text:
# Quantum torsors and Hopf-Galois objects

## 1. Introduction

The main result of this short note is to complete the comparison between the notion of a quantum torsor recently introduced by Grunspan , and the older notion of a Hopf-Galois object.

An $`H`$-Galois object for a $`k`$-Hopf algebra $`H`$ is a right $`H`$-comodule algebra $`A`$ whose coinvariant subalgebra is the base ring $`k`$ and for which the canonical map

$$\beta :=\left(AA\stackrel{A\rho }{}AAH\stackrel{H}{}AH\right)$$

is a bijection (where $``$ is the multiplication map of $`A`$, and $`\rho :AAH`$ is the coaction of $`H`$ on $`A`$). The notion appears in this generality in ; we refer to Montgomery’s book  for background. If one specializes $`A`$ and $`H`$ to be affine commutative algebras, then they correspond to an affine scheme and an affine group scheme, respectively, and the definition recovers the definition of a $`G`$-torsor with structure group $`G=\mathrm{Spec}(H)`$, in other words the affine algebraic version of a principal fiber bundle.

In Grunspan’s definition a quantum torsor is an algebra $`T`$ equipped with certain structure maps $`\mu :TTT^{\mathrm{op}}T`$ and $`\theta :TT`$ which are required to fulfill a set of axioms that we shall recall below. The definition is also inspired by results in classical algebraic geometry, going back to work of Baer ; we refer to  for more literature. Notably, if we again specify $`T`$ to be an affine commutative algebra, then the definition (which now does not need the map $`\theta `$) is known to characterize torsors, without requiring any prior specification of a structure group; in fact two structure groups can be constructed from the torsor rather than having to be given in advance. In addition to being group-free, this characterization has advantages when additional structures, notably Poisson structures, come into play: In the latter situation one cannot expect the canonical map $`\beta `$ in the definition of a Hopf-Galois extension to be maps of Poisson algebras, while the structure maps of a torsor are; thus the definition of a Poisson torsor becomes more natural when given in the group-free form.

Generalizing the results on commutative torsors, Grunspan shows that any torsor $`T`$ in the sense of his definition has the structure of an $`L`$-$`H`$-bi-Galois extension for two naturally constructed Hopf algebras $`L=H_l(T)`$ and $`H=H_r(T)`$. Thus, as in the commutative case, a torsor is a quantum group-free way to define a quantum principal homogeneous space (with trivial base), with quantum structure group(s) that can be constructed afterwards.

The following natural question is left open (or rather, asked explicitly) in : Are there Hopf-Galois objects that do not arise from quantum torsors? Or, on the contrary, does every Hopf-Galois object have a quantum torsor structure?

We shall prove the latter (under the mild assumptions that Hopf algebras should have bijective antipodes, and Hopf-Galois objects should be faithfully flat). Thus Grunspan’s quantum torsors are seen to be an equivalent characterization of Hopf-(bi)-Galois objects, without reference to the Hopf algebras involved, parallel to the commutative case. On the other hand, the group $`\mathrm{Tor}(H)`$ of quantum torsors associated to a Hopf algebra $`H`$ in  coincides with the group $`\mathrm{BiGal}(H,H)`$ of $`H`$-$`H`$-bi-Galois objects introduced in .

## 2. Notations

Throughout the paper, we work over a commutative base ring $`k`$.

We denote multiplication in an algebra $`A`$ by $`=_A`$, and comultiplication in a coalgebra $`C`$ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }_C`$; we will write $`\mathrm{\Delta }(c)=:c{}_{(1)}{}^{}c_{(1)}`$. We will write $`\rho :VVC`$ for the structure map of a right $`C`$-comodule $`V`$, and $`\rho (v)=:v{}_{(0)}{}^{}v_{(1)}`$.

