Crossed Product

 Something I am working right now is with the crossed product construction. The idea that the crossed product construction has a physical meaning in AdS/CFT should be very obvious. This is primarily for two reasons: (1) there already exists a well-defined operator algebra for which outer automorphisms group can be defined, and (2) the Hamiltonian for $\mathcal{N}=4$ SYM goes like $H\sim N/g^{2}$, and has a central operator $N\times U$ defined as the difference of the Hamiltonian with the expectation value in the large $N$ limit. The first point is rather interesting and more or less provides most of the motivation needed for the crossed product construction, since time translations generated by the Hamiltonian form a group of outer automorphisms of the left and right copies of the thermofield double state, which we will discuss better in the next subsection. The second point is interesting from a more formal standpoint, where we divide the difference $H-\langle H\rangle $ by $N$ and obtain a well-defined large $N$ limit. This observation leads to the construction presented in 2112.12828, where the canonical ensemble crossed product construction was presented. We will highlight the general idea below.

Start by recalling that the group of automorphisms of an algebra $\mathcal{A}$ generated by a self-adjoint operator $\mathcal{O}$ is defined as 

\[e^{i\mathcal{O}s}\mathsf{a}e^{-i\mathcal{O}s}\in \mathcal{A}\]

for some $\mathsf{a}\in \mathcal{A}$ and $s\in \mathbb{R}$. If $e^{i\mathcal{O}s}\in \mathcal{A}$, then the group of automorphisms generated this way are said to be an ``inner" group of automorphisms, and ``outer" otherwise. We will stick with Takesaki's original convention and define our convention so that the group of automorphisms of $\mathcal{A}$ are Aut$[\mathcal{A}]$, inner automorphisms of $\mathcal{A}$ as Int$[\mathcal{A}]$ and outer automorphisms as Out$[\mathcal{A}]$. Recall that a left Haar measure is a non-zero Radon measure $\mu $ so that for Borel sets $\mathcal{B}\subset G$ and $g\in G$, 

\[ \mu \left(g\mathcal{B} \right)=\mu \left(\mathcal{B} \right)\;.\]

Let $\alpha :G\to $Aut$[\mathcal{A}]$. Then, the covariant representation of the triplet $(G, \mathcal{A}, \alpha )$ is a pair $(u, \pi )$ of a unitary representation $u:G\to \mathcal{U}(\mathcal{H})$ to the unitary group of $\mathcal{H}$ and $\pi :\mathcal{A}\to \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ (i.e. the set of bounded operators on $\mathcal{H}$) so that the covariance condition is satisfied:

\[u(g)\pi (\mathsf{a})u(g)^{*}=\pi \left(\alpha _{g}(\mathsf{a}) \right)\;.\]

We can then formally approach the crossed product as follows: taking the von Neumann algebra $\mathcal{A}$ acting on a Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$ composing the triplet, the von Neumann algebra on $L^{2}(\mathcal{H}, G)$ generated by $u(G)$ and $\pi _{\alpha (\mathcal{A})}$ is the crossed product algebra $\mathcal{A}\rtimes G$ w.r.t $\alpha $. This may seem more complicated than necessary, but the physical picture can be found by noting that the crossed product of the type III$_{1}$ algebra $\mathcal{A}$ by Aut$[\mathcal{A}]$ is a type II$_{\infty }$ algebra $\mathcal{A}\rtimes $Aut$[\mathcal{A}]$. P.S. Go watch Dune Part 2.

A Few Ruy-Lopez Sidelines

 Suppose we have 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5, which is the Ruy-Lopez opening. Black has a number of options here, but among the variations I have played against, the two most common are a6 and Nf6, the former being Morphy variation and the latter being Berlin defense. After a6, Bxc6 is an option but I rule it out because it does not improve any position. A note here is that after Bxc6 black should take like dxc6 to prevent Nxe5, after which Qd4 is a fork. Nf3 here is an option, and a queen trade may ensue after which white is not quite very better. So after a6, 4. Ba4 is logical, and after Be7 5. O-O, white is better. Here black may try to support the center and chase the bishop away with b5, after which Bb3 and white is again better. In Sicilian positions where black plays like 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6, you necessarily have to exchange on c6 because after a6 4. Ba4 b5 5. Bb3 c4 simply traps the bishop -- this Rossolimo line is very interesting and leads to a lot of nice open positions. Going back to the mainline, after Bb3 black could castle, after which c3 is a very good move intending to support the center and possibly aim for expansion. The old Steinitz defense is a very good counter to the Ruy-Lopez, typically going for closed positions, which I typically find a little inconvenient. 

