the key result of last section, Eq.(20), remains valid; although $`r_i`$ and $`r_f`$ must be appropriately redefined. Recalling the inverse correspondence between black hole mass and background energy, we expect a black hole of initial mass $`M`$ to have a final mass of $`M+\omega `$ (where, as before, $`\omega `$ is the energy of the emitted particle). It follows (cf. Eq.(14)) that the radii in question correspond to the largest roots of:

$$\frac{r_i^2}{l^2}1+\frac{ϵ_nM}{r_i^{n1}}=0,$$
(28)
$$\frac{r_f^2}{l^2}1+\frac{ϵ_n(M+\omega )}{r_f^{n1}}=0.$$
(29)
As in the preceding section, let us turn to the case of $`n=3`$ as a check on our formalism. In this 5-dimensional case, the above equations can be explicitly solved to yield:

$$r_i^2=\frac{l^2}{2}\left[1+\sqrt{1\frac{4ϵ_3M}{l^2}}\right],$$
(30)
$$r_f^2=\frac{l^2}{2}\left[1+\sqrt{1\frac{4ϵ_3(M+\omega )}{l^2}}\right].$$
(31)
Substituting these expressions into Eq.(20) and expanding, we find:

$$Im=\frac{\pi l^2r_i}{2r_i^2l^2}\omega +𝒪(\omega ^2).$$
(32)
From the above result and Eq.(10), the corresponding temperature is found to be:

$$T\frac{2r_i^2l^2}{2\pi r_il^2}+𝒪(\omega ).$$
(33)
It is not difficult to verify that the leading-order term agrees with the usual Hawking definition  (translated to a cosmological horizon ); that is:

$$T=\frac{1}{4\pi }\left|\frac{d}{dr}\left[1\frac{r^2}{l^2}\frac{ϵ_3M}{r^2}\right]\right|_{r=r_i}.$$
(34)
Furthermore, the change in entropy during emission can again be shown to agree with that predicted by the Bekenstein-Hawking area law. (See the end of Section 2 for details.)

There is an intriguing observation that follows from the emission rate, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }e^{2Im}`$, being a measurable and, hence, real quantity. Again focusing on the case of $`n=3`$ (although the discussion throughout this section is quite general222The generality of this discussion does not, however, necessarily apply to the $`n=1`$ case. This is because the 3-dimensional Schwarzschild-de Sitter solution describes a conical deficit angle rather than a black hole . For related discussion that highlights this 3-dimensional scenario, see .), we can see from Eqs.(20,30,31) that the condition:

$$M+\omega \frac{l^2}{4ϵ_3}=\frac{3\pi l^2}{32G_5}$$
(35)
must always be enforced. It is of interest that this upper bound corresponds precisely with the mass of the (5-dimensional) Nariai black hole . Significantly, the Nariai solution describes the coincidence of the black hole and cosmological horizons (the black hole horizon is located by changing the explicit $`+`$ in Eq.(30) to a $``$); meaning that this solution represents the most massive black hole in an asymptotically de Sitter spacetime. Hence, the tunneling formalism provides a natural mechanism for censoring against larger values of mass. Similar observations have been made with regard to charged (Reissner-Nordstrom) black holes, where the tunneling formalism has been shown to censor against naked singularities .

The overall picture for Schwarzschild-de Sitter space is, however, much more complicated than we have alluded to above. This is because radiation is both propagating inwards from the cosmological horizon and outwards from the black hole horizon. A formal, complete analysis must consider both of these effects, and there would undoubtedly be scattering taking place between the black hole and cosmological contributions. Even without delving into calculational specifics, we can still comment on the stability of the total system. Once again turning to our $`n=3`$ chestnut, let us take note of the following (lowest-order) expressions for the temperature (associated with the cosmological and black hole horizon, respectively):

$$T_{CH}=\frac{\sqrt{1\frac{4ϵ_3M}{l^2}}}{\sqrt{2}\pi l\left[1+\sqrt{1\frac{4ϵ_3M}{l^2}}\right]^{1/2}},$$
(36)
$$T_{BH}=\frac{\sqrt{1\frac{4ϵ_3M}{l^2}}}{\sqrt{2}\pi l\left[1\sqrt{1\frac{4ϵ_3M}{l^2}}\right]^{1/2}}.$$
(37)
Here, we have applied Eqs.(34 and 30) and again note that the black hole horizon can be found by reversing the explicit $`+`$ sign in Eq.(30).

With an inspection of the above, it becomes evident that $`T_{CH}T_{BH}`$; with saturation occurring only at the Nariai value of mass ($`M=l^2/4ϵ_3`$), in which case both temperatures are vanishing. With this observation, we are able to deduce that the net flow of radiation will always be (up to insignificant quantum fluctuations) towards the cosmological horizon. That is to say, the system will inevitably evolve towards empty de Sitter space. This phenomena is supported by the second law of thermodynamics, since the total entropy of a Schwarzschild-de Sitter spacetime (or virtually any “well-behaved”333In this context, well-behaved implies no naked singularities and matter that satisfies the standard energy conditions . asymptotically de Sitter spacetime) is known to be bounded from above by the entropy of empty de Sitter space .

The above viewpoint can also be substantiated by way of holographic (or dS/CFT duality) considerations. In particular, let us take note of Strominger’s realization  (also see ) that time evolution in an asymptotically de Sitter spacetime is dual to an inverted renormalization group flow.444We remind the reader that the renormalization group is normally regarded as flowing from the ultraviolet (relatively large number of degrees of freedom) to the infrared (relatively small number of degrees of freedom). On this basis, it follows that degrees of freedom will be integrated into the system with forward evolution in time. Moreover, the maximal entropic state (i.e., empty de Sitter space) will naturally correspond with a stable, ultraviolet fixed point for the flow.

On the other hand, because of the vanishing temperature associated with the Nariai solution, one might expect the system to stabilize precisely when the horizons coincide. Such stability would indeed be feasible at a strictly classical level; however, once quantum (or semi-classical) effects are accounted for, it becomes evident that the Nariai solution is unstable under the smallest of perturbations (see  and references within). In renormalization group language, this Nariai solution can be identified with an infrared fixed point that is unstable .

## 4 “The Dark Side of the Moon”

In this section, we will investigate the following question: how would the semi-classical tunneling picture be perceived by a hypothetical observer who is trapped outside of the cosmological horizon? Such a query may appear to be of little relevance, given that a “standard” de Sitter observer is causally restricted to the interior of his/her horizon. However, here we will argue that this question merits consideration on the basis of dS/CFT holography.

The dS/CFT duality, as we currently understand it, incorporates the entire spacetime into its framework and not just the causal diamond. Indeed, the dually related conformal field theory has been conjectured to “live” on the spacelike asymptotic boundaries ; these being future ($`^+`$) and past ($`^{}`$) infinity. Significantly, both of these boundaries lie outside of an observer’s causal diamond; in fact, an observer can only access precisely one point at either infinity. Moreover, the only measurable (gauge-invariant) quantities in de Sitter space would appear to be the elements of an $`S`$-like matrix  that can be expressed in terms of correlation functions of the dual boundary theory . To make operational sense of such “meta-observables”  clearly requires a “special” observer with a global view of the entire spacetime. To put it another way, if a quantum theory of de Sitter gravity is to be realized, we may yet have to adapt our intuitive ideas of what constitutes a physical observable.

With the above discussion in mind, let us return to the quantum-tunneling description of de Sitter radiation, as elaborated on in Section 2. From the perspective of someone (or something?) outside of the horizon, a negative-energy shell is tunneling outwards. Meanwhile, the positive-energy partner remains behind (i.e., in the vicinity of the horizon) and effectively raises the energy of the background spacetime. Hence, the effective metric, as seen by this negative-energy shell, must be one in which the background energy increases with increasing $`|\omega ^{}|`$ (i.e., the magnitude of the shell energy, which increases from $`0`$ to $`|\omega |`$). We can obtain just such an effective geometry by replacing $`M`$ with $`|\omega ^{}|`$ in the Schwarzschild-de Sitter metric of Eq.(14). That is:

$$ds^2=\left(1\frac{r^2}{l^2}+\frac{ϵ_n|\omega ^{}|}{r^{n1}}\right)dt^2+\left(1\frac{r^2}{l^2}+\frac{ϵ_n|\omega ^{}|}{r^{n1}}\right)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_n^2.$$
(38)
The above metric can readily be identified with that of the so-called “topological” de Sitter spacetime555In its most general form, the topological de Sitter solution can allow for a hyperbolic, flat, or (as depicted above) a spherical horizon geometry. To obtain the hyperbolic (flat) topological solution, one can replace $`1`$ with $`1`$ ($`0`$) in the lapse function of Eq.(38). . (Also see  for a recent discussion and references.) From a dS/CFT perspective, the topological de Sitter solution has the desirable property of an (apparently) unitary boundary . (Conversely, the conventional Schwarzschild-de Sitter solution would appear to have a non-unitary dual .) On the other hand, topological de Sitter spacetimes have the detrimental feature of a naked singularity, as there is no longer a black hole horizon (although the cosmological horizon remains intact). The need to universally censor against such a singularity can, however, be debated. That is to say, an observer outside of the cosmological horizon would be causally disconnected from the singularity and need not be aware of its existence.666Although the topological de Sitter solution has recently been the subject of further criticism (based on string-theoretical considerations) , this analysis specifically applied to a hyperbolic horizon geometry and is not of issue in the current discussion.

To obtain an “outside-of-the-horizon” emission rate, we can essentially repeat the calculations of Section 2, except using Eq.(38) for the effective metric and a few trivial modifications.777Specifically, the radial motion is now outgoing so that $`\dot{r}=\sqrt{\frac{r^2}{l^2}\frac{ϵ_n|\omega ^{}|}{r^{n1}}}+1`$, and $`dH+d|\omega ^{}|`$ since the background energy increases with increasing $`|\omega ^{}|`$. Keeping a very careful track of the signs, we find the imaginary part of the action to be as follows:

$$Im=\frac{2\pi }{nϵ_n}\left[r_f^nr_i^n\right].$$
(39)
That is, the negative of the prior result (20). However, this sign reversal is a most welcome outcome, as now we have that $`r_f>r_i`$. (This must be the case by construction. It can also be verified with an explicit calculation of the horizon position as a function of particle energy. For instance, for $`n=3`$, one finds that $`r_i^2=l^2`$ and $`r_f^2=\frac{l^2}{2}\left[1+\sqrt{1+\frac{4ϵ_3|\omega |}{l^2}}\right]`$.) The positivity of Eq.(39) tells us that the effective temperature is strictly non-negative, even outside of the horizon, as is necessary for a sensible interpretation of the tunneling phenomena.

What (if anything) have we learned from this section? At the risk of straying from physics to philosophy, we propose the following pair of conjectural points:
(i) The topological de Sitter geometry should not be regarded as a substitute for its Schwarzschild-de Sitter counterpart but, rather, as a complementary description. The choice one should make depends on the side of the horizon under consideration.
(ii) The topological de Sitter solution is a necessary ingredient if one is to take a global view of de Sitter space. Let us re-emphasize that such a view is implicitly advocated by the dS/CFT correspondence.

## 5 Conclusion

In the preceding paper, we have considered de Sitter radiation as a semi-classical tunneling process. Adapting the methodology of Kraus, Wilczek  and others (including a recent, related work by Parikh ), we were able to calculate the rate of particle emission from a cosmological horizon. We then verified that this calculation agreed, up to higher-order corrections, with the known thermodynamic properties of de Sitter space, as well as Schwarzschild-de Sitter space. Meanwhile, these frequency-dependent corrections indicate that the emission spectrum of Hawking-like radiation deviates from perfect thermality; a well-known but often forgotten result .

Along the way, we have also touched base with certain aspects of the dS/CFT holographic correspondence . It is quite possible that there are deep connections between semi-classical thermodynamics and de Sitter holography that await to be uncovered. We hope to report progress along these lines at a future date.

## 6 Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank V.P. Frolov for helpful conversations.


format: text

text:
# Orbits for the adjoint coaction on quantum matrices

## 1 Introduction

Consider $`𝒪(M_q)`$, the coordinate ring of $`N\times N`$ quantum matrices over $``$, where $`q`$ is a non-zero element of $``$. Denote by $`𝒪(GL_q)`$ the coordinate ring of the quantum $`GL(N,)`$ (see ). Define the map

$$\beta :𝒪(GL_q)𝒪(GL_q)𝒪(GL_q),\beta (h)=h_2S(h_1)h_3,$$
(1)
where we use Sweedler’s convention for the Hopf algebra $`𝒪(GL_q)`$ (and $`S`$ denotes the antipode).

