arxiv:math-ph/ v1 10 Aug 2001

Transcription

1 Some Noncommutative Geometric Aspects of SU q (2). by Debashish Goswami 1 arxiv:math-ph/ v1 10 Aug 2001 Abstract We study the 3D-calculus on SU q (2) (c.f. [W1]) from the point of view of noncommutative Riemannian geometry as formulated in [F1]. In particular, we show how we can obtain the Haar state from the Laplacian on SU q (2) using a formula very similar to what is used in [F1] but with an appropriate modification. Furthermore, we recast the 3D-calculus along the line of [F1], showing that the complex of forms as defined by Woronowicz in [W1] is isomorphic with the complex obtained from the standard construction of noncommutative Riemannian geometry as in [F1]. Our calculations lead us to conjecture how a generalization of the existing formulation of noncommutative Riemannian geometry may be done in order to accommodate a large class of quantum groups. 1 Introduction Noncommutative geometry (introduced by A. Connes [C1], [C2]) and the theory of quantum groups (introduced and studied by Drinfeld [D], Jimbo [J], Woronowicz [W1] and others) are two important and rapidly growing areas of the so-called noncommutative mathematics, both having close interactions with and applications to diverse branches of mathematics and mathematical physics (e.g. quantum gravity). Since almost all the popular and well-known examples of quantum groups are in some sense deformed or twisted versions of some classical Lie groups, which are also differentiable manifolds and play a central role in classical differential geometry, it is quite natural to investigate the relation between Connes noncommutative geometry and the theory of quantum groups. Such a connection was made by Woronowicz himself in his pioneering paper ([W1]), where he formulated and studied the notions of differential forms and de-rham cohomology in the context of SU q (2). Since then, many authors including Woronowicz, Podles and others 1 Inst. Für Angew. Math.,Univ. of Bonn, Wegelerstr. 6, Bonn-53115, Germany goswamid@wiener.iam.uni-bonn.de 1

2 have studied such questions quite extensively and a rich theory of covariant (and bicovariant) differential calculus has emerged. However, a number of questions in the interface of noncommutative geometry and quantum groups still remains open. Some of the operator-theoretic constructions which are canonical in Connes theory cannot be carried through in the context of even the simplest quantum groups like SU q (2) due to rather strange properties of some operators. In this letter we would like to touch upon some of these unsolved questions. We shall not, however, attempt at a general solution, but rather concentrate on SU q (2). Nevertheless, the calculation made by us for this particular example will hopefully serve as a guideline for an appropriate generalization of Connes framework which will accommodate a large class of quantum groups into it. We shall briefly propose in the end what such a generalization should be. 2 Main results 2.1 Preliminaries To illustrate the problems that we would like to address, let us first briefly recall the basic framework of noncommutative geometry due to Connes and its variants proposed by Fröhlich et al ([F1]). In fact, we shall be concerned with the formulation of noncommutative Riemannian geometry as in [F1], without taking into account any spin structure. In the language of [F1] a compact noncommutative Riemannian manifold is prescribed by the so-called (1,1) type spectral data, consisting of a separable Hilbert space H, a -algebra A B(H) (which is not assumed to be norm-complete, and usually taken to be closed under holomorphic functional calculus) and a densely defined closed operator d ( Hodge differential operator ) on H, such that d 2 = 0, [d, a] B(H) a A, and the Hodge Laplacian := d d + dd has the property that T r(exp( t )) is finite for t > 0. Furthermore, there are some assumptions regarding a Z 2 -grading of H and also a Hodge star operator, which can be found in detail in [F1] and will not be discussed here. The Tr(αexp( t )) functional B(H) α Lim t 0+ ( ) is used to define a noncommutative analogue of integration of forms, where Lim denotes a kind of Tr(exp( t )) Banach limit discussed in [F1]. Moreover, if Lim t 0+ t d0/2 Tr(αexp( t )) is finite and nonzero for some positive number d 0, one says that the underlying 2

