1. Introduction
Quantum group, also called quantized enveloping algebra, was introduced independently by (Drinfel’d, V. G., 1985) [1] and (Jimbo, M., 1985) [2] . It plays an important role in the study of Lie groups, Lie algebras, algebraic groups, Hopf algebras, etc. The positive part of a quantum group has a kind of important basis, i.e., Canonical basis
introduced by (Lusztig, G., 1990) [3] , which plays an important role in the theory of quantum groups and their representations. Some efforts on
have been done. (Lusztig, G., 1990) [3] introduced algebraic definition of
for the quantum groups in the simply laced cases, and gave explicitly the longest monomials in
for type
. Afterwards, (Lusztig, G., 1992) [4] extended algebraic definition of
to the non-simply laced cases and gave 2 longest monomials in
for type
. Then, (Lusztig, G., 1993) [5] associated a quadratic form to every monomial, and proved that, given certain linear conditions, the monomial is tight (respectively, semi-tight) provided that this quadratic form satisfies a certain positivity condition (respectively, nonnegativity condition). He showed that the positivity condition always holds in type
and computed 8 longest tight monomials for type
, and he asked when we have (semi-) tightness in type
. Based on Lusztig’s work, (Xi, N. H., 1999 [6] ; Xi, N. H., 1999 [7] ) found explicitly all 14 elements in
for type
and all 6 elements
for type
. For type
, (Hu, Y. W., Ye, J. C., Yue, X. Q., 2003 [8] ; Hu, Y. W., Ye, J. C., 2005 [9] ; Li, X. C., Hu, Y. W., 2012 [10] ) determined all 62 longest monomials, all 144 polynomials with one-dimensional support, 112 polynomials with two-dimensional support in
. (Marsh, R., 1998) [11] carried out thorough investigation for type
. He showed that the positivity condition is always satisfied in type
for a certain orientation of the Dynkin diagram, presented a semi-tight longest monomial for type
, and exhibited a special longest monomial for type
(for any
) with a quadratic form that does not even satisfy the conditions for semi-tightness, for any orientation of the Dynkin diagram (although it may turn out that the corresponding monomial is still tight). (Bedard, R., 2004) [12] proved that all longest monomials of type
are semi-tight. (Reineke, M., 2001) [13] associated a new quadratic form to every monomial, and gave a sufficient and necessary condition for the monomial to be tight for the simply laced cases. (Deng, B. M., Du, J., 2010) [14] proved that the Reineke’s criterion works also for any quantized enveloping algebra associated with a symmetrizable Cartan matrix, and they gave all monomials in
for type
, in which 2 longest monomials are the same as Lusztig and Xi’s results. By use of this criterion, (Wang, X. M., 2010) [15] listed all tight monomials for type
and
, in which 8 longest monomials for type
are same as Lusztig and Xi’s results. (Hu,Y. W., Li, G. W., Wang, J., 2015) [16] determined all monomials with t-value ≤ 6 in
for type
, and (Hu, Y. W., Geng, Y. J., 2015) [17] determined all monomials t- value ≤ 6 in
for type
.
This paper computed all monomials with t-value ≤ 9 in
for type
.
2. Preliminaries
Let
be a Cartan matrix of finite type such that
for any
,
be a diagonal matrix with integer entries making the matrix DC symmetric. Let
be the complex semisimple Lie algebra associated with C, and
(here v is an indeterminate) be the corresponding quantized enveloping algebra, whose positive part
is the
-subalgebra of
, subject to the relations
, where
,
,
. Let
,
be the
-subalgebra of
. Corresponding to every reduced expression
of the longest element
of the Weyl group
of
, one constructs a PBW basis
of
. Lusztig [4] proved that the
-submodule
of
is independent of the choice of
, write it
; the image of
under the canonical projection
is independent of the choice of
, write it B; for any element
there is a unique element
which is fixed by the bar map of
defined by
and satisfies
. The set
forms a
-basis of
, an
-basis of
and a
-basis of
, Lusztig calls
Canonical basis of quantum group.
