text:
# Phase diagram as a function of temperature and magnetic field for magnetic semiconductors.

## I Introduction

Degenerate antiferromagnetic semiconductors are obtained by strongly doping antiferromagnetic semiconductors (e.g., europium chalcogenides or lanthanium manganites). Over a concentration range of doping impurities, the ground state of these compounds will be a mixture of antiferromagnetic (AF) and ferromagnetic (FM) phases Nagaev (1983, 1972); Kashin and Nagaev (1974). Starting from a pure compound and doping, we find that the ground state at $`T=H=0`$ is AF and non-conducting up to some conduction electron concentration driven by impurities, $`n_\text{d}`$, from which the homogeneous state turns out to be unstable against phase separation. The ground state becomes then inhomogeneous with a simply connected AF phase and a multiply connected FM phase. The exact geometry of the multiply connected phase is of fractal nature. On increasing doping, a geometric transition takes place in which the topology of the sample changes due to percolation of the FM phase. Now, the ground state corresponds to a multiply connected AF phase and a simply connected FM one. The doping concentration at which this transition occurs is denoted by $`n_\text{T}`$. At this point an important change in the conductivity is expected, the material becomes a conductor. On a further increase of doping, a certain concentration, $`n_\text{u}`$, exits at which this phase-separated state starts to be unstable and the sample becomes again homogeneous but now FM. The physical reason for having a phase-separated state in an antiferromagnetic semiconductor at $`T=H=0`$ is the dependence of the energy of the charge carriers that appear on doping on the magnetic order of the lattice. The charge carrier energy is lower if they move in a FM region. Therefore, by interaction with the spin system in the lattice, they are able to change its magnetic order, creating FM micro-regions and become trapped in them. In a degenerate magnetic semiconductor this is a cooperative phenomenon: a number of electrons are self-trapped in the same FM micro-region diminishing the energy per electron necessary to create it. When the carrier concentration is high enough, the phase-separated state turns out to be stable. For $`T,H0`$ the free energy has different expressions for the AF and the FM parts. Because of this, a change in the temperature or the magnetic field produces a variation of the relative volume of the AF and FM parts. Therefore, a temperature- or magnetic field-induced percolation can occur, resulting in a complicated phase diagram.

In this article, we calculate the phase diagram in the $`TH`$ plane for magnetic semiconductors within the doping range $`n_\text{d}<n<n_\text{T}`$. The phase diagram is expected to be divided into three different stability regions, those corresponding to: insulating phase-separated state, conductive phase-separated state and homogeneous state. Our calculations are based in a variational principle for the free energy of the system developed by Nagaev and Podel’shchikov in the reference Nagaev and Podelsh’chikov (1990) that generalizes the approach of the references Nagaev (1983, 1972); Kashin and Nagaev (1974) to the case of finite temperature.

## II Calculation of the free energy

In this section, we briefly review the variational method used. More detailed calculations can be found in references Nagaev (1983, 1972); Kashin and Nagaev (1974); Nagaev and Podelsh’chikov (1990). The microscopic description of the sample is provided by the Hamiltonian of the generalized Vonsovsky s-d model. The main parameters in this model are $`W=2zt`$, the carriers band-width, $`AS`$ the exchange energy between conduction electrons and magnetic ions (s-d exchange energy), and $`zIS^2`$ the exchange energy between magnetic ions (d-d exchange energy). $`I<0`$ is the exchange integral between first-nearest neighbors magnetic ions. The smallest parameter is the d-d exchange energy. We differentiate two possibilities depending on the relative value of $`W`$ and $`AS`$. In the case $`W>>AS`$, we have a wide-band semiconductor (e.g. $`EuTe`$). In the opposite case $`W<<AS`$, we talk about a “double-exchange” material (e.g. lanthanium manganites). For the sake of definiteness the sign of $`A`$ is assumed to be positive.

The free energy is expresed as a function of two variational paramaters: the ratio $`x`$ of the volumes of the AF and FM phases, $`x=\frac{V_A}{V_F}`$, and $`R`$, the radius of the spheres which form the multiply-connected phase. All of the electrons are assumed to be found in the FM part of the phase-separated state González et al. (2002). Although this is not strictly true at $`T0`$, it is a good approximation because the number of electrons in the AF part is proportional to $`e^{\frac{U}{T}}`$, where $`UW`$ if $`W>>AS`$ or $`UAS`$ if $`W<<AS`$, and in both cases we have $`U>>T`$. The trial free energy is given by the expression:

$$F=E_{\text{kin}}+E_{\text{sur}}+E_\text{C}+F_{\text{mag}}$$
(1)
where $`E_{\text{kin}}`$ is the standard bulk kinetic energy of the conduction electrons, $`E_{\text{sur}}`$ is the surface electron energy, i.e. the correction to $`E_{\text{kin}}`$ that appears due to the quantization of the electron motion in regions of finite dimensions Balian and Bloch (1970). In view of the degeneracy of the electron gas, the contribution of the thermal excitations to its free energy can be neglected. $`E_\text{C}`$ is the electrostatic energy due to the inhomogenous electronic density and $`F_{\text{mag}}`$ is the magnetic free energy calculated in the mean field approximation. Due to the absence of conduction electrons on the AF part of the phase-separated state, this trial free energy is valid for both $`W>>AS`$ and $`W<<AS`$.

The expressions for these quantities are:

$`E_{\text{kin}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}\mu \left(n\right)n\left(1+x\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}`$
$`E_{\text{sur}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{6}}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{R}}\mu \left(n\right)n^{\frac{2}{3}}\left(1+x\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}`$
$`E_\text{C}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{5ϵ_r}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^2n^2R^2}{a}}f(x)`$ (2)
$`f(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}2x+33\left(1+x\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}\hfill & \text{if FM spheres in an AF matrix},\hfill \\ x\left(2+3x3x^{\frac{1}{3}}\left(1+x\right)x^{\frac{2}{3}}\right)\hfill & \text{if AF spheres in a FM matrix}.\hfill \end{array}`$ (3)
where $`\mu \left(n\right)=t\left(6\pi ^2n\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}`$ and $`\beta =3`$ if the FM part is multiply connected, or $`\beta =3x`$ if it is simply connected. The Coulomb energy per unit cell is found by separation of the crystal into Wigner cells. This method provides a good approximation to the electrostatic energy for small volumes of the alien phase, but it supposes to admit that the crystal is isotropic and homogeneous regarding the spatial distribution of these spheres. So we cannot describe the fractal nature of the boundary that separes both phases.

The free energy of the magnetic system is calculated using the mean field approximation. It is assumed that in the FM part conduction electrons are completely polarized. Then:

$$F_{\text{mag}}=\frac{x}{1+x}F_{\text{mag}}(H,T)+\frac{1}{1+x}F_{\text{mag}}(H+H_\text{e},T)$$
(4)
where:

$`F_{\text{mag}}(H,T)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{H^2}{4J}+\frac{1}{2}JS_1^2T\mathrm{ln}\left[_{m=S}^S\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{mJS_1}{T}\right)\right]\hfill & \text{if }H2JS_1,\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}JS_2^2T\mathrm{ln}\left[_{m=S}^S\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{HmJS_2}{T}\right)\right]\hfill & \text{if }H2JS_1.\hfill \end{array}`$ (5)
and the values $`S_1,S_2`$ verify the following equations:

$`S_1`$ $`=`$ $`SB_S\left({\displaystyle \frac{SJS_1}{T}}\right)`$
$`S_2`$ $`=`$ $`SB_S\left({\displaystyle \frac{HSJS_2}{T}}\right)`$ (6)
where $`B_S`$ is the Brillouin function. Moreover, we have defined $`H_\text{e}=\frac{ASn\left(1+x\right)}{2}`$ as the mean field created by the conduction electrons on the localized d-spin system. The preceding energies where obtained taking into account that in the case of small fields, $`H2JS_1`$, the localized d-spins system is in a non-collinear AF (NCAF) state, being $`S_1`$ the mean d-spin value in each of the sub-lattices. In the case of high fields, $`H2JS_1`$, the sample goes to a non-saturated FM (NSFM) state, being $`S_2`$ the mean value of the localized d-spin per site Nagaev (1983).

## III Results.

The stationary state of the system is determined from the condition that the total free energy of the system, equation (1), be a minimum with respect to the variational parameters $`x`$ and $`R`$. The parameter $`R`$ only appears in the surface and Coulomb energies. Minimizing the sum $`Q=E_{\text{sur}}+E_\text{C}`$ with respect to $`R`$ for fixed $`x`$ leads to the following expression:

$$Q_{\text{min}}=\alpha \gamma \beta (\frac{f}{\beta })^{\frac{1}{3}}$$
(7)
where the following definitions are used:

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`3\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{5}}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{9}{32}}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{6}}\right)^{\frac{2}{9}}1.2`$
$`\gamma `$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{n^{\frac{1}{3}}e^2}{ϵ_ra}}\mu ^2n\right)^{\frac{1}{3}}`$ (8)
After substitution of equation (7) in equation (1) minimization with respect to $`x`$ is carried out numerically.

For $`n<n_\text{T}`$ three different phases are expected: insulating phase-separated, conducting phase-separated and homogeneous states. We calculate the regions of absolute stability of each phase in the plane $`TH`$ for different conduction electron concentrations in the sample. The boundary lines between phases are calculated numerically. Below we present these diagrams for different concentrations, all below $`n_\text{T}`$, for both wide-band Nagaev and Podelsh’chikov (1990) and “double-exchange” materials.

Our results indicate that for both kinds of materials, all of the phase transitions between homogeneous and phase-separated states are first-order. Preliminary calculations including the possibility of spin waves confirm this result Nagaev (2000). The transition between insulator and conductive phase-separated states is found close to second-order. The jump in the parameter $`x`$ at the transition is about $`20\%`$ at $`T=0`$, growing with the transition temperature. This small jump in the parameter does not permit elucidating whether in a real sample the transition is of first- or second-order. We have to stress that the boundary between the separate states is of a fractal nature, and our approximation, that considers it as homogeneous and isotropically distributed spheres, does not work near the transition point. In any case, due to the smallness of the jump in $`x`$ our approximation provides accurate values of $`T`$ and $`H`$ at the transition point.

