Bialgebras induced by special left Alia algebras

Tianshui Ma, Chan Zhao and Huihui Zheng

arXiv: 2506.07061v1 · PDF · 8 June 2025
Categories: math.RA
Licence: CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

Special left Alia algebras were introduced by Dzhumadil’daev in [J. Math. Sci. (N.Y.) 161(2009), 11-30] when studying the classification of algebras with skew-symmetric identity of degree 3. A special left Alia algebra (resp. coalgebra) (A, [,]_{(f,g)}) (resp. (A, \Delta_{(F,G)})) is constructed by a commutative associative algebra (resp. cocommutative coassociative coalgebra) (A, \cdot) (resp. (A, \delta)) together with two linear maps f, g: A\longrightarrow A (resp. F, G: A\longrightarrow A). We find that if ((A, \cdot), f) (resp. ((A, \delta), F)) is a Nijenhuis associative algebra (resp. coassociative coalgebra) such that f\circ g=g\circ f (resp. F\circ G=G\circ F), then ((A, [,]_{(f,g)}), f) (resp. ((A, \Delta_{(F,G)}), F)) is a Nijenhuis left Alia algebra (resp. coalgebra). A bialgebraic structure, named Nijenhuis associative D-bialgebra and denoted by ((A, \cdot, \delta), f, F), for ((A, \cdot), f) and ((A, \delta), F) was presented in [J. Algebra 639(2024), 150-186]. In this paper, we investigate the bialgebraic structure, named Nijenhuis left Alia bialgebra and denoted by ((A, [,], \Delta), N, S), for a Nijenhuis left Alia algebra ((A, [,]), N) and a Nijenhuis left Alia coalgebra ((A, \Delta), S), such that Nijenhuis special left Alia bialgebra ((A, [,]_{(f,g)}, \Delta_{(F,G)}), f, F) can be induced by Nijenhuis commutative cocommutative associative D-bialgebra ((A, \cdot, \delta), f, F). We also provide a method to construct Nijenhuis operators on a left Alia algebra (resp. coalgebra).

Items 92

Definition

Definition 2.1

WPOA

Let (A, [, ]) be a left Alia algebra. A representation of (A, [, ]) is a triple (V, \ell, r), where V is a vector space and \ell, r: A\longrightarrow \mathrm{End}(V) are linear maps such that the following equation holds:

\begin{aligned} \ell([x, y])-\ell([y, x])=r(x)(r(y)-\ell(y))-r(y)(r(x)-\ell(x)), \forall~ x, y\in A. \end{aligned}

Let (V_{A}, \ell_{A}, r_{A}) and (V_{B}, \ell_{B}, r_{B}) be representations of (A, [,]_{A}) and (B, [,]_{B}) respectively. Then (\phi, f) is a homomorphism from (V_{A}, \ell_{A}, r_{A}) of (A, [,]_{A}) to (V_{B}, \ell_{B}, r_{B}) of (B, [,]_{B}) if there are linear maps \phi: V_{A}\longrightarrow V_{B} and f: A\longrightarrow B such that f([x, y]_{A})=[f(x), f(y)]_{B} and

\begin{aligned} &\phi(\ell_{A}(x)(v))=\ell_{B}(f(x))(\phi(v)), ~~~ \phi(r_{A}(x)(v))=r_{B}(f(x))(\phi(v)), & \end{aligned}

where x, y\in A, v\in V.

Used by Proposition 2.2, Example 2.3, Lemma 2.4, Theorem 2.5, Proof

Proposition

Proposition 2.2

JVIG

Let (A, [, ]) be a left Alia algebra, V be a vector space and \ell, r: A\longrightarrow \mathrm{End}(V) be linear maps. Then (V, \ell, r) is a representation of (A, [, ]) if and only if there is a left Alia algebra (A\oplus V, [, ]_{A\oplus V}) on the direct sum A\oplus V of vector spaces, where [, ]_{A\oplus V} is given by

\begin{aligned} &[x+u, y+v]_{A\oplus V}:=[x, y]+\ell(x)v+r(y)u, \forall~ x, y\in A, u, v\in V. & \end{aligned}

We denote this left Alia algebra by A\ltimes_{\ell, r} V and call it semi-direct product of (A, [,]) by (V, \ell, r).

Uses Definition 2.1 · Used by Proof

Example

Example 2.3

LEF2

Let (A, [, ]) be a left Alia algebra. Define linear maps \mathcal{L}, \mathcal{R}: A\longrightarrow \mathrm{End}(A) by

\begin{aligned} &\mathcal{L}(x)y=[x, y]=\mathcal{R}(y)x, \forall~ x, y \in A. & \end{aligned}

Then (A, \mathcal{L}, \mathcal{R}) is a representation of (A, [, ]), which is called an adjoint representation.

Uses Definition 2.1

Lemma

Lemma 2.4

STML

Let [, ], [, ]_{\cdot}: A\otimes A\longrightarrow A, and \ell_{1}, \ell_{2}, r_{1}, r_{2}: A\longrightarrow \mathrm{End}(V) be linear maps, s, t be parameters. Consider the following new linear maps:

[x, y]_{\circ}=s [x, y]+t [x, y]_{\cdot}, \ \ \ell(x)=s \ell_{1}(x)+t \ell_{2}(x), \ \ r(x)=s r_{1}(x)+t r_{2}(x), \forall~ x, y\in A.

Then

(A, [, ]_{\circ}) is a left Alia algebra if and only if (A, [, ]) and (A, [, ]_{\cdot}) are left Alia algebras, and for all x, y, z \in A,
\begin{aligned} &&[[x, y]_{\cdot}-[y, x]_{\cdot}, z]+[[y, z]_{\cdot}-[z, y]_{\cdot}, x]+[[z, x]_{\cdot}-[x, z]_{\cdot}, y]\\ &&+[[x, y]-[y, x], z]_{\cdot}+[[y, z]-[z, y], x]_{\cdot}+[[z, x]-[x, z], y]_{\cdot}=0. \end{aligned}
(V, \ell, r) is a representation of (A, [, ]_{\circ}) if and only if (V, \ell_{1}, r_{1}) is a representation of (A, [, ]), (V, \ell_{2}, r_{2}) is a representation of (A, [, ]_{\cdot}), and for all x, y \in A,
\begin{aligned} &&\ell_{1}([x, y]_{\cdot}-[y, x]_{\cdot})+\ell_{2}([x, y]-[y, x])=r_{2}(x)(r_{1}(y)-\ell_{1}(y))\\ &&\qquad+r_{1}(x)(r_{2}(y)-\ell_{2}(y))-r_{2}(y)(r_{1}(x)-\ell_{1}(x)) -r_{1}(y)(r_{2}(x)-\ell_{2}(x)). \end{aligned}

Uses Definition 2.1

Proof of Lemma 2.4

Straightforward.

Theorem

Theorem 2.5

3S3Y

Assume that (A, [, ]_{\circ}), \ell and r are defined in Lemma 2.4, (V, \ell, r) is a representation of (A, [, ]_{\circ}), (V, \ell_{1}, r_{1}) is a representation of (A, [, ]). Let N\in \mathrm{End}(A) and \alpha\in \mathrm{End}(V) be two linear maps. Then (s \id_{A}+tN, sid_{V}+t\alpha) is a homomorphism from (V, \ell, r) of (A, [, ]_{\circ}) to (V, \ell_{1}, r_{1}) of (A, [, ]) if and only if, for all x, y\in A and v\in V,

\begin{aligned} &[x, y]_{\cdot}=[N(x), y]+[x, N(y)]-N([x, y]),&\\ &N([x, y]_{\cdot})=[N(x), N(y)],&\\ &\ell_{2}(x)(v)=\ell_{1}(N(x))(v)+\ell_{1}(x)(\alpha(v))-\alpha(\ell_{1}(x)(v)),&\\ &\alpha(\ell_{2}(x)(v))=\ell_{1}(N(x))(\alpha(v)),&\\ &r_{2}(x)(v)=r_{1}(N(x))(v)+r_{1}(x)(\alpha(v))-\alpha(r_{1}(x)(v)),&\\ &\alpha(r_{2}(x)(v))=r_{1}(N(x))(\alpha(v)).& \end{aligned}

Uses Definition 2.1

Proof of Theorem 2.5

For any x, y\in A, v\in V, according to Definition 2.1, we calculate as follows:

\begin{aligned} &&(s \id_{A}+t N)([x, y]_{\circ})-[(s \id_{A}+t N)(x), (s \id_{A}+t N)(y)]\\ &&\quad=(s \id_{A}+t N)(s[x, y]+t[x, y]_{\cdot})-[(s x+t N(x)), (s y+t N(y))]\\ &&\quad=s^{2}[x, y]+s t[x, y]_{\cdot}+ t s N([x, y])+t^{2}N([x, y]_{\cdot})-s^{2}[x, y]-s t[x, N(y)]-t s[N(x), y]\\ &&\qquad-t^{2}[N(x), N(y)]\\ &&\quad=s t([x, y]_{\cdot}+N([x, y])-[x, N(y)]-[N(x), y])+t^{2}(N([x, y]_{\cdot})-[N(x), N(y)])=0\\ &&(s \id_{V}+t\alpha)(\ell(x)(v))-\ell_{1}(s x+t N(x))(s \id_{V}+t\alpha)(v)\\ &&\quad=(s \id_{V}+t\alpha)(s \ell_{1}(x)(v)+t \ell_{2}(x)(v))-(s \ell_{1}(x)+t \ell_{1}(N(x)))(s id_{V}+t\alpha)(v)\\ &&\quad=s^{2}\ell_{1}(x)(v)+s t \ell_{2}(x)(v)+t s\alpha(\ell_{1}(x)(v))+t^{2}\alpha(t \ell_{2}(x)(v))-s^{2}\ell_{1}(x)(v)-t s \ell_{1}(N(x))(v)\\ &&\qquad-s t \ell_{1}(x)\alpha(v)-t^{2}\ell_{1}(N(x))\alpha(v)\\ &&\quad=s t(\ell_{2}(x)(v)+\alpha(\ell_{1}(x)(v))-\ell_{1}(N(x))(v)-\ell_{1}(x)\alpha(v)) +t^{2}(\alpha(\ell_{2}(x)(v))-\ell_{1}(N(x))\alpha(v))\\ &&\quad=0. \end{aligned}

Similarly,

\begin{aligned} &&(s \id_{V}+t\alpha)(r(x)(v))-r_{1}(s x+t N(x))(s \id_{V}+t\alpha)(v)\\ &&\quad=s t(r_{2}(x)(v)+\alpha(r_{1}(x)v)-r_{1}(N(x))v-r_{1}(x)\alpha(v)) +t^{2}(\alpha(r_{2}(x)(v))-r_{1}(N(x))\alpha(v))\\ &&\quad=0. \end{aligned}

Thus we finish the proof.

Uses Definition 2.1

Definition

Definition 2.6

Z6WO

A Nijenhuis left Alia algebra is a pair ((A, [, ]), N), where (A, [, ]) is a left Alia algebra and N is a Nijenhuis operator, i.e., Eq.(?) holds for [,].

Definition

Definition 2.7

6DI7

Let ((A, [, ]), N) be a Nijenhuis left Alia algebra. A representation of ((A, [, ]), N) is a pair ((V, \ell, r), \alpha), where (V, \ell, r) is a representation of (A, [, ]) and \alpha: V\longrightarrow V is a linear map such that, for all x\in A, v\in V, the following equations hold:

\begin{aligned} &\ell(N(x))(\alpha(v))+\alpha^{2}(\ell(x)(v))=\alpha(\ell(N(x))(v))+\alpha(\ell(x)(\alpha(v))),\\ &r(N(x))(\alpha(v))+\alpha^{2}(r(x)(v))=\alpha(r(N(x))(v))+\alpha(r(x)(\alpha(v))). \end{aligned}

Let ((V_{1}, \ell_{1}, r_{1}), \alpha_{1}) and ((V_{2}, \ell_{2}, r_{2}), \alpha_{2}) be representations of ((A, [, ]), N). A linear map \phi: V_{1}\longrightarrow V_{2} is called a homomorphism from ((V_{1}, \ell_{1}, r_{1}), \alpha_{1}) to ((V_{2}, \ell_{2}, r_{2}), \alpha_{2}) if (\phi, \id_A) is a homomorphism from (V_{1}, \ell_{1}, r_{1}) to (V_{2}, \ell_{2}, r_{2}) and, for all v\in V_{1},

\begin{aligned} \phi(\alpha_{1}(v))=\alpha_{2}(\phi(v)). \end{aligned}

If \phi is a bijective, then we say that the representations ((V_{1}, \ell_{1}, r_{1}), \alpha_{1}) and ((V_{2}, \ell_{2}, r_{2}), \alpha_{2}) are equivalent.

Uses Definition 2.6 · Used by Example 2.8, Proposition 2.9, Lemma 2.10, Proof, Proposition 2.12, Definition 2.13, Proposition 2.15, Proof, Proof, Proof, Theorem 2.24, Definition 3.12, Definition 3.15, Theorem 3.17, Proof, Lemma 3.18, Theorem 3.19

Example

Example 2.8

ZY1B

Let ((A, [, ]), N) be a Nijenhuis left Alia algebra. Then ((A, \mathcal{L}, \mathcal{R}), N) a representation of ((A, [, ]), N), called the adjoint representation of ((A, [, ]), N).
Let ((V, \rho), \alpha) be a representation of a Nijenhuis Lie algebra ((A, [, ]), N) [LM], then, both ((V, \rho, -\rho), \alpha) and ((V, \rho, 2\rho), \alpha) are representation of ((A, [, ]), N) as a Nijenhuis left Alia algebra.

Uses Definition 2.6, Definition 2.7

Proposition

Proposition 2.9

S04N

Let ((V, \ell, r), \alpha) be a representation of a Nijenhuis left Alia algebra ((A, [, ]), N). Define the bracket product on A\oplus V by Eq. \eqref{eq:3}, and a linear map N+\alpha: A\oplus V\longrightarrow A\oplus V by

\begin{aligned} (N+\alpha)(x+v):=N(x)+\alpha(v), \forall~ x\in A, \forall~ v\in V. \end{aligned}

Then ((A\oplus V, [, ]_{A\oplus V}), N+\alpha) is a Nijenhuis left Alia algebra denoted by (A\ltimes_{\ell, r}V, N+\alpha) and called semi-direct product of ((A, [,]), N) by ((V, \ell, r), \alpha).

Uses Definition 2.7, Definition 2.6 · Used by Proof

Proof of Proposition 2.9

It is a special case of the matched pair of Nijenhuis left Alia algebras in Theorem 2.14, so we omit the proof here.

Uses Definition 2.6

Lemma

Lemma 2.10

CFJ8

Let ((A, [, ]), N) be a Nijenhuis left Alia algebra, (V, \ell, r) a representation of (A, [, ]) and \beta: V\longrightarrow V a linear map. Then ((V^{*}, \ell^{*}, \ell^{*}-r^{*}), \beta^{*}) is a representation of ((A, [, ]), N) if and only if, for all x\in A, v\in V,

\begin{aligned} &\beta(\ell(N(x))(v))+\ell(x)(\beta^{2}(v))=\ell(N(x))(\beta(v))+\beta(\ell(x)(\beta(v))),&\\ &\beta(r(N(x))(v))+r(x)(\beta^{2}(v))=r(N(x))(\beta(v))+\beta(r(x)(\beta(v))). \end{aligned}

In particular, for a linear map S: A\longrightarrow A, ((A^{*}, \mathcal{L}^{*}, \mathcal{L}^{*}-\mathcal{R}^{*}), S^{*}) is a representation of ((A, [, ]), N) if and only if, for all x,y\in A,

\begin{aligned} &S[N(x), y]+[x, S^{2}(y)]=S[x, S(y)]+[N(x), S(y)],&\\ &S[x, N(y)]+[S^{2}(x), y]=S[S(x), y]+[ S(x), N(y)].& \end{aligned}

Uses Definition 2.6, Definition 2.7 · Used by Proof, Proof, Proof, Proof

Proof of Lemma 2.10

By [KLWY], we know that (V^{*}, \ell^{*}, \ell^{*}-r^{*}) is a representation of (A, [, ]). And for all x\in A, v\in V, u^{*}\in V^{*},

\begin{aligned} &&\big\langle \ell^{*}(N(x))(\beta^{*}(u^{*}))+\beta^{*2}(\ell^{*}(x)(u^{*}))-\beta^*(\ell^{*}(N(x))(u^{*})) -\beta^*(\ell^{*}(x)(\beta^{*}(u^{*}))), v \big\rangle\\ &&\qquad\stackrel{\eqref{eq:repdual}}{=}\big\langle u^{*}, -\beta(\ell(N(x))(v))-\ell(x)(\beta^{2}(v))+\ell(N(x))(\beta(v))+\beta(\ell(x)(\beta(v)))\big\rangle. \end{aligned}

So Eq.(2.7) holds for \ell^* and \beta^* if and only if Eq.(2.10) holds. Likewise, Eq.(2.7) holds for \ell^*-r^* and \beta^* if and only if Eq.(2.10) holds.

