arXiv reader

On the sub-adjacent Hopf algebra of the universal enveloping algebra of a post-Lie algebra

Yunnan Li

arXiv
2408.01345v2 · PDF · 10 July 2026
Categories
math.RA, math-ph, math.CO, math.MP, math.QA
Journal
J. Algebra 706 (2026), 1-25
DOI
10.1016/j.jalgebra.2026.05.011
Licence
CC0 1.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

Recently the notion of post-Hopf algebra was introduced, with the universal enveloping algebra of a post-Lie algebra as the fundamental example. A novel property is that any cocommutative post-Hopf algebra gives rise to a sub-adjacent Hopf algebra with a generalized Grossman-Larson product. By twisting the post-Hopf product, we provide a combinatorial antipode formula for the sub-adjacent Hopf algebra of the universal enveloping algebra of a post-Lie algebra. Relating to such a sub-adjacent Hopf algebra, we also obtain a closed inverse formula for the Guin-Oudom isomorphism in the context of post-Lie algebras. Especially as a byproduct, we derive a cancellation-free antipode formula for the Grossman-Larson Hopf algebra of ordered trees through a concrete tree-grafting expression.

Items 45

Definition

Definition 2.1

1H05

A post-Hopf algebra is a pair (H,\rhd), where H is a Hopf algebra and \rhd:H\otimes H\to H is a coalgebra homomorphism satisfying the following equalities:

\begin{aligned} x\rhd (y\cdot z)&=(x_1\rhd y)\cdot(x_2\rhd z),\\ x\rhd (y\rhd z)&=\big(x_1\cdot(x_2\rhd y)\big)\rhd z, \end{aligned}

for any x,y,z\in H, and the left multiplication \alpha_\rhd:H\to \End(H) defined by

\alpha_{\rhd, x} y= x\rhd y,\quad\forall x,y\in H,

is convolution invertible in \Hom(H,\End(H)). Namely, there exists a unique linear map \beta_\rhd:H\to\End(H) such that

\alpha_{\rhd,x_1}\beta_{\rhd,x_2}=\beta_{\rhd,x_1}\alpha_{\rhd,x_2}=\vep(x)\id_H,\quad\forall x\in H.
Used by Lemma 2.2, Theorem 2.3, Theorem 2.5, Proposition 2.7, Proof
Lemma

Lemma 2.2

OKE4

Let (H,\rhd) be a post-Hopf algebra. Then for all x,y\in H, we have

\begin{aligned} x\rhd 1&=\vep(x)1,\\ 1\rhd x&=x,\\ S(x\rhd y)&=x\rhd S(y). \end{aligned}
Uses Definition 2.1 · Used by Proof, Proof
Theorem

Theorem 2.3

2M52

Let (H,\rhd) be a cocommutative post-Hopf algebra. Then

H_\rhd\coloneqq(H,\circ ,1,\Delta,\vep,S_\rhd)

is a Hopf algebra, which is called the sub-adjacent Hopf algebra, where for all x,y\in H,

\begin{aligned} x \circ y&\coloneqq&x_1\cdot (x_2\rhd y),\\ S_\rhd(x)&\coloneqq&\beta_{\rhd,x_1}(S(x_2)). \end{aligned}

Furthermore, H is a left H_\rhd-module bialgebra via the action \rhd.

Uses Definition 2.1 · Used by Proof, Proof
Remark

Remark 2.4

82SP

(i) The product (2.3) generalizes the Grossman-Larson product [GL, MW, OG] defined in the context of (noncommutative) polynomials of ordered trees and widely applied to the study of Magnus expansions [EMQ] and Lie-Butcher series [ML, MW]. A proper generalization of the Grossman-Larson product to the universal enveloping algebra of a post-Lie algebra was already presented in [ELM].

(ii) Since \beta_\rhd is the convolution inverse of \alpha_\rhd and

\alpha_{\rhd,x_1}\alpha_{\rhd,S_\rhd(x_2)}\stackrel{\eqref{Post-4},\,\eqref{post-rbb-1}}{=} \alpha_{\rhd,x_1\circ S_\rhd(x_2)}=\alpha_{\rhd,\vep(x)1}\stackrel{\eqref{Post-3}}{=}\vep(x)\id,

we have \beta_{\rhd,x}=\alpha_{\rhd,S_\rhd(x)}. Namely, Eq. (2.3) is rewritten as

S_\rhd(x)=S_\rhd(x_1)\rhd S(x_2),\quad\forall x\in H.
Used by Proof, Proof
Theorem

Theorem 2.5

URJS

Let (\frakg,[\cdot,\cdot]_\frakg,\rhd) be a post-Lie algebra associated with the sub-adjacent Lie algebra \frakg_\rhd. Then (\U(\frakg), \rhd) is a post-Hopf algebra with the product \rhd recursively defined by

\begin{aligned} &x\rhd 1=0,\quad x\rhd x_1\cdots x_r=\sum_{i=1}^r x_1\cdots (x\rhd x_i)\cdots x_r,\\ &1\rhd u = u,\quad x_1\cdots x_r\rhd u = x_1\rhd(x_2\cdots x_r\rhd u)-(x_1\rhd x_2\cdots x_r)\rhd u \end{aligned}

for all x,x_1,\dots,x_r\in \frakg and u\in \U(\frakg) with r\geq1.

Moreover, there is a Hopf algebra isomorphism \phi:\U(\frakg_\rhd)\to \U(\frakg)_\rhd defined by

\phi(x_1\cdots x_r)=x_1\circ \cdots\circ x_r,\quad \forall x_1,\dots,x_r\in \frakg.

We call \phi the Guin-Oudom isomorphism.

Uses Definition 2.1
Remark

Remark 2.6

RQZS

The theory of classical r-matrices provides a rich source of examples of post-Lie algebras. A linear operator R on a Lie algebra (\frakg,[\cdot,\cdot]) is called a classical r-matrix on \frakg, if

[x,y]_R\coloneqq \dfrac{1}{2}([Rx,y]+[x,Ry]),\quad\forall x,y\in \frakg

defines another Lie bracket on \frakg. Then such a pair (\frakg,R) is called a double Lie algebra [STS]. If a classical r-matrix R on \frakg satisfies the modified classical Yang-Baxter equation

[Rx,Ry]=R([Rx,y]+[x,Ry])-[x,y],\quad\forall x,y\in \frakg,

then R_-\coloneqq \frac{1}{2}(R-\id) is a Rota-Baxter operator of weight 1, and naturally induces a post-Lie algebra (\frakg,[\cdot,\cdot],\rhd) by letting x\rhd y\coloneqq [R_-(x),y] for any x,y\in\frakg, such that the sub-adjacent Lie algebra \frakg_\rhd is equal to \frakg_R=(\frakg,[\cdot,\cdot]_R); see [BGN, Corollary 5.6].

