--- abstract: 'We introduce some new presentations for the Yangian associated to the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{gl}_n$. These presentations are parametrized by tuples of positive integers summing to $n$. At one extreme, for the tuple $(n)$, the presentation is the usual RTT presentation of $Y_n$. At the other extreme, for the tuple $(1^n)$, the presentation is closely related to Drinfeld's presentation. In general, the presentations are useful for understanding the structure of the standard parabolic subalgebras of $Y_n$.' address: | Department of Mathematics\ University of Oregon\ Eugene\ OR 97403, USA author: - Jonathan Brundan and Alexander Kleshchev title: 'Parabolic presentations of the Yangian $Y(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$' --- [^1] [^2] Introduction {#sintro} ============ Let $Y_n = Y(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ denote the Yangian associated to the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{gl}_n$ over the ground field $\C$; see e.g. @D1, @CP [ch.12] and @MNO. In this article, we record some new presentations of $Y_n$ that are adapted to standard parabolic subalgebras. Let us formulate the main result of the article precisely right away, even though the relations appearing in the statement look rather scary. (Note that in $\S\S$5–6 most of these formulae are written down in a more concise way in terms of generating series.) Let $\mathfrak{gl}_\nu = \mathfrak{gl}_{\nu_1} \oplus\cdots\oplus \mathfrak{gl}_{\nu_m}$ be a standard Levi subalgebra of $\mathfrak{gl}_n$, so $\nu = (\nu_1,\dots,\nu_m)$ is a tuple of positive integers summing to $n$. <span>**Theorem A.**</span> <span>*The algebra $Y_n$ is generated by elements $\{D_{a;i,j}^{(r)}, \widetilde{D}_{a;i,j}^{(r)}\}_{1 \leq a \leq m, 1 \leq i,j \leq \nu_a,r \geq 0}$, $\{E_{a;i,j}^{(r)}\}_{1 \leq a < m, 1 \leq i \leq \nu_a,1 \leq j \leq \nu_{a+1}, r \geq 1}$ and $\{F_{a;i,j}^{(r)}\}_{1 \leq a < m, 1 \leq i \leq \nu_{a+1}, 1 \leq j \leq \nu_a, r \geq 1}$ subject only to the relations $$\begin{aligned} D_{a;i,j}^{(0)} &= \delta_{i,j},\label{pr1}\\ \sum_{t=0}^r D_{a;i,p}^{(t)} \widetilde{D}_{a;p,j}^{(r-t)} &= -\delta_{r,0}\delta_{i,j},\label{pr2}\\ [D_{a;i,j}^{(r)}, D_{b;\k,\l}^{(s)}] &= \delta_{a,b} \sum_{t=0}^{\min(r,s)-1} \left( D_{a;i,\l}^{(r+s-1-t)}D_{a;\k,j}^{(t)} -D_{a;i,\l}^{(t)}D_{a;\k,j}^{(r+s-1-t)} \right),\label{pr3}\\ [E_{a;i,j}^{(r)},F_{b;\k,\l}^{(s)}] &= \delta_{a,b} \sum_{t=0}^{r+s-1} \widetilde{D}_{a;i,\l}^{(t)}D_{a+1;\k,j}^{(r+s-1-t)},\label{pr6}\\ [D_{a;i,j}^{(r)}, E_{b;\k,\l}^{(s)}] &= \delta_{a,b} \sum_{t=0}^{r-1} D_{a;i,p}^{(t)} E_{a;p,\l}^{(r+s-1-t)}\delta_{\k,j} - \delta_{a,b+1} \sum_{t=0}^{r-1} D_{b+1;i,\l}^{(t)} E_{b;\k,j}^{(r+s-1-t)},\label{pr4}\\ [D_{a;i,j}^{(r)}, F_{b;\k,\l}^{(s)}] &= \delta_{a,b+1} \sum_{t=0}^{r-1} F_{b;i,\l}^{(r+s-1-t)}D_{b+1;\k,j}^{(t)}-\delta_{a,b} \delta_{i,\l}\sum_{t=0}^{r-1} F_{a;\k,p}^{(r+s-1-t)}D_{a;p,j}^{(t)},\label{pr5}\end{aligned}$$$$\begin{aligned} [E_{a;i,j}^{(r)}, E_{a;\k,\l}^{(s)}] &= \sum_{t=1}^{s-1} E_{a;i,\l}^{(t)} E_{a;\k,j}^{(r+s-1-t)} -\sum_{t=1}^{r-1} E_{a;i,\l}^{(t)} E_{a;\k,j}^{(r+s-1-t)},\label{pr7}\\ [F_{a;i,j}^{(r)}, F_{a;\k,\l}^{(s)}] &= \sum_{t=1}^{r-1} F_{a;i,\l}^{(r+s-1-t)}F_{a;\k,j}^{(t)}- \sum_{t=1}^{s-1} F_{a;i,\l}^{(r+s-1-t)}F_{a;\k,j}^{(t)},\label{pr8}\\ [E_{a;i,j}^{(r)}, E_{a+1;\k,\l}^{(s+1)}] &-[E_{a;i,j}^{(r+1)}, E_{a+1;\k,\l}^{(s)}] = -E_{a;i,q}^{(r)} E_{a+1;q,\l}^{(s)}\delta_{\k,j},\label{pr9}\\ [F_{a;i,j}^{(r+1)}, F_{a+1;\k,\l}^{(s)}] &-[F_{a;i,j}^{(r)}, F_{a+1;\k,\l}^{(s+1)}] = -\delta_{i,\l}F_{a+1;\k,q}^{(s)}F_{a;q,j}^{(r)},\label{pr10}\\ [E_{a;i,j}^{(r)}, E_{b;\k,\l}^{(s)}] &= 0 \quad\text{ if $b>a+1$ or if $b=a+1$ and $\k \neq j$},\label{pr11}\\ [F_{a;i,j}^{(r)}, F_{b;\k,\l}^{(s)}] &= 0 \quad\text{ if $b>a+1$ or if $b=a+1$ and $i \neq \l$},\label{pr12}\\ [E_{a;i,j}^{(r)}, [E_{a;\k,\l}^{(s)}, E_{b;f,g}^{(t)}]] &+ [E_{a;i,j}^{(s)}, [E_{a;\k,\l}^{(r)}, E_{b;f,g}^{(t)}]] = 0 \quad\:\:\text{ if }|a-b|=1,\label{pr13}\\ [F_{a;i,j}^{(r)}, [F_{a;\k,\l}^{(s)}, F_{b;f,g}^{(t)}]] &+ [F_{a;i,j}^{(s)}, [F_{a;\k,\l}^{(r)}, F_{b;f,g}^{(t)}]] = 0 \,\,\:\:\quad\text{ if }|a-b|=1,\label{pr14}\end{aligned}$$ for all admissible $a,b,f,g,h,i,j,k,r,s,t$. (By convention the index $p$ resp. $q$ appearing here should be summed over $1,\dots,\nu_a$ resp. $1,\dots,\nu_{a+1}$.)* </span> In the special case $\nu = (n)$, this presentation is the RTT presentation of $Y_n$ originating in the work of Faddeev, Reshetikhin and Takhtadzhyan @FRT, while if $\nu = (1^n)$ the presentation is a variation on Drinfeld's presentation from @D3; see Remark \[drinrem\] for the precise relationship. One reason that Drinfeld's presentation is important is because it allows one to define subalgebras of $Y_n$ which play the role of the Cartan subalgebra and Borel subalgebra in classical Lie theory. Our presentations are well-suited to defining standard Levi and parabolic subalgebras. In the notation of Theorem A, let $Y_\nu$, $Y_\nu^+$ and $Y_\nu^-$ denote the subalgebras of $Y_n$ generated by all the $D_{a;i,j}^{(r)}$'s, the $E_{a;i,j}^{(r)}$'s or the $F_{a;i,j}^{(r)}$'s, respectively. Then, $Y_\nu = Y(\mathfrak{gl}_\nu)$ is the <span>*standard Levi subalgebra*</span> of $Y_n$, isomorphic to $Y_{\nu_1} \otimes \cdots \otimes Y_{\nu_m}$. The <span>*standard parabolic subalgebras*</span> $Y_\nu^\sharp$ and $Y_\nu^\flat$ of $Y_n$ are the subalgebras generated by $Y_\nu, Y_\nu^+$ and by $Y_\nu,Y_\nu^-$ respectively; see also Remark \[new\] where these subalgebras are defined directly in terms of the Drinfeld presentation. The next theorem gives a PBW basis for each of these algebras. To write it down, define elements $E_{a,b;i,j}^{(r)}$ and $F_{a,b;j,i}^{(r)}$ for $1 \leq a < b \leq m$ and $1 \leq i \leq \nu_a, 1 \leq j \leq \nu_b$ by setting $E_{a,a+1;i,j}^{(r)} := E_{a;i,j}^{(r)}, F_{a,a+1;j,i}^{(r)} := F_{a;j,i}^{(r)}$ and then inductively defining $$E_{a,b;i,j}^{(r)} := [E_{a,b-1;i,k}^{(r)}, E_{b-1;k,j}^{(1)}], \qquad F_{a,b;j,i}^{(r)} := [F_{b-1;j,k}^{(1)}, F_{a,b-1;k,i}^{(r)}],$$ if $b > a+1$, where $1 \leq k \leq \nu_{b-1}$. The relations imply that these definitions are independent of the particular choice of $k$; see (\[indofk\]). <span>**Theorem B.**</span> *<span>(i)</span> The set of all monomials in $\{D_{a;i,j}^{(r)}\}_{a=1,\dots,m, 1 \leq i,j \leq \nu_a,r\geq 1}$ taken in some* - fixed order forms a basis for $Y_\nu$. - The set of all monomials in $\{E_{a,b;i,j}^{(r)}\}_{1 \leq a < b \leq m, 1 \leq i \leq \nu_a, 1 \leq j \leq \nu_b, r \geq 1}$ taken in some fixed order forms a basis for $Y_\nu^+$. - The set of all monomials in $\{F_{a,b;i,j}^{(r)}\}_{1 \leq a < b \leq m, 1 \leq i \leq \nu_b, 1 \leq j \leq \nu_a, r \geq 1}$ taken in some fixed order forms a basis for $Y_\nu^-$. - The set of all monomials in the union of the elements listed in (i),(ii) and (iii) taken in some fixed order forms a basis for $Y_n$. This theorem implies in particular that the natural multiplication maps $Y_\nu^- \otimes Y_\nu \otimes Y_\nu^+ \rightarrow Y_n$, $Y_\nu \otimes Y_\nu^+ \rightarrow Y_\nu^\sharp$ and $Y_\nu^- \otimes Y_\nu \rightarrow Y_\nu^\flat$ are vector space isomorphisms. Moreover, there are natural projections $Y_\nu^{\sharp} \twoheadrightarrow Y_\nu$ and $Y_\nu^\flat \twoheadrightarrow Y_\nu$ with kernels generated by all $E_{a;i,j}^{(r)}$ and by all $F_{a;i,j}^{(r)}$ respectively. The rest of the article is organized as follows. To start with, $\S\S$\[srtt\]-\[spbw\] are expository, giving the necessary definitions and a proof of the PBW theorem for $Y_n$. In $\S$\[slevi\], we define Levi subalgebras. Then in $\S$\[sdrinfeld\] we give a complete proof of the equivalence of the RTT presentation of $Y_n$ with Drinfeld's presentation, filling a gap in the literature. Note though that a proof of the analogous but harder result in the quantum affine case can be found in work of Ding and Frenkel @DF, and the basic trick of considering certain Gauss factorizations is the same here. The main theorems are proved in $\S$\[sparabolic\]. The argument involves <span>*partial*</span> Gauss factorizations, an idea already exploited by Ding @Ding to study the embedding of $U_q(\widehat{\mathfrak{gl}}_{n-1})$ in $U_q(\widehat{\mathfrak{gl}}_n)$ in the quantum affine setting. The remaining two sections are again expository in nature: in $\S$\[scent\] we record proofs of some known results about centers and centralizers and in $\S$\[squantum\] we explain the relationship between our approach and the <span>*quantum determinants*</span> which are used to define the Drinfeld generators elsewhere in the literature. The results of this article play a central role in @BK, where we derive generators and relations for the finite $W$-algebras associated to nilpotent matrices in the general linear Lie algebras. <span>*Acknowledgements.