This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Tensor ideals for quantum groups
via minimal tilting complexes

Jonathan Gruber Department of Mathematics, National University of Singapore, Singapore [email protected]
Abstract.

We use minimal tilting complexes to construct an explicit bijection between the set of thick tensor ideals with the two-out-of-three property in the category of finite-dimensional modules over a quantum group at a root of unity and the set of thick tensor ideals in the subcategory of tilting modules. We also explain why the analogous construction for rational representations of a reductive algebraic group over a field of positive characteristic does not give rise to a bijection.

Key words and phrases:
quantum group, tensor ideal, tilting module
1991 Mathematics Subject Classification:
20G42 (primary), 17B55, 18M15, 20G05 (secondary)

Introduction

One way of understanding the structure of a braided monoidal category 𝒞\mathcal{C} is via its thick tensor ideals, i.e. the sets of objects of 𝒞\mathcal{C} that are closed under direct sums, retracts and tensor products with arbitrary objects of 𝒞\mathcal{C}. When 𝒞\mathcal{C} is triangulated and the tensor product bifunctor is exact in both arguments then one can further impose that tensor ideals should be well-behaved with respect to the triangulated structure (in a suitable sense), and this leads to the rich theory of tensor triangular geometry developed by P. Balmer [Bal05]. When 𝒞\mathcal{C} is abelian, and the tensor product bifunctor is exact in both arguments, we can consider the set of thick tensor ideals 𝒥\mathcal{J} with the so-called two-out-of-three property, that is, with the property that for any short exact sequence 0ABC00\to A\to B\to C\to 0 in 𝒞\mathcal{C} such that two of the three objects AA, BB and CC belong to 𝒥\mathcal{J}, the third one also belongs to 𝒥\mathcal{J}.

In this note, we study thick tensor ideals with the two-out-of-three property in the category of modules over a quantum group at a root of unity. Let U=Uζ(𝔤)U=U_{\zeta}(\mathfrak{g}) be the quantum group at a primitive \ell-th root of unity ζ\zeta\in\mathbb{C} corresponding to a complex simple Lie algebra 𝔤\mathfrak{g}, defined using divided powers as in [Jan03, Appendix H], and assume that \ell is odd and strictly greater than the Coxeter number hh of 𝔤\mathfrak{g}, and not divisible by 33 if 𝔤\mathfrak{g} is of type G2\mathrm{G}_{2}. Further, let Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U) be the category of finite-dimensional UU-modules of type one and let Tilt(U)\mathrm{Tilt}(U) be the full subcategory of tilting UU-modules, again as in [Jan03, Appendix H]. The thick tensor ideals in Tilt(U)\mathrm{Tilt}(U) have been classified by V. Ostrik in [Ost97] in terms of certain Kazhdan-Lusztig cells in the affine Weyl group of UU. Here, we provide an explicit bijection between the set of thick tensor ideals in Tilt(U)\mathrm{Tilt}(U) and the set of thick tensor ideals with the two-out-of-three property in Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U), using the theory of minimal tilting complexes. As explained in [Gru22b, Subsection 2.2], we can associate to every UU-module MM a bounded minimal complex Cmin(M)C_{\mathrm{min}}(M) in Tilt(U)\mathrm{Tilt}(U) (unique up to isomorphism), and we call Cmin(M)C_{\mathrm{min}}(M) the minimal tilting complex of MM. Given a thick tensor ideal \mathcal{I} in Tilt(U)\mathrm{Tilt}(U), we define

{MRep(U)|all terms of Cmin(M) belong to }\langle\mathcal{I}\rangle\coloneqq\big{\{}M\in\mathrm{Rep}(U)\mathop{\big{|}}\text{all terms of }C_{\mathrm{min}}(M)\text{ belong to }\mathcal{I}\big{\}}

and prove that \langle\mathcal{I}\rangle is a thick tensor ideal in Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U) with the two-out-of-three property. Our main result is as follows; see Theorem 2.9.

Theorem.

The map \mathcal{I}\mapsto\langle\mathcal{I}\rangle from the set of thick tensor ideals in Tilt(U)\mathrm{Tilt}(U) to the set of thick tensor ideals in Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U) with the two-out-of-three property is a bijection, with inverse map 𝒥𝒥Tilt(U)\mathcal{J}\mapsto\mathcal{J}\cap\mathrm{Tilt}(U).

Thick tensor ideals in Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U) have also been studied by B. Boe, J. Kujawa and D. Nakano in [BKN19] via the geometry of the nilpotent cone of 𝔤\mathfrak{g}, and we partially rely on their results.

Our construction also makes perfect sense for the category Rep(G)\mathrm{Rep}(G) of finite-dimensional rational representations of a simply-connected simple algebraic group GG over an algebraically closed field of positive characteristic php\geq h, but the above theorem fails in this setting. In Section 3, we show that the Frobenius twist of the Steinberg module for GG generates a thick tensor ideal in Rep(G)\mathrm{Rep}(G) with the two-out-of-three property which is not of the form \langle\mathcal{I}\rangle, for any thick tensor ideal \mathcal{I} in the category Tilt(G)\mathrm{Tilt}(G) of tilting modules in Rep(G)\mathrm{Rep}(G).

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Stephen Donkin, Thorge Jensen, Daniel Nakano and Donna Testerman for helpful conversations and comments. This work was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation under the grants FNS 200020_175571 and FNS 200020_207730 and by the Singapore MOE grant R-146-000-294-133.

