format: text

text:
# Regular Objects, Multiplicative Unitaries and Conjugation

## 1 Introduction

In this paper we look at the theory of multiplicative unitaries from the standpoint of their categories of representations and corepresentations. As is well known, multiplicative unitaries just express the fundamental property of the regular representation. Our approach therefore starts with a tensor category which may be thought of as the tensor category of (unitary) representations of some quantum group. It is regarded as a concrete category in the sense that it is equipped with a faithful tensor functor into the tensor category of Hilbert spaces. Once this tensor category has a “regular object” we will see that it allows an interpretation as a category of representations of a multiplicative unitary and at the same time as a category of corepresentations of another multiplicative unitary. It is instructive to compare this result with the Tannaka–Krein duality theorem or perhaps better with Woronowicz’s duality theorem . In fact, our result starts with an embedded tensor category and constructs a multiplicative unitary and hence, if the multiplicative unitary is regular, two Hopf $`C^{}`$–algebras . However, by requiring the existence of a regular object, we are imposing a restriction that may not be easy to verify in practice and presupposes what a good duality theorem should prove. In fact, our result is close in spirit to Tatsuuma’s duality theorem for locally compact groups  where the group elements are identified in the regular representation using the multiplicative unitary.

Another aspect of the representation theory of multiplicative unitaries that has not received the attention it deserves is the conjugation structure. We work here with multiplicative unitaries arising as the left regular representations of locally compact quantum groups. These are left regular objects in the category of corepresentations and we show that there is a canonical choice of conjugate which is a right regular object. In fact, the multiplicative unitary of a locally compact quantum group is a regular object in its representation category. Furthermore, we define the conjugate of any corepresentation up to unitary equivalence and the corresponding antilinear involution on intertwiners. This forms the subject matter of Section 5.

In this paper we prefer to work with strictly associative tensor products and a simple way of achieving this is to use as the underlying Hilbert spaces the Hilbert spaces in some fixed von Neumann algebra since these are objects in a strict tensor $`W^{}`$–category. We will be concerned here with the representation categories of multiplicative unitaries and recall the basic definitions from . If $`K`$ is such a Hilbert space then a unitary $`V`$ on the tensor square $`K^2`$ is said to be multiplicative if

$$V_{12}V_{13}V_{23}=V_{23}V_{12},$$

where we use the usual convention regarding indices and tensor products. A representation of $`V`$ on a Hilbert space $`H`$ is a unitary $`W(HK,HK)`$ such that

$$W_{12}W_{13}V_{23}=V_{23}W_{12},\text{on}HK^2.$$

If $`W`$ and $`W^{}`$ are representations of $`V`$ on $`H`$ and $`H^{}`$ respectively, we say that $`T(H,H^{})`$ intertwines $`W`$ and $`W^{}`$ and write $`T(W,W^{})`$ if $`T\times 1_KW=W^{}T\times 1_K`$. We define the tensor product of $`W`$ and $`W^{}`$ to be the representation $`W\times W^{}`$ on $`HH^{}`$ given by $`W\times W^{}:=W_{13}W_{23}^{}`$. The usual tensor product of intertwiners is again an intertwiner and in this way we get a strict tensor $`W^{}`$–category $`(V)`$ of representations of $`V`$. In fact this assertion does not depend on $`V`$ being multiplicative. When it is then $`V`$ itself is a representation of $`V`$ called the regular representation.

A corepresentation of $`V`$ on $`H`$ is a unitary $`W(KH,KH)`$ such that

$$V_{12}W_{13}W_{23}=W_{23}V_{12}\text{on}K^2H.$$

If $`W`$ and $`W^{}`$ are corepresentations on $`H`$ and $`H^{}`$ respectively, we say that $`T(H,H^{})`$ intertwines $`W`$ and $`W^{}`$ and write $`T(W,W^{})`$ if $`1_K\times TW=W^{}1_K\times T`$. The tensor product $`W\times W^{}`$ of corepresentations is defined by $`W\times W^{}:=W_{12}W_{13}^{}`$. Just as in the case of representations we get a strict tensor $`W^{}`$–category now denoted by $`𝒞(V)`$. If $`\vartheta =\vartheta _{K,K}`$ denotes the flip on $`K^2`$ then $`\vartheta V^{}\vartheta `$ is again a multiplicative unitary and the mapping $`W\stackrel{~}{W}:=\vartheta _{H,K}W^{}\vartheta _{K,H}`$ defines a 1–1 correspondence between representations of $`V`$ and corepresentations of $`\vartheta V^{}\vartheta `$. However, it does not define an isomorphism of tensor $`W^{}`$–categories since $`W\times W^{}\stackrel{~}{W}_{13}^{}\stackrel{~}{W}_{12}`$ and so leads to an alternative definition of the tensor product of corepresentations. In fact the two expressions for the tensor product will be equal if and only if $`\vartheta _{W,W^{}}(W\times W^{},W^{}\times W)`$, cf. Prop. 2.5 in .

## 2 Regular Objects and Multiplicative Unitaries

The main aim of this section will be to provide characterizations of categories of representations and corepresentations of multiplicative unitaries and in particular to study tensor categories which are simultaneously a tensor category of representations of a multiplicative unitary and of corepresentations of some (other) multiplicative unitary. The main idea is to replace the notion of multiplicative unitary by that of regular object. Thus multiplicative unitaries are seen as intertwining operators, taking us back to the origins of the theory. They are therefore seen not as determining a category of representations or corepresentations but as being a structural element in some tensor category. This helps us to understand the degree to which they are not unique and to see the tensor categories that are simultaneously a category of representations and a category of corepresentations as being tensor categories with a left and right regular object.

Here is our motivating example. Let $``$ denote the strict tensor $`W^{}`$–category of Hilbert spaces in a von Neumann algebra $`M`$ and $`\vartheta `$ its unique permutation symmetry. Let $`K`$ be an object of $``$ and $`V`$ a multiplicative unitary on $`K^2`$. We let $`(V)`$ and $`𝒞(V)`$ be the tensor $`W^{}`$–categories of representations and corepresentations of $`V`$ on Hilbert spaces of $``$. These are to be considered as equipped with the forgetful functor $`\iota `$ into $``$ itself, regarded as the subcategory of trivial representations or corepresentations. Thus $`\iota `$ is an idempotent tensor –functor.

We now ask the following question: when can a strict tensor $`W^{}`$–category $`𝒯`$ equipped with a faithful idempotent tensor –functor $`\iota _𝒯:=\iota `$ onto a tensor $`W^{}`$–subcategory of Hilbert spaces be interpreted as a category of representations or corepresentations of a multiplicative unitary? Note that $`\vartheta _{H,H^{}}`$ is an intertwining operator in $`(V)`$ for a tensor product of representations $`W`$ on $`H`$ and $`W^{}`$ on $`H^{}`$ whenever either $`W`$ or $`W^{}`$ is a trivial representation. Any full tensor subcategory $`𝒯`$ of $`(V)`$ containing the regular representation $`V`$ has the striking property that for any object $`W`$, $`W\times V`$ is a, possibly infinite, direct sum of copies of $`V`$ but more is true: we set $`\eta _W:=W(W\times V,\iota (W)\times V)`$ then $`\eta (R,R\iota )`$, where $`R`$ denotes the functor of tensoring on the right by $`V`$, is a natural unitary transformation such that

$$\eta _{W\times W^{}}=(\eta _W)_{13}1_W\times \eta _W^{},$$
$`(2.1)`$
for each pair $`W,W^{}`$ of objects of $`𝒯`$.

To formalize the essential aspects of the above situation we consider a strict tensor $`W^{}`$–category $`𝒯`$ equipped with a faithful idempotent tensor –functor $`\iota _𝒯:=\iota `$. The tensor subcategory $`\iota (𝒯)`$ is equipped with a (permutation) symmetry $`\vartheta `$. We further suppose that given objects $`W`$ and $`W^{}`$ of $`𝒯`$ there are arrows $`\vartheta _{W,\iota (W^{})}(W\times \iota (W^{}),\iota (W^{})\times W)`$ and $`\vartheta _{\iota (W),W^{}}(\iota (W)\times W^{},W^{}\times \iota (W))`$, necessarily unique, whose image under $`\iota `$ is $`\vartheta _{\iota (W),\iota (W^{})}`$. We call a right regular object of $`𝒯`$ a pair $`(V,\eta )`$ consisting of an object $`V`$ of $`𝒯`$ and a unitary natural transformation $`\eta (R,R\iota )`$, where $`R`$ denotes the functor of tensoring on the right by $`V`$, satisfying (2.1) above for each pair $`W,W^{}`$ of objects of $`𝒯`$. Here $`(\eta _W)_{13}`$ is to be understood as $`1_{\iota (W)}\times \vartheta _{V,\iota (W^{})}\eta _W\times 1_{\iota (W^{})}1_W\times \vartheta _{\iota (W^{}),V}`$. $`(2.1)`$ implies that $`\eta `$ evaluated on the tensor unit $``$ is $`1_{}`$.

The following result now provides an answer to the above question.

2.1 Theorem Any tensor $`W^{}`$–category equipped with a faithful idempotent tensor –functor into a tensor subcategory of Hilbert spaces and with a right regular object is isomorphic to a tensor –subcategory of $`(V)`$ for some multiplicative unitary $`V`$.

Proof. Let $`\eta `$ denote a natural transformation in $`(R,R\iota )`$ making an object $`V`$ into a right regular object then $`\iota (\eta _W)`$ is a unitary for each object $`W`$. If $`T(W,W^{})`$ then the naturality of $`\eta `$ shows that $`\iota (T)`$ intertwines $`\iota (\eta _W)`$ and $`\iota (\eta _W^{})`$, once we know that these are representations of $`\iota (\eta _V)`$. In particular, taking $`\eta _W`$ as $`T`$, naturality gives

$$\iota (\eta _W)\times 1_V\eta _{W\times V}=\eta _{\iota (W)\times V}\eta _W\times 1_V.$$
$`(2.2)`$
Equation $`(2.1)`$ tells us that the tensor product in the category corresponds to the tensor product of representations. Bearing this in mind, $`(2.2)`$ tells us that $`\iota (\eta _W)`$ is a representation of $`\iota (\eta _V)`$ and the particular case $`W=V`$ tells us that $`\iota (\eta _V)`$ is indeed a multiplicative unitary.

The notion of multiplicative unitary and Theorem 2.1 can be easily generalized replacing a multiplicative unitary on a Hilbert space by a multiplicative invertible in a monoidal category. We refrain from spelling this out to keep a uniform setting for this paper.

Notice that the isomorphism in question is even canonical, given $`\eta `$, and commutes with $`\iota `$. But there are several other comments to be made about this result. First, $`(2.2)`$ has the structure of an associative law: it equates two ways of passing from $`RR`$ to $`R\iota R\iota `$. Secondly, there is an analogous result for corepresentations. We define a notion of left regular object by dualizing in $`𝒯`$ with respect to the composition law $`\times `$. Our category $`𝒯`$ is isomorphic to a tensor subcategory of the category of corepresentations of a multiplicative unitary if it admits a left regular object. If $`\xi `$ denotes a natural transformation rendering $`V`$ a left regular object $`(\xi ,V)`$, then the unitary associated with an object $`W`$ is $`\iota (\xi _W^1)`$. The appearance of an inverse here is just an artefact of conventions.

One might have thought of basing a definition of right regular object on a different familiar property of the regular representation, namely that $`W\times V`$ is a, possibly infinite, direct sum of copies of $`V`$ for each object $`W`$ of $`𝒯`$. This property is too weak in that it does not imply the coherence properties of the previous definition and furthermore puts an unwanted emphasis on the notion of infinite direct sum. In fact, our definition implies the second property once we specify, as we now do, that $`\iota (𝒯)`$ is just a category of Hilbert spaces, i.e. a (strict) tensor $`W^{}`$–category with unit reducing to the complex numbers where every object is a (possibly infinite) direct sum of the unit. Since $`\iota (W)`$ is a direct sum of copies of the unit $``$, $`W\times V\iota (W)\times V`$ is a direct sum of copies of $`V`$. Note that if $`V_r`$ is right regular and $`V_{\mathrm{}}`$ is left regular then $`V_{\mathrm{}}\times V_r`$ is a direct sum of copies of both $`V_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`V_r`$. It follows that, if we have both a left and a right regular object, then these objects are unique up to quasiequivalence in the $`W^{}`$–category in question. In a $`\sigma `$–finite $`W^{}`$–category a left or right regular object with infinite multiplicity will then be unique up to unitary equivalence.

The following variant on the definition of a right regular object is worth noting. Consider a tensor $`W^{}`$–category $`𝒯`$ and unit $``$, but where the endofunctor $`\iota `$ is not a priori defined. Suppose for each object $`W`$, there is an unitary arrow $`\eta _W(W\times V,\iota (W)\times V)`$ such that $`\iota (W)`$ is a (possibly infinite) direct sum of the tensor unit. Suppose (2.1) holds and

$$\eta _W^{}T\times 1_V\eta _W^1(\iota (W^{}),\iota (W))\times 1_V,T(W,W^{}).$$

Then setting $`\iota (T):=\eta _W^{}T\times 1_V\eta _W^1`$, we get a tensor –endofunctor from $`𝒯`$ into a tensor subcategory of Hilbert spaces. If $`\eta _{\iota (W)}=1_{\iota (W)\times V}`$ for each object $`W`$ of $`𝒯`$, $`\iota `$ is even idempotent. This illustrates the role of (2.1) in guaranteeing that a tensor $`W^{}`$-category can be embedded into a tensor category of Hilbert spaces.

We now make some further remarks on the notion of regular object, supposing for the moment that our category $`𝒯`$ has sufficient irreducibles in the sense that every object is a (possibly infinite) direct sum of irreducibles and $`𝒯`$ is closed under finite direct sums. Suppose further that the full subcategory $`𝒯_f`$ whose objects are finite direct sums of irreducibles is a tensor subcategory and that $`\iota _W`$ is finite dimensional for each irreducible $`W`$. A dimension function $`d`$ on $`𝒯_f`$ assigns to each object $`W`$ of $`𝒯_f`$ a $`d(W)_+`$ such that

$$d(WW^{})=d(W)+d(W^{}),$$

$$d(W\times W^{})=d(W)d(W^{}).$$

Note that if $`F:𝒯_f𝒯_{}^{}{}_{f}{}^{}`$ is a tensor –functor and $`d^{}`$ is a dimension function on $`𝒯_{}^{}{}_{f}{}^{}`$, then $`Fd^{}`$ is a dimension function on $`𝒯_f`$. Thus, our category $`𝒯_f`$ has an integer–valued dimension function induced by the tensor –functor $`\iota `$ from the Hilbert space dimensions. If $`𝒯_f`$ has conjugates, then there is another dimension function, not necessarily integer–valued, given intrinsically by its structure as a tensor $`C^{}`$–category . Let $`I`$ be an index set labelling the equivalence classes of irreducibles and $`W_i`$ an irreducible of class $`iI`$. Then a simple computation shows that if $`d`$ is a dimension function and $`d_i:=d(W_i)`$ then

$$d_jd_k=\underset{i}{}m_{ki}^jd_i,i,j,kI,$$

where $`m_{ki}^j`$ denotes the dimension of $`(W_i,W_j\times W_k)`$. Thus the dimension function, which is determined by the $`d_i`$, $`iI`$, gives an eigenvector with positive entries of the matrix $`m^j`$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $`d_j`$ and simultaneously an eigenvector of $`m_k`$ with eigenvalue $`d_k`$. Conversely, any such simultaneous eigenvalue does arise in this way. Suppose that $`V`$ is a left regular object of $`𝒯`$ such that $`(W,V)`$ is finite dimensional for each irreducible $`W`$ and hence for each object $`W`$ of $`𝒯_f`$. Let $`v_i`$ be the dimension of $`(W_i,V)`$ and let $`d(W)`$ be defined so that $`V\times W`$ is a direct sum of $`d(W)`$ copies of $`V`$. Then $`d`$ is an integer-valued dimension function and

$$d_jv_i=\underset{k}{}m_{ji}^kv_k.$$

The case of a right regular object can be treated similarly. If $`𝒯_f`$ has conjugates then we have a corresponding involution $`i\overline{i}`$ on $`I`$ and

$$m_{jk}^i=m_{kj}^{\overline{i}}=m_{\overline{j}i}^k.$$

If $`d`$ is a dimension function, there is a conjugate dimension function $`\overline{d}`$ such that $`\overline{d}(W)=d(\overline{W})`$ for each object $`W`$ of $`𝒯_f`$. The interesting dimension functions, such as the intrinsic dimension function of a tensor $`C^{}`$–category with conjugates, are self-conjugate.

Now, there is another natural transformation implicitly involved in $`(2.1)`$, namely, $`\theta (R\iota ,L\iota )`$, defined by

$$\theta _W:=\vartheta _{\iota (W),V}.$$

This brings us to the concept of braided symmetry, developed in the Appendix of . Let $`\epsilon `$ be a braided symmetry relative to a left regular object $`V`$ of $`𝒯`$. Thus $`\epsilon `$ is a unitary natural transformation from the functor $`R`$ of tensoring on the right by $`V`$ to the functor $`L`$ of tensoring on the left by $`V`$ such that

$$\epsilon _{W\times W^{}}=\epsilon _W\times 1_W^{}1_W\times \epsilon _W^{}.$$

Note that $`\epsilon _{\iota (W)}=\vartheta _{\iota (W),V}=\theta _W`$. Since $`V\times W`$ is just a multiple of $`V`$ and the functor $`L`$ is faithful, $`\epsilon _W`$ is uniquely determined by $`\epsilon _V`$ using

$$\epsilon _{V\times W}=\epsilon _V\times 1_W1_V\times \epsilon _W.$$

The index notation for tensor products will now be taken to refer to the braided symmetry. This is consistent with its use in $`(2.1)`$. Using the braided symmetry, we get a unitary natural transformation $`\eta `$ from $`R`$ to $`R\iota `$ defined by

$$\eta _W=\epsilon _{\iota (W)}^1\xi _W\epsilon _W,$$

where $`\xi `$ is the unitary natural transformation from $`L`$ to $`L\iota `$ making $`V`$ into a left regular object. We ask whether $`\eta `$ makes $`V`$ into a right regular object. This question is addressed in the following results.

