format: text

text:
# Identities and derivations for Jacobian algebras

## 1. Introduction

Let $`U`$ be an associative commutative algebra over a field $`K`$ with commuting derivations $`_1,\mathrm{},_n.`$ Say, $`U`$ is an algebra of differentiable functions on $`n`$-dimensional manifold or polynomial algebra $`K_n^+=K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ or Laurent polynomial algebra $`K_n=K[x_1^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},x_n^{\pm 1}].`$ In these examples, $`_i=/x_i`$ are partial derivations. If not stated otherwise, the characteristic $`p`$ of the field $`K`$ is supposed to be $`0.`$

Let $`Jac_n^S:^nUU`$ be Jacobian map:

$$Jac_n^S(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)=det(_iu_j)=\left|\begin{array}{ccc}_1u_1& \mathrm{}& _1u_n\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ _nu_1& \mathrm{}& _nu_n\end{array}\right|$$

Define $`(n+1)`$-linear map $`Jac_{n+1}^W:^{n+1}UU`$ by

$$Jac_{n+1}^W(u_0,u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)=\left|\begin{array}{cccc}u_0& u_1& \mathrm{}& u_n\\ _1u_0& _1u_1& \mathrm{}& _1u_n\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ _nu_0& _nu_1& \mathrm{}& _nu_n\end{array}\right|$$

In terms of wedge products we see that

$$Jac_n^S=_1\mathrm{}_n,$$

$$Jac_{n+1}^W=id_1\mathrm{}_n,$$

where $`id:UU,uu,`$ is the identity map.

In , ,  are proved that the $`n`$-ary multiplication $`\omega =Jac_n^S`$ satisfies the identity

(1)
$$g^\omega =0,$$

where

$$g^\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_{2n1})=\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n1},\omega (u_n,\mathrm{},u_{2n1}))$$

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_{i1},\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n1},u_i),u_{i+1},\mathrm{},u_{2n1}).$$

In  this identity is called a Fundamental Identity. We call it Fundamental Identity of type I.

We notice that the Jacobian $`\omega =Jac_n^S`$ satisfies one more identity, that we call a Fundamental identity of type II:

(2)
$$f^\omega =0,$$

where

$$f^\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n1},v_1,\mathrm{},v_{n+1})=$$

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}(1)^i\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n1},v_i)\omega (v_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{v_i},\mathrm{},v_{n+1}).$$

It is known that, the Jacobian $`\omega =Jac_n^S`$ satisfies the Leibniz identity for the multiplication $`:`$

(3)
$$\omega (uu^{},u_2,\mathrm{},u_n)=u\omega (u^{},u_2,\mathrm{},u_n)+u^{}\omega (u,u_2,\mathrm{},u_n).$$

Here $`u,u^{},u_1,\mathrm{},u_{2n+1},v_1,\mathrm{},v_{n+1}`$ are any elements of $`U.`$

In our paper we consider algebras with many operations. An operation or multiplication on algebra is a polylinear map. If $`\omega :U\times \mathrm{}\times UU`$ is a polylinear map with $`n`$ arguments, then $`\omega `$ is called a $`n`$-ary multiplication on $`U.`$ The space of $`n`$-ary polylinear maps on $`U`$ is denoted by $`T^n(U,U).`$ If $`n=0,`$ then we set $`T^0(U,U)=U.`$ The set of operations on $`U`$ is called a signature of algebra . The algebra with vector space $`U`$ and signature $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\{\omega ,\eta ,\mathrm{}\}`$ is denoted as $`(U,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ or $`(U,\omega ,\eta ,\mathrm{})`$ or just $`U,`$ when it is clear which multiplications are considered.

An algebra $`(U,\omega )`$ with skew-symmetric $`n`$-ary multiplication $`\omega `$ that satisfies (1) is called $`n`$-Lie . An algebra $`(U,,\omega )`$ is called $`n`$-Lie-Poisson, if $`(U,)`$ is an associative commutative algebra and it satisfies the identities (1) and (3). If it satisfies one more identity, namely the identity (2), then this algebra is called strong $`n`$-Lie-Poisson.

Sometimes $`n`$-Lie algebras are called Nambu , Filipov or Takhtajan algebras and $`n`$-Lie-Poisson algebras are called Nambu-Poisson algebras.

Question. Does the fundamental identity of type II follow from the fundamental identity of type I and from the Leibniz identity, if $`n>2`$ and $`p=0`$ ?

Here, we suppose that commutativity and associativity identities for the binary multiplication and skew-symmetric identity for $`n`$-multiplication are given. Otherwise, more likely, the answer to this question will be negative.

For some statement $`𝒳`$ denote by $`\delta (𝒳)`$ its Kroneker symbol: $`\delta (𝒳)=1,`$ if $`𝒳`$ is true and $`\delta (𝒳)=0,`$ if $`𝒳`$ is false. For some set of vectors $`Y`$ denote by $`<Y>`$ its linear span.

Let

$$r^\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n2},u_{n1},u_n,\mathrm{},u_{2n})=$$

$$\underset{i=n1,n+1,\mathrm{},2n}{}(1)^{i+n+\delta (in1)}\omega (u_1,u_2,\mathrm{},u_{n2},u_i)\omega (u_n,u_{n+1},\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_{2n})+$$

$$\underset{i=n1,n+1,\mathrm{},2n}{}(1)^{i+n+\delta (in1)}\omega (u_n,u_2,\mathrm{},u_{n2},u_i)\omega (u_1,u_{n+1},\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_{2n}).$$

So, $`r^\omega `$ is the polynomial with $`n`$ skew-symmetric arguments $`u_{n1},u_{n+1},\mathrm{},u_{2n}`$ and two symmetric arguments $`u_1`$ and $`u_n.`$

By theorem 6  the answer to our question will be positive, if the inverse of this statement is true: the identity $`f^\omega =0`$ follows from the identity $`r^\omega =0`$ and Leibniz rule (3).

We give a positive answer to the last statement for $`n=3`$ (theorem 5.1). If $`p>0,`$ it is more likely that the answer would be negative. For $`n=2`$ the answer is also negative. There exist examples of Lie-Poisson algebras, that are not strong. For example, $`(K[x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4],_1_2+_3_4)`$ is such an algebra.

Let $`(A,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ be an algebra with some vector space $`A`$ and signature $`\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ For $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\mathrm{\Omega }`$ a linear map $`D:AA`$ is called $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$-derivation, if

$$D(\omega (a_1,\mathrm{},a_n))=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\omega (a_1,\mathrm{},a_{i1},D(a_i),\mathrm{},a_n),$$

for any $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_nA`$ and for all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^{}.`$ Call $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-derivation a derivation. Let $`Der(A,\mathrm{\Omega }^{})`$ be a space of all derivations of $`(A,\mathrm{\Omega }^{}).`$ Set $`DerA=Der(A,\mathrm{\Omega }).`$

In terms of operators $`L_{a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1}}:AA,a\omega (a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1},a)`$ we see that $`\omega `$ satisfies (1), if and only if

$$L_{a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1}}DerA,$$

for any $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1}A.`$ Derivations of the form $`L_{a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1}}`$ are called interior derivations. Let $`IntA`$ be a space of interior derivations. If $`A`$ is $`n`$-Lie, then $`IntA`$ is a Lie algebra under commutator of operators. Moreover, $`IntA`$ is an ideal of $`DerA:`$

$$[D,L_{a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1}}]=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}L_{a_1,\mathrm{},a_{i1},D(a_i),a_{i+1},\mathrm{},a_n},$$

for any $`DDerA,a_1,\mathrm{},a_nA.`$ In particular one can consider a factor-algebra, an algebra of outer derivations, $`OutA=DerA/IntA.`$

In  two examples of $`n`$-Lie algebras were constructed. The first one is vector products algebra and the second one is Jacobian algebra. In this paper it was established that any derivation of vector products algebra is interior. In  it was also noticed that, if $`(A,\omega )`$ is $`(n+1)`$-Lie, then $`(A,i(a)\omega )`$ is $`n`$-Lie, where $`n`$-ary map $`i(a)\omega `$ is defined by

$$i(a)\omega (a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)=\omega (a,a_1,\mathrm{},a_n).$$

In our paper we give a generalisation of Jacobian algebras. Namely, we establish that the algebra $`(U,Jac_{n+1}^W)`$ becomes a $`(n+1)`$-Lie algebra. If $`U`$ has unit element $`1,`$ then $`_i(1)=1,`$ for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},n.`$ If $`U`$ has unit, then the $`(n+1)`$-ary algebra $`(U,Jac_{n+1}^W)`$ allows us to obtain the $`n`$-ary Jacobian algebra $`(U,Jac_n^S)`$ by the restriction operation: $`Jac_n^S=i(1)Jac_{n+1}^W.`$

The theory of polynomial identities is well developed for ordinary algebras, i.e., for algebras with binary operations. The case of multi operation algebras needs some detailed information about $`n`$\- or $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-words and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-polynomials. Necessary definitions and descriptions of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-words are given in section 2 (theorem 2.3). We introduce a notion of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-degree for $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-polynomial, that is, the number of operations. For example, Jacobian algebra considered as an $`n`$-Lie algebra, has only one $`n`$-ary operation, denoted by $`\mu _n=Jac_n^S,`$ and it has only one identity of $`\mathrm{\Omega }\text{-degree}`$ 1 (skew-symmetric identity for Jacobian) and only one identity of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-degree 2 ($`n`$-Lie identity). The identity $`f^{\mu _n}=0`$ is not an $`n`$-Lie identity, since the construction of $`f^\omega `$ needs binary operation. Probably Jacobian algebra as $`n`$-Lie algebra has no any identity of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-degree 3. If we consider Jacobian algebras as $`n`$-Lie-Poisson algebras, i.e., as algebras with one binary operation $`\mu _2:(u,v)uv`$ and one $`n`$-ary operation $`\mu _n=Jac_n^S,`$ then it has two identites of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-degree 1 (commutativity for $`\mu _2`$ and skew-symmetry for $`\mu _n`$) and three identities of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-degree 2 ($`n`$-Lie for $`\mu _n,`$ Leibniz rule between $`\mu _2`$ and $`\mu _n,`$ and associativity identity for $`\mu _2`$). As $`n`$-Lie-Poisson algebra, Jacobian algebra has one more identity of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-degree 3 (identity between two $`\mu _n`$-s and one $`\mu _2`$). It seems that both directions of studying $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-identities of Jacobian algebras will be very interesting. In our paper we describe $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-degree 2 identities for the Jacobian algebra $`(K_3,Jac_3^S)`$ as $`3`$-Lie algebra.

In cocycle and identity constructions we use two methods: a polynomial principle and $`𝒟`$-invariants method (section 7). The polynomial principle allows us to restrict our considerations by the case of polynomial algebras. As it turns out, almost all of our cocycles and polynomials are $`𝒟`$-invariant. To prove that $`𝒟`$-invariant polynomial is an identity it is sufficient to calculate these polynomials on their supports. In other words, the identity (cocyclicity) checking problem we reduce to the calculation problem whether a polynomial is equal to 0 on some concrete arguments. Here the use of computer calculations are very helpfull.

Let $`U=K_n.`$ In section 8 we prove that the classes of the following linear maps consist of the basis of $`Out(U,Jac_n^S):`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }:=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_i_i+n(1n)^1,$$

$$D_\theta :x^\alpha \delta _{\alpha ,\theta },$$

$$D_i:=x^{\theta +ϵ_i}_i,i=1,\mathrm{},n,$$

where $`\theta =(1,\mathrm{},1)`$ and $`ϵ_i=(0,\mathrm{},\underset{i}{1},\mathrm{},0).`$ In section 9 we establish that all derivations of $`(U,Jac_{n+1}^W)`$ are interior. In these sections we also prove that the algebras of interior derivations are isomorphic to Cartan Lie algebras of types $`W`$ and $`S,`$ namely, $`Int(U,Jac_{n+1}^W)W_n(U)`$ and $`Int(U,Jac_n^S)S_n(U).`$ These isomorphims explain index notations on $`Jac_{n+1}^W`$ and $`Jac_n^S.`$

In terms of $`n`$-Lie cohomology , , in sections 8 and 9 we calculate first cohomology groups of Jacobian algebras with coefficients in adjoint module. Derivations of Lie algebras appear in a natural way in considering central extensions of Lie algebras. Derivations of Lie algebras $`H_1`$ and $`W_n`$ in this sense were described in . Our results in the case $`n=2`$ are compatible with the results of this paper.