Uses Definition 2.7

Definition

Definition 2.11

ZW1P

With notations in Lemma 2.10, if Eqs.(2.10) and (2.10) hold, then we say that \beta is admissible to (A, [,], N) with respect to (V, \ell, r). If Eqs.(2.10) and (2.10) hold, then we say that S is adjoint-admissible to ((A, [, ]), N) or ((A, [, ]), N) is S-adjoint-admissible.

Proposition

Proposition 2.12

LCUK

[KLWY] Let (A, [, ]_{A}) and (B, [, ]_{B}) be left Alia algebras, \ell_{A}, r_{A}: A\longrightarrow \mathrm{End}(B) and \ell_{B}, r_{B}: B\longrightarrow \mathrm{End}(A) be linear maps. Define the bracket [, ]_{A\oplus B} on the direct sum A\oplus B of vector spaces given by

\begin{aligned} [x+a, y+b]_{A\oplus B}:=[x, y]_{A}+\ell_{B}(a)(y)+r_{B}(b)(x)+[a, b]_{B}+\ell_{A}(x)(b)+r_{A}(y)(a), \end{aligned}

where x, y\in A and a, b\in B, then (A\oplus B, [, ]_{A\oplus B}) is a left Alia algebra if and only if ((A, [, ]_{A}), (B, [, ]_{B}), \ell_{A}, r_{A}, \ell_{B}, r_{B}) is a matched pair of left Alia algebras, that is, (B, \ell_{A}, r_{A}) is a representation of (A, [, ]_{A}), (A, \ell_{B}, r_{B}) is a representation of (B, [, ]_{B}), and the following equations hold:

\begin{aligned} r_{B}(a)([x, y]_{A}-[y, x]_{A}) \hspace{-3mm}&=\hspace{-3mm}[(\ell_{B}-r_{B})(a)(y), x]_{A}+[(r_{B}-\ell_{B})(a)(x), y]_{A}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}+\ell_{B}((r_{A}-\ell_{A})(y)(a))(x)+\ell_{B}((\ell_{A}-r_{A})(x)(a))(y),\\ r_{A}(x)([a, b]_{B}-[b, a]_{B}) \hspace{-3mm}&=\hspace{-3mm}[(\ell_{A}-r_{A})(x)(b), a]_{B}+[(r_{A}-\ell_{A})(x)(a), b]_{B}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}+\ell_{A}((r_{B}-\ell_{B})(b)(x))(a)+\ell_{A}((\ell_{B}-r_{B})(a)(x))(b). \end{aligned}

Uses Definition 2.7 · Used by Theorem 2.14, Proof

Definition

Definition 2.13

5ZBR

A matched pair of Nijenhuis left Alia algebras ((A, [, ]_{A}), N_{A}) and ((B, [, ]_{B}), N_{B}) is a six-tuple ((A, N_{A}), (B, N_{B}), \ell_{A}, r_{A}, \ell_{B}, r_{B}), where ((B, \ell_{A}, r_{A}), N_{B}) is a representation of ((A, [, ]_{A}), N_{A}), ((A, \ell_{B}, r_{B}), N_{A}) is a representation of ((B, [, ]_{B}), N_{B}), and ((A, [, ]_{A}), (B, [, ]_{B}), \ell_{A}, r_{A}, \ell_{B}, r_{B}) is a matched pair of left Alia algebras (A, [, ]_{A}) and (B, [, ]_{B}).

Uses Definition 2.6, Definition 2.7 · Used by Proof, Proof

Theorem

Theorem 2.14

HB5O

Let ((A, [, ]_{A}), N_{A}) and ((B, [, ]_{B}), N_{B}) be Nijenhuis left Alia algebras. Then ((A, N_{A}), (B, N_{B}), \ell_{A}, r_{A}, \ell_{B}, r_{B}) is a matched pair of ((A, [, ]_{A}), N_{A}) and ((B, [, ]_{B}), N_{B}) if and only if ((A\oplus B, [,]_{A\oplus B}), N_{A}+N_{B}) is a Nijenhuis left Alia algebra by defining the multiplication on A\oplus B by Eq.(2.12) and linear map N_{A}+N_{B}: A\oplus B\longrightarrow A\oplus B by

\begin{aligned} (N_{A}+N_{B})(x+a):=N_{A}(x)+N_{B}(a) \end{aligned}

for all x\in A, a\in B.

Uses Proposition 2.12, Definition 2.6 · Used by Proof

Proof of Theorem 2.14

It can be proved by Proposition 2.12 and the following equality

\begin{aligned} &&\hspace{-10mm}[(N_{A}+N_{B})(x+a), (N_{A}+N_{B})(y+b)]_{A\oplus B}+(N_{A}+N_{B})^{2}([(x+a), (y+b)]_{A\oplus B})\\ &&\hspace{-5mm}-(N_{A}+N_{B})([(N_{A}+N_{B})(x+a), (y+b)]_{A\oplus B})-(N_{A}+N_{B})([(x+a), (N_{A}+N_{B})(y+b)]_{A\oplus B})\\ &=\hspace{-3mm}[N_{A}(x), N_{A}(y)]_{A}+N_{A}^{2}([x, y]_{A})-N_{A}([x, N_{A}(y)]_{A}) -N_{A}([N_{A}(x), y]_{A})+[N_{B}(a), N_{B}(b)]_{B}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}+N_{B}^{2}([a,b]_{B})-N_{B}([a, N_{B}(b)]_{B}) -N_{B}([N_{B}(a), b]_{B})-N_{B}(\ell_{A}(x)(N_{B}(b)))+\ell_{A}(N_{A}(x))(N_{B}(b))\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}+N_{B}^{2}(\ell_{A}(x)(b))-N_{B}(\ell_{A}(N_{A}(x))(b))+r_{A}(N_{A}(y))(N_{B}(a)) +N_{B}^{2}(r_{A}(y)(a))-N_{B}(r_{A}(y)(N_{B}(a)))\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}-N_{B}(r_{A}(N_{A}(y))(a))-N_{A}(\ell_{B}(N_{B}(a))(y))+\ell_{B}(N_{B}(a))(N_{A}(y)) +N_{A}^{2}(\ell_{B}(a)(y))-N_{A}(\ell_{B}(a)(N_{A}(y)))\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}+r_{B}(N_{B}(b))(N_{A}(x))+N_{A}^{2}(r_{B}(b)(x))-N_{A}(r_{B}(b)(N_{A}(x))) -N_{A}(r_{B}(N_{B}(b))(x)), \end{aligned}

where x, y\in A, a, b\in B.

Uses Proposition 2.12

Proposition

Proposition 2.15

13HK

Let ((A, [, ]), N) be a Nijenhuis left Alia algebra and (A, [, ], \mathcal{B}) a quadratic left Alia algebra. Assume that \widehat{N} is the adjoint linear map of N with respect to \mathcal{B}, characterized by

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{B}(N(x), y)=\mathcal{B}(x, \widehat{N}(y)), \forall~ x, y\in A. \end{aligned}

Then \widehat{N} is adjoint-admissible to ((A, [, ]), N), or equivalently, ((A^{*}, \mathcal{L}^{*}, \mathcal{L}^{*}-\mathcal{R}^{*}), \widehat{N}^{*}) is a representation of ((A, [, ]), N). Moreover, ((A^{*}, \mathcal{L}^{*}, \mathcal{L}^{*}-\mathcal{R}^{*}), \widehat{N}^{*}) is equivalent to ((A, \mathcal{L}, \mathcal{R}), N) as representations of ((A, [, ]), N). Conversely, Let ((A, [, ]), N) be a Nijenhuis left Alia algebra and S: A\longrightarrow A a linear map that is adjoint-admissible to ((A, [,]), N). If the resulting representation ((A^{*}, \mathcal{L}^{*}, \mathcal{L}^{*}-\mathcal{R}^{*}), S^{*}) of ((A, [, ]), N) is equivalent to ((A, \mathcal{L}, \mathcal{R}), N), then there exists a quadratic left Alia algebra (A, [, ], \mathcal{B}) such that S=\widehat{N}.

Uses Definition 2.6, Definition 2.7 · Used by Proof

Proof of Proposition 2.15

For all x, y, z\in A, we have

\begin{aligned} 0\hspace{-3mm}&=\hspace{-3mm}\mathcal{B}([N(x), N(y)]+N^{2}([x, y])-N([N(x), y])-N([x, N(y)]), z)\\ &=\hspace{-3mm}\underline{\mathcal{B}([N(x), N(y)], z)}+\mathcal{B}(N^{2}([x, y]), z)-\mathcal{B}(N([N(x), y]), z)-\mathcal{B}(N([x, N(y)]), z)\\ &=\hspace{-3mm}-\mathcal{B}(N(y), [N(x), z])+\underline{\mathcal{B}([x, y], \widehat{N}^{2}(z)) -\mathcal{B}([N(x), y], \widehat{N}(z))-\mathcal{B}([x, N(y)], \widehat{N}(z))}\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:invariant}}{=}&\hspace{-3mm}-\mathcal{B}(y, \widehat{N}([N(x), z]))-\mathcal{B}(y, [x, \widehat{N}^{2}(z)]) +\mathcal{B}(y, [N(x), \widehat{N}(z)])+\mathcal{B}(N(y), [x, \widehat{N}(z)])\\ &=\hspace{-3mm}-\mathcal{B}(y, \widehat{N}([N(x), z]))-\mathcal{B}(y, [x, \widehat{N}^{2}(z)]) +\mathcal{B}(y, [N(x), \widehat{N}(z)])+\mathcal{B}(y, \widehat{N}([x, \widehat{N}(z)]))\\ &=\hspace{-3mm}\mathcal{B}(y, -\widehat{N}([N(x), z])-[x, \widehat{N}^{2}(z)]+[N(x), \widehat{N}(z)]+\widehat{N}([x, \widehat{N}(z)])). \end{aligned}

Then,

\widehat{N}([N(x), y])+[x, \widehat{N}^{2}(y)]-[N(x), \widehat{N}(y)]-\widehat{N}([x, \widehat{N}(y)])=0.

\begin{aligned} 0\hspace{-3mm}&=\hspace{-3mm}\mathcal{B}([N(x), N(y)]+N^{2}([x, y])-N([N(x), y])-N([x, N(y)]), z)\\ &=\hspace{-3mm}\underline{\mathcal{B}([N(x), N(y)], z)}+\mathcal{B}(N^{2}([x, y]), z) -\mathcal{B}(N([N(x), y]), z)-\mathcal{B}(N([x, N(y)]), z)\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:quadratic}}{=}&\hspace{-3mm}\mathcal{B}(N(x), [z, N(y)]-[N(y), z]) +\underline{\mathcal{B}([x, y], \widehat{N}^{2}(z)) -\mathcal{B}([N(x), y], \widehat{N}(z))-\mathcal{B}([x, N(y)], \widehat{N}(z))}\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:quadratic}}{=}&\hspace{-3mm}\mathcal{B}(N(x), [z, N(y)]-[N(y), z])+\mathcal{B}(x, [\widehat{N}^{2}(z), y] -[y, \widehat{N}^{2}(z)])-\mathcal{B}(N(x), [\widehat{N}(z), y]-[y, \widehat{N}(z)])\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}-\mathcal{B}(x, [\widehat{N}(z), N(y)]-[N(y), \widehat{N}(z)])\\ &=\hspace{-3mm}\mathcal{B}(x, \widehat{N}([z, N(y)]))-\mathcal{B}(x, \widehat{N}([N(y), z])) +\mathcal{B}(x, [\widehat{N}^{2}(z), y])-\mathcal{B}(x, [y, \widehat{N}^{2}(z)]) -\mathcal{B}(x, \widehat{N}([\widehat{N}(z), y]))\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}+\mathcal{B}(x, \widehat{N}([y, \widehat{N}(z)])) -\mathcal{B}(x, [\widehat{N}(z), N(y)]) +\mathcal{B}(x, [N(y), \widehat{N}(z)])\\ &=\hspace{-3mm}\mathcal{B}(x, \widehat{N}([z, N(y)])+[\widehat{N}^{2}(z), y] -\widehat{N}([\widehat{N}(z), y])-[\widehat{N}(z), N(y)]). \end{aligned}

Then,

\widehat{N}([x, N(y)])+[\widehat{N}^{2}(x), y]-\widehat{N}([\widehat{N}(x), y]) -[\widehat{N}(x), N(y)]=0.

By Lemma \ref{lem:o}, ((A^{*}, \mathcal{L}^{*}, \mathcal{L}^{*}-\mathcal{R}^{*}), \widehat{N}^{*}) is a representation of ((A, [, ]), N).

Next, by [KLWY, Lemma 3], (A^{*}, \mathcal{L}^{*}, \mathcal{L}^{*}-\mathcal{R}^{*}) is equivalent to (A, \mathcal{L}, \mathcal{R}) as representations of (A, [, ]). We define the linear map \mathcal{B}^{\natural}:A\longrightarrow A^{*} by

\mathcal{B}^{\natural}(x)(y)=\langle \mathcal{B}^{\natural}(x),y\rangle =\mathcal{B}(x, y),

for all x, y\in A.

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{B}^{\natural}(N(x))(y) \hspace{-3mm}&=\hspace{-3mm}\langle \mathcal{B}^{\natural}(N(x)), y\rangle =\mathcal{B}(N(x), y)=\mathcal{B}(x, \widehat{N}(y))\\ \hspace{-3mm}&=\hspace{-3mm}\langle \mathcal{B}^{\natural}(x), \widehat{N}(y)\rangle=\langle \widehat{N}^{*}(\mathcal{B}^{\natural}(x)), y\rangle =\widehat{N}^{*}(\mathcal{B}^{\natural}(x))(y). \end{aligned}

Hence, ((A^{*}, \mathcal{L}^{*}, \mathcal{L}^{*}-\mathcal{R}^{*}), \widehat{N}^{*}) is equivalent to ((A, \mathcal{L}, \mathcal{R}), N) as representations of ((A, [, ]), N).

Conversely, suppose that \mathcal{B}^{\natural}: A\longrightarrow A^{*} is the linear isomorphism giving by the equivalence between ((A^{*}, \mathcal{L}^{*}, \mathcal{L}^{*}-\mathcal{R}^{*}), S^{*}) and ((A, \mathcal{L}, \mathcal{R}), N). Define a bilinear form \mathcal{B} on A by

\mathcal{B}(x, y)=\langle \mathcal{B}^{\natural}(x), y\rangle,

for all x, y\in A. Then by a similar argument as above, there exists a quadratic left Alia algebra (A, [, ], \mathcal{B}) such that S=\widehat{N}.

Uses Lemma 2.10, Definition 2.7

Definition

Definition 2.16

4Z6X

[KLWY] Let (A, [, ]_{A}) and (A^{*}, [, ]_{A^{*}}) be two left Alia algebras. Assume that there is a left Alia algebras (A\oplus A^{*}, [, ]_{A\oplus A^{*}}) which contains (A, [, ]_{A}) and (A^{*}, [, ]_{A^{*}}) as left Alia subalgebras. Suppose that the natural nondegenerate symmetric bilinear form \mathcal{B}, given by

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{B}(x+a^{*}, y+b^{*})=\langle a^{*}, y\rangle+\langle x, b^{*}\rangle, \forall~ x, y\in A, a^{*}, b^{*}\in A^{*}, \end{aligned}

is invariant on (A\oplus A^{*}, [, ]_{A\oplus A^{*}}), that is, (A\oplus A^{*}, [, ]_{A\oplus A^{*}}, \mathcal{B}) is a quadratic left Alia algebra. Then, we say that ((A\oplus A^{*}, [, ]_{A\oplus A^{*}}, \mathcal{B}), A, A^{*}) is a Manin triple of left Alia algebras associated to (A, [, ]_{A}) and (A^{*}, [, ]_{A^{*}}).