According to Lusztig, a monomial in
is an element of the form
(1)
where
. When
and
is the longest element of Weyl group, the monomial (1) is called the longest monomial. We say that (1) is tight (or semi-tight) if it belongs to
(or is a linear combination of elements in
with constant coefficients).
Let
be a finite quiver with vertex set
and arrow set
. Write
as
, where
and
denote the head and the tail of
respectively. An automorphism
of Q is a permutation on the vertices of Q and on the arrows of Q such that
and
for any
. Denote the quiver with automorphism
as
. Attach to the pair
a valued quiver
as follows. Its vertex set
and arrow set
are simply the sets of s-orbits in
and
, respectively. The valuation of
is given by
= #{vertices in the s-orbit of i},
;
= #{arrows in the σ-orbit of ρ},
. The Euler form of
is defined to be the bilinear form
given by
, where
,
, so
is the symmetric Euler form. The valued quiver
defines a Cartan matrix
, where
For
, let
,
, and write
. Define
, where
,
. Obviously,
.
Lusztig gave the following criterion for a monomial to be tight or semi-tight.
Theorem 2.1 ([Lusztig, 1993, §6 Theorem) [5] . Let
be the quantum group of type
,
as above. If the following quadratic form takes only values < 0 on
(respectively, ≤ 0 on
), then monomial
is tight (respectively, semi-tight).
It should be noticed that the above theorem is sufficient but not necessary, M. Reineke gave a sufficient and necessary condition by symmetrizing Lusztig’s quadratic form.
Theorem 2.2 ([Reineke, 2001, Theorem 3.2]) [13] . Let
be the quantum group of type
,
as above, the monomial
is tight if and only if the following quadratic form takes only values <0 on
In fact,
(see [Reineke, 2001 [13] , Lemma 3.3]).
Deng and Du generalized the tight monomial criterion given by Reineke to any quantum group associated with symmetrizable matrices.
Theorem 2.3 ([Deng, Du, 2010, Theorem 2.5]) [14] . Let
be the quantum group associated with any symmetrizable matrices,
as above, the monomial
is tight if and only if the following quadratic form takes only values < 0 on
By Theorem 2.3, we have the following Corollaries.
Corollary 2.4. When
are mutually different, monomial
is tight.
Proof: In fact,
are mutually different, so
.
Corollary 2.5. If
is tight, then for any mutually different
and any mutually different
,
,
is also tight.
Proof: Write
,
,
,
, then
For any
, we have
where
,
. It is easy to see that
and
. Moreover,
if and only if
. Since
is tight, we get by Theorem 2.3 that
for all
, applying Theorem 2.3 again, we conclude that
is tight.
The following two theorems are very useful in determining tight monomials.
Theorem 2.6 ([Deng & Du, 2010, Corollary 2.6, Theorem 6.2) [14] . Let
and
. If
is tight, then
(a) For
, monomial
is also tight;
(b) For
,
.
Theorem 2.7 ([Lusztig, 1990, Proposition 3.3 and Lusztig, 1993, §13]) [3] . Let
be the non-trivial automorphism of
induced by Dynkin diagram automorphism
of
, and
be the unique
-algebra isomorphism such that
. If
is tight, then
and
are all tight.
A quadratic form
denoted by
with
is called a unit form.
The symmetric matrix
(when
, set
) with
, defines a bilinear form
, where
In particular, we have
For a vector
with non-negative coordinates, we write
. The vector in
which has a 1 in the ith coordinate (
) and 0’s elsewhere is denoted by
.
Let
be a unit form. We define the set of positive roots of
as
. The linear transformation
defined by
is called the reflection with respect to
. The transformation
has the property that
and
for every
.
Let
be a quadratic form, if
for every
, then we call
weakly positive.