## 2. $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-words

Let $`𝐙`$ be the ring of integers, $`𝐙_+=\{i𝐙:i0\}`$ and $`𝐙^+=\{i𝐙:i>0\}.`$ Let us given some alphabet $`\mathrm{}`$ with a map $`\mathrm{}𝐙_+,\alpha |\alpha |,`$ called arity map. Let

$$𝔛=\{\alpha \mathrm{}:|\alpha |=0\},$$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\{\omega \mathrm{}:|\alpha |>0\}.$$

Thus, $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{\Omega }𝔛.`$ Denote elements of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by $`\omega _1,\omega _2,\mathrm{}`$ and elements of $`𝔛`$ by $`x_1,x_2,\mathrm{}.`$

Define a weight map

$$\mathrm{}𝐙,\alpha \alpha ,$$

by

$$\alpha =1|\alpha |.$$

###### Lemma 2.1.

The following conditions are equivalent

* $`\alpha 1`$
* $`\alpha =1`$
* $`\alpha 𝔛`$
* $`|\alpha |=0`$

Proof. Evident.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{})=\{a=\alpha _1\alpha _2\mathrm{}\alpha _k\}`$ be the set of sequences of elements of $`\mathrm{}.`$ If $`a=\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _k,b=\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _s\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}),`$ then, by definition, $`a=b`$ if and only if $`k=s`$ and $`\alpha _1=\beta _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _k=\beta _k.`$ Call the number of elements $`k`$ of the sequence $`\alpha =\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _k\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{})`$ a length of $`\alpha `$ and denote it by $`l(\alpha ).`$ Prolong the weight map $`||||`$ to

$$||||:\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{})𝐙,$$

by

$$\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _k=\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _k.$$

Let $`𝐙^{\mathrm{}}=\{(i_1,i_2,\mathrm{}):i_1,i_2,\mathrm{}𝐙\}.`$ Define a map $`\mu :\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{})𝐙^{\mathrm{}}`$ by

$$\mu (a)=(\mu _k(a),\mu _{k1}(a),\mathrm{},\mu _1(a)),$$

$$\mu _i(a)=\alpha _i+\mathrm{}+\alpha _k,i=1,2,\mathrm{},k,$$

if $`a=\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _k,\alpha _i\mathrm{},i=1,2,\mathrm{},k.`$

Definition. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{})`$ be the subset of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}),`$ that consists of elements $`a\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}),`$ such that

* $`a=1`$
* if $`a=\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _k,`$ $`\alpha _i\mathrm{},i=1,2,\mathrm{},k,`$ then $`\mu _i(a)1,`$ for any $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},k.`$

Example. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\{\omega _3,\omega _2,\omega _2^{}:|\omega _3|=3,|\omega _2|=|\omega _2^{}|=2.`$ Let $`a=\omega _3\omega _2x_1x_2x_3\omega _2^{}x_4x_5\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}),`$ $`b=\omega _3\omega _2x_1x_2\omega _3x_3x_4x_5\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}).`$ Then $`\mu (a)=(1,2,1,2,3,4,3,1)`$ and $`\mu (b)=(1,2,3,1,2,3,2,0).`$ Therefore, $`a\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{})`$ and $`b\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{}).`$

###### Lemma 2.2.

Elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{})`$ have the following properties

* $`\alpha =1,\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{})\alpha 𝔛,`$
* $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{}),`$
* any element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{})`$ with length more than 1 begins with some element of $`\mathrm{\Omega }.`$
* any element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{})`$ ends by some element of $`𝔛.`$

Proof. Let $`a=\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _k`$ be the element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{})`$ with length $`k=l(a).`$

By definition,

$$\mu _k(a)=\alpha _k1$$

Thus, by lemma 2.1, $`\alpha _k𝔛.`$ So, we have proved that any element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{})`$ ends by element of $`𝔛.`$ In particular, any element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{})`$ with length 1 is an element of $`𝔛.`$

Suppose that $`l(a)=k>1.`$ By definition,

$$\mu _1(a)=\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _k=1,\alpha _2\mathrm{}\alpha _k1.$$

Therefore, $`\alpha _10.`$ In other words, $`\alpha _1\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ So, we established that any element of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{})`$ with length $`>1`$ begins with element of $`\mathrm{\Omega }.`$

Define a set of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-words .

Definition.

1. Any element of $`𝔛`$ is an $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-word.
2. If $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_k`$ are $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-words, then $`\omega a_1\mathrm{}a_k,`$ where $`|\omega |=k,`$ is also a $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-word.
3. Any $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-word is obtained by these two rules.

Let $`a=\omega a_1\mathrm{}a_k`$ be some word and $`\alpha `$ is a word or element of $`\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ We say that $`\alpha `$ enter to $`a`$ or that $`\alpha `$ is a part of the word $`a`$ and write $`\alpha a,`$ if one of the following cases are fulfilled,

* $`\alpha `$ is a word and $`\alpha =a,`$
* $`\alpha `$ is a word and $`\alpha `$ is a part of $`a_s`$ for some $`s=1,\mathrm{},k,`$
* $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\alpha =\omega ,`$
* $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\alpha `$ is a part of $`a_s`$ for some $`s=1,\mathrm{},k.`$

For the word $`a=\omega a_1,\mathrm{},a_k`$ define $`\omega dega`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-degree of $`a,`$ by

* $`\omega dega=_{j=1}^k\omega dega_j+1,`$
* $`\omega degx=0,x𝔛,`$
* $`\omega deg\omega =1,\omega \mathrm{\Omega }.`$

So, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-degree of $`a`$ is the number of elements of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that enter to $`a:`$

$$\omega dega=|\{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }a\}|.$$

Let $`a=\omega a_1\mathrm{}a_k`$ be some word. Call $`xdega`$ or $`𝔛`$-degree of $`a`$ the number of elements of $`𝔛`$ that enter to $`a:`$

* $`xdega=_{j=1}^kxdega_j,`$
* $`xdegy=1,y𝔛,`$
* $`xdeg\omega =0,\omega \mathrm{\Omega }.`$

A degree of $`a`$ is defined by $`dega=xdega+\omega dega.`$

###### Theorem 2.3.

The set of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-words coincides with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{}).`$

Proof. Denote by $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1(\mathrm{})`$ the set of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-words.

Prove that $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1)(\mathrm{})\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{}).`$ Let $`a\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1(\mathrm{}).`$ We use induction on $`l(a).`$ If $`l(a)=1,`$ then $`a=x𝔛.`$ Thus, $`x=1,`$ and $`x\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{}).`$ Suppose that any element of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1(\mathrm{})`$ with length $`<l(a)`$ belongs to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{}).`$ If $`a=\omega a_1\mathrm{}a_k,`$ then $`l(a_1)<l(a),\mathrm{},l(a_k)<l(a).`$ Then by inductive suggestion $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_k\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{}).`$ In other words, if $`a_i=\alpha _{i,1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{i,s_i},`$ where $`\alpha _{i,j}\mathrm{},`$ then $`_{j=1}^{s_i}\alpha _{i,j}=1.`$ Thus,

$$a=\omega \alpha _{1,1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{1,s_1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{k,1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{k,s_k},$$

and

$$\mu _1(a)=a=\omega +\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{s_i}{}}\alpha _{i,j}=1k+k=1.$$

By lemma 2.2, $`\alpha _{i,s_i}𝔛,`$ for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},k.`$ Therefore, $`\mu _i(a)1,`$ for any $`i_{j=1}^ks_j.`$ So, $`a\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{}).`$

Prove now $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1)(\mathrm{})\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1(\mathrm{}).`$ By induction on $`l(a)`$ prove that any $`a\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{})`$ can be presented in the form $`a=x𝔛,`$ if $`l(a)=1,`$ or $`a=\omega a_1\mathrm{}a_r,`$ where $`\omega =1r,a_1,\mathrm{},a_r\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{}),`$ if $`l(a)>1.`$

If $`l(a)=1,`$ then the statement is trivial. Suppose that our statement is true for elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{})`$ with length $`<k`$ and $`a=\alpha _1\mathrm{}\alpha _k,\alpha _i\mathrm{},i=1,2,\mathrm{},k.`$ Let $`\lambda _i=\mu _i(a).`$

Suppose that $`\mu _k=1\mu _{k1}\mathrm{}\mu _{l+1},`$ but $`\mu _l<\mu _{l+1}.`$ This means that $`\alpha _k,\mathrm{},\alpha _{l+1}𝔛`$ and $`\alpha _l\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ Let $`|\alpha _l|=q>0.`$ Then $`qkl,`$ since

$$\mu _l=1q+\underset{kl}{\underset{}{1+\mathrm{}+1}}1.$$

So, we can consider the element $`c=\alpha _l\alpha _{l+1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{l+q}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}).`$ The word $`c`$ is a subword of $`a.`$ Moreover,

$$c=\alpha _l+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{l+q}=1q+\underset{q}{\underset{}{1+\mathrm{}+1}}=1$$

and

$$\alpha _s\alpha _{s+1}\mathrm{}\alpha _{l+q}1,$$

for any $`s=l+q,l+q1,\mathrm{},l.`$ So, $`c\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{}).`$ By inductive suggestion $`c`$ is an $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-word. Therefore, the word

$$b=\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _{kq1}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{}),$$

where

$$\beta _1=\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{l1}=\alpha _{l1},\beta _{l+1}=\alpha _{l+q+1},\mathrm{},\beta _{kq1}=\alpha _k,$$

and $`\beta _l𝔛,`$ has the following properties:

$$l(b)=(l1)+1+(klq)=kq1<k,$$

$$b=\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{l1}+\beta _l+\alpha _{l+q+1}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _k=a,$$

and

$$\beta _s\mathrm{}\beta _{kq1}1,$$

for any $`s=kq1,kq2,\mathrm{},1.`$ These mean that $`b\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{})`$ and $`l(b)<l(a).`$ By inductive suggestion, $`b\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1(\mathrm{}),`$ and

$$b=\omega b_1\mathrm{}b_r$$

for some $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_r\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1(\mathrm{}).`$ Since $`l(b_1),\mathrm{},l(b_r)<k,`$ by inductive suggestion $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_r\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{}).`$ One of $`b_s,`$ where $`1sr,`$ contains $`\beta _l.`$ Instead of $`\beta _l`$ we can take the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-word $`c`$ and obtain the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-word that is equal to $`a.`$ So, we established that $`a\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1(\mathrm{}).`$

Our theorem is proved.

###### Corollary 2.4.

For any $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-word $`a,`$

$$\underset{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }a}{}|\omega |=\omega dega+xdega1.$$

Proof. If $`l(a)=1,`$ then $`a𝔛,`$ and $`\omega dega=0,`$ $`xdega=1.`$ So, $`_{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }a}|\omega |=0=\omega dega+xdega1.`$

Suppose that for $`a,`$ with $`l(a)<k,`$ the statement is true. Let $`l(a)=k>1.`$ By theorem 2.3, any $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-word $`a`$ with length $`k>1`$ can be presented in the form $`a=\eta a_1\mathrm{}a_r,`$ for some $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-words $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_r`$ with length $`<k`$ and some $`\eta \mathrm{\Omega }`$ with $`|\eta |=r.`$ Then

$$\mathrm{\Omega }a=\{\eta \}_{i=1}^r\{\mathrm{\Omega }a_i\}.$$

Thus,

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\omega dega_i=\omega dega1.$$

By inductive suggestion,

$$\underset{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }a_i}{}|\omega |=\omega dega_i+xdega_i1,$$

for $`i=1,\mathrm{},r.`$ Therefore,

$$\underset{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }a}{}|\omega |=$$

$$|\eta |+\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\underset{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }a_i}{}|\omega |=$$

$$r+\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}(\omega dega_i+xdega_i1)=$$

$$r+\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\omega dega_i+\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}xdega_ir=$$

$$\omega dega+xdega1.$$

###### Corollary 2.5.

Let $`\omega deg_ia`$ be the number of entries of $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ with $`|\omega |=i`$ in $`a.`$ Then for any $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-word $`a,`$

$$xdega=\underset{i1}{}(i1)\omega deg_ia+1.$$

Proof. This is another formulation of corollary 2.4.

###### Corollary 2.6.

Assume that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ consists of one element $`\omega `$ with $`|\omega |=k.`$ Then for any $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-word $`a,`$

$$xdega=1+(k1)\omega dega.$$

Proof. It follows from corollary 2.5 and from the following facts: $`\omega deg_ka=\omega dega,`$ and $`\omega deg_ia=0,`$ if $`ik.`$

## 3. $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-polynomials, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-algebras and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-identities

Definition. A linear combination of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-words is called $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-polynomial. Polynomial of the form $`\lambda _aa,`$ where $`a`$ is a word and $`\lambda _aK,`$ is called a monomial. The monomial is called nontrivial, if $`\lambda _a0.`$ We say that $`\lambda _aa`$ is a part of $`f`$ or $`\lambda _aa`$ is monomial of $`f,`$ if $`\lambda _a0.`$ A space of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-polynomials is denoted by $`K[\mathrm{\Omega },𝔛].`$

Let $`U`$ and $`M`$ be some vector spaces. Denote by $`T^k(U,M)`$ the space of polylinear maps $`\psi :\underset{k}{\underset{}{U\times \mathrm{}\times U}}M,`$ if $`k>0,`$ $`T^0(U,M)=M,`$ and $`T^k(U,M)=0,`$ if $`k<0.`$ Let $`T^{}(U,M)=_kT^k(U,M).`$ If $`\psi T^k(U,M),`$ we will write $`|\psi |=k.`$

Let $`^k(U,M)`$ be the subspace of $`T^k(U,M)`$ consisting of skew-symmetric maps, $`^0(U,M)=M,`$ $`^k(U,M)=0,`$ if $`k<0`$ and $`^{}(U,M)=_k^k(U,M).`$

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\{\omega _1,\omega _2,\mathrm{}\}`$ be some alphabet with an arity map $`|,|:\mathrm{\Omega }𝐙^+.`$ Suppose that to each $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ one corresponds some homogeneous map $`\omega _UT^{|\omega |}(U,U).`$ In this case we will say that $`U`$ has a structure of $`\mathrm{\Omega }\text{-}\text{algebra}`$.

Notice that for any $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-algebra $`U`$ and for any $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-word $`a`$ one can make substitutions for its parameters $`x_iu_iU`$ and $`\omega _i\omega _{iU}.`$ The easy way to see it is by presenting $`a`$ in the form $`a=\omega a_1\mathrm{}a_k,`$ where $`|\omega |=k`$ and $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_k`$ are words of smaller degree than the $`dega.`$ One can assume that in $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_k`$ our substitutions are correctly defined. Then $`a`$ would be correctly defined also.

So, for any polynomial $`fK[\mathrm{\Omega },𝔛]`$ we can make substitutions in its parameters by elements of $`U`$ and operations on $`U.`$ If $`f`$ depends, say, from parameters $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_k,\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _l,`$ then we obtain a correctly defined element $`f_U=f(u_1,\mathrm{},u_k,\omega _{1U},\mathrm{},\omega _{lU})U`$ for any $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_kU.`$

Definition. The polynomial $`fK[\mathrm{\Omega },𝔛]`$ is called an $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-polynomial identity, or simply, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-identity on $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-algebra $`U,`$ if

$$f_U(u_1,\mathrm{},u_k,\omega _{1U},\mathrm{},\omega _{lU})=0,$$

for any $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_kU.`$

Let us given two $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-polynomial identities $`f=0`$ and $`g=0.`$ We say that the identity $`f=0`$ follows from the identity $`g=0,`$ and denote $`g=0f=0,`$ if $`f_U=0`$ for any $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-algebra $`U,`$ such that $`g_U=0.`$ The identities $`f=0`$ and $`g=0`$ are called $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-equivalent, or just equivalent, if $`f=0g=0`$ and $`g=0f=0.`$

Further, to simplify denotions we will often identify the polynomial $`f=f(t_1,\mathrm{},t_k,\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _l)`$ by the result of substitution $`f_U=f(u_1,\mathrm{},u_k,\omega _{1U},\mathrm{},\omega _{lU})U`$ and call $`f(u_1,\mathrm{},u_k,\omega _{1U},\mathrm{},\omega _{lU})`$ shortly as a $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-polynomail, or just a polynomial. Notice that a formal definiton of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-words does not need any brackets and comma’s, but for practical use it is more convenient to use brackets and comma’s. We will use brackets keeping in mind that we will do it from the right to the left as in the proof of theorem 2.3.