### III.1 $`W>>AS`$

Phase diagrams for wide-band semiconductors are shown in figures (3), (3) and (3) for conduction electron concentrations equal to $`n=0.10,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.50},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.95}n_\text{T}`$, respectively. The areas 1, 2, 3 denote regions of absolute stability for the homogeneous state, the conductive phase-separated state and the insulating phase-separated state, respectively. The parameters that characterize these materials are chosen to be the same as in reference Nagaev and Podelsh’chikov (1990) (they correspond to rare-earth compounds like europium chalcogenides): $`S=\frac{7}{2}`$, $`|J|S=10^3`$ eV (implying $`T_\text{N}=5`$ K, and the field at which both sublattices collapse is $`98.7`$ kOe), $`AS=1`$ eV, $`ϵ_r=20`$, $`a^3=410^{22}`$ cm-3, and the electron effective mass is equal to free electron mass, this implies $`W=4`$ eV. The value obtained for $`n_\text{T}=1.1010^{20}`$ cm-3. The value for $`n_\text{u}`$, at which the conducting phase-separated state becomes unstable at $`T=H=0`$, is $`1.7910^{20}`$ cm-3.

We see that at low carrier concentrations only a transition from the insulating phase-separated state to the homogeneous state is possible (see figure (3)). The physical explanation of the diagram (3) is the following. At fixed $`n`$, the effect of the increase of magnetic field and temperature is to decrease the value of $`x`$ with respect to its value at $`T=H=0`$. In the range of concentrations we are working, $`n_\text{d}<n<n_\text{T}`$, the state of the sample at $`T=H=0`$ is an insulating phase-separated state ($`x>1`$). Regarding to the behavior of $`x`$ at $`T=H=0`$ with $`n`$, $`x1`$ as $`nn_\text{T}`$. Following equations (4), the d-spins of the magnetic ions in the FM part of the phase-separated state experience a magnetic field which is the sum of the external field, $`H`$, and an additional field created by conduction electrons, $`H_\text{e}`$. If we set the external field equal to zero, $`H_\text{e}`$ is large enough to establish the FM order in the multiply-connected part, i.e. $`H_\text{e}>2JS_1`$. But as we increase external field, the value of $`x`$ decreases very quickly and it is reached a point in which $`H+\frac{An}{2}(1+x)=2JS_1`$. On further increase of $`H`$, the magnetic field cannot maintain the multiply-connected part in a FM (NSFM) state and a transition to an homogeneous AF (NCAF) state occurs. The transition line can be drawn in a simple approximate way. We start by looking for the value of $`x`$, $`x_0`$, which makes the energy minimal at $`T=0`$. For $`n=0.10n_\text{T}`$ we found $`x_0=2.525`$. Because this value increases only slightly as we move along the transition line, this can be approximated by the expression $`H+\frac{An}{2}(1+x_0)=2JS_1`$.

At $`T=0`$ for $`n0.18n_\text{T}`$, the carrier concentration is high enough to permit that increasing the external field we remain in the insulating phase-separated state until $`x=1`$. Therefore for concentrations $`n>0.18n_\text{T}`$, three different phases appear. At low temperatures and low magnetic fields, we have a transition between both of the phase-separated states. This line correspond to the simultaneous percolation of the magnetic order and the conduction electron system. It is almost a second order transition. The values of $`x`$ at both sides of the transition line are $`x=1.09`$ and $`x=0.92`$ at $`T=0`$ not varying with $`n`$, increasing as we move along the line towards higher temperatures, and being the growth smaller, the closer $`n`$ to $`n_\text{T}`$. To calculate the values of $`T,H,x_3,x_2`$ (being $`x_3,x_2`$ the values of $`x`$ at both sides of the transition line), we impose three conditions: the free energy of both phase-separated states must have a minimum and the free energy of both states must be equal. This allows us to calculate $`H,x_3,x_2`$ varying $`T`$ along the line. Over the same range of temperatures but at higher fields, we find a transition between conductive phase-separated and an homogeneous state. This is a first order transition, similar to the melting of a solid. Again the same effect than in diagram (3) appears once we are in the conductive phase-separated state, the value of $`n`$ must be high enough to maintain the simply-connected in a FM state. If not, a first-order transition to an homogeneous state with a value of $`x`$ approximately constant along the line occurs.

In figure (3), $`n`$ is high enough to permit that increasing the magnetic field we remain in the conducting phase-separated state until $`x=0`$, so this effect is absent. In this case the transition line is determined in the same way as in the usual melting transition Landau and Lifshits (1988). To calculate the value of $`T,H,x_2`$, we impose the conditions that the first two derivatives of the free energy of the conductive phase-separated state be equal to zero. At higher temperatures we find the transition line between the insulating phase-separated and homogeneous states, that now corresponds to a NSFM order. It is important to notice that what we denote as phase 1 in the diagrams, corresponds only to homogeneous magnetic states, without distinguishing whether they are of the NCAF or NSFM type. This is the reason why a kink in the transition line appear at $`T5`$ K. Really, it corresponds to a tri-critical point between insulating phase-separated, homogeneous NSFM states (at lower temperatures) and homogeneous NCAF (at higher temperatures). The transition line between these two is not drawn. The transition line from the kink to the $`T`$-axis correspond to the magnetic transition of the AF part of the insulating phase-separated state to a PM state. With $`nn_\text{T}`$, this tri-critical point tends to the point $`T=T_N,H=0`$. Due to the absence of electrons in the AF part of the phase-separated states the whole the sample has the same Néel temperature, as is confirmed by experiment. This part of the line is calculated in the same way that the transition line between conductive phase-separated state and homogeneous states.

The third diagram corresponds to $`n=0.95n_\text{T}`$. We find two transition lines. One between both of the phase-separated states, close to second order, as in the preceding discussion. We see that now the tricritical point between conductive phase-separated, insulating phase-separated and homogeneous states is absent. Therefore the percolation with temperature (this is, at $`H=0`$) is also possible. The other line corresponds to the transition between conductive phase-separated and homogeneous states (now, NSFM all along the line). The kink was moved to higher temperatures. We see that the region of absolute stability of the insulating phase-separated state has been reduced, tending to dissappear as $`n`$ goes to $`n_\text{T}`$.

### III.2 $`W<<AS`$

Phase diagrams for “double-exchange” semiconductors are essentially the same. We also present three of them, in figures (6), (6), and (6), corresponding to conduction electron concentrations equal to $`n=0.10,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.50},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0.95}n_\text{T}`$, respectively. The parameters that characterize “double-exchange” semiconductors are the following (typical for lanthanium manganites, for example) Nagaev (2001a): $`S=2`$, $`|J|S=210^2`$ eV (that implies $`T_N=116`$ K, and the field at which the two sublattices collapse at $`T=0`$ is $`3.46`$ MOe), $`ϵ_r=5`$, $`a^3=410^{22}`$ cm-3, the effective electron mass equal to the free electron mass, that implies $`W=4`$ eV and $`A=4`$ eV. With these parameters we obtain $`n_\text{T}=9.1610^{20}`$ cm-3 and $`n_\text{u}=1.4710^{21}`$ cm-3.

The behavior of the “double exchange” compounds is quantitatively different. The scenario discussed above for wide-band case remains valid, but a higher value of $`A`$ implies a very strong magnetic field $`H_\text{e}`$ acting on the FM part of the separate states and also a higher value of $`n_\text{T}`$. It must be stressed that the values that we obtain for $`n_\text{T}`$, are far from the true theoretical values. In particular, the values obtained depend on the physical parameters such as $`A`$, while we are dealing with a geometric transition that cannot depend on these details. This is because we lost the fractal nature of the surface that separes phases to simplify calculations. The quantum nature of the d-spin system forces the true percolation concentration to be $`n_{\text{per}}=0.16a^3`$, the percolation concentration for the Bethe lattice (see, for example, Efros (1994)), independently of the physical processes involved. So, in both cases treated here, it is necessary to “map” $`n_\text{T}n_{\text{per}}`$ in order to compare with the experimental values. Because $`H_\text{e}S>>T_N`$ we can neglect the terms with $`mS`$ in the partition function of the FM part. This makes the FM part temperature-independent, remaining in the same state as at $`T=0`$. We see in figures (6) and (6), that the tri-critical point corresponding to the kink at $`T100`$ K, is now between conductive phase-separated, homogeneous NSFM (at lower temperatures) and homogeneous NCAF (at higher temperatures), and appears before in temperature than the tri-critical point between conductive phase-separated, insulating phase-separated and homogeneous state (now, NCAF). As we see in figure (6), percolation is possible varying the magnetic field in the same way as above, but percolation in temperature (i.e. at $`H=0`$) is not, contrary to what was seen above. However, this result can be modified beyond a mean field approximation. It must also be stressed that the value of $`AS`$ sets the scale of the $`H`$-axis and its high value makes the transition to the homogeneous states occur to unphysical values of the external field.

A comparison with the experimental results is specially relevant for the case of “double-exchange” compounds. It must be stressed that although all along this article we talk about the charge carriers as being conduction electrons, the model is general enough to deal also with hole-doped compounds. An example of the latter could be the canonical CMR lanthanium manganite La1-xCaxMnO3 with $`x<0.16`$, which is extensively reviewed in the reference Nagaev (2001b). However the present calculation is more interesting for electron-doped compounds, such as Sm1-xCaxMnO3 with $`x>0.84`$, because the region of record negative magnetoresistance fall within the range of doping studied in this work. This compound is studied in the reference Algarabel et al. (2002), where the observed CMR effects are explained as consequence of the metal-insulator transition described here. They also present the phase diagram in the $`TH`$ plane for th compound Sm0.15Ca0.85MnO3, which agrees qualitatively and quantitatively with our figure (6).

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors are deeply indebted to Prof. E. L. Nagaev for his encouragement and help during its realization. Unfortunately, Prof. Nagaev died recently. This article is dedicated to his memory.


format: text

text:
# 1 Size scaling of the gap of the lowest eigenvalues of the isotropic spin-half Heisenberg chain (𝐽₂/𝐽₁=0) with 𝑆^𝑧=0, 𝑘=𝜋, even parity under spin reflections, and 𝑅=±1 under lattice reflections. Lines are guides for the eye.

Comment on “Phase Diagram of an Asymmetric Spin Ladder.”

In a recent letter S. Chen et al.  investigated the so-called asymmetric spin ladder, a spin-half Heisenberg chain with alternation in the next-nearest-neighbor (n.n.n.) interaction . Based on bosonization and renormalization group analysis, they claimed that in the limit of small frustration ($`J_2/J_1`$) the asymmetry in the n.n.n. integrals destabilizes the isotropic Heisenberg fixed point leading to a new phase with gapless excitations and vanishing spin-wave velocity.