One reason why Ruy-Lopez is so fascinating but complicated is because once the game deviates from the mainline, it becomes easy for black to take any opportunity to get a better position. Against fianchetto options on b7 the Ruy-Lopez does not change, because for instance say we have 1. e4 b6 2. Nf3 Bb7 3. Bc4. Then, black could take on e4, but while it seems like a free pawn, Bxf7+!! is a brilliant move, after which we force black to take and fork the king and the bishop on e4, so the line goes 3. Bc4 Bxe4 4. Bxf7+!! Kxf7 5. Ng5+! Ke8 6. Nxe4 and black has little development, no right to castling and structural weaknesses due to the open light squared diagonal along e4 to a8. Against Sicilian, there are again many options. After 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6, we have the previously seen Bb5 line where we take on c6 and damage black's pawn structure and expand with d4 and O-O later. On the other hand, there are also lines where we have 2. Nf3 d6, after which we play the same 3. Bb5+ nonetheless, forcing either a similar Bxc6 position or bishop trade after black plays Bd7. One line that I found very interesting was something like the Berlin defense with delayed d4 after Nxe4, which usually would be refuted by Re1. The anti-Berlin with d3 immediately after Nf6 is also an option, and is the line that Gukesh played against Alireza Firouzja recently. Typically, a second option that Berlin defense allows is a delayed capture on e4 after something like Be7 O-O a6 Ba4 b5 Bb3 Nxe4, which has an interesting line which usually ends in a draw after d4/d3. One of the plays that I don't quite understand how to tackle are positions where black has already played Nf6 -- the Petrov's defense -- where lines along 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Nxe5 is met with Nc6, called the Stafford gambit. This is a line I play as black, but as white my prep sticks with bxc6 4. Nc3 Bb4, with a kind of reversed Spanish variation from black. 5. Bd3 seems like an obvious logical move also preparing the kingside for castling short. A trick  beginners/intermediate players play is to instead play Nxe4, and if white plays a dumb move like h4 black can play Qe7, attacking on Ne5. In case white moves the knight anywhere, Nc3 discovered check simply wins the queen, but in general Petrov's defense heads into a Stafford gambit. Against the Caro-Kann my prep goes for the exchange variation after 1. e4 c6 2. Nf3 d5 3. exd6 cxd6 4. Bb5+ following a similar line as against Sicilian with d6. As black, the Zhuravlev countergambit is natural for Ruy-Lopez players, but we will discuss more on black reversed-Spanish variations in a next post.

Kronecker-Weber Theorem

 Let $\tilde{F}$ be a field (called the algebraic closure of $F$) obtained by adjoining all roots of polynomials over $F$. The maximal abelian quotient of $\mathrm{Gal}\left(\tilde{F}/F \right)$ is the Galois group of maximal abelian extension $F'$ of $F$, which is the largest subfield of $\tilde{F}$ whose Galois group is abelian. Setting $F=\mathbb{Q}$, from the Kronecker-Weber theorem, the maximal extension $\mathbb{Q}'$ of $\mathbb{Q}$ is found by adjoining $\mathbb{Q}$ to all roots of unity. Let $\zeta _{N}$ be a fixed primitive $N$th root of unity and $\mathbb{Q}\left(\zeta _{N} \right)$ be the $N$th cyclotomic field. Then, there exists an isomorphism 

\[\left(\mathbb{Z}/N \right)^{\times}\cong \mathrm{Gal}\left(\mathbb{Q}\left(\zeta _{N}\right)/\mathbb{Q} \right)\;.\]

The Kronecker-Weber theorem is then the statement that every finite abelian extension of $\mathbb{Q}$ is contained in a cyclotomic field. This has some interesting properties, particularly those linking to p-adic numbers (which caught my attention thanks to Optimized Fuzzball discussing p-adic AdS/CFT), which I will write about in a later post. I am also preparing a Lichess study on Ruy-Lopez, which I will link sometime soon.