text:
# Weak Hopf algebras and quantum groupoids

## 1. Introduction

Quantum groupoids (or Hopf algebroids) are to groupoids what quantum groups (or Hopf algebras) are to groups: A Hopf algebroid is the noncommutative analog of the function algebra on a groupoid.

A groupoid is a small category, and has a set of morphisms and a set of objects (in other terminology arrows and vertices). Thus the definition of a quantum groupoid should involve two algebras, one of which (say $`H`$) plays the rôle of the function algebra on the quantum space of morphisms, and the other (say $`R`$) the rôle of the function algebra on the quantum space of objects. Since there is a source and target assigned to each arrow, one should also expect (in the reversed direction) two maps from $`R`$ to $`H`$ to be part of the structure, while composition in the groupoid, a partially defined map on the product, should correspond to a comultiplication into a suitably defined tensor product of $`H`$ with itself.

In this note we will compare in detail two notions of quantum (semi)groupoids: The $`\times _R`$-bialgebras defined by Takeuchi , and the weak bialgebras defined by Böhm and Szlachányi . Thus we shall, as it were, provide reference \[NS\] in ; while my joint paper with Florian Nill is announced there optimistically as a preprint to appear shortly, in reality it was never finished. The main result is as follows: A weak bialgebra is the same thing as a $`\times _R`$-bialgebra in which the algebra $`R`$ is Frobenius-separable.

The $`\times _R`$-bialgebras defined by Takeuchi , following work of Sweedler , are the first quantum (semi)groupoids appearing in the literature. One should note, though, that Takeuchi did not consider the analogy with groupoids at all, whereas this was the key motivation for the definitions of Lu  and Xu , which turn out to be equivalent to Takeuchi’s, mostly by a translation of notations, though some care has to be taken about the somewhat different definitions of counits. See the paper of Brzeziński and Militaru  for details.

Weak Hopf algebras were defined by Böhm and Szlachányi , see also the recent survey  by Nikshych and Vaĭnerman and the literature cited there. A weak bialgebra $`H`$ is a coalgebra and algebra such that the comultiplication is multiplicative, but does not preserve the unit; dually the multiplication is not counital. These two requirements are replaced by certain weakened versions. In this definition there is in the beginning no auxiliary algebra $`R`$ playing the role of the function algebra on the set of vertices, but rather two anti-isomorphic “source and target counital subalgebras” are constructed from the axioms.

A special case of weak bialgebras, called face algebras, had been defined earlier by Hayashi . A face algebra turns out to be precisely the special case of a weak bialgebra in which the, say target, counital subalgebra is commutative. In  we have shown that a face algebra is precisely the special case of a $`\times _R`$-bialgebra in which the algebra $`R`$ is commutative and separable.

It turns out that one can show by essentially the same calculations that a weak bialgebra is precisely the special case of a $`\times _R`$-bialgebra in which $`R`$ is Frobenius-separable. A major difference is that Hayashi’s face algebras involve a commutative separable base algebra by definition, while one has to show that the target counital subalgebra of a weak bialgebra is Frobenius-separable.

The fact that any weak Hopf algebra is a $`\times _R`$-bialgebra (in fact a Hopf algebroid in the sense of Lu) has meanwhile been shown by Etingof and Nikshych \[5, Prop.2.3.1\], who also show that the target counital subalgebra is separable (note however that the formulas between (10) and (11) there seem to claim that the Frobenius automorphism is always trivial, which is not the case). This covers a large part of LABEL:weak-to-Tak.nme 5.1. However, the antipode is used in , while it is not assumed to exist in LABEL:weak-to-Tak.nme 5.1. On the other hand the part of the antipode relevant for the proof (its restrictions to the source and target counital subalgebras) is present in any weak bialgebra, even if it does not possess an antipode; this was proved by Nill  along with the fact that the counital subalgebras are Frobenius-separable.

After providing some definitions in Sections 2 and 3, we start the real work in LABEL:sec:weakgen.nme 4 by proving some basic facts about weak bialgebras, notably that the counital subalgebra of a weak bialgebra is Frobenius-separable. As we acknowledged already, this (and all the facts proved in LABEL:sec:weakgen.nme 4) can be found in the literature. However, Etingof and Nikshych  use antipodes, while Nill’s paper  consistently uses the assumption that the weak bialgebra in question is finite dimensional. The same general assumption is used in many places in . Instead of examining the proofs in each situation to convince the reader that the extra assumptions are not necessary, it seemed easier and more useful to develop the basic facts that we need from scratch.

In LABEL:sec:weakisTak.nme 5 we prove that any weak bialgebra $`H`$ is a $`\times _R`$-bialgebra (which is \[5, Prop.2.3.1\] if $`H`$ is a weak Hopf algebra), and conversely, that any $`\times _R`$-bialgebra with Frobenius-separable $`R`$ is a weak bialgebra.

In LABEL:sec:weakHopf.nme 6 we adress the question when a weak bialgebra is a weak Hopf algebra. We show in LABEL:Hopf-Hopf.nme 6.1 that a weak Hopf algebra can be characterized as a weak bialgebra $`H`$ for which a certain canonical map $`H_{H_t}H\mathrm{\Delta }(1)(HH)`$ is a bijection; this is analogous to a well-known characterization of ordinary Hopf algebras. (We should note that certain identities for antipodes useful for proving one of the implications in LABEL:Hopf-Hopf.nme 6.1 can be found in , again under different assumptions). This also proves that a weak bialgebra is a weak Hopf algebra if and only if the associated $`\times _R`$-bialgebra is a $`\times _R`$-Hopf algebra in the sense of the definition we have given in . One should note that this is in general rather different from the definition of a Hopf algebroid by Lu, which involves an antipodal anti-algebra map and a certain splitting of the epimorphism $`HHH_RH`$. Our definition by bijectivity of a canonical map has the advantage of having a canonical characterization in terms of properties of the module category of $`H`$.

In LABEL:sec:duality.nme 7 we show that the correspondence between weak bialgebras and $`\times _R`$-bialgebras is compatible with taking duals (in the finite-dimensional case), and with taking the respective comodule categories.

## 2. $`\times _R`$-bialgebras

In this section we will recall the necessary definitions and notations on $`\times _R`$-bialgebras. For more details we refer to .

Throughout the paper, $`k`$ denotes a base field. Modules, algebras, unadorned tensor products etc. are understood to be over $`k`$ if nothing else is indicated.

Let $`R`$ be a $`k`$-algebra. We denote the opposite algebra by $`\overline{R}`$, we let $`Rr\overline{r}\overline{R}`$ denote the obvious $`k`$-algebra antiisomorphism, and abbreviate the enveloping algebra $`R^e:=R\overline{R}`$. We write $`r\overline{s}:=r\overline{s}R\overline{R}`$ for $`r,sR`$.

For $`M,N{}_{R^e}{}^{}`$ we let

$$_r{}_{\overline{r}}{}^{}M{}_{r}{}^{}N:=MN/\overline{r}mnmrn|rR,mM,nN$$

and we let $`{\displaystyle ^r}{}_{\overline{r}}{}^{}M{}_{r}{}^{}NMN`$ denote the $`k`$-submodule consisting of all elements $`m_in_iMN`$ satisfying $`\overline{r}m_in_i=m_irn_i`$ for all $`rR`$. Variations of the $`_r`$ and $`^r`$ notations, which are due to MacLane, will be used without further notice. We abbreviate $`_r{}_{\overline{r}}{}^{}M{}_{r}{}^{}N=M_RN`$ for $`M,N{}_{R^e}{}^{}`$.

For two $`R^e`$-bimodules $`M`$ and $`N`$ we let

$$M\times _RN:=^s_r{}_{\overline{r}}{}^{}M_{\overline{s}}^{}{}_{r}{}^{}N_{s}^{}.$$

If $`M,N`$ are $`R^e`$-rings, then so is $`M\times _RN`$, with multiplication given by $`(m_in_i)(m_j^{}n_j^{})=m_im_j^{}n_in_j^{}`$, and $`R^e`$-ring structure

$$R^er\overline{s}r\overline{s}M\times _RN.$$

For $`M,N,P{}_{R^e}{}^{}_{R^e}^{}`$ one defines

$$M\times _RP\times _RN:=^{s,u}_{r,t}{}_{\overline{r}}{}^{}M_{\overline{s}}^{}{}_{r,\overline{t}}{}^{}P_{s,\overline{u}}^{}{}_{t}{}^{}N_{u}^{}$$

(where $`^{s,u}:=^s^u=^u^s`$). There are associativity maps

$`(M\times _RP)\times _RN`$ $`\stackrel{𝛼}{}M\times _RP\times _RN`$
$`M\times _R(P\times _RN)`$ $`\stackrel{\alpha ^{}}{}M\times _RP\times _RN`$
given on elements by the obvious formulas (doing nothing), but which need not be isomorphisms. If $`M,N`$ and $`P`$ are $`R^e`$-rings, so is $`M\times _RN\times _RP`$, and $`\alpha ,\alpha ^{}`$ are $`R^e`$-ring maps.

An $`R^e`$-ring structure on the algebra $`\mathrm{E}=\mathrm{End}(R)`$ is given by $`r\overline{s}(trts)`$. We have, for any $`M{}_{R^e}{}^{}_{R^e}^{}`$, two $`R^e`$-bimodule maps

$`\theta :M\times _R\mathrm{End}(R)`$ $`M;`$ $`mf`$ $`\overline{f(1)}m`$
$`\theta ^{}:\mathrm{End}(R)\times _RM`$ $`M;`$ $`fm`$ $`f(1)m.`$
which are $`R^e`$-ring homomorphisms if $`M`$ is an $`R^e`$-ring.

A $`\times _R`$-bialgebra $`L`$ is defined to be an $`R^e`$-ring equipped with a comultiplication, a map $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:LL\times _RL`$ of $`R^e`$-rings over $`R^e`$, and a counit, a map $`C:L\mathrm{E}`$ of $`R^e`$-rings, such that

(2.1)
$$\alpha (\mathrm{\Gamma }\times _RL)\mathrm{\Gamma }=\alpha ^{}(L\times _R\mathrm{\Gamma })\mathrm{\Gamma }:LL\times _RL\times _RL$$

(2.2)
$$\theta (L\times _RC)\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{id}_L=\theta (C\times _RL)\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$

Note that an $`R^e`$-ring map $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:LL\times _RL`$ induces a map $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0:LLL`$ in $`{}_{R^e}{}^{}`$, and an $`R^e`$-ring map $`C:L\mathrm{E}`$ induces a map $`C_0:L\mathrm{}C(\mathrm{})(1)R`$ in $`{}_{R^e}{}^{}`$. One checks that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`C`$ fulfill the equations (2.1) and (2.2) if and only if

$$(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0L)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=(L\mathrm{\Gamma }_0)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0:LLLL$$

and $`(C_0L)\mathrm{\Gamma }_0=\mathrm{id}_L=(LC_0)`$ hold. These mean that $`L`$, considered as an $`R`$-$`R`$-bimodule via the left $`R^e`$-module structure, is an $`R`$-coring.

For $`\times _R`$-bialgebras we will make use of the variants $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{})=:\mathrm{}{}_{[1]}{}^{}\mathrm{}{}_{[2]}{}^{}L\times _RL`$ and

$$\alpha (\mathrm{\Gamma }\times _RL)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{})=:\mathrm{}{}_{[1]}{}^{}\mathrm{}{}_{[2]}{}^{}\mathrm{}{}_{[3]}{}^{}L\times _RL\times _RL.$$

of usual Sweedler notation (reserving $`\mathrm{}{}_{(1)}{}^{}\mathrm{}_{(2)}`$ for usual coalgebra structures).

If $`L`$ is a $`\times _R`$-bialgebra, then the tensor product $`M_RN`$ of $`M,N{}_{L}{}^{}`$ can be endowed with an $`L`$-module structure by the usual formula $`\mathrm{}(mn)=\mathrm{}{}_{[1]}{}^{}m\mathrm{}{}_{[2]}{}^{}n`$.

The suitable definition of comodules over a $`\times _R`$-bialgebra $`L`$ is as follows: A left $`L`$-comodule is an $`R`$-bimodule $`M`$ together with a map $`\lambda :ML\times _RM`$ of $`R`$-bimodules such that

$$\alpha ^{}(L\times _R\lambda )\lambda =\alpha (\mathrm{\Gamma }\times _RM)\lambda :ML\times _RL\times _RM$$

and $`\theta ^{}(C\times _RM)\lambda =\mathrm{id}_M`$ hold. If we denote by $`\lambda _0:MLM`$ the composition of $`\lambda `$ with the inclusion of $`LM`$ into $`L\times _RM`$, then coassociativity is equivalent to $`(L\lambda _0)\lambda _0=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_0M)\lambda _0:MLLM`$ and $`(C_0M)\lambda _0=\mathrm{id}_M`$. We will denote by $`{}_{}{}^{L}`$ the category of left $`L`$-comodules. We will use Sweedler notation in the form $`\lambda (m)=m{}_{[1]}{}^{}m_{[0]}`$ and $`\alpha (\mathrm{\Gamma }\times _RM)(m)=m{}_{[2]}{}^{}m{}_{[1]}{}^{}m_{[0]}`$ for $`L`$-comodules.

