text:
# Podleś’ Quantum Sphere: Dual Coalgebra and Classification of Covariant First Order Differential Calculus

## 1. Introduction

Podleś’ quantum sphere $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$ \[Pod87\] is one of the best investigated examples of a quantum space, i. e. of a comodule algebra over the $`q`$-deformed coordinate ring of some affine algebraic group. Nevertheless, classification of covariant first order differential calculus (FODC) over $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$ in the sense of Woronowicz \[Wor89\] has so far been achieved only under additional assumptions and in low dimensions. In \[Pod92\] certain 2-dimensional covariant FODC over $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$ which in many respects behave similarly as their classical counterparts have been classified. It turned out that only in the so called quantum subgroup case $`c=0`$ such a calculus exists and is then uniquely determined. All covariant FODC which as right modules are freely generated by the differentials of the generators $`e_i`$, $`i=1,0,1`$ of $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$ have been determined in \[AS94\]. It was shown by computer calculations that for all but exceptional values of $`c`$ exactly one such calculus exists. Finally in \[Her02\] a general notion of dimension of covariant FODC was introduced and all 2-dimensional covariant FODC over $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$ have been classified.

In the present paper all finite dimensional covariant FODC over $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$ for all but exceptional values of $`c`$ are classified. It turns out, that for generic $`c`$ there exists precisely one irreducible covariant FODC for any irreducible $`𝒪_q(\mathrm{SL}(2))`$-subcomodule of $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$. The subcomodule $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ corresponds to the trivial calculus while in general the irreducible differential calculus has the same dimension as the corresponding $`𝒪_q(\mathrm{SL}(2))`$-subcomodule. For generic $`c`$ any covariant FODC over $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$ can be uniquely written as a direct sum of irreducible FODC. The exceptional cases include the quantum subgroup case $`c=0`$.

The main tool on this way is the notion of quantum tangent space introduced for quantum groups in \[Wor89\] and generalized to a large class of quantum spaces in \[HK01\]. Podleś’ quantum sphere can be obtained as right $`K_c`$-invariant elements in $`𝒪_q(\mathrm{SL}(2))`$ where $`K_c`$ denotes a left coideal subalgebra of $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$ generated by one twisted primitive element $`X_c`$. The notion of quantum tangent space allows one to identify finite dimensional covariant FODC over $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$ with finite dimensional left subcomodules $`T_\epsilon 𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)^{}`$ of the dual coalgebra which are right $`K_c`$-invariant and contain the counit $`\epsilon `$. Thus as a first step towards classification the dual coalgebra $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)^{}`$ is determined explicitly in Theorem 3.1. It turns out that for all but exceptional values of $`c`$ the restriction $`𝒪_q(\mathrm{SL}(2))^{}𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)^{}`$ is onto.

Next, the subspace $`F(𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)^{},K_c)`$ of elements of $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)^{}`$ with finite right $`K_c`$-action is determined. The action of the generator $`X_c`$ induces a $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$-action on $`F(𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)^{},K_c)`$ such that the decomposition into irreducible $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$-modules corresponds to the decomposition into right $`K_c`$-invariant left $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)^{}`$-comodules. To calculate $`F(𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)^{},K_c)`$ explicit results of \[MS99\] are employed.

The quantum tangent spaces of the covariant FODC constructed in \[Her98\] are calculated. It turns out that for generic $`c`$ the resulting tangent spaces cover all tangent spaces obtained in the classification. Therefore up to exceptional values of $`c`$ all covariant FODC over $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$ can be constructed by this method. Moreover it is shown in Proposition 5.2 that these FODC are free left and right $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$-modules and inner calculi.

The ordering of this paper is as follows. In Section 2 the definition and some properties of $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$ are recalled. Section 3 serves to give a complete description of the dual coalgebra $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)^{}`$. The main idea on this way is to show that all representations of $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$ can be written as direct sums of representations of certain localizations of $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$. These localizations are seen to be isomorphic to $`U_q(𝔟_{})^{\mathrm{op}}`$ and the dual coalgebra of $`U_q(𝔟_{})^{\mathrm{op}}`$ is known \[Jos95\]. In Section 4 the subspace $`F(𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)^{},K_c)`$ is determined and decomposed into $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$-modules. The notion of covariant FODC and quantum tangent space are recalled in the last section. Combination of the above steps lead to the classification result in Theorem 5.1.

If not stated otherwise all notations and conventions coincide with those introduced in \[KS97\]. All through this paper $`q\{0\}`$ will be assumed not to be a root of unity. For any element $`a`$ of a coalgebra $`𝒜`$ with counit $`\epsilon `$ define $`a^+:=a\epsilon (a)`$ and for any subset $`𝒜`$ set $`^+:=\{b^+|b𝒜\}`$.

## 2. Podleś’ Quantum Sphere

Let $`u_j^i`$, $`i,j=1,2,`$ denote the matrix coefficients of the vector representation of $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$, i.e. the generators of the quantum group $`𝒪_q(\mathrm{SL}(2))`$. In the notation of \[Pod87\] the matrix coefficients of the three dimensional representation of $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$ are given by

$`(\pi _j^i)_{i,j=1,0,1}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}u_2^2u_2^2& (q^2+1)u_2^2u_1^2& qu_1^2u_1^2\\ q^1u_2^1u_2^2& 1+(q+q^1)u_2^1u_1^2& u_1^1u_1^2\\ q^1u_2^1u_2^1& (q+q^1)u_2^1u_1^1& u_1^1u_1^1\end{array}\right).`$
For $`c=(\epsilon (e_1)\epsilon (e_1):\epsilon (e_0)^2)P^1`$ Podleś’ quantum sphere $`=𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$ \[Pod87\] is isomorphic to the subalgebra of $`𝒪_q(\mathrm{SL}(2))`$ generated by $`e_i=_{j=1,0,1}\epsilon (e_j)\pi _i^j`$, $`i=1,0,1`$. The algebra $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$ obtains the structure of a right $`𝒪_q(\mathrm{SL}(2))`$-comodule algebra by $`\mathrm{\Delta }(e_i)=e_j\pi _i^j`$. A complete set of defining relations of $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$ is given by

$`(1+q^2)(e_1e_1+q^2e_1e_1)+e_0^2`$ $`=\rho `$
$`q^2e_1e_0+e_0e_1`$ $`=\lambda e_1`$
$`(1+q^2)(e_1e_1e_1e_1)+(1q^2)e_0^2`$ $`=\lambda e_0`$
$`e_1e_0q^2e_0e_1`$ $`=\lambda e_1`$
where $`\rho =q^2(q^2+1)^2\epsilon (e_1)\epsilon (e_1)+\epsilon (e_0)^2`$ and $`\lambda =(1q^2)\epsilon (e_0)`$. For $`c\mathrm{}`$ one can choose $`\epsilon (e_0)=1`$, $`\epsilon (e_1)=\epsilon (e_1)`$. Then $`\lambda =1q^2`$ and $`\rho =(q+q^1)^2c+1`$. Defining $`A=(1+q^2)^1(1e_0)`$ the above relations can be rewritten as

(2.1) $`e_1e_1`$ $`=AA^2+c`$
(2.2) $`e_1e_1`$ $`=q^2Aq^4A^2+c`$
(2.3) $`e_1A`$ $`=q^2Ae_1`$
(2.4) $`e_1A`$ $`=q^2Ae_1.`$
Similarly for $`c=\mathrm{}`$ choose $`\epsilon (e_0)=0`$ and $`\epsilon (e_1)=\epsilon (e_1)=1`$, i.e. $`\lambda =0`$ and $`\rho =(q+q^1)^2`$. Defining $`A=(1+q^2)^1e_0`$ the above relations are equivalent to

(2.5) $`e_1e_1`$ $`=A^2+1`$
(2.6) $`e_1e_1`$ $`=q^4A^2+1`$
(2.7) $`e_1A`$ $`=q^2Ae_1`$
(2.8) $`e_1A`$ $`=q^2Ae_1.`$
Define linear functionals $`f_\lambda `$, $`\lambda \{0\}`$ and $`g`$ in the dual Hopf algebra $`𝒪_q(\mathrm{SL}(2))^{}`$ of $`𝒪_q(\mathrm{SL}(2))`$ by

(2.9) $`f_\lambda ((u_j^i))`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\lambda & 0\\ 0& \lambda ^1\end{array}\right),`$ $`g((u_j^i))`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$
and

(2.10) $`\mathrm{\Delta }f_\lambda `$ $`=f_\lambda f_\lambda ,`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }g`$ $`=g\epsilon +\epsilon g.`$
Recall that the dual pairing \[KS97\] between $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$ and $`𝒪_q(\mathrm{SL}(2))`$ induces linear functionals $`E`$ and $`F`$ in $`𝒪_q(\mathrm{SL}(2))^{}`$ satisfying

(2.11) $`E((u_j^i))`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),`$ $`F((u_j^i))`$ $`=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$
and

(2.12) $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ $`=EK+\epsilon E,`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ $`=F\epsilon +K^1F`$
where $`K=f_{q^1}`$. Let $`𝒰𝒪_q(\mathrm{SL}(2))^{}`$ denote the algebra generated by the functionals $`f_\lambda `$, $`\lambda \{0\}`$, $`E`$, $`F`$ and $`g`$. For transcendental $`q`$ the Hopf algebra $`𝒰`$ is isomorphic to $`𝒪_q(\mathrm{SL}(2))^{}`$ \[Jos95, 9.4.9\]. The above functionals satisfy the relations

(2.13) $`\begin{array}{cccccc}\hfill f_\lambda f_\mu & =f_{\lambda \mu },\hfill & \hfill f_\lambda E& =\lambda ^2Ef_\lambda ,\hfill & \hfill f_\lambda F& =\lambda ^2Ff_\lambda ,\hfill \\ \hfill f_\lambda g& =gf_\lambda ,\hfill & \hfill Eg& =(g+2)E,\hfill & \hfill Fg& =(g2)F,\hfill \\ & & \hfill EFFE& ={\displaystyle \frac{KK^1}{qq^1}}.\hfill & & \end{array}`$
Note that the subalgebra of $`𝒪_q(\mathrm{SL}(2))^{}`$ generated by $`E,F,K`$ and $`K^1`$ is isomorphic to $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$, \[KS97, 4.4.1\]. Evaluating the functionals $`f_\lambda ,g,E`$ and $`F`$ on the matrix coefficients $`\pi _j^i`$ one obtains