*</span> The second author would like to thank Arun Ram for stimulating conversations. <span>*Notation.*</span> Throughout the article, we work over the ground field $\C$. We write $M_n$ for the associative algebra of all $n \times n$ matrices over $\C$, and $\mathfrak{gl}_n$ for the corresponding Lie algebra. The $ij$-matrix unit is denoted $e_{i,j}$. RTT presentation {#srtt} ================ To define the <span>*Yangian*</span> $Y_n = Y(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ we use the RTT formalism; see @ES [ch. 11] or @FRT. Our basic reference for this material in the case of the Yangian is @MNO [$\S$1]. Let $$R(u) = u - \sum_{i,j=1}^n e_{i,j} \otimes e_{j,i} \in \Mat_n \otimes \Mat_n[u]$$ denote Yang's $R$-matrix with parameter $u$. This satisfies the QYBE with spectral parameters: $$R^{[1,2]}(u-v) R^{[1,3]}(u) R^{[2,3]}(v) = R^{[2,3]}(v) R^{[1,3]}(u) R^{[1,2]}(u-v),$$ equality in $\Mat_n \otimes \Mat_n \otimes \Mat_n[u,v]$. The superscripts in square brackets here and later on indicate the embedding of a smaller tensor into a bigger tensor, inserting the identity into all other tensor positions. Now, $Y_n$ is defined to be the associative algebra on generators $\{T_{i,j}^{(r)}\}_{1 \leq i,j \leq n, r \geq 1}$ subject to certain relations. To write down these relations, let $$T_{i,j}(u) := \sum_{r \geq 0} T_{i,j}^{(r)} u^{-r} \in Y_n [[u^{-1}]]$$ where $T_{i,j}^{(0)} := \delta_{i,j}$, and $$T(u) := \sum_{i,j=1}^n e_{i,j} \otimes T_{i,j}(u) \in \Mat_n \otimes Y_n[[u^{-1}]].$$ We often think of $T(u)$ as an $n \times n$ matrix with $ij$-entry $T_{i,j}(u)$. Now the relations are given by the equation $$\label{rmdef} R^{[1,2]}(u-v) T^{[1,3]}(u) T^{[2,3]}(v) = T^{[2,3]}(v) T^{[1,3]}(u) R^{[1,2]}(u-v),$$ equality in $\Mat_n \otimes \Mat_n \otimes Y_n((u^{-1},v^{-1}))$ (the localization of $\Mat_n \otimes \Mat_n \otimes Y_n[[u^{-1}, v^{-1}]]$ at the multiplicative set consisting of the non-zero elements of $\C[[u^{-1} ,v^{-1}]]$). Equating $e_{i,j} \otimes e_{\k,\l} \otimes ?$-coefficients on either side of (\[rmdef\]), the relations are equivalent to $$\label{trel0} (u-v)[T_{i,j}(u), T_{\k,\l}(v)] = T_{\k,j}(u)T_{i,\l}(v) - T_{\k,j}(v)T_{i,\l}(u) .$$ Swapping $i$ with $\k$, $j$ with $\l$ and $u$ with $v$, we get equivalently that $$\label{trel} (u-v)[T_{i,j}(u), T_{\k,\l}(v)] = T_{i,\l}(v) T_{\k,j}(u) - T_{i,\l}(u) T_{\k,j}(v).$$ Yet another formulation of the relations is given by $$\label{mr} [T_{i,j}^{(r)}, T_{\k,\l}^{(s)}] = \sum_{t=0}^{\min(r,s)-1} \left( T_{i,\l}^{(r+s-1-t)}T_{\k,j}^{(t)} - T_{i,\l}^{(t)}T_{\k,j}^{(r+s-1-t)} \right)$$ for every $1 \leq h,i,j,k \leq n$ and $r,s \geq 0$; see @MNO [Proposition 1.2]. Using (\[rmdef\]), one checks that the following are (anti)automorphisms of $Y_n$; see @MNO [Proposition 1.12]. - (<span>*Translation*</span>) For $c \in \C$, let $\eta_c:Y_n \rightarrow Y_n$ be the automorphism defined from $\eta_c^{[2]}(T(u)) = T(u+c)$, i.e. $\eta_c(T_{i,j}^{(r)}) = \sum_{s=0}^{r-1} \binom{r-1}{s} (-c)^s T_{i,j}^{(r-s)}$. - (<span>*Multiplication by a power series*</span>) For $f(u) \in 1 + u^{-1} \C[[u^{-1}]]$, let $\mu_f:Y_n \rightarrow Y_n$ be the automorphism defined from $\mu_f^{[2]}(T(u)) = f(u) T(u)$, i.e. $\mu_f(T_{i,j}^{(r)}) = \sum_{s=0}^r a_s T_{i,j}^{(r-s)}$ if $f(u) = \sum_{s \geq 0} a_s u^{-s}$. - (<span>*Sign change*</span>) Let $\sigma:Y_n\rightarrow Y_n$ be the antiautomorphism of order 2 defined from $\sigma^{[2]}(T(u)) = T(-u)$, i.e. $\sigma(T_{i,j}^{(r)}) = (-1)^r T_{i,j}^{(r)}$. - (<span>*Transposition*</span>) Let $\tau:Y_n\rightarrow Y_n$ be the antiautomorphism of order 2 defined from $\tau^{[2]}(T(u)) = (T(u))^{t}$ (transpose matrix), i.e. $\tau(T_{i,j}^{(r)}) = T_{j,i}^{(r)}$. - (<span>*Inversion*</span>) Let $\omega:Y_n \rightarrow Y_n$ be the automorphism of order $2$ defined from the equation $\omega^{[2]}(T(u)) = T(-u)^{-1}$. The Yangian $Y_n$ is a Hopf algebra with comultiplication $\Delta:Y_n \rightarrow Y_n \otimes Y_n$, counit $\eps:Y_n\rightarrow\C$ and antipode $S:Y_n\rightarrow Y_n$ defined from $$\Delta^{[2]}(T(u)) = T^{[1,2]}(u) T^{[1,3]}(u),\quad \eps^{[2]}(T(u)) = I,\quad S^{[2]}(T(u)) = T(u)^{-1},$$ equalities written in $\Mat_n\otimes Y_n\otimes Y_n[[u^{-1}]], \Mat_n[[u^{-1}]]$ and $\Mat_n\otimes Y_n[[u^{-1}]]$ respectively. Note that $S = \omega \circ \sigma$. The involutions $\omega$ and $\sigma$ do <span>*not*</span> commute, so $S$ is not of order 2; a precise description of $S^2$ is given in @MNO [Theorem 5.11] or Corollary \[s2\] below. Since it arises quite often, we let $\widetilde{T}_{i,j}(u) = \sum_{r \geq 0} \widetilde T_{i,j}^{(r)} u^{-r} := -S(T_{i,j}(u))$, so $$\begin{aligned} \widetilde{T}(u) := \sum_{i,j=1}^n e_{i,j} \otimes \widetilde{T}_{i,j}(u) = -T(u)^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ To work out commutation relations between $T_{i,j}(u)$ and $\widetilde T_{\k,\l}(v)$, it is useful to rewrite the RTT presentation in the form $$\label{rmdefalt} \widetilde T^{[2,3]}(v) R^{[1,2]}(u-v) T^{[1,3]}(u) = T^{[1,3]}(u) R^{[1,2]}(u-v)\widetilde T^{[2,3]}(v) .$$ We record @NT [Lemma 1.1]: \[cim\] Given $i \neq \l$ and $\k \neq j$, $T_{i,j}^{(r)}$ and $\widetilde T_{\k,\l}^{(s)}$ commute for all $r,s \geq 1$. Compute the $e_{i,j} \otimes e_{\k,\l}$-coefficients on each side of (\[rmdefalt\]). We often work with the <span>*canonical filtration*</span> $$\label{filt1} \F_0 Y_n \subseteq \F_1 Y_n \subseteq \F_2 Y_n \subseteq \cdots$$ on $Y_n$ defined by declaring that the generator $T_{i,j}^{(r)}$ is of degree $r$ for each $r \geq 1$, i.e. $\F_d Y_n$ is the span of all monomials of the form $T_{i_1,j_1}^{(r_1)} \cdots T_{i_s,j_s}^{(r_s)}$ with <span>total degree</span> $r_1+\cdots+r_s$ at most $d$. It is easy to see using (\[mr\]) that the associated graded algebra $\operatorname{gr} Y_n$ is commutative. From this one deduces by induction on $d$ that $\F_d Y_n$ is already spanned by the set of all monomials of total degree at most $d$ in the elements $\{T_{i,j}^{(r)}\}_{1\leq i,j \leq n, r \geq 1}$ <span>*taken in some fixed order*</span>. In fact it is known that such ordered monomials are linearly independent, hence the set of all monomials in the elements $\{T_{i,j}^{(r)}\}_{1\leq i,j \leq n, r \geq 1}$ taken in some fixed order gives a basis for $Y_n$; see @MNO [Corollary 1.23] or Corollary \[pbwcor\] below. In other words, the associated graded algebra $\gr Y_n$ is the free commutative algebra on generators $\{\gr_r T_{i,j}^{(r)}\}_{1 \leq i,j \leq n, r \geq 1}$. There is a second important filtration which we call the <span>*loop filtration*</span> $$\label{filt2} \L_0 Y_n \subseteq \L_1 Y_n \subseteq \L_2 Y_n \subseteq \cdots$$ defined by declaring that the generator $T_{i,j}^{(r)}$ is of degree $(r-1)$ for each $r \geq 1$. We denote the associated graded algebra by $\gr^\LL Y_n$. Let $\mathfrak{gl}_n[t]$ denote the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{gl}_n \otimes \C[t]$ with basis $\{e_{i,j}t^r\}_{1 \leq i,j \leq n, r \geq 0}$. By the relations (\[mr\]), there is a surjective homomorphism $U(\mathfrak{gl}_n[t]) \twoheadrightarrow \gr^\LL Y_n$ mapping $e_{i,j} t^r$ to $\gr^\LL_{r} T_{i,j}^{(r+1)}$ for each $1 \leq i,j \leq n, r \geq 0$. By the PBW theorem for $Y_n$ described in the previous paragraph, this map is actually an isomorphism, hence $\gr^\LL Y_n \cong U(\mathfrak{gl}_n[t])$; see also @MNO [Theorem 1.26] where this argument is explained in more detail. PBW theorem {#spbw} =========== In this section, we give a proof of the PBW theorem for $Y_n$ different from the one in @MNO. It was inspired by the realization of the Yangian found in @BR. Let $U(\mathfrak{gl}_n)$ denote the universal enveloping algebra of the Lie algebra $\mathfrak{gl}_n$. We have the <span>*evaluation homomorphism*</span> $$\label{ev0} \kappa_1:Y_n \rightarrow U(\mathfrak{gl}_n),\quad T_{i,j}^{(1)} \mapsto \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} e_{i,j}&\hbox{if $r = 1$,}\\ 0&\hbox{if $r > 1$.