3 noncommutative manifold is d 0 -dimensional. Before we enter into the discussion on SU q (2), let us discuss little bit about classcical compact Lie groups. Let G be a compact d 0 -dimensional Lie group, equipped with an invariant Riemannian metric, and h be the Hilbert space L 2 (G, µ), where µ is the normalized Haar measure. If we consider h as canonically embedded in the Hilbert space of differential forms, and if C denotes the restriction of the Hodge Laplacian onto h, then Lim t 0+ t d0/2 Tr(exp( tc)) exists and is nonzero, and furthermore, T r(f exp( tc)) = v(f)t r(exp( tc)) for any continuous function f on G, viewed as a multiplication operator on h, and where v(f) = fdµ. However, as we shall shortly see, such classical intuition is no longer valid for quantum groups, but we can recover some aspects of it by introducing an appropriate modified formulation of noncommutative Riemannian geometry. Let us now describe the compact quantum groups SU q (2). Let A be the C -algebra associated with the quantum group SU q (2) as defined in [W1] (q positive number), i.e. the universal unital C -algebra generated by α, γ, α, γ satisfying α α + γ γ = 1, αα + q 2 γ γ = 1, γ γ = γγ, αγ = qγα, αγ = qγ α. We shall take q to be greater than 1, but remark that all our results will be valid (with the only exception of the Lemma 2.4, in which p should be replaced by the projection onto the closed subspace spanned by { t n ij, n i < 0})also when q < 1, which can be seen by obvious modifications at a few steps of the proofs of some of the results. Let A denote the -algebraic span of α, γ. Let Φ, κ and ǫ denote the coproduct, antipode and counit respectively, as defined in [W1]. We recall the construction of the normalized Haar state ψ on A, and let h be the L 2 space associated with this state. As usual, we denote by t n ij, i, j, = n,...n; n = 0, 1, 1, 3, the matrix elements of the unitary irreducible co-representations, so that span{t n ij, (tn ij ) n, i, j} = A, and Φ(t n ij ) = k t n ik tn kj, κ(tn ij ) = (tn ji ). To avoid any confusion, we choose the following explicit definition of these matrix elements. Let x nj = α n+j (γ ) n j, n = 0, 1, 1,...; j = n,..., n, and let 2 x y nj = nj. Then we define t n ij by the relation Φ(y nj) = i y ni t n ij. ψ(x nj x nj) 1 2 It is easy to verify that < t m ij, tn kl >:= ψ((t m ij ) t n kl ) = δ ikδ jl δ mn [2n + 1] 1 q q2i, where δ rs is the Kronecker delta symbol and [r] q := qr q r. Furthermore, q q 1 ψ(t m ij (tn kl ) ) = δ ik δ jl δ mn [2n + 1] 1 q q 2j. We consider the orthonormal basis of h given by { t n kl := tn kl [2n + 1]1 2 q q k }. 3

4 2.2 The Haar state and the Laplacian on SU q (2) Let us recall that in [Po], [BK] and elsewhere, effort has been made to define Laplacian on SU q (2) and its associated spheres. It turns out that upto constant multiples, there are two possible candidates of the Laplacian. One of them is the so-called Casimir (to be denoted by C q )(which is in some sense more natural and more fundamental, as observed in [Po]), which is an unbounded positive operator having A h contained in its domain and is given by (upto a scalar multiple which is unimportant for us and hence is ignored), C q ( t n ij) = (q 2n+1 + q 2n 1 ) t n ij. The other candidate, to be denoted by L q, is again a positive operator having the same set of eigenvectors t n ij as above, but with the corresponding eigenvalues being [n] q 2[n + 1] q 2 (c.f. [BK]). Let us first consider C q. Clearly, exp( tc q ) is trace-class, but the sequence of eigenvalues of C q is growing too fast, so that t d Tr(exp( tc q )) 0 as t 0+ for any d > 0. Similar thing happens for L q. This is quite contrary to the classical situation, and also to the noncomutative models like the noncommutative torus. This means that if one had to consider SU q (2) as a noncommutative space in the sense of Connes or Fröhlich et al., then the volume form would become identically zero! To overcome this problem, we are going to propose a modified version of the noncommutative formulation. First of all, we prove the following fundamental result : Theorem 2.1 Let B be any bounded operator on h such that Bt n ij = λ n t n ij n, i, j, and let ρ denote the operator on h given by ρ( t n ij) = q 2i 2j t n ij. Assume that ρb is trace-class (i.e. it has a bounded extension which is trace-class), and define a functional φ on A by φ(a) = Tr(aρB). then we have that φ(a) = ψ(a)φ(1). Proof :- We first recall the results obtained by Baaj and Skandalis ([BS]), from which it follows that there is a unitary operator W acting on h h, such that Φ(a) = W(a I h )W. Furthermore, it can also be verified that W (c 1) = (id κ)φ(c) for any c A, viewed as an element of h. Thus, in particular, 4