In this comment, using Bethe ansatz and conformal field theory we show instead that the n.n.n. spin-Peierls operator

$$\widehat{O}_{\mathrm{n}.\mathrm{n}.\mathrm{n}.}=\underset{l}{}(1)^l\widehat{𝐒}_l\widehat{𝐒}_{l+2},$$
(1)
represents an irrelevant perturbation for the Heisenberg chain in the regime of weak frustration. Since the latter operator is the one associated with the alternation in the n.n.n. exchange, this clearly invalidates the mentioned claim and the conclusions of their paper.

For sake of generality, we refer to the anisotropic XXZ chain. In order to study the relevance of the operator (1) we have to identify the quantum numbers $`\{j\}`$ (referenced to the ground state with energy $`E_0`$) of the intermediate states appearing in the Lehmann representation of the associated susceptibility. These are total spin $`S^z=0`$, momentum $`k=\pi `$, even parity under spatial reflection ($`ll`$) $`R=1`$, and even parity under spin-reflection \[$`(S^x,S^y,S^z)(S^x,S^y,S^z)`$\]. The only difference with the nearest-neighbor spin-Peierls operator, a well-known relevant perturbation, is the spatial-reflection quantum number, $`R=1`$. As it is known by conformal field theory, the scaling dimension $`X`$ of a given operator (where $`X<1`$ characterizes a relevant operator) is related to the finite-size corrections of the energy of the lowest intermediate eigenstate $`j`$ by the relation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E(L)=E_j(L)E_0(L)=2\pi v_sX/L,$$
(2)
where $`v_s`$ is the spin-wave velocity and $`L`$ is the number of sites of the ring. The finite-size corrections can be computed either by Bethe ansatz (for $`J_2/J_1=0`$) or by bosonization in the Luttinger regime ($`J_2/J_10.241`$). For the nearest-neighbor spin-Peierls operator, due to the existence of a low-lying eigenstate with the correct quantum numbers, this procedure gives $`X=K`$, where $`1/2K1`$ (with $`K=1/2`$ at the isotropic point) is the dimensionless coupling constant of the model. In contrast, the finite-size spectrum of the Heisenberg model does not contain low-lying states simultaneously even under both spatial- and spin-reflection, yielding $`X=9K>1`$, showing the irrelevance of the operator (1). This is illustrated in Fig. 1 using Lanczos exact diagonalization technique. However we stress that our conclusions follow directly from the exact analytical solution of the spin-half Heisenberg chain.

The recent bosonization analysis of Sarkar and Sen  is consistent with our conclusion.

This work was partially supported by MURST (COFIN01). L.C. was supported by NSF grant DMR-9817242. A.P., L.C., and F.B. would like to acknowledge kind hospitality at SISSA.

Luca Capriotti,

Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics,

University of California,

Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4030

Federico Becca,

Institut de Physique Théorique,

Université de Lausanne,

CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland

Sandro Sorella,

Istituto Nazionale di Fisica della Materia (INFM), and

International School for Advanced Studies (SISSA),

Via Beirut 4, I-34014 Trieste, Italy

Alberto Parola,

Istituto Nazionale di Fisica della Materia (INFM), and

Università dell’Insubria, via Valleggio 11,

I-22100 Como, Italy

PACS numbers: 75.10.Jm, 71.10.Hf, 75.10.-b


text:
# The maximal order property for quantum determinantal rings

## Introduction

Throughout, $`𝕂`$ will denote a base field, $`q`$ a non-zero element of $`𝕂`$, and $`m,n`$ positive integers. We denote by $`𝒪_q(M_{m,n})`$ the quantization of the ring of regular functions on $`m\times n`$ matrices with entries in $`𝕂`$; it is the $`𝕂`$-algebra generated by $`mn`$ indeterminates $`X_{ij}`$, $`1im`$ and $`1jn`$, subject to the following relations:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill X_{ij}X_{il}& =& qX_{il}X_{ij},\hfill \\ \hfill X_{ij}X_{kj}& =& qX_{kj}X_{ij},\hfill \\ \hfill X_{il}X_{kj}& =& X_{kj}X_{il},\hfill \\ \hfill X_{ij}X_{kl}X_{kl}X_{ij}& =& (qq^1)X_{il}X_{kj},\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
for $`1i<km`$ and $`1j<ln`$.

It will be convenient to use the following notation: setting $`𝐗=(X_{ij})_{1im,1jn}`$ we will denote $`𝒪_q(M_{m,n})`$ by $`𝕂_q[𝐗]`$.

Let $`A`$ be any $`𝕂`$-algebra, we say that an $`m\times n`$ matrix $`(a_{ij})`$ with entries in $`A`$ is a $`q`$-quantum matrix if the map $`X_{ij}a_{ij}`$ induces a homomorphism of algebras $`𝕂_q[𝐗]A`$. If, in addition, this homomorphism is a monomorphism, then we say that the matrix $`(a_{ij})`$ is a generic $`q`$-quantum matrix; clearly, $`𝐗`$ is a generic $`q`$-quantum matrix, by definition.

In the case where $`m=n`$, the quantum determinant of $`𝐗`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{det}_q=\mathrm{det}_q𝐗:=\underset{\sigma S_n}{}(q)^{l(\sigma )}X_{1,\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}X_{n,\sigma (n)};$$

from \[8, Theorem 4.6.1\], we know that $`\mathrm{det}_q`$ is in the centre of $`𝒪_q(M_n):=𝒪_q(M_{n,n})`$. Clearly, if $`I_m:=\{1,\mathrm{},m\}`$ and $`J_n:=\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ with $`|I|=|J|=t`$, that is, $`I`$ and $`J`$ both have $`t`$ elements, then the submatrix obtained from $`𝐗`$ by keeping the rows indexed by elements of $`I`$ and the columns indexed by elements of $`J`$ is a generic $`q`$-quantum matrix; and so, we can speak of its quantum determinant. Such an element is called a $`t\times t`$ quantum minor of $`𝐗`$ and is denoted by $`[I|J]`$. In order to simplify the notation, if $`I`$ and $`J`$ are given by the explicit list of their elements: $`I=\{i_1<\mathrm{}<i_t\}`$ and $`J=\{j_1<\mathrm{}<j_t\}`$ we will use the notation $`[i_t,\mathrm{},i_1|j_1,\mathrm{},j_t]`$. It follows at once from the above that,

$$\text{ for }I_m,J_n,\text{ with }|I|=|J|=t,iI\text{ and }jJ,[I|J]X_{ij}=X_{ij}[I|J].$$
(2)
We need to use several identities involving quantum minors. Many of these are obtained from . However, it is worth noting that the conventions used in  are slightly different from ours. In order to make the notation fit we must replace $`q`$ by $`q^1`$ each time we use a relation from . For convenience, some of the identities we use are collected in an Appendix.

For any positive integer $`t`$ such that $`t\mathrm{min}\{m,n\}`$, we denote by $`_t(𝐗)`$ the two-sided ideal of $`𝕂_q[𝐗]`$ generated by the $`t\times t`$ quantum minors of $`𝐗`$; such ideals will be referred to as quantum determinantal ideals. For each such $`t`$, we define the quantum determinantal ring $`R_t(𝐗):=𝕂_q[𝐗]/_t(𝐗)`$. It has been proved in  that $`R_t(𝐗)`$ is a domain. Here, we are interested in the question as to whether or not $`R_t(𝐗)`$ is a maximal order in its division ring of fractions. This has already been established for $`R_2(𝐗)`$ in . We will show that the localised ring $`R_t(𝐗)[x_{1n}^1]`$, where $`x_{1n}:=X_{1n}+_t(𝐗)`$, is a maximal order for each $`t`$, and are then able to deduce that $`R_t(𝐗)`$ is a maximal order, in the case that $`𝕂=`$ and $`q`$ is an element of $``$ transcendental over $``$. The question for general $`𝕂`$ and any $`q`$ remains open: we conjecture that all quantum determinantal rings are maximal orders. The problem is a technical one: it is necessary to show that a certain ideal is a prime ideal. The restriction to $`q`$ an element of $``$ transcendental over $``$ is because the relevant ideal is shown to be prime in  for this case. We can answer the question for general $`0q𝕂`$ for the case of $`R_n(𝐗)(=𝒪_q(M_n)/\mathrm{det}_q)`$, when $`𝐗`$ is $`n\times n`$, and also for the case $`R_3(𝐗)`$ for general $`m\times n`$. A proof of the former case is included in this paper since it is relatively short, and of independent interest. The proof of the latter is not given here, since it is somewhat ad-hoc and rather long.

## 1 A new set of generators for $`𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$

It follows at once from (1) that $`X_{1n}`$ is a normal element of $`𝕂_q[𝐗]`$. So, $`\{X_{1n}^i,i\}`$ is a right denominator set of $`𝕂_q[𝐗]`$; the corresponding localisation of $`𝕂_q[𝐗]`$ will be denoted $`𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$.

For the remainder of this section we assume that $`\mathrm{min}\{m,n\}2`$. In $`𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$, we consider the following elements, for $`2im`$ and $`1jn1`$:

$$X_{ij}^{^{}}=X_{ij}q^1X_{1j}X_{in}X_{1n}^1=q^1[i,1|j,n]X_{1n}^1.$$
(3)
Set

$$\stackrel{~}{𝐗}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}X_{11}& \mathrm{}& X_{1,n1}& X_{1n}\\ X_{21}^{}& \mathrm{}& X_{2,n1}^{}& X_{2n}\\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ X_{m1}^{}& \mathrm{}& X_{m,n1}^{}& X_{mn}\end{array}\right)\text{ and }𝐗^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}X_{21}^{}& \mathrm{}& X_{2,n1}^{}\\ \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ X_{m1}^{}& \mathrm{}& X_{m,n1}^{}\end{array}\right)$$

with the convention that the index of a row in $`𝐗^{}`$ is actually the index of the corresponding row in $`\stackrel{~}{𝐗}`$. So, for instance $`X_{21}^{}\mathrm{}X_{2,n1}^{}`$ is referred to as the row of index $`2`$ in $`𝐗^{}`$.

It is clear that the entries of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐗}`$ together with $`X_{1n}^1`$ form a new set of algebra generators for $`𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$. Our next aim is to give a description of $`𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$ based on this set of generators.