2.2 Proposition Let $`(\xi ,V)`$ be a left regular object of $`𝒯`$. The braided symmetries $`\epsilon `$ for $`𝒯`$ relative to $`V`$ are in $`11`$ correspondence with invertible natural transformations $`\eta `$ from $`R`$ to $`R\iota `$ such that

$$\eta _{W\times W^{}}=(\xi _W^{})_{32}(\eta _W)_{13}(\xi _W^{}^1)_{32}(\eta _W^{})_{23}.$$
$`(2.3)`$
$`\epsilon `$ and $`\eta `$ are related by

$$\epsilon _W=\xi _W^1\theta _W\eta _W.$$
$`(2.4)`$
Proof. Given $`\epsilon `$, equation $`(2.4)`$ defines a natural unitary transformation $`\eta `$ and $`(2.3)`$ follows by direct computation. Conversely, given $`\eta `$, equation $`(2.4)`$ defines a natural unitary transformation $`\epsilon `$ which is a braided symmetry by virtue of $`(2.3)`$.

If we take the images under $`\iota `$ of the terms in $`(2.3)`$ then the computation leading to $`(2.3)`$ can be modified to show that the analogous identity holds with the tensor product notation now referring to the permutation of Hilbert spaces. Note, too, that $`(2.3)`$ can be used to compute $`\eta `$ in terms of $`\eta _V`$.

2.3 Theorem Given functors $`L`$ and $`R`$ of tensoring on the left and right, respectively, by an object $`V`$ of $`𝒯`$ and invertible natural transformations $`\xi (L,L\iota )`$, $`\eta (R,R\iota )`$ and $`\epsilon (R,L)`$ such that $`\xi \epsilon =\theta \eta `$, consider the following four conditions:

a) $`(\xi ,V)`$ is a left regular object,

b) $`(V,\eta )`$ is a right regular object,

c) $`\epsilon `$ is a braided symmetry relative to $`V`$,

d) $`\eta _W\times 1_{\iota (W^{})}1_W\times \xi _W^{}=1_{\iota (W)}\times \xi _W^{}\eta _W\times 1_W^{}`$, for each pair $`W,W^{}`$ of objects of $`𝒯`$.

Then any three of these conditions imply the fourth.

Proof. We see from Proposition 2.2 that given a) and c), b) is equivalent to requiring that each pair $`(\eta _W)_{13}`$ and $`(\xi _W^{})_{32}`$ commute. Interchanging 2 and 3 using the braided symmetry, we see that, given a) and c), b) and d) are equivalent. Similarly, given b) and c), a) and d) are equivalent. It remains to show that a), b) and d) imply c). However, given a), b) and d), $`(2.3)`$ follows from $`(2.1)`$, since d) implies that $`(\eta _W)_{13}`$ and $`(\xi _W^{})_{32}`$ commute. Thus $`\epsilon `$ is a braided symmetry, completing the proof.

An alternative way of proving the above theorem is by arguing in terms of a diagram with ten vertices, where the conditions a), b), c) and d) are expressed as the commutativity of subdiagrams. The reader is urged to draw the diagram for himself. Begin with an outer square whose sides are used as an hypotenuese for the conditions on $`\eta `$, $`\xi `$, $`\epsilon `$ and $`\theta `$ respectively with d) as a rhombus in the middle of the square.

We may also strengthen one of the implications in the above theorem.

2.4 Lemma Under the hypotheses of Theorem 2.3, the conditions a), b) and

d) $`\eta _V\times 1_{\iota (V)}1_V\times \xi _V=1_{\iota (V)}\times \xi _V\eta _V\times 1_V`$

imply that $`\epsilon `$ is a braided symmetry.

The necessary computations can be found in the proof of Theorem A.2 in . This proof can be rewritten entirely in terms of compositions in the tensor category $`𝒯`$ and this is recommended to the reader as an exercise. The computations also show that a), c) and d) with $`V`$ in place of $`W^{}`$ imply b) and that b), c) and d) with $`V`$ in place of $`W`$ imply a).

We will refer to a braided symmetry fulfilling the conditions of Theorem 2.3 as being a standard braided symmetry. In the presence of a standard braided symmetry we have an object which is at the same time a left and right regular object in a coherent way in that it fulfills d) of Theorem 2.3. We call such an object a regular object. Under these circumstances we have the following corollary of Theorem 2.1.

2.5 Corollary A tensor $`W^{}`$–category equipped with a faithful idempotent tensor –functor into a tensor subcategory of Hilbert spaces and with a regular object $`(\xi ,V,\eta )`$ is isomorphic to a tensor subcategory of both $`(\iota (\eta _V))`$ and $`𝒞(\iota (\xi _V)^1)`$. There is an associated standard braided symmetry given by $`(2.4)`$.

In particular, if a multiplicative unitary $`V`$ considered as a corepresentation and hence a left regular object in $`𝒞(V)`$ is even a right regular object, there is a multiplicative unitary $`\widehat{V}`$ on the same Hilbert space such that $`𝒞(V)`$ is canonically isomorphic as a tensor $`W^{}`$–category to a tensor –subcategory of $`(\widehat{V})`$. We do not know when the image coincides with $`(\widehat{V})`$.

Given a left regular object $`V`$ of $`𝒯`$, we would like to analyse in how many different ways we may choose $`\eta `$ and $`\epsilon `$ so as to fulfill the conditions of Theorem 2.3. Of course $`\epsilon `$ determines $`\eta `$ uniquely so our question amounts to parametrizing the standard braided symmetries relative to $`V`$. It is convenient to rephrase this problem in terms of the associated natural transformations (Prop. 2.2). In the remark following Proposition 2.2, we have noted that any such natural transformation is uniquely determined by its value in $`V`$. Therefore we first consider the situation where $`𝒯`$ is $`𝒞(V)_V`$, the full tensor subcategory of $`𝒞(V)`$ generated by $`V`$.

2.6 Lemma Let $`\xi `$ be the natural unitary transformation from $`L`$ to $`L\iota `$ making $`V`$ into a left regular object of $`𝒞(V)_V`$, and let $`\eta _V`$ be a unitary operator on the Hilbert space $`K^2`$ of $`V`$. Then there is a natural unitary transformation $`\eta `$ from $`R`$ to $`R\iota `$ taking the value $`\eta _V`$ at $`V`$ and defining a standard braided symmetry $`\epsilon `$ on $`𝒞(V)_V`$ if and only if $`\eta _V`$ satisfies

a) $`\eta _V\times 1_{\iota (V)}1_V\times \xi _V=1_{\iota (V)}\times \xi _V\eta _V\times 1_V,`$

b) $`\eta _VT\times 1_V=\iota (T)\times 1_V\eta _V,T(V,V)`$,

c) $`\eta _V(V^{\times 2},\iota (V)\times V)`$,

d) $`\iota (\xi _V)\times 1_V(\eta _V)_{13}1_V\times \eta _V=(\eta _V)_{13}\xi _V\times 1_V`$.

Proof. If $`\eta `$ is the natural unitary transformation associated with the standard braided symmetry $`\epsilon `$ then, by Proposition 2.2, $`\eta (R,R\iota )`$, thus, evaluating in $`V`$, we get c); a) is a special case of d) in Theorem 2.3. Since $`\eta `$ is natural, given any pair $`W`$, $`W^{}𝒞(V)_V`$ and any $`T(W,W^{})`$, $`\iota (T)\times 1_V\eta _W=\eta _W^{}T\times 1_V`$, thus choosing $`W=W^{}=V`$ we obtain b). On the other hand $`V(V\times \iota (V),V^{\times 2})`$, therefore, as $`\eta `$ makes $`V`$ into a right regular object, d) follows from the naturality of $`\eta `$. Conversely, by virtue of a) and Lemma 2.4, it suffices to show that $`\eta _{V^{\times r}}:=(\eta _V)_{1r+1}\mathrm{}(\eta _V)_{rr+1}`$ is a natural unitary transformation from $`R`$ to $`R\iota `$ making $`V`$ into a right regular object. It is easy to see that c) yields $`\eta _{V^{\times r}}(V^{\times r}\times V,\iota (V^{\times r})\times V)`$, and we must show the naturality of $`\eta `$, i.e. that for any $`T(V^{\times r},V^{\times s})`$, $`\eta _{V^{\times s}}T\times 1_V=\iota (T)\times 1_V\eta _{V^{\times r}}`$. We note that if this relation holds for $`r+1`$ and $`s+1`$ then it holds for $`r`$ and $`s`$ as well, since $`(V^{\times r},V^{\times s})`$ embeds in $`(V^{\times r+1},V^{\times s+1})`$ via $`R`$. Therefore, it suffices to assume $`r,s`$ sufficiently large. Now by b) the relation holds for $`r=s=1`$. We regard the Hilbert space $`K`$ of the corepresentation $`V`$ as a space of bounded linear operators from $`K`$ to $`K^2`$ by letting the elements of $`K`$ act by tensoring on the left. By the multiplicativity of $`V`$, $`V\vartheta _{K,K}K`$ is a Hilbert space $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ of intertwiners of $`𝒞(V)_V`$ contained in $`(V,V^{\times 2})`$ and property d) shows that the desired relation holds for elements of $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$. For $`s2`$, on the other hand, $`(V^{\times r},V^{\times s})`$ is generated as a weakly closed subspace of $`(K^r,K^s)`$ by elements of the form $`\psi \times 1_{V^{s2}}T`$, with $`T(V^{\times r},V^{\times s1})`$ and $`\psi \stackrel{~}{K}`$. The relations therefore hold for a generating set of intertwiners in $`𝒞(V)_V`$, and hence for all the intertwiners, completing the proof.

It emerges from the proof that property d) has the role of ensuring the naturality of $`\eta `$ for elements of the Hilbert space $`\stackrel{~}{K}(V,V^{\times 2})`$. $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ could be replaced by any other Hilbert space with support $`I`$ in $`(V,V^{\times 2})`$. Choosing $`\widehat{K}:=\eta _V^1K`$ amounts to replacing d) by

$`d^{})`$ $`\eta _V`$ is a multiplicative unitary on $`K^2`$.

Furthermore, we note that b) characterizes the elements of $`(V,V)(K,K)`$. Indeed, if $`T(K,K)`$ satisfies $`\eta _VT\times 1_V=T\times 1_V\eta _V`$ then by c) $`T\times 1_V=\eta _{V}^{}{}_{}{}^{}T\times 1_V\eta _V(V^{\times 2},V^{\times 2})`$, so $`T(V,V)`$.

To parametrize the standard braided symmetries, we shall need two further notions: let $`W`$ be an object of $`𝒞(V)`$ acting on $`H`$ and set

$$G_W:=\{U𝒰(H):TU^{\times r}=U^{\times s}T,T(W^{\times r},W^{\times s})\}.$$

2.7 Proposition If $`V`$ is the regular corepresentation then $`G_V=\{U(V,V)^{}:\delta (U):=VU\times 1_VV^1=U\times U\}.`$

Proof. $`UG_V`$ implies $`\delta (U)=U\times U`$ since $`V(V\times \iota _V,V\times V)`$ and $`U(V,V)^{}`$. For the converse, note that the above two conditions suffice to conclude that $`UG_V`$ by the fundamental property of the regular corepresentation.

We regard the dual multiplicative unitary $`V^d:=\vartheta _{K,K}V^1\vartheta _{K,K}`$ as a left regular object of $`𝒞(V^d)`$. We call $`V`$ weakly irreducible if $`(V,V)(V^d,V^d)=I`$. If $`V`$ is irreducible in the sense of  then it is weakly irreducible.

2.8 Theorem Let $`V`$ be a weakly irreducible multiplicative unitary, and let $`\eta `$, $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }(R,R\iota )`$ be natural unitary transformations defining standard braided symmetries on $`𝒞(V)_V`$. Then there is a unique unitary $`UG_V`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_V=U\times 1_V\eta _V`$. Conversely, given any unitary $`UG_V`$ and any natural transformation $`\eta `$ as above there is a unique $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_V=U\times 1_V\eta _V`$.

Proof. Let $`\eta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ define standard braided symmetries on $`𝒞(V)_V`$. By virtue of the commutation relation a) of Lemma 2.6, for any $`\omega (K,K)_{}`$, $`\omega \iota (\eta _V)V=V\omega \iota (\eta _V)`$, therefore $`\omega \iota (\eta _V)(V^d,V^d)`$. On the other hand, by c) of the same lemma, $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_V\eta _{V}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(\iota (V)\times V,\iota (V)\times V)=(\iota _V,\iota _V)(V,V)`$, so $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_V\eta _{V}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(K,K)(V,V)(V^d,V^d)=(K,K)I`$ since $`V`$ is weakly irreducible. Now, by b), $`\iota \omega (\eta _V)(V,V)^{}`$, so both $`\eta _V`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_V`$, and therefore $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_V\eta _{V}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ belong to $`(V,V)^{}(K,K)`$. We conclude that there is a $`U(V,V)^{}`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_V=U\times 1_V\eta _V`$. Finally, comparing d) for $`\eta _V`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_V`$, we conclude that $`U`$ satifies $`VU\times 1_V=U\times UV`$, i.e. $`UG_V`$.

Conversely, a straightforward computation shows that any unitary of the form $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_V:=U\times 1_V\eta _V`$, with $`UG_V`$, satisfies the properties stated in the previous lemma.

2.9 Lemma Let $`V`$ be a multiplicative unitary and $`\eta _V`$ a unitary operator on $`K^2`$ satisfying properties a) and c) of Lemma 2.6. If $`V`$ is regular in the sense of  then the algebra generated by $`(V,V)`$ and $`(V^d,V^d)`$ acts irreducibly on $`K`$.

Proof. For any pair $`\psi `$ and $`\phi `$ of elements of $`K`$ we may write

$$\psi ^{}\times 1_VV\vartheta \phi \times 1_V=\underset{i}{}\psi ^{}\times 1_V\eta _{V}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\phi _i\times 1_V\phi _{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\times 1_V\eta _VV\vartheta \phi \times 1_V,$$

where $`\phi _i`$ is an orthonormal basis of $`K.`$ Now

$$K^{}\times 1_V\eta _{V}^{}{}_{}{}^{}K\times 1_V(V^d,V^d)$$

as $`\eta _{V}^{}{}_{12}{}^{}`$ and $`V_{23}`$ commute. On the other hand $`K^{}\times 1_V\eta _VV\vartheta K\times 1_V(V,V)`$, therefore $`K^{}\times 1_VV\vartheta K\times 1_V`$ is a subspace of the weak closure of the algebra generated by $`(V,V)`$ and $`(V^d,V^d)`$. On the other hand this subspace generates the compact operators since $`V`$ is regular, completing the proof.

2.10 Theorem If $`V`$ is a multiplicative unitary and the algebra generated by $`(V,V)`$ and $`(V^d,V^d)`$ acts irreducibly on $`K`$ then any braided symmetry $`\epsilon `$ on $`𝒞(V)_V`$ extends uniquely to a braided symmetry on $`𝒞(V),`$ standard if $`\epsilon `$ is standard.

Proof. We have already noted that any braided symmetry on $`𝒞(V)`$ is determined uniquely by $`\eta _V`$. The explict relation is

$$1_V\times \eta _W=(\xi _W)_{32}(\eta _{V}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})_{13}(\xi _{W}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})_{32}(\xi _{W}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})_{12}(\eta _V)_{13}(\xi _W)_{12}.$$

We show that the right hand side does define a natural unitary transformation from $`R`$ to $`R\iota `$ in $`𝒞(V)`$ satisfying $`(2.3)`$. For brevity, we write $`W^1`$ for $`\xi _W.`$

Let $`H`$ be the Hilbert space of the corepresentation $`W.`$ The key idea is to show that the unitary operator $`X_W`$ on $`KHK`$ defined by the right hand side acts trivially on the first factor, by showing that its first component lies in the commutant of the algebra generated by $`(V,V)`$ and $`(V^d,V^d)`$, this being the complex numbers, by assumption. We first show that the first component of $`X_W`$ is in the commutant of $`(V^d,V^d)`$. Since the first component of $`W`$ is in $`(V^d,V^d)`$, and $`W_{32}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ acts trivially on the first factor, it is enough to prove the claim for the first component of $`(\eta _{V}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})_{13}W_{32}W_{12}(\eta _V)_{13}.`$ However, by the corepresentation relation $`W_{32}W_{12}=V_{31}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}W_{12}V_{31},`$ we are thus reduced to showing that the first component of $`(\eta _{V}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})_{13}V_{31}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}W_{12}V_{31}(\eta _V)_{13}`$ is contained in the commutant of $`(V^d,V^d)`$. Now, this holds in the special case $`W=V`$ since this operator coincides with $`V_{32}(\eta _V)_{23}V_{12}.`$ In the general case, since the first component of $`W`$ is contained in $`(V^d,V^d)^{}`$ we deduce that we can approximate $`W`$ weakly by finite sums of operators of the form $`1_K\times A^{}V1_K\times B,`$ with $`A,B(H,K).`$ Hence it suffices if the first component of

$$(\eta _{V}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})_{13}V_{31}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}1_K\times A^{}\times 1_KV_{12}1_K\times B\times 1_KV_{31}(\eta _V)_{13}=$$

$$1_K\times A^{}\times 1_K(\eta _{V}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})_{13}V_{31}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}V_{12}V_{31}(\eta _V)_{13}1_K\times B\times 1_K,$$

is in $`(V^d,V^d)^{}`$ and this is now clear.

