A Note on the Antipode for Algebraic Quantum Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recently, Beattie, Bulacu ,and Torrecillas proved Radford's formula for the fourth power of the antipode for a co-Frobenius Hopf algebra. In this note, we show that this formula can be proved for any regular multiplier Hopf algebra with integrals (algebraic quantum groups). This, of course, not only includes the case of a finite-dimensional Hopf algebra, but also that of any Hopf algebra with integrals (co-Frobenius Hopf algebras). Moreover, it turns out that the proof in this more general situation, in fact, follows in a few lines from well-known formulas obtained earlier in the theory of regular multiplier Hopf algebras with integrals. We discuss these formulas and their importance in this theory. We also mention their generalizations, in particular to the (in a certain sense) more general theory of locally compact quantum groups. Doing so, and also because the proof of the main result itself is very short, the present note becomes largely of an expository nature.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".