Definition

Definition 2.17

MXWK

Let ((A, [, ]_{A}), N) and ((A^{*}, [, ]_{A^{*}}), S^{*}) be two Nijenhuis left Alia algebras. A Manin triple ((A\oplus A^{*}, [, ]_{A\oplus A^{*}}, N+S^{*}, \mathcal{B}), (A, N), (A^{*}, S^{*})) of Nijenhuis left Alia algebras associated to ((A,[, ]_{A}),N) and ((A^{*}, [, ]_{A^{*}}), S^{*}) is a Manin triple ((A\oplus A^{*}, [, ]_{A\oplus A^{*}}, \mathcal{B}), A, A^{*}) of left Alia algebras associated to (A, [, ]_{A}) and (A^{*}, [, ]_{A^{*}}) such that ((A\oplus A^{*}, [, ]_{A\oplus A^{*}}), N+S^{*}) is a Nijenhuis left Alia algebra.

Uses Definition 2.6 · Used by Proof

Lemma

Lemma 2.18

RK2D

Let ((A\oplus A^{*}, [, ]_{A\oplus A^{*}}, N+S^{*}, \mathcal{B}), (A, N), (A^{*}, S^{*})) be a Manin triple of Nijenhuis left Alia algebras associated to ((A,[, ]_{A}),N) and ((A^{*}, [, ]_{A^{*}}), S^{*}).

The adjoint linear map \widehat{N+S^{*}} of N+S^{*} with respect to \mathcal{B} is S+N^{*}. Furthermore, S+N^{*} is adjoint-admissible to ((A\oplus A^{*}, [,]_{A\oplus A^{*}}), N+S^{*}).
S is adjoint-admissible to ((A, [, ]_{A}), N).
N^{*} is adjoint-admissible to ((A^{*}, [, ]_{A^{*}}), S^{*}).

Uses Definition 2.6 · Used by Proof

Proof of Lemma 2.18

? For all x, y \in A, a^{*}, b^{*}\in A^{*}, we have

\begin{aligned} \mathcal{B}((N+S^{*})(x+a^{*}), y+b^{*}) \hspace{-3mm}&=\hspace{-3mm}\mathcal{B}(N(x)+S^{*}(a^{*}), y+b^{*})=\langle S^{*}(a^{*}), y\rangle+\langle N(x), b^{*}\rangle\\ \hspace{-3mm}&=\hspace{-3mm}\langle a^{*}, S(y)\rangle+\langle x, N^{*}(b^{*})\rangle=\mathcal{B}(x+a^{*}, S(y)+N^{*}(b^{*}))\\ \hspace{-3mm}&=\hspace{-3mm}\mathcal{B}(x+a^{*}, (S+N^{*})(y+b^{*})). \end{aligned}

Hence, \widehat{N+S^{*}}=S+N^{*}. Furthermore, by Proposition \ref{pro:ao}, S+N^{*} is adjoint-admissible to ((A\oplus A^{*}, [, ]_{A\oplus A^{*}}), N+S^{*}).

? By Item ?, S+N^{*} is adjoint-admissible to ((A\oplus A^{*}, [, ]_{A\oplus A^{*}}), N+S^{*}). Then

\begin{aligned} &&(S+N^{*})[(N+S^{*})(x+a^{*}), y+b^{*}]_{A\oplus A^{*}}-(S+N^{*})[x+a^{*}, (S+N^{*})(y+b^{*})]_{A\oplus A^{*}}\\ &&+[(x+a^{*}), (S+N^{*})^{2}(y+b^{*})]_{A\oplus A^{*}}-[(N+S^{*})(x+a^{*}), (S+N^{*})(y+b^{*})]_{A\oplus A^{*}}=0,\\ &&(S+N^{*})[x+a^{*}, (N+S^{*})(y+b^{*})]_{A\oplus A^{*}}-(S+N^{*})[(S+N^{*})(x+a^{*}), y+b^{*}]_{A\oplus A^{*}}\\ &&+[(S+N^{*})^{2}(x+a^{*}), y+b^{*}]_{A\oplus A^{*}}-[(S+N^{*})(x+a^{*}), (N+S^{*})(y+b^{*})]_{A\oplus A^{*}}=0. \end{aligned}

Now taking a^{*}=b^{*}=0 in the equations above give the admissibility of S to ((A, [, ]_{A}), N).

? Taking x=y=0 in the equations above give the admissibility of N^{*} to ((A^{*}, [, ]_{A^{*}}), S^{*}).

Uses Proposition 2.15

Theorem

Theorem 2.19

XSBG

Let ((A,[, ]_{A}),N) and ((A^{*}, [, ]_{A^{*}}), S^{*}) be Nijenhuis left Alia algebras. Then there is a Manin triple ((A\oplus A^{*}, [, ]_{A\oplus A^{*}}, N+S^{*}, \mathcal{B}), (A, N), (A^{*}, S^{*})) of ((A,[, ]_{A}),N) and ((A^{*}, [, ]_{A^{*}}), S^{*}) if and only if ((A, N), (A^{*}, S^{*}), \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}-\mathcal{R_{A}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A^{*}}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A^{*}}^{*}}-\mathcal{R_{A^{*}}^{*}}) is a matched pair of ((A,[, ]_{A}),N) and ((A^{*}, [, ]_{A^{*}}), S^{*}).

Uses Definition 2.6 · Used by Proof

Proof of Theorem 2.19

(\Longrightarrow) If ((A\oplus A^{*}, [, ]_{A\oplus A^{*}}, N+S^{*},\mathcal{B}), (A, N), (A^{*}, S^{*})) is a Manin triple of ((A,[, ]_{A}),N) and ((A^{*}, [, ]_{A^{*}}), S^{*}), then by Definition \ref{de:aq}, we know that ((A\oplus A^{*}, [, ]_{A\oplus A^{*}}, \mathcal{B}), A, A^{*}) is a Manin triple of (A, [, ]_{A}) and (A^{*}, [, ]_{A^{*}}). By [KLWY, Theorem 5], ((A, [, ]_{A}), (A^{*}, [, ]_{A^{*}}), \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}-\mathcal{R_{A}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A^{*}}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A^{*}}^{*}}-\mathcal{R_{A^{*}}^{*}}) is a matched pair of (A, [, ]_{A}) and (A^{*}, [, ]_{A^{*}}). Furthermore, by Lemma \ref{lem:ar}, ((A^{*}, \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}-\mathcal{R_{A}^{*}}), S^{*}) is a representation of ((A, [, ]_A), N) and ((A, \mathcal{L_{A^{*}}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A^{*}}^{*}}- \mathcal{R_{A^{*}}^{*}}), N) is a representation of ((A^{*}, [, ]_{A^{*}}), S^{*}). Therefore, ((A, N), (A^{*}, S^{*}), \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}-\mathcal{R_{A}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A^{*}}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A^{*}}^{*}}-\mathcal{R_{A^{*}}^{*}}) is a matched pair of ((A,[, ]_{A}),N) and ((A^{*}, [, ]_{A^{*}}), S^{*}).

(\Longleftarrow) If ((A, N), (A^{*}, S^{*}), \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}-\mathcal{R_{A}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A^{*}}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A^{*}}^{*}}-\mathcal{R_{A^{*}}^{*}}) is a matched pair of ((A,[, ]_{A}),N) and ((A^{*}, [, ]_{A^{*}}), S^{*}), then by Definition \ref{de:am}, ((A, [, ]_{A}), (A^{*}, [, ]_{A^{*}}), \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}-\mathcal{R_{A}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A^{*}}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A^{*}}^{*}}-\mathcal{R_{A^{*}}^{*}}) is a matched pair of (A, [, ]_{A}) and (A^{*}, [, ]_{A^{*}}). By [KLWY, Theorem 5], ((A\oplus A^{*}, [, ]_{A\oplus A^{*}}, \mathcal{B}), A, A^{*}) is a Manin triple of (A, [, ]_{A}) and (A^{*}, [, ]_{A^{*}}). Furthermore, by Theorem \ref{thm:an}, ((A\oplus A^{*}, [, ]_{A\oplus A^{*}}), N+S^{*}) is a Nijenhuis left Alia algebra. Hence, ((A\oplus A^{*}, [, ]_{A\oplus A^{*}}, N+S^{*}, \mathcal{B}), (A, N), (A^{*}, S^{*})) is a Manin triple of ((A,[, ]_{A}),N) and ((A^{*}, [, ]_{A^{*}}), S^{*}).

Uses Definition 2.17, Lemma 2.18, Definition 2.7, Definition 2.13, Theorem 2.14, Definition 2.6

Definition

Definition 2.20

PPB5

A Nijenhuis left Alia coalgebra is a pair ((A, \Delta), S), where (A, \Delta) is a left Alia coalgebra and S is a Nijenhuis operator on (A, \Delta), i.e., the following identity holds:

\begin{aligned} S(x_{(1)})\otimes S(x_{(2)})+S^{2}(x)_{(1)}\otimes S^{2}(x)_{(2)}=S(S(x)_{(1)})\otimes S(x)_{(2)}+S(x)_{(1)}\otimes S(S(x)_{(2)}), \forall~ x\in A. \end{aligned}

Used by Definition 2.21, Example 2.22, Proof, Theorem 5.12, Question 5.13

Definition

Definition 2.21

NKDV

A Nijenhuis left Alia bialgebra is a vector space A together with linear maps [, ]: A\otimes A\longrightarrow A, \Delta: A\longrightarrow A\otimes A, N, S : A\longrightarrow A such that

(A, [, ], \Delta) is a left Alia bialgebra.
((A, [, ]), N) is a Nijenhuis left Alia algebra.
((A, \Delta), S) is a Nijenhuis left Alia coalgebra.
S is adjoint-admissible to ((A, [, ]), N), that is, Eqs.(2.10)-(2.10) hold.
N^{*} is adjoint-admissible to ((A^{*}, \Delta^{*}), S^{*}), that is, Eqs.(?)-(?) hold.

We denote this Nijenhuis left Alia bialgebra by ((A, [, ], \Delta), N, S).

Uses Definition 2.6, Definition 2.20 · Used by Example 2.22, Theorem 2.23, Proof, Theorem 2.24, Theorem 3.6, Corollary 3.7, Proposition 3.10, Example 3.11, Theorem 3.19, Question 5.13

Example

Example 2.22

BWF7

Let (A, [, ]) be a 4-dimensional left Alia algebra with basis {e_{1}, e_{2}, e_{3}, e_{4}} and the product [, ] given by the following table

The paper has a table here, which this page does not show.

Define

\begin{cases} N(e_{1})=e_{1}\\ N(e_{2})=e_{1}+e_{2}\\ N(e_{3})=e_{3}\\ N(e_{4})=e_{4}\\ \end{cases}.

Then ((A, [, ]), N) is a Nijenhuis left Alia algebra. Set

\begin{cases} \Delta_{r}(e_{1})=0\\ \Delta_{r}(e_{2})=0\\ \Delta_{r}(e_{3})=-e_{1}\otimes e_{2}\\ \Delta_{r}(e_{4})=-e_{3}\otimes e_{2}\\ \end{cases}

and

\begin{cases} S(e_{1})=e_{1}\\ S(e_{2})=e_{2}-e_{1}\\ S(e_{3})=e_{3}\\ S(e_{4})=e_{4}-e_{1}\\ \end{cases}

Then ((A,\Delta), S) is a Nijenhuis left Alia coalgebra. Furthermore, ((A, [, ], \Delta), N, S) is a Nijenhuis left Alia bialgebra.

Uses Definition 2.6, Definition 2.20, Definition 2.21

Theorem

Theorem 2.23

A2L5

Let ((A, [, ]), N) and ((A^{*}, \Delta^{*}), S^{*}) be Nijenhuis left Alia algebras. Then there is a Nijenhuis left Alia bialgebra ((A, [, ], \Delta), N, S) if and only if ((A, N), (A^{*}, S^{*}), \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}-\mathcal{R_{A}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A^{*}}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A^{*}}^{*}}-\mathcal{R_{A^{*}}^{*}}) is a matched pair of ((A, [, ]), N) and ((A^{*}, \Delta^{*}), S^{*}).

Uses Definition 2.6, Definition 2.21 · Used by Proof

Proof of Theorem 2.23

(\Longrightarrow) If ((A, [, ], \Delta), N, S) is a Nijenhuis left Alia bialgebra, then by Definition \ref{de:au}, we know that (A, [, ], \Delta) is a left Alia bialgebra and S, N^{*} are adjoint-admissible to ((A, [, ]), N) and ((A^{*}, \Delta^{*}), S^{*}) respectively. It means that ((A^{*}, \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}- \mathcal{R_{A}^{*}}), S^{*}) is a representation of ((A, [, ]), N) and ((A, \mathcal{L_{A^{*}}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A^{*}}^{*}}-\mathcal{R_{A^{*}}^{*}}), N) is a representation of ((A^{*}, \Delta^{*}), S^{*}). By [KLWY, Theorem 6], ((A, [, ]), (A^{*}, \Delta^{*}), \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}-\mathcal{R_{A}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A^{*}}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A^{*}}^{*}}-\mathcal{R_{A^{*}}^{*}}) is a matched pair of (A, [, ]) and (A^{*}, \Delta^{*}) since (A, [, ], \Delta) is a left Alia bialgebra. Therefore, ((A, N), (A^{*}, S^{*}), \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}-\mathcal{R_{A}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A^{*}}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A^{*}}^{*}}-\mathcal{R_{A^{*}}^{*}}) is a matched pair of ((A, [, ]), N) and ((A^{*}, \Delta^{*}), S^{*}).

(\Longleftarrow) If ((A, N), (A^{*}, S^{*}), \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}-\mathcal{R_{A}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A^{*}}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A^{*}}^{*}}-\mathcal{R_{A^{*}}^{*}}) is a matched pair of ((A, [, ]), N) and ((A^{*}, \Delta^{*}), S^{*}), then by Definition \ref{de:am}, ((A, [, ]), (A^{*}, \Delta^{*}), \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}-\mathcal{R_{A}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A^{*}}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A^{*}}^{*}}-\mathcal{R_{A^{*}}^{*}}) is a matched pair of (A, [, ]) and (A^{*}, \Delta^{*}). By [KLWY, Theorem 6], (A, [, ], \Delta) is a left Alia bialgebra. By Definition \ref{de:am}, S, N^{*} are adjoint-admissible to ((A, [, ]), N) and ((A^{*}, \Delta^{*}), S^{*}) respectively. Hence, ((A, [, ], \Delta), N, S) is a Nijenhuis left Alia bialgebra.

Uses Definition 2.21, Definition 2.7, Definition 2.13

Theorem

Theorem 2.24

Y382

Let ((A, [, ]), N) and ((A^{*}, [, ]_{A^{*}}(:=\Delta^*)), S^{*}) be two Nijenhuis left Alia algebras. Then the following conditions are equivalent:

((A, N), (A^{*}, S^{*}), \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}-\mathcal{R_{A}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A^{*}}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A^{*}}^{*}}-\mathcal{R_{A^{*}}^{*}}) is a matched pair of ((A, [, ]), N) and ((A^{*}, [, ]_{A^{*}}), S^{*}).
There is a Manin triple ((A\oplus A^{*}, [, ]_{A\oplus A^{*}}, N+S^{*}, \mathcal{B}), (A, N), (A^{*}, S^{*})) of ((A, [, ]), N) and ((A^{*}, [, ]_{A^{*}}), S^{*}).
((A, [, ], \Delta), N, S) is a Nijenhuis left Alia bialgebra.

Uses Definition 2.6, Definition 2.7, Definition 2.21

Proof of Theorem 2.24

It follows by Theorem 2.19 and Theorem 2.23.

Uses Theorem 2.19, Theorem 2.23

Definition

Definition 3.1

QLUR

[KLY] Let (A, [, ]) be a left Alia algebra and r=\sum_{i} a_{i}\otimes b_{i}\in A\otimes A. We call

\begin{aligned} Al(r)=\sum_{i, j}\Big([a_{i}, a_{j}]\otimes b_{i}\otimes b_{j}+a_{i}\otimes ([a_{j}, b_{i}]-[b_{i}, a_{j}])\otimes b_{j}-a_{i}\otimes a_{j}\otimes [b_{j}, b_{i}]\Big)=0. \end{aligned}

a left Alia Yang-Baxter equation in (A, [, ]). And in this case we say r is a solution of the left Alia Yang-Baxter equation in (A, [, ]).