The category $`{}_{}{}^{L}`$ of left $`L`$-comodules over a $`\times _R`$-bialgebra is monoidal. The tensor product of $`M,N{}_{}{}^{L}`$ is their tensor product $`M_RN`$ over $`R`$, equipped with the comodule structure

$`M\underset{R}{}N`$ $`L\times _R(M\underset{R}{}N)`$
$`mn`$ $`m{}_{[1]}{}^{}n{}_{[1]}{}^{}m{}_{[0]}{}^{}n_{[0]}`$
## 3. Frobenius-separable algebras

In this section we compile a few facts and notations on Frobenius-separable algebras, that is, Frobenius algebras that are separable so that the Frobenius system and the separability idempotent coincide. All of the material in this section is certainly folklore.

Let $`R`$ be a $`k`$-algebra. Recall that $`R`$ is Frobenius if there is a Frobenius system $`(\varphi ,e)`$ for $`R`$, which in turn consists by definition of a $`k`$-linear map $`\varphi :Rk`$, and an element $`e=e^{(1)}e^{(2)}RR`$ such that

$$rR:r=\varphi (re^{(1)})e^{(2)}=e^{(1)}\varphi (e^{(2)}r).$$

Equivalently, $`R`$ is finite dimensional, and there is a $`k`$-linear map $`\varphi :Rk`$ such that the bilinear form $`B_\varphi :R\times Rk`$ given by $`B_\varphi (x,y)=\varphi (xy)`$ is nondegenerate. It follows that $`eRR`$ is a Casimir element in the sense that $`(x1)e=e(1x)`$ in the algebra $`RR`$ for each $`xR`$: by nondegeneracy of $`B_\varphi `$ it is sufficient to observe $`\varphi (yxe^{(1)})e^{(2)}=yx=\varphi (ye^{(1)})e^{(2)}x`$ for all $`yR`$. Recall that the Frobenius automorphism $`\theta :RR`$ defined by the Frobenius system $`(\varphi ,e)`$ is by definition the linear map $`\theta :RR`$ with $`\varphi (xy)=\varphi (y\theta (x))`$ for all $`x,yR`$. It is an algebra automorphism. We have $`(1x)e=e(\theta (x)1)`$ in $`RR`$ for all $`xR`$, by the calculation $`\varphi (ye^{(1)}\theta (x))e^{(2)}=\varphi (xye^{(1)})e^{(2)}=xy=\varphi (ye^{(1)})xe^{(2)}`$. It is easy to see that this property characterizes $`\theta `$, so that $`(\varphi ,e)`$ is a symmetric Frobenius system (i. e. $`B_\varphi `$ is symmetric) if and only if $`\theta `$ is the identity if and only if $`(\varphi ,e^{(2)}e^{(1)})`$ is a Frobenius system if and only if $`e^{(2)}e^{(1)}=e`$.

If $`(\varphi ,e)`$ is a Frobenius system, and $`tR`$ is invertible, then $`(\psi ,f)`$ defined by $`\psi (x)=\varphi (tx)`$ and $`f=(1t^1)e`$, is also a Frobenius system by the calculations $`\psi (xf^{(1)})f^{(2)}=\varphi (txe^{(1)})t^1e^{(2)}=t^1tx=x`$ and $`f^{(1)}\psi (f^{(2)}x)=e^{(1)}\varphi (tt^1e^{(2)}x)=e^{(1)}\varphi (e^{(2)}x)=x`$.

Conversely, if $`(\psi ,f)`$ is another Frobenius system, define $`t:=\psi (e^{(1)})e^{(2)}`$. Then $`\varphi (tx)=\psi (e^{(1)})\varphi (e^{(2)}x)=\psi (x)`$ for all $`xR`$, further $`e=(1t)f`$ since $`f^{(1)}\varphi (tf^{(2)}x)=f^{(1)}\psi (f^{(2)}x)=x=e^{(1)}\varphi (e^{(2)}x)`$ for all $`xR`$. Finally $`t`$ is invertible with inverse $`\varphi (f^{(1)})f^{(2)}`$ since $`\varphi (f^{(1)})f^{(2)}t=\varphi (tf^{(1)})f^{(2)}=\psi (f^{(1)})f^{(2)}=1`$ and $`t\varphi (f^{(1)})f^{(2)}=\varphi (e^{(1)})e^{(2)}=1`$.

Let $`(\varphi ,e)`$ be a Frobenius system. Then $`e`$ is a separability itempotent for $`R`$ if and only if $`(e)=1`$, in which case we say that $`(\varphi ,e)`$ is an idempotent Frobenius system. If an idempotent Frobenius system exists, we will say that $`R`$ is Frobenius-separable. While every separable algebra $`R`$ is automatically symmetric \[10, Expl.(16.58)\], it is not necessarily Frobenius-separable: If $`k`$ is a field of characteristic $`p>0`$, then $`M_p(k)`$ is separable (hence —and also obviously— Frobenius), but not Frobenius-separable. However, if $`R`$ is a commutative separable $`k`$-algebra, then $`R`$ is Frobenius-separable with respect to the trace functional $`\varphi :Rk`$. To see this it suffices to treat the case where $`R`$ is a field. Let $`e`$ be a separability idempotent, and write $`e=_{i=1}^nx_iy_i`$ with $`n`$ minimal. Then the elements $`x_i`$ generate $`R`$ as a $`k`$-space (hence they are a basis). For take any $`xR`$, put $`t:=x_1^1x`$, and consider $`\varphi R^{}`$ with $`\phi (y_i)=\delta _{1,i}`$. Then

$$x=(\mathrm{id}\phi )(tx_iy_i)=x_i\phi (y_it).$$

Similarly the $`y_i`$ form a basis of $`R`$. Now let $`\varphi (r)`$ be the trace of multiplication by $`r`$ as an endomorphism of $`R`$; this defines $`\varphi :Rk`$, and we claim that $`(\varphi ,e)`$ is an idempotent Frobenius system. Let $`(y^i)`$ be the dual basis of $`(y_i)`$. Then $`\varphi (r)=y^i(ry_i)`$, so that

$$\varphi (xe^{(1)})e^{(2)}=\varphi (xx_i)y_i=x^j(xx_jx_i)y_ix=x^j(x_i)y_ixx_j=y_jxx_j=x$$

follows for $`xR`$. Similarly $`e^{(1)}\varphi (e^{(2)}x)=x`$.

If $`(\varphi ,e)`$ and $`(\psi ,f)`$ are two idempotent Frobenius systems, then there is an invertible $`tR`$ with $`e^{(1)}t^1e^{(2)}=1`$, such that $`\psi (x)=\varphi (tx)`$ for all $`x`$ and $`f=(1t^1)e`$.

## 4. Weak Hopf algebras

A weak bialgebra $`H=(H,,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is by definition an algebra and coalgebra $`H`$ such that the comultiplication $`\mathrm{\Delta }:HHH`$ is multiplicative, and the following four conditions hold for all $`f,g,hH:`$

(4.1)
$$\epsilon (fgh)=\epsilon (fg{}_{(1)}{}^{})\epsilon (g{}_{(2)}{}^{}h),$$

(4.2)
$$\epsilon (fgh)=\epsilon (fg{}_{(2)}{}^{})\epsilon (g{}_{(1)}{}^{}h),$$

(4.3)
$$1{}_{(1)}{}^{}1{}_{(2)}{}^{}1{}_{(3)}{}^{}=(\mathrm{\Delta }(1)1)(1\mathrm{\Delta }(1)),$$

(4.4)
$$1{}_{(1)}{}^{}1{}_{(2)}{}^{}1{}_{(3)}{}^{}=(1\mathrm{\Delta }(1))(\mathrm{\Delta }(1)1).$$

These four conditions weaken the conditions of multiplicativity of the counit, and comultiplicativity of the unit, which are not required in a weak bialgebra (whereas $`\epsilon (1)=1`$ is an easy consequence of the axioms). Note that by the symmetries of the definition, the opposite $`H^{\mathrm{op}}`$, coopposite $`H^{\mathrm{cop}}`$, and the opposite and coopposite (or biopposite) $`H^{\mathrm{bop}}`$ are weak bialgebras as well.

We define the source and target counital maps $`\epsilon _{s,t}:HH`$ of a weak bialgebra $`H`$ to be

$$\epsilon _s(h)=1{}_{(1)}{}^{}\epsilon (h1{}_{(2)}{}^{}),$$

$$\epsilon _t(h)=\epsilon (1{}_{(1)}{}^{}h)1{}_{(2)}{}^{}.$$

And denote their images by $`H_{s,t}:=\epsilon _{s,t}(H)`$; these are called the source and target counital subalgebras (see below) of $`H`$. We note the variants $`\epsilon _{s,t}^{}`$ with

$$\epsilon _s^{}(h)=1{}_{(1)}{}^{}\epsilon (1{}_{(2)}{}^{}h),$$

$$\epsilon _t^{}(h)=\epsilon (h1{}_{(1)}{}^{})1{}_{(2)}{}^{}.$$

Obviously these are the source and target counital maps for the weak bialgebra $`H^{\mathrm{op}}`$, which means that general statements on them will follow from general statements on $`\epsilon _{s,t}`$ mutatis mutandis. We’ll use in the same way that $`\epsilon _s`$ is the target counital map of $`H^{\mathrm{bop}}`$.

Note $`h{}_{(1)}{}^{}\epsilon _{s}^{}(h{}_{(2)}{}^{})=h{}_{(1)}{}^{}1{}_{(1)}{}^{}\epsilon (h{}_{(2)}{}^{}1{}_{(2)}{}^{})=h`$, so also

(4.5)
$$h{}_{(1)}{}^{}\epsilon _{s}^{}(h{}_{(2)}{}^{})=\epsilon _t(h{}_{(1)}{}^{})h{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\epsilon _s^{}(h{}_{(2)}{}^{})h{}_{(1)}{}^{}=h{}_{(2)}{}^{}\epsilon _{t}^{}(h{}_{(1)}{}^{})=h$$

for all $`hH`$. Moreover

$$\epsilon _t(1{}_{(1)}{}^{}h)1{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\epsilon (1^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{}1{}_{(1)}{}^{}h)1^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{}1{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\epsilon _t(h)$$

We have

$$1{}_{(1)}{}^{}\epsilon _t(1{}_{(2)}{}^{})=1{}_{(1)}{}^{}\epsilon (1^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{}1{}_{(2)}{}^{})1^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{}=1{}_{(1)}{}^{}\epsilon (1{}_{(2)}{}^{})1{}_{(3)}{}^{}=1{}_{(1)}{}^{}1_{(2)}$$

hence

$$1{}_{(1)}{}^{}1{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\epsilon _s(1{}_{(1)}{}^{})1{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\epsilon _s(1{}_{(1)}{}^{})\epsilon _t(1{}_{(2)}{}^{})$$

and the same identities with $`\epsilon _{s,t}`$ replaced by $`\epsilon _{s,t}^{}`$. In particular $`\mathrm{\Delta }(1)H_sH_t`$. It also follows that $`\epsilon _{s,t}(x)=\epsilon _{s,t}^{}(x)=x`$ for all $`xH_{s,t}`$, so that $`\epsilon _t,\epsilon _t^{}`$ are idempotent projectors onto $`H_t`$.