On the other hand by b) of Lemma 2.6, $`\eta _V(V,V)^{}(K,K).`$ To prove the claim it remains to show that the first component of $`W_{12}(\eta _V)_{13}W_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ is in $`(V,V)^{}`$. Now

$$1_{KH}\times K^{}W_{12}(\eta _V)_{13}W_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}1_{KH}\times K=W1_{KH}\times K^{}(\eta _V)_{13}1_{KH}\times KW^1$$

$$W(V,V)^{}W^1(V,V)^{}(W,W)^{}$$

by the corepresentation relation, as claimed. Let $`\eta _W`$ be the unitary on $`HK`$ defined by $`(\eta _W)_{23}=X_W.`$ A straightforward computation shows that $`X_W(V\times W\times V,V\times \iota (W)\times V),`$ thus $`\eta _W(W\times V,\iota (W)\times V),`$ and that $`W𝒞(V)\eta _W`$ is a natural transformation from $`R`$ to $`R\iota `$. We now check that $`(2.3)`$ holds.

$$(\eta _{W\times W^{}})_{234}=X_{W\times W^{}}=$$

$$W_{}^{}{}_{43}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}W_{42}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(\eta _V^1)_{14}W_{42}W_{}^{}{}_{43}{}^{}W_{12}W_{}^{}{}_{13}{}^{}(\eta _V)_{14}W_{}^{}{}_{13}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}W_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=$$

$$W_{}^{}{}_{43}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}W_{42}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(\eta _{V}^{}{}_{}{}^{1})_{14}W_{42}W_{12}(\eta _V)_{14}W_{}^{}{}_{43}{}^{}(\eta _W^{})_{34}W_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=$$

$$W_{}^{}{}_{43}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(\eta _W)_{24}W_{}^{}{}_{43}{}^{}(\eta _W^{})_{34}.$$

Finally, we prove the last statement. Let us assume that $`\epsilon `$ is standard on $`𝒞(V)_V,`$ so a) of Lemma 2.6 holds. Hence $`\epsilon `$ is standard on $`𝒞(V)`$ by Lemma 2.4, completing the proof.

We now describe one way of getting standard braided symmetries on $`𝒞(V)`$.

2.11 Proposition Let $`V`$ be a multiplicative unitary and $`U𝒰(K)`$ such that

$$\widehat{V}=I\times U\vartheta V\vartheta I\times U^{}$$

is multiplicative, with $`\vartheta =\vartheta _{K,K}`$. If $`[\widehat{V}_{12},V_{23}]=0`$ and $`W𝒞(V)`$, then there is a standard braided symmetry $`\epsilon `$ on $`𝒞(V)`$ defined by:

$$\epsilon _W:=WU\times IWU^{}\times I\vartheta _{H,K}.$$

The corresponding natural transformation $`\eta `$ making $`V`$ into a right regular object is given by

$$\eta _W:=I\times U\vartheta _{K,H}W\vartheta _{H,K}I\times U^{}.$$

Proof. It is obvious from the form of $`\epsilon `$ that we have a natural transformation. Hence $`\eta `$ will be a natural transformation, too and a simple computation shows that it makes $`V`$ into a right regular object. Since $`d^{})`$ of Lemma 2.4 holds, $`\epsilon `$ is a standard braided symmetry.

If $`U𝒰(K)`$ has the properties listed in  to make $`V`$ an irreducible multiplicative unitary then all the conditions of the above proposition are satisfied. In particular, $`𝒞(V)`$ has a canonical standard braided symmetry if $`V`$ comes from a Kac–von Neumann algebra as in  or is any regular discrete or compact multiplicative unitary. If $`V`$ is derived from a locally compact group $`G`$, the corresponding braided symmetry is that derived from the usual permutation symmetry on the representation category of $`G`$ interchanging the order of factors in the tensor product of two representations.

## 3 Conjugation

Our aim is to discuss conjugation in the context of multiplicative unitaries and their associated Hopf algebras. Although this aspect was not discussed in , relevant related work can be found in a number of publications, and we refer, in particular, to the work of Woronowicz in the context of compact quantum groups .

However, some of the relevant problems can be seen at the level of the representation theory of $`C^{}`$–algebras and von Neumann algebras and it is hence wise to discuss them in this simplified setting. We therefore begin with $`C^{}`$–categories and $`W^{}`$-categories. If $`𝒯`$ is a $`C^{}`$–category, then a conjugation on $`𝒯`$ is an extension $`𝒯^a`$ of $`𝒯`$ with the same objects to include antilinear arrows with the property that any object is the source of an antiunitary. To formalize the structure involved, we define a semilinear $`C^{}`$–category to be a $`C^{}`$-category where for each pair of objects $`\rho `$, $`\sigma `$ in addition to the linear space $`(\rho ,\sigma )`$ of “linear” arrows there is a second linear space $`(\rho ,\sigma )_a`$ of “antilinear” arrows. The composition of two arrows is antilinear if and only if precisely one of them is antilinear. Identity arrows are, of course, linear and we have

$$\mu s\lambda r=\mu \lambda sr,$$

$$\mu s\lambda r=\mu \overline{\lambda }sr,$$

according as $`s`$ is linear or antilinear. The adjoint $`rr^{}`$ is a contravariant involution leaving objects fixed and being antilinear on linear arrows and linear on antilinear arrows. The spaces $`(\rho ,\sigma )`$ and $`(\rho ,\sigma )_a`$ are equipped with a norm making them into Banach spaces and having the $`C^{}`$–property:

$$r^2=r^{}r.$$

If we forget the antilinear arrows, we get an ordinary $`C^{}`$–category and the norm is determined by its values on that subcategory.

An antiunitary arrow in a semilinear $`C^{}`$–category is an arrow $`J`$ in some $`(\rho ,\sigma )_a`$ such that $`J^{}J=1_\rho `$ and $`JJ^{}=1_\sigma `$. Two objects $`\rho `$ and $`\overline{\rho }`$ are said to be conjugates if there exists an antiunitary $`J(\rho ,\overline{\rho })_a`$. Conjugates, if they exist, are defined up to unitary equivalence.

The above definition would seem to be the most natural from the categorical point of view. However, if conjugates exist, we may wish to make a choice, $`\rho J_\rho `$, of antiunitary for each object $`\rho `$ and then there is an associated antilinear –functor on $`𝒯`$ defined by

$$\overline{T}:=J_\sigma TJ_\rho ^{}(\overline{\rho },\overline{\sigma }),T(\rho ,\sigma ).$$

It can be extended to $`𝒯^a`$ by defining

$$\overline{RJ_\rho }:=\overline{R}J_{\overline{\rho }}$$

on antilinear arrows. In addition there is an associated natural unitary transformation $`d_\rho :(\rho ,\overline{\overline{\rho }})`$ defined by

$$d_\rho :=J_{\overline{\rho }}J_\rho $$

and satisfying $`\overline{d_\rho }=d_{\overline{\rho }}`$.

More interestingly, we can also go in the other direction. If we are given an antilinear –functor and a unitary natural transformations $`d`$, as above, we may define a semilinear $`C^{}`$–category as follows. For each object $`\rho `$, we introduce an antiunitary arrow $`J_\rho (\rho ,\overline{\rho })_a`$. A general antilinear arrow in $`(\rho ,\sigma )_a`$ can now be written uniquely in the form $`RJ_\rho `$, where $`R(\overline{\rho },\sigma )`$. Composition with a linear arrow $`P(\pi ,\rho )`$ is defined by

$$RJ_\rho P:=R\overline{P}J_\pi .$$

Composition with a linear arrow $`S(\sigma ,\tau )`$ is defined by

$$SRJ_\rho :=(SR)J_\rho .$$

Finally, composition with an antilinear arrow $`SJ_\sigma `$, where $`S(\overline{\sigma },\tau )`$, is defined by

$$SJ_\sigma RJ_\rho :=S\overline{R}d_\rho .$$

Routine computations verify that we get a –category and indeed a semilinear $`C^{}`$–category if we define the norms of antilinear arrows in the only way compatible with $`J_\rho `$ being antiunitary, namely by setting

$$RJ_\rho :=R.$$

It should be noted that in the above construction of $`𝒯^a`$ if $`U_\rho (\overline{\rho },\stackrel{~}{\rho })`$ is a unitary natural transformation between two antilinear –functors then mapping antilinear arrows by $`R\stackrel{~}{J}_\rho RU_\rho J_\rho `$ and leaving linear arrows invariant is an isomorphism of the constructed semilinear tensor $`C^{}`$–categories. Two different choices, $`\rho J_\rho `$ and $`\rho \stackrel{~}{J}_\rho `$, within $`𝒯^a`$ lead to a unitary natural equivalence $`U_\rho :=\stackrel{~}{J}_\rho J_\rho ^{}`$ between the associated antilinear –functors.

We may want our conjugation to have additional properties. The following definition would seem to describe the best possible situation. We call a strict involutive conjugation an involutive antilinear covariant functor on $`𝒯`$ commuting with the adjoint, taking an object $`\rho `$ to $`\overline{\rho }`$ and an arrow $`T`$ to $`\overline{T}`$. If we now adjoin to the category, as a special case of the above construction, an antiunitary $`J_\rho `$ for each object $`\rho `$ with the property that $`J_{\overline{\rho }}=J_\rho ^{}`$ and

$$J_\sigma T=\overline{T}J_\rho ,T(\rho ,\sigma )$$

then we will have constructed a conjugation on $`𝒯`$. This special case corresponds to being able to take $`d`$ as the identity natural transformation. Looked at from the point of view of $`𝒯^a`$, it means that $`J_\rho `$ can be chosen so that $`J_{\overline{\rho }}=J_\rho ^{}`$.

To give a simple example: let $``$ be a category of Hilbert spaces then we get a conjugation on $``$ by adding to the arrows all bounded antilinear mappings between the respective objects. Such a category will be denoted $`^a`$ and referred to as a category of Hilbert spaces with conjugation. Pick an orthonormal basis for each Hilbert space $`H`$ in the category and let $`J_H`$ denote the antiunitary involution on $`H`$ leaving this basis fixed. Then define for $`T(H,K)`$, $`\overline{T}:=J_KTJ_H`$ and we have a strict involutive conjugation on $``$ yielding $`^a`$ as the associated conjugation.

A second simple example is provided by a $`C^{}`$–algebra $`𝒜`$ equipped with a conjugation $`j`$, i.e. an antilinear involutive –homomorphism. Consider the representation theory of $`𝒜`$ on the objects of $``$. If $`\pi `$ is such a representation, we write $`J_\pi :=J_{H_\pi }`$ and define

$$\overline{\pi }(A):=J_\pi \pi (j(A))J_{\overline{\pi }},A𝒜,$$

$$\overline{T}=J_\sigma TJ_\rho ,T(\rho ,\sigma ).$$

In this way, we get a strict involutive conjugation on the $`C^{}`$–category of representations of $`𝒜`$ on the objects of $``$. The forgetful functor into $``$ preserves the strict involutive conjugation in the obvious sense.

There is also a simple result going in the other direction. We recall  that if $`H:𝒯`$ is a –functor of a $`C^{}`$–category into the category of Hilbert spaces then the bounded natural transformations from $`H`$ to $`H`$ form a von Neumann algebra denoted $`(H,H)`$ and called the commutant of $`H`$. The evaluation maps $`\eta \eta _\rho `$ are normal representations of $`(H,H)`$. When $`𝒯`$ is a $`W^{}`$–category and $`H`$ is faithful and normal, then $`𝒯`$ can be interpreted as a category of normal representations of $`(H,H)`$.

3.1 Lemma Let $`𝒯^a`$ be a conjugation on $`𝒯`$ and $`H^a:𝒯^a^a`$ be a –functor into a category of Hilbert spaces with conjugation and $`H`$ its restriction to $``$. Given $`\eta (H,H)`$, set

$$j(\eta ){}_{\rho }{}^{}:=H^a(J_\rho ^{})\eta _{\overline{\rho }}H^a(J_\rho ),$$

where $`J_\rho `$ is an antiunitary from $`\rho `$ to $`\overline{\rho }`$ in $`𝒯^a`$. Then $`j`$ is a conjugation on $`(H,H)`$.

Proof. Given $`T(\rho ,\sigma )`$, $`\overline{T}:=J_\sigma TJ_\rho ^{}(\overline{\rho },\overline{\sigma })`$ and a simple computation shows that $`j(\eta )(H,H)`$. Two different choices of $`J_\rho `$ differ by a unitary in $`𝒯`$. But $`\eta `$ is a natural transformation, so $`j`$ does not depend on the choice of $`J_\rho `$ and this makes it obvious that $`j`$ is an involution.

We next show how, given a conjugation on a $`C^{}`$–algebra, the GNS construction provides canonical antiunitary intertwiners between conjugate representations.

3.2 Lemma Let $`j`$ be a conjugation on a $`C^{}`$–algebra $`𝒜`$ and let $`\varphi `$ denote a lower semicontinuous densely defined weight on $`𝒜`$ and let $`\overline{\varphi }:=\varphi j`$. Let $`𝒩_\varphi `$ and $`𝒩_{\overline{\varphi }}`$ be the associated scalar product spaces mapped by $`\widehat{}`$ into the associated Hilbert spaces, $`L^2(𝒜,\varphi )`$ and $`L^2(𝒜,\overline{\varphi })`$, respectively. Then there is a canonical antiunitary operator $`J_\varphi `$ from $`L^2(𝒜,\varphi )`$ to $`L^2(𝒜,\overline{\varphi })`$ defined by

$$J_\varphi \widehat{N}=\widehat{j(N)},N𝒩_\varphi ,$$

and we have

$$J_\varphi \pi _\varphi (A)=\pi _{\overline{\varphi }}j(A)J_\varphi ,A𝒜.$$

If $`\varphi `$ extends to a faithful normal weight on $`\pi _\varphi (𝒜)^{\prime \prime }`$ then

$$J_\varphi S_\varphi =S_{\overline{\varphi }}J_\varphi ,$$

where the operators $`S`$ are the closed operators derived from the adjoint.

Proof. $`J_\varphi `$ is uniquely defined as an antiunitary operator since

$$\varphi (N^{}N)=\overline{\varphi }(j(N)^{}j(N)),N𝒜.$$

Furthermore, the intertwining property holds since

$$j(AN)=j(A)j(N),A𝒜,N𝒩_\varphi .$$

The final relation follows from

$$j(N^{})=j(N)^{},N𝒩_\varphi .$$

## 4 Conjugation and Tensor Products

After this general discussion of conjugation which already illustrates the basic problems involved, we turn to conjugation on tensor $`C^{}`$–categories, the structures arising in the representation theory of Hopf $`C^{}`$–algebras, locally compact quantum groups and multiplicative unitaries.

In a semilinear tensor $`C^{}`$–category, the tensor product is defined separately for linear and antilinear arrows. If $`R(\rho ,\sigma )`$ and $`R^{}(\rho ^{},\sigma ^{})`$ then $`R\times R^{}(\rho \rho ^{},\sigma \sigma ^{})`$ and the map $`R,R^{}R\times R^{}`$ is bilinear. If $`R(\rho ,\sigma )_a`$ and $`R^{}(\rho ^{},\sigma ^{})_a`$, then $`R\times R^{}(\rho \rho ^{},\sigma ^{}\sigma )_a`$ and $`R,R^{}R\times R^{}`$ is again bilinear. If $`S(\sigma ,\tau )`$ and $`S^{}(\sigma ^{},\tau ^{})`$, then

$$S^{}\times SR\times R^{}=(SR)\times (S^{}R^{}).$$

If $`P(\pi ,\rho )`$ and $`P^{}(\pi ^{},\rho ^{})`$ then

$$R\times R^{}P\times P^{}=(RP)\times (R^{}P^{}).$$

If $`S(\sigma ,\tau )_a`$ and $`S^{}(\sigma ^{},\tau ^{})_a`$ then again

$$S^{}\times SR\times R^{}=(SR)\times (S^{}R^{}).$$

Finally, $`(R\times R^{})^{}=R^{{}_{}{}^{}}\times R^{}`$ for $`R`$, $`R^{}`$ antilinear.

A simple example of a semilinear tensor $`C^{}`$–category is got by considering the linear and antilinear intertwining operators between a set of unitary representations of a group $`G`$, closed under tensor products, where an antilinear intertwining operator $`R(\rho ,\sigma )_a`$ is a bounded antilinear operator from $`H(\rho )`$ to $`H(\sigma )`$, the underlying Hilbert spaces, such that

$$R\rho (g)=\sigma (g)R,gG.$$

The only point to note is that the tensor product $`R\times R^{}`$ is not the usual tensor product $`RR^{}`$ of antilinear operators, but is given by

$$R\times R^{}=\vartheta (\sigma ,\sigma ^{})RR^{}=R^{}R\vartheta (\rho ,\rho ^{})$$

where $`\vartheta `$ is the symmetry on the underlying tensor $`C^{}`$–category of Hilbert spaces.