Correspondingly, the authors in [EMM] showed that the Guin-Oudom isomorphism \phi:\U(\frakg_\rhd)\to\U(\frakg)_\rhd coincides with the linear isomorphism F:\U(\frakg_R)\to\U(\frakg) in [RS] which arose from the factorization of classical r-matrix R.

Proposition

Proposition 2.7

O3AV

Let (V,\rhd) be a magma algebra. Extend the magma operation \rhd:V \otimes V\to V on the vector space V to the coshuffle Hopf algebra (\mathsf{T}(V),\cdot,\Delta_\shuffle,S) (using the same notation \rhd) as follows:

\begin{aligned} 1\rhd a&=a,\\ x\rhd a&=x\rhd a,\\ (x\otimes x_1) \rhd a&=x\rhd (x_1\rhd a)-(x\rhd x_1)\rhd a,\\ &\vdots&\\ (x\otimes x_1\otimes\cdots \otimes x_n) \rhd a&=x\rhd \big((x_1\otimes\cdots \otimes x_n)\rhd a\big)\\ &&-\sum_{i=1}^{n}\big(x_1\otimes\cdots \otimes x_{i-1}\otimes(x\rhd x_i) \otimes x_{i+1}\otimes\cdots\otimes x_n\big)\rhd a, \end{aligned}

and

\begin{aligned} 1\rhd 1&=1,\\ x\rhd 1&=0,\\ X \rhd (a_1\otimes\cdots\otimes a_m)&=(X_1\rhd a_1)\otimes\cdots\otimes(X_m\rhd a_m), \end{aligned}

where x,x_1,\dots,x_n,a,a_1,\dots,a_m\in V and X\in \mathsf{T}(V),~\Delta_\shuffle^{(m-1)}(X)=X_1\otimes\cdots\otimes X_m. Then the quintuple (\mathsf{T}(V),\cdot\,,\Delta_\shuffle,S,\rhd) is the universal enveloping algebra of the free post-Lie algebra over the magma algebra (V,\rhd), thus a post-Hopf algebra.

Uses Definition 2.1
Theorem

Theorem 2.8

HKT3

For any word X\in \mathsf{T}(V) with at most m letters in V (m\geq1),

S_\rhd(X)=(\cdots(S(X_1)\rhd S(X_2))\rhd \cdots )\rhd S(X_m).
Used by Example 2.9
Proof of Theorem 2.8

First note that S_\rhd(x)=S(x)=-x for any x\in V. So it is done for m=1. When m>1, we can repeatedly apply Eq. (2.4) m-1 times to obtain that

S_\rhd(X)=(\cdots(S_\rhd(X_1)\rhd S(X_2))\rhd \cdots )\rhd S(X_m).

Since X has at most m letters, any term in the iterated coproduct \Delta_\shuffle^{(m-1)}(X)=X_1\otimes\cdots\otimes X_{m} has all tensor factors from V or at least one tensor factor from {\mathbf{k}}. Then by Eq. (2.2), the leftmost tensor factor X_1 should be from {\mathbf{k}} or V to make the term survive in the right-hand side of the above equality. Hence, we get the desired formula for the antipode S_\rhd of \mathsf{T}(V)_\rhd.

Uses Remark 2.4, Lemma 2.2
Example

Example 2.9

9XKT

Using Eq. (2.8), one can easily calculate S_\rhd(x_1 \cdots x_m) with x_1,\dots,x_m\in V for small m. We compute the results for m=2,3 as a warm-up.

\begin{aligned} S_\rhd(x_1x_2) &= S(x_1x_2)+S(x_1)\rhd S(x_2)+S(x_2)\rhd S(x_1)\\ &= x_2x_1+x_1\rhd x_2+ x_2\rhd x_1,\\[.5em] S_\rhd(x_1x_2x_3) &= S(x_1x_2x_3)+S(x_1)\rhd S(x_2x_3) +S(x_2)\rhd S(x_1x_3)+S(x_3)\rhd S(x_1x_2)\\ && + S_\rhd(x_1x_2)\rhd S(x_3) +S_\rhd(x_1x_3)\rhd S(x_2) + S_\rhd (x_2x_3)\rhd S(x_1)\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{Post-4}}{=}& -x_3x_2x_1 - (x_1 \rhd x_3)x_2 - x_3(x_1 \rhd x_2)\\ && - (x_2 \rhd x_3)x_1 - x_3(x_2 \rhd x_1) - (x_3 \rhd x_2)x_1 - x_2(x_3 \rhd x_1)\\ && -(x_1\rhd x_2)\rhd x_3 -x_2\rhd (x_1\rhd x_3) -(x_1\rhd x_3)\rhd x_2 \\ && -x_3\rhd (x_1\rhd x_2) -(x_2\rhd x_3)\rhd x_1 -x_3\rhd (x_2\rhd x_1). \end{aligned}
Uses Theorem 2.8
Definition

Definition 2.10

FH3O

Define a binary product \btr on \mathsf{T}(V) as follows,

X \btr Y\coloneqq (-1)^{|X|}\beta_{\rhd,X}Y=(-1)^{|X|}S_\rhd(X)\rhd Y

for any words X,\,Y\in \mathsf{T}(V), with |X| as the number of letters in X, i.e. its natural degree in \mathsf{T}(V).

Used by Proof, Proof
Proposition

Proposition 2.11

Q6DS

The following formula holds for the antipode S_\rhd of \mathsf{T}(V)_\rhd,

S_\rhd(x_1\cdots x_m)=(-1)^m\sum_\pi (x_{B_1}\btr x_{b_1})\cdots(x_{B_{|\pi|-1}}\btr x_{b_{|\pi|-1}}),\quad \forall x_1,\dots, x_m\in V,

where the sum ranges over all partitions \pi of [m] into a tuple (B_1,\dots,B_{|\pi|}) of possibly empty subsets such that B_{|\pi|}=\{b_1>\cdots>b_{|\pi|-1}\}.