Let $`H`$ be a $`k`$-(faithfully) flat $`k`$-Hopf algebra, with antipode $`S`$. A right $`H`$-comodule algebra $`T`$ is an algebra $`T`$ which is a right $`H`$-comodule whose structure map $`\rho :TTH`$ is an algebra map. We say that $`T`$ is an $`H`$-Galois extension of its coinvariant subalgebra $`T^{\mathrm{co}H}:=\{tT|\rho (t)=t1\}`$ if the canonical map $`\beta :T_{T^{\mathrm{co}H}}TTH`$ given by $`\beta (xy)=xy{}_{(0)}{}^{}y_{(1)}`$ is a bijection. We will call an $`H`$-Galois extension $`T`$ whose coinvariant subalgebra is the base ring an $`H`$-Galois object for short. In most of this paper we will be interested in faithfully flat (i.e. faithfully flat as $`k`$-module) $`H`$-Galois objects. For an $`H`$-Galois object $`T`$, we define $`\gamma :HTT`$ by $`\gamma (h):=\beta ^1(1h)`$, and write $`\gamma (h)=:h{}_{}{}^{[1]}h^{[2]}`$. The following facts on $`\gamma `$ can be found in : For all $`xT`$, $`g,hH`$ we have

(2.1) $`x{}_{(0)}{}^{}x{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[1]}x{}_{(1)}{}^{}^{[2]}`$ $`=1x`$
(2.2) $`h{}_{}{}^{[1]}h^{[2]}`$ $`=\epsilon (h)1`$
(2.3) $`h{}_{}{}^{[1]}h{}_{}{}^{[2]}{}_{(0)}{}^{}h{}_{}{}^{[2]}_{(1)}`$ $`=h{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[1]}h{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[2]}h_{(2)}`$
(2.4) $`h{}_{}{}^{[1]}{}_{(0)}{}^{}h{}_{}{}^{[2]}h{}_{}{}^{[1]}_{(1)}`$ $`=h{}_{(2)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[1]}h{}_{(2)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[2]}S(h{}_{(1)}{}^{})`$
(2.5) $`(gh){}_{}{}^{[1]}(gh)^{[2]}`$ $`=h{}_{}{}^{[1]}g{}_{}{}^{[1]}g{}_{}{}^{[2]}h^{[2]}`$
(2.6) $`1{}_{}{}^{[1]}1^{[2]}`$ $`=11`$
In particular, the last two equations say that $`\gamma :HT^{\mathrm{op}}T`$ is an algebra map.

We now recall Grunspan’s definition of a quantum torsor : A quantum torsor $`(T,,1,\mu ,\theta )`$ consists of a faithfully flat $`k`$-algebra $`(T,,1)`$, an algebra map $`\mu :TTT^{\mathrm{op}}T`$, and an algebra automorphism $`\theta :TT`$ satisfying, for all $`xT`$:

(2.7) $`(T)\mu (x)`$ $`=x1`$
(2.8) $`(T)\mu (x)`$ $`=1x`$
(2.9) $`(TT^{\mathrm{op}}\mu )\mu `$ $`=(\mu T^{\mathrm{op}}T)\mu `$
(2.10) $`(TT^{\mathrm{op}}\theta T^{\mathrm{op}}T)(\mu T^{\mathrm{op}}T)\mu `$ $`=(T\mu ^{\mathrm{op}}T)\mu `$
(2.11) $`(\theta \theta \theta )\mu `$ $`=\mu \theta ,`$
where $`\mu ^{\mathrm{op}}:T\mathrm{op}T^{\mathrm{op}}TT^{\mathrm{op}}`$ is defined by $`\mu ^{\mathrm{op}}=\tau _{(13)}\mu `$, and $`\tau _{(13)}`$ exchanges the first and last tensor factor in $`TTT`$. We will also write $`T`$ or $`(T,\mu ,\theta )`$ for $`(T,,1,\mu ,\theta )`$, if the structure maps, or at least the algebra structure maps, are clear from the context. What we have defined above is what is called a $`k`$-torsor in , where more generally the notion of an $`A`$-torsor is defined for every $`k`$-algebra $`A`$. However, after extending scalars from $`k`$ to $`A`$, the notion of an $`A`$-torsor is covered by the above definition, which is therefore sufficient for our purposes.