Similarly, set

$$\alpha :𝒪(GL_q)𝒪(GL_q)𝒪(GL_q),\alpha (h)=h_2h_3S(h_1).$$

Both $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are right coactions of the Hopf algebra $`𝒪(GL_q)`$ on itself. Being the formal dual of the right adjoint action, $`\beta `$ is usually called the right adjoint coaction of $`𝒪(GL_q)`$. Obviously $`𝒪(M_q)`$ is a subcomodule of $`𝒪(GL_q)`$ with respect to $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$, and we use the same symbols to denote the restrictions $`\alpha :𝒪(M_q)𝒪(M_q)𝒪(GL_q)`$, $`\beta :𝒪(M_q)𝒪(M_q)𝒪(GL_q)`$. These coactions can be viewed as quantum analogues of the adjoint action of $`GL(N,)`$ on its Lie algebra $`M(N,)`$. The coinvariants with respect to these coactions were described in .

Our aim here is to find a counterpart in the quantum setting of the notion of orbits of the classical adjoint action. We summarize the results concerning $`\beta `$, the case of $`\alpha `$ being similar. There is a natural way to associate with a “$``$-point $`\xi `$ of the space of $`N\times N`$ quantum matrices” a morphism $`\beta ^\xi :𝒪(M_q)𝒪(GL_q)`$ of right $`𝒪(GL_q)`$-comodules (the right coaction on $`𝒪(M_q)`$ is given by $`\beta `$, whereas the right coaction on $`𝒪(GL_q)`$ comes from the comultiplication of $`𝒪(GL_q)`$). When $`q`$ is specialized to $`1`$, the kernel of $`\beta ^\xi `$ is the vanishing ideal of the closure of the orbit of $`\xi `$, so the image of $`\beta ^\xi `$ can be identified with the coordinate ring of the closure of the orbit of $`\xi `$. The $`q`$-deformed map $`\beta ^\xi `$ is not an algebra homomorphism since $`\beta `$ is not an algebra homomorphism (see ). However, it turns out that the kernel of $`\beta ^\xi `$ contains the right ideal of $`𝒪(M_q)`$ generated by the elements $`\tau _i\tau _i(\xi )`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, where $`\tau _1`$,…,$`\tau _N`$ are the basic coinvariants for $`\beta `$ introduced in . When $`\xi `$ is diagonal, the image of $`\beta ^\xi `$ is contained in the quantum quotient space $`𝒪(DGL_q)`$, the subalgebra of coinvariants of the left coaction of the diagonal quantum subgroup $`𝒪(D)`$ on $`𝒪(GL_q)`$ (note that in the classical case $`q=1`$, $`D`$ is the stabilizer of $`\xi `$, provided that $`\xi `$ has pairwise different diagonal entries). In the special case when $`N=2`$ and $`q`$ is not a root of unity, we are able to show that although $`\beta ^\xi `$ is not an algebra homomorphism, it has further nice properties. Namely, if $`\xi `$ is diagonal, and $`\xi `$ is not a scalar multiple of any of the non-negative powers of $`\mathrm{diag}(q^2,1)`$, then $`\beta ^\xi `$ is surjective onto $`𝒪(DGL_q)`$. Moreover, for such $`\xi `$, the kernel of $`\beta ^\xi `$ is the right ideal of $`𝒪(M_q)`$ generated by the elements $`\tau _1\tau _1(\xi )`$, $`\tau _2\tau _2(\xi )`$, where $`\tau _1,\tau _2`$ are the basic $`\beta `$-coinvariants from ; that is, $`\tau _1=q^2x_{11}+q^4x_{22}`$, a weighted trace, and $`\tau _2=x_{11}x_{22}qx_{12}x_{21}`$, the quantum determinant. When $`\xi `$ is a scalar multiple of some non-negative power of $`\mathrm{diag}(q^2,1)`$, then the kernel of $`\beta ^\xi `$ is larger, and the image is finite dimensional. In the final section we change the setup, and treat $`q`$ as an indeterminate over a subfield of $``$. In this generic situation, both the kernel and the image of the co-orbit map coincide with the subset predicted by the classical theory, for a $`\xi M(N,)`$ whose classical adjoint orbit is maximal. To be more precise, the kernel of the co-orbit map is a right ideal generated by coinvariants, and if $`\xi `$ is diagonal, then the image of the co-orbit map is the subalgebra of coinvariants with respect to the left coaction of the diagonal quantum subgroup. The present work can be viewed as a quantum version of some of the basic results of Kostant  on the classical adjoint orbits of the general linear group acting on its Lie algebra (which we use in our proof).

Recall that $`𝒪(M_q)`$ is the $``$-algebra generated by $`N^2`$ indeterminates $`x_{ij}`$, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, subject to the following relations.

$`x_{ij}x_{il}`$ $`=`$ $`qx_{il}x_{ij},`$ (2)
$`x_{ij}x_{kj}`$ $`=`$ $`qx_{kj}x_{ij},`$
$`x_{il}x_{kj}`$ $`=`$ $`x_{kj}x_{il},`$
$`x_{ij}x_{kl}x_{kl}x_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`(qq^1)x_{il}x_{kj},`$
for $`1i<kN`$ and $`1j<lN`$, where $`q^{}`$. The algebra $`𝒪(M_q)`$ is an iterated Ore extension, and so a noetherian domain. The quantum determinant, $`\text{det}_q`$, is the element

$$\text{det}_q:=\underset{\sigma S_N}{}(q)^{l(\sigma )}x_{1,\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}x_{N,\sigma (N)}.$$

It is known that $`\text{det}_q`$ is a central element in $`𝒪(M_q)`$ (see \[10, Theorem 4.6.1\]), and by adjoining its inverse we get the quantum general linear group

$$𝒪(GL_q):=𝒪(M_q)[\text{det}_q^1].$$

The algebra $`𝒪(GL_q)`$ is a Hopf algebra with comultiplication $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and antipode $`S`$. Recall that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(x_{ij})=_{k=1}^Nx_{ik}x_{kj}`$. We shall need the explicit form of $`S`$ only in the special case $`N=2`$, when $`S(x_{11})=x_{22}/\text{det}_q`$, $`S(x_{22})=x_{11}/\text{det}_q`$, $`S(x_{12})=q^1x_{12}/\text{det}_q`$, $`S(x_{21})=qx_{21}/\text{det}_q`$. The reader should be aware that in many papers the rôles of $`q`$ and $`q^1`$ are interchanged, and so one has to be careful in translating results from one paper to another. In the special case $`q=1`$, the algebra $`𝒪(M_q)`$ becomes the coordinate ring $`𝒪(M)`$ of $`M(N,)`$, and $`𝒪(GL_q)`$ becomes the coordinate ring $`𝒪(GL)`$ of $`GL(N,)`$.

## 2 Orbits of classical points

Start from the classical situation when we are given a (right) action

$$X\times GX,(x,g)xg$$

of an affine algebraic group $`G`$ on an affine algebraic variety $`X`$. The orbit of some $`xX`$ is the image of the composition of the morphisms

$$GX\times GX,g(x,g)xg.$$

Passing to coordinate rings, the action is encoded in the comorphism $`\mu :𝒪(X)𝒪(X)𝒪(G)`$, which makes $`𝒪(X)`$ a right $`𝒪(G)`$-comodule algebra. The point $`x`$ corresponds to the $``$-algebra homomorphism $`\mathrm{ev}_x:𝒪(X)`$, $`ff(x)`$. The comorphism of the orbit map $`GxGX`$, $`gxg`$ is the composition

$$\mu _x:𝒪(X)\stackrel{\mu }{}𝒪(X)𝒪(G)\stackrel{\mathrm{ev}_x\mathrm{id}}{}𝒪(G).$$

The kernel of $`\mu _x`$ is the ideal of the (Zariski) closure of the orbit $`xG`$, and so the image of $`\mu _x`$ can be identified with the coordinate ring of the closure of $`xG`$. Note that $`\mu _x:𝒪(X)𝒪(G)`$ is an algebra homomorphism, as well as a morphism of right $`𝒪(G)`$-comodules (where the right coaction of $`𝒪(G)`$ on itself comes from the action of $`G`$ on itself by right translations).

Now assume in addition that the orbit of $`x`$ is closed in the Zariski topology of $`X`$, and denote by $`H`$ the stabilizer of $`x`$. Then $`H`$ acts by left translation on $`G`$, and the orbit map $`GxG`$ factors through the quotient variety $`HG`$, and induces an isomorphism of the $`G`$-varieties $`HGxG`$. In terms of coordinate rings this means that $`\mathrm{im}(\mu _x)`$ is the subalgebra of $`𝒪(H)`$-coinvariants in $`𝒪(G)`$ (the action of $`H`$ on $`G`$ by left translations induces a left coaction of $`𝒪(H)`$ on $`𝒪(G)`$).

Furthermore, if $`G`$ is reductive, then $`𝒪(X)^G`$, the algebra of polynomial invariants (which coincides with the algebra of $`\mu `$-coinvariants) is finitely generated as an algebra, say $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_s`$ is a generating system. Assume in addition that the orbit $`xG`$ is closed and maximal; that is, $`x`$ is not contained in the closure of another orbit (note that for the adjoint action of $`GL(N,)`$ on its Lie algebra $`M(N,)`$ this holds for the general $`x`$). Then $`\mathrm{ker}(\mu _x)`$ can be described in terms of polynomial invariants. In this case the common zero locus of $`f_1f_1(x),\mathrm{},f_sf_s(x)`$ is the orbit $`xG`$, so $`\mathrm{ker}(\mu _x)`$ is the radical of the ideal generated by $`f_1f_1(x),\mathrm{},f_sf_s(x)`$.

Recall that

$$\beta =(\mathrm{id}p)(\tau \mathrm{id})(S\mathrm{id}\mathrm{id})\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)}:𝒪(GL_q)𝒪(GL_q)𝒪(GL_q),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)}=(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{id})\mathrm{\Delta }=(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`\tau (hk)=kh`$, and $`p:𝒪(GL_q)𝒪(GL_q)𝒪(GL_q)`$ is the multiplication map. The corresponding formula for $`\alpha `$ is

$$\alpha =(\mathrm{id}p)\tau _{(132)}(S\mathrm{id}\mathrm{id})\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)},$$

where $`\tau _{(132)}(hkl)=klh`$. The above discussion on algebraic group actions motivates the following definition. Take a surjective $``$-algebra homomorphism $`\mathrm{ev}_\xi :𝒪(M_q)`$. The $`\xi `$ in the notation refers to the $`N\times N`$ matrix with complex entries obtained by evaluating the given homomorphism on the generators $`x_{ij}`$ of $`𝒪(M_q)`$. Note that for $`\xi M(N,)`$ there is a corresponding homomorphism $`\mathrm{ev}_\xi `$ if and only if $`\xi `$ is a “quantum matrix” in the sense of ; that is, if the entries of $`\xi `$ satisfy the relations defining $`𝒪(M_q)`$. We say that $`\xi `$ is a $``$-point of $`M_q`$ in this case. If $`q1`$, then $`\xi `$ is a $``$-point of $`M_q`$ if and only if there is at most one non-zero entry in each column and each row of $`\xi `$, and $`\xi _{ij}\xi _{kl}0`$ with $`i<k`$ implies that $`j<l`$. For example, a diagonal $`\xi `$ satisfies this condition.

###### Definition 2.1

Let $`\xi `$ be a $``$-point of $`M_q`$. The co-orbit map $`\beta ^\xi `$ of $`\xi `$ with respect to the right coaction $`\beta `$ is the composition $`(\mathrm{ev}_\xi \mathrm{id})\beta `$, that is,

$$\beta ^\xi :𝒪(M_q)\stackrel{\beta }{}𝒪(M_q)𝒪(GL_q)\stackrel{\mathrm{ev}_\xi \mathrm{id}}{}𝒪(GL_q).$$

In the same manner, $`\alpha ^\xi `$ is defined to be $`(\mathrm{ev}_\xi \mathrm{id})\alpha `$.

The above discussion suggests that the kernel of the co-orbit map should contain information about the “embedding of the orbit into $`M_q`$”, and the image of the co-orbit map should determine the isomorphism type of (the closure of) the “orbit” as a quantum space. The main point of this paper is that we treat the co-orbit map (and not only its image) as our central object, and demonstrate that it has certain nice properties, even though we started with a coaction which was not an algebra homomorphism. In particular, the coinvariants are used to study the kernel of the co-orbit map.