Example. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\{\omega _3,\omega _2,\omega _2^{}:|\omega _3|=3,|\omega _2|=|\omega _2^{}|=2.`$ Let $`a=\omega _3\omega _2x_1x_2x_3\omega _2^{}x_4x_5\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(\mathrm{}),`$ Then for any $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-algebra $`U`$ and for any $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_5U,`$

$$a_U=\omega _{3U}(\omega _{2U}(u_1,u_2),u_3,\omega _{2U}^{}(u_4,u_5))U,$$

or simply,

$$a=\omega _3(\omega _2(x_1,x_2),x_3,\omega _2^{}(x_4,x_5)).$$

## 4. $`3`$-Lie algebras

###### Theorem 4.1.

If $`p=0`$ or $`p>3,`$ then any $`3`$-Lie-Poisson algebra is strong.

Proof. Let $`(U,,\omega )`$ be $`3`$-Lie-Poisson. Recall that

$$r^\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_6)=$$

$$\omega (u_1,u_2,u_3)\omega (u_4,u_5,u_6\omega (u_1,u_2,u_5)\omega (u_4,u_3,u_6)$$

$$+\omega (u_1,u_2,u_6)\omega (u_4,u_3,u_5)+\omega (u_4,u_2,u_3)\omega (u_1,u_5,u_6)$$

$$\omega (u_4,u_2,u_5)\omega (u_1,u_3,u_6)+\omega (u_4,u_2,u_6)\omega (u_1,u_3,u_5)$$

is symmetric in two arguments $`u_1`$ and $`u_4`$ and skew-symmetric in three arguments $`u_3,u_5,u_6.`$

By theorem 6 , for $`3`$-Lie-Poisson algebras, $`r^\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_6)=0,`$ for any $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_6U.`$ One can check that

$$3f^\omega (u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4,u_5,u_6)=$$

$$2r^\omega (u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4,u_5,u_6)+r^\omega (u_2,u_3,u_1,u_4,u_5,u_6)$$

$$r^\omega (u_2,u_4,u_1,u_3,u_5,u_6)+r^\omega (u_2,u_5,u_1,u_3,u_4,u_6)r^\omega (u_2,u_6,u_1,u_3,u_4,u_5).$$

So, $`f^\omega =0`$ is also identity for $`(U,,\omega ),`$ if $`p3.`$

###### Proposition 4.2.

$`f^\omega =0r^\omega =0.`$

Proof. One can check that:

$$r^\omega (u_1,u_n,u_2,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_n},\mathrm{},u_{2n})=$$

$$f^\omega (u_1,u_2,\mathrm{},u_n,\mathrm{},u_{2n})+(1)^nf^\omega (u_2,\mathrm{},u_n,u_1,u_n,\mathrm{},u_{2n}).$$

Therefore, the identity $`r^\omega =0`$ follows from the identity $`f^\omega =0.`$

Remark. Notice that for $`n=2`$ the identities $`r^\omega =0`$ and $`f^\omega =0`$ are different. More exactly, the identity $`r^\omega =0`$ does not appear, if $`n=2.`$ There exist 2-Lie-Poisson algebras that are not strong. Let us give an example of such algebras. Let $`K_{2l}=K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_{2l}]`$ and $`\omega =_{i=1}^l_i_{i+l}.`$ Then $`(K_{2l},,\omega )`$ is $`2`$-Lie-Poisson. It is easy to check that $`(K_2,,_1_2)`$ satisfies the identity $`f^{_1_2}=0.`$ If $`l>1,`$ the polynomial

$$f^\omega (a,u,v,w)=\omega (a,u)\omega (v,w)+\omega (a,v)\omega (w,u)+\omega (a,w)\omega (u,v)$$

is not an identity. For instance,

$$f^\omega (x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)=\omega (x_1,x_2)\omega (x_3,x_4)=10.$$

So, the algebra $`(K_{2l},,\omega )`$ is strong $`2`$-Lie-Poisson, if and only if $`l=1.`$

## 5.  Minimal identities for $`3`$-Jacobians

###### Theorem 5.1.

$`(p2,3)`$ Any polynomial identity of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-degree $`2`$ of Jacobian algebra $`(K[x_1,x_2,x_3],Jac_3^S)`$ follows from $`3`$-Lie and skew-symmetric identities for $`3`$-multiplication $`Jac_3^S.`$

Proof. Let $`\omega =Jac_3^S.`$ Define polynomials $`g^\omega ,`$ $`h^\omega `$ and $`q^\omega `$ by

$$g^\omega =g^\omega (t_1,\mathrm{},t_5)=$$

$$\omega t_1t_2\omega t_3t_4t_5\omega \omega t_1,t_2,t_3t_4t_5+$$

$$\omega \omega t_1t_2t_4t_3t_5\omega \omega t_1t_2t_5t_3t_4,$$

$$h^\omega =h^\omega (t_1,\mathrm{},t_5)=$$

$$\omega t_1t_2\omega t_3t_4t_5\omega t_1t_3\omega t_2t_4t_5+$$

$$\omega t_1t_4\omega t_2t_3t_5\omega t_1t_5\omega t_2t_3t_4,$$

$$q^\omega =q^\omega (t_1,\mathrm{},t_5)=$$

$$\underset{i<j<5}{}()^{i+j}\omega t_it_j\omega t_1\mathrm{}\widehat{t_i}\mathrm{}\widehat{t_j}\mathrm{}t_5.$$

Notice that

$$3h^\omega (t_1,t_2,t_3,t_4,t_5)=$$

$$\underset{2i<j5}{}(1)^{i+j}g^\omega (t_i,t_j,t_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{t_i},\mathrm{}\widehat{t_j},\mathrm{},t_5).$$

Further,

$$\underset{1i<j5}{}(1)^{i+j}g^\omega (t_1,\mathrm{},t_5)=$$

$$2\underset{1i<j5}{}(1)^{i+j}\omega t_it_j\omega t_1\mathrm{}\widehat{t_i}\mathrm{}\widehat{t_j}\mathrm{}t_5.$$

Therefore,

$$2q^\omega (t_2,t_3,t_4,t_5,t_1)=\underset{1i<j5}{}(1)^{i+j}g^\omega (t_1,\mathrm{},t_5)2h^\omega (t_1,\mathrm{},t_5).$$

So, $`h^\omega =0`$ and $`q^\omega =0`$ are identities on $`(U,\omega )`$, if $`g^\omega =0`$ is an identity and $`p2,3.`$

Let $`f`$ be any polynomial of $`wdegf=2.`$ Since $`|\omega |=3,`$ by corollary 2.5 we should prove that any polynomial of the form $`f(t_1,\mathrm{},t_5)=_{i_1<i_2,i_3<i_4<i_5}\lambda _{i_1i_2}\omega (t_{i_1},t_{i_2},\omega (t_{i_3},t_{i_4},t_{i_5})),`$ such that

$$f(u_1,\mathrm{},u_5)=0,$$

for any $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_5U=K[x_1,x_2,x_3],`$ is a linear combination of polynomials that can be obtained from the polynomial $`g^\omega `$ by permutation of variables $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_5.`$

We have

$$f(x_1,x_2,x_1,x_2,x_3^2)=0\lambda _{12}\lambda _{14}+\lambda _{34}\lambda _{23}=0,$$

$$f(x_2,x_1,x_1,x_2,x_3^2)=0\lambda _{12}+\lambda _{13}+\lambda _{24}+\lambda _{34}=0,$$

$$f(x_1,x_2,x_1,x_3^2,x_2)=0\lambda _{12}+\lambda _{15}\lambda _{23}\lambda _{35}=0,$$

$$f(x_2,x_1,x_1,x_3^2,x_2)=0\lambda _{12}+\lambda _{13}\lambda _{25}\lambda _{35}=0,$$

$$f(x_1,x_2,x_3^2,x_1,x_2)=0\lambda _{12}+\lambda _{15}+\lambda _{24}+\lambda _{45}=0,$$

$$f(x_2,x_1,x_3^2,x_1,x_2)=0\lambda _{12}+\lambda _{14}+\lambda _{25}\lambda _{45}=0.$$

The obtained system of linear equations has rank $`5`$ and parameters $`\lambda _{15},\lambda _{25},\lambda _{34},\lambda _{35},\lambda _{45}`$ can be chosen as a free. So, any polynomial $`f,`$ such that $`xdegf=5`$ and $`f=0`$ is an identity on $`(K[x_1,x_2,x_3],\omega ),`$ is a linear combination of the following five polynomials

$$f_{45}=\omega t_1t_2\omega t_3t_4t_5+\omega t_1t_3\omega t_2t_4t_5\omega t_2t_3\omega t_1t_4t_5+\omega t_4t_5\omega t_1t_2t_3,$$

$$f_{35}=\omega t_1t_2\omega t_3t_4t_5+\omega t_1t_4\omega t_2t_3t_5\omega t_2t_4\omega t_1t_3t_5+\omega t_3t_5\omega t_1t_2t_4,$$

$$f_{34}=\omega t_1t_2\omega t_3t_4t_5\omega t_1t_3\omega t_2t_4t_5+\omega t_1t_4\omega t_2t_3t_5$$

$$+\omega t_2t_3\omega t_1t_4t_5\omega t_2t_4\omega t_1t_3t_5+\omega t_3t_4\omega t_1t_2t_5,$$

$$f_{25}=\omega t_1t_2\omega t_3t_4t_5+\omega t_2t_3\omega t_1t_4t_5\omega t_2t_4\omega t_1t_3t_5+\omega t_2t_5\omega t_1t_3t_4,$$

$$f_{15}=\omega t_1t_2\omega t_3t_4t_5+\omega t_1t_3\omega t_2t_4t_5\omega t_1t_4\omega t_2t_3t_5+\omega t_1t_5\omega t_2t_3t_4.$$

We see that

$$f_{45}=g^\omega (t_4,t_5,t_1,t_2,t_3),$$

$$f_{35}=g^\omega (t_3,t_5,t_1,t_2,t_4),$$

$$f_{34}=q^\omega ,$$

$$f_{25}=h^\omega (t_2,t_1,t_3,t_4,t_5),$$

$$f_{15}=h^\omega .$$

So, any identity of $`𝔛`$-degree 5 follows from $`3`$-Lie identity $`g^\omega =0`$ and skew-symmetric identity.

Conjecture. Let $`p=0`$ and $`n>2.`$ Any identity of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-degree $`3`$ of $`n`$-Lie algebra $`(K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n],Jac_n^S)`$ follows from $`n`$-Lie and skew-symmetric identities. Any identity of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$-degree $`3`$ of $`n`$-Lie-Poisson algebra $`(K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n],,Jac_n^S)`$ follows from $`n`$-Lie and skew-symmetric identities for Jacobian, Leibniz rule for $``$ and the identity $`f^{Jac_n^S}=0.`$

Here we suppose that commutativity and associativity identities for a binary operation are given. Definitions of $`n`$-Lie-Poisson algebras and the polynomial $`f^\omega `$ are given in the next section.

## 6. Constructions of $`n`$-Lie algebras by $`n`$-Lie-Poisson algebras

Usually $`n`$-Lie algebras are considered for $`n>1.`$ Complete this definition by considering the case $`n=1.`$ Call any vector space $`U`$ with a linear map $`f:UU,`$ i.e., $`(U,f)`$ a $`1`$-Lie algebra.

Definition. Let $`A=(U,,\omega )`$ be an algebra with two operations: $`(U,U)U,(u,v)uv`$ be a bilinear multiplication and $`\omega :^nUU`$ be a skew-symmetric $`n`$-linear multiplication. We say that $`A`$ is $`n`$-Lie-Poisson, if

* $`(U,)`$ is an associative commutative algebra
* $`(U,\omega )`$ is an $`n`$-Lie algebra.
* $`\omega (uu^{},u_2,\mathrm{},u_n)=\omega (u,u_2,\mathrm{},u_n)u^{}+u\omega (u^{},u_2,\mathrm{},u_n),`$ for any $`u,u^{},u_2,\mathrm{},u_nU.`$

Consider on $`U`$ one more polynomial

$$f^\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n1},v_1,\mathrm{},v_n)=$$

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}(1)^i\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n1},v_i)\omega (v_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{v_i},\mathrm{},v_{n+1}).$$

Let us given an algebra $`(U,,\omega )`$ with one binary operation $`(u,vuv`$ and one $`n`$-ary operation $`^nUU,(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n).`$

Definition. An $`n`$-Lie-Poisson algebra is called strong, if it satisfies the identity $`f^\omega =0.`$

Example. We will see below that the Jacobian algebra $`(U,,Jac_n^S)`$ is strong $`n`$-Lie-Poisson and that the algebra $`(U,,Jac_{n+1}^W)`$ satisfies the identity $`f^\omega =0.`$

Let $`(U,,\omega )`$ be $`n`$-Lie-Poisson algebra. Recall that $`DDer(U,,\omega ),`$ if

* $`DDer(U,),`$ i.e., $`D(uv)=D(u)v+uD(v),`$
* $`DDer(U,\omega ),`$ i.e.,

$$D(\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n))=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_{i1},Du_i,u_{i+1},\mathrm{},u_n).$$

Call in a such case $`D`$ a $`n`$-Lie-Poisson derivation.

Example. Let $`n=1.`$ Then $`(U,,\omega )`$ is $`n`$-Lie-Poisson, if $`\omega :UU`$ is a derivation of $`(U,).`$ If $`D`$ is an $`n`$-Lie-Poisson derivation of $`(U,,\omega ),`$ then $`[D,\omega ]=0.`$

###### Theorem 6.1.

Let $`(U,,\omega )`$ be a strong $`n`$-Lie-Poisson algebra and $`DDer(U,,\omega ).`$ Construct on $`U`$ a new skew-symmetric $`(n+1)`$-multiplication $`\overline{\omega }=D\omega .`$ Then $`(U,,\overline{\omega })`$ is strong $`(n+1)`$-Lie-Poisson.