The calculation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\epsilon _t(x))=\epsilon (1{}_{(1)}{}^{}h)1{}_{(2)}{}^{}1{}_{(3)}{}^{}=\epsilon (1{}_{(1)}{}^{}h)1{}_{(2)}{}^{}1_{}^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{}1^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\epsilon _t(h)1{}_{(1)}{}^{}1_{(2)}$$

for all $`hH`$ shows the first part of

(4.6)
$$xH_t:\mathrm{\Delta }(x)=x1{}_{(1)}{}^{}1{}_{(2)}{}^{}=1{}_{(1)}{}^{}x1{}_{(2)}{}^{},$$

the second is proved similarly, and as a corollary we have

(4.7)
$$xH_s:\mathrm{\Delta }(x)=1{}_{(1)}{}^{}x1{}_{(2)}{}^{}=1{}_{(1)}{}^{}1{}_{(2)}{}^{}x.$$

For all $`g,hH`$ we have

(4.8)
$$\epsilon (gh)=\epsilon (g1{}_{(2)}{}^{})\epsilon (1{}_{(1)}{}^{}h)=\epsilon (g\epsilon _t(h))$$

by (4.2), hence

(4.9)
$$\epsilon _t(gh)=\epsilon (1{}_{(1)}{}^{}gh)1{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\epsilon (1{}_{(1)}{}^{}g\epsilon _t(h))1{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\epsilon _t(g\epsilon _t(h)),$$

and further

$$g\epsilon _t(h)=\epsilon _t(g{}_{(1)}{}^{}\epsilon _{t}^{}(h){}_{(1)}{}^{}))g_{(2)}\epsilon _t(h)_{(2)}=\epsilon _t(g{}_{(1)}{}^{}\epsilon _{t}^{}(h))g_{(2)}=\epsilon _t(g{}_{(1)}{}^{}h)g_{(2)}$$

hence

(4.10)
$$xH_thH:x\epsilon _t(h)=\epsilon _t(1{}_{(1)}{}^{}xh)1{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\epsilon _t(xh).$$

In particular $`H_t`$ is multiplicatively closed; it is a subalgebra because also $`\epsilon _t(1)=\epsilon (1^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{}1)1^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\epsilon (1^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{})1^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{}=1.`$

For $`g,hH`$ we have

$$\epsilon _t(g)\epsilon _s(h)=\epsilon (1{}_{(1)}{}^{}g)1{}_{(2)}{}^{}1_{}^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{}\epsilon (h1^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{})=\epsilon (1{}_{(1)}{}^{}g)1^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{}1{}_{(2)}{}^{}\epsilon (h1^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{})=\epsilon _s(h)\epsilon _t(g),$$

so that the subalgebras $`H_s`$ and $`H_t`$ commute element-wise.

###### Lemma 4.1.

Let $`H`$ be a weak bialgebra. The target counital map $`\epsilon _t`$ induces an algebra antiisomorphism $`H_sH_t`$, whose inverse is induced by $`\epsilon _s^{}`$.

###### Proof.

To see that $`\epsilon _t`$ is an an anti-algebra map we compute more generally

$$\epsilon _t(yh)=\epsilon _t(y\epsilon _t(h))=\epsilon _t(\epsilon _t(h)y)=\epsilon _t(h)\epsilon _t(y)$$

for all $`yH_s`$ and $`hH`$, using (4.9) and (4.10).

To prove $`\epsilon _s^{}`$ induces an inverse isomorphism to the map induced by $`\epsilon _t`$, we use that more generally

(4.11)
$$hH:\epsilon _t\epsilon _s^{}(h)=\epsilon _t(h)$$

by the calculation

$$\epsilon _t\epsilon _s^{}(h)=\epsilon (1{}_{(1)}{}^{}\epsilon _{s}^{}(h))1{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\epsilon (1{}_{(1)}{}^{}1_{}^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{}\epsilon (1^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{}h))1{}_{(2)}{}^{}\stackrel{(\text{4.1})}{=}\epsilon (1{}_{(1)}{}^{}h)1{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\epsilon _t(h)$$

Applying this to $`H^{\mathrm{bop}}`$ yields $`\epsilon _s^{}\epsilon _t(h)=\epsilon _s^{}(h)`$ for all $`hH`$, and this taken together with (4.11) proves the claim. ∎

###### Proposition 4.2.

Let $`H`$ be a weak bialgebra. Then the target counital subalgebra $`H_t`$ is Frobenius-separable with idempotent Frobenius system

$$(\epsilon |_{H_t},(\epsilon _tH)\mathrm{\Delta }(1))$$

###### Proof.

The claimed idempotent Frobenius system is given more explicitly by

$$e=\epsilon _t(1{}_{(1)}{}^{})1{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\epsilon (1^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{}1{}_{(1)}{}^{})1^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{}1{}_{(2)}{}^{}.$$

We have, for all $`xH_t`$:

$$\epsilon (xe^{(1)})e^{(2)}=\epsilon (1^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{}1{}_{(1)}{}^{})\epsilon (x1^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{})1{}_{(2)}{}^{}\stackrel{(\text{4.4})}{=}\epsilon (x1{}_{(1)}{}^{})1{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\epsilon _t^{}(x)=x$$

and

$$e^{(1)}\epsilon (e^{(2)}x)=\epsilon (1^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{}1{}_{(1)}{}^{})1^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{}\epsilon (1{}_{(2)}{}^{}x)\stackrel{(\text{4.3})}{=}\epsilon (1^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{}x)1^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\epsilon _t(x)=x$$

while $`(e)=1`$ is quite obvious. ∎

It follows that

(4.12)
$$xH_t:x\epsilon _t(1{}_{(1)}{}^{})1{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\epsilon _t(1{}_{(1)}{}^{})1{}_{(2)}{}^{}x.$$

Applying the Lemma to $`H^{\mathrm{bop}}`$ yields that $`H_s^{\mathrm{op}}`$ is Frobenius-separable with idempotent Frobenius system $`(\epsilon ,1{}_{(1)}{}^{}\epsilon _s(1{}_{(2)}{}^{}))`$. In particular

(4.13)
$$yH_s:1{}_{(1)}{}^{}y\epsilon _s(1{}_{(2)}{}^{})=1{}_{(1)}{}^{}y\epsilon _s(1{}_{(2)}{}^{})$$

Applying $`\epsilon _s^{}`$ (which is an anti-algebra map restricted to $`H_t`$) to the first tensor factor of (4.12), we obtain

(4.14)
$$xH_t:1{}_{(1)}{}^{}\epsilon _{s}^{}(x)1{}_{(2)}{}^{}=1{}_{(1)}{}^{}1{}_{(2)}{}^{}x$$

## 5. Weak bialgebras are $`\times _R`$-bialgebras

###### Theorem 5.1.

Let $`(H,\mathrm{\Delta },\epsilon )`$ be a weak bialgebra. Put $`R:=H_t`$. Then the structure $`(H,\mathrm{\Gamma },C)`$ of a $`\times _R`$-bialgebra on $`H`$ is given as follows: The $`R^e`$-ring structure of $`H`$ is given by $`\iota (x\overline{y})=x\epsilon _s^{}(y)`$, the comultiplication

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }:HH\times _RHHH$$

is the composition of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with the canonical surjection $`HHHH`$. The counit is

$$C:Hh(x\epsilon _t(hx))\mathrm{End}(R).$$

###### Proof.

$`H`$ is an $`R^e`$-ring as claimed since $`\epsilon _s^{}`$ induces an antiisomorphism of $`H_t`$ with $`H_s`$, and $`H_s`$ and $`H_t`$ commute element-wise.

That $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0:HHHHH`$ takes values in $`H\times _RH`$ follows from

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(h)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(h1)=h{}_{(1)}{}^{}1{}_{(1)}{}^{}h{}_{(2)}{}^{}1_{(2)}$$

and (4.14).

It is clear that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is an algebra map, since $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is multiplicative and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(1)=1`$ in $`HH`$. Also, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a map of $`R^e`$-rings by (4.7) and (4.6), and obviously coassociative since $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is.

The map $`C`$ is unit-preserving since $`\epsilon _t`$ is idempotent, and multiplicative since

$$C(g)C(h)(x)=C(g)(\epsilon _t(hx))=\epsilon _t(g\epsilon _t(hx))=\epsilon _t(ghx)$$

for all $`g,hH`$ and $`xH_t`$, using (4.9). Moreover $`C(y)(x)=\epsilon _t(yx)=yx`$ and $`C(\overline{y})(x)=\epsilon _t(\epsilon _s^{}(y)x)=\epsilon _t(x\epsilon _s^{}(y))=x\epsilon _t\epsilon _s^{}(y)=xy`$ for $`x,yH_t`$ show that $`C`$ is a map of $`R^e`$-rings.

It remains to check that $`C`$ is a counit: We have

$$C(h{}_{[1]}{}^{})(1)h{}_{[2]}{}^{}=\epsilon (1{}_{(1)}{}^{}h{}_{[1]}{}^{})1{}_{(2)}{}^{}h{}_{[2]}{}^{}=\epsilon (1{}_{(1)}{}^{}h{}_{(1)}{}^{})1{}_{(2)}{}^{}h{}_{(2)}{}^{}=h$$

as well as

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{C(h{}_{[2]}{}^{})(1)}h{}_{[1]}{}^{}=\overline{\epsilon (1{}_{(1)}{}^{}h{}_{[2]}{}^{})1_{(2)}}h{}_{[1]}{}^{}=\epsilon (1{}_{(1)}{}^{}h{}_{(2)}{}^{})\epsilon _s^{}(1{}_{(2)}{}^{})h_{(1)}\hfill \\ \hfill =\epsilon (1{}_{(1)}{}^{}h{}_{(2)}{}^{})1^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{}\epsilon (1^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{}1{}_{(2)}{}^{})h{}_{(1)}{}^{}\stackrel{(\text{4.1})}{=}\epsilon (1^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{}h{}_{(2)}{}^{})1^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{}h{}_{(1)}{}^{}=h\end{array}$$

for all $`hH`$. ∎

The theorem above (which is \[5, Prop.2.3.1\] in the case where $`H`$ is a weak Hopf algebra) shows that any weak bialgebra is a $`\times _R`$-bialgebra in which, by LABEL:targetFS.nme 4.2, $`R`$ is Frobenius-separable. We will also prove a converse LABEL:Tak-to-weak.nme 5.5. Just as in the case of commutative separable $`R`$ treated in , this is based on the following simple observation:

###### Remark 5.2.

Let $`R`$ be a separable algebra with separability idempotent $`e`$. Then for $`M_R`$ and $`N{}_{R}{}^{}`$ the identity on $`MN`$ induces an isomorphism

$$\gamma :Me^{(1)}e^{(2)}NM\underset{R}{}N$$

with inverse given by $`\gamma ^1(mn)=me^{(1)}e^{(2)}n`$.

Before using this (implicitly) to prove LABEL:Tak-to-weak.nme 5.5, we will use it to compare the tensor product defined on modules over a weak bialgebra by Böhm and Szlachányi  with the tensor product defined on the modules over the corresponding $`\times _R`$-bialgebra. The tensor product on $`H`$-modules for a weak bialgebra $`H`$ is given by $`MN:=\mathrm{\Delta }(1)(MN)`$ for $`M,N{}_{H}{}^{}`$, with the diagonal left $`H`$-module structure induced via $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

###### Proposition 5.3.

Let $`H`$ be a weak bialgebra. Then the isomorphisms

$$\gamma =\gamma _{MN}:MNMN$$

for $`M,N{}_{H}{}^{}`$ endow the identity functor with the structure of a monoidal functor

$$(\mathrm{𝐼𝑑},\gamma ):({}_{H}{}^{},)({}_{H}{}^{},)$$

###### Proof.

The idempotent Frobenius system we have found for $`R=H_t`$ in LABEL:targetFS.nme 4.2 is such that $`\overline{e^{(1)}}e^{(2)}=\mathrm{\Delta }(1)`$. Thus $`\gamma `$ is a vector space isomorphism by LABEL:keyrem.nme 5.2; it is linear by definition of comultiplication in the $`\times _R`$-bialgebra associated to the weak bialgebra $`H`$. Coherence of the monoidal functor is evident since $`\gamma `$ is induced by the identity (and we skip treating unit objects altogether). ∎

###### Remark 5.4.

The arguments used in LABEL:modcateq.nme 5.3 could be rewritten to be a different proof of LABEL:weak-to-Tak.nme 5.1: A weak bialgebra $`H`$ is an $`R^e`$-ring for $`R=R_t`$; since $`R`$ is separable, we can use LABEL:keyrem.nme 5.2 to endow the underlying functor $`{}_{H}{}^{}{}_{R^e}{}^{}`$ with the structure of a monoidal functor. It then follows from \[17, Thm.5.1\] that $`H`$ has a $`\times _R`$-bialgebra structure.