5 W (t n ij 1) = k t n ik (tn jk ). Now, using the notation of [W1], we denote by φ ψ the functional a (φ ψ)(φ(a)). It follows from the definition of the Haar state that (φ ψ)(a) = ψ(a)φ(1). But on the other hand, (φ ψ)(a) = n,i,j < t n ij 1, W(a 1)W ((ρbt n ij) 1) >= n,i,j,k,l[2n+1] q q 2i < t n ik (tn jk ), q 2i 2j λ n (at n il ) (tn jl ) >= n,i,j,k < t n ik, a t n ik > q 2i 2j 2k λ n [2n + 1] 1 q = n,i,k < t n ik, aρb( t n ik ) > ([2n + 1] 1 q j q 2j ) = Tr(aρB) = φ(a). Here we have used the facts that < (t n jk), (t n jl) >= δ kl q 2k [2n + 1] 1 q, and j= n, n+1,...,n q 2j = [2n + 1] q. Using the above theorem, it is now easy to prove the following result. Theorem 2.2 (1.) Tr(ρexp( tc q )) = O(t 2 ), and Lim t 0+ t 2 Tr(ρexp( tc q )) is nonzero. (2.) Tr(ρexp( tl q )) = O(t 1 ), and Lim t 0+ ttr(ρexp( tl q )) is nonzero. (3.) ψ(a) = Tr(aρexp( tcq)) Tr(ρexp( tc q)) = Tr(aρexp( tlq)) Tr(ρexp( tl q)) for all t > 0. Proof :- We only outline the proof of (1), since the proof of (2) is very similar, and (3) follows immediately from the previous theorem. We have, Tr(ρexp( tc q )) = i,j= n,...n,n=0, 1 2,... q 2i 2j exp( t(q 2n+1 +q 2n 1 )) = n=0, 1 2,...[2n+1]2 q exp( t(q2n+1 + q 2n 1 )) = m=1,2,3,...[m] 2 +q m) q. Since q > 1, e e t(qm t(qx +q x) is an decreasing function of x on the positive real line, whereas [x] 2 q = (q2x +q 2x 2)(q q 1 ) 2 is increasing. Hence we can estimate Tr(ρe tcq ) by, 1 [x 1] 2 q e t(qx +q x) dx < Tr(ρe tcq ) < 0 [x + 1] 2 q e t(qx +q x) dx. Clearly, the first and third terms in the above inequality are O(t 2 ), hence so is the middle term. Furthermore, by a straightforward evaluation of the integral in the left it is easy to see that t 2.LHS converges to a nonzero limit as t 0+ (the limit is in fact q 2 (q q 1 ) 2 (log(q)) 1 ). This completes the proof. Remark 2.3 Although in above we have been able to obtain the Haar state by a formula very similar to the classical case, the concept of dimension remains somewhat unclear in the following sense. From (1) and (2), the dimension of this noncommutative space should be taken to be either 4 or 2, depending on our choice of C q or L q as the Laplacian respectively, whereas classical SU(2) is a 3-dimensional manifold. 5