Proof. We have

$$\overline{\omega }(uu^{},u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)=$$

$$D(uu^{})\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^iD(u_i)\omega (uu^{},u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_n)=$$

$$(D(u)u^{})\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)+uD(u^{})\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)$$

$$+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^iD(u_i)u\omega (u^{},u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_n)+$$

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^iD(u_i)\omega (u,u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_n)u^{}=$$

$$(D(u)\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n))u^{}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^i(D(u_i)\omega (u,u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_n))u^{}+$$

$$u(D(u^{})\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n))+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^iu(D(u_i)\omega (u^{},u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_n))=$$

$$D\omega (u,u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)u^{}+u\omega (u^{},u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)$$

Further,

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+2}{}}(1)^iD\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n,v_i)D\omega (v_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{v_i},\mathrm{},v_{n+2})=$$

$$X_1+X_2,$$

where

$$X_1=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+2}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{1sn+2,si}{}(1)^{i+j+s+\delta (s>i)}$$

$$D(u_j)D(v_s)\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_j},\mathrm{},u_n,v_i)\omega (v_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{v_s},\mathrm{},\widehat{v_i},\mathrm{},v_{n+2}),$$

$$X_2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+2}{}}\underset{1sn+2,si}{}(1)^{i+n+s+\delta (s>i)+1}$$

$$D(v_i)D(v_s)\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)\omega (v_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{v_s},\mathrm{},\widehat{v_i},\mathrm{},v_{n+2}).$$

Notice that, by identity $`f^\omega =0,`$

$$X_1=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{1sn+2}{}(1)^{j+s}D(u_j)D(v_s)$$

$$\left(\underset{1in+2,is}{}(1)^{i+\delta (s>i)}\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_j},\mathrm{},u_n,v_i)\omega (v_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{v_s},\mathrm{},\widehat{v_i},\mathrm{},v_{n+2})\right)$$

$$=0$$

and by commutativity of multiplication $`,`$

$$X_2=(1)^n\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)$$

$$(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+2}{}}\underset{i<sn+2}{}(1)^{i+s}D(v_i)D(v_s)\omega (v_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{v_i},\mathrm{},\widehat{v_s},\mathrm{},v_{n+2})$$

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+2}{}}\underset{i<sn+2}{}(1)^{i+s}D(v_s)D(v_i)\omega (v_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{v_i},\mathrm{},\widehat{v_s},\mathrm{},v_{n+2}))=0$$

So, $`f^{\overline{\omega }}=0`$ is the identity.

Notice that

$$D\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n,D\omega (u_{n+1},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1}))$$

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}(1)^{i+n+1}D\omega (D\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n,u_{n+i}),u_{n+1},\mathrm{},\widehat{u_{n+i}},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1})=$$

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}D(D(u_i))g_i(u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1})+$$

$$\underset{1i,j2n+1,ij}{}D(u_i)D(u_j)g_{i,j}(u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},\widehat{u_j},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1})+$$

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}D(u_i)h_{i,j}(u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_{j1},D(u_j),u_{j+1},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1}),$$

for some polynomials $`g_i,g_{i,j}`$ and $`h_{i,j},`$ that do not depend from $`D.`$

The following relations can be obtained by tedious calculations.

If $`n<i2n+1,`$ then $`g_i=0.`$ If $`1in,`$ then by the identity $`f^\omega =0,`$

$$g_i(u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1})=$$

$$(1)^{i+n+1}\underset{j=n+1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}(1)^j\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_n,u_j)\omega (u_{n+1},\mathrm{},\widehat{u_j},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1})=$$

$$(1)^{i+n+1}f^\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1})=0.$$

If $`1i,jn,`$ or $`n<i,j2n+1,`$ then $`g_{i,j}=0.`$ If $`1in,`$ $`n<j2n+1,`$ by $`n`$-Lie identity $`g_{i,j}=0.`$

If $`n<j2n+1,`$ then $`h_{i,j}=0.`$ If $`1jn,`$ then

$$h_{i,j}=\pm f^\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_{j1},D(u_j),u_{j+1},\mathrm{},u_n,u_{n+1},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1}),$$

in the case of $`1in,`$ and

$$h_{i,j}=\pm f^\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_j},\mathrm{},u_n,u_{n+1},\mathrm{},u_{i1},D(u_i),u_{i+1},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1}),$$

in the case of $`n<i2n+1.`$ Thus, in both cases, by the identity $`f^\omega =0,`$ we have $`h_{i,j}=0.`$

So, the multiplication $`\overline{\omega }`$ satisfies $`(n+1)`$-Lie identity.

###### Corollary 6.2.

Let $`U`$ be an associative commutative algebra with commuting derivations $`_1,\mathrm{},_n.`$ Let $`\omega =_1\mathrm{}_n`$ Then $`(U,,\omega )`$ is strong $`n`$-Lie-Poisson.

The algebra $`(U,,\omega )`$ constructed in corollary 6.2 is called $`n`$-Lie Jacobian algebra of type $`S.`$

Proof. We will argue by induction on $`n`$. If $`n=1,`$ then $`(U,,_1)`$ is $`1`$-Lie-Poisson, if and only if $`_1Der(U,).`$ In this case the identity $`f^\omega =0`$ follows from the commutativity law for the algebra $`(U,).`$

Suppose that the algebra $`(U,,_1\mathrm{}_{n1})`$ is strong $`(n1)`$-Lie-Poisson. By definition $`_nDer(U,).`$ Since $`[_n,_i]=0,`$ for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},n1,`$ then

$$_n(_1\mathrm{}_{n1}(u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n1})=$$

$$_n(\underset{\sigma Sym_{n1}}{}sign\sigma _{\sigma (1)}u_1\mathrm{}_{\sigma (n1)}u_{n1})=$$

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\underset{\sigma Sym_{n1}}{}sign\sigma _{\sigma (1)}u_1\mathrm{}_{\sigma (i1)}u_{i1}_n(_{\sigma (i)}u_i)_{\sigma (i+1)}u_{i+1}\mathrm{}_{\sigma (n1)}u_{n1}=$$

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\underset{\sigma Sym_{n1}}{}sign\sigma _{\sigma (1)}u_1\mathrm{}_{\sigma (i1)}u_{i1}_{\sigma (i)}_n(u_i)_{\sigma (i+1)}u_{i+1}\mathrm{}_{\sigma (n1)}u_{n1}=$$

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}_1\mathrm{}_{n1}(u_1,\mathrm{},u_{i1},_nu_i,u_{i+1},\mathrm{},u_{n1}).$$

So, $`_nDer(U,_1\mathrm{}_{n1}).`$ Thus we can apply theorem 6.1. By this theorem we obtain that $`(U,,_1\mathrm{}_n)`$ is strong $`n`$-Lie-Poisson.

###### Theorem 6.3.

Let $`(U,,\omega )`$ be strong $`n`$-Lie-Poisson. Endow $`U`$ by a new skew-symmetric $`(n+1)`$-multiplication $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=id\omega ,`$ where $`id:UU,uu,`$ is the identity map. Then $`(U,\stackrel{~}{\omega })`$ is $`(n+1)`$-Lie algebra. It satisfies the identity $`f^{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}=0.`$ If $`U`$ has unit $`1,`$ then it satisfies one more identity

(4)
$$\stackrel{~}{\omega }(uu^{},u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)u\stackrel{~}{\omega }(u^{},u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)u^{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }(u,u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)=$$

$$(uu^{})i(1)\stackrel{~}{\omega }(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)$$

Proof. Since $`L_{u_2,\mathrm{},u_n}Der(U,),`$ and $`11=1,`$

$$i(1)\omega =0.$$

Therefore,

(5)
$$i(1)(id\omega )=\omega $$

So, for any $`u,u^{},u_1,\mathrm{},u_nU,`$

$$\stackrel{~}{\omega }(uu^{},u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)=Y_1+Y_2,$$

$$u\stackrel{~}{\omega }(u^{},u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)=Z_1+Z_2,$$

$$u^{}\stackrel{~}{\omega }(u,u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)=W_1+W_2,$$

where

$$Y_1=(uu^{})\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n),$$

$$Y_2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^iu_i\omega (uu^{},u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_n),$$

$$Z_1=u(u^{}\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)),$$

$$Z_2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}()^iu(u_i\omega (u^{},u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_n)),$$

$$W_1=u^{}(u\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)),$$

$$W_2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}()^iu^{}(u_i\omega (u,u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_n)).$$

Since $`L_{u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_n}Der(U,),`$

$$Y_1=Z_1=W_1,Y_2=Z_2+W_2.$$

Therefore, by (5), the identity (4) is true.

We have

$$f^{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n,v_1,\mathrm{},v_{n+2})=$$

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+2}{}}(1)^iid\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n,v_i)\stackrel{~}{\omega }(v_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{v_i},\mathrm{},v_{n+2})=$$

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+2}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^{i+j}u_j\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_j},\mathrm{},u_n,v_i)\stackrel{~}{\omega }(v_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{v_i},\mathrm{},v_{n+2})+$$

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+2}{}}(1)^{i+n+1}v_i\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)\stackrel{~}{\omega }(v_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{v_i},\mathrm{},v_{n+2})=$$

$$T_1+T_2,$$

where

$$T_1=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+2}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{1sn+2,si}{}(1)^{i+j+s+\delta (s>i)}$$

$$u_jv_s\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_j},\mathrm{},u_n,v_i)\omega (v_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{v_s},\mathrm{},\widehat{v_i},\mathrm{},v_{n+2}),$$

$$T_2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+2}{}}\underset{1sn+2,si}{}$$

$$(1)^{i+s+\delta (s>i)+n+1}v_iv_s\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)\omega (v_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{v_s},\mathrm{},\widehat{v_i},\mathrm{},v_{n+2}).$$

Since $`(U,)`$ is commutative,

$$T_2=(1)^{n+1}\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)$$

$$\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+2}{}}\underset{1sn+2,si}{}(1)^{i+s+\delta (s>i)}v_iv_s\omega (v_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{v_s},\mathrm{},\widehat{v_i},\mathrm{},v_{n+2})\right)=0.$$

Notice that

$$T_1=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{s=1}{\overset{n+2}{}}(1)^{j+s}u_jv_s$$

$$\left(\underset{1in+2,is}{}(1)^{i+\delta (s>i)}\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_j},\mathrm{},u_n,v_i)\omega (v_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{v_s},\mathrm{},\widehat{v_i},\mathrm{},v_{n+2})\right)=$$

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{s=1}{\overset{n+2}{}}(1)^{j+s}u_jv_sf^\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_j},\mathrm{},u_n,v_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{v_s},\mathrm{},v_{n+2}).$$

Since $`f^\omega =0`$ is identity on $`(U,,\omega ),`$ we have $`T_1=0.`$ So, the algebra $`(U,,\stackrel{~}{\omega })`$ satisfies the identity $`f^{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}=0.`$

We have

$$id\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n,id\omega (u_{n+1},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1}))=$$

$$\underset{i=n+1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}(1)^{i+n+1}id\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n,u_i\omega (u_{n+1},\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1}))=$$

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{i=n+1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}(1)^{i+j+n}u_j\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_j},\mathrm{},u_n,u_i\omega (u_n,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1}))+$$

$$\underset{i=n+1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}(1)^{i+1}u_i\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)\omega (u_{n+1},\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1})=$$

$$A_1+A_2+A_3,$$

where

$$A_1=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{i=n+1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}(1)^{i+j+n}u_j\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_j},\mathrm{},u_n,u_i)\omega (u_n,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1})),$$

$$A_2=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{i=n+1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}(1)^{i+j+n}u_ju_i\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_j},\mathrm{},u_n,\omega (u_n,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1})),$$

$$A_3=\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)\underset{i=n+1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}(1)^{i+1}u_i\omega (u_{n+1},\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1}).$$

On the other hand,

$$\underset{i=n+1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}(1)^{i+n+1}(id\omega )(id\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n,u_i),u_{n+1},\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1})=$$

$$\underset{i=n+1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^{i+j+n}(id\omega )(u_j\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_j},\mathrm{},u_n,u_i),u_{n+1},\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1})+$$

$$\underset{i=n+1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}(1)^{i+1}(id\omega )(u_i\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n),u_{n+1},\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1})=$$

$$B_1+B_2+B_3+B_4,$$

where

$$B_1=\underset{i=n+1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^{i+j+n}u_j\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_j},\mathrm{},u_n,u_i)\omega (u_{n+1},\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1}),$$

$$B_2=\underset{i=n+1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{n<s2n+1,si}{}(1)^{i+j+s+1+\delta (s>i)}$$

$$u_s\omega (u_j\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_j},\mathrm{},u_n,u_i),u_{n+1},\mathrm{},\widehat{u_s},\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1}),$$

$$B_3=\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)\underset{i=n+1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}(1)^{i+1}u_i\omega (u_{n+1},\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1}),$$

$$B_4=\underset{i=n+1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}\underset{n<s2n+1,si}{}(1)^{i+s+n+\delta (s>i)}$$

$$u_s\omega (u_i\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n),u_{n+1},\mathrm{},\widehat{u_s},\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1}).$$

Notice that

$$A_1=B_1,$$

$$A_3=B_3.$$

So, to check $`(n+1)`$-Lie identity for $`(n+1)`$-multiplication $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ we must prove, that

$$A_2=B_2+B_4.$$

We have

$$B_2=B_{2,1}+B_{2,2},$$

$$B_4=B_{4,1}+B_{4,2},$$

where

$$B_{2,1}=\underset{i=n+1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{n<s2n+1,si}{}(1)^{i+j+s+1+\delta (s>i)}$$

$$u_su_j\omega (\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_j},\mathrm{},u_n,u_i),u_{n+1},\mathrm{},\widehat{u_s},\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1}),$$

$$B_{2,2}=\underset{i=n+1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{n<s2n+1,si}{}(1)^{i+j+s+1+\delta (s>i)}$$

$$u_s\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_j},\mathrm{},u_n,u_i)\omega (u_j,u_{n+1},\mathrm{},\widehat{u_s},\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1}),$$

$$B_{4,1}=\underset{i=n+1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}\underset{n<s2n+1,si}{}(1)^{i+s+n+\delta (s>i)}$$

$$u_su_i\omega (\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n),u_{n+1},\mathrm{},\widehat{u_s},\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1}),$$

$$B_{4,2}=\underset{i=n+1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}\underset{n<s2n+1,si}{}(1)^{i+s+n+\delta (s>i)}$$

$$u_s\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)\omega (u_i,u_{n+1},\mathrm{},\widehat{u_s},\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1}).$$

We see that

$$B_{4,2}=$$

$$\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)$$

$$\underset{i=n+1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}\underset{n<s2n+1}{}(1)^su_s\omega (u_{n+1},\mathrm{},\widehat{u_s},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1})=$$

$$n\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)\underset{n<s2n+1}{}(1)^su_s\omega (u_{n+1},\mathrm{},\widehat{u_s},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1}).$$

Further,

$$B_{2,2}=\underset{i=n+1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{n<s2n+1,si}{}(1)^{i+j+n+1}$$

$$u_s\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_j},\mathrm{},u_n,u_i)\omega (u_{n+1},\mathrm{},u_{s1},u_j,u_{s+1},\mathrm{},\widehat{u_i},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1}).$$

Therefore,

$$B_{2,2}+B_{4,2}=$$

$$\pm n\underset{s=n+1}{\overset{2n+1}{}}u_sf^\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n1},u_n,\mathrm{},\widehat{u_s},\mathrm{},u_{2n+1})$$

So, if $`n0(modp),`$ or $`f^\omega =0,`$ then

$$B_{2,2}+B_{4,2}=0.$$

Let

$$A_2B_{2,1}B_{4,1}=\underset{1i<s2n+1}{}u_iu_sg_{i,s},$$

where the polynomial $`g_{i,s}`$ does not depend from $`u_i`$ and $`u_s.`$ One can check that $`g_{i,s}=0,`$ if $`1i,sn`$ or $`n<i,s2n+1`$ By $`n`$-Lie identity for $`\omega `$ we have $`g_{i,s}=0,`$ if $`1in,n<s2n+1.`$

So, $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ satisfies $`(n+1)`$-Lie identity.