###### Remark 2.2

Note that Definition 2.1 makes sense if $`\beta `$ is replaced by any right coaction $`\nu `$ of a Hopf algebra $`𝒜`$ on an associative $``$-algebra $`R`$, and $`\mathrm{ev}_\xi `$ is an algebra homomorphism of $`R`$ to $``$. Proposition 2.3 below clearly holds in this general setting. The map $`\nu ^\xi `$ (and Proposition 2.3) appears in ,  in the situation when $`R`$ is an $`𝒜`$\- comodule algebra. In this case $`\nu ^\xi `$ is an algebra homomorphism as well, and $`\mathrm{im}(\nu ^\xi )`$ is a right coideal subalgebra of $`𝒜`$. A right coideal subalgebra of a quantum group is called a quantum homogeneous space, see \[6, 11.6.1\]. So if $`𝒜`$ is a quantum group and $`R`$ is a quantum $`𝒜`$-space (that is, $`R`$ is an $`𝒜`$-comodule algebra), then $`\mathrm{im}(\nu ^\xi )`$ is a quantum homogeneous space. Moreover, any quantum homogeneous $`𝒜`$-space can be obtained as the image of $`\nu ^\xi `$ for some classical point $`\xi `$ in some quantum $`𝒜`$-space, see \[3, Proposition 1.1\] or \[2, Proposition 3.2\].

###### Proposition 2.3

The co-orbit map $`\beta ^\xi :𝒪(M_q)𝒪(GL_q)`$ is a morphism of right $`𝒪(GL_q)`$-comodules (given by $`\beta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, respectively). Similarly, $`\alpha ^\xi `$ is a morphism of $`𝒪(GL_q)`$-comodules (given by $`\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, respectively).

* Proof. The claim is the equality $`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta ^\xi =(\beta ^\xi \mathrm{id})\beta `$. Observe that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{ev}_\xi \mathrm{id})=(\mathrm{ev}_\xi \mathrm{id}\mathrm{id})(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Delta })`$, because both are equal to $`\mathrm{ev}_\xi \mathrm{\Delta }:𝒪(M_q)𝒪(GL_q)𝒪(GL_q)𝒪(GL_q)`$. Since $`\beta `$ is a right coaction we have $`(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Delta })\beta =(\beta \mathrm{id})\beta `$. Using these two equalities one gets

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\beta ^\xi `$ $`=\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{ev}_\xi \mathrm{id})\beta `$
$`=(\mathrm{ev}_\xi \mathrm{id}\mathrm{id})(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Delta })\beta `$
$`=(\mathrm{ev}_\xi \mathrm{id}\mathrm{id})(\beta \mathrm{id})\beta `$
$`=(\beta ^\xi \mathrm{id})\beta .`$
$`\mathrm{}`$

The spaces of coinvariants

$`𝒪(M_q)^{\alpha GL_q}:=\{f𝒪(M_q)\alpha (f)=f1\}`$
$`𝒪(M_q)^{\beta GL_q}:=\{f𝒪(M_q)\beta (f)=f1\}`$
are studied in . It is shown there that although $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are not algebra homomorphisms, nevertheless

$$\alpha (fh)=\alpha (f)\alpha (h)\text{ if }h𝒪(M_q)^{\alpha GL_q}$$
(3)
and similarly

$$\beta (fh)=\beta (f)\beta (h)\text{ if }f𝒪(M_q)^{\beta GL_q}.$$
(4)
It follows that $`𝒪(M_q)^{\alpha GL_q}`$ and $`𝒪(M_q)^{\beta GL_q}`$ are subalgebras. Let us recall their generators. Fix an integer $`t`$ with $`1tN`$. Let $`I`$ and $`J`$ be subsets of $`\{1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ with $`|I|=|J|=t`$. The subalgebra of $`𝒪(M_q)`$ generated by $`x_{ij}`$ with $`iI`$ and $`jJ`$ can be regarded as an algebra of $`t\times t`$ quantum matrices, and so we can calculate its quantum determinant - this is a $`t\times t`$ quantum minor and we denote it by $`[I|J]`$. The quantum minor $`[I|I]`$ is said to be a principal quantum minor. We denote the sum of all the principal quantum minors of a given size $`i`$ by $`\sigma _i`$. Note that $`\sigma _1=x_{11}+\mathrm{}+x_{NN}`$ and that $`\sigma _N=\text{det}_q`$. It is shown in  that the $`\sigma _i`$ are $`\alpha `$-coinvariants that pairwise commute, and if $`q`$ is not a root of unity, then $`𝒪(M_q)^{\alpha GL_q}=[\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _N]`$, an $`N`$-variable commutative polynomial subalgebra of $`𝒪(M_q)`$. For the coaction $`\beta `$ we have that the weighted sums of principal minors $`\tau _i:=_Iq^{2w(I)}[I|I]`$ (here $`w(I)`$ denotes the sum of the elements of $`I`$, and the summation ranges over all subsets $`I`$ of size $`i`$), $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, are pairwise commuting $`\beta `$-coinvariants. Moreover, assuming again that $`q`$ is not a root of unity, $`𝒪(M_q)^{\beta GL_q}=[\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _N]`$, the $`N`$-variable commutative polynomial subalgebra generated by the $`\tau _i`$.

We shall write $`f(\xi )`$ for $`\mathrm{ev}_\xi (f)`$, where $`f𝒪(M_q)`$ and $`\xi `$ is a $``$-point of $`M_q`$.

###### Proposition 2.4

The kernel of $`\beta ^\xi `$ contains the right ideals

$$\underset{f𝒪(M_q)^{\beta GL_q}}{}(ff(\xi ))𝒪(M_q)\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}(\tau _i\tau _i(\xi ))𝒪(M_q).$$

If $`q`$ is not a root of unity (or $`q=1`$), then the latter two right ideals are equal. The kernel of $`\alpha ^\xi `$ contains the left ideals

$$\underset{f𝒪(M_q)^{\alpha GL_q}}{}𝒪(M_q)(ff(\xi ))\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}𝒪(M_q)(\sigma _i\sigma _i(\xi )).$$

If $`q`$ is not a root of unity (or $`q=1`$), then the latter two left ideals are equal.

* Proof. If $`f𝒪(M_q)^{\beta GL_q}`$, then $`\beta ^\xi (f)=(\mathrm{ev}_\xi \mathrm{id})(\beta (f))=(\mathrm{ev}_\xi \mathrm{id})(f1)=f(\xi )1𝒪(M_q)`$, hence $`ff(\xi )\mathrm{ker}(\beta ^\xi )`$. By formula (4) then $`(ff(\xi ))𝒪(M_q)\mathrm{ker}(\beta ^\xi )`$. Note that $`\tau _i`$ are $`\beta `$-coinvariants, and if $`q`$ is not a root of unity, they generate $`𝒪(M_q)^{\beta GL_q}`$ by . Hence in the latter case the elements $`\tau _i\tau _i(\xi )`$ generate the same right ideal within $`𝒪(M_q)^{\beta GL_q}`$ as all the $`ff(\xi )`$ with $`f𝒪(M_q)^{\beta GL_q}`$.

The same argument works for $`\alpha `$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 2.5

More is known in the classical case $`q=1`$. If the adjoint orbit of $`\xi M(N,)`$ is maximal, then $`\mathrm{ker}(\beta ^\xi )`$, the vanishing ideal of the closure of the orbit of $`\xi `$, is generated by $`\tau _i\tau _i(\xi )`$, $`(i=1,\mathrm{},N)`$; this is proved in \[7, Theorem 10\], considering more generally the adjoint action on reductive Lie algebras.

The coordinate Hopf algebra $`𝒪(D)`$ of the diagonal subgroup $`D`$ of $`GL(N,)`$ is the commutative algebra $`[t_1,t_1^1,\mathrm{},t_N,t_N^1]`$ of Laurent polynomials with comultiplication $`\mathrm{\Delta }(t_i)=t_it_i`$ and counit $`\epsilon (t_i)=1`$. There exists a surjective Hopf algebra homomorphism $`\pi _D:𝒪(GL_q)𝒪(D)`$ determined by $`\pi _D(x_{ij})=\delta _{ij}t_i`$, $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},N`$. Therefore we say that $`D`$ is a quantum subgroup of $`GL_q`$, called the diagonal subgroup.

There is a natural left coaction $`\lambda _D:=(\pi _D\mathrm{id})\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`𝒪(D)`$ on $`𝒪(GL_q)`$. The subset of $`\lambda _D`$-coinvariants is denoted by

$$𝒪(DGL_q)=\{f𝒪(GL_q)\lambda _D(f)=1f\}.$$

This is a subalgebra (since $`𝒪(GL_q)`$ is a comodule algebra with respect to $`\lambda _D`$), as well as a right $`𝒪(GL_q)`$-subcomodule (since $`\lambda _D`$ commutes with the right coaction of $`𝒪(GL_q)`$ on itself). So $`𝒪(DGL_q)`$ is the coordinate algebra of a quantum homogeneous space in the sense of \[6, 11.6.1.\]. This quantum homogeneous space is often called the quantum quotient space $`DG_q`$, because it arises as the subalgebra of coinvariants with respect to the coaction of a quantum subgroup.

Recall that in the classical case $`q=1`$, the subgroup $`D`$ is the stabilizer of $`\xi `$, provided that $`\xi `$ is a diagonal matrix with pairwise different eigenvalues, and the orbit of a diagonal $`\xi `$ is closed in $`𝒪(M(N,))`$. Hence for such $`\xi `$, the coordinate ring of the orbit of $`\xi `$ is $`𝒪(DG_1)`$. A partial analogue of this holds for any $`q`$.

###### Proposition 2.6

Let $`\xi `$ be a diagonal $`N\times N`$ matrix with complex entries. Then the image of $`\beta ^\xi `$ is contained in $`𝒪(DGL_q)`$. Similarly we have $`\mathrm{im}(\alpha ^\xi )𝒪(DGL_q)`$.

* Proof. The restriction of $`\pi _D`$ to $`𝒪(M_q)`$ is denoted by $`\pi _C`$, it maps $`𝒪(M_q)`$ onto $`𝒪(C)=[t_1,\mathrm{},t_N]`$. By our assumption on $`\xi `$ the homomorphism $`\mathrm{ev}_\xi :𝒪(M_q)`$ factors through $`\pi _C`$, we write $`\mathrm{ev}_\xi `$ also for the homomorphism $`𝒪(C)`$, $`t_i\xi _{ii}`$.

By definition $`\beta ^\xi `$ is the composition

$$\beta ^\xi :𝒪(M_q)\stackrel{\beta }{}𝒪(M_q)𝒪(GL_q)\stackrel{\pi _C\mathrm{id}}{}𝒪(C)𝒪(GL_q)\stackrel{\mathrm{ev}_\xi \mathrm{id}}{}𝒪(GL_q),$$
(5)
and $`\lambda _D`$ is the composition

$$\lambda _D:𝒪(GL_q)\stackrel{\mathrm{\Delta }}{}𝒪(GL_q)𝒪(GL_q)\stackrel{\pi _D\mathrm{id}}{}𝒪(D)𝒪(GL_q).$$

By linearity of $`(\pi _D\mathrm{id})\mathrm{\Delta }`$ we have

$$(\pi _D\mathrm{id})\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{ev}_\xi \mathrm{id})=(\mathrm{ev}_\xi \mathrm{id}\mathrm{id})(\mathrm{id}\pi _D\mathrm{id})(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Delta })$$

as maps $`𝒪(C)𝒪(GL_q)𝒪(D)𝒪(GL_q)`$. Thus

$$(\pi _D\mathrm{id})\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{ev}_\xi \mathrm{id})(\pi _C\mathrm{id})=(\mathrm{ev}_\xi \mathrm{id}\mathrm{id})(\pi _C\pi _D\mathrm{id})(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Delta })$$

as maps $`𝒪(M_q)𝒪(GL_q)𝒪(D)𝒪(GL_q)`$. Therefore we have

$`\lambda _D\beta ^\xi =(\mathrm{ev}_\xi \mathrm{id}\mathrm{id})(\pi _C\pi _D\mathrm{id})(\mathrm{id}\mathrm{\Delta })\beta `$
$`=(\mathrm{ev}_\xi \mathrm{id}\mathrm{id})(\pi _C\pi _D\mathrm{id})(\beta \mathrm{id})\beta `$
(in the second equality we use the fact that $`𝒪(M_q)`$ is a right $`𝒪(GL_q)`$-comodule under $`\beta `$). Note that the formula (1) makes sense if we replace $`𝒪(GL_q)`$ by any Hopf algebra, in particular, it defines a right coaction $`\beta ^D:𝒪(D)𝒪(D)𝒪(D)`$. Since $`\pi _D`$ is a Hopf algebra homomorphism, we have $`\beta ^D\pi _D=(\pi _D\pi _D)\beta `$. On the other hand, $`\beta ^D`$ is equal to the trivial corepresentation $`\mathrm{id}1`$, since it is the comorphism of the conjugation action of $`D`$ on itself, which is trivial. It follows that $`(\pi _C\pi _D)\beta =(\mathrm{id}1)\pi _C:𝒪(M_q)𝒪(C)𝒪(D)`$, and hence $`\lambda _D\beta ^\xi `$ can be written as the composition