In order to do this, we need to know the relations between the entries of the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{𝐗}`$. This problem is dealt with in Lemma 1.1 and Proposition 1.2 where we obtain a set of relations. We will show later that the relations obtained in these results give the complete set of relations between entries of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐗}`$.

###### Lemma 1.1

The matrix $`𝐗^{}`$ is a $`q`$-quantum matrix, and all its entries commute with $`X_{1n}`$.

Proof: Let $`2i,km`$ and $`1j,ln1`$. From (2) we see that $`X_{1n}`$ commutes with the $`2\times 2`$ quantum minor $`[i,1|j,n]`$. So $`X_{ij}^{}X_{1n}=X_{1n}X_{ij}^{}`$ follows from the second equality of (3). Moreover, from (3) again, we have $`X_{ij}^{}=q^1[i,1|j,n]X_{1n}^1`$ and $`X_{kl}^{}=q^1[k,1|l,n]X_{1n}^1`$. The desired relations between $`X_{ij}^{}`$ and $`X_{kl}^{}`$ are deduced in an obvious manner from \[8, Theorem 5.2.1\] applied to the submatrix of $`𝐗`$ defined by rows $`1,i,k`$ and columns $`j,l,n`$.

The following proposition is a list of relations between entries of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐗}`$. Relations between two elements of the first row or of the last column of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐗}`$ are deduced from the fact that $`𝐗`$ is a $`q`$-quantum matrix.

###### Proposition 1.2

The following relations hold between entries of the matrix $`\stackrel{~}{𝐗}`$.
1) If $`1jn1`$ and $`2im`$ then:

$$X_{1j}X_{in}q^2X_{in}X_{1j}=q(q^21)X_{ij}^{}X_{1n}.$$

2.1) For $`1jn1`$ and $`2km`$,

$`X_{1j}X_{kl}^{}X_{kl}^{}X_{1j}`$ $`=`$ $`(q^1q)X_{1l}X_{kj}^{},\text{for}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}lj1,`$
$`X_{1j}X_{kj}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`q^1X_{kj}^{}X_{1j},`$
$`X_{1j}X_{kl}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`X_{kl}^{}X_{1j},\text{for}j+1ln1.`$
2.2) For $`2im`$ and $`1ln1`$,

$`X_{in}X_{kl}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`X_{kl}^{}X_{in},\text{ for }\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}ki1,`$
$`X_{in}X_{il}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`qX_{il}^{}X_{in},`$
$`X_{in}X_{kl}^{}X_{kl}^{}X_{in}`$ $`=`$ $`(qq^1)X_{kn}X_{il}^{},\text{ for }i+1km.`$
3) If $`1k<ln`$ and $`1i<jm`$ then

$$X_{1k}X_{1l}=qX_{1l}X_{1k}\text{and}X_{in}X_{jn}=qX_{jn}X_{in}.$$

Proof: Part 3) is obvious. The other relations are all obtained in the following way. First, use the definition (3) to translate the desired relation into a new one that uses only the entries of $`𝐗`$, by multiplying by $`X_{1n}`$. The relation so obtained involves entries coming from a certain submatrix of $`𝐗`$ of size at most $`3\times 3`$. Use Relation 5.1 and Relations 5.2 to check that the relation holds. Since these are easy but tedious computations we omit the details.

The next thing we want to do is to show that $`𝐗^{}`$ is a generic $`q`$-quantum matrix. We use a computation with Gelfand-Kirillov dimension to do this. The following lemma is probably well-known, but we have not located the exact statement that we need; and so we include a proof.

###### Lemma 1.3

Let $`B`$ be a $`𝕂`$-algebra. Suppose $`A`$ is a subalgebra of $`B`$ and $`x`$ an element of $`B`$ such that $`B`$ is generated by $`A`$ and $`x`$ as an algebra. Further, suppose there exists a finite dimensional subspace $`V`$ of $`A`$ that generates $`A`$ as an algebra and such that $`xVVx+A`$. Then $`\mathrm{GKdim}(B)\mathrm{GKdim}(A)+1`$.

Proof: Without loss of generality, we may assume that $`1V`$. We denote by $`W`$ the subspace of $`B`$ spanned by $`x`$ and $`V`$. Thus, $`W`$ is a finite dimensional subspace of $`B`$ that generates $`B`$ as an algebra. Since $`xVVx+A`$ and $`V`$ is finite dimensional, there exists $`m^{}`$ such that $`xVVx+V^m`$. Then, an easy induction shows that, for $`n`$, $`xV^nV^nx+V^{m+n}`$.
We claim that,

$$W^nV^{nm}+V^{nm}x+\mathrm{}+V^{nm}x^n,$$
(4)
for all $`n`$. The inclusion (4) is trivial for $`n=0`$ (recall the standard convention that $`V^0=W^0=𝕂`$). Now, assume (4) holds for $`p`$, that is $`W^pV^{pm}+V^{pm}x+\mathrm{}+V^{pm}x^p`$. It follows that

$`xW^p`$ $``$ $`xV^{pm}+xV^{pm}x+\mathrm{}+xV^{pm}x^p`$
$``$ $`V^{pm}x+V^{pm+m}+V^{pm}x^2+V^{pm+m}x+\mathrm{}+V^{pm}x^{p+1}+V^{pm+m}x^p.`$
So $`xW^pV^{m(p+1)}+\mathrm{}+V^{m(p+1)}x^{p+1}`$. On the other hand, $`VW^pV^{mp+1}+\mathrm{}+V^{mp+1}x^p`$. We finally obtain $`W^{p+1}=(V+𝕂x)W^pV^{m(p+1)}+\mathrm{}+V^{m(p+1)}x^{p+1}`$. This establishes (4) by induction on $`n`$.

From (4), it follows that $`dimW^n(n+1)dimV^{mn}`$, for all $`n`$, and thus

$$\overline{lim}\mathrm{log}_ndimW^n\overline{lim}\mathrm{log}_ndimV^{mn}+1.$$

This establishes that $`\mathrm{GKdim}B\mathrm{GKdim}A+1`$.

###### Proposition 1.4

The matrix $`𝐗^{}`$ is a generic $`q`$-quantum matrix.

Proof: In this proof, we denote by $`A`$ the subalgebra of $`𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$ generated by the entries of $`𝐗^{}`$. By Lemma 1.1, there is a surjective morphism $`\varphi :𝒪_q(M_{m1,n1})A`$. We want to prove that $`\mathrm{ker}\varphi =(0)`$. Assume that this is not the case. Then, since $`𝒪_q(M_{m1,n1})`$ is a domain, $`\mathrm{ker}\varphi `$ must contain a regular element of $`𝒪_q(M_{m1,n1})`$ and thus we have $`\mathrm{GKdim}A<\mathrm{GKdim}𝒪_q(M_{m1,n1})=(m1)(n1)`$.

By Lemma 1.1, we see that the subalgebra $`B`$ of $`𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$ generated by $`A`$ and $`X_{1n}`$ is an extension of $`A`$ of the type investigated in Lemma 1.3. Thus, we must have $`\mathrm{GKdim}B<(m1)(n1)+1`$. Moreover, since $`X_{1n}`$ is central in $`B`$, \[4, Proposition 4.2\] shows that $`\mathrm{GKdim}B_{X_{1n}}<(m1)(n1)+1`$. Now, it is clear that $`𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$ can be obtained by successive algebra extensions starting from $`B_{X_{1n}}`$ and adding (in this order) $`X_{11},\mathrm{},X_{1,n1}`$ and then $`X_{mn},\mathrm{},X_{2n}`$ (this is because $`𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$ is generated by the entries of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐗}`$ and $`X_{1n}^1`$). Moreover, Proposition 1.2 shows that at each step, the extension is of the type investigated in Lemma 1.3. Thus, $`(m1)+(n1)`$ applications of this Lemma show that we must have $`\mathrm{GKdim}𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}<(m1)(n1)+1+(m1)+(n1)=mn`$.

However, we know that $`\mathrm{GKdim}𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}\mathrm{GKdim}𝕂_q[𝐗]=mn`$. This is a contradiction and thus we have proved that $`\mathrm{ker}\varphi =(0)`$.

Proposition 1.4 states that the subalgebra of $`𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$ generated by $`𝐗^{}`$ is isomorphic to $`𝒪_q(M_{m1,n1})`$; for this reason, we denote it by $`𝕂_q[𝐗^{}]`$.

The following remark will be useful in what follows.

###### Remark 1.5

We denote by $`\mathrm{F}X_1,\mathrm{},X_p`$ the free $`𝕂`$-algebra on $`p`$ generators $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_p`$. Let $`I`$ be the ideal generated by elements $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_s\mathrm{F}X_1,\mathrm{},X_p`$, and set $`A:=\mathrm{F}X_1,\mathrm{},X_p/I`$. Finally, let $`\sigma `$ be an automorphism of $`\mathrm{F}X_1,\mathrm{},X_p`$ and $`\delta `$ be a left $`\sigma `$-derivation of $`\mathrm{F}X_1,\mathrm{},X_p`$ such that $`\sigma (I)=I`$ and $`\delta (I)I`$. We denote by $`\overline{\sigma }`$ the automorphism of $`A`$ induced by $`\sigma `$ and by $`\overline{\delta }`$ the left $`\overline{\sigma }`$-derivation of $`A`$ induced by $`\delta `$. Then, $`A[x;\overline{\sigma },\overline{\delta }]`$ is isomorphic to the algebra $`FX_1,\mathrm{},X_n,X/J`$ where $`J`$ is the ideal of $`FX_1,\mathrm{},X_n,X`$ generated by $`f_1,\mathrm{},f_s`$ and the $`p`$ elements $`XX_i\sigma (X_i)X\delta (X_i)`$ (here we identify $`\mathrm{F}X_1,\mathrm{},X_p`$ and the subalgebra of $`\mathrm{F}X_1,\mathrm{},X_p,X`$ generated by $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_p`$).

We now proceed to show that $`𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$ can be described as an iterated Ore extension of its subalgebra $`𝕂_q[𝐗^{}]`$ (recall the notation we fixed immediately after Proposition 1.4. For this, we first construct an algebra $``$ which is an iterated Ore extension of $`𝒪_q(M_{m1,n1})`$. We then show that $``$ is isomorphic to $`𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$.