1. Minimal tilting complexes

Let us start by recalling some important facts about representations of quantum groups and minimal tilting complexes. We keep the notation from the introduction; in particular U=Uζ(𝔤)U=U_{\zeta}(\mathfrak{g}) is a quantum group at a primitive \ell-th root of unity ζ\zeta\in\mathbb{C} as in [Jan03, Appendix H], where \ell is odd (and not divisible by 33 if 𝔤\mathfrak{g} is of type G2\mathrm{G}_{2}). We write Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U) for the category of finite-dimensional UU-modules of type one. Note that Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U) is a rigid monoidal category because UU is a Hopf algebra and that Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U) admits a braiding by [Lus10, Chapter 32]. In the following, we simply refer to the objects of Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U) as UU-modules. The category Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U) is also a highest weight category with weight poset (X+,)(X^{+},\leq), where X+X^{+} denotes the set of dominant weights for 𝔤\mathfrak{g} (with respect to a fixed base of the root system of 𝔤\mathfrak{g}) and \leq is the usual dominance order. We write Tilt(U)\mathrm{Tilt}(U) for the full subcategory of tilting modules in Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U); see Section 1 and Subsection 4.3 in [Gru22b] for more details. As explained in [Gru22b, Subsection 2.2], we can assign to every UU-module MM a minimal tilting complex Cmin(M)C_{\mathrm{min}}(M); it is the unique minimal bounded complex in Tilt(U)\mathrm{Tilt}(U) whose cohomology groups are given by

Hi(Cmin(M)){Mif i=0,0otherwiseH^{i}\big{(}C_{\mathrm{min}}(M)\big{)}\cong\begin{cases}M&\text{if }i=0,\\ 0&\text{otherwise}\end{cases}

for ii\in\mathbb{Z}. (See [Gru22b, Definition 2.2] for the definition of a minimal complex.) Below, we list some key properties of minimal tilting complexes.

Lemma 1.1.

Let MM and NN be UU-modules. Then we have Cmin(MN)Cmin(M)Cmin(N)C_{\mathrm{min}}(M\oplus N)\cong C_{\mathrm{min}}(M)\oplus C_{\mathrm{min}}(N).

Proof.

See part (1) of Lemma 2.12 in [Gru22b]. ∎

For UU-modules MM and NN, let us write MNM\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\oplus}}{{\subseteq}}N if MM admits a split embedding into NN, and denote by Cmin(M)iC_{\mathrm{min}}(M)_{i} the term in homological degree ii\in\mathbb{Z} of Cmin(M)C_{\mathrm{min}}(M).

Lemma 1.2.

Let 0ABC00\to A\to B\to C\to 0 be a short exact sequence of UU-modules. Then

Cmin(A)i\displaystyle C_{\mathrm{min}}(A)_{i} Cmin(B)iCmin(C)i1,\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\oplus}}{{\subseteq}}C_{\mathrm{min}}(B)_{i}\oplus C_{\mathrm{min}}(C)_{i-1},
Cmin(B)i\displaystyle C_{\mathrm{min}}(B)_{i} Cmin(A)iCmin(C)i,\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\oplus}}{{\subseteq}}C_{\mathrm{min}}(A)_{i}\oplus C_{\mathrm{min}}(C)_{i},
Cmin(C)i\displaystyle C_{\mathrm{min}}(C)_{i} Cmin(A)i+1Cmin(B)i\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\oplus}}{{\subseteq}}C_{\mathrm{min}}(A)_{i+1}\oplus C_{\mathrm{min}}(B)_{i}

for all ii\in\mathbb{Z}.

Proof.

This follows from Lemma 2.17 in [Gru22b]. ∎

Given two complexes X=(XidiXi+1)X=(\cdots\to X_{i}\xrightarrow{d_{i}}X_{i+1}\to\cdots) and Y=(YidiYi+1)Y=(\cdots\to Y_{i}\xrightarrow{d_{i}^{\prime}}Y_{i+1}\to\cdots) of UU-modules, we define the tensor product complex XYX\otimes Y with terms

(XY)i=j+k=iXjYk(X\otimes Y)_{i}=\bigoplus_{j+k=i}X_{j}\otimes Y_{k}

for ii\in\mathbb{Z} and differential defined on XjYkX_{j}\otimes Y_{k} via djidYk+(1)jidXjdkd_{j}\otimes\mathrm{id}_{Y_{k}}+(-1)^{j}\cdot\mathrm{id}_{X_{j}}\otimes d^{\prime}_{k}. The cohomology groups of XYX\otimes Y can be computed via the Künneth-formula (see for instance [Big07, Theorem 4.1]):

Hi(XY)=j+k=iHj(X)Hk(Y)H^{i}(X\otimes Y)=\bigoplus_{j+k=i}H^{j}(X)\otimes H^{k}(Y)
Lemma 1.3.

Let MM and NN be UU-modules. Then there is a split monomorphism

Cmin(MN)Cmin(M)Cmin(N)C_{\mathrm{min}}(M\otimes N)\longrightarrow C_{\mathrm{min}}(M)\otimes C_{\mathrm{min}}(N)

in the category of complexes in Tilt(U)\mathrm{Tilt}(U).

Proof.