## 3. The main result

We shall show that every faithfully flat $`H`$-Galois object $`T`$ is a quantum torsor. To prepare, we shall show that certain elements in $`TT`$ and $`TTT`$ which shall occur in our calculations can be written with the righmost tensor factors taken to be scalars, or equivalently $`H`$-coinvariant elements:

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`T`$ be a faithfully flat $`H`$-Galois object. Then

(3.1)
$$S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[1]}x{}_{(0)}{}^{}S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[2]}TkTT$$

for all $`xT`$, and

(3.2)
$$h{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[1]}S(h{}_{(2)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[1]}h{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[2]}S(h{}_{(2)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[2]}TTkTTT$$

for all $`hH`$.

###### Proof.

For $`xT`$ we have

$`S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{})^{[1]}`$ $`\rho (x{}_{(0)}{}^{}S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[2]})`$
$`=S(x{}_{(2)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[1]}x{}_{(0)}{}^{}S(x{}_{(2)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[2]}{}_{(0)}{}^{}x{}_{(1)}{}^{}S(x{}_{(2)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[2]}_{(1)}`$
$`\stackrel{\text{(}\text{2.3}\text{)}}{=}S(x{}_{(2)}{}^{}){}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[1]}x{}_{(0)}{}^{}S(x{}_{(2)}{}^{}){}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[2]}x{}_{(1)}{}^{}S(x{}_{(2)}{}^{})_{(2)}`$
$`=S(x{}_{(3)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[1]}x{}_{(0)}{}^{}S(x{}_{(3)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[2]}x{}_{(1)}{}^{}S(x{}_{(2)}{}^{})`$
$`=S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[1]}x{}_{(0)}{}^{}S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[2]}1`$
in $`TTH`$. Since $`T^{\mathrm{co}H}=k`$ and $`T`$ is flat over $`k`$, this proves the first claim. Similarly, for $`hH`$ we have

$`h{}_{(1)}{}^{}^{[1]}`$ $`S(h{}_{(2)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[1]}\rho (h{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[2]}S(h{}_{(2)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[2]})`$
$`\stackrel{\text{(}\text{2.3}\text{)}}{=}h{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[1]}S(h{}_{(3)}{}^{}){}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[1]}h{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[2]}S(h{}_{(3)}{}^{}){}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[2]}h{}_{(2)}{}^{}S(h{}_{(3)}{}^{})_{(2)}`$
$`=h{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[1]}S(h{}_{(4)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[1]}h{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[2]}S(h{}_{(4)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[2]}h{}_{(2)}{}^{}S(h{}_{(3)}{}^{})`$
$`=h{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[1]}S(h{}_{(2)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[1]}h{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[2]}S(h{}_{(2)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[2]}1,`$
proving the second claim, again by flatness of $`T`$. ∎

Abusing Sweedler notation, the Lemma says that the “elements” $`x{}_{(0)}{}^{}S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{})^{[2]}`$ and $`h{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[2]}S(h{}_{(2)}{}^{})^{[2]}`$ are scalars. We will use this by moving these elements around freely in any $`k`$-multilinear expression in calculations below, sometimes indicating our plans by putting parentheses around the “scalar” before moving it.

###### Theorem 3.2.

Let $`T`$ be a faithfully flat $`H`$-Galois object, where $`H`$ is a Hopf algebra with bijective antipode. Then $`(T,\mu ,\theta )`$ is a quantum torsor, with

$$\mu (x)=(T\gamma )\rho (x)=x{}_{(0)}{}^{}x{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[1]}x{}_{(1)}{}^{}^{[2]}$$

$$\theta (x)=(x{}_{(0)}{}^{}S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[2]})S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[1]}=S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[1]}(x{}_{(0)}{}^{}S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[2]})$$

###### Proof.

For all calculations, we let $`x,yT`$ and $`hH`$.

Since $`\rho `$ and $`\gamma `$ are algebra maps, so is $`\mu `$. We have

$$(T)\mu (x)=x{}_{(0)}{}^{}\gamma (x{}_{(1)}{}^{})=x{}_{(0)}{}^{}\epsilon (x{}_{(1)}{}^{})1=x1$$

by (2.2), and $`(T)\mu (x)=x{}_{(0)}{}^{}x{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[1]}x{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[2]}=1x`$ by (2.1). Next