###### Corollary 6.4.

Let $`U`$ be an associative commutative algebra with commuting derivations $`_1,\mathrm{},_n.`$ Let $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=id_1\mathrm{}_n`$ Then $`(U,,\stackrel{~}{\omega })`$ is $`(n+1)`$-Lie with identity $`f^{\stackrel{~}{\omega }}=0.`$ If $`U`$ has unit 1, then the algebra $`(U,,\stackrel{~}{\omega })`$ satisfies the identity (4).

The algebra $`(U,,\stackrel{~}{\omega })`$ constructed in corollary (6.4) is called $`n`$-Lie Jacobian algebra of type $`W.`$

Proof. Follows from corollary 6.2 and theorem 6.3.

## 7.  Polynomial principle and $`𝒟`$-invariants

In this section we discuss two methods used in our calculations.

Call the first method a Polynomial principle. It means the following. Let $`U`$ be some associative commutative algebra over a field $`K`$ with binary multiplication $`U\times UU,(u,v)uv.`$ Let $`_1,\mathrm{},_n`$ be commuting derivations of $`U:`$ $`[_i,_j]=0,`$ for any $`i,j=1,\mathrm{},n.`$ Let us given a polylinear map $`\omega :U\times \mathrm{}\times UU`$ with $`n`$ arguments, such that $`\omega (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)`$ is a linear combination of elements of the form $`_1^{i_1}(u_1)\mathrm{}_n^{i_n}u_n`$ for any $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_nU.`$

Suppose that some statement concerning associative commutative algebra $`U,`$ $`n`$-ary polylinear map $`\omega :U\times \mathrm{}\times UU`$ and derivations $`_1,\mathrm{},_n`$ was obtained by using:

* Leibniz rule:

$$_i(u_1u_2)=_i(u_1)u_2+u_1_i(u_2),$$

for any $`u_1,u_2U`$ and $`i=1,\mathrm{},n.`$
* linear properties of $`U`$
* associativity and commutativity properties of $`U.`$

Then this statement is true for any associative commutative algebra $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ with commuting derivations $`\stackrel{~}{}_1,\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{}_n.`$ In particular, this statement is true for the polynomial algebra $`U=K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ with derivations $`_i=/x_i,i=1,\mathrm{},n.`$

The second method is based on the study of $`𝒟`$-invariants . Let $`𝒟`$ be an abelian subalgebra of $`DerU`$ generated by commuting derivations $`_1,\mathrm{},_n.`$ Let $`C^k(U,U)=\{\psi :U\times \mathrm{}\times UU\}`$ be the space of skew-symmetric polylinear maps with $`k`$ arguments and $`C^{}(U,U)=_kC^k(U,U).`$

Let $`\rho :𝒟EndC^{}(U,U)`$ be a representation of an abelian Lie algebra $`𝒟`$ defined by

$$\rho (X)\psi (u_1,\mathrm{},u_k)=$$

$$X(\psi (u_1,\mathrm{},u_k))\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}\psi (u_1,\mathrm{},u_{l1},X(u_l),u_{l+1},\mathrm{},u_k),$$

for $`\psi C^k(U,U).`$ We say that $`\psi C^{}(U,U)`$ is $`𝒟`$-invariant, if $`\rho (X)\psi =0,`$ for any $`X𝒟.`$

Define $``$ and $`^{}`$ products on $`C^{}(U,U).`$ For $`\psi C^k(U,U)`$ and $`\varphi C^l(U,U)`$ set

$$\psi \varphi (u_1,\mathrm{},u_{k+l})=\psi (u_1,\mathrm{},u_k)\varphi (u_{k+1},\mathrm{},u_{k+l}),$$

$$\psi ^{}\varphi (u_1,\mathrm{},u_{k+l})=\psi (\varphi (u_1,\mathrm{},u_l),u_{l+1},\mathrm{},u_{k+l}).$$

Define $`\psi \varphi C^{k+l}(U,U)`$ and $`\psi ^{}\varphi C^{k+l1}(U,U)`$ by

$$\psi \varphi (u_1,\mathrm{},u_{k+l})=$$

$$\underset{\sigma Sym_{k,l}}{}sign\sigma (\psi \varphi )(u_{\sigma (1)},\mathrm{},u_{\sigma (k)},u_{\sigma (k+1)},\mathrm{},u_{\sigma (k+l)}),$$

$$\psi ^{}\varphi (u_1,\mathrm{},u_{k+l})=$$

$$\underset{\sigma Sym_{l,k1}}{}sign\sigma (\psi ^{}\varphi )(u_{\sigma (1)},\mathrm{},u_{\sigma (l)},u_{\sigma (l+1)},\mathrm{},u_{\sigma (k+l)}).$$

###### Proposition 7.1.

If $`\psi ,\varphi C^{}(U,U),`$ then

$$\rho (X)(\psi +\varphi )=\rho (X)\psi +\rho (X)\varphi ,$$

$$\rho (X)(\lambda \psi )=\lambda \rho (X)\psi ,$$

$$\rho (X)(\psi \varphi )=\rho (X)\psi \varphi +\psi \rho (X)\varphi ,$$

$$\rho (X)(\psi ^{}\varphi )=\rho (X)\psi ^{}\varphi +\psi ^{}\rho (X)\varphi .$$

###### Corollary 7.2.

The subspace of $`𝒟`$-invariants $`C^k(U,U)^𝒟=\{\psi C^k(U,U):\rho (X)\psi =0,X𝒟\}`$ is close under $``$ and $`^{}`$ products.

So, any polylinear map constructed by $`𝒟`$-invariant maps using $``$ and $`^{}`$ products will be also $`𝒟`$-invariant. For example, $`Jac_n^SC^n(U,U)^𝒟`$ and $`Jac_{n+1}^WC^{n+1}(U,U)^𝒟.`$

Let $`pr:UK`$ be a projection map:

$$pr\underset{\alpha 𝐙^n}{}\lambda _\alpha x^\alpha =\lambda _0.$$

Prolong this map to

$$pr:C^{}(U,U)C^{}(U,K),$$

$$(pr\psi )(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)=pr(\psi (u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)).$$

###### Theorem 7.3.

Let $`\psi C^k(U,U)^𝒟.`$ Then

$$\psi (u_1,\mathrm{},u_k)=\underset{\alpha (1),\mathrm{},\alpha (n)𝐙_+^n}{}\frac{^{\alpha (1)}(u_1)}{\alpha (1)!}\mathrm{}\frac{^{\alpha (k)}(u_k)}{\alpha (k)!}pr\psi (x^{\alpha (1)},\mathrm{},x^{\alpha (k)}).$$

This theorem follows from the results of . Call $`k`$-typles $`(x^{\alpha (1)},\mathrm{},x^{\alpha (k)}),`$ or simply $`(\alpha (1),\mathrm{},\alpha (k)),`$ such that $`pr\psi (x^{\alpha (1)},\mathrm{},x^{\alpha (k)})0,`$ as a support of $`\psi .`$ So, by theorem 7.3 to prove $`\psi =0`$ it is enough to establish that $`\psi `$ does not have any support $`k`$-typle.

## 8.  Derivations of Jacobian algebras of type $`S`$

In this section $`charK=0`$ and $`U=K_n`$ or $`K_n^+`$ and $`n>1,`$ if otherwise is not stated. Elements of $`U`$ are denoted as $`u,v,w,u_1,v_1,w_1,\mathrm{}.`$ Let $`\theta =_{i=1}^nϵ_i,`$ where $`ϵ_i=(0,\mathrm{},0,\underset{i}{1},0,\mathrm{},0)𝐙^n.`$

There are four Cartan Type Lie algebras of formal vector fields. One of them is called Special. This algebra is defined as an algebra of divergenceless vector fields

$$S_{n1}=S_{n1}(U)=<X=u_i_i:DivX=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}_i(u_i)=0>.$$

Recall that $`S_n(K_n^+)`$ is simple, but $`L=S_{n1}(K_n)`$ is not simple: its commutant $`[L,L]`$ is generated by derivations $`D_{ij}=_i(u)_j_j(u)_i,uU`$ and

$$L/[L,L]=<D_{ij}x^\theta ,x^{\theta +ϵ_i}_i:i=1,\mathrm{},n>K^{n+1}.$$

###### Theorem 8.1.

Let $`U=K_n.`$

i) The algebra $`(U,Jac_n^S)`$ is not simple. It has $`1`$-dimensional center $`<1>`$ and the ideal of codimension 1: $`\overline{U}=<x^\alpha :\alpha \theta >.`$ The factor-algebra $`(\overline{U}/<1>,Jac_n^S)`$ is simple $`n`$-Lie algebra.

ii) Takes place the exact sequence

$$0Out(U,,Jac_n^S)Out(U,Jac_n^S)K^20.$$

More exactly, the factor-algebra $`Out(U,Jac_n^S)/Out(U,,Jac_n^S)`$ is $`2`$-dimensional and is generated by derivations $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`D_\theta ,`$ defined by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_i_i+n(1n)^1:x^\alpha (|\alpha |+n(1n)^1)x^\alpha ,$$

$$D_\theta :x^\alpha \delta _{\alpha ,\theta }.$$

iii) The linear maps $`D_i:UU,i=1,\mathrm{},n,`$ given by

$$D_i:ux^{\theta +ϵ_i}_i(u),$$

are outer derivations of $`(U,,Jac_n^S).`$ Their classes of derivations in $`Out(U,,Jac_n^S)=Der(U,Jac_n^S)/Int(U,Jac_n^S)`$ form a base. In particular, $`dimOut(U,,Jac_n^S)=n`$ and $`dimOut(U,Jac_n^S)=n+2.`$

iv) Classes of derivations $`\mathrm{\Delta },D_1,\mathrm{},D_n`$ in $`Out(\overline{U},Jac_n^S)/<1>)`$ form a base. In particular, $`dimOut(\overline{U},Jac_n^S)/<1>=n+1.`$

###### Corollary 8.2.

Let $`U=K[x_1^{\pm \frac{1}{n1}},\mathrm{},x_n^{\pm \frac{1}{n1}}].`$ Then eigenspaces of the derivation $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ endow the algebra $`(U,Jac_n^S)`$ by grading. If

$$U_{[k]}=\{uU:\mathrm{\Delta }(u)=ku\}=\{x^\alpha :|\alpha |=k+n(n1)^1\},$$

then

$$u_1U_{[k_1]},\mathrm{},u_nU_{[k_n]}Jac_n^S(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)U_{[k_1+\mathrm{}+k_n]}.$$

Here $`k(n1)^1𝐙.`$

###### Theorem 8.3.

Let $`U=K_n^+.`$ Then the algebra $`(U^+,Jac_n^S)`$ has $`1`$-dimensional center $`<1>.`$ Its factor-algebra $`(U^+/<1>,Jac_n^S)`$ is simple $`n\text{-Lie}.`$ It has one outer derivation $`\mathrm{\Delta }.`$ In particular, $`dimOut(U,Jac_n^S)=`$
$`dimOut(U/<1>,Jac_n^S)=1.`$

Theorem 8.3 follows from theorem 8.1. Therefore, below we can consider only the case $`U=K_n.`$

###### Lemma 8.4.

Any divergenceless derivation of $`U`$ is a linear combination of derivations $`D_{i,j}(u)`$ and derivations $`x^{\theta +ϵ_i}_i.`$

###### Lemma 8.5.

Any derivation of the form $`D_{i,j}(u),`$ where $`i<j,i,j=1,\mathrm{},n,uU,`$ can be presented as an interior derivation $`L_{u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n1}}`$ of the Jacobian algebra $`Jac_n^S.`$

Proof. It is easy to see that

$$Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},u,x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_{j1},v,x_{j+1},\mathrm{},x_n)=$$

$$_i(u)_j(v)_j(u)_i(v).$$

Therefore,

$$D_{i,j}(u)=(1)^{nj}ad(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},u,x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_{j1},x_{j+1},\mathrm{},x_n).$$

###### Lemma 8.6.

The element $`x^\theta `$ cannot be presented as a Jacobian $`Jac_n^S(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n).`$ Any element $`x^\beta ,`$ where $`\beta 𝐙^n,\beta \theta ,`$ can be presented as a linear combination of elements $`Jac_n^S(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n),`$ for some $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_nU.`$

In other words, the first cohomology group of $`(U,Jac_n^S)`$ with coefficients in the trivial module is 1-dimensional.