By the Künneth formula, the tensor product complex satisfies

Hi(Cmin(M)Cmin(N)){MNif i=0,0otherwiseH^{i}\big{(}C_{\mathrm{min}}(M)\otimes C_{\mathrm{min}}(N)\big{)}\cong\begin{cases}M\otimes N&\text{if }i=0,\\ 0&\text{otherwise}\end{cases}

for ii\in\mathbb{Z}, whence we have Cmin(M)Cmin(N)Cmin(MN)C_{\mathrm{min}}(M)\otimes C_{\mathrm{min}}(N)\cong C_{\mathrm{min}}(M\otimes N) in Db(Rep(U))D^{b}\big{(}\mathrm{Rep}(U)\big{)}, the bounded derived category of Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U). By part (2) of Lemma 2.12 in [Gru22b], this implies that Cmin(MN)C_{\mathrm{min}}(M\otimes N) is the minimal complex of Cmin(M)Cmin(N)C_{\mathrm{min}}(M)\otimes C_{\mathrm{min}}(N) and that there is a split monomorphism as in the statement of the lemma. ∎

2. Tensor ideals for quantum groups

Recall that a thick tensor ideal in Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U) is a set 𝒥\mathcal{J} of UU-modules that is closed under direct sums, retracts and tensor products with arbitrary UU-modules, that is, for UU-modules MM and NN and XMNX\cong M\oplus N, we have X𝒥X\in\mathcal{J} if and only if M𝒥M\in\mathcal{J} and N𝒥N\in\mathcal{J}, and if M𝒥M\in\mathcal{J} then MN𝒥M\otimes N\in\mathcal{J}. Thick tensor ideals in Tilt(U)\mathrm{Tilt}(U) are defined analogously. We say that a thick tensor ideal 𝒥\mathcal{J} in Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U) has the 2/3-property (or two-out-of-three property) if for any short exact sequence 0ABC00\to A\to B\to C\to 0 of UU-modules such that two of the UU-modules AA, BB and CC belong to 𝒥\mathcal{J}, the third also belongs to 𝒥\mathcal{J}.

Remark 2.1.

In [BKN19], the term thick tensor ideal in Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U) is used for what we call thick tensor ideal with the 2/3-property.

Definition 2.2.

For any thick tensor ideal \mathcal{I} in Tilt(U)\mathrm{Tilt}(U), we define a set of UU-modules by

{M|M is a U-module and all terms of Cmin(M) belong to }.\langle\mathcal{I}\rangle\coloneqq\big{\{}M\mathop{\big{|}}M\text{ is a }U\text{-module and all terms of }C_{\mathrm{min}}(M)\text{ belong to }\mathcal{I}\big{\}}.
Lemma 2.3.

Let \mathcal{I} be a thick tensor ideal in Tilt(U)\mathrm{Tilt}(U). Then \langle\mathcal{I}\rangle is a thick tensor ideal in Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U) and \langle\mathcal{I}\rangle has the 2/3-property.

Proof.

First note that \langle\mathcal{I}\rangle is closed under direct sums and retracts because

Cmin(M1M2)=Cmin(M1)Cmin(M2)C_{\mathrm{min}}(M_{1}\oplus M_{2})=C_{\mathrm{min}}(M_{1})\oplus C_{\mathrm{min}}(M_{2})

for all UU-modules M1M_{1} and M2M_{2}, by Lemma 1.1. If M2M_{2}\in\langle\mathcal{I}\rangle then all terms of the tensor product complex Cmin(M1)Cmin(M2)C_{\mathrm{min}}(M_{1})\otimes C_{\mathrm{min}}(M_{2}) belong to \mathcal{I} because \mathcal{I} is a tensor ideal. As Cmin(M1M2)C_{\mathrm{min}}(M_{1}\otimes M_{2}) is a direct summand of Cmin(M1)Cmin(M2)C_{\mathrm{min}}(M_{1})\otimes C_{\mathrm{min}}(M_{2}) in the category of complexes in Tilt(U)\mathrm{Tilt}(U) by Lemma 1.3 and as \mathcal{I} is closed under retracts, we conclude that M1M2M_{1}\otimes M_{2}\in\langle\mathcal{I}\rangle. Finally, for a short exact sequence

0ABC00\to A\to B\to C\to 0

of UU-modules, we have

Cmin(A)i\displaystyle C_{\mathrm{min}}(A)_{i} Cmin(B)iCmin(C)i1,\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\oplus}}{{\subseteq}}C_{\mathrm{min}}(B)_{i}\oplus C_{\mathrm{min}}(C)_{i-1},
Cmin(B)i\displaystyle C_{\mathrm{min}}(B)_{i} Cmin(A)iCmin(C)i,\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\oplus}}{{\subseteq}}C_{\mathrm{min}}(A)_{i}\oplus C_{\mathrm{min}}(C)_{i},
Cmin(C)i\displaystyle C_{\mathrm{min}}(C)_{i} Cmin(A)i+1Cmin(B)i\displaystyle\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\oplus}}{{\subseteq}}C_{\mathrm{min}}(A)_{i+1}\oplus C_{\mathrm{min}}(B)_{i}

for all ii\in\mathbb{Z}, by Lemma 1.2. As \mathcal{I} is closed under retracts, we conclude that \langle\mathcal{I}\rangle has the 2/3-property. ∎

The following Lemma justifies the notation \langle\mathcal{I}\rangle.