Let us start with the algebra $`𝒪_q(M_{m1,n1})`$. For convenience of notation, we denote its canonical generators by $`Y_{ij}^{}`$ for $`2im`$ and $`1jn1`$. Thus, $`𝐘^{}=(Y_{ij}^{})_{2im,1jn1}`$ is a generic $`q`$-quantum matrix and, following our previous notation, we have $`𝒪_q(M_{m1,n1})=𝕂_q[𝐘^{}]`$. Now, we consider the Laurent polynomial extension $`𝒜=𝕂_q[𝐘^{}][Y_{1n}^{\pm 1}]`$ obtained from $`𝕂_q[𝐘^{}]`$ adding a central indeterminate denoted $`Y_{1n}`$ as well as its inverse.

By Remark 1.5, we know how to describe $`𝒜`$ as a quotient of a free algebra. Then, it is easy to see that we can define a (unique) left skew derivation $`(\sigma _{11},\delta _{11})`$ of $`𝒜`$ such that $`\delta _{11}=0`$ and such that, $`\sigma _{11}(Y_{1n})=qY_{1n}`$ and, for $`2km`$ and $`2ln1`$, $`\sigma _{11}(Y_{k1}^{})=q^1Y_{k1}^{}`$ and $`\sigma _{11}(Y_{kl}^{})=Y_{kl}^{}`$. We put $`𝒜_{11}=𝒜[Y_{11};\sigma _{11},\delta _{11}]`$.

Now, for $`2pn1`$, we construct an algebra $`𝒜_{1p}`$ by induction on $`p`$. For $`1pn2`$, by Remark 1.5, we know how to describe $`𝒜_{1p}`$ as a quotient of a free algebra. It is then easy to check that we can define a (unique) left skew derivation $`(\sigma _{1,p+1},\delta _{1,p+1})`$ of $`𝒜_{1p}`$ such that, for $`2km`$ :

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\sigma _{1,p+1}(Y_{kl}^{})=Y_{kl}^{}\hfill & \text{ and }\hfill & \delta _{1,p+1}(Y_{kl}^{})=(q^1q)Y_{1l}Y_{k,p+1}^{}\hfill & \text{ for }\hfill & 1lp,\hfill \\ \sigma _{1,p+1}(Y_{k,p+1}^{})=q^1Y_{k,p+1}^{}\hfill & \text{ and }\hfill & \delta _{1,p+1}(Y_{k,p+1}^{})=0\hfill & & \\ \sigma _{1,p+1}(Y_{kl}^{})=Y_{kl}^{}\hfill & \text{ and }\hfill & \delta _{1,p+1}(Y_{kl}^{})=0\hfill & \text{ for }\hfill & p+2ln1\hfill \\ \sigma _{1,p+1}(Y_{1n})=qY_{1n}\hfill & \text{ and }\hfill & \delta _{1,p+1}(Y_{1n})=0\hfill & & \\ \sigma _{1,p+1}(Y_{1l})=q^1Y_{1l}\hfill & \text{ and }\hfill & \delta _{1,p+1}(Y_{1l})=0\hfill & \text{ for }\hfill & 1lp.\hfill \end{array}$$

Then, for $`1pn2`$, we put $`𝒜_{1,p+1}=𝒜_{1,p}[Y_{1,p+1};\sigma _{1,p+1},\delta _{1,p+1}]`$.

Thus, we now have a first sequence of Ore extensions: $`𝒜`$, $`𝒜_{11}`$,…, $`𝒜_{1,n1}`$. To finish the construction of $``$, we need a second such sequence which we now define.

By Remark 1.5, we know how to descibe $`𝒜_{1,n1}`$ as a quotient of a free algebra. Then, it is easy to see that we can define a (unique) left skew derivation $`(\sigma _{mn},\delta _{mn})`$ of $`𝒜_{1,n1}`$ such that, for $`1ln1`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\sigma _{mn}(Y_{kl}^{})=Y_{kl}^{}\hfill & \text{ and }\hfill & \delta _{mn}(Y_{kl}^{})=0\hfill & \text{ for }\hfill & 2km1,\hfill \\ \sigma _{mn}(Y_{ml}^{})=qY_{ml}^{}\hfill & \text{ and }\hfill & \delta _{mn}(Y_{ml}^{})=0\hfill & & \\ \sigma _{mn}(Y_{1n})=q^1Y_{1n}\hfill & \text{ and }\hfill & \delta _{mn}(Y_{1n})=0\hfill & & \\ \sigma _{mn}(Y_{1l})=q^2Y_{1l}\hfill & \text{ and }\hfill & \delta _{mn}(Y_{1l})=(q^1q)Y_{ml}^{}Y_{1n}.\hfill & & \end{array}$$

We put $`𝒜_{mn}=𝒜_{1,n1}[Y_{mn};\sigma _{mn},\delta _{mn}]`$.

Now, for $`2sm1`$, we construct an algebra $`𝒜_{sn}`$, by decreasing induction on $`s`$.

For $`3sm`$, by Remark 1.5, we know how to describe $`𝒜_{sn}`$ as a quotient of a free algebra. It is then easy to check that we can define a (unique) left skew derivation $`(\sigma _{s1,n},\delta _{s1,n})`$ of $`𝒜_{sn}`$ such that, for $`1ln1`$ :

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\sigma _{s1,n}(Y_{kl}^{})=Y_{kl}^{}\hfill & \text{ and }\hfill & \delta _{s1,n}(Y_{kl}^{})=0\hfill & \text{ for }\hfill & 2ks2\hfill \\ \sigma _{s1,n}(Y_{s1,l}^{})=qY_{s1,l}^{}\hfill & \text{ and }\hfill & \delta _{s1,n}(Y_{s1,l}^{})=0\hfill & & \\ \sigma _{s1,n}(Y_{kl}^{})=Y_{kl}^{}\hfill & \text{ and }\hfill & \delta _{s1,n}(Y_{kl}^{})=(qq^1)Y_{kn}Y_{s1,l}^{}\hfill & \text{ for }\hfill & skm\hfill \\ \sigma _{s1,n}(Y_{1n})=q^1Y_{1n},\hfill & \text{ and }\hfill & \delta _{s1,n}(Y_{1n})=0\hfill & & \\ \sigma _{s1,n}(Y_{1l})=q^2Y_{1l},\hfill & \text{ and }\hfill & \delta _{s1,n}(Y_{1l})=(q^1q)Y_{s1,l}^{}Y_{1n}\hfill & & \\ \sigma _{s1,n}(Y_{kn})=qY_{kn},\hfill & \text{ and }\hfill & \delta _{s1,n}(Y_{kn})=0\hfill & \text{ for }\hfill & skm.\hfill \end{array}$$

Finally, we get a sequence of Ore extensions: $`𝒜`$, $`𝒜_{11}`$,…, $`𝒜_{1,n1}`$,$`𝒜_{mn}`$,…,$`𝒜_{2n}`$, and we put $`=𝒜_{2n}`$. Iterative applications of Remark 1.5 show that $``$ can be easily described as the quotient of a free algebra in $`mn`$ generators. Clearly, we have constructed $``$ in such a way that the relations between the $`mn`$ generators of this algebra are exactly the same as those holding between the generators of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐗}`$ as noted in Proposition 1.1.2. It follows at once that we can define a morphism of algebras

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}\phi & :& \hfill & & 𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}\hfill & & & & \\ & & \hfill Y_{kl}^{}& & X_{kl}^{}\hfill & \text{ for }\hfill & 2km\hfill & \text{ and }\hfill & 1ln1\hfill \\ & & \hfill Y_{1n}& & X_{1n}\hfill & & & & \\ & & \hfill Y_{1l}& & X_{1l}\hfill & \text{ for }\hfill & 1ln1\hfill & & \\ & & \hfill Y_{kn}& & X_{kn}\hfill & \text{ for }\hfill & 2km\hfill & & \end{array}$$

###### Proposition 1.6

The morphism $`\phi `$ is an isomorphism.

Proof: The surjectivity of $`\phi `$ is obvious since the entries of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐗}`$ together with $`X_{1n}^1`$ form a set of algebra generators for $`𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$. It remains to prove that $`\mathrm{ker}\phi =(0)`$. Recall that $``$ is obtained from $`𝒜=𝒪_q(M_{m1,n1})[X_{1n}^1]`$ by $`(m1)+(n1)`$ succesive Ore extensions that are all extensions of algebras of the type investigated in Lemma 1.3. Thus, we have $`\mathrm{GKdim}\mathrm{GKdim}𝒜+(m1)+(n1)`$. On the other hand, $`𝒜`$ is a Laurent polynomial extension of $`𝒪_q(M_{m1,n1})`$ thus $`\mathrm{GKdim}𝒜=\mathrm{GKdim}𝒪_q(M_{m1,n1})+1=(m1)(n1)+1`$, by \[4, Proposition 3.5 and Proposition 4.2\]. All this together gives

$$\mathrm{GKdim}(m1)(n1)+1+(m1)+(n1)=mn.$$

On the other hand, we have $`\mathrm{GKdim}𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}\mathrm{GKdim}𝕂_q[𝐗]=mn`$, since $`𝕂_q[𝐗]`$ is a subalgebra of $`𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$.

Now, $``$ is clearly a domain; and so if we assume that $`\mathrm{ker}\phi 0`$ then $`\mathrm{GKdim}/\mathrm{ker}\phi <\mathrm{GKdim}=mn`$. But this is a contradiction since $`/\mathrm{ker}\phi 𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$. Thus, $`\phi `$ is injective.

## 2 Reduction of the size of quantum minors

Using the previous section we are now able to link $`k\times k`$ quantum minors of $`𝐗`$, for $`k2`$, with $`(k1)\times (k1)`$ quantum minors of $`𝐗^{}`$ (provided $`X_{1n}`$ is invertible, of course).

Recall from the introduction that the expression $`[i_k,\mathrm{},i_1|j_1,\mathrm{},j_k]`$ stands for a $`k\times k`$ quantum minor of $`𝐗`$, namely the quantum determinant of the submatrix of $`𝐗`$ obtained from $`𝐗`$ using rows $`i_1,\mathrm{},i_k`$ and columns $`j_1,\mathrm{},j_k`$. This notation is extended to $`𝐗^{}`$ adding a “$`^{}`$” to avoid confusion. Thus, a quantum $`k\times k`$ minor of $`𝐗^{}`$ will be expressed by a symbol $`[i_k,\mathrm{},i_1|j_1,\mathrm{},j_k]^{}`$. The convention on the index of rows of $`𝐗^{}`$ (see introduction of Section 1) is in order; so, in such an expression, we shall always have $`i_12`$ and $`j_kn1`$.