Used by Proof, Proof

Definition

Definition 3.2

BF5I

[KLY] Let (A, [, ]) be a left Alia algebra and r=\sum_{i} a_{i}\otimes b_{i}\in A\otimes A. Suppose that r is an antisymmetric solution of the left Alia Yang-Baxter equation. Then (A, [, ], \Delta_{r}) is a left Alia bialgebra, where \Delta_{r}: A\longrightarrow A\otimes A is given by

\begin{aligned} \Delta_{r}(x)=\sum_{i}\big(([a_{i}, x]-[x, a_{i}])\otimes b_{i}-a_{i}\otimes [b_{i}, x]\big). \end{aligned}

We say the resulting left Alia bialgebra (A, [, ], \Delta_{r}) is triangular.

Used by Proposition 3.3, Proof, Proposition 3.4, Proof, Theorem 3.6, Corollary 3.7, Proposition 3.10, Example 3.11, Theorem 3.19, Theorem 5.2, Proposition 5.6, Theorem 5.7, Proof, Example 5.8, Example 5.9, Proposition 5.11, Theorem 5.12

Proposition

Proposition 3.3

H9K3

Let (A, [, ]) be a left Alia algebra and r=\sum_{i} a_{i}\otimes b_{i}\in A\otimes A. Then r is a solution of left Alia Yang-Baxter equation in (A, [, ]) if and only if

\begin{aligned} (\id\otimes \Delta_{r})(r)=\sum_{i, j} -[a_{i}, a_{j}]\otimes b_{i}\otimes b_{j}, \end{aligned}

where \Delta_{r} is defined by Eq.(3.2).

If further, r is antisymmetric (in the sence of r+\tau(r)=0), then r is a solution of left Alia Yang-Baxter equation in (A, [, ]) if and only if

\begin{aligned} (\Delta_{r}\otimes \id)(r)=\sum_{i, j} a_{i}\otimes a_{j}\otimes [b_{i}, b_{j}], \end{aligned}

holds.

Uses Definition 3.2

Proof of Proposition 3.3

By Eq.(3.2), we have

\begin{aligned} (\id\otimes \Delta_{r})(r) =\sum_{i, j}\big(a_{i}\otimes ([a_{j}, b_{i}]-[b_{i}, a_{j}])\otimes b_{j}-a_{i}\otimes a_{j}\otimes [b_{j}, b_{i}]\big). \end{aligned}

Then Eq.(3.3) \Leftrightarrow Eq.(3.1).

If r is an antisymmetric element, we have

\begin{aligned} (\Delta_{r}\otimes \id)(r) &=\sum_{i, j}\big(([a_{j}, a_{i}]-[a_{i}, a_{j}])\otimes b_{j}\otimes b_{i}- a_{j}\otimes [b_{j}, a_{i}]\otimes b_{i}\big)\\ &=\sum_{i, j}\big(-([a_{j}, b_{i}]-[b_{i}, a_{j}])\otimes b_{j}\otimes a_{i}+ a_{j}\otimes [b_{j}, b_{i}]\otimes a_{i}\big)\\ &=\sum_{i, j}-\xi(a_{i}\otimes ([a_{j}, b_{i}]-[b_{i}, a_{j}])\otimes b_{j}-a_{i}\otimes a_{j}\otimes [b_{j}, b_{i}]), \end{aligned}

where \xi(x\otimes y\otimes z)=y\otimes z\otimes x for all x, y, z\in A. Then Eq.(3.3) \Leftrightarrow Eq.(3.1).

Uses Definition 3.2, Definition 3.1

Proposition

Proposition 3.4

UCGF

Let ((A, [, ]), N) be an S-adjoint-admissible Nijenhuis left Alia algebra and r\in A\otimes A. Define a linear map \Delta: A\longrightarrow A\otimes A by Eq.(3.2). Then the following assertions hold.

Eq.(2.20) holds if and only if, for all x\in A,
\begin{aligned} &&(\mathcal{R}(S(x))-\mathcal{L}(S(x))\otimes \id-S\circ(\mathcal{R}(x)-\mathcal{L}(x))\otimes \id)(N\otimes \id -\id \otimes S)(r)\\ &&\hspace{30mm}+(\id\otimes \mathcal{R}(S(x))-\id\otimes S\circ \mathcal{R}(x))(S\otimes \id-\id\otimes N)(r)=0. \end{aligned}
Eqs.(?)-(?) hold if and only if, for all x\in A,
\begin{aligned} &&\big(\id\otimes (N\circ \mathcal{R}(x)-\mathcal{R}(N(x)))+(\mathcal{R}(N(x))-\mathcal{L}(N(x)))\otimes \id\\ &&\hspace{20mm}+S\circ(\mathcal{R}(x)-\mathcal{L}(x))\otimes \id\big)(S\otimes \id-\id\otimes N)(r)\\ &&\hspace{30mm}+\big((\mathcal{L}(x)-\mathcal{R}(x))\circ S^{2}\otimes \id +(\mathcal{R}(x)-\mathcal{L}(x))\otimes N^{2}\big)(r)=0,\\ &&\big(N\circ (\mathcal{R}(x)-\mathcal{L}(x))\otimes \id- (\mathcal{R}(N(x))-\mathcal{L}(N(x))\otimes \id \\ &&\hspace{20mm}+\id\otimes (\mathcal{R}(N(x))+S\circ \mathcal{R}(x)))\big)(N\otimes \id-\id\otimes S)(r)\\ &&\hspace{60mm}+\big(\id\otimes\mathcal{R}(x)\circ S^{2}-N^{2}\otimes \mathcal{R}(x)\big)(r)=0, \end{aligned}

Uses Definition 3.2, Definition 2.6

Proof of Proposition 3.4

? For all x\in A, we compute

\begin{aligned} 0 \hspace{-6mm}&=\hspace{-6mm}S(x_{(1)})\otimes S(x_{(2)})+S^{2}(x)_{(1)}\otimes S^{2}(x)_{(2)}-S(S(x)_{(1)})\otimes S(x)_{(2)}-S(x)_{(1)}\otimes S(S(x)_{(2)})\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:comuti}}{=}&\hspace{-6mm}\sum_i \Big(S([a_{i}, x])\otimes S(b_{i})-S([x, a_{i}])\otimes S(b_{i})-S(a_{i})\otimes S([b_{i}, x])\underline{+[a_{i}, S^{2}(x)]\otimes b_{i}}\\ &&\hspace{-6mm}\underline{-[S^{2}(x), a_{i}]\otimes b_{i}-a_{i}\otimes [b_{i}, S^{2}(x)]-S([a_{i}, S(x)])\otimes b_{i}+S([S(x), a_{i}])\otimes b_{i}}\\ &&\hspace{-6mm}+S(a_{i})\otimes [b_{i}, S(x)]-[a_{i}, S(x)]\otimes S(b_{i})+[S(x), a_{i}]\otimes S(b_{i})\underline{+a_{i}\otimes S([b_{i}, S(x)])}\Big)\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:15}\eqref{eq:16}}{=}&\hspace{-4mm}\sum_i\Big(S([a_{i}, x])\otimes S(b_{i})-S([x, a_{i}])\otimes S(b_{i})-S(a_{i})\otimes S([b_{i}, x])-\underline{S([N(a_{i}), x])\otimes b_{i}}\\ &&\hspace{-6mm}\underline{+S([x, N(a_{i})])\otimes b_{i}+a_{i}\otimes S([N(b_{i}), x])+[N(a_{i}), S(x)]\otimes b_{i}-[S(x), N(a_{i})]\otimes b_{i}}\\ &&\hspace{-6mm}+S(a_{i})\otimes [b_{i}, S(x)]-[a_{i}, S(x)]\otimes S(b_{i})+[S(x), a_{i}]\otimes S(b_{i})-\underline{a_{i}\otimes [N(b_{i}), S(x)]}\Big)\\ &=\hspace{-6mm}(\mathcal{R}(S(x))-\mathcal{L}(S(x))\otimes \id-S\circ(\mathcal{R}(x)-\mathcal{L}(x))\otimes \id) (N\otimes \id -\id \otimes S)(r)\\ &&\hspace{-6mm}+(\id\otimes \mathcal{R}(S(x))-\id\otimes S\circ \mathcal{R}(x))(S\otimes \id-\id\otimes N)(r). \end{aligned}

Then, Eq.(2.20) holds if and only if Eq.(?) holds.

? Similarly, we have

\begin{aligned} 0 \hspace{-6mm}&=\hspace{-6mm}S(N(x)_{(1)})\otimes N(x)_{(1)}+x_{(1)}\otimes N^{2}(x_{(2)})-S(x_{(1)})\otimes N(x_{(2)})-N(x)_{(1)}\otimes N(N(x)_{(2)})\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:comuti}}{=}&\hspace{-6mm}\sum_i \Big(\underbrace{S([a_{i}, N(x)])\otimes b_{i}-S[N(x), a_{i}]\otimes b_{i}}-S(a_{i})\otimes [b_{i}, N(x)]+[a_{i}, x]\otimes N^{2}(b_{i})\\ &&\hspace{-6mm}-[x, a_{i}]\otimes N^{2}(b_{i})-\underline{a_{i}\otimes N^{2}([b_{i}, x])}-S([a_{i}, x])\otimes N(b_{i})-S([x, a_{i}])\otimes N(b_{i})\\ &&\hspace{-6mm}+S(a_{i})\otimes N([b_{i}, x])-[a_{i}, N(x)]\otimes N(b_{i})+[N(x), a_{i}]\otimes N(b_{i})+\underline{a_{i}\otimes N([b_{i}, N(x)])}\Big)\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:7}\eqref{eq:15}\eqref{eq:16}}{=}&\hspace{-2mm}\sum_i \Big(\underbrace{S([S(a_{i}), x])\otimes b_{i}-[S^{2}(a_{i}), x]\otimes b_{i}+[S(a_{i}), N(x)]\otimes b_{i}-S([x, S(a_{i})])\otimes b_{i}}\\ &&\hspace{-6mm}\underbrace{+[x, S^{2}(a_{i})]\otimes b_{i}-[N(x), S(a_{i})]\otimes b_{i}}-S(a_{i})\otimes [b_{i}, N(x)]+[a_{i}, x]\otimes N^{2}(b_{i})\\ &&\hspace{-6mm}-[x, a_{i}]\otimes N^{2}(b_{i})+\underline{a_{i}\otimes [N(b_{i}), N(x)]}-S([a_{i}, x])\otimes N(b_{i})-S([x, a_{i}])\otimes N(b_{i})\\ &&\hspace{-6mm}+S(a_{i})\otimes N([b_{i}, x])-[a_{i}, N(x)]\otimes N(b_{i})+[N(x), a_{i}]\otimes N(b_{i})\underline{-a_{i}\otimes N([N(b_{i}), x])}\Big)\\ &=\hspace{-6mm}(\id\otimes (N\circ \mathcal{R}(x)-\mathcal{R}(N(x)))+(\mathcal{R}(N(x))-\mathcal{L}(N(x)))\otimes \id+S\circ(\mathcal{R}(x)-\mathcal{L}(x))\otimes \id)\\ &&\hspace{-6mm}(S\otimes \id-\id\otimes N)(r)+((\mathcal{L}(x)-\mathcal{R}(x))\circ S^{2}\otimes \id +(\mathcal{R}(x)-\mathcal{L}(x))\otimes N^{2})(r), \end{aligned}

and

\begin{aligned} 0 \hspace{-6mm}&=\hspace{-6mm}N(x)_{(1)}\otimes S(N(x)_{(2)})+N^{2}(x_{(1)})\otimes x_{(2)}-N(x_{(1)})\otimes S(x_{(2)}) -N(N(x)_{(1)})\otimes N(x)_{(2)}\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:comuti}}{=}&\hspace{-5mm}\sum_i \Big([a_{i}, N(x)]\otimes S(b_{i})- [N(x), a_{i}]\otimes S(b_{i})\underbrace{-a_{i}\otimes S([b_{i}, N(x)])}+ \underline{N^{2}([a_{i}, x])\otimes b_{i}}\\ &&\hspace{-6mm}\underline{- N^{2}([x, a_{i}])\otimes b_{i}}- N^{2}(a_{i})\otimes [b_{i}, x]\underline{-N([a_{i}, N(x)])\otimes b_{i}+N([N(x), a_{i}])\otimes b_{i}}\\ &&\hspace{-6mm}+ N(a_{i})\otimes [b_{i}, N(x)]- N([a_{i}, x])\otimes S(b_{i})+N([x, a_{i}])\otimes S(b_{i})+N(a_{i})\otimes S([b_{i}, x])\Big)\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:7}\eqref{eq:16}}{=}&\hspace{-4mm}\sum_i \Big([a_{i}, N(x)]\otimes S(b_{i})- [N(x), a_{i}]\otimes S(b_{i})\underbrace{-a_{i}\otimes S([S(b_{i}), x])+a_{i}\otimes [S^{2}(b_{i}), x]}\\ &&\hspace{-6mm}\underbrace{- a_{i}\otimes [S(b_{i}), N(x)]}\underline{- [N(a_{i}), N(x)]\otimes b_{i}+ [N(x), N(a_{i})]\otimes b_{i}}-N^{2}(a_{i})\otimes [b_{i}, x]\\ &&\hspace{-6mm}\underline{+ N([N(a_{i}), x])\otimes b_{i}- N([x, N(a_{i})])\otimes b_{i}}+ N(a_{i})\otimes [b_{i}, N(x)]-N([a_{i}, x])\otimes S(b_{i})\\ &&\hspace{-6mm}+ N([x, a_{i}])\otimes S(b_{i})+ N(a_{i})\otimes S([b_{i}, x])\Big)\\ &=\hspace{-6mm}\big(N\circ (\mathcal{R}(x)-\mathcal{L}(x))\otimes \id- (\mathcal{R}(N(x))-\mathcal{L}(N(x)))\otimes \id+\id\otimes (\mathcal{R}(N(x))+S\circ \mathcal{R}(x))\big)\\ &&\hspace{-6mm}(N\otimes \id-\id\otimes S)(r)+\big(\id\otimes\mathcal{R}(x)\circ S^{2}-N^{2}\otimes \mathcal{R}(x)\big)(r). \end{aligned}

Then, Eq.(?) holds if and only if Eq.(?) holds, Eq.(?) holds if and only if Eq.(?) holds.

Uses Definition 3.2, Lemma 2.10, Definition 2.20

Remark

Remark 3.5

2AP3

If (N\otimes \id -\id \otimes S)(r)=0, then (\id\otimes\mathcal{R}(x)\circ S^{2}-N^{2}\otimes \mathcal{R}(x))(r)=0.
If (S\otimes \id-\id\otimes N)(r)=0, then ((\mathcal{L}(x)-\mathcal{R}(x))\circ S^{2}\otimes \id +(\mathcal{R}(x)-\mathcal{L}(x))\otimes N^{2})(r)=0.
If r is antisymmetric, then (N\otimes \id -\id \otimes S)(r)=0 if and only if (S\otimes \id-\id\otimes N)(r)=0.

Theorem

Theorem 3.6

CPQS

Let ((A, [, ]), N) be an S-adjoint-admissible Nijenhuis left Alia algebra and r\in A\otimes A. Define a linear map \Delta by Eq.(3.2). Then ((A, [, ], \Delta), N, S) is a Nijenhuis left Alia bialgebra if and only if Eqs.(?)-(?) hold.

Uses Definition 3.2, Definition 2.6, Definition 2.21

Corollary

Corollary 3.7

399P

Let ((A, [, ]), N) be an S-adjoint-admissible Nijenhuis left Alia algebra and r\in A\otimes A is antisymmetric. Define a linear map \Delta by Eq.(3.2). Then ((A, [, ], \Delta), N, S) is a Nijenhuis left Alia bialgebra if Eq.(3.1) and the following equation hold:

\begin{aligned} (S\otimes \id-\id\otimes N)(r)=0. \end{aligned}

Uses Definition 3.2, Definition 2.6, Definition 2.21 · Used by Definition 3.9, Proof

Remark

Remark 3.8

WMHC

Eq.(3.7) can be seen as a compatible condition between left Alia Yang-Baxter equation and Nijenhuis operators on a left Alia algebra and a left Alia coalgebra. This condition is obtained by the bialgebraic theory of Nijenhuis left Alia algebras.