$`𝒪(M_q)\stackrel{(\pi _C\mathrm{id})\beta }{}𝒪(C)𝒪(GL_q)\stackrel{(\mathrm{id}1)\mathrm{id}}{}`$ (6)
$`𝒪(C)𝒪(D)𝒪(GL_q)\stackrel{\mathrm{ev}_\xi \mathrm{id}\mathrm{id}}{}𝒪(D)𝒪(GL_q).`$
In order to prove our Proposition we need to show that for all $`f𝒪(M_q)`$ the equality $`\lambda _D(\beta ^\xi (f))=1\beta ^\xi (f)`$ holds. Write $`(\pi _D\mathrm{id})(\beta (f))`$ as $`_ia_ib_i`$, where $`a_i𝒪(C)`$ and $`b_i𝒪(GL_q)`$. Then $`\beta ^\xi (f)=_i\mathrm{ev}_\xi (a_i)b_i`$ by (5). Therefore, using (6), we have $`\lambda _D(\beta ^\xi (f))=_i\mathrm{ev}_\xi (a_i)1b_i=1_i\mathrm{ev}_\xi (a_i)b_i=1\beta ^\xi (f)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Co-orbit maps of $`2\times 2`$ quantum matrices

In the special case $`N=2`$ and $`q`$ not a root of unity (or $`q=1`$) we are able to refine Propositions 2.4 and 2.6. Throughout this section we assume that $`N=2`$, $`𝒪(M_q)`$, $`𝒪(GL_q)`$ denote the coordinate rings of $`2\times 2`$ quantum matrices and quantum $`GL(2)`$, and $`𝒪(D)=[t_1^{\pm 1},t_2^{\pm 1}]`$. We will see in the proof of Lemma 3.4 that as an algebra $`𝒪(DGL_q)`$ is generated by $`x_{11}x_{21}/\text{det}_q`$, $`x_{12}x_{21}/\text{det}_q`$, $`x_{12}x_{22}/\text{det}_q`$. We write $`𝒪(DGL_q)^m`$ for the subspace spanned by products of length at most $`m`$ in these generators.

###### Proposition 3.1

Assume that $`q`$ is not a root of unity (or $`q=1`$), and take $`\xi :=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\xi _1& 0\\ 0& \xi _2\end{array}\right].`$

* If $`\xi _1q^{2k}\xi _20`$ for $`k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, then $`\mathrm{im}(\beta ^\xi )=𝒪(DGL_q)`$.
* If $`\xi _1\xi _2,\xi _1q^2\xi _2,\mathrm{},\xi _1q^{2m2}\xi _2`$ are non-zero and $`\xi _1q^{2m}\xi _2=0`$, then $`\mathrm{im}(\beta ^\xi )=𝒪(DGL_q)^m`$.
* If $`\xi _1q^{2k}\xi _20`$ for $`k=0,1,2,\mathrm{}`$, then $`\mathrm{ker}(\beta ^\xi )=_{i=1}^2(\tau _i\tau _i(\xi ))𝒪(M_q)`$.
* If $`\xi _1\xi _2,\xi _1q^2\xi _2,\mathrm{},\xi _1q^{2m2}\xi _2`$ are non-zero and $`\xi _1q^{2m}\xi _2=0`$, then $`\mathrm{ker}(\beta ^\xi )`$ is the sum of $`_{i=1}^2(\tau _i\tau _i(\xi ))𝒪(M_q)`$ and the $`𝒪(GL_q)`$-comodule generated by $`\{x_{21}^kk>m\}`$.
* If $`\xi _1q^{2k}\xi _20`$ for $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, then $`\mathrm{im}(\alpha ^\xi )=𝒪(DGL_q)`$.
* If $`\xi _1q^2\xi _2,\mathrm{},\xi _1q^{2m}\xi _2`$ are nonzero and $`\xi _1q^{2m2}\xi _2=0`$, then $`\mathrm{im}(\alpha ^\xi )=𝒪(DGL_q)^m`$.
* If $`\xi _1q^{2k}\xi _20`$ for $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, then $`\mathrm{ker}(\alpha ^\xi )=_{i=1}^2𝒪(M_q)(\sigma _i\sigma _i(\xi ))`$.
* If $`\xi _1q^2\xi _2,\mathrm{},\xi _1q^{2m}\xi _2`$ are nonzero and $`\xi _1q^{2m2}\xi _2=0`$, then $`\mathrm{ker}(\alpha ^\xi )`$ is the sum of $`_{i=1}^2𝒪(M_q)(\sigma _i\sigma _i(\xi ))`$ and the $`𝒪(GL_q)`$-comodule generated by $`\{x_{21}^kk>m\}`$.

As an immediate corollary we obtain the following.

###### Theorem 3.2

Assume that $`q`$ is not a root of unity (or $`q=1`$) and take a diagonal complex matrix $`\xi `$ which is not a scalar multiple of any integral power of $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}q^2& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right]`$. Then both $`\beta ^\xi `$ and $`\alpha ^\xi `$ map $`𝒪(M_q)`$ surjectively onto $`𝒪(DGL_q)`$. In particular, $`\mathrm{im}(\beta ^\xi )=\mathrm{im}(\alpha ^\xi )`$ is a quantum homogeneous space. Moreover, the kernel of $`\beta ^\xi `$ is the right ideal of $`𝒪(M_q)`$ generated by the $`\beta `$-coinvariants $`\tau _1\tau _1(\xi )`$, $`\tau _2\tau _2(\xi )`$. The kernel of $`\alpha ^\xi `$ is the left ideal of $`𝒪(M_q)`$ generated by $`\sigma _1\sigma _1(\xi )`$, $`\sigma _2\sigma _2(\xi )`$.

###### Remark 3.3

In some sense the map $`\beta ^\xi `$ (respectively $`\alpha ^\xi `$) is the best possible we can hope for. Suppose that $`\phi :𝒪(M_q)𝒪(DGL_q)`$ is a map which is both a $``$-algebra homomorphism and intertwines between the $`𝒪(GL_q)`$-corepresentations $`\beta `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Then $`\mathrm{ker}\phi `$ is a completely prime two-sided ideal in $`𝒪(M_q)`$, since $`𝒪(DGL_q)`$ is a domain. We shall see below that the trivial $`𝒪(GL_q)`$-corepresentation appears with multiplicity $`1`$ in $`𝒪(DGL_q)`$. Therefore $`\mathrm{ker}(\phi )`$ must contain $`\tau _1\lambda _1`$ and $`\tau _2\lambda _2`$ with some $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2`$. Elementary commutator computations (exploiting the fact that $`\tau _1`$ is non-central) show that $`\phi (x_{12})=\phi (x_{21})=0`$, $`\phi (x_{11})`$, and $`\phi (x_{22})`$. In particular, $`\mathrm{im}(\phi )=`$ for any $`\phi `$ compatible with both the algebra and comodule structures.

It will be convenient for the proof of Proposition 3.1 to pass from $`𝒪(GL_q)`$ to $`𝒪(SL_q)`$, the Hopf algebra quotient of $`𝒪(GL_q)`$ modulo the ideal generated by $`\text{det}_q1`$. We keep the symbol $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to denote the comultiplication in $`𝒪(SL_q)`$. Denote by $`\pi `$ the natural epimorphism $`\pi :𝒪(GL_q)𝒪(SL_q)`$, and $`a:=\pi (x_{11})`$, $`b:=\pi (x_{12})`$, $`c:=\pi (x_{21})`$, $`d:=\pi (x_{22})`$. The group $`K`$ of diagonal matrices in $`SL(2,)`$ is a quantum subgroup of $`𝒪(SL_q)`$ with surjective Hopf algebra homomorphism $`\pi _K:𝒪(SL_q)𝒪(K)=[z^{\pm 1}]`$ given by $`\pi _K(a)=z`$, $`\pi _K(b)=0=\pi _K(c)`$, $`\pi _K(d)=z^1`$. There is a natural left coaction $`\lambda _K:=(\pi _K\mathrm{id})\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and a right coaction $`\rho _K:=(\mathrm{id}\pi _K)\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`𝒪(K)`$ on $`𝒪(SL_q)`$. The subalgebra of $`\lambda _K`$-coinvariants is denoted by $`𝒪(KSL_q)`$.

We shall use the corepresentation theory of $`𝒪(SL_q)`$, the material below can be found for example in \[6, 4.2\]. We assume that $`q`$ is not a root of unity (or $`q=1`$). Then $`𝒪(SL_q)`$ is cosemisimple, so any $`𝒪(SL_q)`$-comodule decomposes as the direct sum of irreducible subcomodules. The degree $`n`$ homogeneous component $`P_n`$ ($`n_0:=\{0\}`$) of the subalgebra $`a,b`$ of $`𝒪(SL_q)`$ is an $`n+1`$-dimensional right $`𝒪(SL_q)`$-subcomodule. Denote the corresponding corepresentation by $`T_{n/2}`$. Then $`T_l:P_{2l}P_{2l}𝒪(SL_q)`$, $`l\frac{1}{2}_0`$, is a complete list of irreducible corepresentations of $`𝒪(SL_q)`$ up to isomorphism, see for example \[6, 4.2.1\]. We adopt the following notation: if $`T:VV𝒪(SL_q)`$ is a corepresentation of $`𝒪(SL_q)`$, then write $`V[n]:=\{vV(\mathrm{id}\pi _K)T(v)=vz^n\}`$, where $`n`$. Since any $`𝒪(K)`$-comodule decomposes as a direct sum of one-dimensional $`𝒪(K)`$-subcomodules, the comodule $`V`$ decomposes as $`_nV[n]`$. Assume that $`V`$ is finite dimensional. By the character $`\chi (T)`$ of $`T`$ we mean $`\pi _K(f)`$, where $`f𝒪(SL_q)`$ is the sum of the diagonal matrix elements of $`T`$ with repect to an arbitrarily chosen basis of $`V`$. In other words, $`\chi (T)=_ndim_{}(V[n])z^n𝒪(K)`$. (Note that our use of the word ‘character’ slightly differs from that of \[6, 11.2.2\], where $`f`$ is called the character of $`T`$, and $`\chi (T)=\pi _K(f)`$ the character of the $`𝒪(K)`$-corepresentation $`(\mathrm{id}\pi _K)T`$.) For the irreducible $`𝒪(SL_q)`$-corepresentations $`T_l`$ we have that

$$dim(P_{2l}[n])=\{\begin{array}{cc}& 1,\text{ if }n=2l,2l2,2l4,\mathrm{},2l\hfill \\ & 0,\text{ otherwise},\hfill \end{array}$$

so $`\chi (T_l)=z^l+z^{l2}+\mathrm{}+z^l`$. In particular, the set $`\{\chi (T_l)l\frac{1}{2}_0\}`$ is linearly independent, and the multiplicity of $`T_j`$ as a direct summand of $`T`$ equals the coefficient of $`\chi (T_j)`$ in $`\chi (T)`$, expressed as a linear combination of the elements $`\chi (T_l)`$.

The quantum quotient space $`𝒪(S_{q,\mathrm{}}^2):=𝒪(KSL_q)`$ is a well studied object, belonging to the one-parameter family of quantum $`2`$-spheres introduced in . The facts we need about $`𝒪(S_{q,\mathrm{}}^2)`$ can be found in \[6, 4.5\]. As a subalgebra of $`𝒪(SL_q)`$, the quantum $`2`$-sphere $`𝒪(S_{q,\mathrm{}}^2)`$ is generated by the elements

$$x_1:=(1+q^2)^{1/2}ac,x_0:=1+(q+q^1)bc,x_{+1}:=(1+q^2)^{1/2}db.$$

The right $`𝒪(SL_q)`$-corepresentation on $`𝒪(S_{q,\mathrm{}}^2)`$ is isomorphic to $`T_0T_1T_2\mathrm{}`$. The linear span of the products of length at most $`n`$ in the generators $`x_1,x_0,x_{+1}`$, denoted by $`W^n`$, is a right $`𝒪(SL_q)`$-subcomodule. The corepresentation on $`W^n`$ is isomorphic to $`_{l=0}^nT_l`$. Moreover, the simple subcomodule of $`W^n`$ corresponding to the summand $`T_n`$ is the subcomodule generated by $`x_1^n`$, because $`W^n[2n]=x_1^n`$ and $`W^n[d]=0`$ if $`d>2n`$. In particular, as an $`𝒪(SL_q)`$-comodule $`𝒪(S_{q,\mathrm{}}^2)`$ is generated by the powers of $`x_1`$.