} \end{array}\right.$$ More generally for $l \geq 1$, consider the homomorphism $$\kappa_{l} := \kappa_1 \otimes\cdots\otimes \kappa_1 \circ \Delta^{(l)}:Y_n \rightarrow U(\mathfrak{gl}_n)^{\otimes l},$$ where $\Delta^{(l)}:Y_n \rightarrow Y_n^{\otimes l}$ denotes the $l$th iterated comultiplication. We define the algebra $Y_{n,l}$ to be the image $\kappa_{l}(Y_n)$ of $Y_n$ under this homomorphism. Writing $e_{i,j}^{[s]}$ for the element $1^{\otimes{(s-1)}} \otimes e_{i,j} \otimes 1^{\otimes(l-s)} \in U(\mathfrak{gl}_n)^{\otimes l}$, we have by the definition of $\Delta$ that $$\kappa_{l}(T_{i,j}^{(r)}) = \sum_{1 \leq s_1 < \cdots < s_r \leq l} \sum_{\substack{1 \leq i_0,\cdots,i_r \leq n \\ i_0 = i, i_r = j}} e_{i_0, i_1}^{[s_1]} e_{i_1, i_2}^{[s_2]} \cdots e_{i_{r-1}, i_r}^{[s_r]}.$$ In particular, we see from this that $\kappa_{l}(T_{i,j}^{(r)}) = 0$ for all $r > l$. \[truncthm\] The set of all monomials in the elements $\{\kappa_{l}(T_{i,j}^{(r)})\}_{ 1 \leq i,j \leq n, r =1,\dots,l}$ taken in some fixed order forms a basis for $Y_{n,l}$. It is obvious that such monomials span $Y_{n,l}$, so we just have to show that they are linearly independent. Consider the standard filtration $$\F_0 U(\mathfrak{gl}_n)^{\otimes l} \subseteq \F_1 U(\mathfrak{gl}_n)^{\otimes l} \subseteq \F_2 U(\mathfrak{gl}_n)^{\otimes l} \subseteq \cdots$$ on $U(\mathfrak{gl}_n)^{\otimes l}$, so each generator $e_{i,j}^{[r]}$ is of degree $1$. The associated graded algebra $\gr U(\mathfrak{gl}_n)^{\otimes l}$ is the free polynomial algebra on generators $x_{i,j}^{[r]} := \gr_1 e_{i,j}^{[r]}$. Let $y_{i,j}^{(r)} := \gr_r \kappa_{l}(T_{i,j}^{(r)})$, i.e. $$y_{i,j}^{(r)} = \sum_{1 \leq s_1 < \cdots < s_r \leq l} \sum_{\substack{1 \leq i_0,\cdots,i_r \leq n \\ i_0 = i, i_r = j}} x_{i_0, i_1}^{[s_1]}x_{i_1, i_2}^{[s_2]}\cdots x_{i_{r-1}, i_r}^{[s_r]}.$$ To complete the proof of the theorem, we show that the elements $\{y_{i,j}^{(r)}\}_{1 \leq i,j \leq n, r =1,\dots,l}$ are algebraically independent. Let us identify $\gr U(\mathfrak{gl}_n)^{\otimes l}$ with the coordinate algebra $\C[M_n^{\times l}]$ of the affine variety $M_n^{\times l}$ of $l$-tuples $(A_1,\dots, A_l)$ of $n \times n$ matrices, so that $x_{i,j}^{[r]}$ is the function picking out the $ij$-entry of the $r$th matrix $A_r$. Let $\theta:M_n^{\times l} \rightarrow M_n^{\times l}$ be the morphism defined by $(A_1,\dots,A_l) \mapsto (B_1,\dots,B_l)$, where $B_r$ is the $r$th elementary symmetric function $$e_r(A_1,\dots,A_l) := \sum_{1 \leq s_1 < \cdots < s_r \leq l} A_{s_1} \cdots A_{s_r}$$ in the matrices $A_1,\dots,A_l$. The comorphism $\theta^*$ maps $x_{i,j}^{[r]}$ to $y_{i,j}^{(r)}$. So to show that the $y_{i,j}^{(r)}$ are algebraically independent, we need to show that $\theta^*$ is injective, i.e. that $\theta$ is a dominant morphism of affine varieties. For this it suffices to show that the differential of $\theta$ is surjective at some point $x \in M_n^{\times l}$. Pick pairwise distinct scalars $c_1,\dots,c_l \in \C$ and consider $x := (c_1 I_n, \dots, c_l I_n)$. Identifying the tangent space $T_x(M_n^{\times l})$ with the vector space $M_n^{\oplus l}$, a calculation shows that the differential $d \theta_x$ maps $(A_1,\dots,A_l)$ to $(B_1,\dots,B_l)$ where $$B_r = \sum_{s=1}^l e_{r-1}(c_1,\dots,\widehat{c_s},\dots,c_l) A_s.$$ Here, $e_{r-1}(c_1,\dots,\widehat{c_s},\dots,c_l)$ denotes the $(r-1)$th elementary symmetric function in the scalars $c_1,\dots,c_l$ excluding $c_s$. We just need to show this linear map is surjective, for which it clearly suffices to consider the case $n=1$. But in that case its determinant is the Vandermonde determinant $\prod_{1 \leq r < s \leq l} (c_s-c_r)$, so it is non-zero by the choice of the scalars $c_1,\dots,c_l$. \[pbwcor\] The set of all monomials in the elements $\{T_{i,j}^{(r)}\}_{ 1 \leq i,j \leq n, r \geq 1}$ taken in some fixed order forms a basis for $Y_{n}$. We have already observed that such monomials span $Y_n$. The fact that they are linearly independent follows from Theorem \[truncthm\] by taking sufficiently large $l$. \[trunccor\] The kernel of $\kappa_{l}:Y_n \twoheadrightarrow Y_{n,l}$ is the two-sided ideal of $Y_n$ generated by the elements $\{T_{i,j}^{(r)}\}_{1 \leq i,j \leq n, r > l}$. Let $I$ denote the two-sided ideal of $Y_n$ generated by $\{T_{i,j}^{(r)}\}_{1 \leq i,j \leq n, r > l}$. It is obvious that $\kappa_{l}$ induces a map $\bar\kappa_{l}: Y_n / I \twoheadrightarrow Y_{n,l}$. Since $Y_n / I$ is spanned by the set of all monomials in the elements $\{T_{i,j}^{(r)}+I\}_{ 1 \leq i,j \leq n, r =1,\dots,l}$ taken in some fixed order, Theorem \[truncthm\] now implies that $\bar\kappa_{l}$ is an isomorphism. The first of these corollaries proves the PBW theorem for $Y_n$. The second corollary shows that the algebra $Y_{n,l}$ is the <span>*Yangian of level $l$*</span> introduced by Cherednik @Ch0 [@Ch]. Moreover, by Corollary \[trunccor\], the maps $\kappa_{l}$ induce an inverse system $$Y_{n,1} \twoheadleftarrow Y_{n,2} \twoheadleftarrow \cdots$$ of filtered algebras, where each $Y_{n,l}$ is filtered by the canonical filtration defined by declaring that the generators $\kappa_l (T_{i,j}^{(r)})$ are of degree $r$. It is easy to see using Theorem \[truncthm\] and Corollary \[pbwcor\] that the Yangian $Y_n$ is the inverse limit $\varprojlim Y_{n,l}$ of this system taken in the category of filtered algebras. This gives a concrete realization of the Yangian. Levi subalgebras {#slevi} ================ Our exposition is biased towards the <span>*standard embedding*</span> $Y_{n} \hookrightarrow Y_{n+1}$ under which $T_{i,j}^{(r)} \in Y_{n}$ maps to the element with the same name in $Y_{n+1}$. We warn the reader that the element $\widetilde{T}_{i,j}^{(r)} \in Y_n$ does <span>*not*</span> map to the element with the same name in $Y_{n+1}$! The standard embeddings define a tower of algebras $$\label{tower} Y_1 \subset Y_2 \subset Y_3 \subset \cdots$$ which will be implicit in our work from now on. Since most of the automorphisms of the Yangian defined in $\S$\[srtt\] do <span>*not*</span> commute with the standard embeddings, we sometimes add a subscript to clarify notation; for example we write $\omega_n:Y_n \rightarrow Y_n$ for the automorphism $\omega$ if confusion seems likely. For $m \geq 0$, we let $\phi_m:Y_n \hookrightarrow Y_{m+n}$ denote the obvious injective algebra homomorphism mapping $T_{i,j}^{(r)} \in Y_n$ to $T_{m+i,m+j}^{(r)} \in Y_{m+n}$ for each $1 \leq i,j \leq n, r \geq 1$. Following @NT, we define another injective algebra homomorphism $\psi_m:Y_n \hookrightarrow Y_{m+n}$ by $$\label{pdidef} \psi_{m} := \omega_{m+n} \circ \phi_m \circ \omega_n.$$ Observe that $\psi_m$ maps $\widetilde{T}_{i,j}^{(r)} \in Y_n$ to $\widetilde{T}_{m+i,m+j}^{(r)} \in Y_{m+n}$. So the subalgebra $\psi_m(Y_n)$ of $Y_{m+n}$ is generated by the elements $\{\widetilde{T}_{m+i,m+j}^{(r)}\}_{1 \leq i,j \leq n, r \geq 1}$. Given this, the following lemma is an immediate consequence of Lemma \[cim\]. \[cent\] The subalgebras $Y_m$ and $\psi_m(Y_n)$ of $Y_{m+n}$ centralize each other. Let us give another description of the map $\psi_m$ in terms of the quasi-determinants of Gelfand and Retakh; see e.g. @GKLLRT [$\S$2.2]. Suppose that $A, B, C$ and $D$ are $m \times m$, $m \times n$, $n \times m$ and $n \times n$ matrices respectively with entries in some ring $R$. Assuming that the matrix $A$ is invertible, we define $$\label{qdetdef} \left| \begin{array}{cc} A&B\\ C& \hbox{\begin{tabular}{|c|}\hline$D$\\\hline\end{tabular}} \end{array} \right| := D - C A^{-1} B.$$ Then: \[qdet\] For any $1 \leq i,j \leq n$, $$\psi_m(T_{i,j}(u)) = \left| \begin{array}{cccc} T_{1,1}(u) & \cdots &T_{1,m}(u)&T_{1,m+j}(u)\\ \vdots & \ddots &\vdots&\vdots\\ T_{m,1}(u) & \cdots & T_{m,m}(u)&T_{m,m+j}(u)\\ T_{m+i,1}(u) & \cdots & T_{m+i,m}(u)& \hbox{\begin{tabular}{|c|}\hline$T_{m+i,m+j}(u)$\\\hline\end{tabular}} \end{array} \right|.