Strange notation of fibre product in an article of Cattaneo, Felder and Tomassini.

61 Views Asked by At

I'm doing my bachelor thesis on explaining an article of Cattaneo, Felder and Tomassini, and here is the link to the article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0012228.pdf. I'm currently working on the page 4. Please, read it shortly for the next. I encounter a problem in the last section of this page, in order to undestand what is meant:

  • I had first difficulties in order to understand what was meant by "the Maurer-Cartan form is $GL(d,R)$-equivariant". I tried to searched the signification of the last term, but although I found several papers saying that something was $GL(d,R)$-equivariant, I couldn't find any definition of it. I supposed a moment that it could mean that the Maurer-Cartan form was invariant under pulling-back by the right action of $GL(d,R)$ on $M^{coor}$ but after some calcultations, I have seen that it was wrong. Do you have an idea of the significance of it, or could you give me a hint about where I could find that?

  • The second thing was about the $M^{coor}×_{GL(d,R)}R[[y^1,...,y^d]]$. I thought that it was a fibre product like I did it in the lecture but, I found several problems by considering it so. First of all, the article does not define any maps $M^{coor}→GL(d,R)$ and $R[[y^1,...,y^d]]→GL(d,R)$ which are necessary in order to define the fibre product and I don't see any canonical maps for it. Second thing: I beleave that $R[[y^1,...,y^d]]$ is not a fiber bundle over $GL(d,R)$ (It would have been one over the set of all the dxd matrices but not if you restrict it to $GL(d,R))$. Last problem: It would then define a fibre bundle over $M^{coor}$ and not over $M^{aff}$ like it is said in the article. Am I right, when saying that it is not a "classical" fibre bundle? If yes, do you know how I should understand it?

Thank you very much for your help!