Uses Definition 2.6

Definition

Definition 3.9

IQ8Z

Let ((A, [, ]), N) be a Nijenhuis left Alia algebra. Suppose that r\in A\otimes A and S:A\longrightarrow A is a linear map. Then Eq.(3.1) together with Eq.(3.7) is called an S-admissible left Alia Yang-Baxter equation in ((A, [, ]), N).

Uses Corollary 3.7, Definition 2.6

Proposition

Proposition 3.10

XRJG

Let ((A, [, ]), N) be an S-adjoint-admissible Nijenhuis left Alia algebra and r\in A\otimes A an antisymmetric solution of S-admissible left Alia Yang-Baxter equation in ((A, [, ]), N). Then ((A, [, ], \Delta), N, S) is a Nijenhuis left Alia bialgebra, where the linear map \Delta=\Delta_{r} is defined by Eq.(3.2). In this case, we call this Nijenhuis left Alia bialgebra triangular.

Uses Definition 3.2, Definition 2.6, Definition 2.21

Proof of Proposition 3.10

Straightforward.

Example

Example 3.11

LZM3

Let ((A, [, ], \Delta), N, S) be a Nijenhuis left Alia bialgebra given in Example 2.22. Then ((A, [, ], \Delta), N, S) is triangular with r=e_{1}\otimes e_{2}-e_{2}\otimes e_{1}.

Uses Definition 2.21, Definition 3.2

Definition

Definition 3.12

Y0YW

[KLY] Let (A, [, ]) be a left Alia algebra with a representation (V, \ell, r). A linear map T: V\longrightarrow A is called a relative Rota-Baxter operator of (A, [, ]) associated to (V, \ell, r) if the following equation holds:

[T(u), T(v)]=T(\ell(T(u))(v)+r(T(v))(u)), \forall~ u, v\in V.

Uses Definition 2.7

Lemma

Lemma 3.13

PVKN

[KLY] Let (A, [, ]) be a left Alia algebra and r\in A\otimes A anti-symmetric. Then r is a solution of the left Alia Yang-Baxter equation in (A, [, ]) if and only if r^\# defined in Eq.(?) is a relative Rota-Baxter operator of (A, [, ]) associated to (A^{*}, \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}},\mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}-\mathcal{R_{A}^{*}}), i.e.,

\begin{aligned} [r^\#(a^{*}), r^\#(b^{*})]=r^\#(\mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}(r^\#(a^{*}))b^{*}+(\mathcal{L_{A}^{*}} -\mathcal{R_{A}^{*}})(r^\#(b^{*}))a^{*}), ~\forall~ a^{*}, b^{*}\in A^{*}. \end{aligned}

Used by Proof

Theorem

Theorem 3.14

5ARZ

Let ((A, [, ]), N) be a Nijenhuis left Alia algebra, r\in A\otimes A antisymmetric and S: A\longrightarrow A a linear map. Then r is a solution of the S-admissible left Alia Yang-Baxter equation in ((A, [, ]), N) if and only if r^\# is a relative Rota-Baxter operator of (A, [, ]) associated to (A^{*}, \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}-\mathcal{R_{A}^{*}}) and the equation below holds:

\begin{aligned} N\circ r^\#=r^\#\circ S^{*}. \end{aligned}

Uses Definition 2.6

Proof of Theorem 3.14

By Lemma 3.13, r is a solution of left Alia Yang-Baxter equation in (A, [, ]) if and only if Eq.(3.13) holds. Moreover, for all a^{*}, b^{*}\in A^{*}, we have

\begin{aligned} &&\langle b^{*}, r^\#(S^{*}(a^{*})) \rangle=\langle S^{*}(a^{*})\otimes b^{*}, r\rangle =\langle a^{*}\otimes b^{*}, (S\otimes \id)(r) \rangle,\\ &&\langle b^{*}, N(r^\#(a^{*})) \rangle=\langle N^{*}(b^{*}), r^\#(a^{*}) \rangle =\langle a^{*}\otimes N^{*}(b^{*}), r \rangle=\langle a^{*}\otimes b^{*}, (\id\otimes N)r \rangle. \end{aligned}

Hence, Eq.(3.14) if and only if Eq.(3.7) holds.

Uses Lemma 3.13, Corollary 3.7

Definition

Definition 3.15

ID39

Let ((A, [, ]), N) be a Nijenhuis left Alia algebra, (V, \ell, r) a representation of (A, [, ]) and \alpha: V\longrightarrow V a linear map. A linear map T: V\longrightarrow A is called a weak relative Rota-Baxter operator of ((A, [, ]), N) associated to (V, \ell, r) and \alpha if T is a relative Rota-Baxter operator of (A, [, ]) associated to (V, \ell, r) and the equation below holds:

\begin{aligned} N\circ T=T\circ \alpha. \end{aligned}

If ((V, \ell, r), \alpha) is a representation of ((A, [, ]), N), then T is called a relative Rota-Baxter operator of ((A, [, ]), N) associated to ((V, \ell, r), \alpha).

Uses Definition 2.6, Definition 2.7

Corollary

Corollary 3.16

46TC

Let ((A, [, ]), N) be a Nijenhuis left Alia algebra, r\in A\otimes A antisymmetric and S: A\longrightarrow A a linear map. Then r is a solution of S-admissible left Alia Yang-Baxter equation in ((A, [, ]), N) if and only if r^\# is a weak relative Rota-Baxter operator of ((A, [, ]), N) associated to (A^{*}, \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}-\mathcal{R_{A}^{*}}) and S^{*}. In addition, if ((A, [, ]), N) is an S-adjoint-admissible Nijenhuis left Alia algebra, then r is a solution of S-admissible left Alia Yang-Baxter equation in ((A, [, ]), N) if and only if r^\# is a relative Rota-Baxter operator of ((A, [, ]), N) associated to ((A^{*}, \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}, \mathcal{L_{A}^{*}}-\mathcal{R_{A}^{*}}), S^{*}).

Uses Definition 2.6

Theorem

Theorem 3.17

VKXT

Let ((A, [, ]), N) be a Nijenhuis left Alia algebra, (V, \ell, r) a representation of (A, [, ]), S: A\longrightarrow A and \alpha, \beta: V\longrightarrow V linear maps. Then the following conditions are equivalent.

There is a Nijenhuis left Alia algebra (A\ltimes_{\ell, r} V, N+\alpha) such that the linear map S+\beta on A\oplus V is adjoint-admissible to (A\ltimes_{\ell, r} V, N+\alpha).
There is a Nijenhuis left Alia algebra (A\ltimes_{\ell^{*}, \ell^{*}-r^{*}} V^{*}, N+\beta^{*}) such that the linear map S+\alpha^{*} on A\oplus V^{*} is adjoint-admissible to (A\ltimes_{\ell^{*}, \ell^{*}-r^{*}} V^{*}, N+\beta^{*}).
The following conditions are satisfied:
1. ((V, \ell, r), \alpha) is a representation of ((A, [, ]), N), that is, Eqs.(2.7) and (2.7) hold.
2. S is adjoint-admissible to ((A, [, ]), N), that is, Eqs.(2.10) and (2.10) hold.
3. \beta is admissible to ((A, [,]), N) on (V, \ell, r), that is, Eqs.(2.10) and (2.10) hold.
4. The following equations hold, for all x\in A, v\in V,
  \begin{aligned} &\beta(r(x)(\alpha(v)))+r(S^{2}(x))(v)=r(S(x))(\alpha(v))+\beta(r(S(x))(v)),&\\ &\beta(\ell(x)(\alpha(v)))+\ell(S^{2}(x))(v)=\ell(S(x))(\alpha(v))+\beta(\ell(S(x))(v)).& \end{aligned}

Uses Definition 2.6, Definition 2.7 · Used by Proof

Proof of Theorem 3.17

?\Leftrightarrow?, By Proposition 2.9, we have (A\ltimes_{\ell, r} V, N+\alpha) is a Nijenhuis left Alia algebra if and only if ((V, \ell, r), \alpha) a representation of ((A, [, ]), N). Let x, y \in A and u, v\in V, we have

\begin{aligned} &&\hspace{-16mm}(S+\beta)([(N+\alpha)(x+u), y+v]_{A\oplus V})+[x+u, (S+\beta)^{2}(y+v)]_{A\oplus V}\\ &&\hspace{-1mm}-[(N+\alpha)(x+u), (S+\beta)(y+v)]_{A\oplus V}-(S+\beta)([x+u, (S+\beta)(y+v)]_{A\oplus V})\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:3}\eqref{eq:11}}{=}&\hspace{-3mm}S([N(x), y])+\beta(\ell(N(x))(v))+\beta(r(y)(\alpha(u)))+[x, S^{2}(y)]+\ell(x)(\beta^{2}(v))\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}+r(S^{2}(y))(u)-[N(x), S(y)]-\ell(N(x))(\beta(v))-r(S(y))(\alpha(u))-S([x, S(y)])\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}-\beta(\ell(x)(\beta(v)))-\beta(r(S(y))(u)). \end{aligned}

Then (S+\beta)([(N+\alpha)(x+u), y+v]_{A\oplus V})+[x+u, (S+\beta)^{2}(y+v)]_{A\oplus V}=[(N+\alpha)(x+u), (S+\beta)(y+v)]_{A\oplus V}+(S+\beta)([x+u, (S+\beta)(y+v)]_{A\oplus V}) if and only if Eqs.(2.10), (2.10) and (?) hold.

Similarly, we can get that (S+\beta)([x+u, (N+\alpha)(y+v)]_{A\oplus V})+[(S+\beta)^{2}(x+u), y+v]_{A\oplus V}=[(S+\beta)(x+u), (N+\alpha)(y+v)]_{A\oplus V}+(S+\beta)([ (S+\beta)(x+u), y+v]_{A\oplus V}) if and only if Eqs.(2.10), (2.10) and (?) hold.

?\Leftrightarrow?, in Item ?, take

v=v^{*},\ell=\ell^{*},r=\ell^{*}-r^{*}, \alpha=\beta^{*},\beta=\alpha^{*}.

Then from the above equivalence between ? and ?, we have ? holds if and only if ?-? hold and the following equations hold:

\begin{aligned} &\alpha^{*}(r^{*}(x)(\beta^{*}(u^{*})))+r^{*}(S^{2}(x))(u^{*})-r^{*}(S(y))(\beta^{*}(u^{*})) -\alpha^{*}(r^{*}(S(y))(u^{*}))=0,&\\ &\alpha^{*}(\ell^{*}(x)(\beta^{*}(u^{*})))+\ell^{*}(S^{2}(x))(u^{*})-\ell^{*}(S(y))(\beta^{*}(u^{*})) -\alpha^{*}(\ell^{*}(S(y))(u^{*}))=0.& \end{aligned}

For all x\in A, v\in V and u^{*}\in V^{*}, we have

\begin{aligned} &&\hspace{-20mm}\big\langle \alpha^{*}(r^{*}(x)(\beta^{*}(u^{*})))+r^{*}(S^{2}(x))(u^{*})-r^{*}(S(y))(\beta^{*}(u^{*})) -\alpha^{*}(r^{*}(S(y))(u^{*})), v\big\rangle \\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:repdual}}{=}&\big\langle u^{*}, -\beta(r(x)(\alpha(v)))-r(S^{2}(x))(v)+\beta(r(S(y))(v))+r(S(y))(\alpha(v))\big\rangle.\\ &&\hspace{-20mm}\big\langle \alpha^{*}(\ell^{*}(x)(\beta^{*}(u^{*})))+\ell^{*}(S^{2}(x))(u^{*})-\ell^{*}(S(y))(\beta^{*}(u^{*})) -\alpha^{*}(\ell^{*}(S(y))(u^{*})), v\big\rangle \\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:repdual}}{=}& \big\langle u^{*}, -\beta(\ell(x)(\alpha(v)))-\ell(S^{2}(x))(v)+\beta(\ell(S(y))(v))+\ell(S(y))(\alpha(v))\big\rangle. \end{aligned}

Hence, Eq.(Proof) holds if and only if Eq.(?) holds, and Eq.(Proof) holds if and only if Eq.(?) holds.

Uses Proposition 2.9, Definition 2.6, Definition 2.7, Proposition 2.2, Lemma 2.10

Lemma

Lemma 3.18

COMX

[KLY] Let (A, [, ]) be a left Alia algebra with a representation (V, \ell, r). Let T: V\longrightarrow A be a linear map and T_{\sharp}\in V^{*}\otimes A\subset (A\oplus V^{*})\otimes (A\oplus V^{*}) given by

\langle T_{\sharp}, u\otimes a^{*}\rangle:=\langle T(u), a^{*}\rangle, \forall~ u\in V, a^{*}\in A^{*}.

Then r=T_{\sharp}-\tau(T_{\sharp}) is an antisymmetric solution of the left Alia Yang-Baxter equation in A\ltimes_{\ell^{*}, \ell^{*}-r^{*}} V^{*} if and only if T is a relative Rota-Baxter operator of (A, [, ]) associated to (V, \ell, r).

Uses Definition 2.7 · Used by Proof

Theorem

Theorem 3.19

C3D7

Let ((A, [, ]), N) be \beta-admissible Nijenhuis left Alia algebra with respect to the representation (V, \ell, r), S: A\longrightarrow A, \alpha: V\longrightarrow V and T: V\longrightarrow A linear maps.

r=T_{\sharp}-\tau(T_{\sharp}) is an antisymmetric solution of the (S+\alpha^*)-admissible left Alia Yang-Baxter equation in (A\ltimes_{\ell^{*}, \ell^{*}-r^{*}} V^{*}, N+\beta^{*}) if and only if T is a weak relative Rota-Baxter operator of (A, [, ]) associated to (V, \ell, r) and \alpha, and T\circ \beta=S\circ T.
Assume that ((V, \ell, r), \alpha) is a representation of ((A, [, ]), N). If T is a relative Rota-Baxter operator of ((A, [, ]), N) associated to ((V, \ell, r), \alpha) and T\circ \beta=S\circ T, then r=T_{\sharp}-\tau(T_{\sharp}) is an antisymmetric solution of the (S+\alpha^*)-admissible left Alia Yang-Baxter equation in (A\ltimes_{\ell^{*}, \ell^{*}-r^{*}} V^{*}, N+\beta^{*}). In addition, if ((A, [, ]), N) is S-adjoint-admissible and Eqs.(?) and (?) hold, then there is a Nijenhuis left Alia bialgebra ((A\ltimes_{\ell^{*}, \ell^{*}-r^{*}} V^{*}, \Delta), N+\beta^{*}, S+\alpha^{*}), where the linear map \Delta=\Delta_{r} is defined by Eq.(3.2) with r=T_{\sharp}-\tau(T_{\sharp}).

Uses Definition 2.6, Definition 2.7, Definition 3.2, Definition 2.21

Proof of Theorem 3.19

? Let \{e_{1}, e_{2}, ..., e_{n}\} be a basis of V and \{e_{1}^{*}, e_{2}^{*},..., e_{n}^{*}\} be the dual basis. Then

\begin{aligned} &&\hspace{-6mm}T_{\sharp}=\sum_{i} e_{i}^{*}\otimes T(e_{i})\in V^{*}\otimes A\subset (A\oplus V^{*})\otimes (A\oplus V^{*}),\\ &&\hspace{-6mm}r=T_{\sharp}-\tau(T_{\sharp})=\sum_{i} (e_{i}^{*}\otimes T(e_{i})-T(e_{i})\otimes e_{i}^{*}). \end{aligned}

Note that

\begin{aligned} &&\hspace{-6mm}((S+\alpha^{*})\otimes \id)(r)=\sum_{i} (\alpha^{*}(e_{i}^{*})\otimes T(e_{i})-S(T(e_{i}))\otimes e_{i}^{*}),\\ &&\hspace{-6mm}(\id\otimes(N+\beta^{*}))(r)=\sum_{i} (e_{i}^{*}\otimes N(T(e_{i}))-T(e_{i})\otimes \beta^{*}(e_{i}^{*})). \end{aligned}

Further,

\begin{aligned} &&\hspace{-6mm}\sum_{i} T(e_{i})\otimes \beta^{*}(e_{i}^{*})=\sum_{i} T(\beta(e_{i}))\otimes e_{i}^{*},\\ &&\hspace{-6mm}\sum_{i} \alpha^{*}(e_{i}^{*})\otimes T(e_{i})=\sum_{i} e_{i}^{*}\otimes T(\alpha(e_{i})). \end{aligned}

Therefore ((S+\alpha^{*})\otimes \id)(r)=(\id\otimes(N+\beta^{*}))(r) if and only if T\circ \beta=S\circ T and N\circ T=T\circ \alpha. Hence the conclusion follows by Lemma 3.18.