$`(TT^{\mathrm{op}}\mu )\mu (x)`$ $`=x{}_{(0)}{}^{}x{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[1]}\mu (x{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[2]})`$
$`=x{}_{(0)}{}^{}x{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[1]}x{}_{(1)}{}^{[2]}{}_{(0)}{}^{}\gamma (x{}_{(1)}{}^{[2]}{}_{(1)}{}^{})`$
$`\stackrel{\text{(}\text{2.3}\text{)}}{=}x{}_{(0)}{}^{}x{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[1]}x{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[2]}\gamma (x{}_{(2)}{}^{})`$
$`=\mu (x{}_{(0)}{}^{})\gamma (x{}_{(1)}{}^{})`$
$`=(\mu T^{\mathrm{op}}T)\mu (x)`$
proves (2.9). It is clear that $`\theta (1)=1`$. For $`x,yT`$ we have

$`\theta (xy)`$ $`=x{}_{(0)}{}^{}y{}_{(0)}{}^{}S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}y{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[2]}S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}y{}_{(1)}{}^{})^{[1]}`$
$`=x{}_{(0)}{}^{}y{}_{(0)}{}^{}(S(y{}_{(1)}{}^{})S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{})){}_{}{}^{[2]}(S(y{}_{(1)}{}^{})S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}))^{[1]}`$
$`\stackrel{\text{(}\text{2.5}\text{)}}{=}x{}_{(0)}{}^{}(y{}_{(0)}{}^{}S(y{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[2]})S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[2]}S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[1]}S(y{}_{(1)}{}^{})^{[1]}`$
$`\stackrel{\text{(}\text{3.1}\text{)}}{=}x{}_{(0)}{}^{}S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[2]}S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[1]}(y{}_{(0)}{}^{}S(y{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[2]})S(y{}_{(1)}{}^{})^{[1]}`$
$`=\theta (x)\theta (y),`$
so $`\theta `$ is an algebra map.

For $`hH`$ we have

(3.3)
$$h{}_{}{}^{[1]}\theta (h{}_{}{}^{[2]})=S(h){}_{}{}^{[2]}S(h)^{[1]}$$

by the calculation

$`h{}_{}{}^{[1]}\theta (h{}_{}{}^{[2]})`$ $`=h{}_{}{}^{[1]}h{}_{}{}^{[2]}{}_{(0)}{}^{}S(h{}_{}{}^{[2]}{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[2]}S(h{}_{}{}^{[2]}{}_{(1)}{}^{})^{[1]}`$
$`\stackrel{\text{(}\text{2.3}\text{)}}{=}h{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[1]}(h{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[2]}S(h{}_{(2)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[2]})S(h{}_{(2)}{}^{})^{[1]}`$
$`\stackrel{\text{(}\text{3.2}\text{)}}{=}h{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[1]}(h{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[2]}S(h{}_{(2)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[2]})S(h{}_{(2)}{}^{})^{[2]}`$
$`\stackrel{\text{(}\text{2.2}\text{)}}{=}S(h){}_{}{}^{[2]}S(h){}_{}{}^{[1]}.`$
We conclude that

$$(TT^{\mathrm{op}}\theta )\mu (x)=x{}_{(0)}{}^{}x{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[1]}\theta (x{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[2]})\stackrel{\text{(}\text{3.3}\text{)}}{=}x{}_{(0)}{}^{}S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[2]}S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[1]},$$

hence

$`(TT^{\mathrm{op}}\theta T^{\mathrm{op}}T)`$ $`(\mu T^{\mathrm{op}}T)\mu (x)`$
$`=(TT^{\mathrm{op}}\theta )\mu (x{}_{(0)}{}^{})\gamma (x{}_{(1)}{}^{})`$
$`=x{}_{(0)}{}^{}S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[2]}S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[1]}\gamma (x{}_{(2)}{}^{}),`$
and on the other hand

$`(T\mu ^{\mathrm{op}}T)\mu (x)`$ $`=x{}_{(0)}{}^{}\mu ^{\mathrm{op}}(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[1]})x{}_{(1)}{}^{}^{[2]}`$
$`=x{}_{(0)}{}^{}x{}_{(1)}{}^{[1]}{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[2]}x{}_{(1)}{}^{[1]}{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[1]}x{}_{(1)}{}^{[1]}{}_{(0)}{}^{}x{}_{(1)}{}^{}^{[2]}`$
$`\stackrel{\text{(}\text{2.4}\text{)}}{=}x{}_{(0)}{}^{}S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[2]}S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[1]}x{}_{(2)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[1]}x{}_{(2)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[2]},`$
proving (2.10). To prove (2.11) we first check