The reason that we are able to switch from $`𝒪(GL_q)`$ to $`𝒪(SL_q)`$ is in the following lemma:

###### Lemma 3.4

The restriction of $`\pi `$ maps $`𝒪(DGL_q)`$ isomorphically onto $`𝒪(KSL_q)`$.

* Proof. The coaction $`\lambda _D`$ defines a $``$-grading on $`𝒪(GL_q)`$: for $`(m,n)^2`$ set

$$𝒪(GL_q)_{(m,n)}:=\{f𝒪(GL_q)\lambda _D(f)=t_1^mt_2^nf\},$$

then $`𝒪(GL_q)=_{(m,n)^2}𝒪(GL_q)_{(m,n)}`$. By definition $`𝒪(DGL_q)=𝒪(GL_q)_{(0,0)}`$. For the algebra generators of $`𝒪(GL_q)`$ we have $`x_{11},x_{12}𝒪(GL_q)_{(1,0)}`$, $`x_{21},x_{22}𝒪(GL_q)_{(0,1)}`$, and $`\text{det}_q^1𝒪(GL_q)_{(1,1)}`$. Therefore $`𝒪(DGL_q)`$ contains $`x_{11}x_{21}/\text{det}_q`$, $`x_{12}x_{21}/\text{det}_q`$, $`x_{12}x_{22}/\text{det}_q`$. These elements are mapped via $`\pi `$ onto a system of algebra generators of $`𝒪(KSL_q)`$.

Since $`\text{det}_q1`$ is not homogeneous with respect to this $`^2`$-grading and $`𝒪(GL_q)`$ is a domain, we have that $`\mathrm{ker}(\pi )=(\text{det}_q1)𝒪(GL_q)`$ does not contain any homogeneous elements. In particular, the kernel of $`\pi `$ is disjoint from $`𝒪(DGL_q)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The $`𝒪(GL_q)`$-coaction $`\beta `$ is replaced by the $`𝒪(SL_q)`$-coaction

$$\psi :=(\mathrm{id}\pi )\beta :𝒪(M_q)𝒪(M_q)𝒪(SL_q),$$

and $`\alpha `$ is replaced by

$$\phi :=(\mathrm{id}\pi )\alpha :𝒪(M_q)𝒪(M_q)𝒪(SL_q).$$

For a $``$-point $`\xi `$ in $`M_q`$ the maps $`\psi ^\xi ,\phi ^\xi :𝒪(M_q)𝒪(SL_q)`$ are defined in an obvious way: $`\psi ^\xi =(\mathrm{ev}_\xi \mathrm{id})\psi =\pi \beta ^\xi `$ and $`\phi ^\xi =(\mathrm{ev}_\xi \mathrm{id})\alpha =\pi \alpha ^\xi `$. Propositions 2.3 and 2.6 combined with Lemma 3.4 translate to the following. The map $`\psi ^\xi `$ intertwines between the $`𝒪(SL_q)`$-corepresentations $`\psi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, whereas $`\phi ^\xi `$ intertwines between the $`𝒪(SL_q)`$-corepresentations $`\phi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We have that $`\mathrm{ker}(\psi ^\xi )=\mathrm{ker}(\beta ^\xi )`$ and $`\mathrm{ker}(\phi ^\xi )=\mathrm{ker}(\alpha ^\xi )`$. If $`\xi `$ is diagonal then $`\mathrm{im}(\psi ^\xi )𝒪(KSL_q)`$ with equality if and only if $`\mathrm{im}(\beta ^\xi )=𝒪(DGL_q)`$, and $`\mathrm{im}(\phi ^\xi )𝒪(KSL_q)`$ with equality if and only if $`\mathrm{im}(\alpha ^\xi )=𝒪(DGL_q)`$. Moreover, $`\mathrm{im}(\beta ^\xi )=𝒪(DGL_q)^n`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{im}(\psi ^\xi )=W^n`$, and $`\mathrm{im}(\alpha ^\xi )=𝒪(DGL_q)^n`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{im}(\phi ^\xi )=W^n`$.

Proof of Proposition 3.1.

The kernel of $`\psi ^\xi `$ contains $`_{i=1}^2(\tau _i\tau _i(\xi ))𝒪(M_q)`$ by Proposition 2.4, therefore $`\psi ^\xi `$ factors through the composition of the natural homomorphisms

$$𝒪(M_q)\stackrel{\mu }{}C\stackrel{\eta }{}B,$$

where $`C:=𝒪(M_q)/(\tau _2\tau _2(\xi ))𝒪(M_q)`$, $`B:=C/uC`$ with $`u:=\mu (\tau _1\tau _1(\xi ))`$. Set $`y_{ij}:=\mu (x_{ij})`$. Note that $`\tau _2\tau _2(\xi )=\text{det}_q\xi _1\xi _2`$ is a central element in $`𝒪(M_q)`$, so $`C`$ is a quotient algebra of $`𝒪(M_q)`$. It is a domain by . Since $`\tau _2\tau _2(\xi )`$ is a $`\psi `$-coinvariant, $`(\tau _2\tau _2(\xi ))𝒪(M_q)`$ is a subcomodule of $`𝒪(M_q)`$ by (4), hence $`C`$ is a factorcomodule of $`𝒪(M_q)`$; the corresponding corepresentation is denoted by $`\psi _C`$. Similarly, $`B`$ is a factorcomodule of $`C`$, with corepresentation $`\psi _B`$. Our next aim is to show that

$$\psi _BT_0T_1T_2\mathrm{},$$
(7)
and moreover that, $`\eta (y_{21})^r`$ generates the simple subcomodule of $`B`$ corresponding to $`T_r`$ for $`r_0`$.

Denote by $`𝒪(M_q)^r`$ the linear span of monomials of degree $`r`$ in the generators $`x_{ij}`$, and $`C^r:=\mu (𝒪(M_q)^r)`$, $`B^r:=\eta (C^r)`$. Note that $`𝒪(M_q)^r`$, $`C^r`$, $`B^r`$ are subcomodules. The symbols $`\psi _{C^r}`$, $`\psi _{B^r}`$ stand for the obvious subcorepresentations of $`\psi _C`$, $`\psi _B`$.

For $`r_0`$, a vector space basis of $`C^r`$ is

$$\{y_{11}^{i+1}y_{12}^jy_{21}^k,y_{12}^ly_{21}^my_{22}^ni,j,k,l,m,n_0,i+j+kr1,l+m+nr\}$$
(8)
(by the same argument as the corresponding result for $`𝒪(SL_q)`$ is proved in \[6, 4.1.5\]). From (8) we see that the character of the corepresentation $`\psi _{C^r}`$ is

$$\chi (\psi _{C^r})=\underset{i+j+kr1}{}z^{2(kj)}+\underset{l+m+nr}{}z^{2(ml)}.$$
(9)
(This character does not depend on $`q`$ or $`\xi `$.) In particular, $`C^r[n]=0`$ if $`n>2r`$, and $`C^r[2r]=y_{21}^r`$, implying that the corepresentation $`\psi _{C^r}`$ has a unique irreducible summand isomorphic to $`T_r`$, and $`y_{21}^r`$ generates the corresponding simple subcomodule of $`C^r`$. It follows that $`\eta (y_{21}^r)`$ is either zero, or it generates a simple subcomodule of $`B`$, on which the given corepresentation is isomorphic to $`T_r`$.

In order to show that $`\eta (y_{21}^r)`$ is non-zero, we introduce a $``$-grading $`\mathrm{deg}`$ on $`𝒪(M_q)`$ as follows: $`\mathrm{deg}(x_{11}):=1`$, $`\mathrm{deg}(x_{22}):=1`$, $`\mathrm{deg}(x_{12}):=0`$, $`\mathrm{deg}(x_{21}):=0`$. It is easy to check that $`\mathrm{deg}`$ extends to an algebra-grading of $`𝒪(M_q)`$. Moreover, $`\mathrm{ker}(\mu )`$ is a homogeneous ideal, so $`C`$ inherits the grading. Note that $`u`$ is non-homogeneous, and $`\mathrm{deg}(y_{21}^r)=0`$. Since $`C`$ is a domain, any non-zero multiple of $`u`$ is non-homogeneous. Thus $`y_{21}^r`$ is not contained in $`uC`$. In other words, $`\eta (y_{21}^r)`$ is non-zero for any $`r_0`$.

Consequently, $`\psi _{B^r}`$ contains a subcorepresentation isomorphic to $`T_0T_1\mathrm{}T_r`$, on the subcomodule generated by $`1,\eta (y_{21}),\mathrm{},\eta (y_{21}^r)`$. On the other hand, $`\mathrm{ker}(\eta )C^r=uCC^r`$ clearly contains $`uC^{r1}`$, so $`B^r`$ is a factorcomodule of $`C^r/uC^{r1}`$. Since $`u`$ is a coinvariant and $`C`$ is a domain, by (4) we get that the corepresentation on $`uC^{r1}`$ is isomorphic to $`\psi _{C^{r1}}`$, hence the character of the corepresentation on $`C^r/uC^{r1}`$ is $`\chi (\psi _{C^r})\chi (\psi _{C^{r1}})`$. Using (9) we get that

$`\chi (\psi _{C^r})\chi (\psi _{C^{r1}})`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i+j+k=r1}{}}z^{2(kj)}+{\displaystyle \underset{l+m+n=r}{}}z^{2(ml)}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{j+kr1}{}}z^{2(kj)}+{\displaystyle \underset{l+mr}{}}z^{2(ml)}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{r}{}}}\chi (T_s).`$ (10)
So the corepresentation on $`C^r/uC^{r1}`$ is also isomorphic to $`_{s=0}^rT_r`$. It follows that $`C^ruC=uC^{r1}`$, and $`\psi _{B^r}_{s=0}^rT_r`$. Moreover, the subcomodule corresponding to $`T_s`$ is generated by $`\eta (y_{21}^s)`$. This shows (7), since $`B=_{r=0}^{\mathrm{}}B^r`$.

As an immediate consequence of (7) and the fact that $`\psi ^\xi =\nu \eta \mu `$ for some morphism $`\nu :B𝒪(S_{q,\mathrm{}}^2)`$ of comodules, we obtain that the image of $`\psi ^\xi `$ is the subcomodule of $`𝒪(S_{q,\mathrm{}}^2)`$ generated by $`\{\nu (\eta (y_{21}^n))n_0\}=\{\psi ^\xi (x_{21}^n)n_0\}`$. Moreover, the kernel of $`\psi ^\xi `$ is $`(\eta \mu )^1(\mathrm{ker}(\nu ))`$. By (7) $`B`$ is the direct sum of pairwise non-isomorphic simple subcomodules, and so any subcomodule is a direct sum of some of these simple subcomodules; in particular, $`\mathrm{ker}(\nu )`$ is the $`𝒪(SL_q)`$-subcomodule of $`B`$ generated by $`\{\eta (y_{21}^n)\nu (\eta (y_{21}^n))=0\}`$. Therefore $`(\eta \mu )^1(\mathrm{ker}(\nu ))`$ is the sum of $`\mathrm{ker}(\eta \mu )=_{i=1,2}(\tau _i\tau _i(\xi ))𝒪(M_q)`$ and the subcomodule of $`𝒪(M_q)`$ generated by $`\{x_{21}^n\psi ^\xi (x_{21}^n)=0\}`$. So (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) follow from the fact that $`W^n𝒪(S_{q,\mathrm{}}^2)`$ is generated by $`\{x_1^rr=0,1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ as an $`𝒪(SL_q)`$-comodule, and from the evaluation of $`\psi ^\xi (x_{21}^n)`$ given below.