The results we need will follow from the special case where $`m=n`$. In this context, the role played by $`(n1)\times (n1)`$ minors is of special importance; thus we use a more convenient notation for them (coming from ). For $`1i,jn`$, the $`(n1)\times (n1)`$ quantum minor of $`𝐗`$ obtained by deleting the i-th row and j-th column is denoted $`A(ij)`$. Moreover, for $`2in`$ and $`1jn1`$ we also define $`A^{}(ij)`$ to be the $`(n2)\times (n2)`$ quantum minor of $`𝐗^{}`$ obtained from $`𝐗^{}`$ by deleting the i-th row and j-th column.

###### Theorem 2.1

Assume that $`m=n`$. Then, with the above notation:

$$(\mathrm{det}_q𝐗^{})X_{1n}=X_{1n}(\mathrm{det}_q𝐗^{})=(q)^{1n}\mathrm{det}_q𝐗.$$

Proof: Note that $`(\mathrm{det}_q𝐗^{})X_{1n}=X_{1n}(\mathrm{det}_q𝐗^{})`$ is clear from 1.1. The proof is by induction on $`n`$. The case where $`n=2`$ is an obvious consequence of (3). We suppose now that the result is true for any integer less than or equal to $`n1`$. Because of Lemma 1.1 the relations of \[8, Corollary 4.4.4\] give us the expansion:

$$\mathrm{det}_q𝐗^{}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(q)^{j1}X_{2j}^{}A^{}(2j).$$
(5)
Now, $`X_{1n}X_{2j}^{}=X_{2j}^{}X_{1n}=X_{2j}X_{1n}q^1X_{1j}X_{2n}`$ for all $`j\{1,\mathrm{},n1\}`$; and so

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill X_{1n}\mathrm{det}_q𝐗^{}& =& \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(q)^{j1}X_{1n}X_{2j}^{}A^{}(2j)\hfill \\ & =& \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(q)^{j1}(X_{2j}X_{1n}q^1X_{1j}X_{2n})A^{}(2j)\hfill \\ & =& \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(q)^{j1}X_{2j}X_{1n}A^{}(2j)q^1\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(q)^{j1}X_{1j}X_{2n}A^{}(2j).\hfill \end{array}$$

By the induction hypotheses we have $`X_{1n}A^{}(2j)=(q)^{2n}A(2j)`$ for all $`j\{1,\mathrm{},n1\}`$. Hence,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill X_{1n}\mathrm{det}_q𝐗^{}& =& \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(q)^{j1}X_{2j}(q)^{2n}A(2j)q^1\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(q)^{j1}X_{1j}X_{2n}X_{1n}^1(q)^{2n}A(2j)\hfill \\ & =& \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(q)^{j+1n}X_{2j}A(2j)q^1\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(q)^{j+1n}X_{1j}X_{2n}X_{1n}^1A(2j)\hfill \end{array}$$

Setting $`R=q^1\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(q)^{j+1n}X_{1j}X_{2n}X_{1n}^1A(2j)`$, we obtain:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill X_{1n}R& =& \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(q)^{jn}X_{1j}X_{2n}A(2j)\hfill \\ & =& \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(q)^{jn}(X_{2n}X_{1j}+(qq^1)X_{1n}X_{2j})A(2j)\hfill \\ & =& \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(q)^{jn}X_{2n}X_{1j}A(2j)+(qq^1)\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(q)^{jn}X_{1n}X_{2j}A(2j).\hfill \end{array}$$

On the other hand, from \[8, Corollary 4.4.4\], we have the relation $`\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(q)^{j2}X_{1j}A(2j)=0`$. Thus,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill X_{1n}R& =& (q)^{2n}X_{2n}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(q)^{j2}X_{1j}A(2j)+(qq^1)(q)^{2n}X_{1n}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(q)^{j2}X_{2j}A(2j).\hfill \\ & =& (q)^{2n}X_{2n}(0(q)^{n2}X_{1n}A(2n))+(qq^1)(q)^{2n}X_{1n}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(q)^{j2}X_{2j}A(2j).\hfill \end{array}$$

It follows that:

$$R=(q)^1X_{2n}A(2n)+(qq^1)(q)^{2n}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(q)^{j2}X_{2j}A(2j).$$

Thus,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill X_{1n}\mathrm{det}_q𝐗^{}& =& \underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(q)^{j+1n}X_{2j}A(2j)+(q)^1X_{2n}A(2n)\hfill \\ & & +(qq^1)(q)^{2n}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(q)^{j2}X_{2j}A(2j)\hfill \\ & =& (q)^{2n}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}((q)^{j1}+(qq^1)(q)^{j2})X_{2j}A(2j)+(q)^1X_{2n}A(2n)\hfill \\ & =& (q)^{2n}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}((q)^{j1}(q)^{j1}q^1(q)^{j2})X_{2j}A(2j)+(q)^1X_{2n}A(2n)\hfill \\ & =& (q)^{1n}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}(q)^{j2}X_{2j}A(2j)+(q)^{1n}(q)^{n2}X_{2n}A(2n)\hfill \\ & =& (q)^{1n}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(q)^{j2}X_{2j}A(2j).\hfill \end{array}$$

Again, by using \[8, Corollary 4.4.4\], it follows that $`X_{1n}\mathrm{det}_q𝐗^{}=(q)^{1n}\mathrm{det}_q𝐗`$.

By using Theorem 2.1, we can establish Corollary 2.2 which links $`(p1)\times (p1)`$ minors of $`𝐗^{}`$ with $`p\times p`$ minors of $`𝐗`$, for $`p2`$, that involve the first row and the last column of $`𝐗`$.

###### Corollary 2.2

Let $`p2`$. Suppose that $`I=\{1=i_1<\mathrm{}<i_p\}_m`$ and $`J=\{j_1<\mathrm{}<j_p=n\}_n`$ and set $`I^{}=\{i_2<\mathrm{}<i_p\}`$ and $`J^{}=\{j_1<\mathrm{}<j_{p1}\}`$. Then

$$[I^{}|J^{}]^{}=(q)^{1p}[I|J]X_{1n}^1=(q)^{1p}X_{1n}^1[I|J].$$

Proof: This is an immediate consequence of Theorem 2.1 applied to the square submatrix obtained from $`𝐗`$ by using rows $`i_1,\mathrm{},i_p`$ and columns $`j_1,\mathrm{},j_p`$ of $`𝐗`$.

Recall from the introduction that, for $`1t\mathrm{min}\{m,n\}`$, we denote by $`_t(𝐗)`$ the ideal generated in $`𝕂_q[𝐗]`$ by the $`t\times t`$ minors of $`𝐗`$. Clearly, the ideal generated by the $`t\times t`$ minors of $`𝐗`$ in $`𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$ is just $`\stackrel{~}{}_t(𝐗):=_t(𝐗)𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$.

###### Lemma 2.3

Let $`1t\mathrm{min}\{m,n\}`$.
(i) $`_t(𝐗)`$ coincides with the right ideal of $`𝕂_q[𝐗]`$ generated by the $`t\times t`$ minors of $`𝐗`$.
(ii) $`\stackrel{~}{}_t(𝐗)`$ coincides with the right ideal of $`𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$ generated by the $`t\times t`$ minors $`[I|J]`$ of $`𝐗`$ such that $`1I`$ and $`nJ`$.

Proof: (i) The case where $`m=n`$ follows at once from \[1, Corollary A.2\]. Now, set $`s:=\mathrm{max}\{m,n\}`$. There is a surjective algebra morphism

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\pi & :& \hfill 𝒪_q(M_s)& & 𝒪_q(M_{m,n})\hfill \\ & & \hfill X_{ij}& & \{\begin{array}{cc}X_{ij}\hfill & \text{ if }im\text{ and }jn\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise }\hfill \end{array}\hfill \end{array}$$

and, for $`I,J_s`$ such that $`|I|=|J|=t`$, a $`t\times t`$ minor $`[I|J]`$ of $`𝒪_q(M_s)`$ is sent to $`[I|J]`$ if $`I_m`$ and $`J_n`$ and is sent to $`0`$ otherwise. It follows that the ideal of $`𝒪_q(M_{m,n})`$ generated by the $`t\times t`$ minors is the image under $`\pi `$ of the ideal of $`𝒪_q(M_s)`$ generated by the $`t\times t`$ minors. From this, we see that point (i) for arbitrary positive integers $`m`$ and $`n`$ follows from the special case $`m=n`$.

(ii) By part (i), $`\stackrel{~}{}_t(𝐗)`$ coincides with the right ideal of $`𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$ generated by the $`t\times t`$ minors. For the purpose of this proof, denote by $`𝒮`$ the set of $`t\times t`$ minors $`[I|J]`$ of $`𝐗`$ such that $`1I`$ and $`nJ`$.

Let $`[I|J]`$ be a $`t\times t`$ minor of $`𝐗`$ such that $`1I`$ but $`nJ`$. We may apply \[8, Corollary 4.4.4\] to the subalgebra of $`𝕂_q[𝐗]`$ generated by those $`X_{ij}`$ such that $`iI`$ and $`jJ\{n\}`$. This leads to the equation:

$$\underset{jJ\{n\}}{}(q)^{}[I|J_j]X_{1j}=0,$$

where, for $`jJ\{n\}`$, we put $`J_j=J\{n\}\{j\}`$, and occurences of $`(q)^{}`$ denote integer powers of $`q`$ which it is not necessary to specify exactly. Since $`J_n=J`$, it follows that the equation

$$[I|J]=\underset{jJ}{}(q)^{}[I|J_j]X_{1j}X_{1n}^1$$

holds in $`𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$. Now, $`nJ_j`$ for each $`jJ`$; and so we have shown that $`[I|J]`$ is in the right ideal generated by $`𝒮`$ in $`𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$. By a similar argument, we prove that a $`t\times t`$ minor $`[I|J]`$ such that $`1I`$ but $`nJ`$ is in the right ideal generated by $`𝒮`$ in $`𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$.