(3.4)
$$\rho \theta (x)=\theta (x{}_{(0)}{}^{})S^2(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}),$$

by the calculation

$`\rho \theta (x)`$ $`\stackrel{\text{(}\text{3.1}\text{)}}{=}(x{}_{(0)}{}^{}S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[2]})\rho (S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[1]})`$
$`\stackrel{\text{(}\text{2.4}\text{)}}{=}x{}_{(0)}{}^{}S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{(2)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[2]}S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{(2)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[1]}S(S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{(1)}{}^{})`$
$`=x{}_{(0)}{}^{}S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[2]}S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[1]}S^2(x{}_{(2)}{}^{})`$
$`=\theta (x{}_{(0)}{}^{})S^2(x{}_{(2)}{}^{}).`$
Using this, we find

$`(\theta \theta \theta )\mu (x)`$ $`=\theta (x{}_{(0)}{}^{})\theta (x{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[1]})\theta (x{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[2]})`$
$`\stackrel{\text{(}\text{3.3}\text{)}}{=}\theta (x{}_{(0)}{}^{})\theta (S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[2]})S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{})^{[1]}`$
$`\stackrel{\text{(}\text{3.3}\text{)}}{=}\theta (x{}_{(0)}{}^{})S^2(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[1]}S^2(x{}_{(1)}{}^{})^{[2]}`$
$`=\theta (x{}_{(0)}{}^{})\gamma (S^2(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}))`$
$`\stackrel{\text{(}\text{3.4}\text{)}}{=}\theta (x){}_{(0)}{}^{}\gamma (\theta (x){}_{(1)}{}^{})=\mu \theta (x).`$
It remains to check that $`\theta `$ is a bijection. Now we have seen that $`\theta `$ is an algebra map, and colinear, provided that the codomain copy of $`T`$ is endowed with the comodule structure restricted along the Hopf algebra automorphism $`S^2`$ of $`H`$. Of course $`T`$ with this new comodule algebra structure is also $`H`$-Galois. It is known \[7, Rem.3.11.(1)\] that every comodule algebra homomorphism between nonzero $`H`$-Galois objects is a bijection. ∎

###### Remark 3.3.

Obviously, if we drop the requirement that $`\theta `$ be bijective from the definition of a quantum torsor, we can do without bijectivity of the antipode of $`H`$ in the proof. More precisely, the proof shows that $`\theta `$ is bijective if and only if $`S`$ is.

By the results of Grunspan, any quantum torsor $`T`$ has associated to it two Hopf algebras $`H_l(T)`$ and $`H_r(T)`$, which make it into an $`H_l(T)`$-$`H_r(T)`$-bi-Galois object in the sense of . That is, $`T`$ is a right $`H_r(T)`$-Galois object in the sense recalled above, and at the same time a left $`H_l(T)`$-Galois object (i.e. the same as a right Galois object, with sides switched in the definition), in such a way that the two comodule structures involved make it into an $`H_l(T)`$-$`H_r(T)`$-bicomodule. Together with these constructions, LABEL:mainthm.nme 3.2 shows that the notions of a quantum torsor and of a Hopf-bi-Galois extension are equivalent, provided that we complete the picture by proving the following:

###### Proposition 3.4.

1. Let $`T`$ be a faithfully flat $`H`$-Galois object, and consider the torsor associated to it as in LABEL:mainthm.nme 3.2. Then $`H_r(T)H`$, and $`H_l(T)L(T,H)`$, where the latter is the Hopf algebra making $`T`$ an $`L(T,H)`$-$`H`$-bi-Galois object, see .
2. Let $`T`$ be a quantum torsor. Then the quantum torsor associated as in LABEL:mainthm.nme 3.2 to the $`H_r(T)`$-Galois object $`T`$ coincides with $`T`$.