Since $`\psi ^\xi `$ is not an algebra homomorphism, it is helpful to write it as the composition $`\psi ^\xi =p\mathrm{\Psi }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the map

$$\mathrm{\Psi }:=((S\pi )\mathrm{ev}_\xi \pi )\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)}:𝒪(M_q)𝒪(SL_q)𝒪(SL_q),$$

and $`p:𝒪(SL_q)𝒪(SL_q)𝒪(SL_q)`$ is the multiplication map in $`𝒪(SL_q)`$. Introduce a new multiplication $``$ on $`𝒪(SL_q)𝒪(SL_q)`$ given by $`(x_1y_1)(x_2y_2)=x_2x_1y_1y_2`$. Observe that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is an algebra homomorphism from $`𝒪(M_q)`$ to $`(𝒪(SL_q)𝒪(SL_q),)`$. We have that

$$\mathrm{\Psi }\left[\begin{array}{cc}x_{11}& x_{12}\\ x_{21}& x_{22}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\xi _1daq^1\xi _2bc& \xi _1dbq^1\xi _2bd\\ q\xi _1ca+\xi _2ac& q\xi _1cb+\xi _2ad\end{array}\right].$$
(11)
By induction on $`n`$ we show that

$$\psi ^\xi (x_{21}^n)=(q)^n(\xi _1\xi _2)(\xi _1q^2\xi _2)\mathrm{}(\xi _1q^{2n2}\xi _2)c^na^n.$$
(12)
Indeed, (12) holds for $`n=1`$ by (11). Assume that (12) holds for $`n`$. Then

$`\psi ^\xi (x_{21}^{n+1})`$ $`=p(\mathrm{\Psi }(x_{21}^{n+1}))=p(\mathrm{\Psi }(x_{21}^n)\mathrm{\Psi }(x_{21}))`$
$`=p(\mathrm{\Psi }(x_{21}^n)(q\xi _1ca+\xi _2ac))`$
$`=q\xi _1cp(\mathrm{\Psi }(x_{21}^n))a+\xi _2ap(\mathrm{\Psi }(x_{21}^n))c`$
$`=(q\xi _1+q^{2n+1}\xi _2)c\psi ^\xi (x_{21}^n)a,`$
and formula (12) easily follows for $`n+1`$. Hence if $`_{i=0}^{n1}(\xi _1q^{2i}\xi _2)0`$, then $`\psi ^\xi (x_{21}^n)`$ is a non-zero scalar multiple of $`x_1^n`$, and if $`_{i=0}^{n1}(\xi _1q^{2i}\xi _2)=0`$, then $`\psi ^\xi (x_{21}^n)=0`$.

The same arguments show (i’), (ii’), (iii’), (iv’), by using the fact that

$$\phi ^\xi (x_{21}^n)=(q)^n(\xi _1q^2\xi _2)(\xi _1q^4\xi _2)\mathrm{}(\xi _1q^{2n}\xi _2)a^nc^n.$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 Co-orbit maps for non-diagonal $`2\times 2`$ matrices

In this section we still restrict to the case $`N=2`$. The kernel and the image of the co-orbit map can be described also when $`\xi `$ is a non-diagonal $``$-point of $`M_q`$.

###### Proposition 4.1

Let $`0q`$, and take $`\xi :=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& \xi _1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right]`$, where $`\xi _10`$.

* The image of $`\beta ^\xi `$ is the subalgebra of $`𝒪(GL_q)`$ generated by $`x_{21}^2/\text{det}_q`$, $`x_{21}x_{22}/\text{det}_q`$, $`x_{22}^2/\text{det}_q`$. In particular, $`\mathrm{im}(\beta ^\xi )`$ is a quantum homogeneous space.
* The kernel of $`\beta ^\xi `$ is the right ideal of $`𝒪(M_q)`$ generated by $`\tau _1`$ and $`\tau _2`$.
* $`\mathrm{im}(\alpha ^\xi )=x_{21}^2/\text{det}_q,x_{21}x_{22}/\text{det}_q,x_{22}^2/\text{det}_q`$.
* $`\mathrm{ker}(\alpha ^\xi )=_{i=1}^2𝒪(M_q)\sigma _i`$.

Again it is more convenient to switch from the $`𝒪(GL_q)`$-coactions to the corresponding $`𝒪(SL_q)`$-coactions.

###### Lemma 4.2

The restriction of $`\pi `$ maps $`x_{21}^2/\text{det}_q,x_{21}x_{22}/\text{det}_q,x_{22}^2/\text{det}_q`$ isomorphically onto $`c^2,cd,d^2`$.

* Proof. The subalgebras $`x_{21},x_{22}`$ of $`𝒪(GL_q)`$ and $`c,d`$ of $`𝒪(SL_q)`$ are isomorphic to the coordinate ring of the quantum plane: the generators $`q`$-commute, and satisfy no more relations, as can be seen from standard basis arguments. The two algebras in our statement are isomorphic to the subalgebra of the coordinate ring of the quantum plane generated by its quadratic elements, or in other words, the sum of the even degree homogeneous components. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Proposition 4.1. As before, $`\psi =(\mathrm{id}\pi )\beta `$ and $`\psi ^\xi =(\mathrm{ev}_\xi \mathrm{id})\psi `$. The statements about $`\beta ^\xi `$ translate by Lemma 4.2 to the assertions $`\mathrm{ker}(\psi ^\xi )=_{i=1}^2\tau _i𝒪(M_q)`$ and $`\mathrm{im}(\psi ^\xi )=c^2,cd,d^2`$.

As in the proof of Proposition 3.1, decompose $`\psi ^\xi `$ as $`p\mathrm{\Psi }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Psi }=((S\pi )\mathrm{ev}_\xi \pi )\mathrm{\Delta }^{(2)}`$ and $`p`$ is the multiplication map in $`𝒪(SL_q)`$. By definition we have

$$\mathrm{\Psi }\left[\begin{array}{cc}x_{11}& x_{12}\\ x_{21}& x_{22}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\xi _1dc& \xi _1dd\\ q\xi _1cc& q\xi _1cd\end{array}\right].$$
(13)
Since $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is an algebra homomorphism from $`𝒪(M_q)`$ to $`(𝒪(SL_q)𝒪(SL_q),)`$, it is easy to see from the images of the generators that $`\mathrm{im}(\mathrm{\Psi })`$ is contained in $`_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}c,d_kc,d_k`$, where $`c,d_k`$ denotes the degree $`k`$ component of $`c,d`$. This space is mapped by $`p`$ into $`W:=c^2,cd,d^2`$, showing that $`\mathrm{im}(\beta ^\xi )W`$. We have

$$\psi ^\xi (x_{21}^n)=p\mathrm{\Psi }(x_{21}^n)=p(\mathrm{\Psi }(x_{21})^n)=(1)^nq^n\xi ^nc^{2n},$$

implying that $`\mathrm{im}(\psi ^\xi )`$ contains $`c^{2n}`$ for all $`n_0`$. Similarly, $`\psi ^\xi (x_{21}^ix_{12}^jx_{11}^k)`$ is a non-zero scalar multiple of $`(c^2)^i(d^2)^j(dc)^k`$, hence we obtain (i).

Set $`C:=𝒪(M_q)/\tau _2𝒪(M_q)`$ and $`B:=C/\mu (\tau _1)C`$, where $`\mu :𝒪(M_q)C`$ is the natural homomorphism. These are graded homomorphic images of $`𝒪(M_q)`$ (endowed with the usual grading). By Proposition 2.4 the linear map $`\beta ^\xi :𝒪(M_q)W`$ factors through $`B`$, denote by $`\eta :BW`$ the induced surjective linear map. We shall show that $`\eta `$ is an isomorphism (this is clearly equivalent to the assertion $`\mathrm{ker}(\psi ^\xi )=_{i=1}^2\tau _i𝒪(M_q)`$). Define $`𝒪(M_q)^r`$ as the degree $`r`$ part of $`𝒪(M_q)`$, and write $`C^r`$,$`B^r`$, $`W^r`$ for the image of $`𝒪(M_q)^r`$ in $`C`$, $`B`$, $`W`$. We know from  that $`C`$ is a domain, and $`C^r`$ has the basis (8). By homogeneity of $`\mu (\tau _1)`$ we have $`C^r\mu (\tau _1)C=\mu (\tau _1)C^{r1}`$. Hence $`dim(B^r)=dim(C^r)dim(C^{r1})=(r+1)^2`$ (the latter equality follows for example from (3)). Since $`dim(W^r)=(r+1)^2`$ as well, the map $`\eta |_{B^r}:B^rW^r`$ is an isomorphism. This holds for all $`r_0`$, hence $`\eta :BW`$ is an isomorphism.

The same arguments work for $`\alpha ^\xi `$. $`\mathrm{}`$

A similar result holds when $`\xi =\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ \xi _1& 0\end{array}\right]`$ is lower triangular.

###### Remark 4.3

$`c^2,cd,d^2`$ and $`𝒪(S_{q,\mathrm{}}^2)`$ are isomorphic as right $`𝒪(SL_q)`$-comodules. However, they are not isomorphic quantum homogeneous spaces, since they are not isomorphic as algebras. Indeed, $`𝒪(S_{q,\mathrm{}}^2)`$ is generated by $`x_1`$ and $`x_{+1}`$ as a $``$-algebra with unity. Assume that $`c^2,cd,d^2`$ is also generated by two elements. We may suppose that the generators are contained in the maximal ideal $`(c^2,cd,d^2)`$. Then the images of the generators span the $`3`$-dimensional $``$-vector space $`(c^2,cd,d^2)/(c^2,cd,d^2)^2`$. This is a contradiction.

It is not difficult to check that $`𝒪(SL_q)`$ is a free left $`c^2,cd,d^2`$-module. Therefore by \[13, Theorem 1\] the right coideal subalgebra $`c^2,cd,d^2`$ of $`𝒪(SL_q)`$ can be realized as the space of coinvariants with respect to the left coaction of an appropriate quotient left $`𝒪(SL_q)`$-module coalgebra of $`𝒪(SL_q)`$ (called a left coisotropic quantum subgroup of $`𝒪(SL_q)`$ in ). This quotient left $`𝒪(SL_q)`$-module coalgebra can be viewed as the “stabilizer” of $`\xi `$.

## 5 The generic case

We return to quantum matrices of arbitrary size $`N`$, but assume that $`q`$ is transcendental over the base field. It turns out that if the classical adjoint orbit of $`\xi M(N,)`$ is of maximal dimension, then the kernel of the (quantized) co-orbit map coincides with the subset predicted by the classical theory, and is given in terms of coinvariants. For a diagonal $`\xi `$ with pairwise different eigenvalues, the image of the co-orbit map also reflects the classical picture.

Let $`A`$ be an arbitrary commutative ring and $`q`$ a unit in $`A`$. We replace $``$ by $`A`$ in the constructions of Sections 1 and 2, and define the $`A`$-bialgebra $`𝒪_A(M_q)`$, the $`A`$-Hopf algebras $`𝒪_A(GL_q)`$, $`𝒪_A(D)`$, the right coaction $`\beta _A:𝒪_A(M_q)𝒪_A(M_q)𝒪_A(GL_q)`$, the $`\beta _A`$-coinvariants $`\tau _1,\mathrm{},\tau _N𝒪_A(M_q)`$. We say that an $`N\times N`$ matrix $`\xi `$ is an $`A`$-point of $`M_q`$, if the entries of $`\xi `$ are elements of $`A`$ satisfying the relations (2). Such a $`\xi `$ determines an $`A`$-algebra homomorphism $`\mathrm{ev}_\xi :𝒪_A(M_q)A`$, $`x_{ij}\xi _{ij}`$, and the co-orbit map $`\beta _A^\xi :𝒪_A(M_q)𝒪_A(GL_q)`$ is defined as in Definition 2.1. The $`A`$-algebra $`𝒪_A(M_q)`$ is graded, the generators $`x_{ij}`$ having degree $`1`$. Write $`𝒪_A(M_q)^d`$ for the subspace spanned by the homogeneous components of degree $`d`$.

Let $`K`$ be a subfield of $``$, and let $`q`$ be an indeterminate over $`K`$. We shall apply the above constructions in the case when $`A=K(q)`$, the field of rational functions in $`q`$, or when $`A=K[q,q^1]`$, the ring of Laurent polynomials. When $`(A,q)=(K,1)`$, then $`𝒪_A(M_q)`$ becomes $`𝒪_K(M)`$, the coordinate ring of the space of $`N\times N`$ matrices over $`K`$, and $`𝒪_A(GL_q)`$ becomes the coordinate ring $`𝒪_K(GL)`$ of the general linear group $`GL(N,K)`$.

Denote by $`\eta :K[q,q^1]K`$ the $`K`$-algebra surjection mapping $`q`$ to $`1`$. The symbol $`\eta `$ will stand also for the induced surjections $`M(N,K[q,q^1])M(N,K)`$, $`𝒪_{K[q,q^1]}(GL_q)𝒪_K(GL)`$.

###### Lemma 5.1

The elements $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_s𝒪_{K[q,q^1]}(GL_q)`$ are $`K(q)`$-linearly independent in $`𝒪_{K(q)}(GL_q)`$, if $`\eta (f_1),\mathrm{},\eta (f_s)`$ are $`K`$-linearly independent in $`𝒪_K(GL)`$.