The idea of conjugation in §3 nows adapts to a tensor $`C^{}`$–category $`𝒯`$. It is an extension $`𝒯^a`$ of $`𝒯`$ to a semilinear tensor $`C^{}`$-category where every object is the source of an antiunitary. At this point we make contact with the notion of conjugation introduced by Hayashi and Yamagami. If we pick antiunitaries $`J_\rho `$ for each object $`\rho `$ and set

$$c_{\rho ,\sigma }:=J_{\rho \sigma }(J_\rho \times J_\sigma )^{},$$

we get a natural unitary equivalence from $`\overline{\sigma }\overline{\rho }`$ to $`\overline{\rho \sigma }`$. A computation shows that

$$c_{\tau ,\sigma \rho }c_{\sigma ,\rho }\times 1_{\overline{\tau }}=c_{\tau \sigma ,\rho }1_{\overline{\rho }}\times c_{\tau ,\sigma },$$

$$\overline{c}_{\rho ,\sigma }c_{\overline{\sigma },\overline{\rho }}d_\rho \times d_\sigma =d_{\rho \sigma },$$

where $`d`$ is the natural unitary equivalence of §3. Conversely, given an antilinear functor $`T\overline{T}`$ and the natural equivalences $`c`$ and $`d`$ satisfying the above relations, then the semilinear $`C^{}`$–category $`𝒯^a`$ constructed in §3 can be made into a tensor $`C^{}`$–category by using the following definition of the tensor product of antilinear arrows:

$$(RJ_\rho )\times (R^{}J_\rho ^{}):=R^{}\times Rc_{\rho ,\rho ^{}}^1J_{\rho \rho ^{}}.$$

Rather than using semilinear structure, Hayashi and Yamagami define a conjugation as an antilinear –functor equipped with the natural transformations $`c`$ and $`d`$.

They also introduce the notion of a strict conjugation on a tensor $`C^{}`$–category requiring $`c`$ and $`d`$ to be identities. In terms of antiunitary operators, this obviously corresponds to requiring that there is a choice of $`J`$ such that

$$J_{\rho \sigma }=J_\rho \times J_\sigma (\rho \sigma ,\overline{\sigma }\overline{\rho })$$

for each pair of objects $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$ and we refer to this case as a strict involutive conjugation of tensor $`C^{}`$–categories.

We give an example of a strict tensor $`W^{}`$–category of Hilbert spaces with conjugation. Let $``$ be a von Neumann algebra equipped with a conjugation $`j`$. Let the objects of the category be the Hilbert spaces in $``$. If $`H`$ is such a Hilbert space then its conjugate is $`j(H)`$. If $`T(H,H^{})`$ then its conjugate is $`j(T)(j(H),j(H^{}))`$. As this conjugation is involutive, we may take the natural unitary equivalence $`d`$ to be the identity. The natural unitary equivalence $`c`$ from $`j(K)j(H)`$ to $`j(HK)`$ is defined by

$$c_{H,K}:=\theta (j(K),j(H)).$$

Since $`j(c_{K,H})c_{j(K),j(H)}=1_{KH}`$, we may construct a semilinear tensor $`W^{}`$–category with conjugation, as explained above. This construction is realized concretely by taking as antiunitary arrows $`J_H`$, the mapping $`\psi j(\psi )`$ for $`\psi H`$, and defining

$$J_H\times J_K:=c_{H,K}^1J_{HK}.$$

For a second example, the category of matrices with complex entries is a $`C^{}`$–category in a natural way and becomes a strict tensor $`C^{}`$–category when the tensor product is defined using lexicographical ordering. However, this cannot be made into a strict tensor $`C^{}`$–category with a strict involutive conjugation. In fact, labelling the objects by the integers in the obvious way, the equation

$$J_2\times J_3=J_3\times J_2$$

cannot be satisfied. On the other hand, our axioms require $`\overline{\sigma }\overline{\rho }`$ rather than $`\overline{\rho }\overline{\sigma }`$ to be the conjugate of $`\rho \sigma `$. If we use the ordinary tensor product of antilinear operators, denoted by $``$, then we can satisfy

$$J_mJ_n=J_{mn}=J_nJ_m,m,n$$

by defining

$$J_me_i:=e_{m+1i},$$

with respect to the natural orthonormal basis $`e_i`$, $`i=1,2,\mathrm{}m`$.

For a third example, we consider a strict tensor $`C^{}`$–category with conjugates  embedded in a strict tensor category of Hilbert spaces. Let $`R(\iota ,\overline{\rho }\rho )`$ and $`\overline{R}(\iota ,\rho \overline{\rho })`$ solve the conjugate equations for an object $`\rho `$ of $`𝒯`$, then they also solve the corresponding equations in the category of Hilbert spaces and there is an invertible antilinear operator $`T`$ from $`H`$ to $`\overline{H}`$, the underlying Hilbert space of $`\rho `$ and $`\overline{\rho }`$, such that

$$R(1)=\underset{i}{}Te_ie_i,\overline{R}(1)=\underset{i}{}e_iT^1e_i,$$

where $`e_i`$ is an orthonormal basis of $`H`$. We set $`\overline{T}:=T_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$. If we pick, for each object $`\rho `$ of $`𝒯`$, a standard solution of the conjugate equations and denote the antilinear operator by $`T_\rho `$, then there is an antilinear functor $`S\overline{S}`$ commuting with the adjoint defined by

$$\overline{S}:=T_\sigma ST_\rho ^1,S(\rho ,\sigma ),$$

$$f_\rho :=T_\rho ^{}T_\rho $$

is independent of the choice of $`T_\rho `$, $`\rho f_\rho `$ is a natural transformation of the embedding functor to itself and

$$f_{\rho \sigma }=f_\rho f_\sigma .$$

One can similarly define an antilinear functor $`S\stackrel{~}{S}`$ associated to the antilinear operators $`\overline{T}_\rho :=T_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ by

$$\stackrel{~}{S}:=\overline{T}_\sigma S\overline{T}_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{1},S(\rho ,\sigma ).$$

Theorem 4.1

a) Setting

$$(\rho ,\sigma )_a:=(\overline{\rho },\sigma )T_\rho $$

and

$$T_\rho \times T_\sigma :=T_\sigma T_\rho \theta (H,K),$$

where $`H`$ and $`K`$ denote the underlying Hilbert spaces of $`\rho `$ and $`\sigma `$, respectively, gives an embedded semilinear tensor category. Set $`d_\rho :=T_{\overline{\rho }}T_\rho `$ and $`c_{\rho ,\sigma }:=T_{\rho \sigma }(T_\rho \times T_\sigma )^1`$. Then $`d`$ and $`c`$ are unitary natural transformations satisfying the identities needed to yield a semilinear tensor $`C^{}`$–category with conjugation $`𝒯^a`$.

b) Setting

$$(\rho ,\sigma )_{\overline{a}}:=(\overline{\rho },\sigma )\overline{T}_\rho $$

gives, in a similar way, another semilinear tensor category with conjugation $`𝒯^{\overline{a}}`$ with the corresponding properties.

In general, $`T_\rho (\rho ,\overline{\rho })_{\overline{a}}`$. The category $`𝒯^a`$ (resp. $`𝒯^{\overline{a}}`$) may be identified with the embedded semilinear tensor category after the adjoint of antilinear arrows has been redefined so as to make the $`T_\rho `$ (resp. $`\overline{T}_\rho `$) antiunitary. It is independent of the embedding of $`𝒯`$ into a tensor $`C^{}`$–category of Hilbert spaces.

Proof. The observation on the embedded semilinear category is already made in . We get a semilinear tensor category since $`T_\rho \times T_\sigma `$ would be a possible choice of $`T_{\rho \sigma }`$. Since $`S\overline{S}`$ is defined in terms of $`\rho T_\rho `$, $`d`$ and $`c`$ are obviously natural transformations satisfying the required identities. $`d_\rho `$ is unitary since $`T_\rho ^1`$ would be a possible choice of $`T_{\overline{\rho }}`$. Similarly, $`c_{\rho ,\sigma }`$ is unitary since $`T_\rho \times T_\sigma `$ is a possible choice of $`T_{\rho \sigma }`$. The semilinear tensor $`C^{}`$–category determined by this data is obviously $`𝒯^a`$, where the adjoint of antilinear arrows has been changed to make the $`T_\rho `$ antiunitary. Since different choices of the $`T_\rho `$ differ by a unitary, the resulting category is independent of the embedding. The statements relative to the category $`𝒯^{\overline{a}}`$ can be proved similarly.

If the semilinear tensor $`C^{}`$–category with conjugation constructed above can be embedded in the semilinear tensor category of Hilbert spaces, then the $`T_\rho `$ are antiunitary for this embedding and the intrinsic dimensions coincide with the dimensions of the underlying Hilbert spaces.

We can learn more from the above construction of a conjugation. The natural transformations $`c`$ and $`d`$ have here been defined in terms of the invertible antilinear operators $`T_\rho `$ which in turn were defined using standard solutions $`R_\rho `$ and $`\overline{R}_\rho `$ of the conjugate equations. Expressing $`c`$ and $`d`$ in terms of the $`R_\rho `$ and $`\overline{R}\rho `$, we find

$$c_{\rho ,\sigma }=1_{\overline{\rho \sigma }}\times (\overline{R}_\rho ^{}1_\rho \times \overline{R}_\sigma ^{}\times 1_{\overline{\rho }})R_{\rho \sigma }\times 1_{\overline{\sigma }\overline{\rho }},$$

$$d_\rho =1_{\overline{\overline{\rho }}}\times R_\rho ^{}R_{\overline{\rho }}\times 1_\rho .$$

These expressions no longer make reference to an ambient Hilbert space. Defining the conjugate linear $``$–functor by

$$\overline{S}\times 1_\rho R_\rho =1_{\overline{\sigma }}\times S^{}R_\sigma ,S(\rho ,\sigma ),$$

$`c`$ and $`d`$ become natural transformations. Furthermore, after a somewhat lengthy calculation, the identities between $`c`$ and $`d`$ can be verified, leading to the following result.

4.2 Theorem Any strict tensor $`C^{}`$–category with conjugates admits a canonical conjugation defined, as above, in terms of standard solutions of the conjugate equations.

Proof. The only point still to be checked is that the conjugation does not depend on the choice of standard solutions of the conjugate equations. However, a second choice $`\rho \stackrel{~}{R}_\rho `$ is related to the first by $`\stackrel{~}{R}_\rho =U_\rho \times 1_\rho R_\rho `$, where $`U_\rho (\overline{\rho },\stackrel{~}{\rho })`$ is unitary. We then have $`\stackrel{~}{d}_\rho =U_{\overline{\rho }}\overline{U_\rho }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{c}_{\rho ,\sigma }=U_{\rho \sigma }c_{\rho ,\sigma }(U_\sigma \times U_\rho )^{}`$. As we have seen this leads to the same conjugation.

The reader’s attention is drawn to a result of Yamagami’s, Theorem 3.6 of , where he achieves more, at the cost of passing to an equivalent tensor $`C^{}`$–category in the course of the proof. We also remark that

$$c_{\rho ,\sigma }=1_{\overline{\rho \sigma }}\times (R_\sigma ^{}1_{\overline{\sigma }}\times R_\rho ^{}\times 1_\sigma )1_{\overline{\sigma }\overline{\rho }}\times \overline{R}_{\rho \sigma },$$

$$d_\rho =\overline{R}_\rho ^{}\times 1_{\overline{\overline{\rho }}}1_\rho \times \overline{R}_{\overline{\rho }}.$$

We recall from the beginning of the previous section that, in the presence of a conjugation $`j`$ on a $`C^{}`$–algebra $`𝒜`$, the representation theory relative to a category of Hilbert spaces with a strict involutive conjugation has a strict involutive conjugation given by

$$\overline{\pi }(A):=J_\pi \pi (j(A))J_{\overline{\pi }},A𝒜,$$

$$\overline{T}=J_\sigma TJ_\rho ,T(\rho ,\sigma ),$$

where $`J_\pi =J_{H_\pi }`$ and $`H_\pi `$ is the Hilbert space of $`\pi `$. If $`𝒜`$ is a Hopf $`C^{}`$–algebra with coproduct $`\delta `$ satisfying

$$\delta j=jj\theta \delta ,$$

and we consider representations relative to a strict tensor $`W^{}`$–category of Hilbert spaces with a conjugation, then $`J_{\pi \times \rho }=J_\rho J_\pi \vartheta (H_\pi ,H_\rho )`$ defines $`\overline{\rho }\times \overline{\pi }`$ as a conjugate for $`\pi \times \rho `$ and we get a conjugation on the tensor $`W^{}`$–category of representations of $`𝒜`$. If the underlying category of Hilbert spaces has a strict involutive conjugation then the same is true for the category of representations of $`𝒜`$.

We now come to other cases where conjugates can be defined in terms of antiunitary arrows but where we need to make a simple extension of our formalism. Instead of starting with a strict tensor $`C^{}`$–category, we need to adjoin antilinear 2-arrows to a $`2C^{}`$–category. A formal definition of $`2C^{}`$–category can be found in  but the examples given below should be self–explanatory. We consider a set of von Neumann algebras. These form the 0–arrows. The bimodules (correspondences) on this set form the $`1`$–arrows, whilst the bimodule homomorphisms form the $`2`$–arrows. Compositions are defined in the obvious manner. What we get is not a $`2`$$`C^{}`$–category but what might be called a bi–$`C^{}`$-category, because the composition of $`1`$–arrows is defined only up to equivalence. Now there is no problem in adjoining antilinear $`2`$–arrows in a natural way because there is a natural notion of an antilinear bimodule homomorphism. An antilinear bimodule homomorphism from an $``$$`𝒩`$–bimodule to an $`𝒩`$$``$–bimodule is simply a bounded antilinear map $`A`$ between the underlying Hilbert spaces such that

$$A(M\psi N)=N^{}(A\psi )M^{},M,N𝒩.$$

Adding these antilinear $`2`$–arrows, we get a semilinear bi–$`C^{}`$–category, where every $`1`$–arrow is the source of an antiunitary $`2`$–arrow. In fact, conjugating an $``$$`𝒩`$–bimodule with an antiunitary operator yields an $`𝒩`$$``$–bimodule, a conjugate bimodule unique up to equivalence.

In the second example, we deal with morphisms of von Neumann algebras and whilst it is not immediately evident that we can define antilinear intertwining operators between such morphisms, the close links between morphisms and bimodules suggest that it must be possible. Furthermore, there is a definition of conjugation for such morphisms going back to Longo. These considerations lead us to consider a separable Hilbert space and a set of von Neumann algebras represented standardly on that Hilbert space. We denote by $`J_{}`$ the corresponding modular conjugation of the von Neumann algebra $``$ and let $`j_{}`$ denote Ad$`J_{}`$. Then if $`\rho :𝒩`$ and $`\sigma :𝒩`$. Then we write $`A(\rho ,\sigma )_a`$ if $`A`$ is a (bounded) antilinear operator on our Hilbert space such that

$$A\rho (M)=j_{}(M)A,M,$$

$$Aj_𝒩(N)=\sigma (N)A,N.$$

As these conditions may look surprising, it is perhaps worth observing that if $`\tau :𝒩`$ then the condition for a (bounded) linear operator $`T`$ to be in $`(\rho ,\tau )`$ is that

$$T\rho (M)=\tau (M)T,M,$$

$$Tj_𝒩(N)=j_𝒩(N)T,N𝒩.$$

Composition of these $`2`$–arrows can be defined in the obvious fashion. The tensor product for linear $`2`$–arrows is well known. For antilinear arrows, we proceed as follows: if $`A`$ is as above and $`A^{}(\rho ^{},\sigma ^{})_a`$, where $`\rho ^{}:𝒫`$ and $`\sigma ^{}:𝒫`$, then

$$A\times A^{}:=A^{}J_{}A(\rho \rho ^{},\sigma ^{}\sigma )_a.$$

It is easy to verify that we get a semilinear $`2`$$`C^{}`$–category in this way. It is also easy to recover Longo’s result on the existence of conjugates. Given $`\rho `$ as above, we want to show that $`\rho `$ is the source of an antiunitary arrow $`A`$. The first of the equations that $`A`$ has to satisfy can be solved by taking $`A:=J_{}U^{}`$, where $`U`$ is a unitary implementing $`\rho `$. We now set

$$\overline{\rho }(N):=Aj_𝒩(N)A^{},$$

and can check that $`\overline{\rho }:𝒩𝒩`$.

We now adapt the above formalism to the case of $`C^{}`$–algebras by replacing the above von Neumann algebras by weakly dense unital $`C^{}`$–algebras $`𝒜`$, $``$, $`𝒞,\mathrm{}`$. We write $`J_𝒜`$ for the modular conjugation of the weak closure of $`𝒜`$. The difference is that we now no longer have the analogue of Longo’s result on the existence of conjugates. We therefore consider a $`2`$$`C^{}`$–category $`𝒯`$ whose $`0`$–arrows are this set of $`C^{}`$–algebras whose $`1`$–arrows are morphisms between these $`C^{}`$–algebras and whose $`2`$–arrows are intertwiners between these morphisms. We suppose we may pick for each $`1`$–arrow $`\rho :𝒜`$ an antiunitary operator $`J_\rho `$ in such a way that

a) $`J_\rho ^{}J_𝒜`$ induces $`\rho `$,

b) $`J_\rho J_{}`$ induces a $`1`$–arrow $`\overline{\rho }:𝒜`$.

It follows that a $`1`$–arrow $`\rho `$, being unitarily implemented, extends to a morphism $`\widehat{\rho }`$ between the weak closures and is a $`1`$–arrows in the semilinear $`2`$$`C^{}`$–category, $`𝒞_a`$ say, of morphisms and intertwiners between the weak closures. It follows easily from a) and b) that $`J_\rho (\widehat{\rho },\widehat{\overline{\rho }})`$. We give conditions allowing us to construct a conjugation on $`𝒯`$ as a semilinear $`2`$$`C^{}`$–subcategory of $`𝒞_a`$. The antiunitaries $`J_\rho `$ are not unique and two choices $`J_\rho `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J}_\rho `$ are said to be equivalent if $`J_\rho ^{}\stackrel{~}{J}_\rho (\rho ,\rho )`$ and $`J_\rho \stackrel{~}{J}_\rho ^{}(\overline{\rho },\overline{\rho })`$. The equivalence class of $`J_\rho `$ is denoted by $`[J_\rho ]`$. We now require

c) $`J_\rho ^{}[J_{\overline{\rho }}]`$,

d) $`J_\rho J_{}J_\rho ^{}[J_{\rho ^{}\rho }]`$,

e) If $`R(\pi ,\rho )`$ in $`𝒯`$, where $`\pi `$ and $`\rho `$ are $`1`$–arrows from $`𝒜`$ to $``$, then $`J_\rho RJ_\lambda ^{}𝒜`$.