? It follows Item ? and Theorem 3.17.

Uses Lemma 3.18, Theorem 3.17

Definition

Definition 4.1

ZYBE

A commutative and cocommutative associative D-bialgebra is a triple (A, \cdot, \delta), where the pair (A, \cdot) is a commutative associative algebra, and the pair (A, \delta) is a cocommutative coassociative coalgebra, such that, for all a, b\in A,

\delta(a \cdot b)=a_{[1]}\cdot b\otimes a_{[2]}+b_{[1]}\otimes a\cdot b_{[2]},

where we write \delta(a)=a_{[1]}\otimes a_{[2]}, \forall~a\in A.

Used by Theorem 4.2, Proof

Theorem

Theorem 4.2

9UBY

Let (A, \cdot, \delta) be a commutative and cocommutative associative D-bialgebra with linear maps f, g, F, G: A\longrightarrow A. Then there is a left Alia bialgebra (A, [,]_{(f, g)}, \Delta_{(F, G)}), where [,]_{(f, g)} and \Delta_{(F, G)} are given by Eqs.(?) and (?) respectively, if and only if for all x, y\in A,

\begin{aligned} &&\hspace{-6mm}f(y)_{[1]}\otimes F(x\cdot f(y)_{[2]})-F(x\cdot f(y)_{[2]})\otimes f(y)_{[1]}+F(x_{[2]})\otimes g(x_{[1]}\cdot y)\\ &&\hspace{-6mm}-g(x_{[1]}\cdot y)\otimes F(x_{[2]})+G(x)_{[2]}\otimes G(x)_{[1]}\cdot f(y)-G(x)_{[1]}\cdot f(y)\otimes G(x)_{[2]}\\ &&\hspace{-6mm}+G(x)_{[2]}\otimes g(G(x)_{[1]}\cdot y)-g(G(x)_{[1]}\cdot y)\otimes G(x)_{[2]}+F(y\cdot f(x)_{[2]})\otimes f(x)_{[1]}\\ &&\hspace{-6mm}-f(x)_{[1]}\otimes F(y\cdot f(x)_{[2]})-F(y_{[2]})\otimes g(y_{[1]}\cdot x)+g(y_{[1]}\cdot x)\otimes F(y_{[2]})\\ &&\hspace{-6mm}-G(y)_{[2]}\otimes G(y)_{[1]}\cdot f(x)+G(y)_{[1]}\cdot f(x)\otimes G(y)_{[2]}-G(y)_{[2]}\otimes g(G(y)_{[1]}\cdot x)\\ &&\hspace{-6mm}+g(G(y)_{[1]}\cdot x)\otimes G(y)_{[2]}=0. \end{aligned}

In this case, (A, [, ]_{(f, g)}, \Delta_{(F, G)}) is called a special left Alia bialgebra with respect to (f, g, F, G).

Uses Definition 4.1 · Used by Proof, Proof

Proof of Theorem 4.2

It is easy to see that (A, [, ]_{(f, g)}) is a special left Alia algebra with respect to (A, \cdot, f, g) and (A, \Delta_{(F, G)}) is a special left Alia coalgebra with respect to (A, \delta, F, G). Now we prove that (A, [, ]_{(f, g)}, \Delta_{(F, G)}) is a left Alia bialgebra. In fact, for all x, y\in A, we have

\begin{aligned} &&\hspace{-13mm}(\tau-\id^{\otimes 2})((\mathcal{R}(y)\otimes id )\Delta_{(F, G)}(x)-(\mathcal{R}(x)\otimes \id )\Delta_{(F, G)}(y))-(\tau-\id^{\otimes 2})(\Delta_{(F, G)}([x, y]_{(f, g)}-[y, x]_{(f, g)}))\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:cosplaa}\eqref{eq:special}}{=}&\hspace{-3mm}(\tau-\id^{\otimes 2})(x_{[1]}\cdot f(y)\otimes F(x_{[2]})+g(x_{[1]}\cdot y)\otimes F(x_{[2]})+G(x)_{1}\cdot f(y)\otimes G(x)_{[2]}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}+g(G(x)_{[1]}\cdot y)\otimes G(x)_{[2]}-y_{[1]}\cdot f(x)\otimes F(y_{[2]})-g(y_{[1]}\cdot x)\otimes F(y_{[2]})-G(y)_{[1]}\cdot f(x)\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}\otimes G(y)_{[2]}-g(G(y)_{[1]}\cdot x)\otimes G(y)_{[2]})- (\tau-\id^{\otimes 2})((x\cdot f(y))_{[1]}\otimes F((x\cdot f(y))_{[2]})\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}+G(y\cdot f(x))_{[1]}\otimes G(y\cdot f(x))_{[2]}-(y\cdot f(x))_{[1]}\otimes F((y\cdot f(x))_{[2]})-G(y\cdot f(x))_{[1]}\otimes G(y\cdot f(x))_{[2]})\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:asi}}{=}&\hspace{-3mm}\underline{F(x_{[2]})\otimes x_{[1]}\cdot f(y)}+F(x_{[2]})\otimes g(x_{[1]}\cdot y)+G(x)_{[2]}\otimes G(x)_{[1]}\cdot f(y)+G(x)_{[2]}\otimes g(G(x)_{[1]}\cdot y)\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}\underline{-F(y_{[2]})\otimes y_{[1]}\cdot f(x)}-F(y_{[2]})\otimes g(y_{[1]}\cdot x)-G(y)_{[2]}\otimes G(y)_{[1]}\cdot f(x)- G(y)_{[2]}\otimes g(G(y)_{[1]}\cdot x)\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}\underline{-x_{[1]}\cdot f(y)\otimes F(x_{[2]})}-g(x_{[1]}\cdot y)\otimes F(x_{[2]})-G(x)_{[1]}\cdot f(y)\otimes G(x)_{[2]}-g(G(x)_{[1]}\cdot y)\otimes G(x)_{[2]}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}\underline{+y_{[1]}\cdot f(x)\otimes F(y_{[2]})}+g(y_{[1]}\cdot x)\otimes F(y_{[2]})+G(y)_{[1]}\cdot f(x)\otimes G(y)_{[2]}+g(G(y)_{[1]}\cdot x)\otimes G(y)_{[2]}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm} \underline{-F(x_{[2]})\otimes x_{[1]}\cdot f(y)}-F(x\cdot f(y)_{[2]})\otimes f(y)_{[1]}\underline{+x_{[1]}\cdot f(y)\otimes F(x_{[2]})}+f(y)_{[1]}\otimes F(x\cdot f(y)_{[2]})\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}\underline{+F(y_{[2]})\otimes y_{[1]}\cdot f(x)}+F(y\cdot f(x)_{[2]})\otimes f(x)_{[1]}\underline{-y_{[1]}\cdot f(x)\otimes F(y_{[2]})}-f(x)_{[1]}\otimes F(y\cdot f(x)_{[2]})\\ &=\hspace{-3mm}-F(x\cdot f(y)_{[2]})\otimes f(y)_{[1]}+f(y)_{[1]}\otimes F(x\cdot f(y)_{[2]})+F(x_{[2]})\otimes g(x_{[1]}\cdot y)-g(x_{[1]}\cdot y)\otimes F(x_{[2]})\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}+G(x)_{[2]}\otimes G(x)_{[1]}\cdot f(y)-G(x)_{[1]}\cdot f(y)\otimes G(x)_{[2]}+G(x)_{[2]}\otimes g(G(x)_{[1]}\cdot y)- g(G(x)_{[1]}\cdot y)\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}\otimes G(x)_{[2]}+F(y\cdot f(x)_{[2]})\otimes f(x)_{[1]}-f(x)_{[1]}\otimes F(y\cdot f(x)_{[2]})-F(y_{[2]})\otimes g(y_{[1]}\cdot x)+g(y_{[1]}\cdot x)\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}\otimes F(y_{[2]})-G(y)_{[2]}\otimes G(y)_{[1]}\cdot f(x)+G(y)_{[1]}\cdot f(x)\otimes G(y)_{[2]}-G(y)_{[2]}\otimes g(G(y)_{[1]}\cdot x)\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}+g(G(y)_{[1]}\cdot x)\otimes G(y)_{[2]}. \end{aligned}

Hence, (A, [,]_{(f, g)}, \Delta_{(F, G)}) is a left Alia bialgebra if and only if Eq.(4.2) holds.

Uses Definition 4.1

Corollary

Corollary 4.3

DEKU

Let (A, \cdot, \delta) be a commutative cocommutative associative D-bialgebra with linear maps f, g: A\longrightarrow A. Then there is a special left Alia bialgebra (A, [, ]_{(f, g)}, \Delta_{(g, f)}) with respect to (f, g, g, f).

Used by Proof

Proof of Corollary 4.3

Since (A, \cdot, \delta) is a commutative cocommutative associative D-bialgebra, we have \delta(x\cdot y)=\delta(y\cdot x), \forall~x, y\in A, that is,

\begin{aligned} &x_{[1]}\cdot y\otimes x_{[2]}+y_{[1]}\otimes x\cdot y_{[2]}=y_{[1]}\cdot x\otimes y_{[2]}+x_{[1]}\otimes y\cdot x_{[2]}.& \end{aligned}

Next we check that Eq.(4.2) holds as follows.

\begin{aligned} \hbox{LHS of Eq.}\eqref{eq:pro:ajj1} \hspace{-3mm}&=\hspace{-3mm}\underline{f(y)_{[1]}\otimes g(x\cdot f(y)_{[2]})}\underline{-g(x\cdot f(y)_{[2]})\otimes f(y)_{[1]}}+g(x_{[2]})\otimes g(x_{[1]}\cdot y)\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}-g(x_{[1]}\cdot y)\otimes g(x_{[2]})+f(x)_{[2]}\otimes f(x)_{[1]}\cdot f(y)-f(x)_{[1]}\cdot f(y)\otimes f(x)_{[2]}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}\underbrace{+f(x)_{[2]}\otimes g(f(x)_{[1]}\cdot y)}\underbrace{-g(f(x)_{[1]}\cdot y)\otimes f(x)_{[2]}}+\underbrace{g(y\cdot f(x)_{[2]})\otimes f(x)_{[1]}}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}\underbrace{-f(x)_{[1]}\otimes g(y\cdot f(x)_{[2]})}-g(y_{[2]})\otimes g(y_{[1]}\cdot x)+g(y_{[1]}\cdot x)\otimes g(y_{[2]})\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}-f(y)_{[2]}\otimes f(y)_{[1]}\cdot f(x)+f(y)_{[1]}\cdot f(x)\otimes f(y)_{[2]}\underline{-f(y)_{[2]}\otimes g(f(y)_{[1]}\cdot x)}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}\underline{+g(f(y)_{[1]}\cdot x)\otimes f(y)_{[2]}}\\ &=\hspace{-3mm}\underline{g(x_{[2]})\otimes g(x_{[1]}\cdot y)-g(x_{[1]}\cdot y)\otimes g(x_{[2]})}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}\underbrace{+f(x)_{[2]}\otimes f(x)_{[1]}\cdot f(y)-f(x)_{[1]}\cdot f(y)\otimes f(x)_{[2]}}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}\underline{-g(y_{[2]})\otimes g(y_{[1]}\cdot x)+g(y_{[1]}\cdot x)\otimes g(y_{[2]})}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}\underbrace{-f(y)_{[2]}\otimes f(y)_{[1]}\cdot f(x)+f(y)_{[1]}\cdot f(x)\otimes f(y)_{[2]}}\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:asi1}}{=}&0, \end{aligned}

as desired.

Uses Theorem 4.2

Theorem

Theorem 4.4

KUS3

Let (A, \cdot) be a commutative associative algebra with linear maps f, g: A\longrightarrow A. If ((A, \cdot), f) is a Nijenhuis associative algebra and f\circ g=g\circ f, then ((A, [, ]_{(f, g)}), f) is a Nijenhuis special left Alia algebra.

Used by Proof

Proof of Theorem 4.4

For any x, y\in A, we have

\begin{aligned} &&\hspace{-15mm}[f(x), f(y)]_{(f, g)}+f^{2}([x, y]_{(f, g)})-f([f(x), y]_{(f, g)})-f([x, f(y)]_{(f, g)})\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:special}}{=}&\hspace{-3mm}f(x)\cdot f(f(y))+g(f(x)\cdot f(y))+f^{2}(x\cdot f(y))+f^{2}(g(x\cdot y))\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}-f(f(x)\cdot f(y))-f(g(f(x)\cdot y))-f(x\cdot f(f(y)))-f(g(x\cdot f(y)))\\ &=\hspace{-3mm}0, \end{aligned}

finishing the proof.

Corollary

Corollary 4.5

F4WM

Let (A, \cdot) be a commutative associative algebra with linear maps f, g: A\longrightarrow A. If ((A, \cdot), g) is a Nijenhuis associative algebra and f\circ g=g\circ f, then ((A, [, ]_{(f, g)}), g) is a Nijenhuis special left Alia algebra.

Proposition

Proposition 4.6

F5EA

Let (A, \delta) be a cocommutative coassociative coalgebra with linear maps F, G: A\longrightarrow A. Then there is a special left Alia coalgebra (A, \Delta_{(F, G)}) with respect to (A, \delta, F, G). If ((A, \delta), F) is a Nijenhuis coassociative coalgebra and F\circ G=G\circ F, then ((A, \Delta_{(F, G)}), F) is a Nijenhuis special left Alia coalgebra.

Used by Proof

Corollary

Corollary 4.7

U48F

Let (A, \delta) be a cocommutative coassociative coalgebra with linear maps F, G: A\longrightarrow A. If ((A, \delta), G) is a Nijenhuis coassociative coalgebra and F\circ G=G\circ F, then ((A, \Delta_{(F, G)}), G) is a Nijenhuis special left Alia coalgebra.

Theorem

Theorem 4.8

NLBF

Let f, g, F, G: A\longrightarrow A be linear maps such that any two of them are commutative, ((A, \cdot, \delta), f, F) a commutative and cocommutative Nijenhuis associative D-bialgebra and Eq.(4.2) holds. Then ((A, [, ]_{(f, g)}, \Delta_{(F, G)}), f, F) is a Nijenhuis special left Alia bialgebra.