Lemma 2.4.

Let \mathcal{I} be a thick tensor ideal in Tilt(U)\mathrm{Tilt}(U). Then \langle\mathcal{I}\rangle is the smallest thick tensor ideal with the 2/3-property in Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U) that contains \mathcal{I}.

Proof.

The inclusion \mathcal{I}\subseteq\langle\mathcal{I}\rangle follows from the fact that for every tilting UU-module MM, we have Cmin(M)=MC_{\mathrm{min}}(M)=M, viewed as a complex concentrated in degree zero; see [Gru22b, Remark 2.11]. Now let 𝒥\mathcal{J} be a thick tensor ideal with the 2/3-property in Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U) such that 𝒥\mathcal{I}\subseteq\mathcal{J}, and let MM be a UU-module in \langle\mathcal{I}\rangle. We claim that MM belongs to 𝒥\mathcal{J}. Writing Cmin(M)C_{\mathrm{min}}(M) as

d2T1d1T0d0T1d1,\cdots\xrightarrow{\leavevmode\nobreak\ d_{-2}\leavevmode\nobreak\ }T_{-1}\xrightarrow{\leavevmode\nobreak\ d_{-1}\leavevmode\nobreak\ }T_{0}\xrightarrow{\leavevmode\nobreak\ \,d_{0}\,\leavevmode\nobreak\ }T_{1}\xrightarrow{\leavevmode\nobreak\ \,d_{1}\,\leavevmode\nobreak\ }\cdots,

we have Mker(d0)/im(d1)M\cong\ker(d_{0})/\mathrm{im}(d_{-1}), so there is a short exact sequence

0im(d1)ker(d0)M0.0\longrightarrow\mathrm{im}(d_{-1})\longrightarrow\ker(d_{0})\longrightarrow M\longrightarrow 0.

As 𝒥\mathcal{J} has the 2/3-property, it suffices to show that im(d1)\mathrm{im}(d_{-1}) and ker(d0)\ker(d_{0}) belong to 𝒥\mathcal{J}. As Cmin(M)C_{\mathrm{min}}(M) is exact in all degrees except zero, there are short exact sequences

0ker(di)Tiker(di+1)00\longrightarrow\ker(d_{i})\longrightarrow T_{i}\longrightarrow\ker(d_{i+1})\longrightarrow 0

for all i0i\geq 0, where Ti𝒥T_{i}\in\mathcal{I}\subseteq\mathcal{J}, and using the 2/3-property, we see that ker(di)\ker(d_{i}) belongs to 𝒥\mathcal{J} if and only if ker(di+1)\ker(d_{i+1}) belongs to 𝒥\mathcal{J}. Now Cmin(M)C_{\mathrm{min}}(M) is bounded, so Ti=0T_{i}=0 for some i>0i>0, and we conclude that ker(d0)\ker(d_{0}) belongs to 𝒥\mathcal{J}. Analogously, we see that im(d1)\mathrm{im}(d_{-1}) belongs to 𝒥\mathcal{J}, and the claim follows. ∎

For a thick tensor ideal 𝒥\mathcal{J} in Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U), it is straightforward to see that 𝒥Tilt(U)\mathcal{J}\cap\mathrm{Tilt}(U) (the set of tilting modules in 𝒥\mathcal{J}) is a thick tensor ideal in Tilt(U)\mathrm{Tilt}(U). The next result shows that the map 𝒥𝒥Tilt(U)\mathcal{J}\mapsto\mathcal{J}\cap\mathrm{Tilt}(U) is a section to the map \mathcal{I}\mapsto\langle\mathcal{I}\rangle from the set of thick tensor ideals in Tilt(U)\mathrm{Tilt}(U) to the set of thick tensor ideals in Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U) with the 2/3-property.

Lemma 2.5.

Let \mathcal{I} be a thick tensor ideal in Tilt(U)\mathrm{Tilt}(U). Then Tilt(U)=\langle\mathcal{I}\rangle\cap\mathrm{Tilt}(U)=\mathcal{I}.

Proof.

For a tilting UU-module MM, we have Cmin(M)=MC_{\mathrm{min}}(M)=M, viewed as a complex concentrated in degree zero, and it follows that MM belongs to \mathcal{I} if and only if all terms of Cmin(M)C_{\mathrm{min}}(M) belong to \mathcal{I}. ∎

Following [Bal05] and [BKN19], let us call a proper thick tensor ideal 𝒫\mathcal{P} in Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U) a prime ideal if MN𝒫M\otimes N\in\mathcal{P} implies that either M𝒫M\in\mathcal{P} or N𝒫N\in\mathcal{P}, for UU-modules MM and NN. The following result has been proven by P. Balmer in the framework of tensor triangulated geometry in [Bal05, Lemma 4.2]. The proof in our setting is almost identical; we sketch the main ideas below and refer the reader to [Bal05] for more details.

Proposition 2.6.

Let 𝒥\mathcal{J} be a proper thick tensor ideal with the 2/3-property in Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U). Then we have

𝒥=𝒥𝒫𝒫,\mathcal{J}=\bigcap_{\mathcal{J}\subseteq\mathcal{P}}\mathcal{P},

where the intersection runs over all prime thick tensor ideals 𝒫\mathcal{P} in Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U) such that 𝒫\mathcal{P} has the 2/3-property and 𝒥𝒫\mathcal{J}\subseteq\mathcal{P}.