$$ Let $T(u)$ denote the matrix $\left( T_{i,j}(u) \right)_{1 \leq i,j \leq n}$ with entries in $Y_n[[u^{-1}]]$ as usual and let $\widetilde{T}(u) := -T(u)^{-1}$. Also define the matrices $$\begin{aligned} A(u) &= \left( T_{i,j}(u) \right)_{1 \leq i,j \leq m}, &B(u) &= \left( T_{i,j}(u) \right)_{1 \leq i \leq m, m+1 \leq j \leq m+n},\\ C(u) &= \left( T_{i,j}(u) \right)_{m+1 \leq i \leq m+n, 1 \leq j \leq m}, &D(u) &= \left( T_{i,j}(u) \right)_{m+1 \leq i,j \leq m+n}\end{aligned}$$ with entries in $Y_{m+n}[[u^{-1}]]$ and let $$\left( \begin{array}{cc} \widetilde{A}(u)&\widetilde{B}(u)\\ \widetilde{C}(u)&\widetilde{D}(u)\\ \end{array} \right) := -\left( \begin{array}{cc} A(u)&B(u)\\ C(u)&D(u)\\ \end{array} \right)^{-1}.$$ By block multiplication, one checks the classical identities $$\begin{aligned} \widetilde{A}(u) &= -\left(A(u)-B(u)D(u)^{-1}C(u)\right)^{-1},\\ \widetilde{B}(u) &= A(u)^{-1} B(u) \left(D(u)-C(u)A(u)^{-1}B(u)\right)^{-1},\\ \widetilde{C}(u) &= D(u)^{-1} C(u) \left(A(u)-B(u)D(u)^{-1} C(u)\right)^{-1},\\ \widetilde{D}(u) &= -\left(D(u) - C(u) A(u)^{-1} B(u)\right)^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ Now, by its definition, the homomorphism $\psi_m$ maps $\widetilde{T}(u)$ to $\widetilde{D}(u)$. Hence, it maps $T(u)$ to $-\widetilde D(u)^{-1} =D(u) - C(u) A(u)^{-1} B(u)$. The lemma follows from this on computing $ij$-entries. The description of $\psi_m(T_{i,j}(u))$ given by Lemma \[qdet\] does not depend on $n$. This means that the maps $\psi_m$ are compatible with the standard embeddings, in the sense that the following diagram commutes $$\label{unam} \begin{CD} Y_1 &@>>>&Y_2 &@>>> &Y_{3} &@>>>&\cdots\\ @V\psi_m VV&&@V\psi_m VV&&@V\psi_m VV\\ Y_{m+1}&@>>>&Y_{m+2} &@>>> &Y_{m+3}&@>>>&\cdots \end{CD}$$ where the horizontal maps are standard embeddings. So our notation for the map $\psi_m$ is unambiguous as $n$ varies. We also note that $$\label{comp} \psi_m \circ \psi_{m'} = \psi_{m+m'}$$ for any $m,m' \geq 0$, which is an obvious consequence of our original definition. Now we can define the <span>*standard Levi subalgebras*</span> of $Y_n$. Given a tuple $\nu = (\nu_1,\dots,\nu_m)$ of positive integers summing to $n$, define $Y_\nu$ to be the subalgebra $$Y_\nu := Y_{\nu_1} \psi_{\nu_1}(Y_{\nu_2}) \psi_{\nu_1+\nu_2} (Y_{\nu_3}) \cdots \psi_{\nu_1+\cdots+\nu_{m-1}} (Y_{\nu_m})$$ of $Y_n$. For $a=1,\dots,m$ and $1 \leq i,j \leq \nu_a$, we let $$D_{a;i,j}(u) = \sum_{r \geq 0} D_{a;i,j}^{(r)} u^{-r} := \psi_{\nu_1+\cdots+\nu_{a-1}} (T_{i,j}(u)).$$ By Lemma \[cent\] and induction on $m$, the various "blocks" of $Y_\nu$ centralize each other, hence the map $$\psi_0 \bar \otimes \psi_{\nu_1} \bar \otimes\cdots\bar \otimes \psi_{\nu_1+\cdots+\nu_{m-1}}: Y_{\nu_1} \otimes Y_{\nu_2} \otimes\cdots\otimes Y_{\nu_m} \rightarrow Y_\nu$$ is an algebra isomorphism. This means that the elements $\{D_{a;i,j}^{(r)}\}_{1 \leq a \leq m, 1 \leq i,j \leq \nu_a, r \geq 1}$ generate $Y_\nu$ subject only to the following relations: $$\label{levirel} [D_{a;i,j}^{(r)}, D_{b;\k,\l}^{(s)}] = \delta_{a,b} \sum_{t=0}^{\min(r,s)-1} \left(D_{a;i,\l}^{(r+s-1-t)}D_{a;\k,j}^{(t)} - D_{a;i,\l}^{(t)}D_{a;\k,j}^{(r+s-1-t)} \right)$$ where $D_{a;i,j}^{(0)} := \delta_{i,j}$. The special case $\nu = (1^n)$ is particularly important: $Y_{(1^n)} \cong Y_1 \otimes \cdots\otimes Y_1$ is a commutative subalgebra of $Y_n$ which plays the role of Cartan subalgebra. Drinfeld presentation {#sdrinfeld} ===================== In this section, we introduce the Drinfeld generators of $Y_n$ following the approach of @DF and @Iohara [Appendix B]. Since the leading minors of the matrix $T(u)$ are invertible, it possesses a Gauss factorization $$\label{gfact} T(u) = F(u) D(u) E(u)$$ for unique matrices $$D(u) = \left( \begin{array}{cccc} D_{1}(u) & 0&\cdots&0\\ 0 & D_{2}(u) &\cdots&0\\ \vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\ 0&0 &\cdots&D_{n}(u) \end{array} \right),$$$$E(u) = \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 1 & E_{1,2}(u) &\cdots&E_{1,n}(u)\\ 0 & 1 &\cdots&E_{2,n}(u)\\ \vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\ 0&0 &\cdots&1 \end{array} \right),\: F(u) = \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 1 & 0 &\cdots&0\\ F_{1,2}(u) & 1 &\cdots&0\\ \vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\ F_{1,n}(u)&F_{2,n}(u) &\cdots&1 \end{array} \right).$$ This defines power series $D_i(u) = \sum_{r \geq 0} D_i^{(r)} u^{-r}$, $E_{i,j}(u) = \sum_{r \geq 1} E_{i,j}^{(r)} u^{-r}$ and $F_{i,j}(u) = \sum_{r \geq 1} F_{i,j}^{(r)} u^{-r}$. Let $E_i(u) = \sum_{r \geq 1} E_i^{(r)} u^{-r} := E_{i,i+1}(u)$ and $F_i(u) = \sum_{r \geq 1} F_i^{(r)} u^{-r}:= F_{i,i+1}(u)$ for short. Also let $\widetilde D_i(u) =\sum_{r \geq 0} \widetilde{D}_i^{(r)} u^{-r} := -D_i(u)^{-1}$. In terms of quasi-determinants, we have the following more explicit descriptions; see @GR [Theorem 4.4] or @GR2 [Theorem 2.2.6]. $$\label{qd1} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! D_i(u) = \left| \begin{array}{cccc} T_{1,1}(u) & \cdots & T_{1,i-1}(u)&T_{1,i}(u)\\ \vdots & \ddots &\vdots&\vdots\\ T_{i-1,1}(u)&\cdots&T_{i-1,i-1}(u)&T_{i-1,i}(u)\\ T_{i,1}(u) & \cdots & T_{i,i-1}(u)& \hbox{\begin{tabular}{|c|}\hline$T_{i,i}(u)$\\\hline\end{tabular}} \end{array} \right|,$$ $$\label{qd2} E_{i,j}(u) = D_i(u)^{-1} \left| \begin{array}{cccc} T_{1,1}(u) & \cdots &T_{1,i-1}(u)& T_{1,j}(u)\\ \vdots & \ddots &\vdots&\vdots\\ T_{i-1,1}(u) & \cdots & T_{i-1,i-1}(u)&T_{i-1,j}(u)\\ T_{i,1}(u) & \cdots & T_{i,i-1}(u)& \hbox{\begin{tabular}{|c|}\hline$T_{i,j}(u)$\\\hline\end{tabular}} \end{array} \right|,$$ $$\label{qd3} F_{i,j}(u) = \left| \begin{array}{cccc} T_{1,1}(u) & \cdots &T_{1,i-1}(u)& T_{1,i}(u)\\ \vdots & \ddots &\vdots&\vdots\\ T_{i-1,1}(u) & \cdots & T_{i-1,i-1}(u)&T_{i-1,i}(u)\\ T_{j,1}(u) & \cdots & T_{j,i-1}(u)& \hbox{\begin{tabular}{|c|}\hline$T_{j,i}(u)$\\\hline\end{tabular}} \end{array} \right|D_i(u)^{-1}.$$ Since $E_{j-1}^{(1)} = T_{j-1,j}^{(1)}$ and $F_{j-1}^{(1)} = T_{j,j-1}^{(1)}$, it follows easily that $$\label{eij} E_{i,j}^{(r)} = [E_{i,j-1}^{(r)}, E_{j-1}^{(1)}],\qquad F_{i,j}^{(r)} = [F_{j-1}^{(1)},F_{i,j-1}^{(r)}].$$ for $i+1 < j \leq n$. Comparing (\[qd1\])–(\[qd3\]) with Lemma \[qdet\] we deduce: \[reduce\] For all admissible $i$, we have that - $D_i(u) = \psi_{i-1}(D_{1}(u)) = \psi_{i-1}(T_{1,1}(u))$; - $E_i(u) = \psi_{i-1}(E_{1}(u)) = \psi_{i-1}(T_{1,1}(u)^{-1} T_{1,2}(u))$; - $F_i(u) = \psi_{i-1}(F_{1}(u)) = \psi_{i-1}(T_{2,1}(u) T_{1,1}(u)^{-1})$. In particular Lemma \[reduce\](i) shows that the elements $D_i^{(r)}$ here are the same as the elements denoted $D_{i;1,1}^{(r)}$ from $\S$\[slevi\], so they generate the Cartan subalgebra $Y_{(1^n)}$. Also let ${Y}_{(1^n)}^+$ resp. ${Y}_{(1^n)}^-$ denote the subalgebra of ${Y}_n$ generated by the elements $\{E_i^{(r)}\}_{i=1,\dots,n-1,r \geq 1}$ resp. $\{F_i^{(r)}\}_{i=1,\dots,n-1,r \geq 1}$. In view of (\[eij\]), all the elements $E_{i,j}^{(r)}$ belong to $Y_{(1^n)}^+$ and all the elements $F_{i,j}^{(r)}$ belong to $Y_{(1^n)}^-$. By applying the antiautomorphism $\tau$ to the factorization (\[gfact\]), one checks: $$\label{tau} \tau(E_{i,j}(u)) = F_{i,j}(u),\qquad \tau(F_{i,j}(u)) = E_{i,j}(u),\qquad \tau(D_i(u)) = D_i(u).