Used by Proof

Proof of Theorem 4.8

By Theorem 4.2, we have (A, [, ]_{(f, g)}, \Delta_{(F, G)}) is a special left Alia bialgebra. By Theorem 4.4, we have ((A, [, ]_{(f, g)}), f) is a Nijenhuis special left Alia algebra and by Proposition 4.6, ((A, \Delta_{(F, G)}), F) is a Nijenhuis special left Alia coalgebra. Next we only need to check that Eqs.(2.10), (2.10), (?) and (?) hold for [, ]_{(f, g)}, \Delta_{(F, G)} and f, F. By ((A, \cdot, \delta), f, F) is a commutative cocommutative Nijenhuis associative D-bialgebra, for all x, y\in A, one gets

\begin{aligned} &F(f(x)\cdot y)+x\cdot F^2(y)=f(x)\cdot F(y)+F(x\cdot F(y)),&\\ &F(f(x)_{[1]})\otimes f(x)_{[2]}+x_{[1]}\otimes f^2(x_{[2]})=F(x_{[1]})\otimes f(x_{[2]})+f(x)_{[1]}\otimes f(f(x)_{[2]}).& \end{aligned}

Then we compute as follows.

\begin{aligned} &&\hspace{-16mm}F([f(x), y]_{(f, g)})+[x, F^{2}(y)]_{(f, g)}-F([x, F(y)]_{(f, g)})-[f(x), F(y)]_{(f, g)}\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:special}}{=}& F(f(x)\cdot f(y))+F(g(f(x)\cdot y))+x\cdot f(F^{2}(y))+g(x\cdot F^{2}(y))-F(x\cdot f(F(y)))\\ &&-F(g(x\cdot F(y)))-f(x)\cdot f(F(y))-g(f(x)\cdot F(y))\\ &= F(f(x)\cdot f(y))+g(F(f(x)\cdot y))+x\cdot F^{2}(f(y))+g(x\cdot F^{2}(y))-F(x\cdot F(f(y)))\\ &&-g(F(x\cdot F(y)))-f(x)\cdot F(f(y))-g(f(x)\cdot F(y))\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:pduql}}{=}&0. \end{aligned}

Then Eq.(2.10) holds for [, ]_{(f, g)} and f, F. Similarly, Eq. (2.10) holds for [, ]_{(f, g)} and f, F.

\begin{aligned} &&\hspace{-16mm}F(f(x)_{(1)})\otimes f(x)_{(2)}+x_{(1)}\otimes f^{2}(x_{(2)})-F(x_{(1)})\otimes f(x_{(2)}) - f(x)_{(1)}\otimes f(f(x)_{(2)})\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:cosplaa}}{=}&F(f(x)_{[1]})\otimes F(f(x)_{[2]})+F(G(f(x))_{[1]})\otimes G(f(x))_{[2]} +x_{[1]}\otimes f^{2}(F(x_{[2]}))\\ &&+G(x)_{[1]}\otimes f^{2}(G(x)_{[2]})-F(x_{[1]})\otimes f(F(x_{[2]}))-F(G(x)_{[1]})\otimes f(G(x)_{[2]})\\ &&-f(x)_{[1]}\otimes f(F(f(x)_{[2]}))- G(f(x))_{[1]}\otimes f(G(f(x))_{[2]})\\ &=F(f(x)_{[1]})\otimes F(f(x)_{[2]})+F(f(G(x))_{[1]})\otimes f(G(x))_{[2]} +x_{[1]}\otimes F(f^{2}(x_{[2]}))\\ &&+G(x)_{[1]}\otimes f^{2}(G(x)_{[2]})-F(x_{[1]})\otimes f(F(x_{[2]}))-F(G(x)_{[1]})\otimes f(G(x)_{[2]})\\ &&-f(x)_{[1]}\otimes F(f(f(x)_{[2]}))- f(G(x))_{[1]}\otimes f(f(G(x))_{[2]})\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:pduqld}}{=}&0. \end{aligned}

Then Eq.(?) holds for \Delta_{(F, G)} and f, F. Similarly, Eq. (?) holds for \Delta_{(F, G)} and f, F. Hence, ((A, [, ]_{(f, g)}, \Delta_{(F, G)}), f, F) is a Nijenhuis special left Alia bialgebra.

Uses Theorem 4.2, Theorem 4.4, Proposition 4.6, Lemma 2.10

Corollary

Corollary 4.9

RQQH

Let ((A, \cdot, \delta), f, g) be a commutative cocommutative Nijenhuis associative D-bialgebra. If f\circ g=g\circ f, then ((A, [, ]_{(f, g)}, \Delta_{(g, f)}), f, g) is a Nijenhuis special left Alia bialgebra.

Proof of Corollary 4.9

By Corollary 4.3, we have (A,[, ]_{(f, g)},\Delta_{(g, f)}) is a special left Alia bialgebra. Since f\circ g=g\circ f, by Theorem 4.8 we have ((A, [, ]_{(f, g)}, \Delta_{(g, f)}), f, g) is a Nijenhuis special left Alia bialgebra.

Uses Corollary 4.3, Theorem 4.8

Corollary

Corollary 4.10

KW8S

Let f, g, F, G: A\longrightarrow A be linear maps such that any two of them commutate.

If ((A, \cdot, \delta), f, G) is a commutative cocommutative Nijenhuis associative D-bialgebra and Eq.(4.2) holds, then ((A, [, ]_{(f, g)}, \Delta_{(F, G)}), f, G) is a Nijenhuis special left Alia bialgebra.
If ((A, \cdot, \delta), g, F) is a commutative cocommutative Nijenhuis associative D-bialgebra and Eq.(4.2) holds, then ((A, [, ]_{(f, g)}, \Delta_{(F, G)}), g, F) is a Nijenhuis special left Alia bialgebra.
If ((A, \cdot, \delta), g, G) is a commutative cocommutative Nijenhuis associative D-bialgebra and Eq.(4.2) holds, then ((A, [, ]_{(f, g)}, \Delta_{(F, G)}), g, G) is a Nijenhuis special left Alia bialgebra.
If ((A, \cdot, \delta), f, f) is a commutative cocommutative Nijenhuis associative D-bialgebra, then ((A, [, ]_{(f, g)}, \Delta_{(g, f)}), f, f) is a Nijenhuis special left Alia bialgebra.
If ((A, \cdot, \delta), g, f) is a commutative cocommutative Nijenhuis associative D-bialgebra, then ((A, [, ]_{(f, g)}, \Delta_{(g, f)})), g, f) is a Nijenhuis special left Alia bialgebra.
If ((A, \cdot, \delta), g, g) is a commutative cocommutative Nijenhuis associative D-bialgebra, then ((A, [, ]_{(f, g)}, \Delta_{(g, f)})), g, g) is a Nijenhuis special left Alia bialgebra.

Definition

Definition 5.1

FNVM

Let (A, \Delta) be a left Alia coalgebra and \omega\in (A\otimes A)^{*} a bilinear from. The equation

\begin{aligned} \omega(x_{(1)}, y)\omega(x_{(2)}, z)+\omega(x, y_{(2)})\omega(y_{(1)}, z)=\omega(x, y_{(1)})\omega(y_{(2)}, z)+\omega(x, z_{(2)})\omega(y, z_{(1)}), \end{aligned}

where x, y, z\in A, is called a co-left Alia Yang-Baxter equation in (A, \Delta).

Used by Theorem 5.2, Proof, Proposition 5.3, Proof, Example 5.8

Theorem

Theorem 5.2

3HSX

Let (A, \Delta) be a left Alia coalgebra and \omega\in( A\otimes A)^{*}. Suppose that \omega is skew-symmetric (in the sense of \omega(x, y)+\omega(y, x)=0) solution of the co-left Alia Yang-Baxter equation in (A, \Delta). Then (A, [, ]_{\omega}, \Delta) is a left Alia bialgebra, where [, ]_{\omega}: A\otimes A\longrightarrow A is given by

\begin{aligned} [x, y]_{\omega}=x_{(2)}\omega(x_{(1)}, y)-x_{(1)}\omega(x_{(2)}, y)-y_{(2)}\omega(x, y_{(1)}), \forall~ x,y\in A. \end{aligned}

This bialgebra is called a dual triangular left Alia bialgebra.

Uses Definition 5.1, Definition 3.2 · Used by Proposition 5.3, Theorem 5.7, Theorem 5.12

Proof of Theorem 5.2

We only check that the symmetric Jacobi identity holds for [, ]_{\omega} as follows, the rest are straightforward. For all x, y, z\in A, we have

\begin{aligned} [x, y]_{\omega}-[x, y]_{\omega} \hspace{-3mm}&=\hspace{-3mm}x_{(2)}\omega(x_{(1)}, y)-x_{(1)}\omega(x_{(2)}, y)-y_{(2)}\omega(x, y_{(1)})-y_{(2)}\omega(y_{(1)}, x)\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}+y_{(1)}\omega(y_{(2)}, x)+x_{(2)}\omega(y, x_{(1)})\\ &=\hspace{-3mm}-x_{(1)}\omega(x_{(2)}, y)+y_{(1)}\omega(y_{(2)}, x). \end{aligned}

\begin{aligned} &&\hspace{-15mm}[[x, y]_{\omega}-[x, y]_{\omega}, z]_{\omega}+[[y, z]_{\omega}-[y, z]_{\omega}, x]_{\omega}+ [[z, x]_{\omega}-[x, z]_{\omega}, y]_{\omega}\\ &=\hspace{-3mm}-\omega(x_{(2)}, y)\omega(x_{(1)(1)}, z)x_{(1)(2)} +\omega(x_{(2)}, y)\omega(x_{(1)(2)}, z)x_{(1)(1)} +\underline{\omega(x_{(2)}, y)\omega(x_{(1)}, z_{(1)})z_{(2)}}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}+\omega(y_{(2)}, x)\omega(y_{(1)(1)}, z)y_{(1)(2)} -\omega(y_{(2)}, x)\omega(y_{(1)(2)}, z)y_{(1)(1)} -\underline{\omega(y_{(2)}, x)\omega(y_{(1)}, z_{(1)})z_{(2)}}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}-\omega(y_{(2)}, z)\omega(y_{(1)(1)}, x)y_{(1)(2)} +\omega(y_{(2)}, z)\omega(y_{(1)(2)}, x)y_{(1)(1)} +\underbrace{\omega(y_{(2)}, z)\omega(y_{(1)}, x_{(1)})x_{(2)}}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}+\omega(z_{(2)}, y)\omega(z_{(1)(1)}, x)z_{(1)(2)}-\omega(z_{(2)}, y)\omega(z_{(1)(2)}, x)z_{(1)(1)} -\underbrace{\omega(z_{(2)}, y)\omega(z_{(1)}, x_{(1)})x_{(2)}}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}-\omega(z_{(2)}, x)\omega(z_{(1)(1)}, y)z_{(1)(2)}+\omega(z_{(2)}, x)\omega(z_{(1)(2)}, y)z_{(1)(1)} +\underleftrightarrow{\omega(z_{(2)}, x)\omega(z_{(1)}, y_{(1)})y_{(2)}}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}+\omega(x_{(2)}, z)\omega(x_{(1)(1)}, y)x_{(1)(2)}-\omega(x_{(2)}, z)\omega(x_{(1)(2)}, y)x_{(1)(1)} -\underleftrightarrow{\omega(x_{(2)}, z)\omega(x_{(1)}, y_{(1)})y_{(2)}}\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:dybq}}{=}&\hspace{-3mm}\underbrace{-\omega(x_{(2)}, y)\omega(x_{(1)(1)}, z)x_{(1)(2)}+\omega(x_{(2)}, y)\omega(x_{(1)(2)}, z)x_{(1)(1)} -\omega(y, x_{(1)(2)})\omega(x_{(1)(1)}, z)x_{(2)}}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}\underleftrightarrow{+\omega(y_{(2)}, x)\omega(y_{(1)(1)}, z)y_{(1)(2)}-\omega(y_{(2)}, x)\omega(y_{(1)(2)}, z)y_{(1)(1)} +\omega(z, y_{(1)(1)})\omega(y_{(1)(2)}, z)y_{(2)}}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}\underleftrightarrow{-\omega(y_{(2)}, z)\omega(y_{(1)(1)}, x)y_{(1)(2)}+\omega(y_{(2)}, z)\omega(y_{(1)(2)}, x)y_{(1)(1)} -\omega(z, y_{(1)(2)})\omega(y_{(1)(1)}, x)y_{(2)}}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}\underline{+\omega(z_{(2)}, y)\omega(z_{(1)(1)}, x)z_{(1)(2)}-\omega(z_{(2)}, y)\omega(z_{(1)(2)}, x)z_{(1)(1)} -\omega(x, z_{(1)(2)})\omega(z_{(1)(1)}, y)z_{(2)}}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}\underline{-\omega(z_{(2)}, x)\omega(z_{(1)(1)}, y)z_{(1)(2)}+\omega(z_{(2)}, x)\omega(z_{(1)(2)}, y)z_{(1)(1)} +\omega(x, z_{(1)(1)})\omega(z_{(1)(2)}, y)z_{(2)}}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}\underbrace{+\omega(x_{(2)}, z)\omega(x_{(1)(1)}, y)x_{(1)(2)}-\omega(x_{(2)}, z)\omega(x_{(1)(2)}, y)x_{(1)(1)} +\omega(y, x_{(1)(1)})\omega(x_{(1)(2)}, z)x_{(2)}}\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:cola}}{=}&0, \end{aligned}

completing the proof.

Uses Definition 5.1

Proposition

Proposition 5.3

BZTK

Let (A, \Delta) be a left Alia coalgebra and \omega\in( A\otimes A)^{*} a bilinear form. Then \omega is a solution of co-left Alia Yang-Baxter equation in (A, \Delta), if and only if

\begin{aligned} \omega(x, [y, z]_{\omega})=-\omega(x_{(1)}, y)\omega(x_{(2)}, z), \end{aligned}

where [, ]_{\omega} is defined by Eq.(5.2).

If further \omega\in( A\otimes A)^{*} is skew-symmetric, then \omega is a solution of co-left Alia Yang-Baxter equation in (A, \Delta), if and only if

\begin{aligned} \omega([x, y]_{\omega}, z)=\omega(x, z_{(1)})\omega(y, z_{(2)}), \end{aligned}

holds, where x, y, z\in A.

Uses Definition 5.1, Theorem 5.2 · Used by Proof

Definition

Definition 5.4

3YV5

[KLY] Let (A, [, ]) be a left Alia algebra and \omega\in (A\otimes A)^{*} a skew-symmetric element. Assume that

\begin{aligned} \omega([y, z]-[z, y], x)=\omega([x, y], z)-\omega([x, z], y),\forall~ x, y, z\in A. \end{aligned}

then we call \omega a symplectic structure on (A, [, ]), and (A, [, ]) a symplectic left Alia algebra denoted by (A, [, ], \omega).

Used by Remark 5.5, Proposition 5.6, Theorem 5.7, Proof, Example 5.8, Example 5.9

Remark

Remark 5.5

M1R4

If r^\# defined by Eq.(?) is bijective, then we call r nondegenerate. By [KLY, Proposition 5.4], we know that r is an antisymmetric nondegenerate solution of the left Alia Yang-Baxter equation in (A, [, ]) if and only if \omega_r is a nondegenerate symplectic structure on (A, [, ]), where \omega_r is defined by

\begin{aligned} \omega_r(x, y):=\langle {r^\#}^{-1}(x), y \rangle. \end{aligned}

Uses Definition 5.4 · Used by Example 5.8

Proposition

Proposition 5.6

HBZP

Let (A, [, ]_{\omega}, \Delta) be a dual triangular left Alia bialgebra. Then (A, [, ]_{\omega}, \omega) is a symplectic left Alia algebra.

Uses Definition 3.2, Definition 5.4 · Used by Proof

Proof of Proposition 5.6

For all x, y, z\in A, we have

\begin{aligned} &&\hspace{-13mm}\omega([y, z]_{\omega}-[z, y]_{\omega}, x)-\omega([x, y]_{\omega}, z)+\omega([x, z]_{\omega}, y)\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:mwr}}{=}&\omega(-y_{(1)}\omega(y_{(2)}, z)+z_{1}\omega(z_{(2)}, y), x)-\omega(y, z_{(2)})\omega(x, z_{(1)})+\omega(z, y_{(2)})\omega(x, y_{(1)})\\ &\stackrel{}{=}&0, \end{aligned}

as desired.

Uses Proposition 5.3

Theorem

Theorem 5.7

KYC3

Let (A, [, ],\omega) be a symplectic left Alia algebra and r\in A\otimes A. If (A, [, ], \Delta_{r}) is a triangular left Alia bialgebra together with the comultiplication \Delta_{r} given by Eq.(3.2), and further (A, [, ]_{\omega}, \Delta_{r}) is a dual triangular left Alia bialgebra together with the multiplication [, ]_{\omega} given by Eq.(5.2), then ((A, [, ]), N) is a Nijenhuis left Alia algebra, where N:A\longrightarrow A is given by

N(x):=\sum_{i}\omega(x, a_{i})b_{i}, \forall~ x\in A.