###### Proof.

By the results in , each of the two one-sided Hopf-Galois structures in an $`L`$-$`H`$-bi-Galois object determines the other (along with the other Hopf algebra). Thus to prove (1), it suffices to check that $`L(T,H)H_l(T)`$, and the isomorphism is compatible with the left coactions. Now let $`\xi TT^{\mathrm{op}}`$. We write formally $`\xi =xy`$ even though we do not assume $`\xi `$ to be a decomposable tensor. According to the definition of $`H_l(T)TT^{\mathrm{op}}`$ in , we have

$`\xi H_l(T)`$ $`(TT^{\mathrm{op}}T\theta )\mu (x)y=x\mu ^{\mathrm{op}}(y)`$
$`x{}_{(0)}{}^{}x{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[1]}\theta (x{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[2]})y=x\mu ^{\mathrm{op}}(y)`$
$`\stackrel{\text{(}\text{3.3}\text{)}}{}x{}_{(0)}{}^{}S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[2]}S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{}){}_{}{}^{[1]}y=xy{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[2]}y{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[1]}y_{(0)}`$
$`x{}_{(0)}{}^{}S(x{}_{(1)}{}^{})y=xy{}_{(1)}{}^{}y_{(0)}`$
$`\xi (TT)^{\mathrm{co}H}`$
where in the last step $`TT`$ is endowed with the codiagonal comodule structure, and we have used a version of \[7, Lem.3.1\]. By the definition of $`L(T,H)`$ in , this shows $`L(T,H)=H_{\mathrm{}}(T)`$ as algebras. A look at the respective definitions of comultiplication in $`L(T,H)`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{}}(T)`$ and of their coactions on $`T`$ shows that these also agree.

To show (2), we use the following results on $`H_r(T)`$ from : $`H_r(T)`$ is some subalgebra of $`T^{\mathrm{op}}T`$, the right $`H_r(T)`$-comodule algebra structure of $`T`$ maps $`xT`$ to $`x{}_{(0)}{}^{}x{}_{(1)}{}^{}:=\mu (x)TH_r(T)TT^{\mathrm{op}}T`$, and $`T`$ is in fact $`H_r(T)`$-Galois, that is, the canonical map $`\beta :TTTH`$ is bijective. Now the torsor structure $`(T,\mu ^{},\theta ^{})`$ induced on $`T`$ by its Hopf-Galois structure as in LABEL:mainthm.nme 3.2 satisfies $`\mu ^{}(x)=x{}_{(0)}{}^{}x{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[1]}x{}_{(1)}{}^{}^{[2]}`$. To check $`\mu =\mu ^{}`$, we apply $`\beta `$ to the two right tensor factors. Writing $`\mu (x):=x{}_{}{}^{(1)}x{}_{}{}^{(2)}x^{(3)}`$, we have

$`(T\beta )\mu (x)`$ $`=x{}_{}{}^{(1)}\beta (x{}_{}{}^{(2)}x{}_{}{}^{(3)})`$
$`=x{}_{}{}^{(1)}x{}_{}{}^{(2)}x{}_{}{}^{(3)}{}_{(0)}{}^{}x{}_{}{}^{(3)}_{(1)}`$
$`=x{}_{}{}^{(1)}x{}_{}{}^{(2)}x{}_{}{}^{(3)}{}_{}{}^{(1)}x{}_{}{}^{(3)}{}_{}{}^{(2)}x{}_{}{}^{(3)}^{(3)}`$
$`\stackrel{\text{(}\text{2.9}\text{)}}{=}x{}_{}{}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{(1)}x{}_{}{}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{(2)}x{}_{}{}^{(1)}{}_{}{}^{(3)}x{}_{}{}^{(2)}x^{(3)}`$
$`\stackrel{\text{(}\text{2.7}\text{)}}{=}x{}_{}{}^{(1)}1x{}_{}{}^{(2)}x^{(3)}`$
$`=x{}_{(0)}{}^{}1x^{(1)}`$
$`=x{}_{(0)}{}^{}\beta (x{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[1]}x{}_{(1)}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{[2]})`$
$`=(T\beta )\mu ^{}(x)`$
Since $`\theta `$ is determined by $`\mu `$, we are done. ∎

As a result of the Proposition, the construction $`L(T,H)`$ for a Hopf-Galois object $`T`$ coincides with the construction of $`H_l(T)`$ as in  for the quantum torsor associated to the Hopf-Galois object $`T`$ as in LABEL:mainthm.nme 3.2. Finally

###### Corollary 3.5.

The group $`\mathrm{Tor}(H)`$ of isomorphism classes of quantum torsors $`T`$ equipped with specified isomorphisms $`HH_l(T)H_r(T)`$ was observed by Grunspan to be a subgroup of the group $`\mathrm{BiGal}(H)`$ of $`H`$-$`H`$-bi-Galois objects defined in . We see that the two groups in fact coincide.