The following algorithm and theorem are taken from (Blouin, Dean, Denver, Pershall, 1995) [18] :
Let
be a unit form. First of all, we define
Next we want to construct
recursively. Assume that we have defined a set of positive roots of
as
and that the process has not failed (to be defined subsequently). Then we construct
as follows. Let
. If either:
1) there is some
such that
, or
2) there is some
such that
,
then the process is said to fail. Assume the process does not fail (so 1) and 2) do not occur for any
). Let
be the set of those roots
with the property that there is some
such that
. If
, then
and the process is said to be successful. If
, then
Remark: If
, then we apply the algorithm again to obtain
, etc. The roots in
(if
) are all greater than the roots in
. Thus condition 2) guarantees that this procedure is finite and if it is not successful then it will eventually fail.
Theorem 2.8 ([Blouin et al., 1995, Theorem 4]) [18] . The unit form
is weakly positive if and only if the above process is successful. If the process is successful with
, then
are all the positive roots of
.
3. Main Results
Let
be of type
as follows.
Let
,
. For convenience, we abbreviate a monomial
with any
as a word
(1 as 0), an inequality
as
. For example, a monomial
is abbreviated to a word 1234, and a monomial
to a word 121 (13 − 2), etc.
If
is a reduced expression, we call
a reduced word. By Theorem 2.6 (b), we only consider those reduced tight words
with
, in this case,
is called the word with t-value. If
for some
, we identify the word
with the word
. Denote the set of all words with t-value by
. The non-trivial Dynkin diagram automorphism
of
is
. Let us present the so called M − S word-procedure from t-value to
-value.
Step 1. Take any
, adding a number
different from
(or
) in the front (or behind) of
(or
), deleting the those words with t-value, getting all words with
-value from
.
Step 2. Repeat step 1 until all words in
are considered, deleting the non-tight words with
-value, get
.
Step 3. Use
and
, we have
satisfying
.
For example, applying the
word-procedure to
, get
. Considering
,
and
, so
.
From now on, write
.
Theorem 3.1. For the quantum group for type
, we have the following results.
1)
,
, tight monomial has only one.
2)
,
, tight monomials have 4 families, where
.
3)
,
includes 9 families of tight monomials, where
.
4)
,
includes 19 families of tight monomials, where
,
;
.
5)
,
includes 35 families of tight monomials, where
,
;
;
.
6)
, M5 includes 58 families of tight monomials, where
,
7)
,
includes 93 families of tight monomials, where
,
8)
,
includes 133 families of tight monomials, where
,
9)
,
includes 185 families of tight monomials, where
,
10)
,
includes 265 families of tight monomials, where
,
4. Proof of Theorem 3.1
Consider the following quiver
of type
where
,
. Let
be the identity automorphism of Q such that
, then the valued quiver of
is
, the valuation is given by
. For
,
, Euler form
on
is
,
symmetric Euler form
on
is
.
By simple computation, we have
;
, the other
. So
;
,
.
Let us prove Theorem 3.1. For any
, let
,
.
Case 1.
. By Corollary 2.4, words with
are all tight, so (1)~(3) hold.
Case 2.
. Applying the
word-procedure to
, we get
. Corollary 2.4
. Consider
, for
, we have
, where
and
Obviously,
. And
,
, so two words in
are all tight by Theorem 2.3, (4) holds.
Case 3.
. Applying the
word-procedure to
, we get
. Corollary 2.4
. Corollary 2.5 and
. Consider words 2132, 1212. For word 2132, we have
, where
and
Obviously,
. And
,
, so word 2132(14-23) is tight by Theorem 2.3.
For word 1212, we have
, where
and
Obviously,
. And
,
,
, but
,
, this is a contradiction, so word 1212 is not tight for any
, (5) holds.
Case 4.
. Applying the
word-procedure to
, deleting words including subwords in
, we get
. By Corollary 2.5 and
, words in
besides 21342 are all tight. For word 21342, we have
, where
and
Obviously,
. And
,
, so word 21342(15-234) is tight by Theorem 2.3.