$$ Hence, $\tau$ fixes $Y_{(1^n)}$ elementwise and interchanges the subalgebras $Y_{(1^n)}^+$ and $Y_{(1^n)}^-$. Now we state the main theorem of the section. This is essentially due to Drinfeld @D3; see the remark at the end of the section for the precise relationship. \[drinpres\] The algebra $Y_n$ is generated by the elements $\{D_i^{(r)}, \widetilde{D}_i^{(r)}\}_{1 \leq i \leq n, r \geq 0}$ and $\{E_i^{(r)}, F_i^{(r)}\}_{1 \leq i < n,r \geq 1}$ subject only to the following relations: $$\begin{aligned} D_i^{(0)} &= 1,\label{r0}\\ \sum_{t=0}^r D_i^{(t)} \widetilde D_i^{(r-t)} &= -\delta_{r,0},\label{r1}\\ [D_i^{(r)}, D_j^{(s)}] &= 0,\label{r2}\\ [E_i^{(r)},F_j^{(s)}] &= \delta_{i,j} \sum_{t=0}^{r+s-1} \widetilde D_{i}^{(t)}D_{i+1}^{(r+s-1-t)} ,\label{r3}\\ [D_i^{(r)}, E_j^{(s)}] &= (\delta_{i,j}-\delta_{i,j+1}) \sum_{t=0}^{r-1} D_i^{(t)} E_j^{(r+s-1-t)},\label{r4}\\ [D_i^{(r)}, F_j^{(s)}] &= (\delta_{i,j+1}-\delta_{i,j}) \sum_{t=0}^{r-1} F_j^{(r+s-1-t)}D_i^{(t)} ,\label{r5}\end{aligned}$$$$\begin{aligned} [E_i^{(r)}, E_i^{(s)}] &= \sum_{t=1}^{s-1} E_i^{(t)} E_i^{(r+s-1-t)} -\sum_{t=1}^{r-1} E_i^{(t)} E_i^{(r+s-1-t)},\label{r6}\\ [F_i^{(r)}, F_i^{(s)}] &= \sum_{t=1}^{r-1} F_i^{(r+s-1-t)} F_i^{(t)}-\sum_{t=1}^{s-1} F_i^{(r+s-1-t)} F_i^{(t)},\label{r7}\\ [E_i^{(r)}, E_{i+1}^{(s+1)}]&- [E_i^{(r+1)}, E_{i+1}^{(s)}] = -E_i^{(r)} E_{i+1}^{(s)},\label{r8}\\ [F_i^{(r+1)}, F_{i+1}^{(s)}] &- [F_i^{(r)}, F_{i+1}^{(s+1)}] = -F_{i+1}^{(s)} F_i^{(r)},\label{r9}\\ [E_i^{(r)}, E_j^{(s)}] &= 0 \hspace{36.9mm}\text{ if }|i-j|> 1,\label{r10}\\ [F_i^{(r)}, F_j^{(s)}] &= 0 \hspace{36.9mm}\text{ if }|i-j|> 1,\label{r11}\\ [E_i^{(r)}, [E_i^{(s)}, E_j^{(t)}]] &+ [E_i^{(s)}, [E_i^{(r)}, E_j^{(t)}]] = 0 \quad\text{ if }|i-j|=1,\label{r12}\\ [F_i^{(r)}, [F_i^{(s)}, F_j^{(t)}]] &+ [F_i^{(s)}, [F_i^{(r)}, F_j^{(t)}]] = 0 \quad\text{ if }|i-j|=1,\label{r13}\end{aligned}$$ for all admissible $i,j,r,s, t$. The relations (\[r6\]) and (\[r7\]) are equivalent to the relations $$\begin{aligned} [E_i^{(r)}, E_i^{(s+1)}] &- [E_i^{(r+1)}, E_i^{(s)}] = E_i^{(r)} E_i^{(s)} + E_i^{(s)} E_i^{(r)},\label{r6b}\\ [F_i^{(r+1)}, F_i^{(s)}] &- [F_i^{(r)}, F_i^{(s+1)}] = F_i^{(r)} F_i^{(s)} + F_i^{(s)} F_i^{(r)},\label{r7b}\end{aligned}$$ respectively. In the remainder of the section, we are going to write down a proof, since we could not find one in the literature. There are two parts to the proof: first we must show that all these relations are satisfied in $Y_n$; second we must show that we have found enough relations. Let us begin with some reductions to the first part of the proof. We have already noted that the elements $\{D_i^{(r)}\}_{i=1,\dots,n, r \geq 1}$ commute, hence the relations (\[r0\])–(\[r2\]) hold. Also by Lemma \[reduce\], $D_i^{(r)} \in \psi_{i-1}(Y_1)$ and $E_j^{(s)} \in \psi_{j-1}(Y_2)$, so Lemma \[cent\] implies that (\[r4\]) holds if either $i < j$ or $i > j+1$. Similar reasoning shows that (\[r3\]) holds if $|i-j| > 1$ and (\[r10\])–(\[r11\]) hold always. Having made these remarks, Lemma \[reduce\] and (\[tau\]) reduces the verification of all the remaining relations to checking the following special cases: (\[r3\]) with $i=1,j=1$ or $i=2,j=1$; (\[r4\]) with $i=1,j=1$ or $i=2,j=1$; (\[r6\]) with $i=1$; (\[r8\]) with $i=1$; (\[r12\]) with $i=2,j=1$ or $i=1,j=2$. \[goody2\] The following identities hold in $Y_2((u^{-1},v^{-1}))$: - $(u-v) [D_1(u), E_1(v)] = D_1(u) (E_1(v)-E_1(u))$; - $(u-v) [E_{1}(u), \widetilde{D}_{2}(v)] = (E_{1}(u) - E_{1}(v)) \widetilde D_{2}(v)$; - $(u-v) [E_1(u), F_1(v)] = \widetilde D_1(v) D_2(v) - \widetilde D_1(u) D_2(u)$; - $(u-v)[E_1(u), E_1(v)] = (E_1(v) - E_1(u))^2$. Compute the $e_{1,1} \otimes e_{1,2}$-, $e_{1,2} \otimes e_{2,2}$-, $e_{1,2} \otimes e_{2,1}$- and $e_{1,2} \otimes e_{1,2}$-coefficients on each side of (\[rmdefalt\]) and rearrange the resulting four equations to obtain the following identities: - $(u-v) [T_{1,1}(u), \widetilde T_{1,2}(v)] = T_{1,1}(u) \widetilde T_{1,2}(v) + T_{1,2}(u) \widetilde T_{2,2}(v)$; - $(u-v) [T_{1,2}(u), \widetilde T_{2,2}(v)] = T_{1,1}(u) \widetilde T_{1,2}(v) + T_{1,2}(u) \widetilde T_{2,2}(v)$; - $(u-v) [T_{1,2}(u), \widetilde T_{2,1}(v)] = T_{1,1}(u) \widetilde T_{1,1}(v) + T_{1,2}(u) \widetilde T_{2,1}(v) -\widetilde T_{2,1}(v) T_{1,2}(u)- \widetilde T_{2,2}(v) T_{2,2}(u)$; - $[T_{1,2}(u), \widetilde T_{1,2}(v)] = 0$. We also note that $$\left( \begin{array}{ll} T_{1,1}(u) & T_{1,2}(u)\\ T_{2,1}(u) & T_{2,2}(u) \end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{ll} D_1(u)& D_1(u) E_1(u)\\ F_1(u) D_1(u)& D_2(u) + F_1(u) D_1(u) E_1(u) \end{array} \right)$$ and that $$\left( \begin{array}{cc} \widetilde T_{1,1}(v) & \widetilde T_{1,2}(v)\\ \widetilde T_{2,1}(v) & \widetilde T_{2,2}(v) \end{array} \right) = \left( \begin{array}{cc} \widetilde D_1(v) + E_1(v) \widetilde D_2(v) F_1(v)& - E_1(v) \widetilde D_2(v)\\ - \widetilde D_2(v) F_1(v)& \widetilde D_2(v) \end{array} \right).$$ Substituting from these into (i)$'$ and using the known fact that $D_1(u)$ commutes with $\widetilde D_2(v)$ gives the identity $$(u-v) [D_1(u), E_1(v)] \widetilde D_2(v) = D_1(u) (E_1(v) - E_1(u)) \widetilde D_2(v).$$ Multiplying on the right by $D_2(v)$ gives (i). The deduction of (ii) from (ii)$'$ is entirely similar. Next we deduce (iii) from (iii)$'$. Rewriting (i) and (ii) using $\tau$ gives that $$\begin{aligned} E_1(v) \widetilde D_2(v) +(u-v-1) E_1(u) \widetilde D_2(v)&=(u-v) \widetilde D_2(v) E_1(u)\\ F_1(u) D_1(u) +(u-v-1)F_1(v) D_1(u) &= (u-v) D_1(u) F_1(v).\end{aligned}$$ Also rearranging (iii)$'$ gives $$\begin{gathered} D_1(u) \widetilde D_1(v) +D_1(u) (E_1(v) \widetilde D_2(v) +(u-v-1) E_1(u) \widetilde D_2(v) ) F_1(v) =\\ D_2(u) \widetilde D_2(v) +\widetilde D_2(v) (F_1(u) D_1(u) +(u-v-1)F_1(v) D_1(u))E_1(u).\end{gathered}$$ Now substituting the first two of these identities into the third and multiplying on the left by $\widetilde D_1(u) D_2(v)$ gives (iii). Finally we must deduce (iv). By (iv)$'$, we have that $$D_1(u) E_1(u) E_1(v) \widetilde D_2(v) = E_1(v) D_1(u) \widetilde D_2(v) E_1(u).$$ Multiply both sides by $(u-v)^2$ and use (i) and (ii) to move $D_1(u)$ to the left and $\widetilde D_2(v)$ to the right, then cancel the leading $D_1(u)$'s and trailing $\widetilde D_2(v)$'s to get $$(u-v)^2 E_1(u) E_1(v) = \left((u-v) E_1(v) - E_1(v) + E_1(u)\right) \left((u-v) E_1(u) + E_1(v) - E_1(u)\right).$$ Hence, - $(u-v)^2 [E_1(u), E_1(v)] = (E_1(v)-E_1(u))(E_1(u)-E_1(v)) + (u-v) E_1(v) (E_1(v) - E_1(u)) + (u-v) (E_1(u) - E_1(v)) E_1(u).$ Now subtract $(u-v) [E_1(u), E_1(v)]$ from both sides of (iv)$''$ to deduce that $$(u-v)(u-v-1) [E_1(u),E_1(v)] = (u-v-1) (E_1(v) - E_1(u))^2.$$ Hence (iv) follows on dividing both sides by $(u-v-1)$. \[goody3\] The following identities hold in $Y_3((u^{-1}, v^{-1}))$: - $[E_1(u), F_2(v)] = 0$; - $(u-v) [E_1(u), E_2(v)] = E_1(u)E_2(v)-E_1(v)E_2(v) - E_{1,3}(u) + E_{1,3}(v)$; - $[E_{1,3}(u), E_2(v)] = E_2(v) [E_1(u), E_2(v)]$; - $[E_{1}(u), E_{1,3}(v) - E_{1}(v) E_{2}(v)] = -[E_{1}(u), E_{2}(v)] E_{1}(u)$. Arguing as in the proof of the previous lemma, we compute the $e_{1,2} \otimes e_{3,2}$-, $e_{1,2} \otimes e_{2,3}$-, $e_{1,3} \otimes e_{2,3}$- and $e_{1,2} \otimes e_{1,3}$-coefficients of (\[rmdefalt\]) respectively to obtain the identities - $[D_1(u) E_1(u), \widetilde D_3(v) F_2(v)] = 0$ - $(u-v) [D_1(u) E_1(u), E_2(v) \widetilde D_3(v)] = D_1(u) ( E_1(u)E_2(v) - E_1(v) E_2(v) + E_{1,3}(v) - E_{1,3}(u)) \widetilde D_3(v)$; - $[D_1(u)E_{1,3}(u), E_{2}(v) \widetilde D_3(v)] = 0$; - $[D_1(u) E_1(u), (E_{1,3}(v) - E_1(v) E_2(v)) \widetilde D_3(v)] = 0$. Using commutation relations already derived, (i) and (ii) follow easily from (i)$'$ and (ii)$'$. To prove (iii), we need one more identity. By Lemma \[goody2\](ii), we know that $$(u-v) [\widetilde D_3(v), E_2(u)] = (E_2(v) - E_2(u))\widetilde D_3(v).$$ Considering $u^0$-coefficients gives $[\widetilde D_3(v), E_2^{(1)}] = E_2(v) \widetilde D_3(v)$. Hence, recalling (\[eij\]), $$\begin{aligned} [E_{1,3}(u), \widetilde D_3(v)] &= [[E_{1}(u), E_{2}^{(1)}], \widetilde D_3(v)] = [E_1(u), [E_{2}^{(1)}, \widetilde D_3(v)]]\\ &= -[E_1(u), E_2(v) \widetilde D_3(v)] = -[E_1(u), E_2(v)] \widetilde D_3(v).\end{aligned}$$ Now take (iii)$'$, cancel the leading $D_1(u)$ and then simplify to get $$\begin{aligned} [E_{1,3}(u), E_{2}(v) \widetilde D_3(v)]&= [E_{1,3}(u), E_2(v)] \widetilde D_3(v) + E_2(v) [E_{1,3}(u), \widetilde D_3(v)]\\ &= \left([E_{1,3}(u), E_2(v)] - E_2(v) [E_1(u), E_2(v)] \right) \widetilde D_3(v) = 0.\end{aligned}$$ This proves (iii). For (iv), note to start with by considering the $u^0$-coefficients of (ii) that $[E_1^{(1)}, E_2(v)] = E_{1,3}(v) - E_1(v) E_2(v)$. Lemma \[goody2\](i) implies that $[D_1(u), E_1^{(1)}] = D_1(u) E_1(u)$. Now compute: $$\begin{aligned} [D_1(u), E_{1,3}(v) - E_1(v) E_2(v)] &= [D_1(u), [E_1^{(1)}, E_2(v)]] = [[D_1(u), E_1^{(1)}], E_2(v)] \\ &= [D_1(u) E_1(u), E_2(v)] = D_1(u) [E_1(u), E_2(v)].\end{aligned}$$ Using this identity to rewrite (iv)$'$ we get $$\begin{gathered} [D_1(u) E_1(u), E_{1,3}(v) - E_1(v) E_2(v)] = D_1(u) [E_1(u), E_2(v)] E_1(u)\\ + D_1(u) [E_1(u), E_{1,3}(v) - E_1(v) E_2(v)] = 0.\end{gathered}$$ Now (iv) follows on cancelling $D_1(u)$. \[serre1\] The following relations hold: - $[[E_1(u), E_2(v)], E_2(v)] = 0$; - $[E_1(u), [E_1(u), E_2(v)]] = 0$. \(i) Compute using Lemma \[goody3\](ii) and (iii): $$\begin{aligned} (u-v) [[E_1(u), E_2(v)], E_2(v)]&= [E_1(u) E_2(v) - E_1(v) E_2(v) - E_{1,3}(u) + E_{1,3}(v), E_2(v)]\\ &= [E_1(u),E_2(v)] E_2(v) - [E_1(v),E_2(v)] E_2(v)\\ &\qquad\qquad+ E_2(v) [E_1(v),E_2(v)] - E_2(v)[E_1(u),E_2(v)]\\ &=[[E_1(u),E_2(v)], E_2(v)] - [[E_1(v),E_2(v)], E_2(v)].