Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Cohomology and automorphisms of Com-PreLie algebras

Tao Zhang, Ying-Hua Lu

TL;DR

This work develops representations and a cohomology theory for Com-PreLie algebras $A$ and leverages them to study abelian extensions and the inducibility of automorphisms. It introduces a mixed Harrison–Dzhumadil'daev cohomology $H^\bullet(A,V)$ for a representation $V$, and shows that abelian extensions are classified by $H^2(A,V)$ with explicit cocycles $(\phi,\psi)$; it then formulates Wells maps to characterize inducibility, proving that inducibility is equivalent to the vanishing of a Wells cohomology class. A Wells-type exact sequence is established, linking $\mathcal{Z}^1(A,V)$, Aut_V($\widehat{A}$), a compatibility group $\mathcal{C}$, and $H^2(A,V)$, thereby providing a robust obstruction-theoretic framework for extensions and automorphism inducibility in the Com-PreLie setting. The results yield a coherent cohomological perspective on the structure of Com-PreLie algebras with potential applications to rooted-tree combinatorics and control-theoretic operators.

Abstract

This paper introduces the concept of representations for Com-PreLie algebras and develops corresponding cohomology theories, examining how cohomology groups can be applied in the context of Com-PreLie algebras. Initially, we utilize the cohomology theory to investigate abelian extensions of Com-PreLie algebras. Next, given an abelian extension of Com-PreLie algebras and its representation, we explore the inducibility of Com-PreLie automorphisms, deriving both necessary and sufficient conditions for the inducibility problem. Lastly, we delve deeper into the inducibility of Com-PreLie automorphisms using the Wells exact sequences, offering a clear framework for studying the inducibility of Com-PreLie automorphisms.

Cohomology and automorphisms of Com-PreLie algebras

TL;DR

This work develops representations and a cohomology theory for Com-PreLie algebras and leverages them to study abelian extensions and the inducibility of automorphisms. It introduces a mixed Harrison–Dzhumadil'daev cohomology for a representation , and shows that abelian extensions are classified by with explicit cocycles ; it then formulates Wells maps to characterize inducibility, proving that inducibility is equivalent to the vanishing of a Wells cohomology class. A Wells-type exact sequence is established, linking , Aut_V(), a compatibility group , and , thereby providing a robust obstruction-theoretic framework for extensions and automorphism inducibility in the Com-PreLie setting. The results yield a coherent cohomological perspective on the structure of Com-PreLie algebras with potential applications to rooted-tree combinatorics and control-theoretic operators.

Abstract

This paper introduces the concept of representations for Com-PreLie algebras and develops corresponding cohomology theories, examining how cohomology groups can be applied in the context of Com-PreLie algebras. Initially, we utilize the cohomology theory to investigate abelian extensions of Com-PreLie algebras. Next, given an abelian extension of Com-PreLie algebras and its representation, we explore the inducibility of Com-PreLie automorphisms, deriving both necessary and sufficient conditions for the inducibility problem. Lastly, we delve deeper into the inducibility of Com-PreLie automorphisms using the Wells exact sequences, offering a clear framework for studying the inducibility of Com-PreLie automorphisms.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 8 sections, 12 theorems, 92 equations.

Key Result

Proposition 2.6

Let $A$ be a Com-PreLie algebra. Let $V$ be a vector space and $\mu,l,r : A \rightarrow End(V )$ be linear maps. Then $(V,\mu, l, r )$ is a representation of $A$ if and only if the direct sum $A \oplus V$ of vector spaces is a Com-PreLie algebra by defining the bilinear operations on $A \oplus V$ by

Theorems & Definitions (31)

  • Definition 2.1
  • Definition 2.2
  • Definition 2.3: Foissy1Foissy2
  • Remark 2.4
  • Definition 2.5
  • Proposition 2.6
  • proof
  • Proposition 2.7
  • proof
  • Definition 2.8
  • ...and 21 more