Proof. Since $`Jac_n^S:^nUU`$ is polylinear, if $`x^\theta =Jac_n^S(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n),`$ for some $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_nU,`$ then

$$\lambda x^\theta =Jac_n^S(x^{\alpha _1},\mathrm{},x^{\alpha _n}),$$

for some $`\lambda K,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n𝐙^n.`$ Thus,

$$\lambda =x^\theta Jac_n^S(x^{\alpha _1},\mathrm{},x^{\alpha _n})=$$

$$\underset{\sigma Sym_n}{}sign\sigma x_{\sigma (1)}_{\sigma (1)}(x^{\alpha _1})\mathrm{}x_{\sigma (n)}_{\sigma (n)}(x^{\alpha _n})=$$

$$(\underset{\sigma Sym_n}{}sign\sigma \alpha _{1,\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}\alpha _{n,\sigma (n)})x^{\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _n},$$

where $`\alpha _i=(\alpha _{i,1},\mathrm{},\alpha _{i,n})𝐙^n.`$ Therefore, we come to two conclusions: the first

$$\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _n=0𝐙^n,$$

and the second,

$$\lambda =det(\alpha _{i,j}).$$

The first relation means that the sum of rows of the matrix $`(\alpha _{i,j})`$ is $`0.`$ Therefore, its determinant is also $`0`$ and by the second relation $`\lambda =0.`$

Let $`\beta \theta .`$ Then $`\beta _i1`$ for some $`i.`$ Therefore, $`\beta _i+10,`$ and

$$x^\beta =Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},(\beta _i+1)^1x^{\beta +ϵ_i},x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_n).$$

###### Corollary 8.7.

$`D_\theta Der(U,Jac_n^S).`$

###### Lemma 8.8.

The element $`x^\theta `$ cannot be presented in the form $`x^{\theta +ϵ_i}_i(u),`$ where $`uU,i=1,\mathrm{},n.`$

Proof. Suppose that $`\lambda x^\theta =x^{\theta +ϵ_i}_i(x^\alpha ),`$ for some $`\alpha 𝐙^n`$ and $`\lambda K.`$ We have

$$x^\theta =x^{\theta +ϵ_i}_i(x^\alpha )=\alpha _ix^{\theta +\alpha }.$$

Thus $`\alpha =0,`$ and in particular, $`\alpha _i=0.`$ So, $`\lambda =0.`$

###### Lemma 8.9.

The linear maps $`D_i=x^{\theta +ϵ_i}_i:ux^{\theta +ϵ_i}_i(u)`$ are derivations of $`(U,Jac_n^S).`$

Proof. Take $`T_{i,j}=x^{\theta +ϵ_i+ϵ_j}\mathrm{ln}x_j,i<j.`$ Then $`T_{i,j}U=K_n,`$ but $`T_{i,j}\stackrel{~}{U},`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{U}=K[x_1^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},x_n^{\pm 1},T_{i,j}]`$ is an extension of $`U`$ by $`T_{i,j}.`$ We see that $`D_i=D_{i,j}(T_{i,j}).`$ So, by lemma 8.5, $`D_i`$ is a derivation of $`Jac_n^S(\stackrel{~}{U}).`$ In particular, $`D_i`$ satisfies the Leibniz rule

$$D_iJac_n^S(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)=\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}Jac_n^S(u_1,\mathrm{},u_{l1},D_i(u_l),u_{l+1},\mathrm{},u_n),$$

for elements $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_n`$ of the subalgebra $`(U,Jac_n^S)(\stackrel{~}{U},Jac_n^S).`$ Since $`D_i(u)U,`$ for any $`uU,`$ this means that $`D_iDer(U,J_n^S).`$

###### Lemma 8.10.

The linear map $`\mathrm{\Delta }:UU`$ given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_i_i+n(1n)^1$$

is a derivation of the algebra $`(U,Jac_n^S).`$

Proof. Define polynomial $`f`$ by

$$f(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)=\mathrm{\Delta }(Jac_n^S(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n))\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}Jac_n^S(u_1,\mathrm{},u_{l1},\mathrm{\Delta }(u_l),u_{l+1},\mathrm{},u_n).$$

Notice that $`[_i,\mathrm{\Delta }]=_i.`$ Since $`Jac_n^S`$ is $`𝒟`$-invariant,

$$\rho (_i)f=\rho ([_i,\mathrm{\Delta }])Jac_n^S=\rho (_i)Jac_nS=0.$$

So, $`f`$ is $`𝒟`$-invariant and by theorem 7.3,

$$f(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)=\underset{\alpha (1),\mathrm{},\alpha (n)𝐙_+^n}{}\frac{^{\alpha (1)}(u_1)}{\alpha (1)!}\mathrm{}\frac{^{\alpha (n)}(u_n)}{\alpha (n)!}prf(x^{\alpha (1)},\mathrm{},x^{\alpha (n)}),$$

where $`|\alpha (1)|+\mathrm{}+|\alpha (n)|=n.`$

We see that $`prf:^nUK`$ is uniquely defined by $`f(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n).`$ In other words,

$$Support(f)C^n(R(\pi _1),K)<x_1\mathrm{}x_n>K.$$

We have,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(1)=n(1n)^1,\mathrm{\Delta }(x_i)=(1n)^1,Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=1.$$

Therefore,

$$f(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=n(1n)^1\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1n)^1=0.$$

So, $`Support(f)=\mathrm{},`$ and $`prf=0.`$ Thus, by theorem 7.3, $`f=0.`$ In other words, $`\mathrm{\Delta }Der(U,Jac_n^S).`$

###### Lemma 8.11.

Derivations $`\mathrm{\Delta },D_1,\mathrm{},D_nDer(U,Jac_n^S)`$ are outer. Moreover, any non-trivial linear combination of derivations $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is outer.

Proof. Suppose that

$$\lambda _0\mathrm{\Delta }(v)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\lambda _iD_i(v)=Jac_n^S(u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n1},v),$$

for some $`\lambda _0,\lambda _1,\mathrm{},\lambda _nK,u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n1}U`$ and for any $`vU.`$

For $`v=1`$ we obtain that $`n(1n)^1\lambda _0=0,`$ and $`\lambda _0=0.`$

For $`v=x_i`$ we have

$$\lambda _ix^{\theta +ϵ_i}=(1)^{ni}Jac_{n1}^S(u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n1}).$$

By lemma 8.6, this is possible only for the case of $`\lambda _i=0.`$

###### Lemma 8.12.

Suppose that $`D_{i,j}(x^\beta )u=0,uU,`$ for any $`\beta 𝐙_+^n,|\beta |>2.`$ Then $`u<1>.`$

Proof. Suppose that $`u=_{\alpha 𝐙^n,q|\alpha |s}\lambda _\alpha x^\alpha `$ and $`\lambda _{\overline{\alpha }}0,`$ for some $`\overline{\alpha }𝐙^n,`$ such that $`|\overline{\alpha }|=s`$ and $`\overline{\alpha }0.`$ Then $`\overline{\alpha }_i0,`$ for some $`i.`$ Take $`\beta =3ϵ_j,`$ for some $`ji.`$ Recall that we suppose that $`n>1.`$ Then $`D_{i,j}(x^\beta )=3x_j^2_i`$ and

$$D_{i,j}(x^\beta )u=3\lambda _{\overline{\alpha }}\overline{\alpha }_ix^{\overline{\alpha }+2ϵ_j}+w,$$

for some $`wU.`$ Notice that $`w`$ is a linear combination of $`x^\gamma ,`$ where $`\gamma 𝐙^n,|\gamma |s+2`$ and $`\gamma \overline{\alpha }+2ϵ_j.`$ Therefore, $`3\lambda _{\overline{\alpha }}\overline{\alpha }_i=0,`$ i.e., $`\lambda _{\overline{\alpha }_i}=0.`$ The obtained contradiction shows that $`s=0.`$ By similar arguments it is easy to obtain that $`q=0.`$

###### Lemma 8.13.

Let $`DDer(U,Jac_n^S),`$ and $`D(u)=0,`$ for any $`uU^+.`$ Then $`D=\lambda D_\theta ,`$ for some $`\lambda K.`$

Proof. Suppose that $`D(x^\alpha )0,`$ for some $`\alpha 𝐙^n,\alpha 𝐙_+^n`$ and $`D(x^\beta )=0,`$ for any $`\beta 𝐙^n,|\beta |>|\alpha |.`$ Notice that

$$Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},u,x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_{j1},v,x_{j+1},\mathrm{},x_n)=D_{i,j}(u)v=D_{i,j}(v)u.$$

For any $`\beta 𝐙^n,|\beta |>2,`$

$$|Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},x^\alpha ,x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_{j1},x^\beta ,x_{j+1},\mathrm{},x_n)|>|x^\alpha |.$$

So,

$$D(Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},x^\alpha ,x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_{j1},x^\beta ,x_{j+1},\mathrm{},x_n))=0,$$

if $`\beta 𝐙_+^n,|\beta |>2.`$ Since $`D`$ is derivation, and $`D(u)=0,`$ for any $`uU^+,`$

$$D(Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},x^\alpha ,x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_{j1},x^\beta ,x_{j+1},\mathrm{},x_n))=$$

$$Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},D(x^\alpha ),x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_{j1},x^\beta ,x_{j+1},\mathrm{},x_n)),$$

Thus,

$$D_{i,j}(x^\beta )(D(x^\alpha ))=0,$$

for any $`\beta 𝐙_+^n,|\beta |>2.`$ By lemma 8.12,

$$D(x^\alpha )_{s=1}^nKer_s=<1>.$$

So,

(6)
$$D(x^\alpha )=\lambda 1,$$

for some $`\lambda K.`$

Suppose that $`\lambda 0.`$

Now take $`\beta =ϵ_j.`$ Then by the Leibniz rule

$$D(_i(x^\alpha ))=D(Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},x^\alpha ,x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_n))=$$

$$Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},D(x^\alpha ),x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_n))=_i(D(x^\alpha )),$$

and, according to (6),

(7)
$$D(_i(x^\alpha ))=0,$$

for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},n.`$

We have

$$Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},x^\alpha ,x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_{j1},x_ix_j,x_{j+1},\mathrm{},x_n)=$$

$$x_i_i(x^\alpha )x_j_j(x^\alpha ).$$

Therefore, by (6) and the Leibniz rule,

$$(\alpha _i\alpha _j)D(x^\alpha )=$$

$$D(Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},x^\alpha ,x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_{j1},x_ix_j,x_{j+1},\mathrm{},x_n))=0.$$

So, if $`\lambda 0,`$ then

(8)
$$\alpha _i=t,$$

for some $`0t𝐙`$ and for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},n.`$

Take $`\beta =ϵ_i+2ϵ_j.`$ We have

$$Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},_j(x^\alpha ),x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_{j1},x_ix_j^2,x_{j+1},\mathrm{},x_n)=(2\alpha _i\alpha _j+1)x^\alpha .$$

Then by (6), (8) we obtain that

$$(2\alpha _i\alpha _j+1)D(x^\alpha )=$$

$$D(Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},_j(x^\alpha ),x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_{j1},x_ix_j^2,x_{j+1},\mathrm{},x_n))=0.$$

So, by (8), $`t=1`$ and $`D=\lambda D_\theta .`$

###### Lemma 8.14.

Any derivation of $`(U,Jac_n^S)`$ is a linear combination of some interior derivation and derivations $`\mathrm{\Delta },D_\theta ,D_1,\mathrm{},D_n.`$

Proof. By lemma 8.13 any derivation $`D`$ is defined by its restriction on $`U^+`$ up to $`D_\theta .`$ Any linear map $`F:U^+U`$ is a linear combination of linear maps of the form $`x^\alpha ^\beta :UU,vx^\alpha (^\beta (v)),`$ where $`\alpha 𝐙^n,\beta 𝐙_+^n.`$ Suppose that $`F=_{\alpha 𝐙^n,\beta 𝐙_+^n}\lambda _{\alpha ,\beta }x^\alpha ^\beta Der(U,J_n^S).`$

Step 1. Any derivation $`F`$ is a linear combination of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and some derivation $`F^{}`$ with the property $`F^{}(1)=0.`$ Let us prove it. Since $`1`$ is central, $`F(1)`$ is also central for any derivation $`F.`$ The center of $`U`$ is 1-dimensional and is generated by one element $`1.`$ Therefore, $`F(1)=\lambda _{0,0}.`$ If $`\lambda _{0,0}0,`$ we can take instead of $`F`$

$$F^{}=F\lambda _{0,0}(1n)n^1\mathrm{\Delta }.$$

Then $`F^{}Der(U,Jac_n^S)`$ and $`\lambda _{0,0}^{}=0,`$ if

$$F^{}=\underset{\alpha 𝐙^n,\beta 𝐙_+^n}{}\lambda _{\alpha ,\beta }^{}x^\alpha ^\beta .$$

Step 2. Suppose that the derivation $`F^{}`$ satisfies the following normalisation

(9)
$$F^{}(1)=0$$

Prove that $`F^{}`$ can be presented as a linear combination of derivations $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_n`$ and some interior derivation and some differential operator of differential order $`>1.`$

Take

$$\overline{F}^{}=F^{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\lambda _{\theta +ϵ_i,ϵ_i}^{}D_i.$$

Then $`F^{\prime \prime }Der(U,Jac_n^S)`$ and

$$\overline{F}^{}(x_i)<x^\alpha :\alpha \theta +ϵ_i>,$$

for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},n.`$ Let $`\overline{F}^{}=_{\alpha 𝐙^n,\beta 𝐙_+^n}\overline{\lambda }_{\alpha ,\beta }^{}x^\alpha ^\beta .`$ Then

$$\overline{\lambda }_{\alpha ,ϵ_1}0\alpha _j1,\text{ for some }j.$$

Take

$$F^{\prime \prime }=\overline{F}^{}+\overline{\lambda }_{\alpha ,ϵ_1}(\alpha _j+1)^1D_{1,j}(x^{\alpha +ϵ_j}).$$

It is easy to see that $`F^{\prime \prime }Der(U,Jac_n^S),`$ and

$$\lambda _{\alpha ,ϵ_1}^{\prime \prime }=0,$$

where $`F^{\prime \prime }=_{\alpha 𝐙^n,\beta 𝐙_+^n}\lambda _{\alpha ,\beta }^{\prime \prime }x^\alpha ^\beta .`$

Let us use induction on $`l`$ and suppose that $`F^{\prime \prime }`$ some $`l>1`$ has the following property: $`\lambda _{\alpha ,ϵ_i}^{\prime \prime }=0,`$ for any $`\alpha 𝐙^n,`$ if $`i<l`$ and $`\lambda _{\alpha (l),ϵ_l}^{\prime \prime }0`$ for some $`\alpha (l)𝐙^n.`$