## 4. Ribbon transformations and the Miyashita-Ulbrich action

The proof we gave for LABEL:mainthm.nme 3.2 is rather direct. One can shorten it slightly, and perhaps provide some partial explanation for the behavior of the $`\theta `$ map by using the Miyashita-Ulbrich action  and the notion of a ribbon transformation of monoidal functors introduced by Sommerhäuser . To discuss this, we assume again that $`H`$ has bijective antipode.

Recall that a right-right Yetter-Drinfeld module $`V𝒴𝒟_H^H`$ is a right $`H`$-module (with action denoted $``$) and $`H`$-comodule such that

$$v{}_{(0)}{}^{}h{}_{(1)}{}^{}v{}_{(1)}{}^{}h{}_{(2)}{}^{}=(vh{}_{(2)}{}^{}){}_{(0)}{}^{}h{}_{(1)}{}^{}(vh{}_{(2)}{}^{}){}_{(1)}{}^{},$$

or equivalently $`\rho (vh)=v{}_{(0)}{}^{}h{}_{(2)}{}^{}S(h{}_{(1)}{}^{})v{}_{(1)}{}^{}h_{(2)}`$ holds for all $`vV`$. The category $`𝒴𝒟_H^H`$ is a braided monoidal category. The tensor product of Yetter-Drinfeld modules is their tensor product over $`k`$ with the (co)diagonal action and coaction, the braiding $`\sigma `$ is given by

$$\sigma _{VW}:VWvww{}_{(0)}{}^{}vw{}_{(1)}{}^{}WV$$

for $`V,W𝒴𝒟_H^H`$, its inverse by $`\sigma _{VW}^1(wv)=vS^1(w{}_{(1)}{}^{})w_{(0)}`$.

Let $`T`$ be a faithfully flat $`H`$-Galois object. The Miyashita-Ulbrich action of $`H`$ on $`T`$ is defined by $`xh:=h{}_{}{}^{[1]}xh^{[2]}`$ for $`xT`$ and $`hH`$. It is proved in  (without the terminology) that $`T`$ with its $`H`$-comodule structure and the Miyashita-Ulbrich action is a Yetter-Drinfeld module algebra, that is, an algebra in $`𝒴𝒟_H^H`$. This means that it is a module algebra (it is a comodule algebra to begin with), and a Yetter-Drinfeld module. Moreover, $`T`$ is commutative in the braided monoidal category $`𝒴𝒟_H^H`$, which means that we have $`\sigma _{TT}=`$, that is $`xy=y{}_{(0)}{}^{}(xy{}_{(1)}{}^{})`$ for all $`x,yT`$.

An endofunctor $`F`$ of $`𝒴𝒟_H^H`$ is defined by letting $`F(V)`$ be the $`k`$-module $`V`$, equipped with the new right coaction $`vv{}_{(0)}{}^{}S^2(v{}_{(1)}{}^{})`$ and right action $`vhvS^2(h)`$. The functor $`F`$ preserves the tensor product as well as the braiding of $`𝒴𝒟_H^H`$.

