Filtrations and Growth of \mathbb G-modules

To prove (1), choose a basis \{ m_\beta, \beta \in I \} of M such that a subset of this basis is a basis for N, and choose a basis \{ f_\alpha, \alpha \in A \} of \mathcal O(\mathbb G) such that a subset of this basis is a basis for X. If m \in M is an element of N, then \Delta(m) = \sum_{\beta,j} a_{\beta,\alpha} m_\beta \otimes f_\alpha lies both in N\otimes k[\mathbb G] so that a_{\beta,\alpha} = 0 unless m_\beta \in N and lies in M \otimes X so that a_{\beta,\alpha} = 0 unless f_\alpha \in X. Thus \Delta(m) \in N\otimes X if m \in N.

To prove assertion (2), let j: K \to M be the kernel of the surjective map q: M \to Q. Using assertion (1), we have the commutative diagram

A simple diagram chase for (?) implies that \Delta_Q factors uniquely through Q\otimes X.

To prove (3), observe that the kernel ker\{ f \} \subset M is an X-comodule by (1) and that the quotient N \twoheadrightarrow coker\{ f \} is an X-comodule by (2).

Recall that M_1 + M_2 \subset M fits in a short exact sequence of \mathbb G-modules 0 \to \ M_1\cap \ M_2 \ \to \ M_1\oplus M_2 \ \to \ M_1+M_2 \to 0. Since M_1 \oplus M_2 is clearly an X-comodule whenever M_1, M_2 are X-comodules, the first assertion follows from Lemma 1.2.

This implies that the category \chi(M) is filtering; given two objects N_1 \subset M and N_2 \subset M of \chi(M), both map to N_1+N_2 \subset M which is an object of \chi(M). Thus, \varinjlim_{N \in \chi(M)} N \ \to M equals the union \bigcup_{N \in \chi(M)} N \ \subset \ M. Recall that (-) \otimes V for a given vector space V commutes with filtered colimits of k-vector spaces. Consequently,

factors through \varinjlim_{N \in \chi(M)} N \to (\varinjlim_{N \in \chi(M)} N) \otimes X. In other wordss, M_X is an X-comodule, the largest X-comodule contained in M.

The fact that Mod(\mathbb G,X) is an abelian subcategory of Mod(\mathbb G) follows directly from Lemma 1.2. To prove that Mod(\mathbb G,X) is closed under colimits indexed by a filtering category I, observe that the natural map \varinjlim_i (M_i \otimes X) \ \to \ \varinjlim_i (M_i) \otimes X is an isomorphism. Thus, if each M_i is an X-comodule, so is \varinjlim_i (M_i).

To prove functoriality of (-)_X, observe that if f: M \to N is a map in Mod(\mathbb G) then f(M_X) \ \subset \ N is contained in N_X by Lemma 1.2(2) and the equality N_X \ = \ \bigcup_{N^\prime \in \chi_M} N^\prime \ \subset N of (?). This equality also shows that (-)_X is left exact.

Functoriality together with (1.3.1) determines the natural inclusion

inverse to the inclusion Hom_{Mod(\mathbb G,X)}(M,N_X) \ \hookrightarrow \ Hom_{Mod(\mathbb G)}(i_{X*}(M),N) and thus a bijection. This is the required isomorphism for the asserted adjunction.

If the \mathbb G-module M is finite dimensional, then \Delta_M: M \to M\otimes \mathcal O(\mathbb G) must have image in some finite dimensional subspace of M \otimes X and thus must have image contained in some M\otimes X_i. If M is an arbitrary \mathbb G-module, then M is locally finite so that every m \in M lies in some finite dimensional \mathbb G-submodule M^\prime \subset M and thus must be contained in some M_{X_i} as required.

If L is injective, then the adjunction of the left exactness of (-)_X and the exactness of its left adjoint i_{X*}(-) tell us that L_{X_i} \subset L is an injective object of Mod(\mathbb G,X_i) for each i \geq 0.

Assume now that the \mathbb G-module L has the property that L_{X_i} \subset L is an injective object of Mod(\mathbb G,X_i) for all i \geq 0. Let M^\prime \hookrightarrow M be an inclusion of G-modules and consider a map f^\prime: M^\prime \to L of \mathbb G-modules. We inductively construct an extension of f: M \to L of f^\prime as follows. Denote by f^\prime_d: M^\prime_{X_d} \to L_{X_d} the restriction of f^\prime to M^\prime_{X_d}. Choose f_d: M_{X_d} \to L_{X_d} extending f_d^\prime + f_{d-1}: (M^\prime)_{X_d} + M_{X_{d-1}} \to L_{X_d} using the injectivity of L_{X_d} as an object of Mod(\mathbb G,X_d) (and taking M_{X_{-1}} = 0). We define f: M \to L extending f^\prime to be \varinjlim_i f_i: M = \varinjlim_i ((M^\prime)_{X_i} + M_{X_{i-1}}) \to L.