We now proceed to prove the converse of LABEL:weak-to-Tak.nme 5.1:

###### Theorem 5.5.

Let $`R`$ be a Frobenius-separable algebra with idempotent Frobenius system $`(\varphi ,e)`$. Let $`(H,\mathrm{\Gamma },C)`$ be a $`\times _R`$-bialgebra. Then the structure $`(H,\mathrm{\Delta },\epsilon )`$ of a weak bialgebra on $`H`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(h)=\overline{e^{(1)}}h{}_{[1]}{}^{}e^{(2)}h_{[2]}$$

$$\epsilon (h)=\varphi (C(h)(1))$$

###### Proof.

The map $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is well-defined since

$$f:HHgh\overline{e^{(1)}}ge^{(2)}hHH$$

is well-defined, since $`\overline{e^{(1)}}\overline{x}ge^{(2)}h=\overline{xe^{(1)}}ge^{(2)}h=\overline{e^{(1)}}ge^{(2)}xh`$ holds for all $`g,hH`$ and $`xR`$. We have

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }(h{}_{(1)}{}^{})h{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\overline{e^{(1)}}(\overline{\stackrel{~}{e}^{(1)}}h{}_{[1]}{}^{}){}_{[1]}{}^{}e^{(2)}(\overline{\stackrel{~}{e}^{(1)}}h{}_{[1]}{}^{}){}_{[2]}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{e}^{(2)}h_{[2]}\hfill \\ \hfill =\overline{e^{(1)}}h{}_{[1]}{}^{}{}_{[1]}{}^{}e^{(2)}\overline{\stackrel{~}{e}^{(1)}}h{}_{[1]}{}^{}{}_{[2]}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{e}^{(2)}h{}_{[2]}{}^{}=\overline{e^{(1)}}h{}_{[1]}{}^{}e^{(2)}\overline{\stackrel{~}{e}^{(1)}}h{}_{[2]}{}^{}{}_{[1]}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{e}^{(2)}h{}_{[2]}{}^{}_{[2]}\\ \hfill =\overline{e^{(1)}}h{}_{[1]}{}^{}\overline{\stackrel{~}{e}^{(1)}}(e^{(2)}h{}_{[2]}{}^{}){}_{[1]}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{e}^{(2)}(e^{(2)}h{}_{[2]}{}^{}){}_{[2]}{}^{}=h{}_{(1)}{}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }(h{}_{(2)}{}^{})\end{array}$$

showing that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is coassociative. The map $`\epsilon `$ is a counit since

$$\begin{array}{c}h{}_{(1)}{}^{}\epsilon (h{}_{(2)}{}^{})=\overline{e^{(1)}}h{}_{[1]}{}^{}\varphi (C(e^{(2)}h{}_{[2]}{}^{})(1))=\overline{e^{(1)}}h{}_{[1]}{}^{}\varphi (e^{(2)}C(h{}_{[2]}{}^{})(1))\hfill \\ \hfill =\overline{C(h{}_{[2]}{}^{})(1)}h{}_{[1]}{}^{}=h\end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{c}\epsilon (h{}_{(1)}{}^{})h{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\varphi (C(\overline{e^{(1)}}h{}_{[1]}{}^{})(1))e^{(2)}h{}_{[2]}{}^{}=\varphi (C(h{}_{[1]}{}^{})(1)e^{(1)})e^{(2)}h_{[2]}\hfill \\ \hfill =C(h{}_{[1]}{}^{})(1)h{}_{[2]}{}^{}=h\end{array}$$

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is multiplicative by the calculation

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }(g)\mathrm{\Delta }(h)=\overline{e^{(1)}}g{}_{[1]}{}^{}\overline{\stackrel{~}{e}^{(1)}}h{}_{[1]}{}^{}e^{(2)}g{}_{[2]}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_{}^{(2)}h{}_{[2]}{}^{}=\overline{e^{(1)}}g{}_{[1]}{}^{}h{}_{[1]}{}^{}e^{(2)}\stackrel{~}{e}^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{e}^{(2)}h_{[2]}\hfill \\ \hfill =\overline{e^{(1)}}g{}_{[1]}{}^{}h{}_{[1]}{}^{}e^{(2)}g{}_{[2]}{}^{}h{}_{[2]}{}^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }(gh)\end{array}$$

for all $`g,hH`$, using $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(g)H\times _RH`$.

We have

$$\begin{array}{c}\epsilon (g1{}_{(1)}{}^{})\epsilon (1{}_{(2)}{}^{}h)=\epsilon (g\overline{e^{(1)}})\epsilon (e^{(2)}h)=\varphi (C(g\overline{e^{(1)}})(1))\varphi (C(e^{(2)}h)(1))\hfill \\ \hfill =\varphi (C(g)(e^{(1)}))\varphi (e^{(2)}C(h)(1))=\varphi (C(g)(C(h)(1))=\varphi (C(gh)(1))=\epsilon (gh)\end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{c}\epsilon (g1{}_{(2)}{}^{})\epsilon (1{}_{(1)}{}^{}h)=\varphi (C(ge^{(2)})(1))\varphi (C(\overline{e^{(1)}}h)(1))=\varphi (C(g)(e^{(2)}))\varphi (C(h)(1)e^{(1)})\hfill \\ \hfill =\varphi (C(g)(C(h)(1)))=\epsilon (gh)\end{array}$$

for $`g,hH`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}(H\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Delta }(1)=\overline{e^{(1)}}\mathrm{\Delta }(e^{(2)})=\overline{e^{(1)}}\overline{\stackrel{~}{e}^{(1)}}(e^{(2)}){}_{[1]}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{e}^{(2)}(e^{(2)})_{[2]}\hfill \\ \hfill =\overline{e^{(1)}}\overline{\stackrel{~}{e}^{(1)}}e^{(2)}\stackrel{~}{e}^{(2)}=(\mathrm{\Delta }(1)1)(1\mathrm{\Delta }(1))\\ \hfill =\overline{e^{(1)}}e^{(2)}\overline{\stackrel{~}{e}^{(1)}}\stackrel{~}{e}^{(2)}=(1\mathrm{\Delta }(1))(\mathrm{\Delta }(1)1).\mathit{}\end{array}$$

###### Remark 5.6.

Let $`(H,\mathrm{\Gamma },C)`$ be a $`\times _R`$-bialgebra. Then for any idempotent Frobenius system $`(\varphi ,e)`$ we obtain a weak bialgebra structure $`(H,\mathrm{\Delta }_\varphi ,e_\varphi )`$ from LABEL:Tak-to-weak.nme 5.5.

On the other hand, if a weak bialgebra structure $`(H,\mathrm{\Delta },\epsilon )`$ is given, we obtain a $`\times _R`$-bialgebra structure from LABEL:Tak-to-weak.nme 5.5, along with an idempotent Frobenius system for the target counital subalgebra $`R:=H_t`$ from LABEL:targetFS.nme 4.2.

Assume we start with an idempotent Frobenius system on $`R`$ and a $`\times _R`$-bialgebra $`(H,\mathrm{\Gamma },C)`$. Consider the weak bialgebra $`(H,\mathrm{\Delta },\epsilon )`$ obtained from it. Assuming that the maps from $`R`$ and from $`\overline{R}`$ to $`H`$ making $`H`$ an $`R^e`$-ring are injective, it is easy to see that $`H_tR`$, and that the idempotent Frobenius system on $`H_t`$ obtained from LABEL:targetFS.nme 4.2 is the same as the idempotent Frobenius system on $`R`$ originally given.

On the other hand, assume we start with a weak bialgebra $`(H,\mathrm{\Delta },\epsilon )`$, and consider the Frobenius-separable algebra $`R=H_t`$ with idempotent Frobenius system $`(\varphi ,e)`$ as in LABEL:targetFS.nme 4.2, and the $`\times _R`$-bialgebra $`(H,\mathrm{\Gamma },\epsilon )`$ as in LABEL:weak-to-Tak.nme 5.1. Then for any choice of an idempotent Frobenius system $`(\psi ,f)`$ on $`R`$ we obtain a weak bialgebra structure $`(H,\mathrm{\Delta }_\psi ,\epsilon _\psi )`$ from LABEL:Tak-to-weak.nme 5.5. It is quite obvious that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\varphi =\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\epsilon _\varphi =\epsilon `$, that is, we get the original weak bialgebra back provided we choose the idempotent Frobenius system it defines. What happens if we choose another one? Then there is an invertible $`tR`$ with $`e^{(1)}t^1e^{(2)}=1`$, $`\psi (x)=\varphi (tx)`$ for all $`xR`$, and $`f=(1t^1)e`$, and we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\psi (h)=\overline{f^{(1)}}h{}_{(1)}{}^{}f^{(2)}h{}_{(2)}{}^{}=h{}_{(1)}{}^{}t^1h_{(2)}$$

and

$$\epsilon _\psi (h)=\epsilon (tC(h)(1))=\epsilon (t\epsilon _t(h)).=\epsilon (th)$$

This kind of twisting of a weak bialgebra structure by an invertible element in the target counital subalgebra is considered by Nikshych . We see that LABEL:weak-to-Tak.nme 5.1 and LABEL:Tak-to-weak.nme 5.5 relate Takeuchi’s $`\times _R`$-bialgebras to weak bialgebras up to such twists, which corresponds well to the viewpoint in  that twistings by invertible elements in the counital subalgebra should be considered as particularly irrelevant for the structure of $`H`$. Weak bialgebras that are such twists of each other can simply be obtained as different weak bialgebra versions of the same $`\times _R`$-bialgebra.

## 6. Weak Hopf algebras are $`\times _R`$-Hopf algebras

Etingof and Nikshych have shown that a weak Hopf algebra is a Hopf algebroid in the sense of Lu.

In this section we compare the weak Hopf algebra axioms to a different notion of “Hopf algebroid”, namely that of a $`\times _R`$-Hopf algebra introduced in . By definition \[19, Def.3.5\], a $`\times _R`$-bialgebra is a $`\times _R`$-Hopf algebra if and only if the canonical map

$$H\underset{\overline{R}}{}Hghg{}_{[1]}{}^{}g{}_{[2]}{}^{}hHH$$

is a bijection. This is analogous to a well-known characterization of ordinary bialgebras. Moreover, the definition is backed in  by a characterization of $`\times _R`$-Hopf algebras through a canonical property of their module categories.

By definition, a weak bialgebra $`H`$ is a weak Hopf algebra if there is an endomorphism $`S`$ of the $`k`$-space $`H`$ such that for all $`hH`$

$$S(h{}_{(1)}{}^{})h{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\epsilon _s(h),$$

$$h{}_{(1)}{}^{}S(h{}_{(2)}{}^{})=\epsilon _t(h),$$

$$S(h{}_{(1)}{}^{})h{}_{(2)}{}^{}S(h{}_{(3)}{}^{})=S(h).$$

The axioms imply immediately that

$$S(h{}_{(1)}{}^{})\epsilon _t(h{}_{(2)}{}^{})=S(h)=\epsilon _s(h{}_{(1)}{}^{})S(h{}_{(2)}{}^{}).$$

Hence we have, for $`xH_s`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\epsilon _s(xh{}_{(1)}{}^{})S(h{}_{(2)}{}^{})=S(h{}_{(1)}{}^{})xh{}_{(2)}{}^{}S(h{}_{(3)}{}^{})=S(h{}_{(1)}{}^{})x\epsilon _t(h{}_{(2)}{}^{})\hfill \\ \hfill =S(h{}_{(1)}{}^{})\epsilon _t(h{}_{(2)}{}^{})x=S(h)x.\end{array}$$

The antipode is an algebra antihomomorphism by

$$\begin{array}{c}S(gh)=S(g{}_{(1)}{}^{}h{}_{(1)}{}^{})\epsilon _t(g{}_{(2)}{}^{}h{}_{(2)}{}^{})=S(g{}_{(1)}{}^{}h{}_{(1)}{}^{})\epsilon _t(g{}_{(2)}{}^{}\epsilon _{t}^{}(h{}_{(2)}{}^{}))\hfill \\ \hfill =S(g{}_{(1)}{}^{}h{}_{(1)}{}^{})g{}_{(2)}{}^{}\epsilon _{t}^{}(h{}_{(2)}{}^{})S(g{}_{(3)}{}^{})=S(g{}_{(1)}{}^{}h{}_{(1)}{}^{})g{}_{(2)}{}^{}h{}_{(2)}{}^{}S(h{}_{(3)}{}^{})S(g{}_{(3)}{}^{})\\ \hfill =\epsilon _s(g{}_{(1)}{}^{}h{}_{(1)}{}^{})S(h{}_{(2)}{}^{})S(g{}_{(2)}{}^{})=\epsilon _s(\epsilon _s(g{}_{(1)}{}^{})h{}_{(1)}{}^{})S(h{}_{(2)}{}^{})S(g{}_{(2)}{}^{})\\ \hfill =S(h)\epsilon _s(g{}_{(1)}{}^{})S(g{}_{(2)}{}^{})=S(h)S(g)\end{array}$$

and

$$S(1)=S(1{}_{(1)}{}^{})1{}_{(2)}{}^{}S(1{}_{(3)}{}^{})=S(1{}_{(1)}{}^{})1{}_{(2)}{}^{}1_{}^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{}S(1^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{})=\epsilon _s(1)\epsilon _t(1^{})=1.$$

###### Theorem 6.1.

Let $`H`$ be a weak bialgebra. Then $`H`$ is a weak Hopf algebra if and only if the map

$$\beta _0:HHghg{}_{(1)}{}^{}g{}_{(2)}{}^{}hHH$$

induces an isomorphism

$$\beta :H\underset{H_s}{}H\mathrm{\Delta }(1)(HH).$$

###### Proof.

First, assume that $`H`$ has an antipode $`S`$. Define $`\overline{\beta }_0:HHH_{H_s}H`$ by $`\overline{\beta }(gh)=g{}_{(1)}{}^{}S(g{}_{(2)}{}^{})h`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{c}\beta \overline{\beta }_0(gh)=\beta (g{}_{(1)}{}^{}S(g{}_{(2)}{}^{})h)=g{}_{(1)}{}^{}g{}_{(2)}{}^{}S(g{}_{(3)}{}^{})h=g{}_{(1)}{}^{}\epsilon _t(g{}_{(2)}{}^{})h\hfill \\ \hfill =1{}_{(1)}{}^{}g{}_{(1)}{}^{}\epsilon _t(1{}_{(2)}{}^{}g{}_{(2)}{}^{})h=1{}_{(1)}{}^{}g{}_{(1)}{}^{}\epsilon (1^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{}1{}_{(2)}{}^{}g{}_{(2)}{}^{})1^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{}h\\ \hfill =1{}_{(1)}{}^{}g{}_{(1)}{}^{}\epsilon (1{}_{(2)}{}^{}g{}_{(2)}{}^{})1{}_{(3)}{}^{}h=1{}_{(1)}{}^{}g1{}_{(2)}{}^{}h\end{array}$$

and

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{\beta }_0\beta _0(gh)=g{}_{(1)}{}^{}S(g{}_{(2)}{}^{})g{}_{(3)}{}^{}h=g{}_{(1)}{}^{}\epsilon _s(g{}_{(2)}{}^{})h=g{}_{(1)}{}^{}\epsilon _{s}^{}(g{}_{(2)}{}^{})h=gh\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus the restriction of $`\overline{\beta }_0`$ is an inverse to $`\beta `$.