We now claim that we get a conjugation $`𝒯_a`$ on $`𝒯`$ by taking $`(\rho ,\sigma )_a`$ to be the set of antilinear operators on the underlying Hilbert space such that $`J_\sigma S(\rho ,\overline{\sigma })`$ and $`SJ_\rho ^{}(\overline{\rho },\sigma )`$. Note that this definition is independent of the choice of representatives in the equivalence classes and that $`(\rho ,\sigma )_a(\widehat{\rho },\widehat{\sigma })`$. It is easily checked that the image of $`𝒯_a`$ in $`𝒞_a`$ is closed under $``$–composition and adjoints. We note that by c), $`J_\rho (\rho ,\overline{\rho })`$. It therefore remains to show that the image of $`𝒯_a`$ is closed under tensor products. Let $`S(\rho ,\sigma )_a`$ and $`S^{}(\rho ^{},\sigma ^{})_a`$, then working in $`𝒞_a`$, we have

$$J_\sigma \times J_\sigma ^{}S^{}\times S=(J_\sigma ^{}S^{})\times (J_\sigma S)(\rho ^{}\rho ,\overline{\sigma ^{}}\overline{\sigma }),$$

$$S^{}\times S(J_\rho ^{}\times J_\rho )^{}=(SJ_\rho ^{})\times (S^{}J_{\rho \mathrm{"}}^{})(\overline{\rho }\overline{\rho ^{}},\sigma \sigma ^{}),$$

so in virtue of d), $`S^{}\times S(\rho ^{}\rho ,\sigma \sigma ^{})`$. Thus $`𝒯_a`$ is a $`2`$$`C^{}`$–subcategory of $`𝒞_a`$ and $`𝒯_a`$ is a conjugation on $`𝒯`$.

We now return to the concept of regular object from §2 and show that the conjugate of a left regular object is a right regular object.

4.3 Proposition We consider a strict tensor $`W^{}`$–category $`𝒯`$ equipped with a faithful idempotent tensor –functor $`\iota `$ onto a tensor $`W^{}`$–subcategory of Hilbert spaces. We suppose that $`𝒯`$ admits a conjugation $`J`$ such that for each pair $`W`$, $`W^{}`$ of objects of $`𝒯`$

$$J_{\iota (W\times W^{})}J_{\iota (W^{})}^1\times J_{\iota (W)}^1=\iota (J_{W\times W^{}}J_W^{}^1\times J_W^1).$$

Then if $`V`$ is a left regular object of $`𝒯`$, its conjugate $`\overline{V}`$ is a right regular object.

Proof. Let $`R^{\overline{V}}`$ denote the functor of tensoring on the right by $`\overline{V}`$ and let $`\xi (L,L\iota )`$ denote the natural unitary transformation making $`V`$ into a left regular object. We show that there is a natural unitary transformation in $`(R^{\overline{V}},R^{\overline{V}}\iota )`$. We have, for every object $`W`$ of $`V`$, an antiunitary arrow $`J_W`$ defining a conjugate $`\overline{W}`$ of $`W`$. There is a unitary $`\eta _{}^{\overline{V}}{}_{W}{}^{}(W\times \overline{V},\iota (W)\times \overline{V})`$ defined explicitly by

$$\eta _{}^{\overline{V}}{}_{W}{}^{}=J_V\times J_{\iota (W)}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\xi _{\overline{W}}J_W\times J_{V}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}.$$

$`\eta `$ is a natural transformation. In fact, if $`T(W,W^{})`$ then

$$\eta _W^{}^{\overline{V}}T\times 1_{\overline{V}}=J_V\times J_{\iota (W^{})}^1\xi _{\overline{W}^{}}1_V\times \overline{T}J_W\times J_V^1$$

$$=J_V\times J_{\iota (W^{})}^11_V\times \iota (\overline{T})\xi _{\overline{W}}J_W\times J_V^1=\iota (T)\times 1_{\overline{V}}\eta _W^{\overline{V}}.$$

We have to show that $`\eta ^{\overline{V}}`$ satisfies the coherence relation

$$\eta _{}^{\overline{V}}{}_{W\times W^{}}{}^{}=(\eta _{}^{\overline{V}}{}_{W}{}^{})_{13}(\eta _{}^{\overline{V}}{}_{W^{}}{}^{})_{23}.$$

Now $`J_W\times J_W^{}J_{W\times W^{}}^1(\overline{W\times W^{}},\overline{W}^{}\times \overline{W})`$. Thus by the naturality of $`\xi `$, we have

$$\xi _{\overline{W}^{}\times \overline{W}}1_V\times (J_W\times J_W^{}J_{W\times W^{}}^1)=1_V\times \iota (J_W\times J_W^{}J_{W\times W^{}}^1)\xi _{\overline{W\times W^{}}}.$$

Hence, we may express $`\eta _{W\times W^{}}^{\overline{V}}`$ using $`\xi _{\overline{W}^{}\times \overline{W}}`$ rather than $`\xi _{\overline{W\times W^{}}}`$ and, after simplifying, this yields

$$\eta _{W\times W^{}}^{\overline{V}}=J_V\times J_{\iota (W^{})}^1\times J_{\iota (W)}^1\xi _{\overline{W}^{}\times \overline{W}}J_W\times J_W^{}\times J_V^1.$$

Finally, writing

$$\xi _{\overline{W}^{}\times \overline{W}}=(\xi _{\overline{W}})_{13}J_W\times J_{\iota (W^{})}\times J_V^1J_V\times J_{\iota (W^{})}^1\times J_W^1\xi _{\overline{W}^{}}\times 1_{\overline{W}},$$

we get the required result.

## 5 Conjugation for locally compact quantum groups

Conjugation for the representation theory of a locally compact group provides motivation for the generalization which follows but is too well known to merit discussion. Therefore we turn to consider a locally compact quantum group, $`(𝒜,\delta ,\varphi ,\psi ,R,\tau )`$, a concept which, after initial work of Masuda, Nakagami and Woronowicz, has perhaps now received its final definition and denomination (cf. , ). Here $`\delta :𝒜M(𝒜𝒜)`$ is a coassociative coproduct such that $`\delta (𝒜)𝒜=\delta (𝒜)𝒜=𝒜𝒜`$, $`\varphi `$ ($`\psi `$) is called left (right) Haar measure and is a faithful, lower semicontinuous, densely defined, left (right) invariant KMS weight in the $`C^{}`$–algebraic sense. $`R`$ is an involutive –antiautomorphism and $`\tau `$ is a pointwise norm continuous one–parameter automorphism group of $`𝒜`$ commuting with $`R`$. $`R`$ and $`\tau `$ together should implement the coinverse, in the sense that the coinverse of $`𝒜`$ should be $`\kappa :=R\tau _{i/2}`$, where $`\tau _{i/2}`$ is the analytic generator of $`\tau `$. We focus attention, not on the antiautomorphism $`R`$ but on the conjugation $`j:=R`$. This defines for us the conjugation on the representation theory and makes it clear that the problems of defining a conjugation have been avoided by a judicious choice of axioms. On the other hand it must be stressed that Woronowicz  in effect overcame these difficulties in the case of compact matrix pseudogroups by proving that they are locally compact quantum groups in a natural way.

We refer to  for the general definition, recalling here, instead, the properties we need. First, we explain left invariance. Let $`_\varphi `$ denote as usual the dense –algebra linearly spanned by the $`a𝒜^+`$ such that $`\varphi (a)<\mathrm{}`$ and $`𝒩_\varphi `$ the associated left ideal. One has:

$$\varphi (\omega \iota (\delta (a))=\varphi (a)\omega (I),\omega 𝒜_{}^{}{}_{+}{}^{},a_{\varphi }^{}{}_{}{}^{+}.$$

The following property, referred to as strong left invariance, is shown to hold in a locally compact quantum group (): for all $`a,b𝒩_\varphi `$, $`x:=\overline{\iota \varphi }(\delta (a^{})Ib)`$ lies in the domain of $`\kappa `$ and

$$\kappa (x)=\overline{\iota \varphi }(Ia^{}\delta (b)).$$

$`_{\iota \varphi }`$ and $`_{\overline{\iota \varphi }}`$ will denote the domains of $`\iota \varphi `$ and its natural extension to the multiplier algebra $`M(𝒜𝒜)`$, cf. . In particular we have

$$\varphi (a^{}\omega \iota (\delta (b)))=\varphi (\omega \kappa \iota (\delta (a^{}))b),a,b𝒩_\varphi ,$$

with $`\omega `$ in the set of those elements $`\omega 𝒜^{}`$ for which $`\omega \kappa 𝒜^{}`$. The above expression can also be written as

$$\omega \varphi (Ia^{}\delta (b))=\omega \kappa \varphi (\delta (a^{})Ib).$$

Then the following relations also hold.

$$\varphi \tau _t=\nu ^t\varphi ,\text{for some }\nu ,$$

$$\delta j=jj\theta \delta $$

$$\tau _t\tau _t\delta =\delta \tau _t,$$

$`\nu `$ is referred to as the scaling constant.

Right invariance can be derived formally from left invariance choosing $`\varphi _r=\varphi R`$, using the antimultiplicativity of $`R`$ and the relation $`\delta R=\theta RR\delta `$.

We now turn to multiplicative unitaries starting with a construction of . Let $`V`$ be a multiplicative unitary on $`K^2`$, and define an associative product on $`(K,K)_{}`$ by $`\omega \omega ^{}(T)=\omega \omega ^{}(V^1ITV)`$, $`T(K,K)`$ making $`(K,K)_{}`$ into a Banach algebra.

5.1 Proposition () For any corepresentation $`W`$ of $`V`$, $`\omega (K,K)_{}\omega i(W)(H_W,H_W)`$ is an algebra homomorphism. If $`V`$ is a regular multiplicative unitary, the closure $`𝒜(W)`$ of its image is a $`C^{}`$–algebra.

We endow $`(K,K)_{}`$ with the maximal $`C^{}`$–seminorm determined by all (unitary) corepresentations of $`V`$ and denote the completion of $`(K,K)_{}`$ in this seminorm by $`𝒜_{\mathrm{max}}(V)`$. We denote by $`\pi _W`$ the –representation of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{max}}(V)`$ obtained extending the homomorphism defined in the above proposition.

For an operator $`X(KH,KH)`$, we denote the norm closure of $`\{\omega i(X):\omega (K,K)_{}\}`$ by $`𝒜(X)`$ and the closure of $`\{i\omega (X):\omega (H,H)_{}\}`$ by $`\widehat{𝒜}(X)`$ where $`i`$ denotes the appropriate identity map. Note that $`\omega (K,K)_{}`$ has zero seminorm if and only if $`\omega `$ annihilates every $`\widehat{𝒜}(W)`$. Let us assume that $`V`$ is a regular multiplicative unitary, or, more generally, that $`\widehat{𝒜}(V)`$ is a $`C^{}`$–algebra. Since $`W`$ is a corepresentation of $`V`$, $`\widehat{𝒜}(W)`$ is contained in $`\widehat{}(V)`$, the von Neumann algebra generated by $`\widehat{𝒜}(V)`$. Therefore $`\omega `$ will annihilate $`\widehat{𝒜}(W)`$ if it annihilates $`\widehat{}(V)`$. Hence $`𝒜_{\mathrm{max}}(V)`$ can also be defined as the completion of $`\widehat{}(V)_{}`$, the predual of $`\widehat{}(V)`$, in the $`C^{}`$–norm $`\omega =sup_{W𝒞(V)}\omega i(W)`$.

5.2 Theorem () If $`V`$ is a regular multiplicative unitary, the map $`W\pi _W`$ defines a faithful –functor from the $`C^{}`$–category $`𝒞(V)`$ of unitary corepresentations of $`V`$ onto the $`C^{}`$–category of nondegenerate –representations of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{max}}(V)`$.

It is also shown in  that $`𝒜_{\mathrm{max}}(V)`$ is equipped with a natural coassociative coproduct $`\delta `$. One can easily check, in analogy with the group case, that the map $`\rho ,\sigma `$Rep$`(𝒜_{\mathrm{max}}(V))\rho \sigma \delta `$Rep$`(𝒜_{\mathrm{max}}(V))`$ makes Rep$`(𝒜_{\mathrm{max}}(V))`$ into a tensor $`C^{}`$–category in such a way that $`\pi `$ is a tensor functor.

Recalling our aim of defining a conjugate representation $`\overline{W}`$ of a given unitary representation $`W`$ of $`V`$, Theorem 5.2 tells us that it suffices to determine the associated –representation $`\pi _{\overline{W}}`$ of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{max}}(V)`$ and we know from the discussion in Section 4 that we should look for a suitable conjugation on Rep$`(𝒜_{\mathrm{max}}(V))`$ or some related $`C^{}`$–algebra.

If $`𝒜_{\mathrm{max}}(V)`$ is equipped with a (densely defined, unbounded) coinverse $`\kappa `$, this would be the natural starting point and in view of the duality between $`\widehat{}(V)`$ and $`\widehat{}(V)_{}`$, the coinverse $`\kappa ^{}`$ and the –involution of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{max}}(V)`$ are indeed related by:

$${}_{}{}^{}\kappa ^{}(\omega )=\overline{\omega },\omega \widehat{}(V)_{}.$$

There are difficulties involved as we shall, in general, be dealing with an antilinear involution that does not commute with the adjoint and is only densely defined.

However, it suggests giving a definition in terms of an, in general, unbounded antilinear operator. We say that a unitary $`\overline{W}`$ on a Hilbert space of the form $`KH_{\overline{W}}`$ is a conjugate of $`W`$ if there is a densely defined closed antilinear invertible operator $`T:H_WH_{\overline{W}}`$ such that

$$\omega i(\overline{W})T<T\overline{\omega }i(W),\omega (K,K)_{}.$$

5.3 Lemma A conjugate $`\overline{W}`$ of a corepresentation $`W`$ is itself necessarily a corepresentation.

Proof. Let $`T:H_WH_{\overline{W}}`$ be densely defined closed antilinear and invertible, $`W`$ a corepresentation of $`V`$ and $`\overline{W}`$ a unitary on $`KH_{\overline{W}}`$ such that

$$\omega i(\overline{W})T<T\overline{\omega }i(W),\omega (K,K)_{}.$$

Pick $`\varphi 𝒟_T`$ and $`\omega _1,\omega _2(K,K)_{}`$ then

$$\omega _1\omega _2i(V_{12}\overline{W}_{13}\overline{W}_{23})T\varphi =T\overline{\omega }_1\overline{\omega }_2i(W_{13}W_{23}V_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{})\varphi =$$

$$T\overline{\omega }_1\overline{\omega }_2i(V_{12}^{}{}_{}{}^{}W_{23})\varphi =\omega _1\omega _2i(\overline{W}_{23}V_{12})T\varphi .$$

Since $`T`$ is invertible

$$\omega _1\omega _2i(V_{12}\overline{W}_{13}\overline{W}_{23})=\omega _1\omega _2i(\overline{W}_{23}V_{12})$$

and since $`\omega _1,\omega _2(K,K)_{}`$ are arbitrary,

$$V_{12}\overline{W}_{13}\overline{W}_{23}=\overline{W}_{23}V_{12}.$$

Thus $`\overline{W}`$ is a corepresentation of $`V`$.

It suffices to verify the intertwining relation for $`\omega `$ in a total set of $`(K,K)_{}`$, e.g. the set $`\{\omega _{\xi ,\eta }\}`$. Hence, $`\overline{W}`$ is a conjugate of $`W`$ if and only if for $`\eta ^{}𝒟_T`$, $`\xi ^{}𝒟_T^{}`$, $`\xi ,`$ $`\eta K`$,

$$(\xi \xi ^{},\overline{W}\eta T\eta ^{})=(W\xi \eta ^{},\eta T^{}\xi ^{}).$$
$`(5.1)`$
In practice, this will be checked for $`\eta ^{}`$ and $`\xi ^{}`$ in a core of $`T`$ and $`T^{}`$, respectively. In analogy with the classical situation this equation can be interpreted from the standpoint of the Banach algebra $`\widehat{𝒜}(V)`$ associated with the multiplicative unitary as in : it asserts that the adjoint of the “matrix coefficient” $`i\omega _{\xi ^{},\eta ^{}}(W)`$ is given by $`i\omega _{T^1\xi ^{},T\eta ^{}}(\overline{W})`$. In particular, if the regular representation is selfconjugate, $`\widehat{𝒜}(V)`$ is –invariant, hence a $`C^{}`$–algebra. We shall see later that the left regular representation of a locally compact quantum group is selfconjugate in this sense. Other examples arise from compact quantum groups , Hopf–von Neumann algebras  and Kac systems  as pointed out in . It raises the question of whether the existence of conjugate representations might prove a more effective postulate than regularity in developing the theory of multiplicative unitaries.

On the other hand, the above definition of conjugate, with its reliance on unbounded operators with unspecified domains, is difficult to work with. It is clear that if $`\overline{W}`$ is a conjugate of $`W`$ then $`W`$ is a conjugate of $`\overline{W}`$ since we may use $`T^1`$ in place of $`T`$. But it is not even clear whether a conjugate is unique up to unitary equivalence. Nevertheless, as we shall see in the sequel, we can, in special cases, relate this notion of conjugate to the other notions used in this paper.