The “filtration by exponential degree" of [F18, Defn 3.10] associates to the \mathbb G-module M and a positive integer d the subspace M_{[d]} \subset M consisting of elements m \in M with the property that \Delta_M(m) \in M\otimes \mathcal E(\mathbb G)_d. By Proposition 1.3, M_{\mathcal E(\mathbb G)_d} is the largest \mathbb G-submodule of M such that M_{\mathcal E(\mathbb G)_d} \subset M_{[d]}.

The proposition follows immediately from Proposition 1.8 and [F18, Prop 3.17].

The proof that k\mathbb G\cdot X is the \mathbb G-submodule of k[G]^R generated by X is given in [J, I.2.13], implicitly proving that k\mathbb G\cdot X is finite dimensional if X is finite dimensional. Applying this to \mathbb G^{op} and the subspace k\mathbb G\cdot X \subset k[\mathbb G^{op}]^R, we conclude that \mathcal O(\mathbb G)_{\langle X \rangle} \ \equiv \ k\mathbb G^{op} \cdot (k\mathbb G \cdot X) is finite dimensional if X is finite dimensional and is a \mathcal O(\mathbb G^{op})-subcomodule of k[\mathbb G^{op}]^R. Because the right regular actions of \mathbb G of \mathcal O(\mathbb G) and \mathbb G^{op} on \mathcal O(\mathbb G^{op}) commute once one identifies \mathcal O(\mathbb G) with \mathcal O(\mathbb G^{op}) as k-vector spaces, we conclude that \mathcal O(\mathbb G)_{\langle X \rangle} is also a \mathcal O(\mathbb G)-subcomodule of k[\mathbb G]^R. This implies that \mathcal O(\mathbb G)_{\langle X \rangle} \subset \mathcal O(\mathbb G) is a subcoalgebra.

Write \mathcal M = \{ M_\alpha \}. Choose a basis \{m_{\alpha,i_\alpha} \} for each M_\alpha and write \Delta_{M_\alpha}(m_{\alpha,j_\alpha}) = \sum m_{\alpha,(i,j)_\alpha} \otimes f_{\alpha,(i,j)_\alpha}. Then X is the span of \{ f_{\alpha,(i,j)_\alpha} \}. Thus, \Delta_{M_\alpha} \subset M_\alpha \otimes \mathcal O(\mathbb G)_X for every M_\alpha in \mathcal M, so that X \subset \mathcal O(\mathbb G)_{\langle X \rangle}.

On the other hand, if C\subset \mathcal O(\mathbb G) is a subcolagebra with the property that every M_\alpha \in \mathcal M is a C-comodule, then each f_{\alpha,(i,j)_\alpha} must be an element of C.

The proof follows easily from the observation the coaction map \Delta_{M\otimes N}: M\otimes N \ \to \ (M\otimes N) \otimes \mathcal O(\mathbb G) arises by composing \Delta_M \otimes \Delta_N with the product map \mathcal O(\mathbb G) \otimes \mathcal O(\mathbb G) \ \to \ \mathcal O(\mathbb G).

To prove (1), first observe that \eta^* is a map of coalgebras since \eta is a homomorphism of monoid schemes. The surjectivity of \eta^* follows from the fact \eta is a closed immersion. Assertion (2) follows from the fact that both \mathcal O(\mathbb M_{N, N})_{\leq r} \hookrightarrow \mathcal O(\mathbb M_{N, N})_{\leq r} and \mathcal O(\mathbb G_m)_{\leq s} \hookrightarrow \mathcal O(\mathbb G_m) are subcoalgebras so that (\mathcal O(\mathbb M_{N,N} \times \mathbb G_m))_{\leq d} \hookrightarrow \mathcal O(\mathbb M_{N,N} \times \mathbb G_m) is also a subcoalgebra. Assertion (3) follows immediately.

We easily verify that

and that dim(\mathcal O(GL_N)_{\leq r}) - dim(\mathcal O(\mathbb M_{N\times N})_{\leq r}) equals

Thus, the difference of the function r \mapsto dim(\mathcal O(GL_N)_{\leq r}) and the function r \mapsto \frac{1}{N^2!}{r^{N^2}} has growth less than polynomial in r of degree less than N^2 as in assertion (4).