(2.14) $`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f_\lambda ((\pi _j^i))& =\lambda ^2E_1^1+E_0^0+\lambda ^2E_1^1\hfill \\ \hfill g((\pi _j^i))& =2E_1^1+2E_1^1\hfill \\ \hfill E((\pi _j^i))& =(q^2+1)E_0^1+E_1^0\hfill \\ \hfill F((\pi _j^i))& =q^1E_1^0+(q+q^1)E_0^1\hfill \end{array}`$
where $`E_j^i`$, $`i,j=1,0,1`$ denotes the $`3\times 3`$-matrix with entry $`1`$ at position $`(i,j)`$ and zero elsewhere. The right comodule structure of $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$ induces a left action of $`𝒰`$ on $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$ which is given by

(2.15) $`f_\lambda e_i`$ $`=\lambda ^{2i}e_i`$
(2.16) $`ge_i`$ $`=2ie_i`$
(2.17) $`Ee_i`$ $`=(q^2+1)\delta _{i,0}e_1+\delta _{i,1}e_0`$
(2.18) $`Fe_i`$ $`=q^1\delta _{i,1}e_0+(q+q^1)\delta _{i,0}e_1.`$
For $`n_0/2`$ set $`c(n)=1/(q^n+q^n)^2`$. Since $`q`$ is not a root of unity $`c(n)c(m)`$ for all $`n,m_0/2`$, $`nm`$. Define subsets of $`P^1`$ by

$`J_1`$ $`:=\{cP^1|cc(n)n/2\}`$
$`J_2`$ $`:=\{cP^1|cc(n)n_0/2\}`$
It is known \[MS99, Rem. 4.5.3\] that the following statements are equivalent:

1. $`cJ_1`$
2. $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)\{b𝒪_q(\mathrm{SL}(2))|X(b_{(1)})b_{(2)}=0\}`$ for a twisted primitive element

$`X=\alpha (K^11)+\beta K^1E+\gamma F𝒰`$
and

$$c=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\beta \gamma q^1}{\alpha ^2(qq^1)^2}\hfill & \text{if }\alpha 0,\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill & \text{if }\alpha =0\text{ and }\beta \gamma 0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Calculating the pairing between $`X`$ and the explicit generators $`e_i𝒪_q(\mathrm{SL}(2))`$ chosen above one obtains $`\epsilon (e_1)(qq^1)\alpha =\gamma `$ and $`\beta =q\gamma `$ in the case $`c\mathrm{}`$. Similarly for $`c=\mathrm{}`$ one obtains $`\alpha =0`$ and $`\beta =q\gamma `$. Thus the embeddings from above are realized by

(2.19) $`X_c=\{\begin{array}{cc}qK^1E+F\hfill & \text{if }c=\mathrm{},\hfill \\ K\hfill & \text{if }c=0,\hfill \\ (c^{1/2}(qq^1))^1(K^11)+qK^1E+F\hfill & \text{else}\hfill \end{array}`$
for any square root $`\epsilon (e_1)=c^{1/2}`$ of $`c`$. Define $`K_c=[X_c]U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$. If $`cJ_2`$ then any finite dimensional $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$-module is a direct sum of irreducible $`K_c`$-modules and therefore $`𝒪_q(\mathrm{SL}(2))`$ is a faithfully flat left (and right) $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$-module \[MS99, Thm. 5.2\].

## 3. The Dual Coalgebra $`^{}=𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)^{}`$

To understand the dual coalgebra \[Swe69, Sect. 6.0\] $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)^{}`$ of Podleś’ quantum sphere it is useful to consider first the dual Hopf algebra $`(U_q(𝔟_{})^{\text{op}})^{}`$ where $`U_q(𝔟_{})U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$ denotes the subalgebra generated by $`F,K`$ and $`K^1`$. Further let $`U_0`$, $`U_q(𝔫_+)`$, $`U_q(𝔫_{})`$ and $`U_q(𝔟_+)`$ denote the subalgebra of $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$ generated by $`\{K,K^1\}`$, $`E`$, $`F`$ and $`\{E,K,K^1\}`$, respectively. By \[Jos95, Thm. 2.1.8\] the dual Hopf algebra $`(U_0)^{}`$ is isomorphic to the commutative Hopf algebra

$`[\gamma ,\chi _\lambda |\lambda \{0\}]/(\chi _\lambda \chi _\mu =\chi _{\lambda \mu },\chi _1=1)`$
where $`\gamma (K)=1`$, $`\chi _\lambda (K)=\lambda `$ and the coalgebra structure is given by

(3.1) $`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Delta }\gamma & =\gamma 1+1\gamma \hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{\Delta }\chi _\lambda & =\chi _\lambda \chi _\lambda .\hfill \end{array}`$
The subalgebra $`U_q(𝔫_+)U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$ is a right $`U_0`$-comodule with coaction

$`\delta _R(E^i)=E^iK^i`$
and therefore has a left $`(U_0)^{}`$-module structure. The corresponding left crossed product algebra $`U_q(𝔫_+)(U_0)^{}`$ is a Hopf algebra with $`\mathrm{\Delta }E=1E+E\chi _{q^2}`$ containing $`U_q(𝔟_+)`$ where $`KU_q(𝔟_+)`$ corresponds to $`\chi _{q^2}`$. The dual pairing of Hopf algebras (in the conventions of \[KS97, 6.3.1\])

(3.2) $`,:U_q(𝔟_+)U_q(𝔟_{})^{\text{op}}`$
given by $`K,K=q^2`$, $`K,F=E,K=0`$ and $`E,F=1/(q^1q)`$ extends to a pairing of Hopf algebras

(3.3) $`,:\left(U_q(𝔫_+)(U_0)^{}\right)U_q(𝔟_{})^{\text{op}}`$
such that

$`\gamma ,K=1,\chi _\lambda ,K=\lambda ,\gamma ,F=\chi _\lambda ,F=0.`$
###### Lemma 3.1.

For $`aU_q(𝔫_+)`$, $`uU_0`$, $`bU_q(𝔫_{})`$ and $`f(U_0)^{}`$ one has

$`af,bu=f(u)a,b.`$
In particular the pairing (3.3) is non-degenerate.

###### Proof.

Note first that $`f,b=\epsilon (b)f(1)`$ and therefore

$`f,bu=f_{(1)},uf_{(2)},b=\epsilon (b)f,u.`$
Using this relation one calculates

$`af,bu=a,b_{(1)}u_{(1)}f,b_{(2)}u_{(2)}=a,bu_{(1)}f,u_{(2)}=a,bf,u`$
where in the last equation the property $`a,bu=\epsilon (u)a,b`$ of (3.2) is used. The non-degeneracy of (3.3) now follows from the non-degeneracy of (3.2). ∎

By the above lemma the map of Hopf algebras

(3.4) $`\mathrm{\Phi }:\left(U_q(𝔫_+)(U_0)^{}\right)(U_q(𝔟_{})^{\text{op}})^{}`$
induced by (3.3) is injective. The following result is proven in \[Jos95, 9.4.8\] for transcendental $`q`$. Yet it also holds for $`q\{0\}`$ not a root of unity and is reproduced here in our setting for the convenience of the reader.

###### Proposition 3.1.

The map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an isomorphism.

###### Proof.

Recall that there is a canonical isomorphism $`U_q(𝔟_{})^{\mathrm{op}}U_q(𝔫_{})U_0`$ of vector spaces. Let $`JU_q(𝔟_{})^{\text{op}}`$ denote any two sided ideal of finite codimension. Then $`J`$ contains some ideal $`IU_0`$ of finite codimension and $`(U_q(𝔫_{})^+)^n`$ for some $`n`$. Therefore $`J`$ contains the left ideal

$`(U_q(𝔫_{})^+)^nU_0+U_q(𝔫_{})IU_q(𝔫_{})U_0`$
of finite codimension. Thus

$`\left(U_q(𝔟_{})^{\text{op}}/J\right)^{}`$ $`\left((U_q(𝔫_{})/(U_q(𝔫_{})^+)^n)(U_0/I)\right)^{}`$
$`=\left(U_q(𝔫_{})/(U_q(𝔫_{})^+)^n\right)^{}(U_0/I)^{}`$
$`U_q(𝔫_+)(U_0)^{}`$
where in the last inclusion one uses that $`U_q(𝔫_+)`$ is the graded dual of $`U_q(𝔫_{})`$ via the pairing (3.2). By Lemma 3.1 one obtains $`U_q(𝔫_+)(U_0)^{}\text{Im}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and therefore $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is onto. ∎

For the computation of $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)^{}`$ some results about the representation theory of the algebra $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$ are collected.

###### Lemma 3.2.

Any finite dimensional representation $`\mu :𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)\mathrm{End}(V)`$ is a direct sum $`\mu =\mu _0\mu _0`$ where $`\mu _0(A)`$ is nilpotent and $`\mu _0(A)`$ is invertible. In particular the coalgebra $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)^{}`$ is a direct sum $`C_0C_0`$ where $`C_0`$ and $`C_0`$ denote the coalgebras of matrix coefficients of finite dimensional representations of $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$ with nilpotent and invertible $`A`$ action, respectively. In addition

1. if $`cc(n)`$ for all $`n`$ then $`\mu _0=0`$.
2. if $`c0`$ then $`\mu _0(e_{\pm 1})`$ are isomorphisms.
3. if $`c=c(n)`$ for some $`n`$ then there exists exactly one indecomposable representation $`\mu _n:𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)\mathrm{End}(V)`$ such that $`\mu _n(A)`$ is invertible. This representation is $`n`$-dimensional.
4. if $`c=0`$ then $`C_0=C_{0+}C_{00}C_0`$ where $`C_{0\pm }`$ (resp. $`C_{00}`$) denotes the coalgebra of matrix coefficients of finite dimensional representations with invertible action of $`e_{\pm 1}`$ (with nilpotent action of $`e_1`$ and $`e_1`$).

###### Proof.

Relation (2.3) and (2.4) imply that $`e_1`$ and $`e_1`$ transform the generalized eigenspace $`V_\lambda `$ of $`A`$ with corresponding eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ to the generalized eigenspace $`V_{q^2\lambda }`$ and $`V_{q^2\lambda }`$, respectively. Set $`V_0:=_{\lambda 0}V_\lambda `$. Then $`V=V_0V_0`$ is a direct sum of representations of $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$.