Let $`(\stackrel{~}{U},Jac_{nl+1}^S)`$ be Jacobian algebra of type $`S`$ with vector space $`\stackrel{~}{U}=K[x_l^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},x_n^{\pm 1}]`$ and multiplication $`Jac_{nl+1}^S=_l\mathrm{}_n.`$

Let $`G`$ be the restriction of $`F^{\prime \prime }`$ to subalgebra $`(\stackrel{~}{U},Jac_{nl+1}^S).`$ Then

$$G(u)=\underset{\alpha ^{}=(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{l1})𝐙^{l1}}{}x^\alpha ^{}G_\alpha ^{}(u),$$

for any $`u\stackrel{~}{U},`$ where $`G_\alpha ^{}`$ is a linear map defined on $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$ with coefficients in $`\stackrel{~}{U}.`$

Since $`F^{\prime \prime }(x_i)=0,i<l`$ and $`Jac_{nl+1}^S=i(x_1)\mathrm{}i(x_{l1})Jac_n^S,`$ then

$$G(Jac_{nl+1}^S(u_l,\mathrm{},u_n))=$$

$$F^{\prime \prime }Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{l1},u_l,\mathrm{},u_n)=$$

$$\underset{s=l}{\overset{n}{}}Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{l1},u_l,\mathrm{},u_{s1},F^{\prime \prime }(u_s),u_{s+1},\mathrm{},u_n)=$$

$$\underset{s=l}{\overset{n}{}}Jac_{nl+1}(u_l,\mathrm{},u_{s1},G(u_s),u_{s+1},\mathrm{},u_n),$$

for any $`u_l,\mathrm{},u_n<x^\alpha :\alpha 𝐙^n,\alpha _i=0,i<l>.`$ Therefore,

$$\underset{\alpha ^{}𝐙^{l1}}{}x^\alpha ^{}G_\alpha ^{}(Jac_{nl+1}(u_l,\mathrm{},u_n))=$$

$$\underset{s=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{\alpha ^{}𝐙^{l1}}{}x^\alpha ^{}Jac_{nl+1}(u_l,\mathrm{},u_{s1},G_\alpha ^{}(u_s),u_{s+1},\mathrm{},u_n)=$$

$$\underset{\alpha ^{}𝐙^{l1}}{}x^\alpha ^{}\underset{s=1}{\overset{n}{}}Jac_{nl+1}(u_l,\mathrm{},u_{s1},G_\alpha ^{}(u_s),u_{s+1},\mathrm{},u_n).$$

In other words, $`G_\alpha ^{}Der(\stackrel{~}{U},J_{nl+1}^S),`$ for any $`\alpha ^{}𝐙^n,\alpha _l^{}=\mathrm{}=\alpha _n^{}=0.`$ By an inductive suggestion $`G_\alpha ^{}`$ is a linear combination of derivations of $`(\stackrel{~}{U},Jac_{nl+1}^S`$ of the form $`x^{_{s=l}^nϵ_s+ϵ_j}_j,`$ where $`j=l,\mathrm{},n`$ and a derivation of the form $`L_{u_l,\mathrm{},u_{n1}},`$ for some $`u_l,\mathrm{},u_{n1}\stackrel{~}{U}.`$ Here the derivation $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=_{s=1}^nx_s_s+(nl+1)/(ln)`$ does not appear because of normalisation (9). Thus, $`x^\alpha ^{}G_\alpha ^{}`$ is a linear combination of derivations $`A_i:=x^{\alpha ^{}_{s=1}^nϵ_s+ϵ_i}_i,il,`$ and some linear operator $`B_\alpha ^{}:=x^\alpha ^{}L_{u_l,\mathrm{},u_{n1}}.`$ Notice that $`DivA_i=0,il.`$ Moreover, $`A_iInt(U,Jac_n^S),`$ because of $`\lambda _{\theta +ϵ_i,ϵ_i}^{\prime \prime }=0.`$

By an inductive suggestion and by lemma 8.4, the divergenceless derivation $`L_{u_l,\mathrm{},u_{n1}}`$ is a linear combination of derivations of the form $`D_{i,j}(u),li<j,u\stackrel{~}{U}.`$ Therefore, $`B_\alpha ^{},`$ where $`\alpha ^{}=(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{l1},0,\mathrm{},0)𝐙^n,`$ is also a linear combination of derivations $`D_{i,j}(x^\alpha ^{}u),li<j.`$ In particular, $`B_\alpha ^{}Int(U,Jac_n^S).`$

So, we have proved that $`G`$ is a linear combination of interior derivations. Therefore, we can add to $`F^{\prime \prime }`$ some linear combination of interior derivations and obtain a new derivation $`F^{\prime \prime \prime }=_{\alpha 𝐙^n,\beta 𝐙_+^n}\lambda _{\alpha ,\beta }^{\prime \prime \prime }x^\alpha ^\beta ,`$ such that $`\lambda _{\alpha ,ϵ_i}^{\prime \prime \prime }=0,`$ for any $`\alpha 𝐙^n,`$ if $`i<l+1.`$

Thus, induction on $`l`$ is possible and finally we obtain that $`F^{\prime \prime }`$ is a sum of some interior derivation and some linear operator

$$H=\underset{\alpha 𝐙^n,\beta 𝐙_+^n,|\beta |>1}{}\mu _{\alpha ,\beta }x^\alpha ^\beta .$$

Step 3. Prove that $`H=0.`$ Present $`H`$ in the form $`H=_{\beta 𝐙_+^n,|\beta |>1}H_\beta ^\beta ,`$ where $`H_\beta =_{\alpha 𝐙^n}\lambda _{\alpha ,\beta }x^\alpha .`$ Suppose that $`H0`$ and $`H_{\overline{\beta }}0,`$ for some $`\overline{\beta }𝐙_+^n,|\overline{\beta }|=t>1`$ and $`H_\beta =0,`$ for any $`\beta 𝐙_+^n,|\beta |<t.`$ We have

$$Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},x^{\overline{\beta }},x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_n)=_i(x^{\overline{\beta }}),$$

$$H(x_i)=0,i=1,\mathrm{},n,$$

Thus,

$$H(Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},x^{\overline{\beta }},x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_n))=H(_i(x^{\overline{\beta }})=0.$$

On the other hand, by the Leibniz rule

$$H(Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},x^{\overline{\beta }},x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_n))=$$

$$Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},H(x^{\overline{\beta }}),x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_n)=_i(H(x^{\overline{\beta }})).$$

So, $`H(x^{\overline{\beta }})_{i=1}^nKer_i=<1>.`$ Here $`\overline{\beta }`$ is any element of $`𝐙_+^n,`$ such that $`H_{\overline{\beta }}0,|\overline{\beta }|>1.`$ In particular, $`H_{ϵ_i+ϵ_j}=0`$ or $`H_{ϵ_i+ϵ_j}<1>.`$ Therefore, in any case by the Leibniz rule

$$(\overline{\beta }_i\overline{\beta }_j)H(x^{\overline{\beta }})=$$

$$H(Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},x^{\overline{\beta }},x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_{j1},x_ix_j,x_{j+1},\mathrm{},x_n))=0.$$

So, $`\overline{\beta }_i=q,i=1,\mathrm{},n,`$ for some $`0<q𝐙.`$ In other words, $`\overline{\beta }=q\theta .`$ In particular, $`t=|\overline{\beta }|=nqn,`$ and, since $`n>1,`$ $`t=|\overline{\beta }|=nq>q.`$ Thus $`q+1t,`$ and $`H(x_i^{q+1})=0`$ or $`H(x_i^{q+1}<1>.`$ We have $`J_n^S(x_1^{q+1},\mathrm{},x_n^{q+1})=(q+1)^nx^{q\theta },`$ So, by the Leibniz rule,

$$(q+1)^nH(x^{q\theta })=$$

$$H(Jac_n^S(x_1^{q+1},\mathrm{},x_n^{q+1}))=0.$$

Hence, $`H_{\overline{\beta }}=0.`$ Contradiction.

Proof of theorem 8.1. Simplicity of $`(U,Jac_n^S)`$ was established in . Other statements follow from corollary 8.7 and lemmas 8.9, 8.13 8.10, 8.11 and 8.14.

## 9.  Derivations of Jacobian algebras of type $`W`$

In this section $`K`$ is the field of characteristic $`0`$ and $`U=K_n`$ or $`K_n^+.`$ Let

$$W_n=W_n(U)=<u_i:uU,i=1,\mathrm{},n>$$

be General Cartan Type Lie algebra. This algebra is also called Witt algebra.

###### Theorem 9.1.

The $`n`$-Lie algebra $`(U,Jac_{n+1}^W)`$ is simple. Any derivation of $`(U,Jac_{n+1}^W)`$ is interior. Moreover, $`Int(U,Jac_{n+1}^W)`$ is isomorphic to Witt algebra $`W_n.`$

On $`U`$ we have two multiplications $`Jac_{n+1}^W`$ and $`Jac_n^S.`$ They are related by

$$Jac_{n+1}^W(u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n+1})=$$

$$(1)^{n+1}Jac_n^S(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)u_{n+1}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^{i+n1}Jac_{n,\widehat{i}}^W(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)_i(u_{n+1}),$$

where

$$Jac_{n,\widehat{i}}^W=id_1\mathrm{}\widehat{_i}\mathrm{}_n.$$

Let $`W_n+U`$ be a semidirect sum:

$$[X+u,Y+v]=[X,Y]+X(v)Y(u),$$

for any $`X,YW_n,u,vU.`$

###### Lemma 9.2.

The map $`W_nW_n+U`$ given by $`XX+\lambda DivX`$ is a monomorphism for any $`\lambda K.`$

Proof. The statement is evident, if $`\lambda =0.`$ Suppose that $`\lambda 0.`$

The divergence map $`XDivX`$ is $`1`$-cocycle in $`Z^1(W_n,U):`$

$$Div[X,Y]=X(DivY)Y(DivX).$$

Therefore, for $`f=id+\lambda Div,`$

$$f[X,Y]=[X,Y]+\lambda Div[X,Y]=$$

$$[X,Y]+\lambda (X(Div(Y))Y(Div(X)))=$$

$$[X+\lambda DivX,Y+\lambda DivY]=[f(X),f(Y)].$$

So, $`f`$ is the homomorphism of Lie algebras.

Suppose that $`XKerf.`$ Then

$$X(u)+\lambda (DivX)u=0,$$

for any $`uU.`$ Take $`u=1.`$ Then $`\lambda (DivX)=0.`$ Thus, $`X=_{i=1}^n\mu _i_i.`$ Take now $`u=x_i.`$ We have $`0=X(u)=\lambda _i.`$ So, $`X=0.`$

###### Lemma 9.3.

For any associative commutative algebra $`U`$ with commuting derivations $`_1,\mathrm{},_n`$ the algebra $`(U,Jac_{n+1}^W)`$ is $`(n+1)`$\- Lie and graded:

$$J_{n+1}^W(U_{[i_1]},\mathrm{},U_{[i_k]})U_{[i_1+\mathrm{}+i_k]},$$

where

$$U_{[s]}=<x^\alpha :|\alpha |=s+1>,s𝐙.$$

Proof. By corollary 6.4 $`(U,Jac_{n+1}^W)`$ is $`(n+1)`$-Lie. It is graded:

$$Jac_{n+1}^W(x^{\alpha (0)},\mathrm{},x^{\alpha (n)})<x^{\alpha (0)+\mathrm{}+\alpha (n)\theta }>,$$

and

$$|Jac_{n+1}^W(x^{\alpha (0)},\mathrm{},x^{\alpha (n)})|=|\alpha (0)+\mathrm{}+\alpha (n)\theta |=(|\alpha (0)|1)+\mathrm{}+(|\alpha (n)|1)+1.$$

###### Lemma 9.4.

Any interior derivation of $`(U,Jac_{n+1}^W)`$ has the form $`Xn^1DivX,`$ where $`XW_n(U).`$

Proof. Any interior derivation

$$L_{u_1,\mathrm{},u_n}:vJac_{n+1}^W(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n,v)$$

can be presented as a sum of some differential operator of first order and the operator of multiplication to some element of $`U`$

$$L_{u_1,\mathrm{},u_n}=X_{u_1,\mathrm{},u_n}+R_{u_1,\mathrm{},u_n},$$

where

$$X_{u_1,\mathrm{},u_n}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^{n+i1}Jac_{n,\widehat{i}}^W(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)_i,$$

$$R_{u_1,\mathrm{},u_n}v=(1)^{n+1}Jac_n^S(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)v,$$

satisfies the relation

$$DivX_{u_1,\mathrm{},u_n}=$$

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^{n+i1}_i(id_1\mathrm{}\widehat{_i}\mathrm{}_n)(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n))=$$

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1)^{n+i1}(_i_1\mathrm{}\widehat{_i}\mathrm{}_n)(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n))=$$

$$(1)n\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(_1\mathrm{}_i\mathrm{}_n)(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n))=$$

$$(1)^nnJac_n^S(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n).$$

In other words,

$$DivX_{u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n1}}+nR_{u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n1}}=0.$$

So, any interior derivation is an element of the subspace $`\{Xn^1DivX:XW_n(U)\}.`$

###### Lemma 9.5.

Let $`U`$ be an associative commutative algebra with the space of commuting derivations $`𝒟=\{_1,\mathrm{},_n\}.`$ Then for any $`XW_n`$ the linear map $`g=g_X:UU`$ given by $`g(u)=X(u)+\lambda DivXu`$ is a derivation of the algebra $`(U,Jac_{n+1}^W),`$ if and only if $`\lambda =n^1.`$

Proof. Consider the polynomial

$$f(X,u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n+1})=$$

$$g_X(Jac_{n+1}^W(u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n+1}))\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}Jac_{n+1}^W(u_1,\mathrm{},u_{i1},g_X(u_i),u_{i+1},\mathrm{},u_n).$$

We should prove that $`f(u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n+1})=0`$ for any $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n+1}U,`$ if and only if $`\lambda =n^1.`$

Notice that $`g=g_X`$ is $`𝒟`$-invariant for any $`XW_n`$:

$$(\rho (_i)g)(u)=_i(g(u))g(_i(u))=$$

$$_i(Xu)+\lambda _i(DivXu)X(_i(u))\lambda DivX_i(u)=$$

$$_i(X)u+\lambda _i(X)u=g(_iX)u.$$

We know that $`Jac_{n+1}^S`$ is $`𝒟`$-invariant:

$$\rho (_i)(id_1\mathrm{}_n)=0.$$

Hence by corollary 7.2 $`f`$ as a linear combination of compositions of $`𝒟`$-invariant polynomials, is also $`𝒟`$-invariant.