\end{aligned}$$ We conclude that $(u-v-1) [[E_1(u), E_2(v)], E_2(v)] = - [[E_1(v),E_2(v)], E_2(v)]$. Now let $u = v+1$ to deduce that the right hand side equals zero, then divide by $(u-v-1)$ to proof the lemma. \(ii) Similar calculation using Lemma \[goody3\](iv) instead of (iii). \[serre2\] The following relations hold: - $[[E_1(u), E_2(v)], E_2(w)] + [[E_1(u), E_2(w)], E_2(v)] = 0$; - $[E_1(u), [E_1(v), E_2(w)]] + [E_1(v), [E_1(u), E_2(w)]] = 0$. \(i) We show that the expression $(u-v)(u-w)(v-w) [[E_1(u), E_2(v)], E_2(w)]$ is symmetric in $v$ and $w$. By Lemma \[goody3\](ii) it equals $$(u-w)(v-w) [E_1(u) E_2(v) - E_1(v) E_2(v) + E_{1,3}(v) - E_{1,3}(u), E_2(w)]$$ Using Lemmas \[goody3\](iii) and \[serre1\](i) this equals $$\begin{aligned} &(u-w)(v-w)[E_1(u), E_2(w)] E_2(v) +(u-w)(v-w)E_1(u) [E_2(v), E_2(w)]\\ -\,&(u-w)(v-w)[E_1(v), E_2(w)] E_2(v) -(u-w)(v-w)E_1(v) [E_2(v), E_2(w)]\\ +\,&(u-w)(v-w) [E_1(v),E_2(w)]E_2(w) -(u-w)(v-w) [E_1(u), E_2(w)]E_2(w) \end{aligned}$$ Now use Lemmas \[goody3\](ii) and \[goody2\](iv) to expand the commutators once more to get $$\begin{aligned} &(v-w)(E_1(u) E_2(w)E_2(v) - E_1(w) E_2(w)E_2(v) + E_{1,3}(w)E_2(v) - E_{1,3}(u) E_2(v))\\ +\,&(u-w) (E_1(u)E_2(v)^2 - E_1(u)E_2(v) E_2(w) - E_1(u)E_2(w) E_2(v) +E_1(u) E_2(w)^2)\\ -\,&(u-w)(E_1(v) E_2(w)E_2(v) - E_1(w)E_2(w)E_2(v) + E_{1,3}(w)E_2(v) - E_{1,3}(v) E_2(v))\\ -\,&(u-w) (E_1(v)E_2(v)^2 - E_1(v)E_2(v) E_2(w) - E_1(v)E_2(w) E_2(v) + E_1(v)E_2(w)^2)\\ +\,&(u-w) (E_1(v) E_2(w)E_2(w) - E_1(w) E_2(w)E_2(w) + E_{1,3}(w)E_2(w) - E_{1,3}(v)E_2(w))\\ -&(v-w) (E_1(u) E_2(w)E_2(w) - E_1(w) E_2(w)E_2(w) + E_{1,3}(w)E_2(w) - E_{1,3}(u)E_2(w)).\end{aligned}$$ Now open the parentheses and check that the resulting expression is symmetric in $v$ and $w$ to complete the proof. \(ii) A similar calculation using Lemma \[goody3\](iv) instead of (iii) and Lemma \[serre1\](ii) instead of (i) shows that the expression $(u-v)(u-w)(v-w) [E_1(u), [E_1(v), E_2(w)]]$ is symmetric in $u$ and $v$. Now we can verify the remaining relations needed for the first part of the proof. Note that $$\label{todd} (E_1(v) - E_1(u))/(u-v) = \sum_{r,s \geq 1} E_1^{(r+s-1)} u^{-r} v^{-s}.$$ Using this, divide both sides of the identity from Lemma \[goody2\](i) by $(u-v)$ and equate $u^{-r} v^{-s}$-coefficients on both sides to prove (\[r4\]) with $i=1,j=1$. Next, multiplying Lemma \[goody2\](ii) on the left and right by $D_2(v)$ then swapping $u$ and $v$ gives the identity $$\label{newby} (u-v) [D_2(u), E_1(v)] = -D_2(u)(E_1(v) - E_1(u)).$$ Now argue using (\[todd\]) again to deduce (\[r4\]) with $i=2,j=1$ from this. Similarly one gets (\[r3\]) with $i=1,j=1$ from Lemma \[goody2\](iii), (\[r3\]) with $i=2,j=1$ from Lemma \[goody3\](i), (\[r6\]) with $i=1$ from Lemma \[goody2\](iv), (\[r8\]) with $i=1$ from Lemma \[goody3\](ii), (\[r12\]) with $i=2,j=1$ from Lemma \[serre2\](i) and (\[r12\]) with $i=1,j=2$ from Lemma \[serre2\](ii). Now we consider the second part of the proof. Let $\widehat{Y}_n$ denote the algebra with generators and relations as in the statement of Theorem \[drinpres\]. For $1 \leq i < j \leq n$, define elements $E_{i,j}^{(r)}, F_{i,j}^{(r)} \in \widehat{Y}_n$ by the equations (\[eij\]). Let $\widehat{Y}_{(1^n)}$ resp. $\widehat{Y}_{(1^n)}^+$ resp. $\widehat{Y}_{(1^n)}^-$ denote the subalgebra of $\widehat{Y}_n$ generated by the elements $\{D_i^{(r)}\}_{i=1,\dots,n, r \geq 1}$ resp. $\{E_i^{(r)}\}_{i=1,\dots,n-1,r \geq 1}$ resp. $\{F_i^{(r)}\}_{i=1,\dots,n-1,r \geq 1}$. Define an ascending filtration $$\L_0 \widehat{Y}^+_{(1^n)} \subseteq \L_1 \widehat{Y}^+_{(1^n)} \subseteq \cdots$$ on $\widehat{Y}^+_{(1^n)}$ by declaring that the generator $E_i^{(r)}$ is of degree $(r-1)$, i.e. $\L_d \widehat{Y}^+_{(1^n)}$ is the span of all monomials in these generators of total degree at most $d$. Let $\gr^\LL \widehat{Y}_{(1^n)}^+$ denote the associated graded algebra, and let $e_{i,j;r} := \gr^\LL_{r} E_{i,j}^{(r+1)} \in \gr^\LL \widehat{Y}_{(1^n)}^+$ for each $1 \leq i < j \leq n$ and $r \geq 0$. \[main2\] For $1 \leq i < j \leq n, 1 \leq \k < \l \leq n$ and $r,s \geq 0$, we have that $$[e_{i,j;r}, e_{\k,\l;s}] = e_{i,\l;r+s}\delta_{\k,j} - \delta_{i,\l}e_{\k,j;r+s}.$$ By the defining relations for $\widehat{Y}_n$, we have easily that - $[e_{i,i+1;r}, e_{j,j+1;s}] = 0$ if $|i-j| \neq 1$; - $[e_{i,i+1;r+1}, e_{j,j+1;s}] = [e_{i,i+1;r}, e_{j,j+1;s+1}]$ if $|i-j| = 1$; - $[e_{i,i+1;r}, [e_{i,i+1;s}, e_{j,j+1;t}]] = -[e_{i,i+1;s}, [e_{i,i+1;r}, e_{j,j+1;t}]]$ if $|i-j|=1$. We also have by definition that - $e_{i,j;r} = [e_{i,j-1;r}, e_{j-1,j;0}]$ for $j > i+1$. Now we consider seven cases. - $j < \k$. Obviously, $[e_{i,j;r}, e_{\k,\l;s}] = 0$. - $j=\k$. By (ii) and (iv), $[e_{j-1,j;r}, e_{j,j+1;s}] = e_{j-1,j+1;r+s}$. Now bracket with $e_{j+1,j+2;0}, \dots, e_{\l-1,\l;0}$ to deduce that $[e_{j-1,j;r}, e_{j,\l;s}] = e_{j-1,\l;r+s}$. Finally bracket with $e_{j-2,j-1;0},\dots, e_{i,i+1;0}$. - $i < \k, j=\l$. Let us just show that $[e_{1,3;r}, e_{2,3;s}] = 0$, since the general case is an easy consequence. Note that by (iii), $[e_{1,3;r}, e_{2,3;s}] = [[e_{1,2;r}, e_{2,3;0}], e_{2,3;s}] = -[[e_{1,2;r}, e_{2,3;s}], e_{2,3;0}].$ By (ii) this equals $-[[e_{1,2;r+s}, e_{2,3;0}], e_{2,3;0}]$ which is zero by (iii). - $i = \k, j < \l$. Similar to (3). - $i=\k,j=\l$. If $j = i+1$, we are done by (i); else, $$\begin{aligned} [e_{i,j;r}, e_{i,j;s}] &= [[e_{i,j-1;r}, e_{j-1,j;0}], e_{i,j;s}]\\ &= [[e_{i,j-1;r}, e_{i,j;s}], e_{j-1,j;0}] + [e_{i,j-1;r}, [e_{j-1,j;0}, e_{i,j;s}]]\end{aligned}$$ which is zero by (3) and (4). - $i < \k < j < \l$. We just show $[e_{1,3;r}, e_{2,4;s}] = 0$. It equals $$\begin{aligned} [[e_{1,2;r}, e_{2,3;0}],[e_{2,3;0}, e_{3,4;s}]] &= [e_{2,3;0}, [[e_{1,2;r}, e_{2,3;0}],e_{3,4;s}]]\\&= [e_{2,3;0}, [e_{1,2;r}, [e_{2,3;0},e_{3,4;s}]]]\\ &= [[e_{2,3;0}, e_{1,2;r}],[e_{2,3;0}, e_{3,4;s}]]\\&= -[[e_{1,2;r}, e_{2,3;0}], [e_{2,3;0}, e_{3,4;s}]].\end{aligned}$$ Hence it is zero. - $i < \k, \l < j$. We just show $[e_{2,3;r}, e_{1,4;s}] = 0$. It equals $[e_{2,3;r}, [e_{1,3;s}, e_{3,4;0}]] = [e_{1,3;s}, e_{2,4;r}]$, which is zero by (6). \[span\] The algebra $\widehat{Y}_n$ is spanned by the set of monomials in $\{D_i^{(r)}\}_{i=1,\dots,n,r \geq 1} \cup\{E_{i,j}^{(r)}, F_{i,j}^{(r)}\}_{1 \leq i < j \leq n, r \geq 1}$, taken in some fixed order so that $F$'s come before $D$'s and $D$'s come before $E$'s. Using Lemma \[main2\], one shows easily that the associated graded algebra $\gr^\LL \widehat{Y}_{(1^n)}^+$ is spanned by the set of all ordered monomials in the elements $\{e_{i,j;r}\}_{1 \leq i < j \leq n, r \geq 0}$ taken in some fixed order. Hence $\widehat{Y}_{(1^n)}^+$ itself is spanned by the corresponding monomials in $\{{E}_{i,j}^{(r)}\}_{1 \leq i < j \leq n, r \geq 1}$. By the defining relations for $\widehat{Y}_n$, there is an antiautomorphism $\tau$ of $\widehat{Y}_n$ fixing each $D_i^{(r)}$ and interchanging each $E_{i,j}^{(r)}$ with $F_{i,j}^{(r)}$. It follows on applying $\tau$ that the set of monomials in $\{F_{i,j}^{(r)}\}_{1 \leq i < j \leq n}$ taken in some fixed order span $\widehat{Y}_{(1^n)}^-$, while obviously the ordered monomials in the elements $\{D_i^{(r)}\}_{i=1,\dots,n, r \geq 1}$ span $\widehat{Y}_{(1^n)}$. Since by the defining relations the natural multiplication map $\widehat{Y}_{(1^n)}^- \otimes \widehat{Y}_{(1^n)} \otimes \widehat{Y}_{(1^n)}^+ \rightarrow \widehat{Y}_n$ is surjective, the lemma follows. Now, the first part of the proof of Theorem \[drinpres\] above implies that there is a surjective algebra homomorphism $\theta:\widehat{Y}_n \rightarrow Y_n$ sending $D_i^{(r)}, E_{i,j}^{(r)},F_{i,j}^{(r)}\in\widehat{Y}_n$ to the elements with the same name in $Y_n$. To complete the proof of Theorem \[drinpres\] we need to show that $\theta$ is an isomorphism. This follows immediately from Lemma \[ind\] below, since it shows that the images of the monomials that span $\widehat{Y}_n$ from Lemma \[span\] are linearly independent in $Y_n$ itself. \[ind\] The set of monomials in $\{D_i^{(r)}\}_{i=1,\dots,n,r \geq 1} \cup\{E_{i,j}^{(r)}, F_{i,j}^{(r)}\}_{1 \leq