Proof.

It is clear that 𝒥\mathcal{J} is contained in 𝒥𝒫𝒫\bigcap_{\mathcal{J}\subseteq\mathcal{P}}\mathcal{P}. Now let MM be a UU-module that does not belong to 𝒥\mathcal{J} and consider the set 𝒮={Mnn0}\mathcal{S}=\{M^{\otimes n}\mid n\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\}. Since MM is a direct summand of MMMM\otimes M^{*}\otimes M (where MM^{*} denotes the dual of MM) and 𝒥\mathcal{J} is a thick tensor ideal, the set 𝒮\mathcal{S} is disjoint from 𝒥\mathcal{J}; cf. Remark 4.3 and Proposition 4.4 in [Bal05]. As in Lemma 2.2 in [Bal05], one can use Zorn’s lemma to prove that there exists a thick prime tensor ideal 𝒫\mathcal{P} in Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U) such that 𝒫\mathcal{P} has the 2/3-property, 𝒥𝒫\mathcal{J}\subseteq\mathcal{P} and 𝒮𝒫=\mathcal{S}\cap\mathcal{P}=\varnothing. In particular, MM does not belong to 𝒥𝒫𝒫\bigcap_{\mathcal{J}\subseteq\mathcal{P}}\mathcal{P} and the claim follows. ∎

Before we can prove our main result, we need two more preliminary lemmas.

Lemma 2.7.

Let (j)jJ(\mathcal{I}_{j})_{j\in J} be a collection of thick tensor ideals in Tilt(U)\mathrm{Tilt}(U). Then we have

jJj=jJj.\bigcap_{j\in J}\langle\mathcal{I}_{j}\rangle=\Big{\langle}\bigcap_{j\in J}\mathcal{I}_{j}\Big{\rangle}.
Proof.

For a UU-module MM and for ii\in\mathbb{Z}, the tilting module Cmin(M)iC_{\mathrm{min}}(M)_{i} belongs to jJj\bigcap_{j\in J}\mathcal{I}_{j} if and only if it belongs to j\mathcal{I}_{j} for all jJj\in J. Hence MM belongs to jJj\big{\langle}\bigcap_{j\in J}\mathcal{I}_{j}\big{\rangle} if and only if MM belongs to jJj\bigcap_{j\in J}\langle\mathcal{I}_{j}\rangle. ∎

All the results so far are valid without any additional assumptions on the order \ell of ζ\zeta, apart from those that were made at the beginning of Section 1. For the rest of the section, we assume that >h\ell>h, the Coxeter number of 𝔤\mathfrak{g}.

Lemma 2.8.

Let 𝒥\mathcal{J} be a thick tensor ideal in Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U) with the 2/3-property. Then we have

𝒥=𝒥𝒫𝒫Tilt(U),\mathcal{J}=\Big{\langle}\bigcap_{\mathcal{J}\subseteq\mathcal{P}}\mathcal{P}\cap\mathrm{Tilt}(U)\Big{\rangle},

where the intersection runs over all prime thick tensor ideals 𝒫\mathcal{P} in Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U) such that 𝒫\mathcal{P} has the 2/3-property and 𝒥𝒫\mathcal{J}\subseteq\mathcal{P}.

Proof.

By Theorem 8.2.1 in [BKN19], every prime thick tensor ideal 𝒫\mathcal{P} in Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U) with the 2/3-property is generated by an indecomposable tilting module MM. Hence if \mathcal{I} is the thick tensor ideal in Tilt(U)\mathrm{Tilt}(U) generated by MM then 𝒫=\mathcal{P}=\langle\mathcal{I}\rangle, and by Lemma 2.5, we have 𝒫Tilt(U)=\mathcal{P}\cap\mathrm{Tilt}(U)=\mathcal{I} and therefore 𝒫=𝒫Tilt(U)\mathcal{P}=\big{\langle}\mathcal{P}\cap\mathrm{Tilt}(U)\big{\rangle}. Using Proposition 2.6 and Lemma 2.7, it follows that

𝒥=𝒥𝒫𝒫=𝒥𝒫𝒫Tilt(U)=𝒥𝒫𝒫Tilt(U),\mathcal{J}=\bigcap_{\mathcal{J}\subseteq\mathcal{P}}\mathcal{P}=\bigcap_{\mathcal{J}\subseteq\mathcal{P}}\big{\langle}\mathcal{P}\cap\mathrm{Tilt}(U)\big{\rangle}=\Big{\langle}\bigcap_{\mathcal{J}\subseteq\mathcal{P}}\mathcal{P}\cap\mathrm{Tilt}(U)\Big{\rangle},

as required. ∎

Now we are ready to prove our main result:

Theorem 2.9.

The map \mathcal{I}\mapsto\langle\mathcal{I}\rangle from the set of thick tensor ideals in Tilt(U)\mathrm{Tilt}(U) to the set of thick tensor ideals with the 2/3-property in Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U) is a bijection. The inverse map is given by 𝒥𝒥Tilt(U)\mathcal{J}\mapsto\mathcal{J}\cap\mathrm{Tilt}(U).

Proof.