It remains to deal with a $`t\times t`$ minor $`[I|J]`$ such that $`1I`$ and $`nJ`$. In this case, we apply \[8, Corollary 4.4.4\] in the subalgebra of $`𝕂_q[𝐗]`$ generated by those $`X_{ij}`$ such that $`iI\{1\}`$ and $`jJ\{n\}`$. This gives us the relation

$$[I\{1\}|J\{n\}]=\underset{jJ\{n\}}{}(q)^{}[I|J_j]X_{1j}=\underset{jJ}{}(q)^{}[I|J_j]X_{1j}+(q)^{}[I|J]X_{1n}$$
(6)
where, for $`jJ\{n\}`$, we put $`J_j=J\{n\}\{j\}`$. Another application of \[8, Corollary 4.4.4\] gives

$$[I\{1\}|J\{n\}]=\underset{jJ\{n\}}{}(q)^{}[I\{1\}\{s\}|J_j]X_{sj},$$
(7)
where, $`s=\mathrm{max}I`$. Equation (7) and the results we established above show that the $`(t+1)\times (t+1)`$ minor $`[I\{1\}|J\{n\}]`$ is in the right ideal generated in $`𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$ by $`𝒮`$. Thus, using (6), it follows that $`[I|J]`$ is also in the right ideal generated in $`𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$ by $`𝒮`$. The proof is now complete.

Recall that, by Lemma 1.1 and Proposition 1.4 we know that the subalgebra of $`𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$ generated by the $`X_{ij}^{}`$ for $`2im`$ and $`1jn1`$ is isomorphic to $`𝒪_q(M_{m1,n1})`$ and that we denote it by $`𝕂_q[𝐗^{}]`$. Following our conventions, if $`2t\mathrm{min}\{m,n\}`$, we denote by $`_{t1}(𝐗^{})`$ the ideal of $`𝕂_q[𝐗^{}]`$ generated by the $`(t1)\times (t1)`$ minors of $`𝐗^{}`$. In this notation, we have the following important result.

###### Proposition 2.4

For $`2t\mathrm{min}\{m,n\}`$, the following equality holds:

$$\stackrel{~}{}_t(𝐗)=_{t1}(𝐗^{})𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}.$$

Proof: By Lemma 2.3 (ii), we know that $`\stackrel{~}{}_t(𝐗)`$ coincides with the right ideal of $`𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$ generated by the $`t\times t`$ minors $`[I|J]`$ of $`𝐗`$ such that $`1I`$ and $`nJ`$. On the other hand, let $`[I|J]`$ be a $`t\times t`$ minor of $`𝐗`$ such that $`1I`$ and $`nJ`$. Applying Corollary 2.2, we have $`(q)^{1t}[I|J]=[I\{1\}|J\{n\}]^{}X_{1n}`$. Thus, $`\stackrel{~}{}_t(𝐗)`$ coincides with the right ideal of $`𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$ generated by the $`(t1)\times (t1)`$ minors $`[I|J]^{}`$ of $`𝐗^{}`$ (such that $`I\{2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and $`J\{1,\mathrm{},m1\}`$). On the other hand, Lemma 2.3 (i) shows that $`_{t1}(𝐗^{})`$ is the right ideal of $`𝕂_q[𝐗^{}]`$ generated by the $`(t1)\times (t1)`$ minors $`𝐗^{}`$; so, the proof is complete.

Recall from the introduction that, for any positive integer $`t`$ such that $`t\mathrm{min}\{m,n\}`$, we define the quantum determinantal ring $`R_t(𝐗):=𝕂_q[𝐗]/_t(𝐗)`$. This is a domain by \[1, Corollary 2.6\]. If we put $`x_{ij}:=X_{ij}+_t(𝐗)`$, for $`1im`$ and $`1jn`$, then there is a canonical isomorphism

$$R_t(𝐗)_{x_{1n}}𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}/\stackrel{~}{}_t(𝐗).$$
(8)
We finish this subsection by showing that, for $`2t\mathrm{min}\{m,n\}`$, the ring $`R_t(𝐗)_{x_{1n}}`$ can be described as an iterated Ore extension of $`R_{t1}(𝐗^{})`$. To achieve this aim, we will have to make use of Proposition 1.6 which shows that $`𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$ can be obtained from its subalgebra $`𝕂_q[𝐗^{}]`$ by iterated Ore extensions adding successively $`X_{1n}^{\pm 1}`$, $`X_{11}`$,…,$`X_{1,n1}`$,$`X_{mn}`$,…,$`X_{2n}`$.

###### Theorem 2.5

For $`2t\mathrm{min}\{m,n\}`$, the ring $`R_t(𝐗)_{x_{1n}}`$ is a localisation of an iterated Ore extension of $`R_{t1}(𝐗^{})`$.

Proof: We start by giving a list of relations between a $`(t1)\times (t1)`$ minor of $`𝐗^{}`$ and the generators $`X_{1n}^{\pm 1}`$, $`X_{11}`$,…,$`X_{1,n1}`$,$`X_{mn}`$,…,$`X_{2n}`$. (Note that, by Lemma 1.1, we already know that a $`(t1)\times (t1)`$ minor of $`𝐗^{}`$ commutes with $`X_{1n}^{\pm 1}`$.)

Let $`I^{}\{2,\mathrm{},m\}`$ and $`J^{}\{1,\mathrm{},n1\}`$ be sets of indices such that $`|I^{}|=|J^{}|=t1`$. Setting $`I=I^{}\{1\}`$ and $`J=J^{}\{n\}`$, Corollary 2.2, shows that $`(q)^{1t}[I|J]=[I^{}|J^{}]^{}X_{1n}`$. On the other hand, \[8, Lemma 4.5.1 and Theorem 4.6.1\] give the following relations, for $`k\{2,\mathrm{},m\}`$ and $`l\{1,\mathrm{},n1\}`$:

1) $`X_{1l}[I|J]=[I|J]X_{1l}`$ if $`lJ^{}`$;
2) $`X_{1l}[I|J]q[I|J]X_{1l}=q(qq^1)_{j<l,jJ^{}}(q)^{}X_{1j}[I|J\{l\}\{j\}]`$ if $`lJ^{}`$;
3) $`X_{kn}[I|J]=[I|J]X_{kn}`$ if $`kI^{}`$;
4) $`X_{kn}[I|J]q^1[I|J]X_{kn}=q^1(q^1q)_{j>k,jI^{}}(q)^{}X_{jn}[I\{k\}\{j\}|J]`$ if $`kI^{}`$.

(Points 1) and 3) follow from \[8, Theorem 4.6.1\], point 2) is \[8, Lemma 4.5.1(1) first relation\], point 4) is \[8, Lemma 4.5.1(3) second relation\].) Hence, for $`k\{2,\mathrm{},n\}`$ and $`l\{1,\mathrm{},n1\}`$, Corollary 2.2 gives:

1’) $`X_{1l}[I^{}|J^{}]^{}=q^1[I^{}|J^{}]^{}X_{1l}`$ if $`lJ^{}`$;
2’) $`X_{1l}[I^{}|J^{}]^{}[I^{}|J^{}]^{}X_{1l}=q(qq^1)_{j<l,jJ^{}}(q)^{}X_{1j}[I^{}|J^{}\{l\}\{j\}]^{}`$ if $`lJ^{}`$;
3’) $`X_{kn}[I^{}|J^{}]^{}=q[I^{}|J^{}]^{}X_{kn}`$ if $`kI^{}`$;
4’) $`X_{kn}[I^{}|J^{}]^{}[I^{}|J^{}]^{}X_{kn}=q^1(q^1q)_{j>k,jI^{}}(q)^{}X_{jn}[I^{}\{k\}\{j\}|J^{}]^{}`$ if $`kI^{}`$.

By Proposition 1.6, $`𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$ can be obtained from its subalgebra $`𝕂_q[𝐗^{}]`$ by iterated Ore extensions adding successively $`X_{1n}^{\pm 1}`$, $`X_{11}`$,…,$`X_{1,n1}`$,$`X_{mn}`$,…,$`X_{2n}`$. The relations 1’) to 4’) together with the fact that $`X_{1n}`$ commutes with any element of the subalgebra $`𝕂_q[𝐗^{}]`$ show that, at each step of this Ore extension, the ideal of the base algebra generated by the $`(t1)\times (t1)`$ minors of $`𝐗^{}`$ is invariant under the corresponding skew derivation. It follows that $`𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}/_{t1}(𝐗^{})𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$ is isomorphic to an iterated Ore extension of $`𝕂_q[𝐗^{}]/_{t1}(𝐗^{})`$. But Proposition 2.4 shows that $`\stackrel{~}{}_t(𝐗)=_{t1}(𝐗^{})𝕂_q[𝐗]_{X_{1n}}`$. The proof is thus complete.

## 3 Quantum determinantal rings are maximal orders

Let $`R`$ be a noetherian domain with division ring of fractions $`Q`$. Then $`R`$ is said to be a maximal order in $`Q`$ if the following condition is satisfied: if $`T`$ is a ring such that $`RTQ`$ and such that there exist nonzero elements $`a,bR`$ with $`aTbR`$, then $`T=R`$. This condition is the natural noncommutative analogue of normality for commutative domains, see, for example, \[7, Section 5.1\]. In this section, we investigate the maximal order condition for determinantal rings.

Recall that the quantum determinantal ring $`R_t(𝐗):=𝕂_q[𝐗]/_t(𝐗)`$ is a domain by \[1, Corollary 2.6\]. Also, recall that $`R_2(𝐗)`$ has been shown to be a maximal order in . In this section, we prove that $`R_t(𝐗)`$ is a maximal order in its division ring of fractions, when $`𝕂=`$ and for $`q`$ an element of $``$ transcendental over $``$.

The following Lemma from  (see \[9, Lemma 1.1\]) is recalled here for the convenience of the reader.

###### Lemma 3.1

Let $`R`$ be a noetherian domain and $`Q=\mathrm{Frac}R`$ its division ring of fractions. Assume there exists a nonzero normal element $`x`$ in $`R`$ such that

1) $`xR=_{i=1}^r𝔭_i`$ where, for $`i\{1,\mathrm{},r\}`$, $`𝔭_i`$ is a completely prime ideal of $`R`$, and

2) the localisation $`R_x`$ of $`R`$ with respect to the set $`\{x^i,i\}`$ is a maximal order in $`Q`$.

Let $`\tau `$ be the automorphism of $`R`$ associated with $`x`$; that is $`ax=x\tau (a)`$ for all $`aR`$. Suppose that $`\tau (𝔭_i)𝔭_i`$ for $`i\{1,\mathrm{},r\}`$. Then $`R`$ is a maximal order in $`Q`$.