According to Sommerhäuser, a ribbon transformation $`\theta :\mathrm{𝐼𝑑}F`$ is a natural transformation such that $`\theta _V\theta _W=\theta _{VW}\sigma _{WV}\sigma _{VW}`$ holds for all $`V,W𝒴𝒟_H^H`$ (moreover, we should have $`\theta _k=\mathrm{𝑖𝑑}_k`$). The example of a ribbon transformation we will use is essentially in , up to a switch of sides. It generalizes the map $`\theta `$ in the proof of LABEL:mainthm.nme 3.2, and is defined by $`\theta _V(v)=v{}_{(0)}{}^{}S(v{}_{(1)}{}^{})`$ for $`V𝒴𝒟_H^H`$ and $`vV`$. This is surely natural, and also a morphism in $`𝒴𝒟_H^H`$, that is, $`H`$-linear and $`H`$-colinear according to the formulas

$`\rho \theta _V(v)`$ $`=\theta _V(v{}_{(0)}{}^{})S^2(v{}_{(1)}{}^{})`$ $`\theta _V(v)h`$ $`=\theta _V(vS^2(h)),`$
the first of which was used in our proof of LABEL:mainthm.nme 3.2; we’ll omit the proofs. Since for all $`vV𝒴𝒟_H^H`$ and $`wW𝒴𝒟_H^H`$ we find

$`\theta _{WV}\sigma (vw)`$ $`=\sigma (vw){}_{(0)}{}^{}S(\sigma (vw))`$
$`=\sigma ((vw){}_{(0)}{}^{})S((vw){}_{(1)}{}^{})`$
$`=(w{}_{(0)}{}^{}v{}_{(0)}{}^{}w{}_{(1)}{}^{})S(v{}_{(1)}{}^{}w{}_{(2)}{}^{})`$
$`=w{}_{(0)}{}^{}S(v{}_{(2)}{}^{}w{}_{(3)}{}^{})v{}_{(0)}{}^{}w{}_{(1)}{}^{}S(v{}_{(1)}{}^{}w{}_{(2)}{}^{})`$
$`=w{}_{(0)}{}^{}S(v{}_{(2)}{}^{}w{}_{(1)}{}^{})v{}_{(0)}{}^{}S(v{}_{(1)}{}^{})`$
$`=\theta (w)S(v{}_{(1)}{}^{})\theta (v{}_{(0)}{}^{})`$
$`=\theta (wS^1(v{}_{(1)}{}^{}))\theta (v{}_{(0)}{}^{})`$
$`=(\theta _W\theta _V)\sigma ^1(vw),`$
$`\theta `$ is a ribbon transformation.

Given the results on the ribbon transformation $`\theta `$ (which we could have taken by side-switching from ), it is almost obvious that $`\theta _T`$ is an algebra map: $`\theta _T=\theta _{TT}=(\theta _T\theta _T)\sigma ^2=\sigma ^2(\theta _T\theta _T)=(\theta _T\theta _T),`$ using naturality of $`\theta `$, the ribbon property, naturality of $`\sigma `$, and braided commutativity of $`T`$.

There is also a formula for the inverse of $`\theta `$ in , namely $`\theta ^1(v)=v{}_{(0)}{}^{}S^2(v{}_{(1)}{}^{})`$. We compute for completeness:

$$\theta \theta ^1(v)=\theta (v{}_{(0)}{}^{}S^2(v{}_{(1)}{}^{}))=\theta (v{}_{(0)}{}^{})v{}_{(1)}{}^{}=v{}_{(0)}{}^{}S(v{}_{(1)}{}^{})v{}_{(2)}{}^{}=v$$

and

$$\theta ^1\theta (v)=\theta ^1(\theta (v){}_{(0)}{}^{})S^2(\theta (v){}_{(1)}{}^{})=\theta (v{}_{(0)}{}^{})v{}_{(1)}{}^{}=v{}_{(0)}{}^{}S(v{}_{(1)}{}^{})v{}_{(2)}{}^{}.$$

Our final shortcut is not dependent on any results on ribbon transformations or Miyashita-Ulbrich actions, but rather on bijectivity of the antipode, and its consequence that $`\theta `$ is bijective. The morphism $`\mu :TTT^{\mathrm{op}}T`$ constructed for LABEL:mainthm.nme 3.2 depends only on the $`H`$-comodule algebra structure of $`H`$, but does not contain $`H`$, so that it surely does not change if we replace the $`H`$-comodule structure by the $`H`$-comodule structure induced along $`S^2`$. But since $`\theta :TT`$ is colinear between these two comodule structures, and an algebra isomorphism, it follows that $`\theta `$ also preserves $`\mu `$, that is, axiom (2.11) holds.