I made a mistake (imagine that!) :sweat_smile:
I said that the first-order calculus can be summarized by the commuting diagram
image.png
That is wrong. Instead, we need two separate commuting diagrams
20201218_213822.jpg
It seemed natural to me to try to combine things but if I put the two diagrams together and claim the whole thing is commutative, then I force some things to be isomorphisms that aren't isomorphisms.
I think I found a way to extend this to Ω~2 via
20201219_012348.jpg
The literature, e.g. here, says Ω~2=Ω~1⊗AΩ~1, but I am not sure if that is correct :thinking:
I think Ω~2 is a sub-bimodule of Ω~1⊗AΩ~1.
The map μ1:A⊗KA⊗KA→A⊗KA is a bimodule morphism that acts on basis elements by "popping out the middle", i.e.
ei⊗Kej⊗Kek↦ei⊗Kek
and extends linearly to all of A⊗K3, i.e.
μ1(α)=∑i,j,kα(i,j,k)μ1(ei⊗Kej⊗Kek)=∑i,k[∑jα(i,j,k)]ei⊗Kek.
If f,g∈A, then clearly
μ1(fαg)=fμ1(α)g.
I think Ω~2 should be the kernel of μ1∘m:Ω~1⊗AΩ1→A⊗KA.
Let α,β∈Ω~1 so that
α⊗Aβ=(i,j)∑(k,l)∑α(i,j)β(k,l)(ei⊗Kej)⊗A(ek⊗Kel)=(i,j)∑(k,l)∑α(i,j)β(k,l)δj,k(ei⊗Kej)⊗A(ej⊗Kel)=(i,j,k)∑α(i,j)β(j,k)(ei⊗Kej)⊗A(ej⊗Kek),
where (i,j,k) is a length two path i→j→k and
m(α⊗Aβ)=∑(i,j,k)α(i,j)β(j,k)ei⊗Kej⊗Kek.
so that
μ1∘m(α⊗Aβ)=∑(i,−,k)[∑jα(i,j)β(j,k)]ei⊗Kek.
This is zero when
∑jα(i,j)β(j,k)=0.