Used by Proof, Proof
Proof of Proposition 2.11

For any word Y in \mathsf{T}(V), let Y^{\rm op} be its reverse. By formula (?) of the iterated coshuffle coproduct, we have

\begin{aligned} S_\rhd(x_1\cdots x_m)&\stackrel{\eqref{post-rbb-2'}}{=}& \sum_{\pi:|\pi|=2} S_\rhd(x_{B_1})\rhd S(x_{B_2})\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{Post-1},\,\eqref{eq:antipo}}{=}& \sum_{\pi:|\pi|=2,\,B_2\neq\emptyset}(-1)^{|B_2|} S_\rhd(x_{B_1})\rhd x_{B_2}^{\rm op}\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:btr}}{=}&(-1)^m\sum_{\pi:|\pi|=2,\,B_2\neq\emptyset} x_{B_1}\btr x_{B_2}^{\rm op}\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:btr_coalg}}{=}&(-1)^m\sum_\pi (x_{B_1}\btr x_{b_1})\cdots(x_{B_{|\pi|-1}}\btr x_{b_{|\pi|-1}}), \end{aligned}

where the sum in the last equality ranges over all partitions \pi of [m] under the stated condition. Note that each term (x_{B_1}\btr x_{b_1})\cdots(x_{B_{|\pi|-1}}\btr x_{b_{|\pi|-1}}) is a homogeneous polynomial in \mathsf{T}(V) of degree |\pi|-1.

Uses Remark 2.4, Lemma 2.2, Definition 2.10
Lemma

Lemma 2.12

KHHY

For any letters x_1,\dots,x_m\in V with m\geq2 and word Y\in\mathsf{T}(V), the following recursive formula holds,

x_1\cdots x_m \btr Y = x_2 \cdots x_m \btr (x_1 \rhd Y) + \sum_{i=2}^m x_2\cdots(x_1\rhd x_i)\cdots x_m \btr Y.
Used by Proof, Proof, Proof
Proof of Lemma 2.12

We obtain the stated recursive formula as follows,

\begin{aligned} x_1\cdots x_m \btr Y &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:btr}}{=}& (-1)^{m}S_\rhd(x_1\cdots x_m)\rhd Y\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{post-rbb-1}}{=}& (-1)^{m}S_\rhd(x_1\circ (x_2\cdots x_m)-x_1\rhd(x_2\cdots x_m))\rhd Y\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{Post-2}}{=}& (-1)^{m}(S_\rhd(x_2\cdots x_m)\circ S_\rhd(x_1))\rhd Y +(-1)^{m+1} S_\rhd\left(\sum_{i=2}^m x_2\cdots(x_1\rhd x_i)\cdots x_m\right)\rhd Y\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{Post-4},\,\eqref{post-rbb-1}}{=}& (-1)^{m}S_\rhd(x_2\cdots x_m) \rhd (S_\rhd(x_1)\rhd Y) +(-1)^{m+1}\sum_{i=2}^m S_\rhd(x_2\cdots(x_1\rhd x_i)\cdots x_m)\rhd Y\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:antipo},\,\eqref{eq:btr}}{=}& x_2\cdots x_m \btr (x_1\rhd Y) +\sum_{i=2}^m x_2\cdots(x_1\rhd x_i)\cdots x_m \btr Y.\hfill \qedhere \end{aligned}
Uses Definition 2.10, Theorem 2.3, Definition 2.1
Definition

Definition 2.13

WG83

For any letters x_1,\dots,x_m\in V, word Y\in\mathsf{T}(V) and permutation w\in S_m (with one-word notation), we define a specific element

[x_1,\dots,x_m;Y]_w

in \mathsf{T}(V) by the following steps,

  1. Begin with the sequence x_{w(1)}\ \cdots\ x_{w(m)}\ Y. First use a pair of parentheses to enclose x_1 and its right adjacent letter x_{w(w^{-1}(1)+1)} or right adjacent word Y, then use the product \rhd to merge them.

  2. Next enclose the letter involving x_2 and its right adjacent letter, or right adjacent word involving Y by a pair of parentheses, and then use the product \rhd to merge them.

  3. Iteratively carry on such a procedure for letters involving x_3,\dots, x_m successively, until there have been m-1 pairs of parentheses and m symbols \rhd inserted. The resulting element in \mathsf{T}(V) is [x_1,\dots,x_m;Y]_w.

Used by Proof
Proposition

Proposition 2.14

14T8

For any letters x_1,\dots,x_m\in V and word Y\in \mathsf{T}(V),

x_1\cdots x_m \btr Y = \sum_{w\in S_m}[x_1,\dots,x_m;Y]_w.
Used by Proof, Proof, Proof
Proof of Proposition 2.14

Abbreviate \sum_{w\in S_m}[x_1,\dots,x_m;Y]_w as [x_1,\dots,x_m;Y]. When m=1, we clearly have

x_1 \btr Y = [x_1;Y]=x_1\rhd Y

by definition. For m\geq2,

\begin{aligned} [x_1,\dots,x_m;Y] &= \sum_{w\in S_m\atop w(m)=1}[x_1,\dots,x_m;Y]_w + \sum_{i=1}^{m-1}\sum_{w\in S_m\atop w(i)=1}[x_1,\dots,x_m;Y]_w \\&= \sum_{\sigma\in S_{m-1}}[x_2,\dots, x_m;x_1\rhd Y]_\sigma\\ &+& \sum_{j=2}^m \sum_{\sigma\in S_{m-1}}[x_2,\dots,x_{j-1},x_1\rhd x_j,x_{j+1},\dots, x_m;Y]_\sigma\\ &= [x_2,\dots,x_m; x_1\rhd Y]+\sum_{j=2}^m [x_2,\dots, x_{j-1},x_1\rhd x_j,x_{j+1},\dots,x_m;Y], \end{aligned}

where the second equality is due to the following fact. For any i\in[m-1] and w\in S_m with w(i)=1, there exists a unique \sigma\in S_{m-1} such that

\sigma(k)=\begin{cases} w(k)-1,&1\leq k<i,\\ w(k+1)-1,&i\leq k\leq m-1, \end{cases}

and then [x_1,\dots,x_m;Y]_w=[x_2,\dots,x_{j-1},x_1\rhd x_j,x_{j+1},\dots, x_m;Y]_\sigma for j=w(i+1) by Definition 2.13. Hence, [x_1,\dots,x_m;Y] satisfies the same recursive formula as x_1\cdots x_m\btr Y does in Eq. (2.12), and the stated equality (2.14) holds.