Since $`q`$ is not a root of unity $`e_1`$ and $`e_1`$ act nilpotently on $`V_0`$. Assume that $`vV_0`$ is an eigenvector of $`A`$ with eigenvalue $`\lambda `$ such that $`e_1v=0`$, $`e_1^nv=0`$ and $`w:=e_1^{n1}v0`$. Then relations (2.2), (2.6) and (2.1), (2.5) applied to $`v`$ and $`w`$ respectively imply

(3.5) $`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& =q^2\lambda q^4\lambda ^2+c\hfill \\ \hfill 0& =q^{2(n1)}\lambda q^{4(n1)}\lambda ^2+c\hfill \end{array}`$ $`\text{for }c\mathrm{}`$
(3.6) $`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& =q^4\lambda ^2+1\hfill \\ \hfill 0& =q^{4(n1)}\lambda ^2+1\hfill \end{array}`$ $`\text{for }c=\mathrm{}.`$
The second set of equations cannot be fulfilled as $`q`$ is not a root of unity. The first set of equations implies $`c=c(n)`$ and therefore proves 1).

Since $`\mu _0(A)`$ is nilpotent the second statement follows from (2.1) and (2.5).

To prove the third statement assume first that there exists $`uV_0`$ such that $`(A\nu )^2u=0`$ but $`(A\nu )u0`$ for some $`\nu \{0\}`$. Applying $`e_1`$ several times we may assume using the notations from above that $`\nu =\lambda `$ and $`(A\nu )u=v`$. Then (3.5) implies $`\lambda =q^{n2}/(q^n+q^n)`$. The relation $`e_1v=0`$ implies that $`e_1u`$ is an eigenvector of $`A`$ with corresponding eigenvalue $`q^2\lambda `$ or $`e_1u=0`$. Suppose that $`e_1^ku=0`$ for some $`k1`$ and $`e_1^{k1}u0`$. Then on the one hand the eigenvalue of $`A`$ corresponding to $`e_1^{k1}u`$ coincides with $`q^{2k2}\lambda `$ while on the other hand by (3.5) it is equal to $`\lambda `$. Therefore $`k=1`$ and $`e_1u=0`$. By equation (2.2) and $`(A\lambda )^2u=0`$ one now obtains

$$(q^22q^4\lambda )Au+(c+q^4\lambda ^2)u=q^2\frac{q^nq^n}{q^n+q^n}Au+(c+q^4\lambda ^2)u=0.$$

As $`n1`$ and $`q^{2n}1`$ this is a contradiction to the assumption that $`u`$ is not an eigenvector of $`A`$. Thus $`A`$ is diagonalisable. The relations (3.5) imply that all eigenvalues of $`A`$ lie in the set $`\{q^{n2k}/(q^n+q^n)|k=1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$. In view of (2.1) and (2.2) the eigenspaces for different eigenvalues are isomorphic and $`V_0`$ is the direct sum of the $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$-orbits of the elements of an arbitrary basis of $`V_\lambda `$. These orbits have dimension $`n`$.

To validate the last statement note first that any finite dimensional representation $`\mu :𝒪_q(𝕊_0^2)\mathrm{End}(V)`$ is a direct sum $`\mu =\mu _+\mu ^{}`$, $`V=V_+V^{}`$ where $`\mu _+(e_1)`$ is invertible and $`\mu ^{}(e_1)`$ is nilpotent. Indeed, (2.3) implies that $`AV_+V_+`$ and $`AV^{}V^{}`$. On the other hand (2.1) leads to

$`e_1V_+=e_1e_1V_+=(AA^2)V_+V_+`$
and $`e_1^kV^{}=0`$ yields

$`e_1^{k+1}e_1V^{}=e_1^k(q^2Aq^4A^2)V^{}e_1^kV^{}=0.`$
Note then that (2.1), (2.3) and the nilpotency of $`\mu (A)`$ imply that $`\mu _+(e_1)`$ is nilpotent. Similarly $`\mu ^{}=\mu _0^{}\mu _{}`$ where $`\mu _0^{}(e_1)`$ is nilpotent and $`\mu _{}(e_1)`$ is invertible. ∎

The inclusion $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)𝒪_q(\mathrm{SL}(2))`$ of right $`𝒪_q(\mathrm{SL}(2))`$-comodule algebras induces a map of right $`𝒪_q(\mathrm{SL}(2))^{}`$-module coalgebras $`𝒪_q(\mathrm{SL}(2))^{}𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)^{}`$. For $`m,l_0`$ and $`\lambda \{0\}`$ let $`\psi _{\lambda ^2}^{ml}`$ denote the image of $`f_\lambda g^mE^l`$ under this projection. It follows from (2.15) that $`f_\lambda =f_\lambda `$ on $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$ and therefore the definition of $`\psi _\mu ^{ml}`$ does not depend on the choice of a root of $`\mu `$.

###### Theorem 3.1.

The following sets form a vector space basis of $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)^{}`$.

1. If $`c\{0,c(n)|n\}`$: $`\{\psi _\lambda ^{ml}|\lambda \{0\},m,l_0\}`$.
2. If $`c=c(n)`$, $`n`$: $`\{\psi _\lambda ^{ml}|\lambda \{0\},m,l_0\}𝔅_n`$, where $`𝔅_n`$ denotes any basis of the $`n^2`$-dimensional subspace $`C_0`$ of $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)^{}`$.
3. If $`c=0`$: $`\{E^kF^l|k,l_0\}\{\chi _\lambda ^+g^mF^l,\chi _\lambda ^{}g^mE^l|\lambda \{0\},l,m_0\}`$ where $`\chi _\lambda ^\pm `$ is the character on $`𝒪_q(𝕊_0^2)`$ defined by $`\chi _\lambda ^\pm (e_i)=\delta _{i0}+\delta _{i,\pm 1}\lambda ^{\pm 1}`$.

###### Proof.

Consider the Hopf subalgebra $`𝒪_{q^2}(\mathrm{SO}(3))𝒪_q(\mathrm{SL}(2))`$ generated by the matrix coefficients $`\{\pi _j^i|i,j=1,0,1\}`$ and let $`J`$ denote the intersection of the two-sided ideal $`(u_2^1)𝒪_q(\mathrm{SL}(2))`$ with $`𝒪_{q^2}(\mathrm{SO}(3))`$. There is an isomorphism of Hopf algebras $`𝒪_{q^2}(\mathrm{SO}(3))/JU_q(𝔟_{})^{\mathrm{op}}`$

$`u_2^2u_2^2K^1,u_1^2u_2^2(1q^2)F,u_1^1u_1^1K`$
such that the functionals $`E,f_\lambda ,g𝒪_{q^2}(\mathrm{SO}(3))^{}`$ given by (2.9) and (2.11) correspond to $`E,\chi _{\lambda ^2},2\gamma U_q(𝔫_+)(U_0)^{}=(U_q(𝔟_{})^{\mathrm{op}})^{}`$.

For $`c0`$ the sequence

$`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)𝒪_{q^2}(\mathrm{SO}(3))𝒪_{q^2}(\mathrm{SO}(3))/JU_q(𝔟_{})^{\mathrm{op}}`$
induces an isomorphism $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)(e_1)U_q(𝔟_{})^{\mathrm{op}}`$

(3.9) $`\begin{array}{c}e_1\epsilon (e_1)K^1,e_0\epsilon (e_1)(q^3q^1)F+\epsilon (e_0),\\ e_1\epsilon (e_1)(qq^1)^2KF^2\epsilon (e_0)(qq^1)KF+\epsilon (e_1)K\end{array}`$
where $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)(e_1)`$ denotes the localization of $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$ with respect to the left and right Ore set $`\{e_1^n|n_0\}`$. Thus by Lemma 3.2(2) and Proposition 3.1 one obtains

$`C_0𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)(e_1)^{}(U_q(𝔟_{})^{\mathrm{op}})^{}U_q(𝔫_+)(U_0)^{}`$
and the basis element $`\chi _\lambda \gamma ^mE^lU_q(𝔫_+)(U_0)^{}`$ corresponds to $`(1/2)^m\psi _\lambda ^{ml}`$. This proves (1) and one obtains (2) taking into account that for $`c=c(n)`$ the representation $`\mu _0`$ is irreducible.

In the case $`c=0`$ consider the embedding

$`𝒪_q(𝕊_0^2)𝒪_{q^2}(\mathrm{SO}(3)),e_i\pi _i^1+\pi _i^0.`$
Similarly to the case $`c0`$ this induces an isomorphism $`𝒪_q(𝕊_0^2)(e_1)U_q(𝔟_{})^{\mathrm{op}}`$ given by (3.9) with $`\epsilon (e_i)=\delta _{i0}+\delta _{i,1}`$. Thus by Lemma 3.2

$`C_0(U_q(𝔟_{})^{\mathrm{op}})^{}U_q(𝔫_+)(U_0)^{}`$
and the basis element $`\chi _\lambda \gamma ^mE^lU_q(𝔫_+)(U_0)^{}`$ corresponds to $`(1/2)^m\chi _\lambda ^{}g^mE^l`$. The subcoalgebra $`C_{0+}`$ is dealt with analogously replacing the two-sided ideal $`(u_2^1)`$ by $`(u_1^2)`$ and $`U_q(𝔟_{})^{\mathrm{op}}`$ by $`U_q(𝔟_+)^{\mathrm{cop}}`$. The component $`C_{00}`$ has been shown to coincide with $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)/(K1)U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$ in \[HK01, Lem. 5.2, Cor. 3.8\]. The elements $`\{E^kF^l|k,l_0\}`$ form a basis of the coalgebra $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)/(K1)U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$. ∎

## 4. Local Finiteness for the $`K_c`$-Action on $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)^{}`$

From now on and for the rest of this paper assume that $`0cJ_2`$. For $`=𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$ recall that $`^{}`$ is a right $`𝒰`$-module. Define

$`F(^{},K_c)=\{f^{}|dim(fK_c)<\mathrm{}\}.`$
If $`f^{}`$ is the restriction of an element $`f^{}𝒰`$ to $``$ and $`kK_c`$ then

$`fk=k_{(0)}S^1(k_{(1)})f^{}k_{(2)}|_{}=S^1(k_{(0)})f^{}k_{(1)}|_{}`$
as $`K_c`$ is a left $`𝒰`$-comodule and $`k|_{}=k(1)\epsilon `$. Thus $`F(𝒰)|_{}F(^{},K_c)`$ where for any Hopf algebra $`A`$

$`F(A)=\{aA|dim(\text{ad}A)a<\mathrm{}\},(\text{ad}b)a=b_{(1)}aS(b_{(2)}).`$
###### Lemma 4.1.