6 Let us now study the operator ρ more carefully. It is easy to see that ρ can be written as ρ = K(ΓKΓ), where K, Γ are given by, Kt n ij = q 2j t n ij, Γt n ij == t n ji. Clearly, Γ is a reflection, i.e. Γ = Γ = Γ 1, and K, Γ (hence ρ too) commute with C q and L q. The operator K has a special significance in context of the 3D-calculus described in [W1]. Let us recall the notation of [W1]. There are three operators k, k = 0, 1, 2, defined on A, which play the role of the directional derivatives. These operators satisfy the twisted derivation property of the form k (ab) = a k (b)+ k (a) f k (b) for a, b A, where f k = K for k = 0, 2 and f 1 = K The complex of forms The construction of the space of second order forms in [W1] was termed as somewhat ad-hoc by the author himself ([W2]). Indeed, even though this calculus is simpler and closer to the classical intuition than the bicovariant 4D + -calculi constructed as a part of Woronowicz general theory of bicovariant calculus ([W2]), the 3D-calculus is only covariant and not bicovariant, hence the general theory in [W2] does not help us to understand the construction of higher order forms. We shall show in this subsection that the complex of forms of the 3D-calculus can be obtained from the canonical and standard construction along the line of noncommutative Riemannian geometry in the sense of [F1], with a subtle modification. Before we proceed further, we need a technical lemma. Lemma 2.4 Let H be a separable Hilbert space,, f, r be three positive (possibly unbounded) operators on H, D be a dense subspace of H, P be a projection onto some closed subspace of H and B be a unital -subalgebra (not assumed to be norm-complete) of B(H) such that the followings hold : (i) f is invertible (with the inverse being possibly unbounded). (ii)f, P and r commute with e t for all t > 0; P commutes with f. (iii) D is a common invariant core for the operators r, f k (k Z), B(D) D, P(D) D, e t (D) D. (iv) For every k Z and b B, f k bf k has a bounded extension belonging to B. (v) re t is trace-class and there is a positive number d 0 such that Tr(re t ) = O(t d 0 ) as t 0+. Furthermore, Lim t 0+ t d 0 Tr((1 P)re t ) = 0. (vi) f 1 P has a bounded extension satisfying Lim t 0+ t d 0 Tr(f 1 Pre t ) = 0. 6

7 (vii) Let η be the positive functional on B(H) defined by η(x) = Lim t 0+ t d 0 Tr(xre t ). Then the restriction of η on B is faithful, i.e. η(b b) = 0, b B implies that b = 0. Under the above assumptions, n k= m a k f k = 0 on D (where m, n are positive integers and a k B) if and only if a k = 0 k = m,...n. Proof :- First of all, we note that η(x) = η(xp) for all x B(H). By positivity of η (which is indeed a trivial consequence of the fact that r is positive and commutes with e t ), we have that η(x (1 P)) η(x x)η((1 P)) (as (1 P) (1 P) = (1 P)). Since η(1 P) = 0 by assumption of the lemma, it follows that η(x ) = η(x P). Similarly, since it is clear that η(xy) = 0 whenever y is positive with η(y) = 0, we conclude that for any n 1, η(xf n P) = η(x(f 1 P) n 1 f 1 P) = 0, as f 1 P = Pf 1 P is positive. Now, using the assumptions (iii),(iv), the condition n k= m a k f k = 0 can be reduced to n k,l= m b k,l f k+l = 0 on D, where b k,l = f k a ka l f k B. Multiplying the above by f 2n, we get that b n,n = b k,l f k+l 2n. Each term on the right hand side of the last equality is of the form cf j for some j > 0 and c B. From this we conclude that η(b n,n ) = η(b n,n P) = 0. By the assumption (vii), b n,n = 0, i.e. a n = 0. Thus we are left with n 1 k= m a kf k = 0, and proceeding similarly we complete the proof of the claim a k = 0 k. We shall now recast the 3D-calculus of Woronowicz ([W1]) in a language similar to [F1]. Let us recall that the space of forms Γ. (A ), defined in [W1], is of the form k 0 Γ k, where Γ 0 = A, Γ 1 = A C{w 0, w 1, w 2 }, Γ 2 = A C{w 01, w 12, w 20 }, Γ 3 = A = A C{w 012 }, Γ k = {0} k 4, where w 0, w 1, w 2 are as in [W1] and w kl = w k w l, w klm = w k w l w m (all notation as in [W1]). We fix any complex number w 1 of unit modulus and identify trivially A with A C{w 1 }. We now make Γ. (A ) into a pre Hilbert space by equipping A with the inner product coming from the Haar state, and letting w 1, w 0, w 1, w 2, w 01, w 12, w 20, w 012 orthonormal vectors. We denote the completion of this space by H, which is clearly of the form H h W h (C C 3 C 3 C) h 0 h 1 h 2 h 3 (where h is the L 2 space associated with the Haar state and W is C 8 identified with C{w 1,...w 2, w 01,..., w 012 }). With respect to the above tensor product decomposition of H of the form H = h W, we set the following operators : = C q I, f = K 1 2 I, r = ρ I, P = p I, 7