Uses Definition 2.13, Lemma 2.12
Remark

Remark 2.15

KQXN

Given any post-Lie algebra (\frakg,[\cdot,\cdot]_\frakg,\rhd), the product \btr defined on \mathsf{T}(\frakg) as in (2.10) can not be induced on \U(\frakg) in general. Otherwise, we should have

J\btr \mathsf{T}(\frakg)\subseteq J,

where J=(xy-yx-[x,y]_\frakg\,|\, x,y\in\frakg) is the Hopf ideal of \mathsf{T}(\frakg) such that \U(\frakg)=\mathsf{T}(\frakg)/J.

However, for any letters x,y,z\in\frakg, we check that

\begin{aligned} (xy-yx-[x,y]_\frakg)\btr z &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:btr_recursive}}{=}& y\rhd (x\rhd z) + (x\rhd y)\rhd z - x\rhd (y\rhd z) - (y\rhd x)\rhd z -[x,y]_\frakg\rhd z \\ &= y\rhd (x\rhd z) -x\rhd (y\rhd z) + (x\rhd y - y\rhd x -[x,y]_\frakg)\rhd z\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{Post-L-2}}{=}& -2[x,y]_\frakg \rhd z \in \frakg. \end{aligned}

By the Poincaré-Birkhoff-Witt theorem, we have \frakg\cap J=\{0\}, so (xy-yx-[x,y]_\frakg)\btr z\in J if and only if [x,y]_\frakg \rhd z=0, which does not necessarily hold.

Used by Proof
Theorem

Theorem 2.16

DBP3

Given a post-Lie algebra (\frakg,[\cdot,\cdot]_\frakg,\rhd), the antipode S_\rhd of the sub-adjacent Hopf algebra \U(\frakg)_\rhd is given by

S_\rhd(x_1\cdots x_m)=(-1)^m\sum_\pi [x_{B_1}; x_{b_1}]\cdots[x_{B_{|\pi|-1}}; x_{b_{|\pi|-1}}],\quad \forall x_1,\dots, x_m\in \frakg,

where the sum ranges over all partitions \pi of [m] into a tuple (B_1,\dots,B_{|\pi|}) of possibly empty subsets such that B_{|\pi|}=\{b_1>\cdots>b_{|\pi|-1}\}. Also, we use the same abbreviation [x_I;y]\coloneqq\sum_{w\in S_r}[x_{i_1},\dots, x_{i_r};y]_w\in \frakg as in the proof of Proposition 2.14 for any I=\{i_1<\cdots< i_r\}\subseteq[m] and y\in\frakg. In particular, [x_\emptyset;y]=y.

Proof of Theorem 2.16

First take (\frakg,\rhd) as a magma algebra, and apply Proposition 2.11 to the post-Hopf algebra (\mathsf{T}(\frakg),\rhd), where the post-Hopf product of \mathsf{T}(\frakg) is extended from the post-Lie product of \frakg. Then we have the antipode formula (2.11) for its sub-adjacent Hopf algebra \mathsf{T}(\frakg)_\rhd.

Now let J=(xy-yx-[x,y]_\frakg\,|\, x,y\in\frakg) be the Hopf ideal of \mathsf{T}(\frakg) such that \U(\frakg)=\mathsf{T}(\frakg)/J. Since (\U(\frakg),\rhd) is a post-Hopf quotient algebra of (\mathsf{T}(\frakg),\rhd), the antipode formula (2.11) can be induced on the sub-adjacent Hopf algebra \U(\frakg)_\rhd as a quotient Hopf algebra of \mathsf{T}(\frakg)_\rhd. Though the product \btr fails to be induced on \U(\frakg) as pointed out in Remark 2.15, we can interpret any factor x_{B_i}\btr x_{b_i} in the RHS of (2.11) by (2.14) instead, and denote it as [x_{B_i}; x_{b_i}]. Then the desired formula is obtained.

Uses Proposition 2.11, Remark 2.15, Proposition 2.14
Remark

Remark 2.17

V0W5

For any pre-Lie algebra (\frakg,\rhd), \U(\frakg) is the symmetric algebra S(\frakg) over \frakg, and the antipode formula (2.16) works for the sub-adjacent Hopf algebra S(\frakg)_\rhd. We take it as the graded-dual version of that for right-handed polynomial Hopf algebras given in [MP, Theorem 8]. However, it is unlikely to deduce any one of these two antipode formulas directly from the other.

Proposition

Proposition 3.1

T9F9

For the post-Hopf algebra (\mathsf{T}(V),\cdot\,,\Delta_\shuffle,\rhd) given in Proposition 2.7, there exists a Hopf algebra isomorphism K:\mathsf{T}(V)_\rhd\to \mathsf{T}(V) called the K-map and recursively defined by

K(x)=x\quad \mbox{and}\quad K(x_1\cdots x_n)=x_1K(x_2\cdots x_n) - \sum_{i=2}^n K(x_2\cdots x_{i-1}(x_1\rhd x_i)x_{i+1}\cdots x_n)

for any x,x_1,\dots,x_n\in V.

Used by Proof, Remark 3.6
Proposition

Proposition 3.2

AW84

The K-map K:\mathsf{T}(V)_\rhd\to \mathsf{T}(V) is given by

K(x_1\cdots x_n)=\sum_\pi(-1)^{n-|\pi|} x^\btr_{B_1}\cdots x^\btr_{B_{|\pi|}},\quad \forall x_1,\dots,x_n\in V,

where the sum ranges over all set partitions \pi=(B_1,\dots,B_{|\pi|}) of [n] with blocks B_1,\dots,B_{|\pi|} satisfying \max B_1<\cdots<\max B_{|\pi|}, and

x^\btr_I\coloneqq x_{i_1}\cdots x_{i_{r-1}}\btr x_{i_r}\stackrel{\eqref{eq:btr_comb}}{=}\sum_{w\in S_{r-1}}[x_{i_1},\dots, x_{i_{r-1}};x_{i_r}]_w\in V

for any I=\{i_1<\cdots< i_r\}\subseteq[n], with the convention that x^\btr_{\{i\}}=x_i, \forall i\in [n].