The vector space $`F(B^{},K_c)`$ is a right $`F(𝒰)`$-module left $`B^{}`$-comodule. Any element of $`F(B^{},K_c)`$ is contained in a finite dimensional right $`K_c`$-submodule left $`B^{}`$-subcomodule.

###### Proof.

For $`fF(𝒰)`$, $`uF(B^{},K_c)`$ consider $`V=uK_c`$ and $`W=(\text{ad}𝒰)f`$. Then for any $`kK_c`$

$`(uf)k=uk_{(0)}S^1(k_{(1)})fk_{(2)}VW.`$
Therefore $`F(B^{},K_c)`$ is a right $`F(𝒰)`$-module.

Let $`\overline{V}`$ denote the left $`^{}`$-comodule generated by $`V`$. The vector space $`\overline{V}`$ is finite dimensional. Applying the coaction to the second factor of $`k_{(1)}uk_{(0)}𝒰V`$ one obtains

$`k_2u_{(1)}k_{(1)}u_{(2)}k_{(0)}𝒰^{}\overline{V}`$
and therefore

$`u_{(1)}u_{(2)}k=u_{(1)}k_{(1)}S^1(k_{(2)})u_{(2)}k_{(0)}^{}\overline{V}.`$
Thus $`F(^{},K_c)`$ is a left $`^{}`$-comodule and $`u\overline{V}\overline{V}K_c`$. ∎

###### Lemma 4.2.

Any left $`^{}`$ subcomodule $`WF(^{},K_c)`$ is a $`(\{0\})`$-graded vector space where

$`\mathrm{deg}(g^mf_\mu E^l)=\mu .`$
###### Proof.

Consider an arbitrary element $`uWF(^{},K_c)`$. By Theorem 3.1.1 one can assume that $`u=_\mu f_\mu a^\mu `$ for some $`a^\mu `$ which are linear combinations of basis vectors $`g^mE^l`$, $`m,l_0`$. By the explicit form (2.10), (2.12) of the coproduct of $`g`$ and $`E`$ and by Theorem 3.1.1 one can write

$`\mathrm{\Delta }u={\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}f_\mu f_\mu a^\mu +{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}u_i^1u_i^2`$
where $`\{u_i^1,f_\mu \}`$ is a set of linear independent elements in $`^{}`$. As $`W`$ is a left $`^{}`$-comodule $`f_\mu a^\mu W`$ for all $`\mu `$. ∎

Let $`F_\mu (^{},K_c)`$ denote the subspace of elements of degree $`\mu `$ in $`F(^{},K_c)`$.

###### Lemma 4.3.

$`F(^{},K_c)\stackrel{~}{F}:=\mathrm{Lin}_{}\{\psi _\lambda ^{0l}|l_0,\lambda \{0\}\}.`$

###### Proof.

Consider an arbitrary element $`uF_\mu (^{},K_c)`$. By Theorem 3.1.1 one can assume that $`u=_{i=0}^mg^ia_i`$ for some $`a_i\stackrel{~}{F}`$ such that $`\mathrm{deg}(a_i)=\mu `$ and $`a_m0`$. Suppose that $`m1`$. Applying the coaction to $`u`$ one obtains

$`\mathrm{\Delta }u=f_\mu g^{m1}(ma_mg+a_{m1})+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}u_i^1u_i^2`$
where $`\{f_\mu g^{m1},u_i^1\}`$ is a linearly independent set of elements of $`^{}`$. Thus, as $`F(^{},K_c)`$ is a left $`^{}`$-comodule, we can assume $`m=1`$. By similar arguments one can assume that $`u=gf_\mu +a_0`$ and also $`f_\mu F(^{},K_c)`$.

One checks by direct computation that $`(\text{ad}𝒰)E`$ is a three dimensional vector space and therefore $`EF(𝒰)`$. By Lemma 4.1 this implies $`f_\mu E^mF(^{},K_c)`$ for all $`m_0`$. Thus $`gf_\mu F(^{},K_c)`$.

Direct calculation using (2.13) and (2.19) leads to

(4.1) $`gf_\mu E^lX_c`$ $`=q(q^{2l}\mu ^4)gf_{q\mu }E^{l+1}4q\mu ^4f_{q\mu }E^{l+1}+{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{l}{}}}a_iE^i`$
where $`a_i\mathrm{Lin}_{}\{gf_\nu ,f_\nu |\nu \{0\}\}`$. Further

(4.2) $`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill f_\mu E^lX_c=& q(q^{2l}\mu ^4)f_{q\mu }E^{l+1}+\alpha (q^{2l}\mu ^2)f_{q\mu }E^l+\alpha (\mu ^21)f_\mu E^l\hfill \\ & +[l]{\displaystyle \frac{q^{l+1}Kq^{l1}K^1}{qq^1}}f_\mu E^{l1}\hfill \end{array}`$
where as in (2.19) $`\alpha =0`$ if $`c=\mathrm{}`$ and $`\alpha =(c^{1/2}(qq^1))^1`$ else. By (4.1)

$`gf_\mu (X_c)^k=`$ $`q^k\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{k1}{}}}(q^{2i}(q^i\mu )^4)\right)gf_{q^k\mu }E^k`$
$`4{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{k1}{}}}(q^j\mu )^4q^k\left({\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i=0}{ij}}{\overset{k1}{}}}(q^{2i}(q^i\mu )^4)\right)f_{q^k\mu }E^k+\mathrm{}`$
where $`\mathrm{}`$ denotes terms containing only smaller powers of $`E`$. Therefore $`gf_\mu F(^{})`$ implies $`\mu ^4=q^{2(k1)}`$ for some $`k`$. Then for $`l0`$

$`gf_\mu (X_c)^{k+l}=`$ $`4(q^{k1}\mu )^4q^{k+l}\left({\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i=0}{ik1}}{\overset{k+l1}{}}}(q^{2i}(q^i\mu )^4)\right)f_{q^k\mu }E^{k+l}+\mathrm{}`$
again up to expressions containing only smaller powers of $`E`$. As

$`q^{2(k+l)}(q^{k+l}\mu )^4=q^{2(k+l)}(1q^{2(l+1)})0\text{for all }l0`$
the coefficient of $`f_{q^k\mu }E^{k+l}`$ does not vanish. This is a contradiction to the assumption $`gf_\mu F(^{},K_c)`$. ∎

To shorten notation let $`\psi _\lambda ^l`$ denote the basis element $`\psi _\lambda ^{0l}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$. Define three maps $`\varphi ,\phi ,\kappa :\stackrel{~}{F}\stackrel{~}{F}`$ by

$`\varphi (\psi _\lambda ^l)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{q^l[l]}{qq^1}}\psi _{q^2\lambda }^{l1}+\alpha q(q^{2l}\lambda )\psi _{q^2\lambda }^l+q^2(q^{2l}\lambda ^2)\psi _{q^2\lambda }^{l+1}`$
(4.3) $`\phi (\psi _\lambda ^l)`$ $`=\lambda ^1{\displaystyle \frac{q^{1l}[l]}{qq^1}}\psi _{q^2\lambda }^{l1}`$
$`\kappa (\psi _\lambda ^l)`$ $`=\lambda \psi _\lambda ^l.`$
In view of (4.2) this means

(4.4) $`\psi _\lambda ^lX_c=q^1\varphi (\psi _\lambda ^l)+\lambda \phi (\psi _\lambda ^l)+\alpha (1\lambda ^1)\kappa (\psi _\lambda ^l).`$
Note that

$`\varphi \phi \phi \varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \kappa ^1}{qq^1}},\kappa \varphi =q^2\varphi \kappa ,\kappa \phi =q^2\phi \kappa ,`$
i.e. the operators $`\varphi `$, $`\phi `$ and $`\kappa `$ yield a representation $`\rho :U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)\mathrm{End}(\stackrel{~}{F})`$, $`\rho (E)=\varphi `$, $`\rho (F)=\phi `$, $`\rho (K)=\kappa `$.

###### Lemma 4.4.

For any finite dimensional subspace $`V\stackrel{~}{F}`$ the following statements are equivalent.

1. $`\mathrm{\Delta }V^{}V`$ and $`VK_cV`$
2. $`V`$ is a left $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$-module via $`\rho `$.

###### Proof.

(1)$``$(2) As in Lemma 4.2 one obtains that $`V`$ is $`(\{0\})`$-graded. Then the assertion follows from (4.4). To verify (2)$``$(1) note that

$`\mathrm{\Delta }\psi _\lambda ^l={\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{l}{}}}\left[\begin{array}{c}l\\ r\end{array}\right]q^{r(lr)}\psi _\lambda ^r\psi _{q^{2r}\lambda }^{lr}={\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{l}{}}}b_r\psi _\lambda ^r\phi ^r(\psi _\lambda ^l)`$
where $`b_r`$ depend on $`r`$ and $`\lambda `$ but not on $`l`$. ∎

Lemma 4.1 implies that $`F(^{},K_c)`$ is a $`\rho `$-invariant subspace of $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$. Recall that an element $`\psi V\{0\}`$ is called a highest weight vector of a $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$-module $`V`$ with highest weight $`\lambda `$ if $`K^1\psi =\lambda \psi `$ and $`F\psi =0`$.

###### Proposition 4.1.

There exists a decomposition of $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$-modules

$`F(^{},K_c)={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda J^c}{}}V_\lambda `$
such that

$`J^c`$ $`=\{q^l|l2_0\}\text{ for }c\left\{\mathrm{},(q^rq^r)^2\right|r/2\}`$
$`J^{\mathrm{}}`$ $`=\{\pm q^l|l2_0\}`$
$`J^{(q^rq^r)^2}`$ $`=\left\{q^l,q^k\right|l2_0,k2r+2_0\},r/2`$
where the components $`V_{\pm q^l}`$ are $`(l+1)`$-dimensional irreducible $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$-modules of highest weight $`\pm q^l`$.