One case where the above result immediately applies is the case that the ideal $`xR`$ itself is a completely prime ideal. It is this case that we want to use. The applicability of the above lemma to determinantal rings is a consequence of the results of the previous section, since we can deduce the following result.

###### Theorem 3.2

Assume that $`𝕂=`$ and let $`q`$ be an element of $``$ transcendental over $``$. Let $`t`$ be an integer such that $`0<t\mathrm{min}\{m,n\}`$. Then $`R_t(𝐗)`$ is a maximal order.

Proof: For $`t=1`$, this is trivial and for $`t=2`$ it is \[9, Théorème 2.3.11\]. We proceed by induction on $`t`$. Assume that the result is true for an integer $`s2`$ and set $`t=s+1`$. By Theorem 2.5, $`R_t(𝐗)_{x_{1n}}`$ is a localisation of an iterated Ore extension of $`R_{t1}(𝐗^{})`$. The induction hypothesis shows that $`R_{t1}(𝐗^{})`$ is a maximal order in its quotient ring and so $`R_t(𝐗)_{x_{1n}}`$ is a maximal order by \[6, V.2.5 and IV.2.1\]. However, \[5, Corollaire 11.7\] shows that $`x_{1n}`$ is a completely prime ideal of $`R_t(𝐗)`$. Thus, Lemma 3.1 shows that $`R_t(𝐗)`$ is a maximal order.

We conjecture that this result holds for arbitrary non-zero $`q`$ in any field $`𝕂`$ and for all $`t`$. We conclude by proving that the factor by the quantum determinantal ideal $`\mathrm{det}_q`$ in $`𝒪_q(M_n)`$ is a maximal order. All that remains to be proved after the above discussion is that the ideal $`\mathrm{det}_q,X_{1n}`$ is a completely prime ideal. This is what we do next.

## 4 $`𝒪_q(M_n)/\mathrm{det}_q`$ is a maximal order

In this section we need to use the preferred bases in $`𝒪_q(M_{u,v})`$ developed in , and we follow the notation of that paper. See, in particular, \[1, Corollary 1.11\]. We recall the notation $`[T|T^{}]`$ for the product of quantum minors corresponding to an allowable bitableau $`(T,T^{})`$. We recall also that it is sometimes convenient to label rows of $`(T,T^{})`$ in the form $`(I,J)`$ where $`I`$ and $`J`$ are sets of row and column indices, respectively (of course, $`I\{1,\mathrm{},u\}`$ and $`J\{1,\mathrm{},v\}`$); such a pair is called an index pair (see \[1, Section 1\]). Many of the results in  are stated for the square case $`𝒪_q(M_{u,u})`$, and there are easy extensions to the rectangular case $`𝒪_q(M_{u,v})`$, see, for example, \[1, 1.11\] and \[2, Section 2\] for more details of this standard procedure.

We aim to prove that the ideal $`\mathrm{det}_q,X_{1n}`$ of $`𝒪_q(M_n)`$ is a completely prime ideal for each $`n3`$, by using the following result of David Jordan, .

###### Proposition 4.1

Let $`\sigma `$ be an automorphism and $`\delta `$ be a $`\sigma `$-derivation of a domain $`A`$. Let $`R=A[x;\sigma ,\delta ]`$. Let $`c`$ be a normal element of $`R`$ of the form $`dx+e`$, where $`d,eA`$ and $`d0`$. Let $`\beta `$ be the automorphism of $`R`$ such that $`cr=\beta (r)c`$ for all $`rR`$. Then $`\beta (A)=A`$, the element $`d`$ is normal in $`A`$ and $`\beta (a)d=d\sigma (a)`$ for all $`aA`$. Furthermore, if $`e`$ is regular modulo the ideal $`Ad=dA`$ then $`R/Rc`$ is a domain.

###### Proposition 4.2

The ideal $`\mathrm{det}_q,X_{1n}`$ of $`𝒪_q(M_n)`$ is a completely prime ideal for each $`n3`$.

Proof: The idea is first to factor out $`X_{1n}`$ obtaining a domain and then to factor out $`D_n:=\mathrm{det}_q`$ and see that we still have a domain by invoking Jordan’s Domain Theorem. We use the notation from that theorem. Let $`T`$ be the subalgebra of $`𝒪_q(M_n)`$ generated by all $`X_{ij}`$ except $`X_{nn}`$. Set $`A:=T/X_{1n}`$. Then $`A`$ is a domain. Let $`R:=A[X_{nn};\sigma ,\delta ]𝒪_q(M_n)/X_{1n}`$. Let $`D_n`$ denote the quantum determinant of $`𝒪_q(M_n)`$ and let $`D_{n1}`$ denote the quantum determinant of the copy of $`𝒪_q(M_{n1})`$ generated by the $`X_{ij}`$ with $`i,j<n`$. Note that $`D_{n1}=A(nn)`$ in the notation introduced before Theorem 2.1. Set $`x:=X_{nn}R`$ and $`d:=\overline{D_{n1}}AR`$. Note that $`d0`$ in $`R`$. Finally, set $`c:=\overline{D_n}R`$. The quantum Laplace expansion of $`D_n`$ by the $`n`$th column gives $`D_n=_{i=1}^n\pm q^{}A(in)X_{in}`$ so that $`c=dx+e`$, where $`e`$ is the image in $`A`$ of $`_{i=1}^{n1}\pm q^{}A(in)X_{in}T`$.

Note that $`R/c𝒪_q(M_n)/D_n,X_{1n}`$. We show that this is a domain by showing that Jordan’s Theorem applies. Note that $`c`$ is normal (in fact, central) in $`R`$. All we need to do is to observe that $`e`$ is regular modulo the ideal $`dA=Ad`$ of the ring $`A`$. However, $`A/dA`$ is isomorphic to an iterated Ore extension of $`𝒪_q(M_{n1})/D_{n1}`$. Now $`𝒪_q(M_{n1})/D_{n1}`$ is a domain by \[1, Theorem 2.5\] or by \[3, Example 2\]; and so $`A/dA`$ is a domain. Thus, all we have to do is to show that $`edA`$.

Suppose that $`edA`$. Then $`e=\overline{D_{n1}\alpha }`$ for some $`\alpha T`$. Taking pre-images, we obtain

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\pm q^{}A(in)X_{in}=A(nn)\alpha +\beta X_{1n}$$

for some $`\beta T`$. Now, each term on the left hand side is an element of $`𝒪_q(M_n)`$ of bidegree $`(1,\mathrm{},1;1,\mathrm{},1)`$ in the $`^n\times ^n`$ grading of $`𝒪_q(M_n)`$ described in \[1, 1.5\]. Hence, we may assume that each term on the right hand side also has this bidegree. This implies that $`\alpha =\lambda X_{nn}`$ for some scalar $`\lambda 𝕂`$. Since $`X_{nn}T`$, this implies that $`\alpha =0`$. In the resulting equation

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\pm q^{}A(in)X_{in}=\beta X_{1n}$$

each of the terms on the left hand side is a preferred product. However, if we write $`\beta =\lambda _i[T_i|T_i^{}]`$ in terms of the preferred basis then $`\beta X_{1n}=\lambda _i[T_i|T_i^{}]X_{1n}`$ is again in preferred form. The equation

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\pm q^{}A(in)X_{in}=\lambda _i[T_i|T_i^{}]X_{1n}$$

then contradicts the independence of the preferred basis.

Thus $`edA`$ and we have all of the hypotheses of Jordan’s Theorem and conclude that $`R/c𝒪_q(M_n)/D_n,X_{1n}`$ is a domain, as required.

It is interesting to note that when $`n=2`$ the above result fails. In this case, the ideal $`\mathrm{det}_q,X_{12}`$ is semiprime; in fact, it is the intersection of two completely prime ideals, each of which is fixed by the automorphism determined by $`X_{1n}`$, so Lemma 3.1 is applicable. However, this case has already been dealt with in .

###### Theorem 4.3

$`𝒪_q(M_n)/\mathrm{det}_q`$ is a maximal order in its division ring of quotients for each $`n2`$.

Proof: When $`n=2`$ this is proved in \[9, Théorème 2.3.11\] (and can be proved directly from Theorem 3.2 by the reasoning in the previous paragraph). An inductive argument similar to that used in Theorem 3.2 finishes the proof.

## 5 Appendix: some useful relations

In this section, we collect some useful relations. They are essentially derived from results of .

###### Relation 5.1

If $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)`$ is a $`2\times 2`$ quantum matrix, then the following relation holds:

$$adq^2da=(1q^2)(adqbc).$$

###### Relations 5.2

If $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}X_{11}& X_{12}& X_{13}\\ X_{21}& X_{22}& X_{23}\\ X_{31}& X_{32}& X_{33}\end{array}\right)`$ is a $`3\times 3`$ quantum matrix, then the following relations hold.

1) For $`i=2,3`$:
1.1) $`X_{11}[i,1|1,3]=[i,1|1,3]X_{11}`$, (see \[PW\] (4.6.1))
1.2) $`X_{11}[i,1|2,3]=q[i,1|2,3]X_{11}`$, (see \[PW\] (4.5.1)(1))
1.3) $`X_{12}[i,1|1,3]q[i,1|1,3]X_{12}=(q^1q)X_{11}[i,1|2,3]`$, (see \[PW\] (4.5.1)(1))
1.4) $`X_{12}[i,1|2,3]=[i,1|2,3]X_{12}`$. (see \[PW\] (4.6.1))

2) For $`j=1,2`$:
2.1) $`X_{33}[3,1|j,3]=[3,1|j,3]X_{33}`$, (see \[PW\] (4.6.1))
2.2) $`X_{33}[2,1|j,3]=q^1[2,1|j,3]X_{33}`$, (see \[PW\] (4.5.1)(3))
2.3) $`X_{23}[3,1|j,3]q^1[3,1|j,3]X_{23}=(qq^1)X_{33}[2,1|j,3]`$, (see \[PW\] (4.5.1)(3))
2.4) $`X_{23}[2,1|j,3]=[2,1|j,3]X_{23}`$. (see \[PW\] (4.6.1))

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
L. Rigal: Université Jean Monnet (Saint-Étienne), Faculté des Sciences et
Techniques, Département de Mathématiques
23 rue du Docteur Paul Michelon
42023 Saint-Étienne Cédex 2,
France
E-mail: Laurent.Rigal@univ-st-etienne.fr