Using the closed embedding

we conclude it suffices to consider a closed embedding \phi: \mathbb G \hookrightarrow GL_N and compare d \mapsto \mathcal O(\mathbb G)_{\leq d,\phi} with d \mapsto \mathcal O(\mathbb G)_{\leq d,\psi \circ \phi} where \psi = \oplus \circ (id \times 1): GL_{N} \times GL_{N^\prime} \ \hookrightarrow \ GL_M. Since \psi^* is surjective, each coordinate function y_{s,t} \in \mathcal O(GL_N) is the image under \psi^* of some f_{s,t}(x_{i,j}) \in \mathcal O(GL_M). Denote by c the maximum of the degrees of f_{s,t}, 1 \leq s,t \leq n. Then \mathcal O(\mathbb G)_{\leq d,\phi} \subset \mathcal O(\mathbb G)_{\leq c \cdot d,\psi \circ \phi}.

Denote by c^\prime the maximum of the degrees of \phi^*(x_{i,j}) \in \mathcal O(GL_N). Then \mathcal O(\mathbb G)_{\leq d,\psi \circ \phi} \ \subset \mathcal O(\mathbb G)_{\leq c^\prime\cdot d,\phi}.

.2in

Since multiplication \mu: \mathcal O(GL_N) \otimes \mathcal O(GL_N) \to \mathcal O(GL_N) restricts to
\mathcal O(\mathbb G)_{\leq d,\phi} \otimes \mathcal O(\mathbb G)_{\leq d^\prime,\phi} \ \to \ \mathcal O(\mathbb G)_{\leq d+d^\prime,\phi}, the proposition is a consequence of Proposition 2.3(1).

The identification of \Delta_{M^{(r)}} is implicit in [J, I.9.10] following [FS, § 1]. Granted this, the second assertion follows from the fact that (F^r)^*: \mathcal O(\mathbb G) \to \mathcal O(\mathbb G) sends f({x_i,j}) \in \mathcal O(GL_N) to f^{p^r}(x_{i,j}), multiplying the degree of each monomial by p^r.

The left exactness of (-)_X implies assertions (1) and (3). Assertion (4) is justified by the embedding M \subset M\otimes k[\mathbb G]^R together with the observation that M\otimes k[\mathbb G]^R is isomorphic to M^{tr}\otimes k[\mathbb G]^R.

We prove assertion (2) for \mathbb G = GL_N; with notational changes, the same proof applies to \mathbb G admitting \theta: \mathbb G \hookrightarrow \operatorname{GL}\nolimits_N as in Example 3.2). Let e be chosen such that M = M_{\mathcal O(GL_N)_{\leq e}}. It suffices to prove for all d \geq e that

To prove (?), we proceed by contradiction, assuming that there exists some \sum m_{\alpha} \otimes n_{j,\beta} \in (M \otimes N)_{\mathcal O(GL_N)_{\leq d-e}} with the property that

with some f_{\alpha,i}\cdot f_{\beta,j} \notin \mathcal O(GL_N)_{\leq d}. Here, \Delta(m_i) = \sum_\alpha m_\alpha \otimes f_{\alpha,i} and \Delta(n_j) = \sum_\beta n_\beta \otimes f_{\beta,j}, \{ m_\alpha \} is a basis for M, \{ n_\beta \} is a basis for N, and each f_{\alpha,i}, \ f_{\beta,j} is an element of a basis \{ f_\gamma \} of \mathcal O(GL_N). Let D be the largest integer such that some f_{\beta,j} \notin \mathcal O(GL_N)_{\leq D-1} and let g denote a choice of such a f_{\beta,j}. Observe that each f_{\alpha,i}\cdot g \notin \mathcal O(GL_N)_{\leq d-e} since f_{\alpha,i} \in \mathcal O(GL_N)_{\leq e}. To obtain a contradiction, it suffices to verify the coefficient of \sum_i m_\alpha \otimes n_\beta \otimes f_{\alpha,i}\cdot g in (?) is non-zero for some m_{\alpha} \otimes n_{\beta}. The vanishing of this coefficient is a single linear condition on \{ f_{\alpha,i}\cdot g\}. If this vanishing occurs, it will fail if we replace n_\beta by c \cdot n_\beta and f_{\beta,j} by c^{-1}\cdot f_{\beta,j}.