We begin by considering the category of finite dimensional representations of a compact quantum group and add antilinear operators to get a semilinear category. $`T(W,\stackrel{~}{W})_a`$ if $`T`$ is an antilinear operator with

$$\omega i(\stackrel{~}{W})T=T\overline{\omega }i(W),\omega (K,K)_{}.$$

Defining tensor products by

$$T\times T^{}:=\theta (\stackrel{~}{H},\stackrel{~}{H}^{})TT^{},$$

where $`T(W,\stackrel{~}{W})_a`$ and $`T^{}(W^{},\stackrel{~}{W}^{})_a`$, $`H`$ and $`H^{}`$ are the underlying Hilbert spaces of $`W`$ and $`W^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{H}^{}`$ are the underlying Hilbert spaces of $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{W}^{}`$. Adding these antilinear intertwiners, we get a semilinear tensor category of bounded intertwiners that is not in general self-adjoint. We have already met this phenomenon in Theorem 4.1 and can make this more precise using the antilinear operators $`T`$ and $`\overline{T}:=T^1`$ associated with solutions $`R`$, $`\overline{R}`$ of the conjugate equations for $`W`$ and $`\overline{W}`$ as discussed in conjunction with that theorem. We then have

$$W_{13}1_K\times R=\overline{W}_{12}^11_K\times R,$$

$$\overline{W}_{13}1_K\times \overline{R}=W_{12}^11_K\times \overline{R},$$

where $`K`$ denotes the Hilbert space of the regular corepresentation. Writing these equations in terms of $`T`$ instead, we get

$$(\xi \xi ^{\prime \prime },W\eta T^{}\xi ^{})=(\overline{W}\xi \xi ^{},\eta T\xi ^{\prime \prime }),$$
$`(5.2)`$
$$(\xi \xi ^{},\overline{W}\eta T^1\xi ^{\prime \prime })=(W\xi \xi ^{\prime \prime },\eta T^1\xi ^{}).$$
$`(5.3)`$
These equations imply that $`T^{}(\overline{W},W)_a`$ and $`T^1(W,\overline{W})_a`$. Thus $`\overline{W}`$ is a conjugate of $`W`$ in the sense of Lemma 5.3, too. However $`T`$ is not an intertwiner, here reflecting the fact that the antilinear involution $`{}_{}{}^{}\kappa ^{}`$ on $`𝒜_{\mathrm{max}}(V)`$ does not commute with the adjoint.

Up till now, we have not explicitly exhibited interesting examples of infinite dimensional conjugate corepresentations. It is not surprising that this can be done for multiplicative unitaries derived from the regular representations of locally compact quantum groups.

In fact, the map

$$ab\delta (b)aI\text{ for }a,b𝒩_\varphi $$

defines a bounded linear operator $`U`$ on $`L^2(𝒜,\varphi )L^2(𝒜,\varphi )`$. The left invariance of $`\varphi `$ implies that $`U`$ is isometric:

$$(Uab,Ucd)=\varphi \varphi (a^{}I\delta (b^{}d)cI)=$$

$$\varphi (a^{}\iota \varphi (\delta (b^{}d))c)=\varphi (a^{}\varphi (b^{}d)c)=$$

$$(ab,cd).$$

and therefore $`U`$ is unitary, since its range is dense (recall that in a locally compact quantum group $`\delta (𝒜)𝒜I`$ and $`\delta (𝒜)I𝒜`$ are assumed to be dense in $`𝒜𝒜`$). We next compute the Hilbert space adjoint $`V:=U^{}`$ (which will be the standard multiplicative unitary associated to $`\varphi `$). For $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, $`d𝒩_\varphi `$,

$$(Vab,cd)=(ab,Ucd)=(ab,\delta (d)cI)=$$

$$\varphi (a^{}\iota \varphi (Ib^{}\delta (d))c)=\varphi (a^{}\kappa (\iota \varphi (\delta (b^{})Id))c)$$

by strong left invariance of $`\varphi `$. Note that both in the proof of being an isometry and in the computation of the adjoint of $`U`$ only the left invariance of the second factor of $`L^2(𝒜,\varphi )L^2(𝒜,\varphi )`$ has been used.

Using a right invariant measure $`\varphi _r`$ (e.g. $`\varphi _r=\varphi R`$) the map $`ab\delta (a)Ib`$ defines another multiplicative unitary operator on $`L^2(𝒜,\varphi _r)L^2(𝒜,\varphi _r)`$. But we want the right regular corepresentation, $`V_r`$, instead, a unitary operating on $`L^2(𝒜,\varphi )L^2(𝒜,\varphi _r)`$ and this is derived from the map $`ab\vartheta \delta (b)a1`$, where $`\vartheta `$ permutes the factors in the tensor product.

When we have a locally compact quantum group, we can form a two–parameter (pointwise norm continuous) group $`\omega _{s,t}=\nu ^{\frac{s}{2}}\tau _s\sigma _t`$ generated by the modular group $`\sigma `$ of the left Haar measure $`\varphi `$, and the scaling group $`\tau `$ (which commutes with $`\sigma `$). It is well known that the set $`I(\omega )`$ of norm entire elements for $`\omega `$ is a dense –subalgebra of $`𝒜`$, stable under all the maps $`\omega _z`$, $`z^2`$. Thus $`I(\omega )`$ is a natural common core for the analytic generators of both $`\sigma `$ and $`\tau `$ . However, we regard $`I(\omega )`$ as a subspace of $`L^2(𝒜,\varphi )`$ so that $`\omega `$ becomes a unitary group on $`L^2(𝒜,\varphi )`$. We then look for a canonical subspace of $`I(\omega )`$ dense in $`L^2(𝒜,\varphi )`$ which is at the same time a common core for the generators of the unitary group.

5.4 Lemma Let $`\varphi `$ be a lower semicontinuous densely defined KMS weight on a $`C^{}`$–algebra $`𝒜`$ and let $`\omega :^n\text{Aut}(𝒜)`$ be a pointwise norm continuous $`\varphi `$–invariant automorphism group of $`𝒜`$ containing the modular group of $`\varphi `$ as a coordinate subgroup. Then $`_{\varphi ,\omega }:=_z\omega _z\left((𝒩_\varphi 𝒩_{\varphi }^{}{}_{}{}^{})I(\omega )\right)`$, is dense in $`L^2(𝒜,\varphi )`$ and $`\omega `$ acts on $`L^2(𝒜,\varphi )`$ as a strongly continuous unitary group, denoted $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. $`_{\varphi ,\omega }`$ is a common core for the positive selfadjoint operators $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ on $`L^2(𝒜,\varphi )`$ generating, by Stone’s Theorem, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{(t_1,\mathrm{},t_n)}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{it_1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{it_n}.$$

Proof. As $`\omega `$ is a $`\varphi `$–invariant automorphism group, it acts as a unitary group $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ on $`L^2(𝒜,\varphi )`$. $`:=_{\varphi ,\omega }`$ is the greatest subset of $`I(\omega )𝒩_\varphi 𝒩_{\varphi }^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ invariant under the $`\omega _z`$, $`z`$. $``$ is a –algebra invariant under the $`\sigma _z`$, $`z`$, such that $`^2`$ is dense in $``$ in the $`2`$–norm. We show that $``$ is dense in $`L^2(𝒜,\varphi )`$. For any element $`x`$ in $`𝒩_\varphi 𝒩_{\varphi }^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ (which is dense in $`L^2(𝒜,\varphi )`$),

$$x(\alpha ):=(\alpha /\pi )^{n/2}_^ne^{\alpha |t|^2}\omega _t(x)𝑑t,$$

is still an element in $`𝒩_\varphi 𝒩_{\varphi }^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ which approximates $`x`$ as $`\alpha +\mathrm{}`$ provided we show that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is strongly (or weakly) continuous. One can show that, if $`x𝒩_\varphi 𝒩_{\varphi }^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ then $`\sigma _z(x(\alpha ))𝒩_\varphi 𝒩_{\varphi }^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$, $`z`$, so that actually $`x(\alpha )`$. We now show that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is weakly continuous. We first consider the case of the modular group $`\sigma `$. Since $`\varphi `$ is a KMS weight, the function $`t\varphi (x^{}\sigma _t(x))`$ is continuous for $`x𝒩_\varphi `$. In the general case, it is enough to show that the functions $`\varphi (\omega _t(x^{})y)`$ are continuous when $`x`$, $`y`$ range over a subset of $`𝒩_\varphi `$ dense in the $`2`$–norm. Now $`\omega `$ is pointwise norm continuous, therefore $`\varphi (x^{}\omega _t(a)y)`$ is continuous for $`a𝒜`$, $`x,y𝒩_\varphi `$. If in particular $`a,x,y`$,

$$\varphi (x^{}\omega _t(a)y)=\varphi (\sigma _{i/2}(\omega _t(a)y)\sigma _{i/2}(x)^{})=\varphi (\omega _t(\sigma _{i/2}(a))\sigma _{i/2}(y)\sigma _{i/2}(x^{})),$$

by the KMS property. We can then consider the positive selfadjoint operators $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ that generate the $`n`$–parameter group $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, by Stone’s Theorem, by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{(t_1,\mathrm{},t_n)}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{it_1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{it_n}`$. Arguments similar to those previously used show that if $`x,y^2`$, then $`z\varphi (x^{}\omega _z(y))`$ is an entire function coinciding with $`\varphi (\omega _z(x^{})y)`$ by the uniqueness principle of analytic functions. $``$ is a common core for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }_j`$’s. It follows in particular that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{z_1,\mathrm{},z_n}`$, regarded as an operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{iz_1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{n}^{}{}_{}{}^{iz_n}`$ with domain $``$ is a densely defined preclosed operator.

We shall consider the two subspaces $`_{\varphi ,\omega }L^2(𝒜,\varphi )`$ and $`_{\varphi _r,\omega }L^2(𝒜,\varphi _r)`$ as natural common cores for certain unbounded bijections naturally arising from the locally compact quantum group. For example, let us write $`S`$ and $`S_r`$ for the closed operators $`S_\varphi `$ and $`S_{\varphi _r}`$ defined by the adjoint, denoting their polar decompositions by $`S=J\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1/2}`$ and $`S_r=J_r\mathrm{\Gamma }_r^{1/2}`$. $`S_r`$ and $`S`$ determine each other in the sense that there is an antiunitary operator, $`Y:L^2(𝒜,\varphi _r)L^2(𝒜,\varphi )`$ such that $`Ya=R(a)^{}`$, $`a𝒜`$, intertwining them: $`SY=YS_r`$. Hence by the uniqueness of polar decompositions, we have $`JY=YJ_r`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1/2}Y=Y\mathrm{\Gamma }_r^{1/2}`$ as well. The next result describes other unbounded bijections arising from the coinverse. We denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_r`$ the generators of the scaling group $`t\nu ^{\frac{t}{2}}\tau _t`$ when regarded as a strongly continuous unitary group on $`L^2(𝒜,\varphi )`$ and $`L^2(𝒜,\varphi _r)`$ respectively. Clearly $`\mathrm{\Delta }Y=Y\mathrm{\Delta }_r`$.

5.5 Theorem Let $`\sigma `$ denote the modular group of $`\varphi `$, $`\tau `$ the scaling automorphism group of the locally compact quantum group $`𝒜`$, and let $`\omega `$ be the $`2`$–parameter group $`\omega _{s,t}=\nu ^{\frac{s}{2}}\tau _s\sigma _t`$. The following operators

$$_{\varphi _r,\omega }L^2(𝒜,\varphi _r)_{\varphi ,\omega }L^2(𝒜,\varphi )$$

taking $`a`$ to $`\kappa (a)`$, $`\kappa (a)^{}`$ and $`\kappa (a^{})`$ are densely defined and preclosed. Denoting the closures of the first operator by $`K`$, the closures of the second and third are $`SK`$ and $`KS_r`$, respectively. We have the following polar decompositions:

$$\nu ^{+\frac{i}{4}}SK=Y\mathrm{\Delta }_r^{1/2},$$

$$\nu ^{\frac{i}{4}}KS_r=Y\mathrm{\Delta }_r^{1/2},$$

$$\nu ^{\frac{i}{4}}K=JY\mathrm{\Gamma }_r^{1/2}\mathrm{\Delta }_r^{1/2}.$$

Furthermore,

$$(KS_r)^{}=\nu ^{i/2}(SK)^1,$$

$$(SK)^{}=\nu ^{i/2}(KS_r)^1.$$

Proof. It follows from the previous discussion that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_r^{1/2}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_r^{1/2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_r^{1/2}`$ are bijective, densely defined, positive and essentially selfadjoint on the indicated domains. In fact they are connected with $`1`$–parameter subgroups of $`\omega _{s,t}`$. Since $`Y`$ is antiunitary, it is clear that $`SK`$ and $`KS_r`$ are bijections between the indicated domains. The polar decomposition of $`SK`$ and $`KS_r`$ on $`_{\varphi ,\omega }`$, now follows from the data of the locally compact quantum group. Furthermore $`SK`$ and $`KS_r`$ form part of an essentially selfadjoint pair in the sense explained in the appendix. As $`S`$ and $`S_r`$ also form part of an essentially self–adjoint pair, it follows from Lemma A.2 that the operators in question can be denoted by $`K`$, $`SK`$ and $`KS_r`$. On the indicated domain one has:

$$K=S(SK)=\nu ^{\frac{i}{4}}J\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1/2}Y\mathrm{\Delta }_r^{1/2}=\nu ^{\frac{i}{4}}JY\mathrm{\Gamma }_r^{1/2}\mathrm{\Delta }_r^{1/2}.$$

Since $`_{\varphi ,\omega }`$ is –invariant and $`\sigma _z`$–invariant, $`z`$, one deduces, looking at the polar decomposition of $`S`$, that $`J`$ acts bijectively on $`_{\varphi ,\omega }`$ too, and therefore $`K`$ is a bijection from $`_{\varphi ,\omega }`$ to $`_{\varphi _r,\omega }`$ as well. It remains to show that $`(KS_r)^{}=\nu ^{i/2}(SK)^1`$ and $`(SK)^{}=\nu ^{i/2}(KS_r)^1.`$ We prove the latter relation, as the former follows by taking inverses and adjoints. The polar decompositions show that $`I(\omega )𝒩_\varphi `$ is a core for both $`(KS_r)^{}`$ and $`\nu ^{i/2}(SK)^1`$. But the two operators coincide on the core, completing the proof.

5.6 Corollary $`K`$ is a closed intertwiner from $`V_r`$ to $`V`$,

$$VIK=IKV_r.$$

In particular, if $`U:=\nu ^{\frac{i}{4}}JY:L^2(𝒜,\varphi _r)L^2(𝒜,\varphi )`$ denotes the polar part of $`K`$,

$$IUV_r=VIU.$$

Thus $`V_r`$ is a corepresentation of $`V`$. Moreover

$$V(SKS)=(SKS)W,$$

where $`W`$ is the unitary on $`L^2(𝒜,\varphi _r)L^2(𝒜,\varphi )`$ defined by $`Wab=\delta (b)aI`$. In particular, taking the polar decomposition of $`(SKS)^{}`$,

$$V\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1/2}=\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1/2}V,$$

$$VYJ=YJW.$$

Proof. We identify $`K^{}`$ on a suitable –invariant core $``$ of jointly analytic vectors for $`\sigma `$ and $`\tau `$ contained in $`𝒩_\varphi `$ (see Lemma 5.4). The polar decomposition of $`K`$ described in the previous Theorem shows that a subset $`𝒜L^2(𝒜,\varphi )`$ satisfies these properties if $`R()^{}=Y^{}`$ is a core for $`K`$ in $`L^2(𝒜,\varphi _r)`$ satisfying similar properties. Consider the right invariant weight $`\varphi _r=\varphi R`$, with modular group $`x\sigma _t^r(x)=R\sigma _t(R(x))`$. For $`a`$, $`bR()^{}`$,

$$(a,K(b))=\varphi (a^{}\kappa (b))=\nu ^{i/2}\varphi _r(b\kappa (a)^{})=$$

$$\nu ^{i/2}\varphi _r(\sigma _i^r(\kappa (a))^{}b)$$

thus, for $`a`$, $`K^{}(a)=\nu ^{i/2}\sigma _i^r(\kappa (a))`$. We need to show the following relations

$$VIK<IKV_r,$$
$`(5.4)`$
$$V_rIK^{}<IK^{}V.$$
$`(5.5)`$
We start from (5.4). We claim that it suffices to prove that, for $`bR()^{}`$, $`d`$, $`a,c𝒩_\varphi `$,

$$(Va\kappa (b),cd)=(V_rab,cK^{}d).$$
$`(5.6)`$
Indeed, the algebraic tensor product $`𝒩_\varphi `$ is a core for $`IK^{}`$, so equation (5.6) shows that $`V_r𝒩_\varphi R()^{}`$ lies in the domain of $`(IK^{})^{}=IK`$ and for $`x𝒩_\varphi R()^{}`$, $`IKV_rx=VIKx.`$ On the other hand $`𝒩_\varphi R()^{}`$ is a core for $`IK`$, so the claim follows. We compute the left hand side of (5.6).

$$\varphi \varphi (a^{}\kappa (b)^{}\delta (d)cI)=\varphi (a^{}\iota \varphi (I\kappa (b)^{}\delta (d))c)=$$

$$\varphi (a^{}\kappa (\iota \varphi (\delta (\kappa (b)^{})Id))c)=\varphi (a^{}\iota \varphi \kappa ^1(I\kappa (d)\vartheta \delta (b^{}))c)=$$

$$\nu ^{i/2}\varphi (a^{}\iota \varphi _r(I\kappa (d)\vartheta \delta (b^{}))c)=\nu ^{i/2}\varphi (a^{}\iota \varphi _r(\vartheta \delta (b^{})I\sigma _i^r(\kappa (d)))c)=$$

$$\nu ^{i/2}\varphi \varphi _r(a^{}I\vartheta \delta (b^{})c\sigma _i^r(\kappa (d))=(V_rab,cK^{}d).$$

Arguing in a similar way, we see that $`(5.5)`$ will be a consequence of

$$(Vab,c\kappa (d))=(V_raK^{}(b),cd),$$
$`(5.7)`$
for $`a,c𝒩_\varphi `$, $`b`$, $`dR()^{}.`$ The r.h.s. equals

$$\nu ^{i/2}\varphi \varphi _r(a^{}I\vartheta \delta \sigma _i^r\kappa ^1(b^{}))cd)$$

while the l.h.s. equals

$$\varphi \varphi (a^{}b^{}\delta (\kappa (d))cI),$$

therefore it suffices to show that

$$\iota \varphi (Ib^{}\delta (\kappa (d)))=\nu ^{i/2}\iota \varphi _r(\vartheta \delta \sigma _i^r\kappa ^1(b^{})Id).$$

Using successively

$$\sigma _i^r\kappa ^1=\kappa ^1\sigma _i,$$

$$\vartheta \delta \kappa ^1=\kappa ^1\kappa ^1\delta $$

and

$$\nu ^{i/2}\varphi _r\kappa ^1=\varphi $$

we see that the r.h.s. of the previous relation equals

$$\kappa ^1\iota \varphi (I\kappa (d)\delta (\sigma _i(b^{})))$$

which in turn equals

$$\iota \varphi (\delta (\kappa (d))I\sigma _i(b^{}))$$

and the proof of (5.7) is completed by the KMS property of $`\varphi `$.