Now assume that $`\beta `$ has an inverse $`\beta ^1`$. Define $`\pi :H_{H_s}HH`$ by $`\pi (gh)=\epsilon _s(g)h`$, and define $`S:HH`$ by $`S(h)=\pi \beta ^1(1{}_{(1)}{}^{}h1{}_{(2)}{}^{})`$ for $`hH`$. We claim that $`S`$ is an antipode for $`H`$. For this we first compute

$$\begin{array}{c}S(h{}_{(1)}{}^{})h{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\pi (\beta ^1(1{}_{(1)}{}^{}h{}_{(1)}{}^{}1{}_{(2)}{}^{}))h{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\pi (\beta ^1(1{}_{(1)}{}^{}h{}_{(1)}{}^{}1{}_{(2)}{}^{})(1h{}_{(2)}{}^{}))\hfill \\ \hfill =\pi (\beta ^1(1{}_{(1)}{}^{}h{}_{(1)}{}^{}1{}_{(2)}{}^{}h{}_{(2)}{}^{})=\pi \beta ^1(h{}_{(1)}{}^{}h{}_{(2)}{}^{})=\pi (h1)=\epsilon _s(h).\end{array}$$

Next, we claim that the inverse of $`\beta `$ is the restriction of the map

$$\gamma :HHghg{}_{(1)}{}^{}S(g{}_{(2)}{}^{})hH\underset{H_s}{}H.$$

This is verified by the calculation

$$\begin{array}{c}\gamma \beta _0(gh)=\gamma (g{}_{(1)}{}^{}g{}_{(2)}{}^{}h)=g{}_{(1)}{}^{}S(g{}_{(2)}{}^{})g{}_{(3)}{}^{}h=g{}_{(1)}{}^{}\epsilon _s(g{}_{(2)}{}^{})h\hfill \\ \hfill =g{}_{(1)}{}^{}\epsilon _{s}^{}(g{}_{(2)}{}^{})h=gh.\end{array}$$

Using, for $`yH_s`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}S(yh)=\pi \beta ^1(1{}_{(1)}{}^{}yh1{}_{(2)}{}^{})=\pi \beta ^1(1{}_{(1)}{}^{}h1{}_{(2)}{}^{}\epsilon _{t}^{}(y))\hfill \\ \hfill =\pi \beta ^1(1{}_{(1)}{}^{}h1{}_{(2)}{}^{})\epsilon _t(y)=S(h)\epsilon _t(y),\end{array}$$

we find

$$\begin{array}{c}1{}_{(1)}{}^{}h1{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\beta \beta ^1(1{}_{(1)}{}^{}h1{}_{(2)}{}^{})=\beta (h{}_{(1)}{}^{}S(1{}_{(1)}{}^{}h{}_{(2)}{}^{})1{}_{(2)}{}^{})\hfill \\ \hfill =\beta (h{}_{(1)}{}^{}S(h{}_{(2)}{}^{})\epsilon _t(1{}_{(1)}{}^{})1{}_{(2)}{}^{})=\beta (h{}_{(1)}{}^{}S(h{}_{(2)}{}^{}))=h{}_{(1)}{}^{}h{}_{(2)}{}^{}S(h{}_{(3)}{}^{}).\end{array}$$

and can apply $`\epsilon H`$ to the result to obtain $`\epsilon _t(h)=h{}_{(1)}{}^{}S(h{}_{(2)}{}^{})`$. We finish the proof by calculating

$$S(h{}_{(1)}{}^{})h{}_{(2)}{}^{}S(h{}_{(3)}{}^{})=S(h{}_{(1)}{}^{})\epsilon _t(h{}_{(2)}{}^{})=S(h{}_{(1)}{}^{})\epsilon _t\epsilon _s^{}(h{}_{(2)}{}^{})=S(\epsilon _s^{}(h{}_{(2)}{}^{})h{}_{(1)}{}^{})=S(h)$$

for all $`hH`$. ∎

###### Corollary 6.2.

Let $`H`$ be a weak bialgebra. Then the following are equivalent:

1. $`H`$ is a weak Hopf algebra.
2. The associated $`\times _R`$-bialgebra $`H`$ is a $`\times _R`$-Hopf algebra.

###### Proof.

The identity induces an isomorphism $`\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }(1)(HH)HH`$ by LABEL:modcateq.nme 5.3. The composition $`\gamma \beta `$ is the map

$$H\underset{H_s}{}Hghg{}_{[1]}{}^{}g{}_{[2]}{}^{}hHH$$

required to be bijective in the definition of a $`\times _R`$-Hopf algebra. ∎

For ordinary Hopf algebras, a well-known application of the characterization LABEL:Hopf-Hopf.nme 6.1 is due to Nichols : Any finite dimensional quotient bialgebra $`H/I`$ of a Hopf algebra $`H`$ is itself a Hopf algebra. Dually, every finite-dimensional subbialgebra of a Hopf algebra is itself a Hopf algebra. Our results will not be quite as striking. We cannot prove that a finite-dimensional weak subbialgebra $`BH`$ of a weak Hopf algebra $`H`$ is necessarily a weak Hopf algebra. But at least we can give a criterion purely in terms of the module structure of $`B`$ over the source and target counital subalgebras.

To prepare, we note an observation of Nikshych and Vaĭnerman \[14, 2.1.12\]:

###### Lemma 6.3.

Let $`f:BH`$ be a homomorphism of weak bialgebras. Then $`f`$ induces isomorphisms $`B_tH_t`$ and $`B_sH_s`$

###### Proof.

We only treat the target counital subalgebra. It is trivial to check that $`f(B_t)H_t`$. We denote the induced map $`B_tH_t`$ by $`f`$ again. Define

$$g:H_tx\epsilon (xf(1{}_{(1)}{}^{}))1{}_{(2)}{}^{}B_t.$$

Then

$$gf(x)=\epsilon (f(x)f(1{}_{(1)}{}^{}))1{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\epsilon (f(x1{}_{(1)}{}^{}))1{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\epsilon (x1{}_{(1)}{}^{})1{}_{(2)}{}^{}=x$$

for all $`xB_t`$, and

$$fg(x)=\epsilon (xf(1{}_{(1)}{}^{}))f(1{}_{(2)}{}^{})=\epsilon (xf(1){}_{(1)}{}^{})f(1){}_{(2)}{}^{}=\epsilon (x1{}_{(1)}{}^{})1{}_{(2)}{}^{}=x$$

for all $`xH_t`$, so that $`g`$ is inverse to $`f`$. ∎

###### Theorem 6.4.

Let $`H`$ be a weak Hopf algebra, and $`BH`$ a finite-dimensional weak subbialgebra (i.e. subalgebra and subcoalgebra) of $`H`$. The following are equivalent:

1. $`B`$ is a weak Hopf algebra.
2. The right $`B_s`$-module $`B`$ is isomorphic to the $`B_s`$-module $`B`$ obtained by restricting the left $`B_t`$-module $`B`$ along $`\epsilon _t`$.

###### Proof.

As a special case of the preceding Lemma we have $`B_t=H_t`$ and $`B_s=H_s`$. For the implication (1)$``$(2) we need to use that the antipode of a finite-dimensional quasi-Hopf algebra is bijective \[1, 2.10\]. Now $`S`$ is an algebra antiautomorphism, and for $`yH_s`$

$$S(y)=S(y{}_{(1)}{}^{})\epsilon _t(y{}_{(2)}{}^{})=S(1{}_{(1)}{}^{})\epsilon _t(y1{}_{(2)}{}^{})=S(1{}_{(1)}{}^{})1{}_{(2)}{}^{}\epsilon _{t}^{}(y)=\epsilon _t(y),$$

so that (2) follows.

Now assume (2), and fix an isomorphism $`f:BB`$ satisfying $`f(b\epsilon _s^{}(x))=xf(b)`$ for all $`bB`$ and $`xH_t`$. Then

$$B\underset{H_s}{}Bbccf(b)BB$$

is an isomorphism of vector spaces, hence its domain and codomain have the same dimension. The canonical map

$$B\underset{H_s}{}Bbcb{}_{[1]}{}^{}b{}_{[2]}{}^{}cBB$$

is the restriction (note all the modules that occur are projective) of the canonical map for $`H`$, hence injective, hence bijective, so that $`B`$ is a quasi-Hopf algebra. ∎

With essentially the same proof we can show:

###### Theorem 6.5.

Let $`H`$ be a weak Hopf algebra, and $`B=H/I`$ a finite-dimensional quotient weak bialgebra (i.e. $`I`$ is a coideal and an ideal). The following are equivalent:

1. $`B`$ is a weak Hopf algebra.
2. The right $`B_s`$-module $`B`$ is isomorphic to the $`B_s`$-module $`B`$ obtained by restricting the left $`B_t`$-module $`B`$ along $`\epsilon _t`$.

## 7. Duality

In \[19, Sec.5\] we have discussed a notion of skew pairing and duality suitable for $`\times _R`$-bialgebras. Let $`R`$ be a $`k`$-algebra and $`H,\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ two $`\times _R`$-bialgebras. We have defined \[19, Def.5.1\] a skew pairing between $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`H`$ to be a $`k`$-linear map $`\tau :\mathrm{\Lambda }HR`$ satisfying

(7.1) $`((r\overline{s})\xi (t\overline{u})|h)v`$ $`=r\tau (\xi |(t\overline{v})h(u\overline{s})),`$
(7.2) $`\tau (\xi |gh)`$ $`=\tau (\overline{\tau (\xi {}_{[2]}{}^{}|h)}\xi {}_{[1]}{}^{}|g),`$ $`\tau (\xi |1)=C(\xi )(1),`$
(7.3) $`\tau (\xi \zeta |g)`$ $`=\tau (\xi |\tau (\zeta |g{}_{[1]}{}^{})g{}_{[2]}{}^{}),`$ $`\tau (1|h)=C(h)(1)`$
for all $`r,s,t,u,vR`$, $`\xi ,\zeta \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`g,hL`$.

As pointed out in , it is essential that we define a skew pairing rather than a pairing in this situation. (An alternative chosen by Kadison and Szlachányi  is to consider pairings between “left” and “right” bialgebroids.)

For weak bialgebras it is no problem to define a Hopf algebra pairing, of course, though the problem for $`\times _R`$-bialgebras has its counterpart in the fact that the source counital subalgebra of the dual of a finite-dimensional weak bialgebra $`H`$ is canonically isomorphic to the target rather than the source counital subalgebra of $`H`$.

We define a skew pairing between weak bialgebras $`\mathrm{\Lambda },H`$ to be a linear map $`\tau _0:\mathrm{\Lambda }Hk`$ satisfying

$`\tau _0(\xi |gh)`$ $`=\tau _0(\xi {}_{(1)}{}^{}|g)\tau _0(\xi {}_{(2)}{}^{}|h),`$ $`\tau _0(\xi |1)=\epsilon (\xi ),`$
$`\tau _0(\xi \zeta |h)`$ $`=\tau _0(\zeta |h{}_{(1)}{}^{})\tau _0(\xi |h{}_{(2)}{}^{}),`$ $`\tau _0(1|h)=\epsilon (h)`$
for $`\xi ,\zeta \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`g,hH`$.

For the rest of the section let $`R`$ be a Frobenius-separable algebra with idempotent Frobenius system $`(\varphi ,e)`$.