i < j \leq n,r \geq 1}$ taken in some fixed order is linearly independent in $Y_n$. As explained at the end of $\S$\[srtt\], we can identify the associated graded algebra $\gr^\LL Y_n$ with $U(\mathfrak{gl}_n[t])$, so that $\gr^\LL_{r} T_{i,j}^{(r+1)}$ is identified with $e_{i,j} t^{r}$. It is easy to see from (\[qd1\])–(\[qd3\]) that under this identification $\gr^\LL_{r} D_i^{(r+1)}$ resp. $\gr^\LL_{r} E_{i,j}^{(r+1)}$ resp. $\gr^\LL_{r} F_{i,j}^{(r+1)}$ is identified with $e_{i,i} t^{r}$ resp. $e_{i,j} t^{r}$ resp. $e_{j,i} t^{r}$. Hence by the PBW theorem for $U(\mathfrak{gl}_n[t])$, the set of all monomials in $$\{\gr^\LL_{r} D_i^{(r+1)}\}_{i=1,\dots,n,r \geq 0} \cup\{\gr^\LL_{r} E_{i,j}^{(r+1)}, \gr^\LL_{r} F_{i,j}^{(r+1)}\}_{1 \leq i < j \leq n, r \geq 0}$$ taken in some fixed order forms a basis for $\gr^\LL Y_n$. The lemma follows easily. This completes the proof of Theorem \[drinpres\]. Let us also state the following theorem which was obtained in the course of the above proof; cf. @Lev. \[triangular\] - The set of all monomials in $\{D_i^{(r)}\}_{i=1,\dots,n, r \geq 1}$ taken in some fixed order form a basis for $Y_{(1^n)}$. - The set of all monomials in $\{E_{i,j}^{(r)}\}_{1 \leq i < j \leq n, r \geq 1}$ taken in some fixed order form a basis for $Y_{(1^n)}^+$. - The set of all monomials in $\{F_{i,j}^{(r)}\}_{1 \leq i < j \leq n, r \geq 1}$ taken in some fixed order form a basis for $Y_{(1^n)}^-$. - The set of all monomials in $\{D_i^{(r)}\}_{i=1,\dots,n, r \geq 1}\cup\{E_{i,j}^{(r)}, F_{i,j}^{(r)}\}_{1 \leq i < j \leq n, r \geq 1}$ taken in some fixed order form a basis for $Y_n$. \[drinrem\]Let us explain the relationship between the presentation given in Theorem \[drinpres\] and Drinfeld's presentation from @D3, since there are some additional shifts in $u$. Actually, the latter is a presentation for the subalgebra $$Y(\mathfrak{sl}_n) = \{x \in Y_n\:|\:\mu_f(x) = x \hbox{ for all } f(u) \in 1 + \C[[u^{-1}]]\};$$ see @MNO [Definition 2.14]. Define $\kappa_{i,k}, \xi_{i,k}^{\pm}$ for $i=1,\dots,n-1$ and $k \geq 0$ from the equations $$\begin{aligned} \kappa_i(u) = \sum_{k \geq 0} \kappa_{i,k}u^{-k-1} &:= \textstyle 1+\widetilde{D}_i\left(u -\frac{i-1}{2}\right) D_{i+1}\left(u-\frac{i-1}{2}\right),\\ \xi_i^+(u) = \sum_{k \geq 0} \xi_{i,k}^+ u^{-k-1} &:= \textstyle E_{i}\left(u-\frac{i-1}{2}\right),\\ \xi_i^-(u) = \sum_{k \geq 0} \xi_{i,k}^- u^{-k-1}&:= \textstyle F_{i}\left(u-\frac{i-1}{2}\right).\end{aligned}$$ One can check by equating coefficients in the identities from Lemmas \[goody2\], \[goody3\] and \[serre2\] that these elements generate $Y(\mathfrak{sl}_n)$ subject to the Drinfeld relations, namely: $$\begin{aligned} \label{dr1} [\kappa_{i,k}, \kappa_{j,l}] &= 0, \\ [\xi^+_{i,k}, \xi^-_{j,l}] &= \delta_{i,j} \kappa_{i,k+l},\\ [\kappa_{i,0}, \xi^{\pm}_{j,l}] &= \pm a_{i,j} \xi^{\pm}_{j,l},\\ [\kappa_{i,k},\xi^\pm_{j,l+1}] - [\kappa_{i,k+1}, \xi^{\pm}_{j,l}] &= \pm \frac{a_{i,j}}{2} (\kappa_{i,k} \xi^{\pm}_{j,l} + \xi^{\pm}_{j,l} \kappa_{i,k}),\\ [\xi^\pm_{i,k}, \xi^\pm_{j,l+1}] - [\xi^\pm_{i,k+1}, \xi^\pm_{j,l}] &= \pm \frac{a_{i,j}}{2} (\xi^\pm_{i,k} \xi^{\pm}_{j,l} + \xi^\pm_{j,l} \xi^\pm_{i,k}),\label{eg}\\ i \neq j, N = 1 - a_{i,j} \Rightarrow \operatorname{Sym} &[\xi_{i,k_1}^{\pm}, [\xi_{i,k_2}^{\pm}, \cdots [\xi_{i,k_N}^{\pm}, \xi_{j,l}^\pm]\cdots]] = 0 \label{drn}\end{aligned}$$ where $(a_{i,j})_{1 \leq i,j < n}$ denotes the Cartan matrix of type $A_{n-1}$ indexed in the standard way and $\operatorname{Sym}$ denotes symmetrization with respect to $k_1,\dots,k_N$. For example, let us verify (\[eg\]) in the case $j=i+1$ and the sign is $+$: applying Lemma \[goody3\](ii) $$\begin{aligned} (u-v) [\xi_i^+(u), \xi_{i+1}^+(v)] &= \left(\left(u-{\textstyle\frac{i-1}{2}}\right) - \left(v-{\textstyle\frac{i}{2}}\right) - {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\right) \left[E_i\left(u-{\textstyle\frac{i-1}{2}}\right), E_{i+1}\left(v-{\textstyle\frac{i}{2}}\right)\right]\\ &= E_i\left(u-{\textstyle\frac{i-1}{2}}\right) E_{i+1}\left(v-{\textstyle\frac{i}{2}}\right) - E_i\left(v-{\textstyle\frac{i}{2}}\right) E_{i+1}\left(v-{\textstyle\frac{i}{2}}\right)\\ &\phantom{=}\qquad- E_{i,i+2}\left(u-{\textstyle\frac{i-1}{2}}\right) + E_{i,i+2} \left(v-{\textstyle\frac{i}{2}}\right)\\ &\phantom{=}\qquad- {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} \left[E_i\left(u-\textstyle{\frac{i-1}{2}}\right), E_{i+1}\left(v-{\textstyle\frac{i}{2}}\right)\right]\\ &= {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\left(\xi_i^+(u) \xi_{i+1}^+(v)+\xi_{i+1}^+(v)\xi_i^+(u)\right) - E_i\left(v-{\textstyle\frac{i}{2}}\right) E_{i+1}\left(v-{\textstyle\frac{i}{2}}\right)\\ &\phantom{=}\qquad- E_{i,i+2}\left(u-{\textstyle\frac{i-1}{2}}\right) + E_{i,i+2} \left(v-{\textstyle\frac{i}{2}}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Now equate $u^{-k-1}v^{-l-1}$-coefficients on both sides to get $$[\xi_{i,k+1}^+, \xi_{i+1,l}^+] - [\xi_{i,k}^+, \xi_{i+1,l+1}^+] = {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\left( \xi_{i,k}^+ \xi_{i+1,l}^+ + \xi_{i+1,l}^+ \xi_{i,k}^+ \right)$$ as required. (<span>*Beware*</span>: the relations (\[dr1\])–(\[drn\]) are actually not exactly the same as the relations in @D3 — one needs to swap $\xi_{i,k}^+$ and $\xi_{i,k}^-$ and replace $\kappa_{i,k}$ with $-\kappa_{i,k}$ to get those. The reason for the difference is that we have chosen to work with the opposite presentation to Drinfeld throughout.) Parabolic subalgebras {#sparabolic} ===================== Now we are ready to prove Theorems A and B stated in the introduction. Fix throughout the section a tuple $\nu = (\nu_1,\dots,\nu_m)$ of non-negative integers summing to $n$. Note there is going to be some overlap between the notation here and that of the previous section, which is the special case $\nu = (1^n)$ of the present definitions. When necessary, we will add an additional superscript $\nu$ to our notation to avoid any ambiguity as $\nu$ varies. Factor the $n \times n$ matrix $T(u)$ as $$\label{gfact2} T(u) = F(u) D(u) E(u)$$ for unique <span>*block matrices*</span> $$D(u) = \left( \begin{array}{cccc} D_{1}(u) & 0&\cdots&0\\ 0 & D_{2}(u) &\cdots&0\\ \vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\ 0&0 &\cdots&D_{m}(u) \end{array} \right),$$ $$E(u) = \left( \begin{array}{cccc} I_{\nu_1} & E_{1,2}(u) &\cdots&E_{1,m}(u)\\ 0 & I_{\nu_2} &\cdots&E_{2,m}(u)\\ \vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\ 0&0 &\cdots&I_{\nu_m} \end{array} \right),\: F(u) = \left( \begin{array}{cccc} I_{\nu_1} & 0 &\cdots&0\\ F_{1,2}(u) & I_{\nu_2} &\cdots&0\\ \vdots&\vdots&\ddots&\vdots\\ F_{1,m}(u)&F_{2,m}(u) &\cdots&I_{\nu_m} \end{array} \right),$$ where $D_a(u) = (D_{a;i,j}(u))_{1 \leq i,j \leq \nu_a}$, $E_{a,b}(u)= (E_{a,b;i,j}(u))_{1 \leq i \leq \nu_a, 1 \leq j \leq \nu_b}$ and $F_{a,b}(u) = (F_{a,b;i,j}(u))_{1 \leq i \leq \nu_b, 1 \leq j \leq \nu_a}$ are $\nu_a \times \nu_a$, $\nu_a \times \nu_b$ and $\nu_b \times\nu_a$ matrices, respectively. Also define the $\nu_a \times \nu_a$ matrix $\widetilde{D}_a(u) = (\widetilde{D}_{a;i,j}(u))_{1 \leq i,j \leq \nu_a}$ by $\widetilde{D}_a(u) := -D_a(u)^{-1}$. The entries of these matrices define power series $D_{a;i,j}(u) = \sum_{r \geq 0} D_{a;i,j}^{(r)} u^{-r}$, $\widetilde{D}_{a;i,j}(u) = \sum_{r \geq 0}\widetilde{D}_{a;i,j}^{(r)} u^{-r}$, $E_{a,b;i,j}(u) = \sum_{r \geq 1} E_{a,b;i,j}^{(r)} u^{-r}$ and $F_{a,b;i,j}(u) = \sum_{r \geq 1} F_{a,b;i,j}^{(r)} u^{-r}$. We let $E_{a;i,j}(u) = \sum_{r \geq 1} E_{a;i,j}^{(r)} u^{-r} := E_{a,a+1;i,j}(u)$ and $F_{a;i,j}(u) = \sum_{r \geq 1} F_{a;i,j}^{(r)} u^{-r} := F_{a,a+1;i,j}(u)$ for short. Like before, there are explicit descriptions of all these elements in terms of quasi-determinants. To write them down, write the matrix $T(u)$ in block form as $$T(u) = \left( \begin{array}{lll} {^\nu}T_{1,1}(u)&\cdots&{^\nu}T_{1,m}(u)\\ \vdots&\ddots&\cdots\\ {^\nu}T_{m,1}(u)&\cdots&{^\nu}T_{m,m}(u)\\ \end{array} \right)$$ where ${^\nu}T_{a,b}(u)$ is a $\nu_a \times \nu_b$ matrix. Then, recalling the notation (\[qdetdef\]), $$\!\!\!\!\!\! \!\!\!\!\!\! \!\!\!\!\!\! \!\!