For any thick tensor ideal \mathcal{I} in Tilt(U)\mathrm{Tilt}(U), we have Tilt(U)=\langle\mathcal{I}\rangle\cap\mathrm{Tilt}(U)=\mathcal{I} by Lemma 2.5. Conversely, for a thick tensor ideal 𝒥\mathcal{J} in Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U) with the 2/3-property, we have

𝒥Tilt(U)=(𝒥𝒫𝒫)Tilt(U)=𝒥𝒫𝒫Tilt(U)\mathcal{J}\cap\mathrm{Tilt}(U)=\Big{(}\bigcap_{\mathcal{J}\subseteq\mathcal{P}}\mathcal{P}\Big{)}\cap\mathrm{Tilt}(U)=\bigcap_{\mathcal{J}\subseteq\mathcal{P}}\mathcal{P}\cap\mathrm{Tilt}(U)

by Proposition 2.6, and therefore

𝒥Tilt(U)=𝒥𝒫𝒫Tilt(U)=𝒥\big{\langle}\mathcal{J}\cap\mathrm{Tilt}(U)\big{\rangle}=\Big{\langle}\bigcap_{\mathcal{J}\subseteq\mathcal{P}}\mathcal{P}\cap\mathrm{Tilt}(U)\Big{\rangle}=\mathcal{J}

by Lemma 2.8. ∎

Remark 2.10.

The existence of a bijection between the set of thick tensor ideals in Tilt(U)\mathrm{Tilt}(U) and the set of thick tensor ideals in Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U) with the 2/3-property can also be deduced by combining Corollary 7.7.2 and Theorem 8.1.1 in [BKN19]. However, it is not clear from the results in [BKN19] that this bijection can be described in terms of minimal tilting complexes, as we have done here.

3. The modular case

Let GG be a simply connected simple algebraic group over an algebraically closed field 𝕜\Bbbk of characteristic p>0p>0, with the same root system as 𝔤\mathfrak{g}. Then the category Rep(G)\mathrm{Rep}(G) of finite-dimensional rational GG-modules is a highest weight category with weight poset (X+,)(X^{+},\leq), and we write LλL_{\lambda} and TλT_{\lambda} for the simple GG-module and the indecomposable tilting GG-module of highest weight λX+\lambda\in X^{+}, respectively. As before, we write Tilt(G)\mathrm{Tilt}(G) for the full subcategory of tilting modules in Rep(G)\mathrm{Rep}(G) and we simply refer to the objects of Rep(G)\mathrm{Rep}(G) as GG-modules.

We can mimic the construction from Section 2 to define a map \mathcal{I}\mapsto\langle\mathcal{I}\rangle from the set of thick tensor ideals in Tilt(G)\mathrm{Tilt}(G) to the set of thick tensor ideals in Rep(G)\mathrm{Rep}(G) with the 2/3-property, and all the results from the preceding sections up to (including) Lemma 2.7 carry over to this setting verbatim. Below, we explain why Theorem 2.9 fails when we replace Rep(U)\mathrm{Rep}(U) by Rep(G)\mathrm{Rep}(G). We first introduce some more notation.

Let Φ\Phi be the root system of GG and fix a base Π\Pi of Φ\Phi corresponding to a positive system Φ+\Phi^{+}. Further let WW be the Weyl group of GG and let XX and X+X^{+} be the weight lattice of GG and the set of dominant weights with respect to Φ+\Phi^{+}. A dominant weight is called pp-restricted if it belongs to

X1={λX+(λ,α)<p for all αΠ},X_{1}=\{\lambda\in X^{+}\mid(\lambda,\alpha^{\vee})<p\text{ for all }\alpha\in\Pi\},

where (,)(-\,,-) is a WW-invariant inner product on XX\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{R} and α=2α(α,α)\alpha^{\vee}=\frac{2\alpha}{(\alpha,\alpha)} denotes the coroot corresponding to αΦ\alpha\in\Phi, and we say that λX\lambda\in X is pp-regular if (λ+ρ,β)(\lambda+\rho,\beta^{\vee}) is not divisible by pp for any βΦ\beta\in\Phi, where ρ\rho is the half-sum of all positive roots. For all λX+\lambda\in X^{+}, we can uniquely write λ=λ0+pλ1\lambda=\lambda_{0}+p\lambda_{1} with λ0X1\lambda_{0}\in X_{1} and λ1X+\lambda_{1}\in X^{+}, and by Steinberg’s tensor product theorem (see [Jan03, Proposition 3.16]), we have LλLλ0Lλ1[1]L_{\lambda}\cong L_{\lambda_{0}}\otimes L_{\lambda_{1}}^{[1]}, where M[1]M^{[1]} denotes the pullback of a GG-module MM along the Frobenius morphism Fr:GG\mathrm{Fr}\colon G\to G. For r>0r>0, let us further denote by GrG_{r} the rr-th Frobenius kernel of GG (i.e. the scheme theoretic kernel of the rr-th power of Fr\mathrm{Fr}), as in Section II.3.1 in [Jan03]. The complexity over GrG_{r} of a GG-module MM is the dimension cGr(M)=dimVGr(M)c_{G_{r}}(M)=\dim V_{G_{r}}(M) of its support variety over GrG_{r}. We do not recall any details of the definition here and instead refer the reader to Section 2 in [NPV02]. Some important properties of the complexity of GG-modules are listed below.

Lemma 3.1.