Used by Proof
Proof of Proposition 3.2

Let R(x_1\cdots x_n) be the RHS of Eq. (3.2), and we prove this equality by induction on n. When n=1 we clearly have K(x_1)=R(x_1)=x_1. For n\geq2, let \pi=(B_1,\dots,B_{|\pi|}) be any set partition of [n] satisfying the stated condition. Then B_1=\{1\}, or otherwise 1\in B_k for some block B_k such that |B_k|\geq2, and then Eq. (2.12) implies that

x^\btr_{B_k}=x_{i_1}\cdots x_{i_{r-1}} \btr x_{i_r} = x_{i_2} \cdots x_{i_{r-1}} \btr (x_1 \rhd x_{i_r}) + \sum_{j=2}^{r-1} x_{i_2}\cdots(x_1\rhd x_{i_j})\cdots x_{i_{r-1}} \btr x_{i_r},\eqno{(*)}

if B_k=\{1=i_1<i_2<\cdots< i_r\}. Hence, we have

\begin{aligned} R(x_1\cdots x_n) &= \sum_\pi(-1)^{n-|\pi|} x^\btr_{B_1}\cdots x^\btr_{B_{|\pi|}}\\ &= x_1\sum_{\pi\,:\,B_1=\{1\}}(-1)^{n-|\pi|} x^\btr_{B_2}\cdots x^\btr_{B_{|\pi|}} - \sum_{\pi\,:\,B_1\neq\{1\}}(-1)^{n-1-|\pi|} x^\btr_{B_1}\cdots x^\btr_{B_{|\pi|}}\\ &\stackrel{(*)}{=}& x_1R(x_2\cdots x_n) - \sum_{i=2}^n R(x_2\cdots x_{i-1}(x_1\rhd x_i)x_{i+1}\cdots x_n)\\ &= x_1K(x_2\cdots x_n)- \sum_{i=2}^n K(x_2\cdots x_{i-1}(x_1\rhd x_i)x_{i+1}\cdots x_n)\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:K-map}}{=}& K(x_1\cdots x_n), \end{aligned}

where the fourth equality is due to the induction hypothesis.

Uses Lemma 2.12, Proposition 3.1
Example

Example 3.3

AZSH

We compute the case when n=3. There are 5 set partitions of [3], namely 123, 1|23, 12|3, 2|13, 1|2|3, and

\begin{aligned} &&S_\rhd(x_1x_2x_3)=K^{-1}(S(K(x_1x_2x_3)))\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:K-map'}}{=}& K^{-1}(S(x^\btr_1x^\btr_2x^\btr_3-x^\btr_1x^\btr_{23} -x^\btr_{12}x^\btr_{3}- x^\btr_{2}x^\btr_{13}+ x^\btr_{123}))\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:btr_comb}}{=}& K^{-1}(S(x_1x_2x_3-x_1(x_2\rhd x_3) -(x_1\rhd x_2)x_3- x_2(x_1\rhd x_3)+ (x_1\rhd x_2)\rhd x_3+ x_2\rhd(x_1\rhd x_3)))\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:antipo}}{=}& -K^{-1}(x_3x_2x_1+(x_2\rhd x_3)x_1 +x_3(x_1\rhd x_2)+ (x_1\rhd x_3)x_2+ (x_1\rhd x_2)\rhd x_3 + x_2\rhd(x_1\rhd x_3))\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:K-map-inv}}{=}& -x_3x_2x_1-(x_3\rhd x_2)x_1 -x_3(x_2\rhd x_1) -x_2(x_3\rhd x_1) -(x_2\rhd x_3)x_1 -x_3(x_1\rhd x_2) - (x_1\rhd x_3)x_2 \\ &&-x_3\rhd(x_2\rhd x_1)-(x_2\rhd x_3)\rhd x_1 -x_3\rhd (x_1\rhd x_2) - (x_1\rhd x_3)\rhd x_2 - (x_1\rhd x_2)\rhd x_3 - x_2\rhd(x_1\rhd x_3). \end{aligned}

So we get the same result as in Example 2.9.

Proposition

Proposition 3.4

794K

For a post-Lie algebra (\frakg,[\cdot,\cdot]_\frakg,\rhd), the inverse K^{-1}:\mathsf{T}(\frakg)\to\mathsf{T}(\frakg)_\rhd induces the Guin-Oudom isomorphism \phi:\U(\frakg_\rhd)\to \U(\frakg)_\rhd,

Used by Proof
Proof of Proposition 3.4

Let J=(xy-yx-[x,y]_\frakg\,|\, x,y\in\frakg) and J_\rhd=(xy-yx-[x,y]_{\frakg_\rhd}\,|\, x,y\in\frakg) be the Hopf ideals of \mathsf{T}(\frakg) such that \U(\frakg)=\mathsf{T}(\frakg)/J and \U(\frakg_\rhd)=\mathsf{T}(\frakg)/J_\rhd respectively.

We only need to show that K^{-1}(J_\rhd)\subseteq J. For any letters x,y\in\frakg and words X,Y\in \mathsf{T}(\frakg),

\begin{aligned} K^{-1}(xy-yx-[x,y]_{\frakg_\rhd})&\stackrel{\eqref{eq:K-map-inv}}{=}& x\circ y-y\circ x-[x,y]_{\frakg_\rhd}\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{post-rbb-1},\,\eqref{eq:post-L-sub}}{=} & (xy + x\rhd y) - (yx+y\rhd x)-(x\rhd y - y\rhd x + [x,y]_\frakg) \\ &= xy-yx-[x,y]_\frakg, \end{aligned}

and then

\begin{aligned} K^{-1}(X(xy-yx-[x,y]_{\frakg_\rhd})Y) &=K^{-1}(X)\circ K^{-1}(xy-yx-[x,y]_{\frakg_\rhd})\circ K^{-1}(Y)\\ &=K^{-1}(X)\circ (xy-yx-[x,y]_\frakg)\circ K^{-1}(Y)\in J, \end{aligned}

as we have known that J is a Hopf ideal of \mathsf{T}(V)_\rhd. Since \phi is invertible, K^{-1}(J_\rhd)= J indeed.

Uses Theorem 2.3
Theorem

Theorem 3.5

7EHQ

The inverse \phi^{-1}:\U(\frakg)_\rhd\to \U(\frakg_\rhd) of the Guin-Oudom isomorphism is given by

\phi^{-1}(x_1\cdots x_n)=\sum_\pi(-1)^{n-|\pi|} [x_{B_1}]\cdots [x_{B_{|\pi|}}],\quad \forall x_1,\dots,x_n\in \frakg,

where the sum ranges over all set partitions \pi=(B_1,\dots,B_{|\pi|}) of [n] with blocks B_1,\dots,B_{|\pi|} satisfying \max B_1<\cdots<\max B_{|\pi|}, and [x_I]\coloneqq\sum_{w\in S_{r-1}}[x_{i_1},\dots, x_{i_{r-1}};x_{i_r}]_w\in \frakg for any I=\{i_1<\cdots< i_r\}\subseteq[n], with the convention that [x_{\{i\}}]=x_i, \forall i\in [n].