Consider
. For words 12312, 12412, 13213, we have
, where
and
Obviously,
. And
and
, so
words 12312, 12412(14-2, 25-34), 13213(14-3, 25-3) are tight by Theorem 2.3.
For words 12321, 12421, we have
, where
and
Obviously,
. And
and
, so words 12321, 12421(14-25-3) are tight by Theorem 2.3.
Now let us consider
, we have
, where
and
Obviously,
,
. And
,
,
, so word 21232(13-2, 35-4) is tight. So (6) holds.
Case 5.
. Applying the
word-procedure to
, deleting words including subwords in
, we get
.
Firstly, as
, we can prove that words in
are all tight.
Secondly, consider words 123123, 132132, we have
, where
and
Obviously,
And
and
, but
,
,
, this is a contradiction, so word 123123 is not tight for any
, and word 132132(14-3, 25-3, 36-45) is tight by Theorem 2.3.
Lastly, let us consider
. Take word 123121 as an example, we have
, where
and
Obviously,
,
,
. And
,
,
,
, so word 123121(14-2, 46-5, 25-34) is tight by Theorem 2.3. So (7) holds.
Case 6.
. Applying the
word-procedure to
, deleting words including subwords in
, we get
.
As
, we can prove
. Consider word 2123242 in
, we have
, where
where
,
symmetric matrix
is
as follows
Using the above algorithm in §2, we have
By Theorem 2.8, the unit form
is weakly positive, i.e.,
for any
, and
. So,
,
,
. And
,
,
,
, so word 2123242(13-2, 57-6, 35-4) is tight by Theorem 2.3.
At last, let us see
, for words 2123212, 2124212 in
, we have
, where
where
,
, symmetric matrix
is as follows
Using the above algorithm in §2, we have
By Theorem 2.8, the unit form
is weakly positive, i.e.,
for any
, and
. So,
,
,
. And
,
,
and
, so words 2123212, 2124212(13-2, 57-6, 26-35-4) are all tight by Theorem 2.3. So (8) holds.
Case 7.
. Applying the
word-procedure to
, deleting words including subwords in
, we get
.
As
, we can prove that words in
are all tight.
For
, only consider word 12134234, we have
, where
and
where
, symmetric matrix
is as
follows
Using the above algorithm in §2, we have
By Theorem 2.8, the unit form
is weakly positive, i.e.,
for any
, and
. So,
,
,
,
. And
,
,
,
and
, word 12134234(13-2, 47-6, 58-6, 26-345) is tight by Theorem 2.3.
Consider words
in
, we have
, where
So, we have
where
,
,
symmetric matrix
is as follows
Using the above algorithm in §2, we have
By Theorem 2.8, the unit form
is weakly positive, i.e.,
for any
, and
. So,
,
,
,
. And
,
,
,
and
, words 12132142, 12142132(13-2, 36-5, 58-67, 25-34) are all tight by Theorem 2.3.
For
, only consider word 12132423, we have
, where
and
where
, symmetric matrix
is as follows
Using the above algorithm in §2, we have
By Theorem 2.8, the unit form
is weakly positive, i.e.,
for any
, and
. So,
,
,
. And
,
,
and
, word 12132423(13-2, 25-34, 48-57-6) is tight by Theorem 2.3. So (9) holds.
Case 8.
. Applying the
word-procedure to
, deleting words including subwords in
, we get
.
As
, words in
are all tight.
Consider
, it is found that there is four 2, three 1 (or 2), one 3, and one 4 in every word, only consider word 121324212, we have
, where
and
where
,
symmetric
matrix
is as follows
Using the above algorithm in §2, we have
By Theorem 2.8, the unit form
is weakly positive, i.e., for any
,
, and
. So, we have q(M) ≤ 0 if and only if
(2)
if and only if (2) hold and
, so word 121324212(13-2, 38-57-6, 79-8, 25-34) is tight by Theorem 2.3.
At last, let us see
, we find that there is five 2, two 1, one 2, and one 4 in every word, so it suffices to consider word 212321242, we have
, where
So, we have