###### Lemma 7.1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda },H`$ be two $`\times _R`$-bialgebras.

If $`\tau :\mathrm{\Lambda }HR`$ is a skew pairing of $`\times _R`$-bialgebras. Then $`\tau _0:=\varphi \tau :\mathrm{\Lambda }Hk`$ is a skew pairing between the corresponding weak bialgebras.

###### Proof.

We first note that $`\overline{e^{(1)}}h{}_{(1)}{}^{}e^{(2)}h{}_{(2)}{}^{}=h{}_{(1)}{}^{}h_{(2)}`$ holds in $`HH`$ for all $`hH`$ (and similar formulas for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$), so that

$$\tau (\zeta |h{}_{(1)}{}^{})h{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\varphi (\tau (\zeta |h{}_{(1)}{}^{})e^{(1)})e^{(2)}h{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\varphi (\tau (\zeta |\overline{e^{(1)}}h{}_{(1)}{}^{}))e^{(2)}h{}_{(2)}{}^{}=\tau _0(\zeta |h{}_{(1)}{}^{})h_{(2)}$$

for all $`\zeta \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`hH`$. It follows that

$$\begin{array}{c}\tau _0(\xi \zeta |h)=\varphi \tau (\xi \zeta |h)=\varphi (\tau (\xi |\tau (\zeta |h{}_{[1]}{}^{})h{}_{[2]}{}^{}))\hfill \\ \hfill =\tau _0(\xi |\tau (\zeta |h{}_{(1)}{}^{})h{}_{(2)}{}^{}))=\tau _0(\xi |\tau _0(\zeta |h{}_{(1)}{}^{})h{}_{(2)}{}^{})\end{array}$$

for all $`\xi ,\zeta \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`hH`$. Moreover

$$\tau _0(1|h)=\varphi \tau (1|h)=\varphi (C(h)(1))=\epsilon (h).$$

On the other side, using that

$$\overline{\tau (\xi {}_{(2)}{}^{}|h)}\xi {}_{(1)}{}^{}=\overline{e^{(1)}}\varphi (e^{(2)}\tau (\xi {}_{(2)}{}^{}|h))\xi {}_{(1)}{}^{}=\overline{e^{(1)}}\xi {}_{(1)}{}^{}\varphi (\tau (e^{(2)}\xi {}_{(2)}{}^{}|h))=\xi {}_{(1)}{}^{}\tau _{0}^{}(\xi {}_{(2)}{}^{}|h)$$

for $`\xi \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`hH`$, we find

$$\begin{array}{c}\tau _0(\xi |gh)=\varphi \tau (\xi |gh)=\varphi \tau (\overline{\tau (\xi {}_{[2]}{}^{}|h)}\xi {}_{[1]}{}^{}|g)\hfill \\ \hfill =\tau _0(\overline{\tau (\xi {}_{(2)}{}^{}|h)}\xi {}_{(1)}{}^{}|g)=\tau _0(\xi {}_{(1)}{}^{}\tau _{0}^{}(\xi {}_{(2)}{}^{}|h)|g)\end{array}$$

for all $`\xi \mathrm{\Lambda },g,hH`$, while

$$\tau _0(\xi |1)=\varphi \tau (\xi |1)=\varphi (C(\xi )(1))=\epsilon (\xi ).$$

By (7.1), a skew pairing between $`\times _R`$-bialgebras $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`H`$ defines a map $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{Hom}_{\overline{R}}(H,R)`$. In the case that $`H`$ is finitely generated projective, there is a unique $`\times _R`$-bialgebra structure on $`H^{}:=\mathrm{Hom}_{\overline{R}}(H,R)`$ such that evaluation defines a skew pairing $`H^{}Hk`$, see \[19, Thm.5.13\].

In our situation, where $`R`$ is Frobenius-separable, any $`R`$-module is projective, so $`H`$ is a finitely generated projective left $`\overline{R}`$-module if and only if $`H`$ is finite dimensional over $`k`$. Then the vector space dual $`H^{}`$ of the weak bialgebra $`H`$ has a natural weak bialgebra structure, consisting of the usual dual algebra of the coalgebra $`H`$, and the dual coalgebra of the algebra $`H`$. Note that $`(H^{})^{\mathrm{op}}`$ has a skew pairing with $`H`$.

###### Proposition 7.2.

Let $`H`$ be a finite dimensional $`\times _R`$-bialgebra. Then the weak bialgebra corresponding to $`H^{}`$ is the opposite $`(H^{})^{\mathrm{op}}`$ of the dual $`H^{}`$ of the weak bialgebra corresponding to $`H`$.

###### Proof.

Evaluation of $`H^{}`$ on $`H`$ defines a skew pairing of $`\times _R`$-bialgebras which is nondegenerate in its right argument by definition of $`H^{}`$, and also in its left argument since $`H`$ is finitely generated projective as a left $`\overline{R}`$-module.

We have seen that $`\tau `$ induces a skew pairing $`\tau _0:H^{}Hk`$ of weak bialgebras. It only remains to verify that $`\tau _0`$ is nondegenerate.

So let first $`\xi H^{}`$, and assume that $`\tau _0(\xi |h)=0`$ for all $`hH`$. Then for all $`hH`$ we have $`0=\varphi (\tau (\xi |\overline{e^{(1)}}h))e^{(2)}=\varphi (\tau (\xi |h)e^{(1)})e^{(2)}=\tau (\xi |h)`$ and hence $`\xi =0`$ by definition of $`H^{}`$.

By a parallel argument we can show that $`\tau _0`$ is nondegenerate in the left argument as well. ∎

###### Remark 7.3.

Let $`(H,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ be a finite-dimensional weak bialgebra with counital subalgebra $`R`$. Let $`(H,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ be the associated $`\times _R`$-bialgebra. To distinguish, let $`{}_{}{}^{(H,\mathrm{\Delta })}`$ denote the category of left comodules over the ordinary $`k`$-coalgebra $`H`$, and let $`{}_{}{}^{(H,\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$ denote the category of left comodules over the $`\times _R`$-bialgebra $`H`$. By \[19, Cor.5.15\] one has an equivalence of monoidal categories $`{}_{}{}^{H}{}_{H^{}}{}^{}`$. By LABEL:modcateq.nme 5.3 and LABEL:dual.nme 7.2 we may replace $`{}_{H^{}}{}^{}`$ by the module category $`{}_{(H^{})^{\mathrm{op}}}{}^{}`$ over the opposite of the dual weak bialgebra, which in turn is the comodule category $`{}_{}{}^{(H,\mathrm{\Delta })}`$ over the weak bialgebra $`H`$. Combining, we have a category equivalence $`{}_{}{}^{(H,\mathrm{\Delta })}{}_{}{}^{(H,\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$, which we will now derive more directly, and without using finiteness.

###### Proposition 7.4.

Let $`(H,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ be a weak bialgebra, and $`(H,\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ the associated $`\times _R`$-bialgebra.

1. Let $`M`$ be a comodule over the $`\times _R`$-bialgebra $`H`$, with comodule structure $`\lambda :Mmm{}_{[1]}{}^{}m{}_{[0]}{}^{}H\times _RM`$. Then the underlying vector space of $`M`$ is a left $`H`$-comodule over the $`k`$-coalgebra $`H`$ with comodule structure

$$\delta :Mm\overline{e^{(1)}}m{}_{[0]}{}^{}e^{(2)}m{}_{[0]}{}^{}HM.$$
2. Let $`M`$ be a left $`H`$-comodule over the $`k`$-coalgebra $`H`$, with comodule structure map $`\delta `$. Then $`M`$ is an $`R`$-bimodule by
(7.4)
$$rms:=\epsilon (rm{}_{(1)}{}^{}s)m_{(0)}$$

and a left $`H`$-comodule for the $`\times _R`$-bialgebra $`H`$ with the comodule structure $`\lambda `$ such that

$$M\stackrel{𝜆}{}H\times _RMHM$$

is the composition

$$M\stackrel{𝛿}{}HMHM$$

in which the second map is the canonical epi.

The two constructions describe a bijection between the two types of comodule structures on a given $`k`$-vector space $`M`$. In particular, one has a category equivalence $`{}_{}{}^{(H,\mathrm{\Delta })}{}_{}{}^{(H,\mathrm{\Gamma })}`$.

###### Proof.

If we assume that $`M`$ is a comodule over the $`\times _R`$-bialgebra $`H`$, then the calculation showing that it is a comodule over the coalgebra $`H`$ as claimed in (1) is a spitting image of the proof that $`H`$ is an ordinary coalgebra in LABEL:Tak-to-weak.nme 5.5.

So assume that $`M`$ is a comodule over the ordinary coalgebra $`H`$. The bimodule structure (7.4) was first defined by Nill \[16, Prop.4.1\] under the assumption that $`H`$ is finite dimensional. As a first indication that the structure is appropriate, note that we have

(7.5)
$$\epsilon (rh{}_{(1)}{}^{}s)h{}_{(2)}{}^{}=rhs$$

for all $`r,sR`$ and $`hH`$ by (4.6). To see that (7.4) defines a bimodule structure, we only make a sample calculation, say of associativity of the left module structure:

$$\begin{array}{c}r(sm)=\epsilon (sm{}_{(1)}{}^{})rm{}_{(0)}{}^{}=\epsilon (sm{}_{(2)}{}^{})\epsilon (rm{}_{(1)}{}^{})m_{(0)}\hfill \\ \hfill =\epsilon (r\epsilon (sm{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{(1)}{}^{})m{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{(2)}{}^{})m{}_{(0)}{}^{}\stackrel{\text{(}\text{7.5}\text{)}}{=}\epsilon (r(sm{}_{(1)}{}^{}))m{}_{(0)}{}^{}=(rs)m.\end{array}$$

The calculation for associativity of the right $`R`$-module structure, and compatibility of the left and right module structures, are analogous.

Once we note now (compare \[16, (4.24)\]) that

$$\begin{array}{c}m{}_{(1)}{}^{}1{}_{(1)}{}^{}m{}_{(0)}{}^{}1{}_{(2)}{}^{}=m{}_{(2)}{}^{}1{}_{(1)}{}^{}\epsilon (m{}_{(1)}{}^{}1{}_{(2)}{}^{})m_{(0)}\hfill \\ \hfill =(m{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{(1)}{}^{}\epsilon ((m{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{(2)}{}^{})m{}_{(0)}{}^{}=m{}_{(1)}{}^{}m_{(0)}\end{array}$$

holds for $`mM`$, the rest of the proof of (2) is again the same as the proof that $`H`$ is a $`\times _R`$-bialgebra in LABEL:weak-to-Tak.nme 5.1.

We omit showing that the two constructions described in (1) and (2) are inverse to each other. ∎

###### Remark 7.5.

Using (4.8) in LABEL:keyrem.nme 5.2, we can describe the tensor product of two left $`H`$-comodules $`M`$ and $`N`$, which is their tensor product $`M_RN`$, by the isomorphic subspace

$$\{\epsilon (m{}_{(1)}{}^{}n{}_{(1)}{}^{})m{}_{(0)}{}^{}n{}_{(0)}{}^{}|mM,nN\}MN$$

since we have

$$\begin{array}{c}me^{(1)}e^{(2)}n=\epsilon (m{}_{(1)}{}^{}\epsilon _{t}^{}(1{}_{(1)}{}^{}))\epsilon (1{}_{(2)}{}^{}n{}_{(1)}{}^{})m{}_{(0)}{}^{}n_{(0)}\hfill \\ \hfill =\epsilon (m{}_{(1)}{}^{}1{}_{(1)}{}^{})\epsilon (1{}_{(2)}{}^{}n{}_{(1)}{}^{})m{}_{(0)}{}^{}n{}_{(0)}{}^{}=\epsilon (m{}_{(1)}{}^{}n{}_{(1)}{}^{})m{}_{(0)}{}^{}n{}_{(0)}{}^{}.\end{array}$$

for $`mM`$ and $`nN`$. Both versions of a tensor product in the category of $`H`$-comodules (the tensor product over $`R`$ and the version that is a subspace of the tensor product over $`k`$) were discussed and compared by Nill \[16, Sec.4\] in the case where $`H`$ is finite dimensional.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Magnetic fluids (MFs) are superparamagnetic fluids formed by a stable colloidal suspension of ferrimagnetic nanoparticles dispersed in a carrier liquid . The behaviour of MFs is characterized by the complex interaction of their hydrodynamic and magnetic properties with external forces. For the phenomenon of thermomagnetic convection these forces are a temperature gradient and a magnetic field. Most studies consider the geometry of a horizontal layer which is simultaneously subjected to a vertical temperature gradient and either to a constant vertical magnetic field  or to a vertical magnetic field with a constant gradient . Studies for a cylindrical geometry are few  and focus on the thermomagnetic convection under microgravity .