Used by Example 3.7
Proof of Theorem 3.5

According to Proposition 3.4, the closed formula (3.2) for the K-map K is also available for \phi^{-1}, but we need to add the following comment on it.

In general, the product \btr on \mathsf{T}(\frakg) can not be induced on \U(\frakg_\rhd) neither. Therefore, any element x_{B_i}^\btr in (3.2) should be interpreted by the combinatorial characterization (2.14) directly, and we rewrite it as [x_{B_i}].

Uses Proposition 3.4, Proposition 3.2, Proposition 2.14
Remark

Remark 3.6

XW4Q

Recall the Bell polynomial (see [ELM1] for details)

B_{n,k}(x_1,\dots,x_l)=\sum_{j_1+j_2+\cdots+j_l=k\atop j_1+2j_2+\cdots+lj_l=n}\dfrac{n!}{j_1!\cdots j_l!}\left(\dfrac{x_1}{1!}\right)^{j_1}\cdots\left(\dfrac{x_l}{l!}\right)^{j_l}

with l=n-k+1, the coefficient of x_1^{j_1}\cdots x_l^{j_l} in which is equal to the number of set partitions of [n] with j_r blocks of size r for any r\in[l]. In particular,

B_{n,k}(0!,1!,\dots,(l-1)!)=\sum_{j_1+j_2+\cdots+j_l=k\atop j_1+2j_2+\cdots+lj_l=n}\dfrac{n!}{j_1!\cdots j_l!1^{j_1}\cdots l^{j_l}}

is exactly the number of permutations in S_n with a factorization into k disjoint cycles.

Hence, the number of terms of \phi^{-1}(x_1\cdots x_n) when expanded as in Eq. (3.5) is

\sum_{k=1}^n B_{n,k}(0!,1!,\dots,(l-1)!)=n!,

Actually, it can also be seen directly by induction on n from the recursive formula (3.1).

Uses Proposition 3.1
Example

Example 3.7

A8R6

There are 15 set partitions of [4] listed as follows,

\begin{array}{l} 1|2|3|4,\quad 12|3|4,\quad 2|13|4,\quad 2|3|14,\quad 1|23|4,\quad 1|3|24,\quad 1|2|34,\\[.5em] 12|34,\quad 13|24,\quad 23|14,\quad 1|234,\quad 2|134,\quad 3|124,\quad 123|4,\quad 1234. \end{array}

Then Eq. (3.5) shows that the expansion of \phi^{-1}(x_1x_2x_3x_4) has 4!=24 terms as follows,

\begin{aligned} \phi&^{-1}(x_1x_2x_3x_4) =[x_1][x_2][x_3][x_4]\\ &\quad -[x_{12}][x_3][x_4] -[x_2][x_{13}][x_4]-[x_2][x_3][x_{14}]-[x_1][x_{23}][x_4]-[x_1][x_3][x_{24}]-[x_1][x_2][x_{34}]\\ &\quad +[x_{12}][x_{34}]+[x_{13}][x_{24}]+[x_{23}][x_{14}] +[x_1][x_{234}]+[x_2][x_{134}]+[x_3][x_{124}]+[x_{123}][x_4]-[x_{1234}]\\ &= x_1x_2x_3x_4 -(x_1\rhd x_2)x_3x_4 -x_2(x_1\rhd x_3)x_4 -x_2x_3(x_1\rhd x_4)\\ &\quad - x_1(x_2\rhd x_3)x_4 -x_1x_3(x_2\rhd x_4)-x_1x_2(x_3\rhd x_4) \\ &\quad+(x_1\rhd x_2)(x_3\rhd x_4)+(x_1\rhd x_3)(x_2\rhd x_4)+(x_2\rhd x_3)(x_1\rhd x_4)\\ &\quad+ x_1((x_2\rhd x_3)\rhd x_4)+ x_1(x_3\rhd (x_2\rhd x_4))+ x_2((x_1\rhd x_3)\rhd x_4)+ x_2(x_3\rhd (x_1\rhd x_4))\\ &\quad +x_3((x_1\rhd x_2)\rhd x_4)+ x_3(x_2\rhd (x_1\rhd x_4)) +((x_1\rhd x_2)\rhd x_3)x_4+ (x_2\rhd (x_1\rhd x_3))x_4\\ &\quad -((x_1\rhd x_2)\rhd x_3)\rhd x_4 - (x_1\rhd x_3)\rhd (x_2\rhd x_4) - (x_2\rhd (x_1\rhd x_3))\rhd x_4 \\ &\quad- (x_2\rhd x_3)\rhd (x_1\rhd x_4) - x_3\rhd ((x_1\rhd x_2)\rhd x_4) - x_3\rhd (x_2\rhd (x_1\rhd x_4)). \end{aligned}
Uses Theorem 3.5
Proposition

Proposition 3.8

BMKN

The inverse \phi^{-1}:\U(\frakg)\to\U(\frakg_\rhd) is a relative Rota-Baxter operator with respect to \rightharpoonup in the sense of [LST, Def. 3.1]. Namely, \phi^{-1} is a coalgebra homomorphism satisfying

\phi^{-1}(X)\phi^{-1}(Y)=\phi^{-1}(X_1(\phi^{-1}(X_2)\rightharpoonup Y)),\quad \forall X,Y\in \U(\frakg).
Proof of Proposition 3.8

Applying \phi to both sides of the stated relative Rota-Baxter identity, one can see that it is equivalent to Eq. (2.3) as \phi is an algebra isomorphism from \U(\frakg_\rhd) to \U(\frakg)_\rhd.

Remark

Remark 3.9

TAIN

In [EMQ, Remark 6.13], the authors pointed out that the post-Lie Magnus expansion is a relative Rota-Baxter operator connecting two formal groups. Proposition 3.8 is a generalization of it in the context of Hopf algebras.

Definition

Definition 4.1

7MTP

Denote the Grossman-Larson Hopf algebra of ordered trees by

\mathcal{H}_{GL}=({\mathbf{k}}\{{\mathcal{OT}}\},\circ_{GL},\Delta_{GL},S_{GL}).