* Proof. Assume that $`a_1f_1+\mathrm{}+a_sf_s=0`$ is a non-trivial relation with $`a_iK(q)`$. Multiplying by an appropriate element of $`K[q]`$ we may achieve that $`a_iK[q,q^1]`$ for all $`i`$. Since $`K[q,q^1]`$ is a unique factorization domain, cancelling an appropriate power of $`q1`$ we ensure that not all the $`a_i`$ are contained in the ideal $`q1`$. Then apply the map $`\eta `$ to get a non-trivial $`K`$-linear relation $`_{i=1}^s\eta (a_i)\eta (f_i)=0`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We fix a $`K[q,q^1]`$-point $`\xi `$ of $`M_q`$ such that the centralizer of $`\eta (\xi )`$ in $`M(N,K)`$ has dimension $`N`$; that is, the adjoint orbit of $`\eta (\xi )`$ is of maximal dimension. For a fixed $`d_0`$ set

$$X^d:=𝒪_{K(q)}(M_q)^d,X_0^d:=𝒪_{K[q,q^1]}(M_q)^d,X_1^d:=𝒪_K(M)^d,$$

$$b^d:=\beta _{K(q)}^\xi |_{X^d},b_0^d:=\beta _{K[q,q^1]}^\xi |_{X_0^d},b_1^d:=\beta _K^{\eta (\xi )}|_{X_1^d},$$

$$Y^d:=\mathrm{im}(b^d)𝒪_{K(q)}(GL_q),Y_0^d:=\mathrm{im}(b_0^d)𝒪_{K[q,q^1]}(GL_q),Y_1^d:=\mathrm{im}(b_1^d)𝒪_K(GL).$$

Then we have a commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}X^d& & X_0^d& \stackrel{\eta }{}& X_1^d\\ & & & & \\ b^d& & b_0^d& & b_1^d\\ & & & & \\ Y^d& & Y_0^d& \stackrel{\eta }{}& Y_1^d.\end{array}$$

Denote by $`Z_1^d`$ the kernel of $`b_1^d`$. It is the intersection of $`X_1^d`$ and the ideal of $`𝒪_K(M)`$ generated by $`\eta (\tau _i\tau _i(\xi ))`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, by the classical result \[7, Theorem 10\] (the base field is $``$ in this paper; since $`\beta ^{\eta (\xi )}`$ is obtained from $`\beta _K^{\eta (\xi )}`$ by extending scalars, and since the $`\tau _i`$ are defined over the field of rational numbers, the cited results of  hold over any subfield $`K`$ of $``$). Moreover, by Lemma 5.2 below, $`Z_1^d`$ has a $`K`$-basis of the form

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_1:=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\{\eta (\tau _i\tau _i(\xi ))ww\mathrm{\Gamma }^i\},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^i`$ is an appropriate set of monomials in the variables $`x_{kl}`$ of degree $`di`$, for $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$.

###### Lemma 5.2

Let $`R`$ be a finitely generated commutative polynomial algebra over $`K`$, endowed with the usual grading. For $`rR`$ write $`r=\overline{r}+\widehat{r}`$, where $`\overline{r}`$ is the highest degree homogeneous component of $`r`$. Let $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_N`$ be given elements of $`R`$, and assume that $`\overline{u}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{u}_N`$ is a regular sequence in $`R`$. Then for all $`f`$ in the ideal generated by $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_N`$, there exist elements $`f_iR`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, such that $`f=_{i=1}^Nu_if_i`$, and $`\mathrm{deg}(u_if_i)\mathrm{deg}(f)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$.

* Proof. Apply induction on $`N`$. The case $`N=1`$ is trivial. Assume that the lemma is true for $`N1`$. Write $`f_{i=1}^Nu_iR`$ as $`f=_{i=1}^Nu_ih_i`$, where $`d:=\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{deg}(u_ih_i)i=1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ is minimal. If $`d\mathrm{deg}(f)`$, then we are done. Suppose that $`d>\mathrm{deg}(f)`$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $`\mathrm{deg}(u_Nh_N)=d`$ because any permutation of $`\overline{u}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{u}_N`$ is a regular sequence, see the corollary to \[9, Theorem 16.3\]. (We note that it is not essential for the proof to make this assumption, however, it simplifies the notation below.) Then

$$\underset{i:\mathrm{deg}(u_ih_i)=\mathrm{deg}(u_Nh_N)}{}\overline{u}_i\overline{h}_i=0.$$

By assumption $`\overline{u}_N`$ is not a zero-divisor modulo $`_{i=1}^{N1}\overline{u}_iR`$, hence $`\overline{h}_N=_{i=1}^{N1}\overline{u}_ig_i`$ with appropriate homogeneous elements $`g_i`$, where $`\mathrm{deg}(\overline{u}_ig_i)=\mathrm{deg}(\overline{h}_N)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N1`$. Thus

$`u_Nh_N`$ $`=u_N(\overline{h}_N+\widehat{h}_N)`$
$`=u_N\widehat{h}_N+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}u_N\overline{u}_ig_i`$
$`=u_N\widehat{h}_N+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}u_N(u_i\widehat{u}_i)g_i`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}u_i(u_Ng_i)+u_N(\widehat{h}_N{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}\widehat{h}_ig_i).`$
Obviously $`\mathrm{deg}(u_iu_Ng_i)d`$, $`\mathrm{deg}(u_N\widehat{u}_ig_i)<d`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},N1`$. Set $`b_i:=h_i+u_Ng_i`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},N1`$, and $`b_N:=\widehat{h}_N_{i=1}^{N1}\widehat{u}_ig_i`$. We have $`f=_{i=1}^Nu_ib_i`$, with $`\mathrm{deg}(u_ib_i)d`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},N1`$, and $`\mathrm{deg}(u_Nb_N)<\mathrm{deg}(u_Nh_N)=d`$. We claim that $`\mathrm{deg}(_{i=1}^{N1}u_ib_i)<d`$. Indeed, either $`\mathrm{deg}(_{i=1}^{N1}u_ib_i)\mathrm{deg}(u_Nb_N)<d`$, or $`\mathrm{deg}(_{i=1}^{N1}u_ib_i)>\mathrm{deg}(u_Nb_N)`$ implying $`\mathrm{deg}(_{i=1}^{N1}u_ib_i)=\mathrm{deg}(f)<d`$. By the induction hypothesis on $`N`$, there exist $`c_1,\mathrm{},c_{N1}R`$ with $`_{i=1}^{N1}u_ib_i=_{i=1}^{N1}u_ic_i`$, and $`\mathrm{deg}(u_ic_i)\mathrm{deg}(_{i=1}^{N1}u_ib_i)<d`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},N1`$. Therefore

$$f=u_1c_1+\mathrm{}+u_{N1}c_{N1}+u_Nb_N,$$

where each summand on the right hand side has degree $`<d`$. This contradicts to our assumption on the minimality of $`d`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Since $`\eta (\tau _1),\mathrm{},\eta (\tau _N)`$ is a regular sequence in $`𝒪_K(M)`$ by \[7, Theorem 10\], we may apply Lemma 5.2 to conclude the existence of the basis $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ in $`Z_1^d`$. Our next aim is to show that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1`$ can be lifted to a basis of the kernel of $`b^d`$. There is a $`^N`$-grading on the spaces $`X^d`$, $`X_1^d`$, $`Y^d`$, $`Y_1^d`$, determined by a right coaction of $`𝒪_A(D)`$. This coaction is $`(\mathrm{id}\pi _D)\beta _A`$ for $`X^d`$, $`X_1^d`$, and $`(\mathrm{id}\pi _D)\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for $`Y^d`$, $`Y_1^d`$. (Recall that a coaction $`\phi :VV𝒪_A(D)`$ yields the direct sum decomposition $`V=_{a^N}\{vV\phi (v)=vt_1^{a_1}\mathrm{}t_N^{a_N}\}`$.) The maps $`b^d`$, $`b_1^d`$, $`\eta `$ are compatible with the $`^N`$-grading, because $`b^d`$, $`b_1^d`$ are homomorphisms of $`𝒪_A(GL_q)`$-comodules, hence they are homomorphisms of $`𝒪_A(D)`$-comodules, whereas $`\eta `$ maps a monomial in $`𝒪_{K[q,q^1]}(GL_q)`$ to formally the same monomial in $`𝒪_K(GL)`$. Write $`\chi (V)`$ for the Hilbert series of a finite dimensional $`^N`$-graded vector space $`V`$, so $`\chi (V)`$ is an element of $`[t_1^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},t_N^{\pm 1}]`$. In other words, $`\chi (V)`$ is the character of the corresponding corepresentation of $`𝒪_A(D)`$ on $`V`$. Introduce a partial order $``$ on $`[t_1^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},t_n^{\pm 1}]`$ by defining $`fg`$ if all coefficients of $`fg`$ are non-negative. Obviously $`WV`$ and $`\chi (W)=\chi (V)`$ imply $`W=V`$.

Denote by $`Z^d`$ the intersection of $`X^d`$ and the right ideal of $`𝒪_{K(q)}(GL_q)`$ generated by $`\tau _i\tau _i(\xi )`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$. The same argument as in the proof of Proposition 2.4 shows that $`Z^d\mathrm{ker}(b^d)`$.

###### Proposition 5.3

For all $`d_0`$ we have the following:

* the kernel of $`b^d`$ is $`Z^d`$;
* the Hilbert series $`\chi (Y^d)`$ equals $`\chi (Y_1^d)`$.

* Proof. Choose a set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ of monomials of degree $`d`$ in $`𝒪_K(M)`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ is a $`K`$-basis of $`X_1^d`$. Set

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }:=\{(\tau _i\tau _i(\xi ))\widehat{w}i=1,\mathrm{},N;w\mathrm{\Gamma }^i\},$$

where $`\widehat{w}`$ is a chosen monomial in $`X_0^d`$ with $`\eta (\widehat{w})=w`$. The elements of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are multihomogeneous with respect to the $`^N`$-grading introduced on $`X^d`$. Similarly, lift each $`v\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ to a monomial $`\widehat{v}X_0^d`$ with $`\eta (\widehat{v})=v`$. We obtain the set $`\mathrm{\Omega }:=\{\widehat{v}v\mathrm{\Omega }_1\}`$ of multihomogeneous elements in $`X^d`$.

As we noted above, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a subset of $`\mathrm{ker}(b^d)`$, and it is $`K(q)`$-linearly independent by Lemma 5.1. Therefore

$$\chi (\mathrm{ker}(b^d))\chi (Z^d)\chi (\mathrm{Span}_{K(q)}\{\mathrm{\Lambda }\})=\chi (\mathrm{Span}_K\{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\})=\chi (Z_1^d).$$
(14)
Since $`Z_1^d=\mathrm{ker}(b_1^d)`$, we have that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ is mapped under $`b_1^d`$ to a basis of $`Y_1^d`$. Again by Lemma 5.1 we have that $`b^d(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ is a $`K(q)`$-linearly independent subset of $`Y^d`$. Thus

$$\chi (Y^d)\chi (\mathrm{Span}_{K(q)}\{b^d(\mathrm{\Omega })\})=\chi (\text{Span}_K\{b_1^d(\mathrm{\Omega }_1)\})=\chi (Y_1^d).$$
(15)
It is well known (see \[6, 9.2.1 Proposition 6\]) that there is a set of monomials in the variables $`x_{ij}`$ which is a basis both for $`X^d`$ and $`X_1^d`$. It follows that

$$\chi (Y^d)+\chi (\mathrm{ker}(b^d))=\chi (X^d)=\chi (X_1^d)=\chi (Y_1^d)+\chi (Z_1^d).$$
(16)
Comparing (14), (15), (16) we obtain that all inequalities in (14) and (15) must be equalities. In particular, $`\chi (Y^d)=\chi (Y_1^d)`$ in (15) and $`\chi (\mathrm{ker}(b^d))=\chi (\mathrm{Span}_{K(q)}\{\mathrm{\Lambda }\})`$ in (14), implying $`\mathrm{ker}(b^d)=Z^d=\mathrm{Span}_{K(q)}\{\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

As an immediate corollary we obtain the following.

###### Theorem 5.4

Let $`\xi `$ be a $`K(q)`$-point of $`M_q`$ such that the centralizer of $`\eta (\xi )`$ in $`M(N,K)`$ has dimension $`N`$. Then the kernel of $`\beta _{K(q)}^\xi `$ coincides with the right ideal $`_{i=1}^N(\tau _i\tau _i(\xi ))𝒪_{K(q)}(M_q)`$.