###### Proof.

Lemma 4.1 and Lemma 4.4, 1.$``$2., imply that the $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$-module $`F(^{},K_c)`$ can be written as a direct sum

$`F(^{},K_c)={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda J^c}{}}V_\lambda `$
of finite dimensional irreducible $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$-modules. Here $`J^c\{0\}`$ denotes the subset of nonzero complex numbers $`\lambda `$ such that $`\varphi `$ operates nilpotently on $`\psi _\lambda ^0=f_\sqrt{\lambda }`$. Indeed, by (4.3) the set $`\{\psi _\lambda ^0|\lambda J^c\}`$ is a basis of all highest weight vectors of $`F(^{},K_c)`$ with respect to the $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$-module structure. It remains to show that $`J^c`$ is of the form given in the proposition.

Note that $`\varphi ^{l+1}(\psi _\lambda ^0)=0`$ and $`\varphi ^l(\psi _\lambda ^0)0`$ imply $`\lambda =\pm q^l`$. In this case the mapping

$`\varphi :\mathrm{Lin}_{}\{\psi _{q^{2l}\lambda }^k|k=0,\mathrm{},l\}\mathrm{Lin}_{}\{\psi _{q^{2l+2}\lambda }^k|k=0,\mathrm{},l\}`$
is given by the matrix

$`q\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}(\pm q^l1)\alpha & \widehat{q}^1q^0[1]& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ q(1q^{2l})& (\pm q^lq^2)\alpha & \widehat{q}^1q^1[2]& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& q(q^2q^{2l})& (\pm q^lq^4)\alpha & \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \widehat{q}^1q^{l1}[l]\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& q(q^{2(l1)}q^{2l})& (\pm q^lq^{2l})\alpha \end{array}\right)`$
with respect to the bases $`\psi _\mu ^k`$ ($`\mu =q^{2l}\lambda `$ and $`\mu =q^{2l+2}\lambda `$, respectively), $`\widehat{q}=qq^1`$. Recall that $`\beta =q`$ and $`\gamma =1`$. Using $`q(1q^{2k})=\widehat{q}q^{k+1}[k]`$ the map $`\varphi `$ can be written with respect to the bases $`\overline{\psi }_\mu ^k:=(\widehat{q})^kq^{(lk)(lk+1)/2}\psi _\mu ^k`$ as

(4.5) $`q^{l+1}\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}(q^l1)\alpha & [1]\gamma & 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ q^l[l]\beta & (q^{2l}1)\alpha & [2]\gamma & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& q^{2l}[l1]\beta & (q^{4l}1)\alpha & \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& [l]\gamma \\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& q^{l2}[1]\beta & (q^l1)\alpha \end{array}\right).`$
In the case of minus signs in the diagonals this matrix is up to the overall factor precisely the matrix $`M_l`$ describing the transpose of the left action of $`X_c`$ on the $`(l+1)`$-dimensional irreducible $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$-module $`V_l`$ \[MS99, Sect. 4\]. By \[MS99, Prop. 4.2\] the matrix $`M_l`$ is known to have $`l+1`$ not necessarily distinct eigenvalues

$`\rho _r={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}(q^rq^r)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(q^{2r}q^{2r})R,rI_l=\{l/2,1l/2,\mathrm{},l/2\}`$
where $`R^2=\alpha ^2+\frac{4\beta \gamma q^1}{(qq^1)^2}`$. In particular $`M_l`$ has eigenvalue $`0`$ if and only if $`l`$ is even or

$`0=\rho _r\rho _r=(q^rq^r)^2\left(\alpha ^2+\beta \gamma q^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^r+q^r}{qq^1}}\right)^2\right).`$
The second case is equivalent to $`c=c(n)`$ for some $`nI_l`$. As this case is excluded by assumption $`q^lJ^c`$ if and only if $`l`$ is even.

Let $`w`$ denote the one-dimensional representation of $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$ uniquely determined by $`Ew=0`$, $`Fw=0`$, $`Kw=w`$. By means of a base change the matrix (4.5) corresponding to $`q^l`$ can be transformed into the matrix of the transpose of the left $`X_c`$-action on the finite dimensional $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$-module $`wV_l`$. The eigenvalues of this action can be computed by means of \[MS99, Prop. 4.6\]. In particular the $`X_c`$-action has a nontrivial kernel if and only if

$`0=(\rho _r+2\alpha )(\rho _r+2\alpha )=(q^r+q^r)^2\left(\alpha ^2\beta \gamma q^1\left({\displaystyle \frac{q^rq^r}{qq^1}}\right)^2\right)`$
for some $`rI_l`$. This equation is equivalent to $`c=\frac{1}{(q^rq^r)^2}`$, $`r0`$ or $`c=\mathrm{}`$, $`r=0`$. Notice that $`(q^rq^r)^2c(n)^1=(q^{r+n}+q^{(r+n)})(q^{rn}+q^{(rn)})0`$ for all $`r,n_0/2`$ and therefore these cases are not excluded. ∎

## 5. Differential Calculus over $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$

For the convenience of the reader the notion of differential calculus from \[Wor89\] is recalled. A first order differential calculus (FODC) over an algebra $``$ is a $``$-bimodule $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ together with a $``$-linear map

$$\mathrm{d}:\mathrm{\Gamma }$$

such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{Lin}_{}\{a\mathrm{d}bc|a,b,c\}`$ and $`\mathrm{d}`$ satisfies the Leibniz rule

$`\mathrm{d}(ab)`$ $`=a\mathrm{d}b+\mathrm{d}ab.`$
Let in addition $`𝒜`$ denote a Hopf algebra and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}:𝒜`$ a right $`𝒜`$-comodule algebra structure on $``$. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ possesses the structure of a right $`𝒜`$-comodule

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }:\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒜$$

such that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\mathrm{\Gamma }(a\mathrm{d}bc)=(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}a)((\mathrm{d}\text{id})\mathrm{\Delta }_{}b)(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}c)$$

then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is called right covariant. A FODC $`\mathrm{d}:\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ over $``$ is called inner if there exists an element $`\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that $`\mathrm{d}x=\omega xx\omega `$ for all $`x`$. For further details on first order differential calculi consult \[KS97\].

Let $`U`$ denote a Hopf algebra with bijective antipode and $`LU`$ a left coideal subalgebra, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_L:LUL`$. Consider a tensor category $`𝒞`$ of finite dimensional left $`U`$-modules. Let $`𝒜:=U_𝒞^0`$ denote the dual Hopf algebra generated by the matrix coefficients of all $`U`$-modules in $`𝒞`$. Assume that $`𝒜`$ separates the elements of $`U`$. Define a right coideal subalgebra $`𝒜`$ by

(5.1) $`:=\{b𝒜|u,b_{(1)}b_{(2)}=0\text{for all }uL^+\},`$
where $`L^+=\{u\epsilon (u)|uL\}`$. Assume $`L`$ to be $`𝒞`$-semisimple, i.e. the restriction of any $`U`$-module in $`𝒞`$ to the subalgebra $`LU`$ is isomorphic to the direct sum of irreducible $`L`$-modules. By \[MS99\] Theorem 2.2 (2) this implies that $`𝒜`$ is a faithfully flat $``$ module.

In this situation right covariant first order differential calculi over $``$ can be classified via certain left ideals of $`^+`$ \[Her02\]. More explicitly the subspace

(5.2) $`=\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}a_i^+\epsilon (b_i)\right|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{d}a_ib_i=0\}^+`$
is a left ideal which determines the differential calculus uniquely. To this left ideal one associates the vector space

$`T^\epsilon =\{f^{}|f(x)=0\text{ for all }x\}`$
and the so called quantum tangent space

$`T=(T^\epsilon )^+=\{fT^\epsilon |f(1)=0\}.`$
The dimension of a first order differential calculus is defined by

$`dim\mathrm{\Gamma }=dim_{}\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Gamma }^+=dim_{}^+/.`$
###### Proposition 5.1.

\[HK01, Cor. 1.2\] There is a one to one correspondence between $`n`$-dimensional covariant FODC over $``$ and $`(n+1)`$-dimensional subspaces $`T^\epsilon ^{}`$ such that

(5.3) $`\epsilon T^\epsilon ,\mathrm{\Delta }T^\epsilon ^{}T^\epsilon ,T^\epsilon LT^\epsilon .`$
A covariant FODC $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ over $``$ is called irreducible if it does not possess any nontrivial quotient (by a right covariant $``$-bimodule). Note that this property is equivalent to the property that $`T_\mathrm{\Gamma }^\epsilon `$ does not possess any right $`L`$-invariant left $`^{}`$-subcomodule $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ such that $`\epsilon \stackrel{~}{T}T_\mathrm{\Gamma }^\epsilon `$.

For a family of right covariant FODC $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_i,\mathrm{d}_i)_{i=1,\mathrm{},k}`$ define $`\mathrm{d}=_i\mathrm{d}_i:_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{d}_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ is a covariant FODC with differential $`\mathrm{d}`$ which is called the sum of the calculi $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Gamma }_k`$ \[HS98\]. The left ideal corresponding to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is given by $`_\mathrm{\Gamma }=_i_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i}`$ and therefore the relation $`T_\mathrm{\Gamma }=T_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_1}+\mathrm{}+T_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_k}`$ of quantum tangent spaces holds. A sum of covariant differential calculi is called a direct sum if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ is a direct sum of bimodules. This condition is equivalent to $`T_\mathrm{\Gamma }=_iT_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_i}`$.

As an immediate consequence of Corollary 5.1, Lemma 4.4 and Proposition 4.1 one obtains the following classification result for differential calculi over $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$.

###### Theorem 5.1.

Assume $`0cJ_2`$. For $`\lambda J^c`$ let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda `$ denote the uniquely determined covariant FODC over $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$ such that $`T_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda }^\epsilon =V_\lambda +\epsilon `$. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda `$ is irreducible and any finite dimensional covariant FODC $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ over $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$ is isomorphic to a direct sum

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda J}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\lambda `$
for some finite subset $`JJ^c`$.