Therein, the Grossman-Larson product \circ_{GL} on {\mathbf{k}}\{{\mathcal{OT}}\} is defined by letting \tau \circ_{GL} \omega be the partial sum of \tau_1\curvearrowright(\tau_2\curvearrowright\cdots(\tau_m\curvearrowright\omega)\cdots) containing those trees with all \tau_1,\dots,\tau_m grafted only on \omega, when \tau,\,\omega\in {\mathcal{OT}} such that \tau=B^+(\tau_1\cdots\tau_m).

The coproduct \Delta_{GL} on {\mathbf{k}}\{{\mathcal{OT}}\} is given by

\Delta_{GL}(\tau)=\sum_{I\subseteq[m]}\tau^+_I\otimes\tau^+_{[m]\setminus I}

for any \tau=B^+(\tau_1\cdots\tau_m)\in {\mathcal{OT}}, with the notation \tau^+_I=B^+(\prod_{i\in I}\tau_i) for any ordered subset I\subseteq[m].

Used by Proof
Theorem

Theorem 4.2

N6TT

Any graded, connected {\mathbf{k}}-bialgebra (B,m,u,\Delta,\vep) is a Hopf algebra with its antipode S given by

S =\sum_{i\ge 0} (-1)^i p^{\star i}=\sum_{i\ge 0} (-1)^i m^{(i-1)} p^{\otimes i} \Delta^{(i-1)},

where \star is the convolution product, u is the unit map, p\coloneqq\id-u\vep, m^{(-1)} \coloneqq u, and \Delta^{(-1)} \coloneqq \vep.

Proposition

Proposition 4.3

WWSY

The sub-adjacent Hopf algebra {\mathbf{k}}\{{\mathcal{OF}}\}_\rhd=({\mathbf{k}}\{{\mathcal{OF}}\},{\circ },\Delta_\shuffle,S_\rhd) is isomorphic to the Grossman-Larson Hopf algebra \mathcal{H}_{GL} of ordered trees via the root grafting operator B^+. Also, using the post-Hopf product \rhd, the multiplication \circ can be given by

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{X} \circ \mathcal{Y}&=B^-(\mathcal{X}\rhd B^+(\mathcal{Y})),\quad \forall \mathcal{X},\mathcal{Y}\in{\mathcal{OF}}. \end{aligned}

Equivalently,

\tau \circ_{GL} \omega = B^-(\tau)\rhd \omega,\quad \forall \tau,\omega\in{\mathcal{OT}}.
Used by Proof
Proposition

Proposition 4.4

GVFO

Given any trees \tau_1,\dots,\tau_m,\omega\in{\mathcal{OT}}, the product

\tau_1\cdots\tau_m\btr \omega=\sum_{w\in S_m}[\tau_1,\dots,\tau_m;\omega]_w

is equal to the sum of all left graftings with rootstock \omega and then scions \tau_1,\dots,\tau_m grafted in any order but under the constraint that \tau_i is left to \tau_j for any i>j whenever they are attached to the same node.

Proof of Proposition 4.4

We prove it by induction on the number m of scions. It is clear when m=1, as \tau_1\btr\omega=\tau_1\curvearrowright\omega. When m>1, we restate the recursive formula (2.12) of the product \btr on {\mathbf{k}}\{{\mathcal{OF}}\} as

\tau_1\cdots \tau_m \btr \omega = \tau_2 \cdots \tau_m \btr (\tau_1 \curvearrowright \omega) + \sum_{i=2}^m \tau_2\cdots(\tau_1 \curvearrowright \tau_i)\cdots \tau_m \btr \omega.

By the definition (?) of \curvearrowright, it means that \tau_1 is attached to any node among \tau_2,\dots,\tau_m,\omega first, and then if any one of \tau_2,\dots,\tau_m is latter attached to the same node as \tau_1 does, it should be left to \tau_1. Moreover, each term in the above sum has only m-1 scions now, so the result follows by the induction hypothesis.

Uses Lemma 2.12, Definition 4.1
Example

Example 4.5

7BX1

\scalebox{0.6}{ \begin{tikzpicture}[dtree] \node[dtree black node] {} ; \end{tikzpicture} \,\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}};\end{tikzpicture}}\,\btr \scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}};\end{tikzpicture}} = (\scalebox{0.6}{ \begin{tikzpicture}[dtree] \node[dtree black node] {} ; \end{tikzpicture} }\curvearrowright \scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}};\end{tikzpicture}})\curvearrowright \scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}};\end{tikzpicture}} + \scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}};\end{tikzpicture}}\curvearrowright (\scalebox{0.6}{ \begin{tikzpicture}[dtree] \node[dtree black node] {} ; \end{tikzpicture} }\curvearrowright \scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}};\end{tikzpicture}}) =\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}child {node[dtree black node] {}}child {node[dtree black node] {}};\end{tikzpicture}}+\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}child {node[dtree black node] {}}};\end{tikzpicture}}+2\,\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}}child {node[dtree black node] {}};\end{tikzpicture}} +2\,\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}}};\end{tikzpicture}}+\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}};\end{tikzpicture}}+\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}};\end{tikzpicture}} +\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}child {node[dtree black node] {}};\end{tikzpicture}}+\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}};\end{tikzpicture}}.

Theorem

Theorem 4.6

36K7

The antipode S_{GL} of \mathcal{H}_{GL} has the following cancellation-free formula,

S_{GL}(\tau)=(-1)^m\sum_\pi B^+\big((\tau^-_{B_1}\btr \tau_{b_1})\cdots(\tau^-_{B_{|\pi|-1}}\btr \tau_{b_{|\pi|-1}})\big),\quad \forall \tau=B^+(\tau_1\cdots \tau_m)\in {\mathcal{OT}},

where the sum ranges over all partitions \pi of [m] into a tuple (B_1,\dots,B_{|\pi|}) of possibly empty subsets such that B_{|\pi|}=\{b_1>\cdots>b_{|\pi|-1}\}. Also, we use the notation \tau^-_I=\tau_{i_1}\cdots \tau_{i_r}\in {\mathcal{OF}} for any I=\{i_1<\cdots< i_r\}\subseteq[m]. In particular, \tau^-_{\emptyset}=1.

Proof of Theorem 4.6

According to Proposition 4.3, B^+ is a Hopf algebra isomorphism from {\mathbf{k}}\{{\mathcal{OF}}\}_\rhd to \mathcal{H}_{GL}, so S_{GL}B^+=B^+S_\rhd, namely S_{GL}=B^+S_\rhd B^-. Hence, the desired formula of S_{GL} is obtained as an equivalent form of Eq. (2.11) for S_\rhd.