We determine the comodule structure of the image of $`\beta _{K(q)}^\xi `$ with the aid of corepresentation theory. The material we shall summarize below can be found in \[6, 11.5\] (the base field is $``$ in that book; however, the irreducible corepresentations of $`𝒪(GL_q)`$ are defined over the field of rational numbers, so the results mentioned below obviously hold over $`K`$ and $`K(q)`$). In the sequel $`(A,q)`$ will stand for either of $`(K(q),q)`$ or $`(K,1)`$. Recall that $`𝒪_A(GL_q)`$ is cosemisimple. The irreducible corepresentations are indexed by the set $`P`$ of dominant integral weights for $`GL(N)`$. Denote by $`T_q(\lambda )`$ the irreducible $`𝒪_A(GL_q)`$-corepresentation associated with $`\lambda P`$, write $`\chi (T_q(\lambda ))`$ for its character. Recall that by the character $`\chi (T)`$ of a finite dimensional $`𝒪_A(GL_q)`$-corepresentation $`T:VV𝒪_A(GL_q)`$ we mean the image under $`\pi _D`$ of the sum of the diagonal matrix coefficients. In other words, the character $`\chi (T)`$ is the same as the Hilbert series $`\chi (V)`$ with respect to the $`^N`$-grading of $`V`$ determined by the $`𝒪_A(D)`$-corepresentation $`(\mathrm{id}\pi _D)T`$. Any $`𝒪_A(GL_q)`$-corepresentation decomposes as a direct sum of copies of the irreducible corepresentations $`T_q(\lambda )`$. Given a finite dimensional corepresentation $`T`$, the multiplicity of $`T_q(\lambda )`$ as a summand of $`T`$ is the same as the (uniquely determined) coefficient of $`\chi (T_q(\lambda ))`$ in $`\chi (T)`$, expressed as a linear combination of the characters $`\chi (T_q(\mu ))`$, $`\mu P`$. We shall need also the fact that the character of the irreducible $`𝒪_{K(q)}(GL_q)`$-corepresentation $`T_q(\lambda )`$ coincides with the character of the $`𝒪_K(GL)`$-corepresentation $`T_1(\lambda )`$ (which coincides with the character of the irreducible rational representation of $`GL(N,)`$ associated with $`\lambda `$). Consequently, if we are given an $`𝒪_{K(q)}(GL_q)`$-corepresentation $`T:VV𝒪_{K(q)}(GL_q)`$ and an $`𝒪_K(GL)`$-corepresentation $`U:WW𝒪_K(GL)`$ such that $`\chi (V)=\chi (W)`$, then the multiplicity of $`T_q(\lambda )`$ as a summand of $`T`$ is the same as the multiplicity of $`T_1(\lambda )`$ as a summand of $`U`$, for all $`\lambda P`$.

To simplify the notation we write $`T(\lambda ):=T_1(\lambda )`$. The $`𝒪_K(GL)`$-corepresentation on $`\mathrm{im}(\beta _K^{\eta (\xi )})`$ decomposes as

$$\mathrm{im}(\beta _K^{\eta (\xi )})\underset{\lambda P}{}m(\lambda )T(\lambda ),$$

where $`m(\lambda )`$ denotes the dimension of the zero weight space in the dual corepresentation $`T^{}(\lambda )`$, by \[7, Theorem 0.4 and formula (0.1.6)\]. Although the result is stated in  in the language of representations, it can clearly be converted to the language of corepresentations. Indeed, observe that the character of the $`𝒪_K(GL)`$-corepresentation on $`\mathrm{im}(\beta _K^{\eta (\xi )})`$ coincides with the usual formal character of the natural right action of $`GL(N,K)`$ on this space, and $`\mathrm{im}(\beta _K^{\eta (\xi )})`$ is the coordinate ring of the closure of the adjoint orbit of $`\eta (\xi )`$. So $`m(\lambda )`$ is the dimension of the subspace of the underlying vector space of $`T^{}(\lambda )`$ consisting of the vectors $`v`$ with $`(\mathrm{id}\pi _D)T^{}(\lambda )(v)=v1`$. In particular, $`m(\lambda )`$ is finite for all $`\lambda P`$, and does not depend on $`\eta (\xi )`$ (still assuming that the centralizer of $`\eta (\xi )`$ has dimension $`N`$). The multiplicity of $`T_q(\lambda )`$ in the $`𝒪_{K(q)}(GL_q)`$-corepresentation on $`𝒪_{K(q)}(GL_q)`$ is the dimension of $`T_q(\lambda )`$ (see \[6, 11.5.4 Theorem 51 and 11.1.4 Proposition 8 (ii)\]), hence the subcorepresentation on $`\mathrm{im}(\beta _{K(q)}^\xi )`$ decomposes as

$$\mathrm{im}(\beta _{K(q)}^\xi )\underset{\lambda P}{}m_q^\xi (\lambda )T_q(\lambda )$$

with $`m_q^\xi (\lambda )`$ finite for all $`\lambda P`$.

###### Proposition 5.5

Let $`\xi `$ be a $`K(q)`$-point of $`M_q`$ such that the centralizer of $`\eta (\xi )`$ in $`M(N,K)`$ has dimension $`N`$. Then for all $`\lambda P`$ we have $`m_q^\xi (\lambda )=m(\lambda )`$.

* Proof. Denote by $`m^d(\lambda )`$ the multiplicity of $`T(\lambda )`$ as a summand in $`Y_1^d`$, and denote by $`m_q^{\xi ,d}(\lambda )`$ the multiplicity of $`T_q(\lambda )`$ as a summand in $`Y^d`$. Obviously

$$m(\lambda )=sup\{m^d(\lambda )d_0\}$$
(17)
and

$$m_q^\xi (\lambda )=sup\{m_q^{\xi ,d}(\lambda )d_0\},$$
(18)
because $`\mathrm{im}(\beta _K^\xi )=_{d_0}Y_1^d`$ and $`\mathrm{im}(\beta _{K(q)}^\xi )=_{d_0}Y^d`$. On the other hand, $`\chi (Y^d)=\chi (Y_1^d)`$ by Proposition 5.3, implying

$$m_q^{\xi ,d}(\lambda )=m^d(\lambda )\text{ for all }d_0,\lambda P.$$
(19)
So our statement follows from equations (17), (18), (19). $`\mathrm{}`$

If $`\eta (\xi )`$ is diagonal with pairwise different eigenvalues, then the stabilizer of $`\eta (\xi )`$ with respect to the classical adjoint action is the diagonal subgroup of $`GL(N,K)`$, and the orbit of $`\eta (\xi )`$ is closed in $`M(N,K)`$. It follows then that the image of $`\beta _K^{\eta (\xi )}`$ is $`𝒪_K(DGL)`$. In particular, the multiplicity of $`T(\lambda )`$ as a direct summand of the $`𝒪_K(GL)`$-corepresentation on $`𝒪_K(DGL)`$ is $`m(\lambda )`$. We show that the same holds in the $`q`$-deformed case.

###### Lemma 5.6

The multiplicity of $`T_q(\lambda )`$ as a direct summand of the $`𝒪_{K(q)}(GL_q)`$-corepresentation on $`𝒪_{K(q)}(DGL_q)`$ is $`m(\lambda )`$ for all $`\lambda P`$.

* Proof. In the sequel $`(A,q)`$ will stand for either of $`(K(q),q)`$ or $`(K,1)`$. First we describe a spanning set of $`𝒪_A(DGL_q)`$. For an $`N\times N`$ matrix $`a=(a_{ij})`$ with non-negative integer entries and a non-negative integer $`d`$ set

$$x_d^a:=\text{det}_q^dx_{11}^{a_{11}}x_{12}^{a_{12}}\mathrm{}x_{NN}^{a_{NN}}$$

(the variables $`x_{ij}`$ are ordered lexicographically). The elements of this form span $`𝒪_A(GL_q)`$, and

$$(\pi _D\mathrm{id})\mathrm{\Delta }(x_d^a)=t_d^ax_d^a,$$

where

$$t_d^a:=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}t_i^{d+_{j=1}^Na_{ij}}.$$

It follows that $`𝒪_A(DGL_q)`$ is spanned by the $`x_d^a`$ with $`_{j=1}^Na_{ij}=d`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$. Set

$$L_A^d:=\mathrm{Span}_A\{x_d^a\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}a_{ij}=d,i=1,\mathrm{},N\}.$$

Observe that the given spanning set of $`L_A^d`$ is actually a basis, because after multiplication by $`\text{det}_q^d`$, it becomes a set of linearly independent monomials of degree $`dN`$ from the standard basis of the domain $`𝒪_A(M_q)`$. Clearly

$$𝒪_A(DGL_q)=\underset{d_0}{}L_A^d,$$

and $`L_A^d`$ is a right $`𝒪_A(GL_q)`$-subcomodule of $`𝒪_A(DGL_q)`$ for all $`d`$.

Note that

$$(\mathrm{id}\pi _D)\mathrm{\Delta }(x_d^a)=x_d^at_{a,d}\text{ with }t_{a,d}:=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}t_j^{d+_{i=1}^Na_{ij}}.$$

It follows that

$$\chi (L_A^d)=\underset{a\omega _d}{}t_{a,d},$$

where

$$\omega _d:=\{a=(a_{ij})M(N,_0)\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}a_{ij}=d\text{ for }i=1,\mathrm{},N\}.$$

Observe that the above computation of $`\chi (L_A^d)`$ is the same when $`A=K(q)`$ and when $`A=K`$. It follows that for all $`d_0`$ the multiplicity of $`T_q(\lambda )`$ in $`L_{K(q)}^d`$ is the same as the multiplicity of $`T(\lambda )`$ in $`L_K^d`$. Consequently, the multiplicity of $`T_q(\lambda )`$ in $`𝒪_{K(q)}(DGL_q)`$ is the same as the multiplicity of $`T(\lambda )`$ in $`𝒪_K(DGL)=\mathrm{im}(\beta _K^{\eta (\xi )})`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 5.7

Let $`\xi `$ be a diagonal $`K[q,q^1]`$-point of $`M_q`$ such that $`\eta (\xi )`$ has pairwise different eigenvalues. Then the image of $`\beta _{K(q)}^\xi `$ coincides with $`𝒪_{K(q)}(DGL_q)`$.

* Proof. We have $`\mathrm{im}(\beta _{K(q)}^\xi )𝒪_{K(q)}(DGL_q)`$ by the same argument as in the proof of Proposition 2.6. The multiplicity of $`T_q(\lambda )`$ is $`m(\lambda )`$ both in $`𝒪_{K(q)}(DGL_q)`$ and in $`\mathrm{im}(\beta _{K(q)}^\xi )`$ by Proposition 5.5 and Lemma 5.6. This implies that $`\mathrm{im}(\beta _{K(q)}^\xi )`$ is the whole of $`𝒪_{K(q)}(DGL_q)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Finally we return to the coordinate ring of quantum matrices over $``$. The results of this section have the following corollary in the framework of Section 2.

###### Corollary 5.8

Let $`\xi `$ be a $``$-point of $`M_q`$ such that the centralizer of $`\xi `$ in $`M(N,K)`$ has dimension $`N`$. Assume that $`q^{}`$ is transcendental over the subfield $`K`$ of $``$ generated by the entries of $`\xi `$. Then the kernel of $`\beta ^\xi `$ coincides with the right ideal of $`𝒪(M_q)`$ generated by $`\tau _i\tau _i(\xi )`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$. If in addition $`\xi `$ is diagonal, then the image of $`\beta ^\xi `$ is $`𝒪(DGL_q)`$.

* Proof. Since $`q`$ is transcendental over $`K`$, we may apply Theorems 5.4 and 5.7 for the kernel and the image of $`\beta _{K(q)}^\xi `$. The $``$-linear map $`\beta ^\xi `$ is obtained from the $`K(q)`$-linear map $`\beta _{K(q)}^\xi `$ by extending scalars to $``$. Therefore a generating set of $`\mathrm{ker}(\beta _{K(q)}^\xi )`$ as a $`K(q)`$-vector space spans $`\mathrm{ker}(\beta ^\xi )`$ over $``$, and a generating set of $`\mathrm{im}(\beta ^\xi )`$ as a $`K(q)`$-vector space spans $`\mathrm{im}(\beta ^\xi )`$ over $``$. $`\mathrm{}`$

It is straightforward to modify the statements of this section to obtain similar results for the coaction $`\alpha `$.

M. Domokos: Rényi Institute of Mathematics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences,
P.O. Box 127, 1364 Budapest, Hungary
E-mail: domokos@renyi.hu, domokos@maths.ed.ac.uk
(Domokos is in Edinburgh until February 2004.)
R. Fioresi: Dipartimento di Matematica, Universita’ di Bologna
Piazza Porta San Donato 5, 40126 Bologna, Italy
E-mail: fioresi@dm.unibo.it
T. H. Lenagan: School of Mathematics, University of Edinburgh,
James Clerk Maxwell Building, King’s Buildings, Mayfield Road,
Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, Scotland
E-mail: tom@maths.ed.ac.uk