Uses Definition 3.2, Theorem 5.2, Definition 5.4, Definition 2.6 · Used by Example 5.8, Example 5.9, Proof

Proof of Theorem 5.7

For all x, y, z\in A, by Eqs.(3.2) and (5.1), we have

\begin{aligned} 0 \hspace{-3mm}&=\hspace{-3mm}\omega(x_{(1)}, y)\omega(x_{(2)}, z)+\omega(x, y_{(2)})\omega(y_{(1)}, z)-\omega(x, y_{(1)})\omega(y_{(2)}, z)-\omega(x, z_{(2)})\omega(y, z_{(1)})\\ &=\hspace{-3mm}\sum_{i}\Big(\underbrace{\omega([a_{i}, x], y)\omega(b_{i}, z)-\omega([x, a_{i}], y)\omega(b_{i}, z)} -\omega(a_{i}, y)\omega([b_{i}, x], z)\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}\underbrace{+\omega(x, b_{i})\omega([a_{i}, y], z)-\omega(x, b_{i})\omega([y, a_{i}], z)} -\omega(x, [b_{i}, y])\omega(a_{i}, z)\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}-\omega(x, [a_{i}, y])\omega(b_{i}, z)+\omega(x, [y, a_{i}])\omega(b_{i}, z) +\omega(x, a_{i})\omega([b_{i}, y], z)\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}-\omega(x, b_{i})\omega(y, [a_{i}, z])+\omega(x, b_{i})\omega(y, [z, a_{i}]) +\omega(x, [b_{i}, z])\omega(y, a_{i})\Big)\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:symplectic}}{=}&\hspace{-3mm}\sum_{i}\Big(\underbrace{\omega([y, a_{i}], x)\omega(b_{i}, z)} -\omega([y, x], a_{i})\omega(b_{i}, z)-\omega(a_{i}, y)\omega([b_{i}, x], z)\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}\underbrace{+\omega(x, b_{i})\omega([z, a_{i}], y)}-\omega(x, b_{i})\omega([z, y], a_{i}) -\omega(x, [b_{i}, y])\omega(a_{i}, z)\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}-\omega(x, [a_{i}, y])\omega(b_{i}, z)+\underbrace{\omega(x, [y, a_{i}])\omega(b_{i}, z)} +\omega(x, a_{i})\omega([b_{i}, y], z)\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}-\omega(x, b_{i})\omega(y, [a_{i}, z])+\underbrace{\omega(x, b_{i})\omega(y, [z, a_{i}])} +\omega(x, [b_{i}, z])\omega(y, a_{i})\Big)\\ &=\hspace{-3mm}\sum_{i}\Big(-\omega([y, x], a_{i})\omega(b_{i}, z)-\omega(a_{i}, y)\omega([b_{i}, x], z) -\omega(x, b_{i})\omega([z, y], a_{i})-\omega(x, [b_{i}, y])\omega(a_{i}, z)\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}-\omega(x, [a_{i}, y])\omega(b_{i}, z)+\underbrace{\omega(x, a_{i})\omega([b_{i}, y], z)} -\omega(x, b_{i})\omega(y, [a_{i}, z])+\omega(x, [b_{i}, z])\omega(y, a_{i})\Big)\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:dybq}}{=}&\hspace{-3mm}\sum_{i}\Big(-\omega([y, x], a_{i})\omega(b_{i}, z) -\omega(a_{i}, y)\omega([b_{i}, x], z)-\omega(x, b_{i})\omega([z, y], a_{i}) -\omega(x, [b_{i}, y])\omega(a_{i}, z)\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}-\omega(x, [a_{i}, y])\omega(b_{i}, z)+\underbrace{\omega(x, a_{i})\omega([y, b_{i}], z) +\omega(x, a_{i})\omega([z, b_{i}], y)-\omega(x, a_{i})\omega([z, y], b_{i})}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}-(x, b_{i})\omega(y, [a_{i}, z])+\omega(x, [b_{i}, z])\omega(y, a_{i})\Big)\\ &=\hspace{-3mm}\sum_{i}\Big(-\omega([y, x], a_{i})\omega(b_{i}, z)-\omega(a_{i}, y)\omega([b_{i}, x], z) -\underbrace{\omega(x, b_{i})\omega([z, y], a_{i})-\omega(x, [b_{i}, y])\omega(a_{i}, z)}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}\underbrace{-\omega(x, [a_{i}, y])\omega(b_{i}, z)}+\omega(x, a_{i})\omega([y, b_{i}], z) +\omega(x, a_{i})\omega([z, b_{i}], y)\underbrace{-\omega(x, a_{i})\omega([z, y], b_{i})}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}-(x, b_{i})\omega(y, [a_{i}, z])+\omega(x, [b_{i}, z])\omega(y, a_{i})\Big)\\ &=\hspace{-3mm}\sum_{i}\Big(-\omega([y, x], a_{i})\omega(b_{i}, z)-\omega(a_{i}, y)\omega([b_{i}, x], z) +\omega(x, a_{i})\omega([y, b_{i}], z)+\omega(x, a_{i})\omega([z, b_{i}], y)\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}-\omega(x, b_{i})\omega(y, [a_{i}, z])+\omega(x, [b_{i}, z])\omega(y, a_{i})\Big)\\ &=\hspace{-3mm}\sum_{i}\Big(-\omega([y, x], a_{i})\omega(b_{i}, z)+\omega([b_{i}, x],z)\omega(y, a_{i}) +\omega([y, b_{i}],z)\omega(x, a_{i})-\omega(y, [z, b_{i}])\omega(x, a_{i})\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}+\omega(y, [b_{i}, z])\omega(x, a_{i})-\omega(y, b_{i})\omega(x, [a_{i}, z])\Big). \end{aligned}

Thus

\begin{aligned} &&\sum_{i}\Big(-\omega([y, x], a_{i})\omega(b_{i}, z)+\omega([b_{i}, x], z)\omega(y, a_{i}) +\omega([y, b_{i}], z)\omega(x, a_{i})\\ &&\qquad-\omega(y, [z, b_{i}])\omega(x, a_{i})+\omega(y, [b_{i}, z])\omega(x, a_{i})-\omega(y, b_{i})\omega(x, [a_{i}, z])\Big)=0. \end{aligned}

Now we check that N is a Nijenhuis operator on (A, [, ]).

\begin{aligned} &&\hspace{-12mm}[N(x), N(y)]+N^{2}([x, y])-N([N(x), y])-N([x, N(y)])\\ &=\hspace{-3mm}\sum_{i,j}\Big(\omega(x, a_{i})\omega(y, a_{j})[b_{i}, b_{j}]+\omega([x, y], a_{i})\omega(b_{i}, a_{j})b_{j} -\omega(x, a_{i})\omega([b_{i}, y], a_{j})b_{j}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}-\omega([x, b_{i}], a_{j})\omega(y, a_{i})b_{j}\Big)\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:ac1-1}}{=}&\hspace{-3mm}\sum_{i,j}\Big(\omega(x, a_{i})\omega(y, a_{j})[b_{i}, b_{j}]+\omega([x, y], a_{i})\omega(b_{i}, a_{j})b_{j} -\omega(x, a_{i})\omega([b_{i}, y], a_{j})b_{j}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}-\omega([x, b_{i}], a_{j})\omega(y, a_{i})b_{j}-\omega([x, y], a_{i})\omega(b_{i}, a_{j})b_{j} +\omega(x, a_{i})\omega([b_{i}, y], a_{j})b_{j}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}+\omega([x, b_{i}], a_{j})\omega(y, a_{i})b_{j}-\omega(x, [a_{j}, b_{i}])\omega(y, a_{i})b_{j} +\omega(x, [b_{i}, a_{j}])\omega(y, a_{i})b_{j}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}-\omega(x, b_{i})\omega(y, [a_{i}, a_{j}])b_{j}\Big)\\ &=\hspace{-3mm}\sum_{i,j}\Big(\omega(x, a_{i})\omega(y, a_{j})[b_{i}, b_{j}]-\omega(x, [a_{j}, b_{i}])\omega(y, a_{i})b_{j}+\omega(x, [b_{i}, a_{j}])\omega(y, a_{i})b_{j}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}-\omega(x, b_{i})\omega(y, [a_{i}, a_{j}])b_{j}\Big)\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:ybq}}{=}&0, \end{aligned}

finishing the proof.

Uses Definition 3.2, Definition 5.1, Definition 5.4, Definition 3.1

Example

Example 5.8

VQJY

Let (A, [, ], \Delta_{r}) be a triangular left Alia bialgebra with r nondegenerate, that is, r is an antisymmetric nondegenerate solution of the left Alia Yang-Baxter equation in (A, [, ]), then by Remark 5.5, (A, [,], \omega_r) is a symplectic left Alia algebra, where \omega_r given in Eq.(5.5). Next we check that (A, [, ]_{\omega_r}, \Delta_{r}) is a dual triangular left Alia bialgebra, that is, \omega_r is a skew-symmetric solution of the co-left Alia Yang-Baxter equation in (A, \Delta_{r}). In fact, for all x, y, z\in A, we have

\begin{aligned} &&\hspace{-11mm} \omega_{r}(x_{(1)}, y)\omega_{r}(x_{(2)}, z)+\omega_{r}(x, y_{(2)})\omega_{r}(y_{(1)}, z)-\omega_{r}(x, y_{(1)})\omega_{r}(y_{(2)}, z)-\omega_{r}(x, z_{(2)})\omega_{r}(y, z_{(1)})\\ &=\hspace{-3mm}\sum_{i}\Big(\underbrace{\omega([a_{i}, x], y)\omega(b_{i}, z)-\omega([x, a_{i}], y)\omega(b_{i}, z)} -\omega(a_{i}, y)\omega([b_{i}, x], z)\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}\underbrace{+\omega(x, b_{i})\omega([a_{i}, y], z)-\omega(x, b_{i})\omega([y, a_{i}], z)} -\omega(x, [b_{i}, y])\omega(a_{i}, z)\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}-\omega(x, [a_{i}, y])\omega(b_{i}, z)+\omega(x, [y, a_{i}])\omega(b_{i}, z) +\omega(x, a_{i})\omega([b_{i}, y], z)\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}-\omega(x, b_{i})\omega(y, [a_{i}, z])+\omega(x, b_{i})\omega(y, [z, a_{i}]) +\omega(x, [b_{i}, z])\omega(y, a_{i})\Big)\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:symplectic}}{=}&\hspace{-3mm}\sum_{i}\Big(\underbrace{\omega([y, a_{i}], x)\omega(b_{i}, z)}-\omega([y, x], a_{i})\omega(b_{i}, z)-\omega(a_{i}, y)\omega([b_{i}, x], z)\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}\underbrace{+\omega(x, b_{i})\omega([z, a_{i}], y)}-\omega(x, b_{i})\omega([z, y], a_{i}) \underbrace{-\omega(x, [b_{i}, y])\omega(a_{i}, z)}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}\underbrace{-\omega(x, [a_{i}, y])\omega(b_{i}, z)}+\underbrace{\omega(x, [y, a_{i}])\omega(b_{i}, z)} +\omega(x, a_{i})\omega([b_{i}, y], z)\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}-\omega(x, b_{i})\omega(y, [a_{i}, z])+\underbrace{\omega(x, b_{i})\omega(y, [z, a_{i}])} +\omega(x, [b_{i}, z])\omega(y, a_{i})\Big)\\ &=\hspace{-3mm}\sum_{i}\Big(\underbrace{-\omega_{r}(a_{i}, y)\omega_{r}([b_{i}, x], z)+\omega_{r}(x, [b_{i}, z])\omega_{r}(y, a_{i})} \underbrace{+\omega_{r}(x, a_{i})\omega_{r}([b_{i}, y], z)-\omega_{r}(x, b_{i})\omega_{r}(y, [a_{i}, z])}\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}-\omega_{r}([y, x], a_{i})\omega_{r}(b_{i}, z)-\omega_{r}(x, b_{i})\omega_{r}([z, y], a_{i})\Big)\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:symplectic}}{=}&\hspace{-3mm}\sum_{i}\Big(\omega_{r}(a_{i}, y)\omega_{r}([z, x]-[x, z], b_{i})+\omega_{r}(a_{i}, x)\omega_{r}([z, y]-[y, z], b_{i})\\ &&\hspace{-3mm}+\omega_{r}([y, x], b_{i})\omega_{r}(a_{i}, z)-\omega_{r}(a_{i}, x)\omega_{r}([z, y], b_{i})\Big)\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:symplectic}}{=}&\hspace{-3mm}\sum_{i}\Big(\omega_{r}(a_{i}, y)\omega_{r}([z, x]-[x, z], b_{i})-\omega_{r}(a_{i}, x)\omega_{r}([y, z], b_{i})+\omega_{r}([y, x], b_{i})\omega_{r}(a_{i}, z)\Big)\\ &=\hspace{-3mm}\sum_{i}\Big(-\omega_{r}([z, x]-[x, z], y)+\omega_{r}([y, z], x)-\omega_{r}([y, x], z)\Big)\\ &\stackrel{\eqref{eq:symplectic}}{=}&0. \end{aligned}

Then by Theorem 5.7, the Nijenhuis operator N on (A, [,]) is

\begin{aligned} &N(x)=\sum\limits_{i} \omega_r(x, a_i)b_i= \sum\limits_{i}\langle {r^\#}^{-1}(x), a_i \rangle b_i= r^\#({r^\#}^{-1}(x))=x.& \end{aligned}

That is to say, in this case, N=\id_{A}.

Uses Remark 5.5, Definition 3.2, Definition 5.4, Definition 5.1, Theorem 5.7

Example

Example 5.9

B9JD

Let (A, [, ]) be a 4-dimensional left Alia algebra with basis \{e_{1}, e_{2}, e_{3}, e_{4}\} and the product [, ] given by the following table

The paper has a table here, which this page does not show.

Set r=e_{2}\otimes e_{3}-e_{3}\otimes e_{2}, then (A, [, ], \Delta_{r}) is a triangular left Alia bialgebra, where \Delta_{r} is given by:

\begin{cases} \Delta_{r}(e_{1})=-e_{1}\otimes e_{2}-e_{2}\otimes e_{1}\\ \Delta_{r}(e_{2})=0\\ \Delta_{r}(e_{3})=0\\ \Delta_{r}(e_{4})=0\\ \end{cases}.

Set

The paper has a table here, which this page does not show.

(\lambda is a parameter).

Then (A, [, ], \omega) is a symplectic left Alia algebra, and (A, [, ]_{\omega}, \Delta_{r}) is a dual triangular left Alia bialgebra. Then by Theorem 5.7, let

\begin{cases} N(e_{1})=0\\ N(e_{2})=0\\ N(e_{3})=0\\ N(e_{4})=-\lambda e_{3}\\ \end{cases},

then ((A, [, ]), N) is a Nijenhuis left Alia algebra.

Uses Definition 3.2, Theorem 5.7, Definition 5.4, Definition 2.6

Definition

Definition 5.10

PLHR

Let (A, \Delta) be a left Alia coalgebra and r \in A\otimes A an antisymmetric element. Assume that

\begin{aligned} \sum_i (a_{i(1)}\otimes a_{i(2)}\otimes b_{i}-a_{i(2)}\otimes a_{i(1)}\otimes b_{i}-a_{i(2)}\otimes b_{i}\otimes a_{i(1)}+b_{i}\otimes a_{i(2)}\otimes a_{i(1)})=0. \end{aligned}

Then, (A, \Delta) is called a cosymplectic left Alia coalgebra denoted by (A, \Delta, r).

Used by Proposition 5.11, Theorem 5.12

Proposition

Proposition 5.11

ZD4C

Let (A, [, ]) be a left Alia algebra and r \in A\otimes A antisymmetric. If (A, [, ], \Delta_{r}) is a triangular left Alia bialgebra, where \Delta_{r} is defined by Eq.\eqref{eq:comuti}, then (A, \Delta_{r}, r) is a cosymplectic left Alia coalgebra.

Uses Definition 3.2, Definition 5.10

Proof of Proposition 5.11

Dual to Proposition \ref{pro:ab}.

Uses Proposition 5.6

Theorem

Theorem 5.12

YVUT

Let (A, \Delta, r) be a cosymplectic left Alia coalgebra and \omega\in (A\otimes A)^{*}. If (A, [, ]_{\omega}, \Delta) is a dual triangular left Alia bialgebra together with the multiplication [, ]_{\omega} given in Eq.(5.2), and further (A, [, ]_{\omega}, \Delta_{r}) is a triangular left Alia bialgebra together with the comultiplication \Delta_{r} given by Eq.(3.2), then ((A, \Delta), S) is a Nijenhuis left Alia coalgebra, where S:A\longrightarrow A is given by

S(x):=\sum_{i}a_{i}\omega(b_{i}, x), \forall~ x\in A.

Uses Theorem 5.2, Definition 3.2, Definition 5.10, Definition 2.20 · Used by Question 5.13

Proof of Theorem 5.12

Dual to Theorem 5.7.

Uses Theorem 5.7

Question

Question 5.13

XSSS

Theorem 5.7 provides us a method to construct Nijenhuis left Alia algebras, and dually Nijenhuis left Alia coalgebras can be obtained by Theorem 5.12. Then under what conditions a Nijenhuis left Alia algebra ((A, [,]), N) given in Theorem 5.7 and a Nijenhuis left Alia coalgebra ((A, \Delta), S) given in Theorem 5.12 can produce a Nijenhuis left Alia bialgebra ((A, [,], \Delta), N, S) given in Definition 2.21?

Uses Theorem 5.12, Definition 2.6, Definition 2.20, Definition 2.21

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2506.07061v1 by Tianshui Ma, Chan Zhao and Huihui Zheng, under the licence CC BY 4.0. 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/2506/2506.07061.jsonl.