Furthermore, the combinatorial formula (2.14) implies that each term (\tau^-_{B_1}\btr \tau_{b_1})\cdots(\tau^-_{B_{|\pi|-1}}\btr \tau_{b_{|\pi|-1}}) is homogeneous in {\mathbf{k}}\{{\mathcal{OF}}\}, of degree |\pi|-1 and with positive integer coefficients. So Eq. (4.6) is a cancellation-free formula for S_{GL}.

Uses Proposition 4.3, Proposition 2.11, Proposition 2.14
Remark

Remark 4.7

1XQ9

The graded Hopf dual of {\mathbf{k}}\{{\mathcal{OF}}\}_\rhd is the Munthe-Kaas-Wright Hopf algebra

\mathcal{H}_N=({\mathbf{k}}\{{\mathcal{OF}}\},m_\shuffle,\Delta_N,S_N)

of ordered forests, as the natural setting of the Lie-Butcher series. In [MW, Prop. 3], the authors gave a nonrecursive formula for the antipode S_N of \mathcal{H}_N. Our closed formula (4.6) of S_{GL} serves as its graded-dual version.

Example

Example 4.8

JAXR

Let \tau=\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}child {node[dtree black node] {}}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}};\end{tikzpicture}}. That is, \tau_1=\tau_2=\scalebox{0.6}{ \begin{tikzpicture}[dtree] \node[dtree black node] {} ; \end{tikzpicture} }, \tau_3=\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}};\end{tikzpicture}}\, such that \tau=B^+(\tau_1\tau_2\tau_3).

Totally 10 appropriate partitions of [3] with the corresponding sum of trees in the RHS of (4.6) are listed as follows.

\begin{array}{llll} (\emptyset,\emptyset,\emptyset,\{3,2,1\}) & (1\btr\tau_3)(1\btr\tau_2)(1\btr\tau_1)=\tau_3\tau_2\tau_1 &\rightsquigarrow& \scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}child {node[dtree black node] {}}child {node[dtree black node] {}};\end{tikzpicture}}\\ (\{1\},\emptyset,\{3,2\}) & (\tau_1\btr\tau_3)(1\btr\tau_2)=(\tau_1\curvearrowright\tau_3)\tau_2 &\rightsquigarrow& \scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}}child {node[dtree black node] {}};\end{tikzpicture}}+\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}child {node[dtree black node] {}};\end{tikzpicture}} \\[.3em] (\emptyset,\{1\},\{3,2\}) & (1\btr\tau_3)(\tau_1\btr\tau_2)=\tau_3(\tau_1\curvearrowright\tau_2) &\rightsquigarrow &\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}};\end{tikzpicture}}\\ (\{2\},\emptyset,\{3,1\}) & (\tau_2\btr\tau_3)(1\btr\tau_1)=(\tau_2\curvearrowright\tau_3)\tau_1 &\rightsquigarrow &\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}}child {node[dtree black node] {}};\end{tikzpicture}}+\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}child {node[dtree black node] {}};\end{tikzpicture}}\\[.3em] (\emptyset,\{2\},\{3,1\}) & (1\btr\tau_3)(\tau_2\btr\tau_1)=\tau_3(\tau_2\curvearrowright\tau_1) & \rightsquigarrow &\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}};\end{tikzpicture}}\\ (\{3\},\emptyset,\{2,1\}) & (\tau_3\btr\tau_2)(1\btr\tau_1)=(\tau_3\curvearrowright\tau_2)\tau_1 &\rightsquigarrow & \scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}}child {node[dtree black node] {}};\end{tikzpicture}}\\ (\emptyset,\{3\},\{2,1\}) & (1\btr\tau_2)(\tau_3\btr\tau_1)=\tau_2(\tau_3\curvearrowright\tau_1) &\rightsquigarrow & \scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}};\end{tikzpicture}}\\ (\{1,2\},\{3\}) & \tau_1\tau_2\btr\tau_3=(\tau_1\curvearrowright\tau_2)\curvearrowright\tau_3 +\tau_2\curvearrowright(\tau_1\curvearrowright\tau_3) &\rightsquigarrow & 2\,\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}child {node[dtree black node] {}}};\end{tikzpicture}}+2\,\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}};\end{tikzpicture}}+2\,\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}}};\end{tikzpicture}} +\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}child {node[dtree black node] {}}child {node[dtree black node] {}}};\end{tikzpicture}}+\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}};\end{tikzpicture}}\\ (\{1,3\},\{2\}) & \tau_1\tau_3\btr\tau_2=(\tau_1\curvearrowright\tau_3)\curvearrowright\tau_2 +\tau_3\curvearrowright(\tau_1\curvearrowright\tau_2) &\rightsquigarrow & \scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}child {node[dtree black node] {}}};\end{tikzpicture}}+2\,\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}}};\end{tikzpicture}}+\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}};\end{tikzpicture}}\\ (\{2,3\},\{1\}) & \tau_2\tau_3\btr\tau_1=(\tau_2\curvearrowright\tau_3)\curvearrowright\tau_1 +\tau_3\curvearrowright(\tau_2\curvearrowright\tau_1) &\rightsquigarrow & \scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}child {node[dtree black node] {}}};\end{tikzpicture}}+2\,\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}}};\end{tikzpicture}}+\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}};\end{tikzpicture}}. \end{array}

Now adding up all of them, we have

S_{GL}(\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}child {node[dtree black node] {}}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}};\end{tikzpicture}})= -\,\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}child {node[dtree black node] {}}child {node[dtree black node] {}};\end{tikzpicture}} -3\,\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}}child {node[dtree black node] {}};\end{tikzpicture}}-\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}};\end{tikzpicture}} -2\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}child {node[dtree black node] {}};\end{tikzpicture}}-2\,\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}};\end{tikzpicture}} -4\,\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}child {node[dtree black node] {}}};\end{tikzpicture}}-2\,\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}};\end{tikzpicture}}-6\,\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}}};\end{tikzpicture}} -\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}child {node[dtree black node] {}}child {node[dtree black node] {}}};\end{tikzpicture}}-3\scalebox{0.6}{\begin{tikzpicture}[dtree]\node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}child {node[dtree black node] {}}child {node[dtree black node] {}}}};\end{tikzpicture}}.

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2408.01345v2 by Yunnan Li, under the licence CC0 1.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2408/2408.01345.jsonl.