Let r>0r>0 and let MM and NN be GG-modules. Then we have

  1. (1)

    cGr(MN)=max{cGr(M),cGr(N)}c_{G_{r}}(M\oplus N)=\max\{c_{G_{r}}(M),c_{G_{r}}(N)\};

  2. (2)

    cGr(MN)min{cGr(M),cGr(N)}c_{G_{r}}(M\otimes N)\leq\min\{c_{G_{r}}(M),c_{G_{r}}(N)\}.

  3. (3)

    For a short exact sequence 0M1M2M300\to M_{1}\to M_{2}\to M_{3}\to 0 in Rep(G)\mathrm{Rep}(G) and a permutation σ\sigma of the set {1,2,3}\{1,2,3\}, we have cGr(Mσ(1))max{cGr(Mσ(2)),cGr(Mσ(3))}c_{G_{r}}(M_{\sigma(1)})\leq\max\{c_{G_{r}}(M_{\sigma(2)}),c_{G_{r}}(M_{\sigma(3)})\}.

Proof.

This follows from the properties of support varieties listed in (2.2.4)–(2.2.7) in [NPV02]. ∎

For r,c>0r,c>0, the preceding lemma implies that the set

𝒥r,c={M|M is a G-module with cGr(M)c}\mathcal{J}_{r,\leq c}=\big{\{}M\mathop{\big{|}}M\text{ is a }G\text{-module with }c_{G_{r}}(M)\leq c\big{\}}

is a thick tensor ideal in Rep(G)\mathrm{Rep}(G) with the 2/3-property. In the remainder of this section, we prove that the tensor ideal 𝒥2,|Φ|\mathcal{J}_{2,\leq\lvert\Phi\rvert} is not of the form \langle\mathcal{I}\rangle for any thick tensor ideal \mathcal{I} in Tilt(G)\mathrm{Tilt}(G) when php\geq h.

Suppose from now on that php\geq h, and note that 𝒥2,|Φ|\mathcal{J}_{2,\leq\lvert\Phi\rvert} is a proper tensor ideal in Rep(G)\mathrm{Rep}(G) because the complexity of the trivial GG-module 𝕜\Bbbk over G2G_{2} is the dimension cG2(𝕜)=dimGc_{G_{2}}(\Bbbk)=\dim G of the variety of pairs of commuting nilpotent elements in the Lie algebra 𝔤𝕜\mathfrak{g}_{\Bbbk} of GG; see Lemma 1.7 in [SFB97a], Theorem 5.2 in [SFB97b] and the introduction to [Pre03].

Lemma 3.2.

The simple GG-module L(p2p)ρL(p1)ρ[1]L_{(p^{2}-p)\cdot\rho}\cong L_{(p-1)\cdot\rho}^{[1]} belongs to 𝒥2,|Φ|\mathcal{J}_{2,\leq\lvert\Phi\rvert}.

Proof.

By Theorem 2.4 in [Nak95], we have

cG2(L(p1)ρ[1])cG1(𝕜)+cG1(L(p1)ρ),c_{G_{2}}(L_{(p-1)\cdot\rho}^{[1]})\leq c_{G_{1}}(\Bbbk)+c_{G_{1}}(L_{(p-1)\cdot\rho}),

where cG1(𝕜)=|Φ|c_{G_{1}}(\Bbbk)=\lvert\Phi\rvert is the dimension of the nilpotent cone of GG and cG1(L(p1)ρ)=0c_{G_{1}}(L_{(p-1)\boldsymbol{\cdot}\rho})=0 because the Steinberg module L(p1)ρL_{(p-1)\boldsymbol{\cdot}\rho} is projective as a G1G_{1}-module. See Sections II.12.14 and II.10.2 in [Jan03]. ∎

Lemma 3.3.

Let λX+\lambda\in X^{+} be a pp-regular weight. Then there is no proper thick tensor ideal \mathcal{I} in Tilt(G)\mathrm{Tilt}(G) such that LλL_{\lambda} belongs to \langle\mathcal{I}\rangle.

Proof.

By Proposition 12 and the remarks after Proposition 9 in [And04], the category Tilt(G)\mathrm{Tilt}(G) has a unique maximal thick tensor ideal, whose objects are the direct sums of tilting modules TλT_{\lambda} with (λ+ρ,α0)p(\lambda+\rho,\alpha_{0}^{\vee})\geq p, where α0\alpha_{0}^{\vee} is the highest coroot. (It is called the ideal of negligible tilting modules, cf. [EO22].) Therefore, it suffices to show that there exist ii\in\mathbb{Z} and μX+\mu\in X^{+} with (μ+ρ,α0)<p(\mu+\rho,\alpha_{0}^{\vee})<p such that TμT_{\mu} is a direct summand of Cmin(Lλ)iC_{\mathrm{min}}(L_{\lambda})_{i}.