We briefly sketch the second part of the proof. We need to show the two relations

$$VSKS<SKSW,$$

$$W(SK)^{}S^{}<(SK)^{}S^{}V$$

which will follow respectively from

$$(ab,VSKScd)=(Wcd,(SK)^{}S^{}ab),$$

for $`a,b,d`$, $`cR()^{},`$

$$(ab,W(SK)^{}S^{}cd)=(Vcd,SKSab)$$

for $`b,c,d`$, $`aR()^{}`$. These equations can be obtained, in turn, by computations similar to those of the first part of the proof.

From the general structure of the quantum groups under consideration, it follows that the dual Hopf algebra is equipped with the same structure as $`𝒜`$ . We have already noted that the coinverse $`\kappa ^{}`$ of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{max}}(V)`$ serves to define the adjoint on $`𝒜`$ and consequently that $`\kappa ^{}`$ is uniquely determined by $`\kappa `$ via $`\kappa ^{}(\omega )(a)=\omega (\kappa (a))`$, $`\omega \widehat{}(V)_{}`$, $`a𝒜`$, where $`𝒜`$ is being considered as a dense subspace of $`\widehat{}(V)`$. Taking the square of $`\kappa ^{}`$, which coincides with the square of the analytic generator of $`\tau ^{}`$, it follows that the coinverse data $`R^{}`$ and $`\tau ^{}`$ of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{max}}(V)`$ are determined by those of $`𝒜`$ and similar formulas hold. In particular, $`\kappa ^{}(\omega )^{}=\overline{\omega }`$. We may thus write

$$\overline{\omega }=\kappa ^{}(\omega )^{}=\tau _{}^{}{}_{i/2}{}^{}(R^{}(\omega )^{}),\omega \widehat{}(V)_{}.$$

In fact, $`\tau _{}^{}{}_{i/2}{}^{}`$ is spatially implemented in the regular representation.

5.7 Proposition Let $`\tau ^{}`$ be the scaling group of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{max}}(V)`$ as defined above. Then for $`\omega 𝒟_{\tau _{}^{}{}_{i/2}{}^{}}`$, $`\xi ^{}𝒟_{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1/2}}`$ and $`\eta ^{}𝒟_{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1/2}}`$

$$(\xi ^{},\pi _V(\tau _{}^{}{}_{i/2}{}^{}(\omega ))\eta ^{})=(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1/2}\xi ^{},\pi _V(\omega )\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1/2}\eta ^{}).$$

Proof. It follows from Corollary 5.6 that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{it}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{it}V=V\mathrm{\Delta }^{it}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{it},$$

Hence

$$\tau _ti(V)=I\mathrm{\Gamma }^{it}VI\mathrm{\Gamma }^{it},$$

Recalling that $`\pi _V(\omega )=\omega i(V)`$ and that $`\tau _t^{}`$ is the transpose of $`\tau _t`$, we deduce that

$$\pi _V(\tau _t^{}(\omega ))=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{it}\pi _V(\omega )\mathrm{\Gamma }^{it},\omega \widehat{}(V)_{}.$$

Now with $`\omega `$, $`\xi ^{}`$ and $`\eta ^{}`$ as in the statement of the proposition, we have functions $`z(\xi ^{},\pi _V(\tau _z^{}(\omega )\eta ^{})`$ and $`z(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{i\overline{z}}\xi ^{},\pi _V(\omega )\mathrm{\Gamma }^{iz}\eta ^{})`$, analytic in the strip $`0<\mathrm{}z<\frac{1}{2}`$. Their boundary values agree on the real line and taking the boundary values at $`z=\frac{i}{2}`$, we get the required result.

Now $`j^{}:=R^{}`$ is a conjugation defined on $`𝒜_{\mathrm{max}}(V)`$ and satisfies $`\delta j^{}=j^{}j^{}\theta \delta `$. Thus we know from Section 4 that $`j^{}`$ defines a conjugation on the tensor category of representations of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{max}}`$.

5.8 Corollary A conjugate for $`V`$ in the conjugation defined by $`j^{}`$ is a conjugate for $`V`$ in the sense of Equation (5.1). The converse holds if $`T`$ in (5.1) has the form $`T=J\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1/2}`$ with $`J`$ antiunitary.

Proof. Let $`J`$ be an antiunitary operator then $`\omega J\pi _V(j^{}\omega )J^1`$, $`\omega \widehat{}(V)_{}`$, defines a representation of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{max}}(V)`$ and a conjugate $`\overline{V}`$ of $`V`$ in the conjugation defined by $`j^{}`$ with

$$\omega i(\overline{V})=J\pi _V(j^{}\omega )J^1.$$

Now let $`T:=J\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1/2}`$ and pick $`\eta ^{}𝒟_T`$ and $`\xi ^{}𝒟_T^{}`$, i.e. $`\eta ^{},J\xi ^{}𝒟_{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1/2}}`$, then

$$(\xi \xi ^{},\overline{V}\eta T\eta ^{})=(\xi ^{},\omega _{\xi ,\eta }\iota (\overline{V})T\eta ^{})=$$

$$(\xi ^{},J\pi _V(j^{}\omega _{\xi ,\eta })J^1T\eta ^{})=(\xi ^{},J\pi _V(j^{}\omega _{\xi ,\eta })\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1/2}\eta ^{})=$$

$$(\pi _V(j^{}\omega _{\xi ,\eta })\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1/2}\eta ^{},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1/2}T^{}\xi ^{}).$$

Now $`j^{}\omega _{\xi ,\eta }𝒟_{\tau _{i/2}}`$, in fact $`\tau _{i/2}j^{}\omega _{\xi ,\eta }=\overline{\omega }_{\xi ,\eta }=\omega _{\eta ,\xi }`$. Hence, by Proposition 5.7,

$$(\pi _V(j^{}\omega _{\xi ,\eta })\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1/2}\eta ^{},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1/2}T^{}\xi ^{})=(\pi _V(\tau _{i/2}^{}j^{}\omega _{\xi ,\eta })\eta ^{},T^{}\xi ^{})=$$

$$(\pi _V(\omega _{\eta ,\xi })\eta ^{},T^{}\xi ^{}).$$

We conclude that

$$(\xi \xi ^{},\overline{V}\eta T\eta ^{})=(V\xi \eta ^{},\eta T^{}\xi ^{}),$$

so that $`\overline{V}`$ is a conjugate for $`V`$ in the sense of (5.1), as required. The converse follows by reversing the argument.

Notice that, since $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1/2}`$ is a self–intertwiner of $`V`$, the result remains valid if we take $`T`$ to be of the form $`T=J\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}`$ with $`J`$ antiunitary. We could replace $`V`$ by a corepresentation $`W`$ in the above argument if we knew that the automorphism group $`\tau _t`$ were unitarily implemented in the representation $`\pi _W`$.

We now show, in analogy with the classical case, that the right regular corepresentation is a canonical choice of conjugate for the left regular one. We therefore look for a unitary corepresentation $`\overline{V}`$ and an antiunitary operator $`J`$ such that

$$(\xi \xi ^{},\overline{V}\eta J\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}\eta ^{})=(V\xi \eta ^{},\eta \mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}J^{}\xi ^{}),$$

for $`J^{}\xi ^{},\eta ^{}𝒟_{\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}}`$, $`\xi ,\eta L^2(𝒜,\varphi )`$.

5.9 Theorem The pair $`\overline{V}=V_r`$, $`T=Y^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}=\mathrm{\Delta }_r^{1/2}Y^{}`$ solves the conjugate equation (5.1) for the regular corepresentation $`V`$and shows that $`V_r`$ is a conjugate for $`V`$ in the conjugation defined by $`j^{}`$.

Proof. In view of the previous discussion, it suffices to verify the above equation and we begin by computing the l.h.s. $`L`$ making the change of variable $`\widehat{\xi }:=Y\mathrm{\Delta }_r^{1/2}\xi ^{}`$ and using Theorem 5.5.

$$L=(\xi \mathrm{\Delta }_r^{1/2}Y^{}\widehat{\xi },V_r\eta \mathrm{\Delta }_r^{1/2}Y^{}\eta ^{})=(\xi (KS_r)^{}\widehat{\xi },V_r\eta (KS_r)^1\eta ^{})=$$

$$=\nu ^{i/2}(\xi (SK)^1\widehat{\xi },V_r\eta (KS_r)^1\eta ^{}).$$

We choose $`\widehat{\xi },\eta ^{}`$ belonging to a suitable common core of the indicated operators contained in $`𝒩_\varphi `$ and write $`(SK)^1\widehat{\xi }=\kappa (\widehat{\xi })^{}`$, $`(KS_r)^1\eta ^{}=\kappa (\eta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$. Then, recalling the definition of $`V_r`$, we have

$$L=\nu ^{i/2}(\xi \kappa (\widehat{\xi })^{},V_r\eta \kappa (\eta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}))=\nu ^{i/2}\varphi \varphi _r(\xi ^{}\kappa (\widehat{\xi })\theta \delta (\kappa (\eta ^{{}_{}{}^{}}))\eta I),$$

where the inner product refers to $`L^2(𝒜,\varphi )L^2(𝒜,\varphi _r)`$. Thus

$$L=\nu ^{i/2}\varphi (\xi ^{}\iota \varphi _r(I\kappa (\widehat{\xi })\kappa \kappa \delta (\eta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}))\eta )=\nu ^{i/2}\varphi (\xi ^{}\iota \varphi _r(\kappa \kappa (\delta (\eta ^{{}_{}{}^{}})I\widehat{\xi }))\eta ).$$

Since $`\varphi _r\kappa =\nu ^{i/2}\varphi `$ and $`\kappa (\iota \varphi (\delta (\eta ^{{}_{}{}^{}})I\widehat{\xi }))=\iota \varphi (I\eta ^{{}_{}{}^{}}\delta (\widehat{\xi }))`$, we have

$$L=\varphi (\xi ^{}\kappa (\iota \varphi (\delta (\eta _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{})I\widehat{\xi }))\eta )=\varphi (\xi ^{}\iota \varphi (I\eta ^{{}_{}{}^{}}\delta (\widehat{\xi }))\eta )=$$

$$=(\xi \eta ^{},V^{}\eta \widehat{\xi })=(V\xi \eta ^{},\eta \widehat{\xi }),$$

completing the proof.

We have seen above that we have a conjugation $`j^{}:=R^{}`$ defined on $`𝒜_{\mathrm{max}}(V)`$ and satisfying $`\delta j^{}=j^{}j^{}\theta \delta `$, and we may, as described earlier, define a conjugation on its tensor category of representations. We state this as a theorem.

5.10 Theorem Pick for each object $`H`$ in the image of the trivializing endofunctor $`\iota `$ on $`𝒞(V)`$ an antiunitary operator $`J_H:H\overline{H}`$. Let $`\pi _W`$ be the representation of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{max}}(V)`$ on $`H`$ corresponding to a $`W𝒞(V)`$. Let $`\overline{W}`$ denote the corepresentation of $`V`$ defined by the representation $`AJ_H\pi _W(j^{}(A))J_H^1`$ of $`𝒜_{\mathrm{max}}(V)`$. Set

$$J_W:=J_{\iota (W)},$$

whence

$$\overline{\iota (W)}=\iota (\overline{W}).$$

Given $`T(W,W^{})`$, we set $`\overline{T}:=J_WTJ_{W}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}(\overline{W},\overline{W^{}})`$. Then $`T(W,W^{})\overline{T}(\overline{W},\overline{W}^{})`$ is an antilinear functorial equivalence. We get a semilinear tensor $`W^{}`$–category with conjugation with natural unitary equivalences

$$d_W:=J_{\overline{W}}J_W,$$

$$c_{W,W^{}}:=J_{W\times W^{}}(J_W\times J_W^{})^{},$$

where $`J_W\times J_W^{}:=\theta (\overline{H},\overline{H}^{})J_WJ_W^{}`$.

Now that we have equipped the category of unitary corepresentations of a multiplicative unitary with a conjugation, it follows from Proposition 4.3 that the conjugate of a left regular object is a right regular object of the same category.

On the other hand, we also see from Theorem 5.10 that the tensor $`W^{}`$–category of finite–dimensional representations of a compact quantum group admits two canonical conjugations, which are in general quite distinct. The one coming from Theorem 5.10 is embedded in a semilinear tensor $`W^{}`$–category of Hilbert spaces and is related to the antilinear involution $`j^{}`$ which commutes with the adjoint. The other cannot be embedded unless the intrinsic dimensions are integral (Corollary 4.2) and is related to the antilinear involution $`{}_{}{}^{}\kappa ^{}`$ which does not commute with the adjoint in general. In the case of $`SU_q(2)`$, it is clear that the conjugation on objects is the same in both cases since the fusion rules imply that each irreducible is self–conjugate. We shall show that this holds for all compact quantum groups. Now $`{}_{}{}^{}\kappa ^{}=\tau _{i/2}^{}j^{}=j^{}\tau _{i/2}^{}`$, so the relation between the two conjugations should be describable in terms of $`\tau ^{}`$. To this end, we consider the category of finite–dimensional unitary representations of the compact quantum group. As is well known, there is an associated Hopf–von Neumann algebra. Its elements are most conveniently described as bounded natural transformations of the embedding functor $`F`$ into the underlying Hilbert spaces. Now we have identified a natural transformation $`\rho f_\rho `$ prior to Theorem 4.1. In general $`f`$ is not an element of the Hopf–von Neumann algebra $`(F,F)`$ since the natural transformation is not bounded in general. Nevertheless, its bounded functions such as $`\rho f_\rho ^{it}`$ will be elements of $`(F,F)`$ and these induce the inner automorphisms $`\tau _t^{}`$ of $`(F,F)`$. It follows that $`f`$ itself induces $`\tau _i^{}`$. The relation between the two conjugations is now described in the following proposition.

5.11 Proposition  Adjoin to the tensor $`W^{}`$–category of finite dimensional representations of a compact quantum group two sets of antilinear intertwiners: $`X(\rho ,\sigma )_\kappa `$ defined by

$$X\rho (^{}\kappa ^{}(A))=\sigma (A)X,X𝒟_{}_{}{}^{}\kappa ,$$

and $`Y(\rho ,\sigma )_j`$ defined by

$$Y\rho (j^{}(A))=\sigma (A)Y,A(F,F).$$

Then we obtain two conjugations $`𝒯_\kappa `$ and $`𝒯_j`$. The second has the induced –structure, whilst the first has the –structure $`𝒯^{\overline{a}}`$ described in Theorem 4.1 b). There is an isomorphism of tensor categories which is the identity on linear arrows and takes $`X(\rho ,\sigma )_\kappa `$ into $`Xf_\rho ^{1/2}=f_\sigma ^{1/2}X`$. This isomorphism does not commute with the adjoint in general.

Proof. $`𝒯_j`$ is the conjugation defined by $`j^{}`$ and has the induced –structure. To see that $`𝒯_\kappa `$ is the conjugation $`𝒯^{\overline{a}}`$ described in Theorem 4.1 b), it suffices to show that the invertible antilinear operators $`\overline{T}_\rho `$, introduced in connection with Theorem 4.1 are in $`(\rho ,\overline{\rho })_\kappa `$. Now this has already been noted after $`(5.3)`$. A computation shows that $`X(\rho ,\sigma )_\kappa `$ if and only if $`Xf_\rho ^{1/2}(\rho ,\sigma )_j`$, so we will have the desired isomorphism once we show that $`Xf_\rho ^{1/2}=f_\sigma ^{1/2}X`$. However $`T_\rho ^{}T_\rho =f_\rho `$ and $`T_\rho ^1T_\rho ^1=f_{\overline{\rho }}`$. Hence $`f_{\overline{\rho }}T_\rho =T_\rho ^1=T_\rho f_\rho ^1`$, so $`f_{\overline{\rho }}\overline{T}_\rho =\overline{T}_\rho f_{\rho }^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$ as required. From this we deduce that if $`X(\pi ,\rho )_\kappa `$, then $`\overline{T}_\rho X(\pi ,\overline{\rho })`$ so

$$\overline{T}_\rho Xf_\pi ^1=f_{\overline{\rho }}^1\overline{T}_\rho X=\overline{T}_\rho f_\rho X,$$

leading to the desired result.

We see, therefore, that for compact quantum groups the conjugations $`𝒯_\kappa `$ and $`𝒯_j`$ although corresponding to different notions of antilinear intertwiner lead to the same notions of conjugate object.