As we mentioned before $`Jac_{n+1}^W`$ is graded. Notice that $`g`$ has grade degree $`|X|`$:

$$g(U_{[s]})U_{[s]+|X|}.$$

Therefore, the polynomial $`f`$ is also graded.

So, we can use theorem 7.3 to prove that $`f=0.`$

Notice that $`f`$ is skew-symmetric in $`n`$ parameters $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n+1}.`$ Therefore, for homogeneous $`XW_n`$ and $`u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n+1}U,`$

$$f(X,u_1,\mathrm{},u_{n+1})U_{[0]},$$

if and only if

$$|X|=1,|u_1|+\mathrm{}+|u_{n+1}|=0$$

or

$$|X|=0,|u_l|=1\text{ for some }l\text{ and }|u_1|+\mathrm{}\widehat{|u_l|}+\mathrm{}+|u_{n+1}|=0$$

In other words, if

$$(x^{\alpha (0)}_i,x^{\alpha (1)},\mathrm{},x^{\alpha (n+1)})Support(f),$$

then

$$|\alpha (0)|=0,|\alpha (1)|+\mathrm{}+|\alpha (n+1)|=n+1$$

or

$$|\alpha (0)|=1,|\alpha (l)|=0,\text{ for some }l\text{ and}|\alpha (1)|+\mathrm{}+\widehat{|\alpha (l)|}+\mathrm{}+|\alpha (n+1)|=n$$

So, we should check that

$$f(_i,x^{\alpha (1)},\mathrm{},x^{\alpha (n+1)})=0,$$

if $`|\alpha (1)|+\mathrm{}+|\alpha (n+1)|=n,`$ or

$$f(x_j_i,x^{\alpha (1)},\mathrm{},x^{\alpha (n+1)})=0,$$

if $`\alpha (l)=0,`$ for some $`l`$ and

$$|\alpha (1)|+\mathrm{}+\widehat{|\alpha (l)|}+\mathrm{}++|\alpha (n+1)|=n,|\alpha (s)|>0,sl.$$

The first statement is evident: since $`_i`$ is a derivation of $`U,`$ $`Div_i=0,`$ and $`[_i,_j]=0`$ for all $`i`$ and $`j,`$ then $`f(_i,x^{\alpha (1)},\mathrm{},x^{\alpha (n+1)})=0,`$ for any $`\alpha (1),\mathrm{},\alpha (n+1).`$ Since $`f`$ is skew symmetric in $`u_i`$ type parameters, in the second case we can take, say, $`l=1.`$ Then $`|\alpha (2)|=\mathrm{}=|\alpha (n+1)|=1.`$ So, in the second case we have

$$f(x_j_i,1,x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=$$

$$x_j_i(Jac_{n+1}^W(1,x_1,\mathrm{},x_n))+\lambda \delta _{i,j}(Jac_{n+1}^W(1,x_1,\mathrm{},x_n))$$

$$Jac_{n+1}^W(\lambda \delta _{i,j}1,x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)$$

$$\underset{s=1}{\overset{n}{}}Jac_{n+1}^W(1,x_1,\mathrm{},x_{s1},x_j_i(x_s)+\lambda \delta _{i,j}x_s,x_{s+1},\mathrm{},x_n)=$$

$$x_j_i(Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n))+\lambda \delta _{i,j}(Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n))$$

$$\lambda \delta _{i,j}Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)$$

$$\underset{s=1}{\overset{n}{}}Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{s1},x_j_i(x_s)+\lambda \delta _{i,j}x_s,x_{s+1},\mathrm{},x_n)=$$

$$\underset{s=1}{\overset{n}{}}\delta _{i,s}Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{s1},x_j,x_{s+1},\mathrm{},x_n)$$

$$\underset{s=1}{\overset{n}{}}\lambda \delta _{i,j}Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{s1},x_s,x_{s+1},\mathrm{},x_n)=$$

$$Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},x_j,x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_n)\lambda n\delta _{i,j}=$$

$$\delta _{i,j}(1+\lambda n).$$

Thus $`f=0,`$ iff $`\lambda =n^1.`$

###### Corollary 9.6.

Any divergenceless derivation of $`U`$ is also a derivation of $`(U,Jac_{n+1}^W)`$.

###### Lemma 9.7.

Suppose that $`D(1)=0,D(x_i)=0`$ for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},n.`$ Then $`D(_i(u))=_i(D(u))`$ for any $`uU.`$

Proof. Since

$$Jac_{n+1}^W(u,1,x_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{x_i},\mathrm{},x_n)=_i(u),$$

then, by the Leibniz rule

$$D(_i(u))=D(Jac_{n+1}^W(u,1,x_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{x_i},\mathrm{},x_n))=$$

$$Jac_{n+1}^W(D(u),1,x_1,\mathrm{},\widehat{x_i},\mathrm{},x_n)=_i(D(u)),$$

for any $`uU.`$

###### Lemma 9.8.

Let $`U=K[x_1^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},x_n^{\pm 1}].`$ Suppose that $`DDer(U,Jac_{n+1}^W)`$ and $`D(u)=0,`$ for any $`uU^+.`$ Then $`D(u)=0,`$ for any $`uU.`$

Proof. Suppose that $`D(x^\alpha )0`$ for some $`\alpha 𝐙^n𝐙_+^n`$ and $`D(x^\beta )=0,`$ for all $`\beta 𝐙^n,|\beta |>|\alpha |.`$ If $`\alpha _i+ϵ_i<0,`$ for some $`i,`$ then we obtain a contradiction: by lemma 9.7 in this case

$$|\alpha +ϵ_i|>|\alpha |D(x^{\alpha +ϵ_i})=0D(x^\alpha )=(\alpha _i+1)^1D(_i(x^{\alpha +ϵ_i}))=0.$$

Thus, $`\alpha _i=1,`$ for all $`i=1,\mathrm{},n.`$

Notice that

$$Jac_{n+1}^W(u,x_1^2,\mathrm{},x_n^2)=2^{n1}x^\theta (2\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_i_i)u,$$

for any $`uU.`$ In particular,

$$Jac_{n+1}^W(x^{2\theta },x_1^2,\mathrm{},x_n^2)=2^n(n+1)x^\theta .$$

Thus,

$$D(x^\theta )=$$

$$2^n(n+1)^1D(Jac_{n+1}^W(x^{2\theta },x_1^2,\mathrm{},x_n^2)=$$

$$2^n(n+1)^1Jac_{n+1}^W(D(x^{2\theta }),x_1^2,\mathrm{},x_n^2)=$$

$$2^1(n+1)^1x^\theta (2\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_i_i)D(x^{2\theta }).$$

On the other hand,

$$|x_i^1|>|x^\theta |D(x_i^1)=0,i=1,\mathrm{},n,$$

$$Jac_{n+1}^W(1,x_1^1,\mathrm{},x_n^1)=(1)^nx^{2\theta },$$

and by the Leibniz rule

$$D(x^{2\theta })=$$

$$(1)^nD(Jac_{n+1}^W(1,x_1^1,\mathrm{},x_n^1))=0.$$

Therefore, $`D(x^\theta )=0.`$ Contradiction.

###### Lemma 9.9.

Any derivation of the algebra $`(U,Jac_{n+1}^W)`$ has the form $`Xn^1DivX`$ for some $`XW_n(U).`$

Proof. By lemma 9.8 any derivation of $`FDer(U,Jac_{n+1}^W)`$ is defined by its restriction on $`U^+=K[x_1^{\pm 1},\mathrm{},x_n^{\pm 1}].`$ Let $`D`$ be the restriction of derivation $`F`$ on $`U^+.`$

Step 1. Prove that

(10)
$$D(1)<x^\alpha :\alpha 𝐙^n:\alpha \theta >.$$

Notice that $`|x^\theta |=2n0.`$ Therefore, if $`_{i=1}^nx_i_iD(1)=0,`$ then (10) is true.

Consider now the case $`_{i=1}^nx_i_iD(1)0.`$ Since $`1=Jac_{n+1}^W(1,x_1,\mathrm{},x_n),`$ by the Leibniz rule we have

$$D(1)=$$

$$Jac_{n+1}^W(D(1),x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}Jac_{n+1}^W(1,x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},D(x_i),x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_n)=$$

$$(1\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_i_i)D(1)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},D(x_i),x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_n).$$

Thus,

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}Jac_n^S(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{i1},D(x_i),x_{i+1},\mathrm{},x_n)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_i_iD(1).$$

Therefore, $`D(1)`$ is a linear combination of elements of the form $`Jac_n^S(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n)`$ and by lemma 8.6, (10) is true.

So, according to (10) $`R=_{\alpha 𝐙^n,\alpha \theta }\lambda _\alpha x^\alpha ,`$ for some $`\lambda _\alpha K.`$ If $`\lambda _\alpha 0,`$ then there exists some $`i=i(\alpha ),`$ such that $`\alpha _i1.`$ Therefore, by lemma 9.5 there exists a derivation of $`(U,Jac_{n+1}^W)`$ of the form $`G:=_{\alpha 𝐙^n}\lambda _\alpha (n(\alpha _i+1)^1x^{\alpha +ϵ_i}_ix^\alpha ).`$ Take $`D^{}=D+G.`$ It is easy to see that

$$D^{}Der(U,Jac_{n+1}^W)$$

and

$$D^{}(1)=0.$$

Step 2. Suppose that $`D(x^{\overline{\alpha }})0,`$ for some $`\overline{\alpha }𝐙_+^n,|\overline{\alpha }|=t,`$ but $`D(x^\beta =0,`$ for all $`\beta 𝐙_+^n,`$ such that $`|\beta |<t.`$ As we have shown above (step 1) we can assume that $`t>0.`$ Consider separately the cases $`t=1`$ and $`t>1.`$

The case $`t=1.`$ By the Leibniz rule for $`DDer(U,Jac_{n+1}^W),`$ we have

$$D(Jac_n^S(u_1,\mathrm{},u_n))\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}Jac_n^S(u_1,\mathrm{},u_{l1},D(u_l),u_{l+1},\mathrm{},u_n)=$$

$$D(Jac_{n+1}^W(1,u_1,\mathrm{},u_n))\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}Jac_{n+1}^W(1,u_1,\mathrm{},u_{l1},D(u_l),u_{l+1},\mathrm{},u_n)=$$

$$Jac_{n+1}^W(D(1),u_1,\mathrm{},u_n).$$

Thus $`DDer(U,Jac_n^S),`$ if $`D(1)=0.`$ By theorem 8.1, $`D`$ as a derivation of $`U`$ under multiplication $`Jac_n^S`$ can be presented in the form

$$D=\overline{D}+D_0+\stackrel{~}{D},$$

where

$$\overline{D}=\lambda _\theta D_\theta ,$$

$$D_0=\lambda _0\mathrm{\Delta },$$

$$\stackrel{~}{D}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\lambda _ix^{\theta +ϵ_i}_i+\underset{i<j,\alpha 𝐙^n}{}\lambda _{i,j}(\alpha )D_{i,j}(x^\alpha ),$$

for some $`\lambda _0,\lambda _\theta ,\lambda _i,\lambda _{i,j}.`$

Notice that $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ is a divergence-free differential operator of first order. By corollary 9.6 any divergence-free derivation $`D`$ is a derivation of $`(U,Jac_{n+1}^W).`$ Since $`D(1)=0,`$ $`\lambda _0=0.`$ So, $`\overline{D}=D\stackrel{~}{D}`$ is also a derivation of $`(U,Jac_{n+1}^W).`$

Prove that $`\overline{D}=0.`$ As we mentioned before,

$$Jac_{n+1}^W(x^\theta ,x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=(n+1)x^\theta .$$

Therefore,

(11)
$$\overline{D}(x^\theta )=(n+1)^1\overline{D}(Jac_{n+1}^W(x^\theta ,x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)).$$

Let $`\pi :U<1>`$ be projection to $`<1>.`$ Notice that

$$\pi (\overline{D}(x^\theta ))=\lambda _\theta ,$$

$$\pi (Jac_{n+1}^W(\overline{D}(x^\theta ),x_1,\mathrm{},x_n))=\lambda _\theta ,$$

Take projections to $`<1>`$ from the both parts of (11). We find that

$$\lambda _\theta =(n+1)^1\lambda _\theta .$$

So, $`n\lambda _\theta =0,`$ and $`\lambda _\theta =0,`$ $`\overline{D}=0.`$

The case $`t>1.`$ Prove that this case is not possible. By lemma 9.7 $`_iD(x^{\overline{\alpha }})=0,`$ for any $`i=1,\mathrm{},n.`$ So, $`D(x^{\overline{\alpha }})=\lambda 1,`$ for some $`0\lambda K.`$

Notice that

$$Jac_{n+1}^W(u,x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=(1\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_i_i)u,$$

for any $`uU.`$ Therefore, by the Leibniz rule,

$$(1|\overline{\alpha }|)\lambda =(1|\overline{\alpha }|)D(x^{\overline{\alpha }})=$$

$$D(Jac_{n+1}^W(x^{\overline{\alpha }},x_1,\mathrm{},x_n))=$$

$$Jac_{n+1}^W(D(x^{\overline{\alpha }}),x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=\lambda .$$

So, $`t\lambda =0,`$ and $`\lambda =0.`$ Contradiction.

Summarize the results obtained in all these steps and cases. We see that any derivation of $`(U,Jac_{n+1}^W)`$ can be presented as a linear combination of derivations of the form $`Xn^1DivX,`$ where $`XW_n(U).`$

Proof of theorem 9.1. Suppose that $`J`$ is an ideal of $`U`$ under $`(n+1)`$-multiplication $`\omega =Jac_{n+1}^W.`$ Then $`J`$ is ideal of $`U`$ under $`n`$-multiplication $`i(1)\omega =Jac_n^S.`$ Since $`(U,Jac_n^S)`$ is simple , $`J=0`$ or $`J=U.`$ So, $`(U,Jac_{n+1}^W)`$ is simple.

Other statements of theorem 9.1 follow from lemma 9.9.