8 where p denotes the orthogonal projection operator onto the closed subspace of h generated by { t n ij, n = 0, 1, 1,..., n j < 0, n i n}. We also take 2 d 0 = 2, B = A alg (C M 3 (C) M 3 (C) C) and D = A alg (C C 3 C 3 C). Then we have the following : Lemma 2.5 With the above choices of, f, r, P, B, D, the assumptions (i) to (vii) of the Lemma 2.4 (and hence the conclusion) are satisfied. the proof of this proposition is a straightforward verification of all the conditions, and hence is omitted. For proving (vii), we need to recall that the Haar state on A is faithful. Let d denote the exterior differentiation operator defined in [W1]. We view d as an unbounded map on H, with the obvious domain, and it is easy to verify that it is a densely defined and closable (closability follows by constructing the adjoint on a dense domain explicitly), and let us denote the closure of d by the same symbol. Let us now denote by B k (for k Z) the linear space of operators on H which have D in the domain and on this domain are of the form af k, a B. by the results proven earlier, the linear span of B k s, say B, is the algebraic direct sum of its constituents, i.e. B = k B k. We identify A with the subalgebra (a I W ), a A of B(H), and simply denote by a both the operator on h and its trivial ampliation acting on H. It is easy to observe that B is an Z + -graded -algebra w.r.t. to the usual multiplication and adjoint defined for operators on H, and the grading corresponds to the direct sum decomposition derived earlier. To see this, it is enough to note that for a, b B, af k bf l has D in the domain and on this domain the action is same as a(f k bf k )f k+l, and f k bf k is bounded and in B, which shows that B k.b l B k+l. In particular, since A is a subalgebra of B, we can view B as an A -A module in the obvious way. We shall need this bimodule structrure later on. Lemma 2.6 For a A, [d, a] B 2 B 4 B, and on D we have, 2 [d, a] = k (a)f k A k, k=0 where f 0 = f 2 = f 2, f 1 = f 4 and A k s satisfy the relations A 2 k = 0 k, A 0 A 1 = q 4 A 1 A 0, A 1 A 2 = q 4 A 2 A 1, A 2 A 0 = q 2 A 0 A 2. 8