\!D_a(u) = \left| \begin{array}{cccc} {^\nu}T_{1,1}(u) & \cdots & {^\nu}T_{1,a-1}(u)&{^\nu}T_{1,a}(u)\\ \vdots & \ddots &\vdots&\vdots\\ {^\nu}T_{a-1,1}(u)&\cdots&{^\nu}T_{a-1,a-1}(u)&{^\nu}T_{a-1,a}(u)\\ {^\nu}T_{a,1}(u) & \cdots & {^\nu}T_{a,a-1}(u)& \hbox{\begin{tabular}{|c|}\hline${^\nu}T_{a,a}(u)$\\\hline\end{tabular}} \end{array} \right|,$$ $$E_{a,b}(u) = D_a(u)^{-1} \left|\begin{array}{cccc} {^\nu}T_{1,1}(u) & \cdots &{^\nu}T_{1,a-1}(u)& {^\nu}T_{1,b}(u)\\ \vdots & \ddots &\vdots&\vdots\\ {^\nu}T_{a-1,1}(u) & \cdots & {^\nu}T_{a-1,a-1}(u)&{^\nu}T_{a-1,b}(u)\\ {^\nu}T_{a,1}(u) & \cdots & {^\nu}T_{a,a-1}(u)& \hbox{\begin{tabular}{|c|}\hline${^\nu}T_{a,b}(u)$\\\hline\end{tabular}} \end{array} \right|,$$ $$F_{a,b}(u) = \left| \begin{array}{cccc} {^\nu}T_{1,1}(u) & \cdots &{^\nu}T_{1,a-1}(u)& {^\nu}T_{1,a}(u)\\ \vdots & \ddots &\vdots&\vdots\\ {^\nu}T_{a-1,1}(u) & \cdots & {^\nu}T_{a-1,a-1}(u)&{^\nu}T_{a-1,a}(u)\\ {^\nu}T_{b,1}(u) & \cdots & {^\nu}T_{b,a-1}(u)& \hbox{\begin{tabular}{|c|}\hline${^\nu}T_{b,a}(u)$\\\hline\end{tabular}} \end{array} \right|D_a(u)^{-1}.$$ It follows in particular from these descriptions that for $b > a+1$ and $1 \leq i \leq \nu_a, 1 \leq j \leq \nu_b$, $$E_{a,b;i,j}^{(r)} = [E_{a,b-1;i,k}^{(r)}, E_{b-1;k,j}^{(1)}], \qquad F_{a,b;j,i}^{(r)} = [F_{b-1;j,k}^{(1)}, F_{a,b-1;k,i}^{(r)}],\label{ter}$$ for any $1 \leq k \leq \nu_{b-1}$. We also get the analogue of Lemma \[reduce\]: \[reduce2\] Fix $a \geq 1$ and let $\bar\nu := (\nu_a,\nu_{a+1},\dots,\nu_m)$. Then, for all admissible $i,j$, - ${^\nu}D_{a;i,j}(u) = \psi_{\nu_1+\cdots+\nu_{a-1}}({^{\bar\nu}}D_{1;i,j}(u))$; - ${^\nu}E_{a;i,j}(u) = \psi_{\nu_1+\cdots+\nu_{a-1}}({^{\bar\nu}} E_{1;i,j}(u))$; - ${^\nu} F_{a;i,j}(u) = \psi_{\nu_1+\cdots+\nu_{a-1}}({^{\bar\nu}}F_{1;i,j}(u))$. In particular Lemma \[reduce2\](i) shows that the elements $D_{a;i,j}^{(r)}$ here are the same as the generators of the standard Levi subalgebra $Y_\nu$ introduced at the end of $\S$\[slevi\], so they satisfy the relations (\[levirel\]). We also let $Y_{\nu}^+$ resp. $Y_{\nu}^-$ denote the subalgebra generated by $\{E_{a;i,j}^{(r)}\}_{1\leq a < m, 1 \leq i \leq \nu_a, 1 \leq j \leq \nu_{a+1}, r \geq 1}$ resp. $\{F_{a;i,j}^{(r)}\}_{1\leq a < m, 1 \leq i \leq \nu_{a+1}, 1 \leq j \leq \nu_{a}, r \geq 1}$. The antiautomorphism $\tau$ has the properties $$\begin{aligned} \tau(D_{a;i,j}(u)) &= D_{a;j,i}(u),\label{tau1}\\ \tau(E_{a,b;i,j}(u)) &= F_{a,b;j,i}(u),\\ \tau(F_{a,b;i,j}(u)) &= E_{a,b;j,i}(u),\label{tau3}\end{aligned}$$ so it leaves $Y_\nu$ invariant and interchanges $Y_{\nu}^+$ and $Y_{\nu}^-$. Finally, as in the introduction, set $Y_\nu^\sharp := Y_\nu Y_\nu^+$ and $Y_\nu^\flat := Y_\nu^- Y_\nu$, giving the standard parabolic subalgebras of $Y_n$ of shape $\nu$. \[new\]Here is an alternative definition of the algebras $Y_\nu. Y_\nu^\sharp$ and $Y_\nu^\flat$ just in terms of the Drinfeld generators from Theorem \[drinpres\]. First, $Y_\nu$ is the subalgebra of $Y_n$ generated by all $\{D_i^{(r)}\}_{1 \leq i \leq n,r \geq 1}$ together with $\{E_i^{(r)}, F_i^{(r)}\}_{r \geq 1}$ for $i \in \{1,\dots,n\} - \{\nu_1,\nu_1+\nu_2,\dots,\nu_1+\cdots+\nu_m\}$. Then $Y_\nu^\sharp$ resp. $Y_\nu^\flat$ is the subalgebra generated by $Y_\nu$ together with all remaining elements of $\{E_i^{(r)}\}_{1 \leq i < n,r \geq 1}$ resp. $\{F_i^{(r)}\}_{1 \leq i < n,r \geq 1}$. We have now defined the elements $D_{a;i,j}^{(r)}, E_{a;i,j}^{(r)}$ and $F_{a;i,j}^{(r)}$ appearing in Theorems A and B stated in the introduction. We are ready to explain the proofs of these theorems. Actually, the argument runs almost exactly parallel to the proofs of Theorems \[drinpres\] and \[triangular\] given in the previous section. As before, there are two parts: first, to show all the relations (\[pr1\])–(\[pr14\]) from Theorem A hold; second, to show we have enough relations by constructing the PBW bases described in Theorem B. For the first part, one uses Lemma \[reduce2\], (\[levirel\]) and (\[tau1\])–(\[tau3\]) to reduce the problem to checking the following special cases: (\[pr6\]) with $a=1,b=1$ or $a=2,b=1$; (\[pr4\]) with $a=1,b=1$ or $a=2,b=1$; (\[pr7\]) with $a=1$; (\[pr9\]) with $a=1$; (\[pr11\]) with $a=1,b=2$; (\[pr13\]) with $a=2,b=1$ or $a=1,b=2$. These special cases may be deduced from the following four lemmas by equating coefficients. Note these lemmas are the exact analogues of Lemmas \[goody2\]–\[serre2\]. \[pgoody2\] Suppose $m=2$, i.e. $\nu = (\nu_1,\nu_2)$. The following identities hold for all admissible $h,i,j,k$: - $(u-v) [D_{1;i,j}(u), E_{1;\k,\l}(v)] = D_{1;i,p}(u) (E_{1;p,\l}(v) - E_{1;p,\l}(u)) \delta_{\k,j}$; - $(u-v) [E_{1;i,j}(u), \widetilde{D}_{2;\k,\l}(v)] = (E_{1;i,q}(u) - E_{1;i,q}(v)) \widetilde D_{2;q,\l}(v)\delta_{\k,j}$; - $(u-v) [E_{1;i,j}(u), F_{1;\k,\l}(v)] = \widetilde D_{1;i,\l}(v) D_{2;\k,j}(v) - \widetilde D_{1;i,\l}(u) D_{2;\k,j}(u)$; - $(u-v)[E_{1;i,j}(u), E_{1;\k,\l}(v)] = (E_{1;i,\l}(v) - E_{1;i,\l}(u)) (E_{1;\k,j}(v) - E_{1;\k,j}(u))$. (Here, $p$ resp. $q$ should be summed over $1,\dots,\nu_1$ resp. $1,\dots,\nu_2$.) Compute the $e_{i,j} \otimes e_{\k,\nu_1+\l}$-, $e_{i,\nu_1+j} \otimes e_{\nu_1+\k,\nu_1+\l}$-, $e_{i,\nu_1+j} \otimes e_{\nu_1+\k,\l}$- and $e_{i,\nu_1+j} \otimes e_{\k,\nu_1+\l}$-coefficients on each side of (\[rmdefalt\]) and then rearrange the resulting identities like we did in the proof of Lemma \[goody2\] above to obtain: - $(u-v) [D_{1;i,j}(u), E_{1;\k,q}(v) \widetilde{D}_{2;q,\l}(v)] = \\\hspace{20mm} D_{1;i,p}(u) (E_{1;p,q}(v) - E_{1;p,q}(u)) \widetilde{D}_{2;q,\l}(v) \delta_{\k,j}$; - $(u-v) [D_{1;i,p}(u) E_{1;p,j}(u), \widetilde{D}_{2;\k,\l}(v)] = \\\hspace{20mm} D_{1;i,p}(u)(E_{1;p,q}(u) - E_{1;p,q}(v))\widetilde{D}_{2;q,\l}(v)\delta_{\k,j};$ - $ (u-v)[D_{1;i,p}(u) E_{1;p,j}(u), \widetilde{D}_{2;\k,q}(v) F_{1;q,\l}(v)] =\\ \hspace{20mm} \delta_{i,\l} \widetilde{D}_{2;\k,q}(v) \big\{ D_{2;q,j}(u) + (F_{1;q,p}(u) - F_{1;q,p}(v)) D_{1;p,p'}(u) E_{1;p',j}(u) \big\}\\\qquad\qquad - D_{1;i,p}(u) \big\{ \widetilde{D}_{1;p,\l}(v) + (E_{1;p,q}(v) - E_{1;p,q}(u)) \widetilde{D}_{2;q,q'}(v) F_{1;q',\l}(v) \big\} \delta_{\k,j};$ - $ [D_{1;i,p}(u) E_{1;p,j}(u), E_{1;\k,q}(v) \widetilde{D}_{2;q,\l}(v)] = 0$. (Here, $p,p'$ resp. $q,q'$ should also be summed over $1,\dots,\nu_1$ resp. $1,\dots,\nu_2$.) Now (i), (ii) and (iii) are deduced from (i)$'$, (ii)$'$ and (iii)$'$ by simplifying exactly like we did in the proof of Lemma \[goody2\]. It turns out to be more difficult than before to deduce (iv) from (iv)$'$ so we explain this part of the argument more carefully. As before, one rewrites (iv)$'$ using (i) and (ii) to obtain: - $(u-v)^2 [E_{1;i,j}(u), E_{1;\k,\l}(v)] = (E_{1;i,j}(v) - E_{1;i,j}(u)) (E_{1;\k,\l}(u) - E_{1;\k,\l}(v)) +(u-v) E_{1;\k,j}(v) (E_{1;i,\l}(v) - E_{1;i,\l}(u)) +(u-v) (E_{1;i,\l}(u) - E_{1;i,\l}(v)) E_{1;\k,j}(u). $ Now we deduce (iv) from this. For a power series $X$ in $Y_n[[u^{-1},v^{-1}]]$, let us write $\{X\}_d$ for the homogeneous component of $X$ of total degree $d$ in the variables $u^{-1}$ and $v^{-1}$. We show by induction on $d=1,2,\dots$ that $$(u-v) \{[E_{1;i,j}(u), E_{1;\k,\l}(v)]\}_{d+1} = \{(E_{1;i,\l}(v) - E_{1;i,\l}(u))(E_{1;\k,j}(v) - E_{1;\k,j}(u))\}_d.$$ For the base case $d=1$, applying $\{.\}_0$ to (iv)$''$ shows $(u-v)^2 \{[E_{1;i,j}(u), E_{1;\k,\l}(v)]\}_{2} = 0$, hence $(u-v) \{[E_{1;i,j}(u), E_{1;\k,\l}(v)]\}_{2} = 0$ as required. For the induction step, assume the statement is true for $d > 1$. Apply $\{.\}_{d}$ to (iv)$''$ to get that $$\begin{gathered} (u-v)^2 \{[E_{1;i,j}(u), E_{1;\k,\l}(v)]\}_{d+2} = (u-v) \{E_{1;\k,j}(v) (E_{1;i,\l}(v) - E_{1;i,\l}(u))\}_{d+1}\\ \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\:\:- (u-v) \{(E_{1;i,\l}(v) - E_{1;i,\l}(u)) E_{1;\k,j}(u)\}_{d+1}\\ - \{(E_{1;i,j}(v) - E_{1;i,j}(u)) (E_{1;\k,\l}(v) - E_{1;\k,\l}(u))\}_d.\end{gathered}$$ Now use the induction hypothesis, together with the identity $\{[E_{1;\k,j}(v), E_{1;i,\l}(v)]\}_{d+1} =0$ which follows by dividing both sides of the induction hypothesis by $(u-v)$ then setting $u=v$, to rewrite the right hand side to deduce that $$\begin{gathered} (u-v)^2 \{[E_{1;i,j}(u), E_{1;\k,\l}(v)]\}_{d+2} = (u-v) \{(E_{1;i,\l}(v) - E_{1;i,\l}(u))E_{1;\k,j}(v) \}_{d+1}\\ - (u-v) \{(E_{1;i,\l}(v) - E_{1;i,\l}(u)) E_{1;\k,j}(u)\}_{d+1}.\end{gathered}$$ Dividing both sides by $(u-v)$ completes the proof of the induction step. \[pgoody3\] Suppose $m=3$, i.e. $\nu
{'source': 'arXiv_out/math0407011'}