We conclude this section asking, in view of Theorem 2.3 and Proposition 4.3, whether there is a relationship between conjugation and standard braided symmetries for $`𝒯`$. Assume that $`𝒯`$ admits a conjugation $`J`$ assigning to a left regular object $`V`$ a conjugate $`\overline{V}`$ equivalent to $`V`$ itself. By Proposition 4.3 $`\overline{V}`$ is a right regular object, so $`V`$ is a right regular object of $`𝒯`$ as well. Explicitly, if $`U(\overline{V},V)`$ is a unitary and $`\eta ^{\overline{V}}(R^{\overline{V}},R^{\overline{V}}\iota )`$ is the natural unitary transformation derived from $`J`$ as in the proof of Proposition 4.3, then

$$\eta _W:=1_{\iota (W)}\times U\eta _{}^{\overline{V}}{}_{W}{}^{}1_W\times U^{}=$$

$$1_{\iota (W)}\times UJ_V\times J_{\iota (W)}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}\xi _{\overline{W}}J_W\times J_{V}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}1_W\times U^{}$$

makes $`V`$ into a right regular object. To have a standard braided symmetry we further need the commutation relation d’) of Lemma 2.4

$$\eta _V\times 1_{\iota (V)}1_V\times \xi _V=1_V\times \xi _V\eta _V\times 1_{\iota (V)},$$

which expresses a precise relationship between the antilinear conjugation arrows $`J_V`$, $`J_{\iota (V)}`$, the unitary intertwiner $`U(\overline{V},V)`$ and $`\xi _V`$. We next interpret this relation from the viewpoint of the Banach Hopf algebra associated to $`V`$.

5.12 Proposition Let $`𝒯`$ be a tensor $`C^{}`$–category with a left regular object $`V`$ and conjugation as described in Proposition 4.3. Assume furthermore that there is a unitary $`U(\overline{V},V)`$ such that $`UJ_V\widehat{𝒜}(V^{})(UJ_V)^1`$ and $`\widehat{𝒜}(V)`$ commute. Then $`𝒯`$ has a standard braided symmetry.

Proof Let as usual $`𝒜(X)`$ and $`\widehat{𝒜}(X)`$ stand for the Banach spaces derived from a unitary operator $`X`$ on a tensor product Hilbert space compressing its first and the second component respectively. First note that, $`V`$ and $`\overline{V}`$ being unitarily equivalent, $`\widehat{𝒜}(\overline{V})=\widehat{𝒜}(V)`$, so

$$𝒜(\eta _{}^{\overline{V}}{}_{V}{}^{})=J_V\widehat{𝒜}(\overline{V}^{})J_{V}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}=J_V\widehat{𝒜}(V^{})J_{V}^{}{}_{}{}^{1},$$

therefore

$$𝒜(\eta _V)=U𝒜(\eta _{}^{\overline{V}}{}_{V}{}^{})U^{}=UJ_V\widehat{𝒜}(V^{})(UJ_V)^1.$$

Recall now that d) of Lemma 2.4 is equivalent to requiring that $`𝒜(\eta _V)`$ and $`\widehat{𝒜}(V)`$ commute.

In the case where $`J`$ is a conjugation taking $`V`$ to a conjugate $`\overline{V}`$ solving the conjugate equation, we have already noted that $`\widehat{𝒜}(V)=\widehat{𝒜}(V^{}),`$ therefore one is reduced to requiring that

$$UJ_V\widehat{𝒜}(V)(UJ_V)^1\widehat{𝒜}(V)^{}.$$

We now show that for locally compact quantum groups there are canonical choices of $`U`$ and $`J_V`$ for which the above commutation relation holds. Indeed in this case a solution of the conjugate equation for the regular corepresentation is given by $`J_V=Y^{}`$ and $`\overline{V}=V_r`$ (Theorem 5.9). Furthermore the polar part $`U=JY`$ of $`K`$ is a unitary intertwiner in $`(\overline{V},V)`$ (Corollary 5.6), therefore $`UJ_V=J`$ is the polar part of the Tomita operator on $`L^2(𝒜,\varphi )`$, which takes, via its adjoint action, $`\widehat{𝒜}(V)=𝒜`$ into its commutant. We can thus conclude that the corepresentation category of $`V`$ has a standard braided symmetry. Making use of the previous observation, we compute explicitly the associated natural unitary transformation $`\eta `$ making $`V`$ into a right regular object. First we have that

$$\eta _V^{\overline{V}}=J_V\times J_{\iota (V)}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\xi _{\overline{V}}J_V\times J_{V}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=$$

$$\vartheta _{H,K}Y^{}YV_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{}YY^{}\vartheta _{K,H}=\vartheta _{H,K}W^{}\vartheta _{K,H}$$

where $`H=L^2(𝒜,\varphi _r)`$ and $`W`$ is the operator defined in Corollary 5.6. The last equality follows from the commutation relations between $`V`$, $`V_r`$ and $`W`$ obtained in that corollary. We next have that $`\eta `$ is determined by

$$\eta _V=1_{\iota (V)}\times U\eta _V^{\overline{V}}1_V\times U^{}=$$

$$IU\vartheta _{H,K}W^{}\vartheta _{K,H}IU^{}$$

where $`U`$ is the polar part of $`K`$. This equation may be understood as a categorical interpretation in terms of the conjugation structure in $`𝒞(V)`$ of the usual way of getting standard braided symmetries for quantum groups described in Proposition 2.11. (Unitaries of the form of $`\eta _V`$ had previously appeared in  in the context of irreducible multiplicative unitaries). We have thus shown the following result.

5.13 Proposition Let $`(𝒜,\delta ,R,\tau ,\varphi )`$ be a locally compact quantum group, and let us endow $`𝒞(V)`$ with a conjugation as described in Theorem 5.10 and let $`V`$ be the usual multiplicative unitary associated to it. Then there is an associated standard braided symmetry $`\epsilon `$ on $`𝒞(V)`$ whose evaluation in $`V`$ is given by

$$\epsilon _V=VU\times IW^{}U^{}\times I\vartheta ,$$

where $`W`$ is the unitary on $`L^2(𝒜,\varphi _r)L^2(𝒜,\varphi )`$ defined in Corollary 5.6.

## 6 Appendix. Essentially self–adjoint pairs

The basic difficulty in defining conjugation in the context of quantum groups or multiplicative unitaries is that one starts from an antilinear involution which is not, in general, a conjugation on a $`C^{}`$–algebra in that it may not commute with the adjoint and may only be densely defined and unbounded. In the theory of Woronowicz ,  this involution defines the contragredient representation and he shows how to pass to the conjugate representation in the context of compact quantum groups. This involves a variant of modular theory and, to prepare for this, we begin with a simple result on densely defined semilinear bijections, where semilinear is understood to mean linear or antilinear. If $`s`$ is a densely defined semilinear mapping between Hilbert spaces $``$ and $`𝒦`$ and $`f`$ a densely defined semilinear mapping from $`𝒦`$ to $``$ then we call the pair $`s`$, $`f`$ Hermitian, essentially self–adjoint or selfadjoint if the matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& f\\ s& 0\end{array}\right)$$

defines a semilinear mapping on $`𝒦`$ with the corresponding property.

A.1 Lemma Let $`s`$, $`f`$ be an essentially selfadjoint pair of semilinear bijections between dense subspaces of Hilbert spaces $``$ and $`𝒦`$. Let $`\widehat{s}`$ and $`\widehat{f}`$ denote the semilinear involutions given by the matrices

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& s^1\\ s& 0\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& f\\ f^1& 0\end{array}\right).$$

Then $`\widehat{s}\widehat{f}^{}`$. The eigenspaces of $`\widehat{s}`$ and $`\widehat{f}`$ corresponding to the eigenvalue $`\pm 1`$ consist of vectors of the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}h\\ \pm sh\end{array}\right),\text{and}\left(\begin{array}{c}h^{}\\ \pm f^1h^{}\end{array}\right),$$

for $`h𝒟_s`$ and $`h^{}𝒟_{f^1}`$. Let the closure of these eigenspaces be denoted $`M_\pm ^s`$ and $`M_\pm ^f`$ then $`M_\pm ^f=M_{}^s`$. Writing $`\widehat{S}`$ for the closure of $`\widehat{s}`$ and denoting its polar decomposition by

$$\widehat{S}=\widehat{J}\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}^{1/2},$$

$`\widehat{S}`$ and $`\widehat{J}`$ are involutions, $`\widehat{J}\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}=\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}\widehat{J}`$ and $`\widehat{J}(M_\pm ^s)=M_{}^f`$. Furthermore $`\widehat{S}^{}=\widehat{F}`$, the closure of $`\widehat{f}`$.

Proof $`\widehat{s}`$ and $`\widehat{f}`$ are obviously involutions with eigenspaces as stated and $`\widehat{f}\widehat{s}^{}`$. The closures of these eigenspaces are obviously the eigenspaces of the closures $`\widehat{S}`$ and $`\widehat{F}`$. The eigenspaces of the involution $`\widehat{S}^{}`$ are then $`M_{}^s`$ and $`M_+^s`$. But $`\widehat{S}^{}=\widehat{F}`$ since the pair $`s`$, $`f`$ is essentially selfadjoint so $`M_\pm ^f=M_{}^s`$. Finally, $`\widehat{J}(M_\pm ^s)=M_{}^f`$ since $`\widehat{S}\widehat{J}=\widehat{J}\widehat{S}`$ and this and the remaining assertions just follow from the fact that $`\widehat{S}`$ is a closed densely defined involution.

The formalism here is best known in the antilinear case, through modular theory. In this case, it is usual to formulate the result on the eigensubspaces by saying that $`M_+^s`$ is a standard subspace and $`M_+^f`$ is its symplectic complement. The above formulation brings out the similarities between the linear and antilinear case. We draw the obvious conclusions about the original operators thus

$$\widehat{S}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& S^1\\ S& 0\end{array}\right),\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}S^{}S& 0\\ 0& S^1S^1\end{array}\right).$$

Finally, letting $`J\mathrm{\Delta }^{1/2}`$ be the polar decomposition of $`S`$,

$$\widehat{J}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& J^1\\ J& 0\end{array}\right).$$

To generalize the above version of modular theory so as to treat compositions of mappings, we let $`𝒱`$ be a subcategory of the category of vector spaces with linear (or antilinear) maps, and pick, for each object $`V`$ of $`𝒱`$, an object $`V^{}`$ of $`𝒱`$ such that $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ are vector spaces in duality, via a bilinear or sesquilinear form. Let $`s(V_1,V_2)`$ be an arrow endowed with a transposed arrow $`f=s^{}(V_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{},V_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$ with respect to the duality. For example, if $`s`$ is linear, $`f`$ is the linear map defined by

$$(k_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{},sk_1)=(fk_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{},k_1),k_1V_1,k_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}V_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}.$$

While, if $`s`$ is antilinear, $`f`$ is the antilinear map defined by

$$(k_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{},sk_1)=\overline{(fk_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{},k_1)},k_1V_1,k_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}V_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}.$$

This would seem to be a natural notion to study in the theory of dual spaces. In the present context we need a more restrictive notion, replacing vector spaces by (positive–definite) scalar product spaces and requiring the duality to make the scalar product space $`V^{}`$ a dense subspace of the completion of $`V`$. A pair of the form $`(s,f)`$ will in this case be called an Hermitian pair of $`𝒱`$. A particular instance of this situation would be to fix a set of Hilbert spaces, each Hilbert space $`H`$ having two distinguished dense subspaces $`H^s`$ and $`H^f`$, say, and take an arrow in the category to be a linear (or just semilinear) mapping from some $`H_1^s`$ into some $`H_2^s`$ whose adjoint is defined on $`H_2^f`$ and maps it into $`H_1^f`$.

A.2 Lemma Let $`𝒮𝒫^a`$ be the category of scalar product spaces with semilinear mappings. Then for each hermitian pair $`(s,f)`$ of $`𝒮𝒫^a`$, we let $`\overline{s}`$ and $`\overline{f}`$ denote the closure of $`s`$ and $`f`$, respectively. If $`s^{}s`$ defines an essentially self–adjoint pair, then $`\overline{s^{}s}`$ is the closure of $`\overline{s^{}}\overline{s}`$, and $`\overline{ff^{}}`$ the closure of $`\overline{f}`$ $`\overline{f^{}}`$.

Proof. Let $`h𝒟_{\overline{s}}`$, $`\overline{s}h𝒟_{\overline{s^{}}}`$ and $`k`$ in the domain of $`f^{}`$, then

$$(k,\overline{s^{}}\overline{s}h)=(f^{}k,\overline{s}h)=(ff^{}k,h),$$

since $`f^{}s_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$, $`fs^{}`$. Hence $`s^{}s\overline{s^{}}\overline{s}(ff^{})^{}=\overline{s^{}s}`$ since $`s^{}s`$ and $`ff^{}`$ is an essentially self–adjoint pair, completing the proof.

An instructive example of the situation of Lemma A.1 is got by considering a von Neumann algebra $``$ with cyclic and separating vector $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Then $``$ and $`^{}`$ are in (sesquilinear) duality via $`(M^{}\mathrm{\Omega },M\mathrm{\Omega })`$. We may now take $`𝒞`$ to be the category of semilinear mappings between $``$ and $`^{}`$ with dual. For example if $`\kappa `$ is a linear mapping from $``$ to $``$ then $`\kappa `$ has a dual if there is a linear mapping $`\kappa ^{}`$ from $`^{}`$ to $`^{}`$ such that

$$(\kappa ^{}(M^{})\mathrm{\Omega },M\mathrm{\Omega })=(M^{}\mathrm{\Omega },\kappa (M)\mathrm{\Omega }),M,^{}^{},$$

and a linear mapping $`\lambda `$ from $``$ to $`^{}`$ has a dual if there is a linear mapping $`\lambda ^{}`$ from $``$ to $`^{}`$ such that

$$(\lambda ^{}(M)\mathrm{\Omega },N\mathrm{\Omega })=(M\mathrm{\Omega },\lambda (N)\mathrm{\Omega }),M,N.$$

The adjoint on $``$ has, of course, as its dual the adjoint on $`^{}`$. The modular conjugation $`j`$ from $``$ to $`^{}`$ is selfdual. The adjoint of the modular automorphism $`\sigma _t`$ of $``$ is the modular automorphism $`\sigma _t^{}`$ of $`^{}`$. In each case, we get an essentially self–adjoint pair.

In the above example, our scalar product spaces are actually left Hilbert algebras and in this case it is interesting to note what happens when the mappings are multiplicative and bijective (without necessarily commuting with the adjoint). The basic information is presented in the form of a lemma without proof.

A.3 Lemma  Let $`s`$, $`f`$ be an Hermitian pair of semilinear multiplicative bijections of left Hilbert algebras $`𝒜`$ and $`𝒜^{}`$ then for the associated closed operators $`S`$ and $`F`$ we have

$$Sa=s(a)S,S^{}a=s^{}(a)S^{},a𝒜,$$

$$Fa^{}=f(a^{})F,F^{}a^{}=f^{}(a^{})F^{},a^{}𝒜^{},$$

where $`s^{}(a)=s^1(a^{})^{}`$, $`f^{}(a^{})=f^1(a^{})^{}`$.

Among the many variations of the above example, we can, in the above choose a faithful semifinite normal weight $`\varphi `$ on $``$ with associated left ideal $`𝒩_\varphi `$ and let $`_\varphi `$ denote the weakly dense –subalgebra of $``$ consisting of entire elements $`B`$ for the modular automorphism group $`\sigma ^\varphi `$ such that $`\sigma _z^\varphi (B)𝒩_\varphi 𝒩_\varphi ^{}`$ for all $`z`$. Let $`_\varphi ^{}^{}`$ be the corresponding subalgebra of $`^{}`$ defined using the weight $`\varphi ^{}:=\varphi j^1`$ and consider the duality between $`_\varphi `$ and $`_\varphi ^{}^{}`$.

We are led to a simple example of the situation in Lemma A.2. Consider the situation of Lemma 5.4. We let $`𝒞_{\varphi ,\omega }`$ be the set of semilinear mappings of $`_{\varphi ,\omega }`$ whose adjoint is defined on $`_{\varphi ,\omega }`$ and maps it into itself. Elements of $`𝒞_{\varphi ,\omega }`$ include the restrictions of the $`\omega _z`$, $`z`$ as well as the restriction of $`S_\varphi `$. Taking the closures, we recover the $`\omega _z`$ and $`S_\varphi `$.

We give a rather more complicated example involving two objects $`_{\varphi ,\omega }`$ and $`_{\overline{\varphi },\omega }`$ motivated by Theorem 5.5.

A.4 Lemma Let $`\varphi `$ be a lower semicontinuous densely defined weight on a $`C^{}`$–algebra $`𝒜`$ equipped with a conjugation $`j`$. Let $`\omega :^n\text{Aut}(𝒜)`$ be a pointwise norm continuous $`\varphi `$–invariant automorphism group of $`𝒜`$ and suppose that $`j\omega _^nj=\omega _^n`$. Let $`\overline{\varphi }:=\varphi j`$ then $`j(_{\varphi ,\omega })=_{\overline{\varphi },\omega }`$. Now let $`𝒞`$ denote the category of semilinear mappings between the two objects $`_{\varphi ,\omega }`$ and $`_{\overline{\varphi },\omega }`$ whose adjoints restrict to a mapping in the other direction. Then $`𝒞`$ contains $`𝒞_{\varphi ,\omega }`$ and $`𝒞_{\overline{\varphi },\omega }`$ as categories in a natural way and the map $`Bj(B)`$, $`B_{\varphi ,\omega }`$ is an antilinear bijection.

Proof. We have $`j(𝒩_\varphi )=𝒩_{\overline{\varphi }}`$ and since $`j`$ normalizes $`\omega _^n`$, $`j(_{\varphi ,\omega })=_{\overline{\varphi },\omega }`$. The remaining statements are now obvious.

Theorem 5.5 corresponds to taking for $`\varphi `$ the left Haar weight on a locally compact quantum group and a conjugation $`j=R^{}`$.