In
mathematics, Capelli's identity, named after , is an analogue of the formula det(''AB'') = det(''A'') det(''B''), for certain matrices with noncommuting entries, related to the
representation theory of the Lie algebra . It can be used to relate an invariant ''ƒ'' to the invariant Ω''ƒ'', where Ω is
Cayley's Ω process
In mathematics, Cayley's Ω process, introduced by , is a relatively invariant differential operator on the general linear group, that is used to construct invariants of a group action.
As a partial differential operator acting on functions of ...
.
Statement
Suppose that ''x''
''ij'' for ''i'',''j'' = 1,...,''n'' are commuting variables. Write ''E''
ij for the polarization operator
:
The Capelli identity states that the following differential operators, expressed as determinants, are equal:
:
Both sides are differential operators. The determinant on the left has non-commuting entries, and is expanded with all terms preserving their "left to right" order. Such a determinant is often called a ''column-determinant'', since it can be obtained by the column expansion of the determinant starting from the first column. It can be formally written as
:
where in the product first come the elements from the first column, then from the second and so on. The determinant on the far right is
Cayley's omega process, and the one on the left is the Capelli determinant.
The operators ''E''
ij can be written in a matrix form:
:
where
are matrices with elements ''E''
ij, ''x''
ij,
respectively. If all elements in these matrices would be commutative then clearly
. The Capelli identity shows that despite noncommutativity there exists a "quantization" of the formula above. The only price for the noncommutativity is a small correction:
on the left hand side. For generic noncommutative matrices formulas like
:
do not exist, and the notion of the 'determinant' itself does not make sense for generic noncommutative matrices. That is why the Capelli identity still holds some mystery, despite many proofs offered for it. A very short proof does not seem to exist. Direct verification of the statement can be given as an exercise for ''n'' = 2, but is already long for ''n'' = 3.
Relations with representation theory
Consider the following slightly more general context. Suppose that
and
are two integers and
for
, be commuting variables. Redefine
by almost the same formula:
:
with the only difference that summation index
ranges from
to
. One can easily see that such operators satisfy the commutation relations:
:
Here