For any covariant FODC $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with corresponding left ideal $``$ and quantum tangent space $`T`$ consider the projection

$`P_r:\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}𝒜\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}𝒜,\gamma a\gamma _{(1)}S(\gamma _{(2)})\epsilon (a)`$
onto the subspace $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}𝒜)_{inv}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}𝒜`$ of right coinvariant elements. The relation $`\mathrm{d}ba=\mathrm{d}(b_{(1)})S(b_{(2)})b_{(3)}a`$ implies that the right $`𝒜`$ module $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}𝒜`$ is generated by the elements $`P_r(\mathrm{d}b1)`$, $`b`$. For any $`a=_ia_i^+\epsilon (b_i)`$ where $`_i\mathrm{d}a_ib_i=0`$ one obtains

$`P_r(\mathrm{d}a1)=P_r\left({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\mathrm{d}a_ib_i\right)=0.`$
Therefore $`P_r`$ induces a well defined surjection

(5.4) $`^+/(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}𝒜)_{inv},bP_r(\mathrm{d}b1).`$
###### Lemma 5.1.

The pairing

$`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}𝒜)_{inv}\times T,(\mathrm{d}ab,X)X(a)\epsilon (b)`$
is non-degenerate. Further $`b`$ if and only if $`b^+`$ and $`P_r(\mathrm{d}b1)=0`$.

###### Proof.

To verify the first statement note that by construction the elements $`P_r(\mathrm{d}b1)`$, $`b`$ separate $`T`$. On the other hand (5.4) implies $`dim_{}((\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}𝒜)_{inv})dim_{}^+/=dim_{}T`$ and therefore $`T`$ separates $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}𝒜)_{inv}`$ and (5.4) is an isomorphism. ∎

###### Lemma 5.2.

Let $`W`$ be a right $`𝒜`$-subcomodule then $`\mathrm{d}W`$ generates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as a right $``$-module if and only if the elements of $`W`$ separate the quantum tangent space $`T_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. If $`dimW=dim\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and the elements of $`W`$ separate $`T_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a free right $``$-module generated by the differentials of an arbitrary basis of $`W`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ denote the right $``$-module generated by $`\mathrm{d}W`$. Then as $`𝒜`$ is a faithfully flat left $``$-module

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}_{}𝒜=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}𝒜(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}_{}𝒜)_{inv}=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}𝒜)_{inv}.`$
Now, if $`W`$ separates $`T_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ then $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}_{}𝒜)_{inv}`$ separates $`T_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and therefore by Lemma 5.1 coincides with $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}𝒜)_{inv}`$. Conversely, if $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ then $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}_{}𝒜)_{inv}`$ separates $`T_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and therefore the elements of $`W`$ separate $`T_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. This proves the first statement.

To prove the second statement let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ denote the free right $``$-module generated by the differentials of an arbitrary basis $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_k`$ of $`W`$. Then, as above,

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{^{\prime \prime }}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{^{\prime \prime }}_{}𝒜\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}𝒜`$
$`P_r(\mathrm{d}e_i1),i=1,\mathrm{},k\text{ form a basis of }(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}𝒜)_{inv}.`$
In view of Lemma 5.1 this poperty is equivalent to the nondegeneracy of the pairing between $`W`$ and $`T_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. ∎

Combining the above Lemma with Theorem 5.1 one can now classify all covariant FODC over $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$ generated as right $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$-modules by the differentials $`\mathrm{d}e_i`$, $`i=1,0,1`$. The straightforward calculations of the pairing of the tangent spaces with the generators $`e_i`$, $`i=1,0,1`$, are omitted.

###### Corollary 5.1.

For $`cJ_2\{0,\mathrm{},(q^{1/2}q^{1/2})^2\}`$ there exists exactly one covariant FODC $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q^2}`$ over $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$ which is generated by $`\{\mathrm{d}e_i|i=1,0,1\}`$ as a right $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$-module. The elements $`\{\mathrm{d}e_i|i=1,0,1\}`$ form a right $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$-module basis of this calculus.

For $`c=\mathrm{}`$ there exist exactly three covariant FODC over $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$ which are generated by $`\{\mathrm{d}e_i|i=1,0,1\}`$ as a right $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$-module. One of them, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$, is one-dimensional, the elements $`\{\mathrm{d}e_i|i=1,0,1\}`$ form a right $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$-module basis of each of the other two calculi $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pm q^2}`$.

For $`c=(q^{1/2}q^{1/2})^2`$ there exist exactly two covariant FODC over $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$ which are generated by $`\{\mathrm{d}e_i|i=1,0,1\}`$ as a right $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$-module. One of them, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q^1}`$, is two-dimensional, the elements $`\{\mathrm{d}e_i|i=1,0,1\}`$ form a right $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$-module basis of the other calculus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q^2}`$.

For generic value of $`c`$ the above corollary reproduces the results obtained in \[AS94\] by means of computer calculations.

The odd dimensional covariant FODC $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q^l}`$, $`l2`$, for arbitrary $`c`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q^l}`$, $`l2`$, for $`c=\mathrm{}`$ can be explicitly constructed by a method by U. Hermisson. To match the above conventions the relevant lemma from \[Her98\], \[Her02\] is cited in terms of right comodule algebras.

Let $`𝒜`$ denote a coquasitriangular Hopf algebra with universal $`r`$-form $`𝐫`$ and $``$ a right $`𝒜`$-comodule algebra. Let $`\nu `$ be a comodule algebra endomorphism of $``$. Let further $`W`$ denote a finite dimensional right $`𝒜`$ subcomodule and $`W^{}=\mathrm{Hom}(W,)`$ the dual comodule defined by $`(\mathrm{\Delta }f)(w)=(fS^1)\mathrm{\Delta }w`$ for $`wW`$, $`fW^{}`$. More explicitly, if $`\{b_1,\mathrm{},b_N\}`$ is a basis of $`W`$ and $`\{\gamma ^1,\mathrm{},\gamma ^N\}W^{}`$ the dual basis then $`\mathrm{\Delta }b_i=b_j\psi _i^j`$ implies $`\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma ^i=\gamma ^jS^1(\psi _j^i)`$.

###### Lemma 5.3.

The free right $``$-module $`W^{}`$ can be endowed with a right $`𝒜`$-covariant $``$-bimodule structure by

$`afb:=f_{(0)}\nu (a_{(0)})b𝐫(a_{(1)},f_{(1)}),a,b,fW^{}`$
and will be denoted by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝐫,\nu ,W}`$. Moreover, if $`\omega =_{i=1}^N\gamma ^ib_i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝐫,\nu ,W}`$ denotes the canonical invariant element then $`\mathrm{d}:\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝐫,\nu ,W}`$, $`\mathrm{d}b:=\omega bb\omega `$, defines a covariant FODC $`(\mathrm{d},\mathrm{d})`$ over $``$.

###### Lemma 5.4.

The quantum tangent space of the differential calculus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ described in Lemma 5.3 is the linear span of the functionals $`\chi _i^{}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$, defined by

$`\chi _i(a)=𝐫(\nu (a),S^1(b_i))\epsilon (b_i)\epsilon (a).`$
###### Proof.

For $`a`$ one obtains

$`P_r(\mathrm{d}a1)`$ $`=P_r\left({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(a\gamma ^ib_i\gamma ^ib_ia)1\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\gamma ^jS^1(\psi _j^i)\left[𝐫(\nu (a),S^1(b_i))\epsilon (b_i)\epsilon (a)\right].`$
Therefore by Lemma 5.1

$`a`$ $`a^+\text{ and }P_r(\mathrm{d}a1)=0`$
$`a^+\text{ and }\chi _i(a)=0i=1,\mathrm{},N.`$
Let $`V(n)`$, $`n1`$, denote the $`(2n+1)`$-dimensional $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$-submodule of $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$ with highest weight vector $`b_1=e_1^n`$. For $`\nu =\text{id}`$ the quantum tangent space $`T`$ of the differential calculus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ from Lemma 5.3 satisfies

$`𝐫(\nu (),S^1(e_1^n))=\chi _1()+\epsilon (e_1^n)\epsilon ()T^\epsilon =T\epsilon .`$
The standard universal $`r`$-form of $`𝒪_q(\mathrm{SL}(2))`$ is defined by

$`𝐫(u_j^iu_l^k)=q^{1/2}\{\begin{array}{cc}q\hfill & \text{ if }i=j=k=l\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{ if }i=jk=l\hfill \\ qq^1\hfill & \text{ if }j=k<i=l\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{else.}\hfill \end{array}`$
In particular $`𝐫(au_1^2)=0`$ for all $`a𝒪_q(\mathrm{SL}(2))`$ and therefore $`\overline{\chi }:`$,

$`\overline{\chi }(a):=\epsilon (e_1)^n𝐫(a,S^1(e_1^n))=\epsilon (e_1)^n𝐫(S(a),e_1^n)=𝐫(S(a),(u_1^1)^{2n})=𝐫(a,(u_2^2)^{2n})`$
is a character which satisfies

$`\overline{\chi }(e_i)=q^{2ni}\epsilon (e_i).`$
Since $`\overline{\chi }=\psi _{q^{2n}}^0V_{q^{2n}}`$ and $`dimV_{q^{2n}}\epsilon =2n+2dimT^\epsilon `$ one obtains $`T^\epsilon =V_{q^{2n}}\epsilon `$. Hence the differential calculus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ coincides with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q^{2n}}`$. Similarly the differential calculus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q^l}`$, $`l2`$, over $`𝒪_q(𝕊_{\mathrm{}}^2)`$ can be realized using the comodule algebra endomorphism $`\nu :e_ie_i`$.

Note that

(5.5) $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q^{2n}}_{}𝒜)_{inv}=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝐫,\text{Id},V(n)}_{}𝒜)_{inv}`$
where as above $`V(n)`$ denotes the $`(2n+1)`$-dimensional representation of $`U_q(𝔰𝔩_2)`$. Indeed, by the above remarks $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q^{2n}}`$ can be considered as a right $``$-submodule of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝐫,\text{Id},V(n)}`$ and as $`𝒜`$ is a flat $``$-module this implies $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q^{2n}}_{}𝒜\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝐫,\text{Id},V(n)}_{}𝒜`$. As $`dim(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝐫,\text{Id},V(n)}_{}𝒜)_{inv}=2n+1`$ by construction and $`dim(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q^{2n}}_{}𝒜)_{inv}=2n+1`$ by Lemma 5.1 the identification (5.5) follows. Now (5.5) implies $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q^{2n}}_{}𝒜=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝐫,\text{Id},V(n)}_{}𝒜`$ and by faithful flatness of $`𝒜`$ this in turn gives $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q^{2n}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝐫,\text{Id},V(n)}`$. Thus one has the following proposition.

