The Tenfold Way (Part 6)
Posted by John Baez
I’ve been studying Bott periodicity on and off since 1979, when I did a term paper on Clifford algebras in an undergrad course on group representation theory and physics taught by Valentine Bargmann. He was 71 at the time. Some of the students mocked him for being a bit slow — but if we’d known he’d been Einstein’s assistant from 1937 to 1946, we might have shown him a bit more respect, and asked him what working with Einstein was like!
I still have that term paper somewhere. Now I’m getting a bit slow, and I still don’t understand Bott periodicity quite as well as I want. So I have some questions. But in this part I’ll mainly just explain a bunch of stuff.
Right now I’m more interested in the algebraic and geometrical aspects than their homotopy-theoretic consequences. So let’s think about Clifford algebras.
Let be the free algebra over generated by anticommuting square roots of . In its simplest algebraic form, Bott periodicity says that is isomorphic to the algebra of matrices with entries in :
The only way I know to show this involves figuring out all the Clifford algebras. Luckily the first 8 are really interesting — I’ll talk about them later.
I’m interested in representations of Clifford algebras, so let be the category of real representations of . We’ll see what these are like in a minute: they play a fundamental role in representation theory. But there are really just 8 of them!
The reason is that when one algebra consists of all matrices with entries in another algebra, their categories of representations are equivalent. Because they have equivalent categories of representation, we say these algebras are Morita equivalent.
So, is Morita equivalent to , and we have an equivalence of categories
For each , we have an inclusion
sending the generators of to the first of the generators of . This lets us restrict any representation of to a representation of , giving a functor
I want to describe the Clifford algebras, their representation categories and these functors in detail. I would like to draw a large clock with 8 hours, one for each of the 8 Morita equivalence classes of Clifford algebras. I would like to write descriptions of the categories on these 8 hours, and descriptions of the functors labeling arrows going counterclockwise between these categories. This would be a nice version of the so-called ‘Bott clock’. But I don’t have the patience to do this right now. So I’ll adopt a more linear approach:
. is the category of real vector spaces.
. is the category of complex vector spaces. The functor sends each complex vector space to its underlying real vector space.
. is the category of ‘quaternionic vector spaces’ — that is, left -modules. The functor sends each quaternionic vector space to its underlying complex vector space.
So far this is a nice simple progression, like the green shoots of grass growing in the spring. You might naively expect it to keep on going forever with octonions and hexadecanions and so on, just like grass keeps growing forever taller into the sky… but no, it doesn’t. Things change at this point:
. is the category of -graded quaternionic vector spaces — that is, quaternionic vector spaces that are split as a direct sum of two summands . The inclusion maps any quaternion to the pair . Thus, the functor takes any -graded quaternionic vector space and forgets the grading.
. is equivalent to the category of quaternionic vector spaces again, since is Morita equivalent to . The inclusion maps any pair of quaternions to the diagonal matrix so the functor sends any quaternionic vector space to the -graded quaternionic vector space . I will call this functor ‘doubling’.
The last two functors are adjoints of each other! I’ll say more about these adjoints later, but we no longer feel like we’re going ‘forward’ in an unambiguous sense: it feels like we’ve turned back. Indeed:
. is equivalent to the category of complex vector spaces, again by Morita equivalence. What about the inclusion ? You can think of quaternions as special matrices of complex numbers. You can do it in various way, but the theory of Clifford algebras picks out a specific one, . This in turn gives the inclusion we want, . What about the functor ? It’s really a functor from complex vector spaces to quaternionic vector spaces. It sends any complex vector space to , which becomes a quaternionic vector space using the inclusion .
. is equivalent to the category of real vector spaces, again by Morita equivalence. What about the inclusion ? You can think of complex numbers as special matrices of real numbers. You can do it in various way, but the theory of Clifford algebras picks out a specific one, . This in turn gives the inclusion we want, . What about the functor ? It’s really a functor from real vector spaces to complex vector spaces. It sends any real vector space to , which becomes a complex vector space using the inclusion .
As you can see, these two steps have a very similar flavor! The second functor is called ‘complexification’ so the first should be called ‘quaternionification’. In fact, these functors are adjoint to the very first two on our list. So we are now going backwards.
But despite having arrived back at the category of real vector spaces, we are not quite done!
. is equivalent to the category of graded real vector spaces, because is Morita equivalent to . The inclusion maps any real matrix to the pair . Thus, the functor takes a -graded vector space and forgets the grading.
. is equivalent to the category of real vector spaces, by Morita equivalence, and now we are really back where we started. The inclusion maps any pair of real matrices to the matrix so the functor sends any real vector space to the -graded real vector space . This is again a form of ‘doubling’.
You’ll notice that this last pair of functors is suspiciously similar to the second pair we saw.
Now, all 8 functors we’ve seen have adjoints, which are other functors on our list.
“Left or right adjoints?” the category theorists wearily inquire, tired of people failing to say which. Both — in fact these functors all have ambidextrous adjoints, which are both left and right adjoints. I think this has something to do with the fact that Clifford algebras are semisimple. I could probably figure it out — this is not one of questions I meant to ask — but since you’re probably waiting for the questions to come along, I might as well ask:
Question 1. Suppose and are semisimple algebras over some field and is a homomorphism. Does the ‘restriction of scalars’ functor always have an ambidextrous adjoint?
So, I could summarize the story so far by drawing a clock with 8 hours, functors going clockwise from each hour to the next, and their ambidextrous adjoints going counterclockwise. But I will lazily draw this picture linearly, with hour 8 = hour 0 appearing both on top and on bottom. The functors I’ve already listed will point upward, and their adjoints will point down.
I’ll end with two small remarks.
If you’re paying close attention you may have noticed something funny: some of the categories and functors show up twice in this chart! The reason — or at least one reason — is that we’re treating the Clifford algebras as ordinary algebras, when in fact they are naturally -graded. We should think of them as -graded algebras generated by odd anticommuting square roots of . Two Clifford algebras that are Morita equivalent as ordinary algebras can be Morita inequivalent as -graded algebras. This eliminates the redundancy we’re seeing here. For more on this, see:
- The Tenfold Way (Part 4): super division algebras and the Brauer–Wall groups of and .
You may have also noticed a category that’s missing from the above chart: the category of -graded complex vector spaces. We’d get that if we considered complex rather than real Bott periodicity. If is the complex algebra generated by anticommuting square roots of , then
and
so complex Bott periodicity has period 2. The complex analogue of our big chart looks like this:
Again, the category at the bottom is a repeat of the category at top, due to Bott periodicity. It’s not so necessary this time.
Karoubi
I have been told that one very thorough explanation of the relationship between Clifford algebras and Bott periodicity is contained in Karoubi’s PhD thesis “Algèbres de Clifford et K-théorie”
http://www.numdam.org/item/?id=ASENS19684121610
which has however two disadvantages: it is in French, and Karoubi uses a rather general setup of “topological K-theory of Banach categories”.
Fortunately, some aspects of his work are summarized (in English, and without Banach categories) in Section 42 of Dugger’s textbook-in-progress “A geometric introduction to K-theory”:
http://math.uoregon.edu/~ddugger/kgeom_070622.pdf
On the algebraic side, Karoubi systematically uses the real Clifford algebras attached to quadratic forms of signature . For them, periodicity takes the form
which decomposes as two relatively elementary isomorphisms
and