9 Proof :- We set A 0, A 1 A 2 on the 8-dimensional space W as follows : A k (w 1 ) = w k for k = 0, 1, 2, A 0 (w 1 ) = w 01, A 0 (w 2 ) = q 2 w 20, A 0 (w 12 ) = w 012, A 1 (w 0 ) = q 4 w 01, A 1 (w 2 ) = w 12, A 1 (w 20 ) = q 6 w 012, A 2 (w 0 ) = w 20, A 2 (w 1 ) = q 4 w 12, A 2 (w 01 ) = q 6 w 012, and A k (w i ), A k (w ij ) are 0 for the values of k, i, j other than those considered above, A k (w 012 ) = 0 k. With this choice of A 0, A 1, A 2, the commutation relations involving A k s follow immediately. The form of [d, a] as given in the statement of the lemma follows from the results obtained in [W1] in a straightforward way. Let us now perform the canonical construction of noncommutative Riemannian geometry as suggested in [F1]. Let Ω. = k 0 Ω k be the space of universal differential forms on A, where δ is the universal derivation (c.f. e.g. [F1]). The space Ω k is spanned by {a 0 δ(a 1 )...δ ( a k ), a 0,...a k A }. As usual, we construct a representation π of Ω. into B by setting π(a) = a and π(δ(a)) = [d, a] and then extending in the canonical manner. Let J J k, where J k = Kerπ Ω k. Clearly d(j k ) J k+1, and we define Ω k d := Ωk /J k, which is isomorphic with (and henceforth identified) the span of {a 0 [d, a 1 ]...[d, a k ], a i A i} B. Thus, we get a complex Ω = (Ω k d) ḋ k, with the differential map D : Ω k d Ωk+1 d given by D(a 0 [d, a 1 ]...[d, a k ]) = [d, a 0 ]...[d, a k ]. As in [F1], we can also introduce an inner product on Ω k d s by defining an inner product on B and then pulling it back. One obvious possibility to define an inner product on B is to respect its direct sum decomposition, i.e. to define < X, Y > d = 0 if X, Y belong to B k for two Tr((Xf different k s, and for X, Y B k, < X, Y > d := Lim k ) Y f k re t ) t 0+. Tr(re t ) The completion of Ω k d with respect to this inner product will be denoted by Hd. k We shall now prove that the differential complex (Ω ḋ, D) is isomorphic with the complex of forms (Γ., d) constructed in [W1]. We only briefly indicate the main ideas, omitting the details. Clarly, each Ω k d is a sub- A - bimodule of B. Furthermore, from the properties of the matrices A 0, A 1, A 2, it is easily seen that Ω k d = {0} k 4. It also follows from the choice of A i s in lemma 2.6 that A 0, A 1, A 2 are linearly independent, and so are A 0 A 1, A 1 A 2, A 2 A 0, and A 0 A 1 A 2 0. We define a map S from Ω ḋ to Γ. as follows. On Ω 0 d = A, S is identity. Noting that any element X of Ω 1 d can be uniquely written as a 0 f 0 A 0 + a 1 f 1 A 1 + a 2 f 2 A 2 for a 0, a 1, a 2 A (notation as in lemma 2.6), we define S(X) = a 0 w 0 +a 1 w 1 +a 2 w 2, viewing 9

10 w 0, w 1, w 2 not as the vectors in W but as the three generators of the bimodule Γ 1 (c.f. [W1]). Next, using the properties of A i s we see that any element Y Ω 2 d is of the form a 01 f 6 A 0 A 1 + a 12 f 6 A 1 A 2 + a 20 f 4 A 2 A 0, and we define S(Y ) = a 01 w 0 w 1 + a 12 w 1 w 2 + a 20 w 2 w 0. Finally, any elament of Ω 3 d is of the form a 012f 8 A 0 A 1 A 2, which is sent to a 012 w 0 w 1 w 2 Γ 3 under the action of S. Theorem 2.7 The above map S is a bimodule-isomorphism and it also intertwains d and D, i.e. S is an isomorphism between the differential complexes (Ω ḋ, D) and (Γ., d). Proof :- First, it is rather easy to verify that S is bijective on Ω 1 d. That it is a left module morphism is trivial. To prove the similar fact for the right action it is enough to note that for X = 2 k=0 a k f k A k, b A, S(Xb) = S( 2 k=0 a k f k bfk 1 f k A k ) = a k (f k bfk 1 )w k, which agrees with the definition of the right action on Γ 1 given in [W1]. Similarly we can verify the isomorphism property of S on Ω j d, j = 2, 3. It is, however, slightly tedious but straightforward to check that SD = ds. For this, it is crucial to note that the commutation relations of A k s given in the lemma 2.6 are exactly the same as those of w k s with respect to the wedge-product defined in [W1]. Using this fact and also the commutation relation involving k s proved in [W1], we verify SD = ds. In fact, the most nontrivial part is to check this on Ω 1 d, which can be done by explicitly computing both SD and ds on terms of the form a[d, b]. We omit the details, which are more or less standard calculations. Remark 2.8 Here we have started with the definition of d as given by Woronowicz on the spaces of forms of all orders, and thus for this definition it seems to be a-priori necessary to know the definition of higher order forms. Instead, one may have taken a more direct route where spaces of forms of all orders are constructed by the standard method of noncommutative Riemannian geometry. In fact, it is not difficult to guess the definition of d as d = k A k + id B for some finite dimensional matrices A k s and B to be chosen, with appropriate commutation relations which are easy to guess from the commutation relations between k s and the need of having d2 = 0. Once we obtain such matrices A k, B in some finite dimension (here in C 8 ) 10