The present analysis of thermomagnetic convection in a cylindrical geometry is motivated by a recently observed novel convective instability. In  a horizontal layer of MF between two glass plates is locally heated by a focused laser beam. It passes perpendicularly through the layer in the presence of a homogeneous vertical magnetic field. The absorption of the light by the fluid generates a temperature gradient and subsequently a refractive index gradient. This gradient is optically equivalent to a diverging lens, leading to an enhancement of the beam divergence. As result, a stationary diffraction pattern of concentric rings is observed for zero magnetic field. Above a certain threshold of the magnetic field, the circular rings are replaced by polygonally shaped patterns which switch among different shapes alternatively. Based on numerics it was stated that the characteristic time scales for mass and thermal diffusion are equal . Thus thermal conduction and thermal diffusion contribute equally to the formation of the diverging lens. The polygonally shaped diffraction patterns were interpreted as ‘fingerprints’ of vertical convection columns .

Both claims are controversial due to the following reasons. An analysis of the physical quantities reveals that both characteristic time scales are several orders of magnitude apart (below and ). Direct spatial temperature measurements  and independent measurements of all relevant material parameters for organic dispersions  showed that the ring pattern is essentially caused by the temperature contribution and not by the concentration contribution. The determination of the relevant time scales confirmed that the experiment is dominated by the characteristic time for convection. Presently there is no sound theoretical description for the dependence of the size of the outmost of the concentric rings on the laser power (see Fig. 2 in ).

A major hindrance of the studied system in  is that it is almost impossible to gain information about the spatial distribution of temperature and concentration inside the MF layer. Due to the lack of sound internal information many hypotheses can be brought forward to explain the experimental results. Among them is the recent discussion whether the shape instability of a hot nonmagnetic bubble surrounded by MF can be accounted for the observed phenomena .

This situation motivates the present work in which a model system is studied which reflects the essentials of the experimental setup. These are the axis-symmetry of the heating and the finite hight and width of the layer. The aim is to determine the necessary conditions and the critical magnetic inductions for the appearance of axial convection columns. Thus the focus is on the general requirements for thermomagnetic convection in an axis-symmetric heated system.

This paper is organized as follows: The system and the relevant equations of the problem as well as the condition for a potentially unstable stratification in the fluid are displayed in the next section. Based on a linear stability analysis (Sec. III), the results are presented and discussed in Sec. IV. In the final section, the results are summarized.

## 2 Model and Equations

The model system is given by a composite, circular cylinder of height $`h`$ which consists of three parts. The inner cylinder of radius $`R_1`$, constant temperature $`T_1`$, and constant susceptibility $`\chi (T_1)`$ is surrounded by a middle cylinder of radius $`R_2`$. In the gap $`R_2R_1`$ the temperature decreases to $`T_0<T_1`$ and consequently $`\chi `$ is a spatially varying quantity, $`\chi =\chi [T(r)]`$. The outer cylinder has the radius $`R_{\mathrm{out}}`$, where in the region $`R_{\mathrm{out}}R_2`$ the constant temperature $`T_0`$ and constant susceptibility $`\chi (T_0)`$ is present. The whole system is subjected to a homogeneous vertical magnetic field and its effective susceptibility is given by

$$\chi _{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{1}{R_{\mathrm{out}}}(R_1\chi (T_1)+(R_2R_1)_{R_1}^{R_2}dr\chi [T(r)]+(R_{\mathrm{out}}R_2)\chi (T_0)).$$
(1)
In the presence of a uniform external magnetic induction $`𝐁_{\mathrm{ext}}`$, the internal field in the gap is given by $`𝐇_{\mathrm{int}}=𝐁_{\mathrm{ext}}/[\mu _0(1+N\chi )]`$. The susceptibility of the MF is $`\chi =\chi _L(1+\beta _1\chi _L)`$, where $`\chi _L`$ is the susceptibility according to Langevins theory which assumes non-interacting particles. Higher order terms in $`\chi _L`$ are included in order to determine the magnetic (or Kelvin) force density beyond the dilute limit $`\chi =\chi _L`$. The coefficient $`\beta _1`$ was determined in different microscopic models  which all provide the same value $`\beta _1=1/3`$. The demagnetization factor $`N`$ accounts for the finite size of the composite cylinder and is a function of the heigh-to-diameter ratio $`\gamma =h/(2R_{\mathrm{out}})`$ and the effective susceptibility $`\chi _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ . The Kelvin force follows then as

$$𝐟_\mathrm{K}=\frac{B_{\mathrm{ext}}^2}{\mu _0}F_{\chi _L}\frac{\mathrm{grad}\chi _L}{\chi _L},$$
(2)
where

$$F_{\chi _L}=\frac{\chi _L^2\left\{N+\beta _1\left[3N\chi _L\left(1+\beta _1\chi _L\right)1\right]\right\}}{(1+N\chi )^3}.$$
(3)
Considering MFs as binary mixtures, it is necessary to evaluate the influence of temperature and concentration on pattern phenomena by analyzing the corresponding time scales. These are the characteristic time for convection $`t_c=L_c^2/\kappa `$ and for mass diffusion $`t_d=L_d^2/D`$, where $`L_c`$ ($`L_d`$) is the typical length for convection (diffusion), $`\kappa `$ the thermal diffusivity, and $`D`$ the mass diffusion coefficient. Using the data given in , one gets $`\kappa 4\times 10^8`$ m$`^2`$s-1 and $`D8\times 10^{12}`$ m$`^2`$s-1. Except in special designed geometries as in , where $`L_cL_d`$, the characteristic time for diffusion is of three orders of magnitude larger than the characteristic time for convection. Since in our model both length scales are equal to the gap width $`R_2R_1`$, diffusion phenomena can be neglected.

The system is governed by the equation of continuity, the Navier-Stokes equations, and the equation of heat conduction for the MF which are in nondimensional form

$`\mathrm{div}\overline{𝐯}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (4)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{𝐯}}{\overline{t}}}+(\overline{𝐯}\mathrm{grad})\overline{𝐯}`$ $`=`$ $`𝒫\left(\mathrm{grad}\overline{p}+\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{𝐯}\right)+F_{\chi _L}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{grad}\overline{T}}{\overline{T}}},`$ (5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{T}}{\overline{t}}}+(\overline{𝐯}\mathrm{grad})\overline{T}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{T},`$ (6)
where the Prandtl number $`𝒫=\nu /\kappa `$ characterizes the fluid and the magnetization number $`=B_{\mathrm{ext}}^2(R_2R_1)^2/(\mu _0\rho \kappa ^2)`$ tunes the external excitation. Denoting $`\nu `$ as kinematic viscosity, the velocity $`𝐯=(u,v)`$ is scaled with $`\kappa /(R_2R_1)`$, time with $`(R_2R_1)^2/\kappa `$, temperature with $`(T_1T_0)`$, and pressure $`p`$ with $`\rho \kappa \nu /(R_2R_1)^2`$. $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{grad}`$ are the corresponding differential operators in the plane cylindrical coordinates $`\overline{r}`$ and $`\varphi `$. Rigid boundary conditions are assumed for the velocity at the inner and outer radius of the gap, $`\overline{u}=_{\overline{r}}\overline{u}=0`$ at $`\overline{r}=\eta /(1\eta )`$ and $`\overline{r}=1/(1\eta )`$, where the radii ratio is given by $`\eta =R_1/R_2`$. The temperature is assumed to be constant at each boundary, $`\overline{T}(\overline{r}=\eta /(1\eta ))=\overline{T}_1`$ and $`\overline{T}(\overline{r}=1/(1\eta ))=\overline{T}_0`$.

Since the Kelvin force is the only destabilizing force present in the system, one has to determine which profile leads to a potentially unstable stratification in the fluid. For heating at the inner radius, the required profile is given in Fig. 1(a): the $`r`$-component of the Kelvin force density has to act inwards and its absolute value increases monotonically outward. With such a profile a fluid volume at the distance $`r+\delta r`$ (solid rectangle in Fig. 1(b)) experiences a larger force towards the center compared to a fluid volume at the distance $`r`$ (dashed rectangle). Moving the latter fluid volume from $`r`$ to $`r+\delta r`$ (dot-dashed rectangle) results in an effective force which points in the direction of the displacement (indicated symbolically by the subtraction of the arrows in Fig. 1(b) bottom). This force may enhance small displacements of warmer fluid volumes towards cooler regions and thus making the stratification potentially unstable.

The above argument has to be tested for the quiescent conductive state which is given by $`\overline{𝐯}_G=0`$ and $`\overline{T}_G=\overline{T}_0+(\overline{T}_1\overline{T}_0)\mathrm{ln}[\overline{r}(1\eta )]/\mathrm{ln}\eta `$. Applying the condition for a destabilizing force profile to the $`r`$-component of the Kelvin force density in Eq. (2) leads to the condition

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{r}}}\mathrm{f}_{\mathrm{K},\overline{r}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{_{\overline{r}}\overline{T}}{\overline{T}}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{(\chi _LF_{\chi _L})}{\chi _L}}+F_{\chi _L}{\displaystyle \frac{_{\overline{r}}^2\overline{T}}{\overline{T}}}<0`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{for}\mathrm{all}\overline{r}[\eta /(1\eta ),1/(1\eta )].`$
Since $`_{\overline{r}}\mathrm{f}_{\mathrm{K},\overline{r}}`$ is a monotonously decreasing function of $`\overline{r}`$, it is sufficient if $`_{\overline{r}}\mathrm{f}_{\mathrm{K},\overline{r}}<0`$ at $`\overline{r}=\eta /(1\eta )`$ in order to fulfil the condition (7). Depending on the temperatures $`\overline{T}_1`$ and $`\overline{T}_0`$, the Langevin susceptibility $`\chi _L`$, the demagnetization factor $`N`$, and $`\beta _1`$ the condition (7) entails that the radii ratio $`\eta `$ has to be larger than a critical value. For realistic temperatures $`T_1`$ above a room temperature of $`T_0=300`$ K, it becomes clear that this condition is met only in a narrow gap (see Fig. 2). This is plausible because the nonlinear temperature profile $`\overline{T}_G\mathrm{ln}[\overline{r}(1\eta )]`$ can be well approximated in a small gap by a linear profile which always satisfies the requirement (7) if $`\beta _1=0`$.

## 3 Linear Stability Analysis

Exploiting the smallness of the gap, in the linear stability analysis terms as $`_{\overline{r}}(_{\overline{r}}+1/\overline{r})`$ are approximated by $`_{\overline{r}}^2`$ and the new variable $`\zeta =\overline{r}\eta /(1\eta )`$ is introduced. All small disturbances from the ground state are decomposed into normal modes, i.e. into components of the form $`[\overline{u},\overline{p},\overline{T}]=\mathrm{e}^{n\overline{t}}\mathrm{cos}(l\varphi )[\overline{u}(\zeta ),\overline{p}(\zeta ),\overline{T}(\zeta )]`$ and $`\overline{v}=\mathrm{e}^{n\overline{t}}\mathrm{sin}(l\varphi )\overline{v}(\zeta )`$, respectively. The nondimensional growth rate is denoted by $`n`$ and $`l`$ is the azimuthal wave number. For marginal stability, $`n0`$, the differential equations to solve are

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\zeta ^2}}\alpha ^2\right)^2\overline{u}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{l^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\zeta ^2}}\alpha ^2)\overline{u}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^2{\displaystyle \frac{}{𝒫}}f_{\chi _L}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{T}}{\overline{T}_G^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{T}_G}{\zeta }},`$ (8)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\zeta ^2}}\alpha ^2)\overline{T}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}(\overline{T}_0\overline{T}_1),`$ (9)
where $`\alpha =(1\eta )l/\eta `$ and

$`f_{\chi _L}`$ $`=`$ $`\chi _L{\displaystyle \frac{F_{\chi _L}}{\chi _L}}={\displaystyle \frac{\chi _L^2}{(1+N\chi )^4}}[6N^2\beta _1^2\chi _L^3(1+\beta _1\chi _L)`$ (10)
$`+4N\chi _L^2\beta _1(N4\beta _1)+\chi _L(N10\beta _1)+2\beta _12N].`$
In order to satisfy the four boundary conditions $`\overline{u}=_\zeta \overline{u}=0`$ at $`\zeta =0,1`$, the ansatz

$$\overline{u}(\zeta )=\underset{m=1}{\overset{K}{}}P_m[\mathrm{sinh}(a\zeta )+B_m\mathrm{cosh}(a\zeta )+C_m\mathrm{sin}(b\zeta )+D_m\mathrm{cos}(b\zeta )]$$
(11)
with $`a=\sqrt{q_m^2+\alpha ^2}`$ and $`b=\sqrt{q_m^2\alpha ^2}`$ is chosen. $`q_m`$ is a root of a transcendental equation and the constants $`B_m`$, $`C_m`$, and $`D_m`$ are determined by the boundary conditions (for details see ). With Eq. (11) the solution of Eq. (9) reads $`\overline{T}(\zeta )=_{m=1}^KP_m\left[T_m(\zeta )+C_1\mathrm{e}^{\alpha \zeta }+C_2\mathrm{e}^{\alpha \zeta }\right]`$. $`T_m(\zeta )`$ is the solution of the inhomogeneous equation (due to its lengths not given here) and the constants $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are determined by the boundary conditions $`\overline{T}=0`$ at $`\zeta =0,1`$. Using Eq. (11) and the solution for $`\overline{T}(\zeta )`$, Eq. (8) can be approximately solved by the Galerkin method. Due to the good convergence, all presented results are based on the third approximation (see Table 1). For the calculations fluid parameters of EMG 901 are used: $`\rho =1.53\times 10^3`$ kg m-3, $`\nu =6.54\times 10^6`$ m$`^2`$s-1, $`\chi _L=3`$, and $`\kappa =4.2\times 10^8`$ m$`^2`$s-1 . The temperature at the outer radius of the gap $`R_2=1`$ cm is fixed at $`T_0=300`$ K. The hight of the composite cylinder is given by $`h=1`$ cm and the inner radius by $`\eta =1.01\eta _c(\beta _1=1/3,N=1)`$. The choice of $`\eta _c(\beta _1=1/3,N=1)`$ (solid line in Fig. 2) ensures that for all following parameter sets the condition (7) is fulfilled.