Let us write d(λ)d(\lambda) for the number of hyperplanes of the form Hr,β={xX(x+ρ,β)=rp}H_{r,\beta}=\{x\in X\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{R}\mid(x+\rho,\beta^{\vee})=rp\} that separate λ\lambda and 0, for βΦ+\beta\in\Phi^{+} and r>0r>0. Then d(λ)d(\lambda) equals the good filtration dimension of LλL_{\lambda} by Corollary 4.5 in [Par03], whence Cmin(Lλ)d(λ)0C_{\mathrm{min}}(L_{\lambda})_{d(\lambda)}\neq 0 by Lemma 2.15 in [Gru22b]. Using Lemma 1.12 and Proposition 3.3 in [Gru22b] and the linkage principle from Section II.7 in [Jan03], it is straightforward to see that for all ii\in\mathbb{Z} and νX+\nu\in X^{+} such that TνT_{\nu} is a direct summand of Cmin(Lλ)iC_{\mathrm{min}}(L_{\lambda})_{i}, we have |i|d(λ)d(ν)\lvert i\rvert\leq d(\lambda)-d(\nu). In particular, any weight μX+\mu\in X^{+} such that TμT_{\mu} is a direct summand of Cmin(Lλ)d(λ)C_{\mathrm{min}}(L_{\lambda})_{d(\lambda)} satisfies d(μ)=0d(\mu)=0 and therefore (μ+ρ,α0)<p(\mu+\rho,\alpha_{0}^{\vee})<p (again using the linkage principle), as required. ∎

Remark 3.4.

More detailed results about the minimal tilting complexes of simple GG-modules are proven in Proposition II.2.6 in [Gru22a]; they will be published in a forthcoming article.

Corollary 3.5.

The thick tensor ideal 𝒥2,|Φ|\mathcal{J}_{2,\leq\lvert\Phi\rvert} in Rep(G)\mathrm{Rep}(G) is not of the form \langle\mathcal{I}\rangle for any thick tensor ideal \mathcal{I} in Tilt(G)\mathrm{Tilt}(G).

Proof.

By Lemma 3.2, the simple GG-module L(p2p)ρL_{(p^{2}-p)\cdot\rho} belongs to 𝒥2,|Φ|\mathcal{J}_{2,\leq\lvert\Phi\rvert}, but it does not belong to \langle\mathcal{I}\rangle for any proper thick tensor ideal \mathcal{I} in Tilt(G)\mathrm{Tilt}(G) by Lemma 3.3 since the weight (p2p)ρ(p^{2}-p)\cdot\rho is pp-regular. (Recall that we assume that ph=(ρ,α0)+1p\geq h=(\rho,\alpha_{0}^{\vee})+1.) As 𝒥2,|Φ|\mathcal{J}_{2,\leq\lvert\Phi\rvert} is a proper thick tensor ideal in Rep(G)\mathrm{Rep}(G), it follows that 𝒥2,|Φ|\mathcal{J}_{2,\leq\lvert\Phi\rvert} is not of the form \langle\mathcal{I}\rangle for any thick tensor ideal \mathcal{I} in Tilt(G)\mathrm{Tilt}(G). ∎

References

  • [And04] Henning Haahr Andersen. Cells in affine Weyl groups and tilting modules. In Representation theory of algebraic groups and quantum groups, volume 40 of Adv. Stud. Pure Math., pages 1–16. Math. Soc. Japan, Tokyo, 2004.
  • [Bal05] Paul Balmer. The spectrum of prime ideals in tensor triangulated categories. J. Reine Angew. Math., 588:149–168, 2005.
  • [Big07] Shahram Biglari. A Künneth formula in tensor triangulated categories. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 210(3):645–650, 2007.
  • [BKN19] Brian D. Boe, Jonathan R. Kujawa, and Daniel K. Nakano. Tensor triangular geometry for quantum groups, 2019. preprint, url: https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.01289.
  • [EO22] Pavel Etingof and Victor Ostrik. On semisimplification of tensor categories. In Representation theory and algebraic geometry. A conference celebrating the birthdays of Sasha Beilinson and Victor Ginzburg, Chicago, IL, USA, August 21–25, 2017, pages 3–35. Cham: Birkhäuser, 2022.
  • [Gru22a] Jonathan Gruber. Generic direct summands of tensor products for reductive algebraic groups and quantum groups at roots of unity, 2022. PhD thesis, available at https://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/293801?ln=en.
  • [Gru22b] Jonathan Gruber. On minimal tilting complexes in highest weight categories, 2022. preprint, to appear in Algebr. Represent. Theory, url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.11999.
  • [Jan03] Jens C. Jantzen. Representations of algebraic groups, volume 107 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, second edition, 2003.
  • [Lus10] George Lusztig. Introduction to quantum groups. Modern Birkhäuser Classics. Birkhäuser / Springer, New York, 2010. Reprint of the 1994 edition.
  • [Nak95] Daniel K. Nakano. A bound on the complexity for GrTG_{r}T modules. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 123(2):335–341, 1995.
  • [NPV02] Daniel K. Nakano, Brian J. Parshall, and David C. Vella. Support varieties for algebraic groups. J. Reine Angew. Math., 547:15–49, 2002.
  • [Ost97] Victor Ostrik. Tensor ideals in the category of tilting modules. Transform. Groups, 2(3):279–287, 1997.
  • [Par03] Alison E. Parker. On the good filtration dimension of Weyl modules for a linear algebraic group. J. Reine Angew. Math., 562:5–21, 2003.
  • [Pre03] Alexander Premet. Nilpotent commuting varieties of reductive Lie algebras. Invent. Math., 154(3):653–683, 2003.
  • [SFB97a] Andrei Suslin, Eric M. Friedlander, and Christopher P. Bendel. Infinitesimal 11-parameter subgroups and cohomology. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 10(3):693–728, 1997.
  • [SFB97b] Andrei Suslin, Eric M. Friedlander, and Christopher P. Bendel. Support varieties for infinitesimal group schemes. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 10(3):729–759, 1997.