Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory string string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeSep 20th 2022

    Page created, but author did not leave any comments.

    v1, current

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 20th 2022
    • (edited Sep 20th 2022)

    Who calls this the “Kontsevich-Rosenberg principle”? It sounds like the most evident consistency requirement for decent definitions.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeSep 20th 2022
    • (edited Sep 20th 2022)

    Most of the references quoted and many others.

    Edit: few of the references have this in the abstract or even the title.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeSep 20th 2022
    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeSep 20th 2022
    • (edited Sep 20th 2022)

    2 — it is very nontrivial principle as it is not easy to satisfy by naive definitions (widely used for other purposes in various flavours of ncg). For example, most of the notions used for deformed algebras like quantum group theory, noncommutative projective geometry a la Artin.Zhang-Smith do NOT satisfy the principle. It is a specific kind of noncommutative geometry applying mainly to algebras which are close to free algebra (when formal smoothness applies), rather than q-deformations and alike.

    Proofs that some constructions do satisfy this principle is often quite nontirivial and sometimes you are forced to go to the derived world to satisfy the principle. Berest and collaborators spend more than 10 years of research to develop that derived side of the picture.

    Moreover, the van den Bergh functor (and its derived version) is a very specific construction.

    Of course, the way commutative geometry relates to noncommutative can be of very many kinds. Noncommutative world can contain commutative as a full subcategory of some kind but it can be merely an analogue in which commutative world behaves differently internally (for example products are different). Also in some sorts one requires the consistency with parameter going to zero. This is different.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeSep 20th 2022
    • (edited Sep 20th 2022)

    Here is an instructive example. Double Poisson brackets satisfy the principle.

    However, if you want to apply the formalism of double Poisson brackets to commutative algebras then usually there applies a no go theorem

    • Geoffrey Powell, On double Poisson structures on commutative algebras, J. Geom. Phys. 110 (2016) 1–8 doi

    Double Poisson structures (à la Van den Bergh) on commutative algebras are considered. The main result shows that there are no non-trivial such structures on polynomial algebras of Krull dimension greater than one. For an arbitrary commutative algebra , this places significant restrictions on possible double Poisson structures. Exotic double Poisson structures are exhibited by the case of the polynomial algebra on a single generator, previously considered by Van den Bergh.

    On the other hand, there are no go theorems for extending usual Poisson algebra definition to associative algebras (for nc prime algebras only trivial case).

    Recipe for “inducing” the structure to representation schemes is not necessarily identity if you start with a commutative algebra.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeSep 20th 2022
    • (edited Sep 20th 2022)

    Maybe a vision would be a better word than principle: the vision is that there is a full fledged noncommutative geometry of associative algebras satisfying this principle. Regarding that many standard constructions in other flavours of ncg did not satisfy this would be discourageing in mid 1990s. The example of quite systematic Kontsevich’s formal noncommutative symplectic geometry helped crystalize this, and the motivation was completely different coming from invariants of low dimensional topology, expansion for Chern-Simons theory and some related characteristic classes, while on the formalism side the inspiration was formal differential geometry of Gelfand and Kazhdan. For examples, necklace Lie algebras are an analogue of Poisson reduction.

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)