###### Proposition 5.2.

For any $`0cJ_2`$ the FODC $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q^{2n}}`$, $`n`$, is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝐫,\text{Id},V(n)}`$. For $`c=\mathrm{}`$ the FODC $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{q^{2n}}`$ is isomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{𝐫,\nu ,V(n)}`$ where $`\nu (e_i)=e_i`$. In particular $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\pm q^{2n}}`$ are free left and right $``$ modules and inner first order differential calculi.

###### Remark.

Covariant FODC over $`𝒪_q(𝕊_0^2)`$ are qualitatively different from those over $`𝒪_q(𝕊_c^2)`$, $`0cJ_2`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{kl}`$ denote the $`kl+k+l`$-dimensional FODC over $`𝒪_q(𝕊_0^2)`$ with quantum tangent space $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{kl}=\mathrm{Lin}_{}\{E^iF^j|\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}ik,0jl,(i,j)(0,0)\}`$. By Proposition 5.1 and \[HK01, Lemma 5.3\] any covariant FODC over $`𝒪_q(𝕊_0^2)`$ can be written as a (not necessarily direct) sum of calculi $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{kl}`$ for certain $`k,l`$. In particular the only irreducible calculi are $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{10}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{01}`$ constructed in \[Kol01\].


format: text

text:
# High-resolution X-ray spectroscopy of Procyon by Chandra and XMM-Newton

## 1 Introduction

Magnetized hot outer atmospheres (coronae) are ubiquitous in cool stars (spectral classes F-M). The particular example of the solar corona has revealed rich details on coronal structures, thermal stratification, abundance patterns, and the physics of heating and mass motion. Nevertheless, in many other stars coronal phenomena not common to the Sun are regularly observed, such as persistent high-density ($`n_\mathrm{e}>10^{10}`$ cm-3) coronal plasmas, persistent very hot gas ($`T>10`$ MK), or abundances at variance with solar values (Bowyer et al. 2000). The Sun’s relatively modest magnetic activity is representative for a particular evolutionary state of a 1$`M_{}`$ star (Güdel et al. 1997), while most stellar objects regularly observed by X-ray satellites belong either to the more abundant low-mass classes with some exceptional magnetic activity (M dwarfs and young K dwarfs) or to tidally coupled binary systems with strongly enhanced magnetic dynamos (RS CVn or Algol-type binaries).

High-resolution X-ray spectroscopy of such stellar systems now available from Chandra and XMM-Newton (Brinkman et al. 2000, 2001) has revealed coronal features clearly at variance with solar phenomena. However, to translate solar knowledge to stellar environments, it is important to study stars that are relatively similar to the Sun. Given the low X-ray luminosity of such stars, there are only a few in the solar neighborhood accessible to high-resolution X-ray spectroscopy. We present here a detailed analysis of the X-ray spectrum of Procyon, a nearby bright X-ray source with a coronal plasma of about 1–3 MK, exhibiting a cooler X-ray spectrum than magnetically active stars that have predominantly been studied so far with XMM-Newton and Chandra (Audard et al. 2001ab; Güdel et al. 2001ab; Mewe et al. 2001). The late-type (F5 IV-V) optically bright (mv=0.34) star Procyon (with a faint white dwarf companion) at a distance of 3.5 pc has a line-rich coronal spectrum in the X-ray region. The mass of Procyon is 1.75$`M_{}`$ and its radius 2.1$`R_{}`$ (Irwin et al. 1992). The high-resolution spectrum of Procyon has been studied earlier using EUVE (Drake et al. 1995; Schrijver et al. 1995; Schmitt et al. 1996) and by means of the LETGS on board Chandra (Ness et al. 2001). Ness et al. focussed their efforts on the density-sensitive and temperature-sensitive lines of C V, N VI, and O VII only. Here we present an extended investigation of the LETGS spectrum covering the total spectral range from 5-175 Å together with the analysis of the RGS spectra from 5-37 Å. In Sect. 2 we describe the observations. Sect. 3 (Analysis) is divided into a part on global fitting (3.2) based on the total spectrum and a part that contains consistency checks based on individual line measurements (3.3).

## 2 Observations

The spectrum of Procyon was obtained during 70.4 ksec (on November 8, 1999) by the High Resolution Camera (HRC-S) and the LETGS on board Chandra. The HRC-S contains three flat detectors, each 10 cm long. LETGS consists of 180 grating modules. The LETGS spectrum covers the range from 5 to 175 Å. The LETGS spectra were summed over the +1 and -1 orders and contain also the higher orders. The higher orders are fitted in the model calculations, but can be neglected for Procyon. The curve of the effective area as a function of wavelength is complicated because of the presence of absorption edges (e.g., around 42 Å) and gaps between 62–65 Å and 52–56 Å (+1 & –1 order, respectively) due to the gaps between the detector plates. We use the SRON values (based on calibration by van der Meer et al. 2002), which agree within about 5–10% with the CXC values, as given in the Chandra LETGS Calibration Review of 31 Oct. 2001.111http://cxc.harvard.edu/cal/Links/Letg/User/Review-311001/
eff-area.html The wavelength resolution is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$0.06 Å (FWHM). The wavelength uncertainty in the calibration is a few mÅ below 30 Å and about 0.020 Å in the region above 30 Å. The spectra are background subtracted. The statistical errors in the line fluxes include errors from the background. For further instrumental details see also Brinkman et al. (2000).

Later (on October 22, 2000), the spectrum of Procyon was observed by XMM-Newton using the RGS and EPIC-MOS. The total observing time was $``$ 107 ksec; however, due to large solar flare activity at the end of the observation, we removed 16.7 ksec of data, leaving a total of 90.5 ksec of “good” data. In XMM-Newton three telescopes focus X-rays onto three EPIC cameras (two MOS and one pn). About half of the photons in the beams of two telescopes (Turner et al. 2001) are diffracted by sets of reflecting gratings and are then focussed onto the RGS detectors. The RGS spectral resolution is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$0.07 Å, with a maximum effective area of about 140 cm2 around 15 Å. The wavelength uncertainty is 7-8 mÅ. The first spectral order has been selected by means of the energy resolution of the individual CCDs. For further details see den Herder et al. (2001).

The data were processed by the XMM-Newton SAS using the calibration of February 2001. The RGS cover the range from 5 to 37 Å. The EPIC spectra, which have a lower resolution but higher sensitivity, are used to constrain the high-temperature part of Procyon’s EM distribution. Because of the high resolution of the grating spectrometers we will focus on the spectra from these instruments. In Fig. 1, we show the RGS spectra together with an extract of the LETGS spectrum covering the wavelength range from 10 to 37 Å. No notable features are observed below 10 Å in the LETGS and RGS spectra. However, the EPIC-MOS detects the H- and He-like lines of Mg. The remaining part of the LETGS spectrum is shown in Fig. 2. From Fig. 1 the gaps in the two RGS spectra due to CCD failure of CCD 7 (RGS1) and 4 (RGS2) are obvious.

## 3 Analysis

### 3.1 Detailed analysis of the spectra

The spectral lines from all three instruments have been measured individually. We folded monochromatic delta functions through the instrumental response matrices in order to derive the integrated line fluxes. No additional width was needed to fit the shape of the lines. A constant ”background” level was adjusted in order to account for the real continuum and for the pseudo-continuum created by the overlap of several weak, neglected lines. In Table 1, we have collected the measured wavelengths and fluxes of the emission lines in the RGS instruments together with those in the LETGS in the similar wavelength range. The fluxes among the three data sets, as collected in Table 1, are in good agreement in view of the systematic uncertainties in the calibration. However for some lines deviations appear, which are caused by gaps between the individual CCDs. In this wavelength range (below 40 Å) the identification is in general straightforward. The dominating lines are strong and belong to H- and He-like ions for which atomic parameters are well known. Although XMM-Newton and Chandra observed Procyon at different dates no strong differences in flux (Table 1) are noticed, resulting in the conclusion that the coronal emission of Procyon did not vary strongly from one observation to the other.

Table 2 contains the same information as Table 1 for LETGS lines which occur above 37 Å. The extracted fluxes are as measured at Earth. Therefore they are not corrected for interstellar absorption which is of the order of 4% at 100 Å, 6% at 125 Å, 10% at 150 Å, and 15% at 175 Å. We added one Fe line (Fe X at 174.69 Å) that was observed in an offset observation of Procyon (obsID = 1224; 14.8 ksec). For that line the effective area was obtained by extrapolation. The line flux ratio of that line compared to the line at 171.075 Å in the offset observation was used to establish the flux value.

In both tables, we have compared the measured wavelengths with the wavelengths in various atomic databases: the MEKAL (Mewe et al. 1985, 1995) code222http://saturn.sron.nl/$``$kaastra/spex/line.ps.gz, KELLY (Kelly 1987) and the database of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which is also available on the web.333http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/AtData/main-asd We have also compared with a list of lines observed in the solar corona (Doschek & Cowan 1984, hereafter D&C). Further we compare our measured iron lines with the results from laboratory experiments such as the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s Electron Beam Ion Trap (EBIT) (see Beiersdorfer et al. 1999 and Lepson et al. 2002 for Fe VIII–X and Lepson et al. 2000 for Fe XII–XIII). A number of lines in Table 2 (see note ”d”) are in close wavelength agreement to lines identified in EBIT. Finally in Table 1 the fluxes, from the multi-temperature global fitting of Sect. 3.2, have been added.

Some possible line identifications have been omitted from Table 2, due to the absence of comparable lines belonging to the same multiplet or ion (Table 3) or due to ambiguity of the identification of lines in atomic databases (Kelly 1987). The latter concerns lines at 60.989 Å (Si VII, VIII, & IX) and 61.852 Å (Si VIII & IX).

Earlier benchmarks with a solar flare spectrum (Phillips et al. 1999) and with RGS and LETGS spectra of Capella (Audard et al. 2001a; Mewe et al. 2001) have already shown that the current atomic databases are lacking quite a number of spectral lines for L-shell transitions of Ne, Mg, Si, and S, that appear in the long-wavelength region above about 40 Å. This is illustrated by the many identifications present in the third Col. (KELLY), which are absent in MEKAL. For the Fe L-shell Behar et al. (2001) have shown that the HULLAC atomic data are fairly accurate.