11 by a direct investigation, we have an explicit candidate of d, and spaces of forms can be constructed. 3 Concluding remarks Based on our results on SU q (2), it is tempting to propose a generalization of the standard formulation of noncommutative Riemannian geometry, which may include a large class of quantum groups. We would like to conjecture that such a formulation should have the following ingredients : a separable Hilbert space H, a -algebra A acting on H, a closed densely defined operator d on H with d 2 = 0, three positive operators, f, r, such that re t is trace-class, f is invertible, f, r commute with e t for t > 0, r = f m γf n γ, (m, n integers) for some reflection operator γ, there is a dense subspace D of H with the property that it is an invariant core for r, f k, k Z, A (D) D, e t (D) D, and for a A, f k af k has a bounded extension belonging to A (k Z) and [d, a] is a finite sum of terms of the form bf m, m nonnegative integer and b bounded. Under these assumptions, one can proceed exactly as done in the present case and define the space of forms as well as the volume form. Furthermore, if we assume that the [d, a] is a finite sum of elements of the form bf m for b A, and in case f is not the identity operator, q p a k f k = 0 with a k A if and only if a k = 0 k (which we have verified in the present example), then an inner product on the space of forms can be given in a similar way as in the present case. However, there are a few things which must be understood better in order to propose a useful and interesting general theory. There should be some more axioms describing the relations between d and. In the conventional theory, = dd +d d, and such a relation is also observed in the formulation of a Hodge-theory for bicovariant calculus on quantum groups proposed by Heckenberger ([H]). His approach includes 4D + calculi on SU q (2), but not 3D calculus considered by us, and also for the d constructed by him, [d, a] does not have a simple structure as in our case. Furthermore, it is not clear how to formulate a reasonable definition of the Hodge-star operator, since the obvious definition (along the line of [H]) is not so satisfactory in our context for several reasons. In fact, a reasonable candidate of such a Hodge star operator may provide the missing link between d and, since in the classical case one has = ( d) 2. 11

12 Acknowledgement : The author is grateful to Prof. K. B. Sinha for many valuable suggestions, comments and encouragement. The financial support provided by the Av. Humboldt Foundation in the form of a Research Fellowship and the hospitality of Prof. S. Albeverio of I.A.M. (Bonn) where this research was carried out are gratefully acknowledged. References [BK] P. N. Bibikov and P. P. Kulish, Dirac operators on the quantum group SU q (2) and the quantum spheres (English translation of the original Russian), J. Math. Sci. 100(2) (2000), [BS] S. Baaj and G. Skandalis, Unitaires multiplicatifs et dualité pour les produits croisés de C algbres, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. 426 (1993), [C1] A. Connes, Noncommutative Geometry, Academic Press (1994). [C2] A. Connes, Noncommutative Differential Geometry, I.H.E.S. Publn. Math. 62 (1985), [D] V. G. Drinfeld, Quantum Groups, Proc. I. C. M. (vol. 1,2), Berkeley, California (1986), [F1] J. Fröhlich, O. Grandjean and A. Recknagel, Supersymmetric quantum theory and noncommutative geometry, Commun. Math. Phys. 203(1999), [H] [J] I. Heckenberger, Hodge and Laplace-Beltrami operators for bicovariant differential calculi on quantum groups, Composito Math. 123(3)(2000), M. Jimbo, A q-analogue of U(gl(N +1)), Hecke algebra and Yang Baxter equation, Lett. Math. Phys. 11(1986), [Po] P. Podles, Differential calculus on quantum spheres, Lett. Math. Phys. 18(2)(1989),

13 [W1] S. L. Woronowicz, Twisted SU(2)-group : an example of a noncommutative differential calculus, Publ. R. I. M. S. (Kyoto Univ.) 23(1987), [W2] S. L. Woronowicz, Differential calculus on compact matrix pseudogroups (quantum groups), Comm. Math. Phys. 122(1)(1989),