## 4 Results and Discussion

Solving Eq. (8) with the Galerkin method and subsequently minimization with respect to the azimuthal wave number determines the critical external induction $`B_c`$ and the corresponding wave number $`l_c`$ (Figs. 3 and 4). Four different parameter sets were chosen: a dilute ($`\beta _1=0`$) and a nondilute ($`\beta _1=1/3`$) MF with $`R_{\mathrm{out}}=\mathrm{}`$ ($`N=1`$) and $`R_{\mathrm{out}}3.33`$ cm, respectively. The demagnetization factor $`N`$ for the resulting height-to-diameter ratio $`\gamma =0.15`$ and the effective susceptibility $`\chi _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ of the composite cylinder accordingly to Eq. (1) is taken from the data given in .

Decreasing the temperature difference from $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=70`$ K to $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=4`$ K causes a dramatic increase in the critical induction of nearly three orders of magnitude (Fig. 3). With decreasing temperature difference the critical radii ratio grows, i.e. the allowed gap becomes more narrow. Since the convection rolls prefer the same length scale in $`r`$ and $`\varphi `$-direction, much more rolls have to be driven in a very small gap. The energy for this effort comes from the external induction which is why it amplifies drastically for small $`\mathrm{\Delta }T`$ (Fig. 3).

Whereas the critical azimuthal wave number $`l_c`$ is independent of $`\chi (\chi _L)`$ and $`N`$ (Fig. 4), the critical induction varies. First the two thresholds for the case of an infinitely extended layer, $`R_{\mathrm{out}}=\mathrm{}`$, are compared. The inclusion of a quadratic term in the susceptibility with $`\beta _1=1/3`$ results in a lower threshold for the onset of convection than in the dilute case $`\beta _1=0`$ (solid and long-dashed line in Fig. 3). The difference between the thresholds is nearly the same value, $`B_c(\beta _1=1/3,N=1)0.63B_c(\beta _1=0,N=1)`$, for all tested temperatures $`304`$ K $`T_1`$ $`370`$ K.

Now the thresholds for the case of a finite layer with $`R_{\mathrm{out}}3.33`$ cm are compared. Contrary to the previous case, the threshold for a dilute fluid (dot-dashed line in Fig. 3) is lower than for a nondilute fluid (dotted line). Again the difference is almost constant over the entire temperature range, $`B_c[\beta _1=1/3,N(\gamma =0.15,\chi _{\mathrm{eff}})]1.18B_c[\beta _1=0,N(\gamma =0.15,\chi _{\mathrm{eff}})]`$.

The relation of the different thresholds is caused by the value of $`f_{\chi _L}`$ for the given combinations of $`N`$, $`\beta _1`$, and $`\chi _L`$. $`f_{\chi _L}`$ can be considered as a measure for the strength of the magnetic force in the gap: as higher the value of $`f_{\chi _L}`$ as lower the critical external induction necessary to trigger the convection. Figure 5 shows the value of $`f_{\chi _L}`$ for the four considered parameter sets. At $`\chi _L=3`$ the relation $`f_{\chi _L}(\beta _1=0,N=1)<f_{\chi _L}(\beta _1=1/3,N=1)`$ (see cross-sections of the long-dashed and the solid line with the vertical solid line) is the reason that the threshold for the dilute fluid is higher than for the nondilute fluid. The opposite relation $`f_{\chi _L}[\beta _1=0,N(\gamma =0.15,\chi _{\mathrm{eff}})]>f_{\chi _L}[\beta _1=1/3,N(\gamma =0.15,\chi _{\mathrm{eff}})]`$ (see cross-sections of the dot-dashed and the dotted line with the vertical solid line) causes the opposite relation for the thresholds in the case of a finite layer.

The physical reasons which cause theses differences are the following. The Kelvin force is proportional to the magnetization in the magnetic fluid. Thus as higher the magnetization is, as lower the external induction can be in order to generate the same strength of the magnetic force. In the infinite case, where $`N=1`$ is independent of $`\chi `$, a higher concentration of magnetic particles in the fluid leads to a higher magnetization and therefore to a lower threshold. In the finite case, the demagnetization factor depends on $`\chi `$  and is smaller for higher concentrations of magnetic particles than for lower concentrations. A higher demagnetization factor means a lower inner field and a higher magnetization, respectively. Therefore in the finite case an increase in the concentration results in two counteracting effects with respect to the magnetization. In the studied example of $`\chi _L=3`$ the influence of the demagnetization effect wins: the dilute fluid has the lower threshold. But for $`\chi _L>3.2`$ the direct influence of the concentration succeeds over the demagnetization effect. The nondilute fluid has the lower threshold (the dotted line is then above the dot-dashed line, see Fig. 5).

In the infinite and finite case the clear and measurable difference between the thresholds opens a very good opportunity to decide whether a test sample is a dilute fluid or not. Just by measuring the threshold for the onset of convection in the proposed model system the answer can be given. The critical induction depends on the fluid and system parameters as $`B_c\kappa \sqrt{\rho }/(R_2R_1)`$. By choosing fluids with low (high) density and thermal conductivity and a large (small) radius $`R_2`$, the threshold can be lowered (raised) corresponding to the experimentally available magnetic fields.

The major obstacle in order to compare the results with the experimental data in  is the lack of an experimentally determined spatial profile of the temperature inside the sample. Therefore it is not possible to extract an estimation what might be the values of $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ in the experiment. Nevertheless the calculated values indicate that really high critical external inductions are necessary to trigger vertical convections rolls by a pure radial temperature gradient. The threshold for the induction reaches extremely high values if one extrapolates towards radii in the range of hundreds of micrometers, not unlikely due to the focused laser beam used in the experiment . This leads to the conclusion that vertical convections rolls due to a pure radial temperature gradient are unlikely to account for the observed phenomena of polygonally shaped diffraction patterns.

Due to the lack of information from inside the sample, it is not clear whether the temperature profile in the experimental sample is purely radial. There are hints in  that due to the absorption along the way of the laser beam a vertical temperature distribution exists as well. A further cause for an axial temperature gradient is the heat loss through the glass plates by which the MF layer is sandwiched. If such a vertical temperature gradient comes into play, concentration gradients due to the Soret effect may become important. The relative influence of temperature and concentration gradients is strongly effected by the relation of the characteristic times $`t_c`$ and $`t_d`$ which depend quadratically on the lengths $`L_c`$ and $`L_d`$, respectively. With a radial and a vertical temperature gradient present, it becomes even more important to have reliable data of the internal profiles to estimate these lengths.

Two differences between the model and the motivating experiment should be noted. The constant temperature $`T_1`$ for the inner cylinder is not given in the experiment. How much the temperature varies in this inner area is not known. The numerical calculations in  suggest a difference of about $`15`$ K. The thresholds were calculated for rigid boundaries whereas in the experiment the fluid layer boundary is free. For thermal convection in a rotating layer of magnetic fluid the influence of rigid and free boundaries on the threshold was studied in . Considering the case of zero rotation, the thresholds differ by not more than $`20`$% (see Figs. 3 and 4 in  for rotation number $`T0`$). With respect to the above mentioned major obstacle, these differences may alter the results only marginally.

## 5 Summary

A model system of a composite cylinder of finite size with axis-symmetrical temperature distribution is presented. Using the Kelvin force density (2,3) a general condition (7) is derived for which a potentially unstable stratification exists if the inner cylinder is heated. Depending on the temperature difference, the size of the composite cylinder and the dilute or nondilute character of the magnetic fluid, the critical gap sizes are calculated. The general result is that only in a narrow gap the requirement for a potentially unstable stratification is met. Exploiting this property, a linear stability analysis is performed in order to determine the critical external induction for the onset of thermomagnetic convection. With decreasing temperature difference, the critical induction increases dramatically. The reason is that for smaller temperature differences which demand smaller gaps in order to fulfil condition (7), much more convection rolls have to be driven. The driving of these many rolls causes the drastic increasing of the critical induction. The distinct difference between the threshold for dilute and nondilute magnetic fluids allows to use the considered system for an experimental determination whether a test fluid is a dilute or nondilute one.

The rather high external induction, needed to stimulate the convection flow, leads to the conclusion that vertical convections rolls due to a pure radial temperature gradient are unlikely to account for the observed diffraction patterns. The consideration of a vertical temperature gradient entails that concentration gradients may become relevant. To answer this question the characteristic time for the diffusion with respect to whose for convection has to be re-estimated. Because they will not be necessarily apart by orders of magnitude as in the case of a pure radial temperature gradient. Also different convection patterns can be expected with the presence of a vertical temperature gradient. In order to come to a correct statement about the contribution of mass and thermal diffusion to the diffraction patterns in magnetic fluids, spatial temperature measurements and independent measurements of all relevant material parameters as in  for an organic dispersion are highly desirable.

## Figure Captions

Figure 1: Required destabilizing force profile of the radial component of the magnetic force density $`\mathrm{f}_{\mathrm{K},\mathrm{r}}`$ for inner heating (a). A fluid volume at the distance $`r+\delta r`$ (solid rectangle, (b)) experiences a larger force than a fluid volume at the distance $`r`$ (dashed rectangle, (b)). Moving the latter volume from $`r`$ to $`r+\delta r`$ (dot-dashed rectangle, (b)) results in an effective force which points in the direction of the displacement (dot-dashed arrow, (b)).

Figure 2: Region of potentially unstable and stable force profiles for a fixed outer temperature of $`T_0=300`$ K and $`\chi _L=3`$. The four different sets are $`\beta _1=0`$, $`N=1`$ (long-dashed line), $`\beta _1=0`$, $`N=0.7`$ (dot-dashed line), $`\beta _1=1/3`$, $`N=1`$ (solid line), and $`\beta _1=1/3`$, $`N=0.7`$ (dotted line), where the first and last one practically coincide.

Figure 3: Critical external induction $`B_c`$ versus inner temperature $`T_1`$ for a room temperature of $`T_0=300`$ K. For a horizontally infinitely extended layer, i.e. $`R_{\mathrm{out}}=\mathrm{}`$, the inclusion of a quadratic term in the susceptibility with $`\beta _1=1/3`$ (solid line) results in a lower threshold for the onset of convection than in the dilute case, $`\beta _1=0`$ (long-dashed line). Contrary for $`R_{\mathrm{out}}3.33`$ cm, the critical induction for the dilute fluid (dot-dashed line) is lower than for the nondilute fluid (dotted line). The fluid parameters of the magnetic fluid EMG 901 and the size of the cylinder are given in the text.

Figure 4: Critical azimuthal wave number $`l_c`$ versus inner temperature $`T_1`$ for $`T_0=300`$ K. With decreasing temperature difference the wave number, i.e. the number of convection rolls, increases dramatically from $`l_c=14`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=70`$ K to $`l_c=315`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=6`$ ($``$).

Figure 5: $`f_{\chi _L}`$, a measure for the strength of the magnetic force, versus the Langevin susceptibility $`\chi _L`$. The four different sets are $`\beta _1=0`$, $`N=1`$ (long-dashed line), $`\beta _1=1/3`$, $`N=1`$ (solid line), $`\beta _1=0`$, $`N(\gamma =0.15,\chi _{\mathrm{eff}})`$ (dot-dashed line), and $`\beta _1=1/3`$, $`N(\gamma =0.15,\chi _{\mathrm{eff}})`$ (dotted line). The vertical solid line at $`\chi _L=3`$ is a guide for the eye.