### 3.2 Global Fitting and emission measure modeling

#### 3.2.1 Multi-temperature fitting

We first characterize the thermal structure and the elemental composition of Procyon’s corona. To this end, we fitted multi-T models using SPEX (Kaastra et al. 1996a) of the spectra (RGS+MOS and LETGS). For both the observations the calculations require two dominant temperature components. A third (small and not very significant) temperature component is needed to account for the lines of low stages of ionization, present in the LETGS spectrum. The reduced $`\chi ^2`$ is relatively high (1.3–2) for the fits. This is due to a lack of lines in the MEKAL code and to the high resolution of the instrument. Small wavelength deviations (about 1-2 bins i.e. 0.02-0.04 Å) between lines in the spectrum and in the model are often present (see Table 2). This effect results in a sharp maximum and minimum in the value of the normalized difference between model and observation around the peak of the line (see also Fig. 4). The results of RGS and LETGS are very similar.
In Table 4 results for temperatures $`T`$ (in MK), emission measures $`EM`$, and abundances are given. Statistic 1$`\sigma `$ uncertainties are given in parentheses. The emission measure is defined as $`EM=n_\mathrm{e}n_\mathrm{H}V`$, where $`V`$ is the volume contributing to the emission and for solar abundances the hydrogen density $`n_\mathrm{H}0.85n_\mathrm{e}`$. The temperatures and emission measures of all spectra show a dominant region between 1 and 2.5 MK. The two dominant temperature components are about 1.2 and 2.3 MK. Using EUVE, Schmitt et al. (1996) derived a DEM with a peak temperature of 1.6 MK based on Fe-lines only. This is in satisfactory agreement with our results.

The total emission measures summed over all temperature components are about $`4.6(.4)\times 10^{50}`$ cm-3 for LETGS and $`3.9(.3)\times 10^{50}`$ cm-3 for RGS+MOS. These are similar to the total $`EM`$ of $`4.5\times 10^{50}`$ cm-3 found by Schmitt et al. (1996).

The determination of abundances is complicated by several factors. The many weak L-shell lines, which are absent in the atomic code (see difference between Col. ”MEKAL” and ”KELLY” of Table 2) can produce a ”pseudo-continuum” (see e.g. Fig. 2a between 42 and 58 Å), which bias the determination of the real but very weak continuum. Several fits to the LETGS spectrum were made: a) to the total spectrum, b) to the total spectrum with selected lines in the wavelength range from 40 to 100 Å, to limit the influence of the inaccuracy of atomic data of Ne-, Mg-, and Si- L-shell lines, and c) to a line spectrum with lines of Table 1 and lines with a statistical significance $`>`$ 4$`\sigma `$ in the wavelength range above 40 Å (see Table 5). During our investigations the absolute (relative to H) abundances turned out to be very sensitive to the selected group of elements introduced in the fit procedure. This is especially true for the elements Ar and Ca. For these reasons no consistent absolute values of the abundances could be obtained. However, abundance ratios turn out to be much more robust. Therefore the abundance values are normalized to oxygen, and are given relative to their solar photospheric values (Anders & Grevesse (1989)), except for iron. For Fe we use log AFe is 7.51 (see Drake et al. 1995) instead of 7.67 (Anders & Grevesse 1989). Here log AFe is the logarithmic of the Fe-abundance relative to log AH=12.0. The abundances presented in Table 4 are derived assuming the same abundances for the three temperature components. These are averaged over the different fits, together with their least-squares-fit standard deviations (within parentheses).

We obtain abundance values between 0.7 and 2.4 relative to Oxygen (e.g., some enhancement for Ne and Si). However, apart from statistical errors these values are also sensitive to systematic errors, due to changes in values of the solar photospheric abundances, where uncertainties of a factor of 2 cannot be excluded (e.g., Prieto et al. 2001; Grevesse & Sauval 1998). So we cannot obtain indications for a significant FIP effect (enhancement of elements with a low First Ionization Potential) as found for the solar corona (e.g., Feldman et al. 1992). This confirms the conclusions by Drake et al. (1995), based on relative abundances from EUVE observations. The abundances of C and N, relative to O are somewhat higher than the values obtained in the solar photosphere (Anders & Grevesse 1989). In the EUVE observations by Drake et al. (1995) no suitable C- and N-lines were present to constrain (relative) abundances.
Values for $`n_\mathrm{e}`$, given in Table 4, have been obtained by fitting to the O VII and N VI triplet lines. The C V lines have been omitted from this procedure because their intensities are sensitive for the stellar UV-radiative field, mimicing higher densities (Ness et al. 2001; Porquet et al. 2001).

#### 3.2.2 Temperature dependent emission measure modeling

To show the connectivity of the different temperature components we applied a differential emission measure (DEM) model of Procyon’s corona using the various inversion techniques offered by SPEX (see Kaastra et al. 1996b). We applied the abundances obtained in Sect. 3.2.1. In Fig. 3 we give the results based on the regularisation method. Other inversion methods (smoothed clean, or polynomial) give statistically comparable results. The DEM modeling has been applied separately to RGS+MOS and to LETGS.

As a result we find a dominant emission measure of the order of $`10^{50}`$ cm-3 between 1-3 MK. The total emission measures are $`3.5(.3)\times 10^{50}`$ cm-3 for RGS+MOS and $`4.5(.2)\times 10^{50}`$ cm-3 for LETGS (in line with the multi-temperature fitting). Fig. 3 allows us to conclude that there is no significant amount of $`EM`$ at $`T>`$ 4 MK in the corona of Procyon. Schmitt et al. (1996) give an upper limit of 6 MK, based on EUVE observations. The $`EM`$ observed at different times as well as lines fluxes in Table 1 show no significant variability.

Fig. 4 shows fit residuals of parts of the LETGS spectrum fitted using this temperature-dependent emission measure modeling, i.e. applying the model of Fig. 3 (LETGS). From Fig. 4a we recognize large deviations in residual due to model insufficiencies and a pseudo-continuum (most fit residuals positive) due to the lack of weaker lines in current atomic databases in this wavelength range. Clear from Fig. 4b are the succeeding large positive and negative residuals around 148 and 171 Å, due to wavelength deviations of lines in the spectrum and the model.

### 3.3 Consistency checks using individual lines

The question is whether the model insufficiencies influence our conclusions about temperatures, emission measures, and abundances as obtained in Sect. 3.2. Therefore we have also compared observed and model line fluxes. The advantage of this individual line approach is that we can select strong and unblended lines, for which the theoretical emissivities are quite well established.

For the short-wavelength region this is done for all lines (Table 1), while for the longer wavelength range only lines with a statistical significance $`>`$ 4$`\sigma `$ were used. For the latter the fluxes have been compared with the 3-T model as well as with the results from the DEM model. The values are given in Table 5. This table shows generally a good agreement between the observed flux and the 3-T flux and the flux from the DEM-modeling, summed over the T-bins. Most striking are the deviations for the Fe VIII lines around 131 and 168 Å. This is definitely due to a large deficiency in the atomic data used. From atomic physics grounds the line at 168.13 Å is the stronger, as observed in the spectrum and in laboratory experiments (Wang et al. 1984), but in our code this line turns out to be the weakest.444Recent calculations for Fe VIII by Griffin et al. (2000) give for our observed Fe VIII ratio 131/168=0.14 a temperature of $``$ 2.5 MK, near the high-energy limit of the DEM distribution. Another interesting feature is the contamination of the forbidden C V line - which is often used for density diagnostics - with Ar IX. Another clear example of blending is the line at 74.860 Å which contains Mg VIII and Fe XIII.

We have measured line ratios of density-sensitive He-like triplets from the LETGS and RGS spectra, taking into account the photo-exciting UV flux (Porquet et al. 2001). Our results are consistent in both instruments ($`n_\mathrm{e}10^{10}`$ cm-3) and similar to those of Ness et al. (2001) and our values given in Table 4. These results are also comparable to values obtained by Schrijver et al. (1995) and Schmitt et al. (1996) and to values for the Sun (Drake et al. 2000).

## 4 Conclusions

The RGS and LETGS spectra of the corona of Procyon below 40 Å are dominated by the H- and He-like transitions of C, N, and O and by Fe XVII lines. Above 40 Å the LETGS spectrum shows many L-shell lines of e.g., Ne, Mg, and Si, together with lines of Fe VIII-XIII of which the Fe IX line at 171.075 is very prominent. All methods applied in Sect. 3.2 to the spectra of the RGS+MOS and the LETGS show temperatures of the corona of Procyon between 1–3 MK. No indication for a considerably higher temperature component ($`T>`$ 4 MK) is found. The total $`EM`$ obtained using RGS and LETGS is about $`4.1(.5)\times 10^{50}`$ cm-3. The $`EM`$ distribution shows a smooth continuous structure without separated peak structures. Our results improve on those of Schmitt et al. (1996) who obtain an $`EM`$ distribution with a maximum temperature around 1.6 MK and a cutoff beyond 6.3 MK. No significant variability of the coronal conditions took place between the observations by RGS and LETGS.

The abundances of C and N, relative to O are somewhat higher ($``$ factor 1.5) than the values obtained in the solar photosphere (Anders & Grevesse 1989). The Fe abundance is about 1–1.5 $`\times `$ solar. No significance for a FIP effect, as observed in the solar corona (Feldman et al. 1992), is found. The same was concluded by Drake et al (1995), based on EUVE observations. This result is an exception of the trends found by Audard et al. (2001c) for RS CVn systems and by Güdel et al. (2001c) for solar analogs. These authors have found indications for the evolution from an inverse FIP effect for highly active stars - via the absence of a FIP effect in intermediately active stars - towards a normal FIP effect for less active stars. Clearly, the weakly active star Procyon does not fit into this picture.

###### Acknowledgements.

The Space Research Organization Netherlands (SRON) is supported financially by NWO. The PSI group acknowledges support from the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant 2100-049343). We are grateful to the calibration teams of the instruments on board XMM-Newton and Chandra. We thank Nancy Brickhouse and Jeremy Drake for their efforts to obtain a long LETGS observation. Finally, we are grateful to the referee for helpful comments.