If \phi, \psi: \mathbb N \to \mathbb N are sequences of polynomial growth e,f respectively, then \phi\circ\psi has polynomial growth e\cdot f. In particular, given an ascending converging sequence n \mapsto \phi(n) of polynomial growth e, then a subsequence n \mapsto \phi (\psi(n)) with \psi(n) growing linearly in n also has growth e

Thus, the proposition follows by appealing to Proposition 2.8.

As seen in the proof of Proposition 2.5, d\mapsto dim(\mathcal O(GL_N)_{\leq d} has polynomial growth of degree N^2 and equals that of d \mapsto \mathcal O(M_{N,N})_{\leq d}. Since \mathcal O(M_{N,N})_{\leq d} maps isomorphically to the truncated local ring \mathcal O(M_{N,N})_{(id)}/\mathfrak m_{id}^{d+1} which maps onto \mathcal O(\mathbb G)/\mathfrak m_{\mathbb G}^{d+1}, we conclude that

the image of \mathcal O(\mathbb M_{N,N})_{\leq d} \to \mathcal O(\mathbb G) has growth at least d\mapsto \mathcal O(\mathbb G)/\mathfrak m_{\mathbb G}^{d+1} which has polynomial growth equal to that of d \mapsto d^{dim(\mathfrak g)}.

Choose \ell to be the least positive integer such that \mathcal O(\mathbb G)_{\leq 1,\phi} \to \mathcal O(\mathbb G)/m_\mathbb G^\ell is injective. Then \mathcal O(\mathbb G)_{\leq d,\phi} maps injectively to \mathcal O(\mathbb G)/m_\mathbb G^{\ell \cdot d}, so that the argument of the proof of Proposition 5.7 implies that the growth of d\mapsto \mathcal O(\mathbb G)_{\leq d,\phi} is not greater than d \mapsto d^n.

The growth of k[\mathbb G]^R with respect to \{ \mathcal C(\mathbb G)_{\leq d,\phi} \} equals dim(\mathfrak g) by Proposition 5.8.

Consider the anitipode \sigma: \mathcal O(GL_N) \to \mathcal O(GL_N), the map on coordinate algebras induced by (-)^{-1}: GL_N \to GL_N. For any invertible N\times N-matrix A, Kramer’s rule tell us that A has inverse B = (b_{i,j}), where b_{i,j} = (-1)^{i+j} det(A_{i,j})\cdot det(A)^{-1} where A_{i,j} is the minor of A at (i,j). Thus, \sigma(x_{i,j}) \in \mathcal O(GL_N) is the product of an N-1 degree polynomial (-1)^{i+j}det(\{ x_{s,t}, s \not=i, y\not= j \}) and the function det(\{x_{i,j})^{-1} (which is given filtration degree N). Consequently, the algebra homomorphism \sigma: \mathcal O(GL_N)\to \mathcal O(GL_N) multiplies filtration degree (with respect to \{ \mathcal O(\operatorname{GL}\nolimits_N)_{\leq d} \}) by 2N-1. The coaction for k[GL_N]^L is the composition

where \tau exchanges tensor factors. Thus, dim((k[GL_N]^L)_{\mathcal O(GL_N)_{\leq (2N-1)d}} )\ = \ dim(\mathcal O(GL_N)_{\leq d}). We conclude that d \mapsto (k[GL_N]^L)_{\mathcal O(GL_N)_{\leq d}} has polynomial growth of degree N^2 as in the proof of Proposition 5.7.

The coaction determining the comodule structure of k[GL_N]^{Ad} is the composition

where \mu_{1,3} multiplies the first and third tensor factors, then exchanges the two remaining factors. (See [J, I.2.8(70].)

If we write this coaction as \Delta_{Ad}(x_{i,j}) = \sum_{s,t} x_{s,t} \otimes f_{s,t}^{i,j}, then we see that each f_{s,t}^{i,j} is a product of a function of filtration degree \leq 2N-1 and a function of degree 1, thus f_{s,t}^{i,j} has filtration degree \leq 2N. As for k[GL_N]^L, we conclude that d \mapsto (k[GL_N]^{Ad})_{\mathcal O(GL_N)_{\leq d}} has polynomial growth N^2.

Since the restriction \phi^*: \mathcal O(GL_N) \to \mathcal O(\mathbb G) is a surjective map of Hopf algebras and since \mathcal O(\mathbb G)_{\leq d,\phi} is defined to be \phi^*(\mathcal O(\mathbb G)_{\leq d}), we may apply \phi^* to the above arguments for GL_N to conclude the corresponding statements for \mathbb G.