a cluster category is a certain 2-calabi - yau orbit category of the derived category of a hereditary abelian category .
cluster categories were introduced in @xcite in order to give a categorical model for the combinatorics of fomin - zelevinsky cluster algebras @xcite .
they are triangulated @xcite and admit ( cluster-)tilting objects , which model the clusters of a corresponding ( acyclic ) cluster algebra @xcite . each cluster in a fixed cluster algebra comes together with a finite quiver , and in the categorical model this quiver is in fact the gabriel quiver of the corresponding tilting object @xcite .
a principal ingredient in the construction of a cluster algebra is quiver mutation .
it controls the exchange procedure which gives a rule for producing a new cluster variable and hence a new cluster from a given cluster .
exchange is modeled by cluster categories in the acyclic case @xcite in terms of a mutation rule for tilting objects , i.e. a rule for replacing an indecomposable direct summand in a tilting object with another indecomposable rigid object , to get a new tilting object .
quiver mutation describes the relation between the gabriel quivers of the corresponding tilting objects .
analogously to the definition of the cluster category , for a positive integer @xmath0 , it is natural to define a certain @xmath1-calabi - yau orbit category of the derived category of a hereditary abelian category .
this is called the _
@xmath0-cluster category_. implicitly , @xmath0-cluster categories was first studied in @xcite , and their ( cluster-)tilting objects have been studied in @xcite .
combinatorial descriptions of @xmath0-cluster categories in dynkin type @xmath2 and @xmath3 are given in @xcite .    in cluster categories
the mutation rule for tilting objects is described in terms of certain triangles called _ exchange triangles_. by @xcite the existence of exchange triangles generalizes to @xmath0-cluster categories .
it was shown in @xcite that there are exactly @xmath1 non - isomorphic complements to an almost complete tilting object , and that they are determined by the @xmath1 exchange triangles defined in @xcite .
the aim of this paper is to give a combinatorial description of mutation in @xmath0-cluster categories . _ a priori _
, one might expect to be able to do this by keeping track of the gabriel quivers of the tilting objects .
however , it is easy to see that the gabriel quivers do not contain enough information .    we proceed to associate to a tilting object a quiver each of whose arrows has an associated colour @xmath4 . the arrows with colour 0 form the gabriel quiver of the tilting object .
we then define a mutation operation on coloured quivers and show that it is compatible with mutation of tilting objects .
a consequence is that the effect of an arbitrary sequence of mutations on a tilting object in an @xmath0-cluster category can be calculated by a purely combinatorial procedure .
our definition of a coloured quiver associated to a tilting object makes sense in any @xmath1-calabi - yau category , such as for example those studied in @xcite .
we hope that our constructions may shed some light on mutation of tilting objects in this more general setting .    in section 1 , we review some elementary facts about higher cluster categories . in section 2 , we explain how to define the coloured quiver of a tilting object , we define coloured quiver mutation , and we state our main theorem . in sections 3 and 4 , we state some further lemmas about higher cluster categories , and we prove certain properties of the coloured quivers of tilting objects .
we prove our main result in sections 5 and 6 . in sections 7 and 8
we point out some applications . in section 9
we interpret our construction in terms of @xmath0-cluster complexes . in section 10
, we give an alternative algorithm for computing coloured quiver mutation .
section 11 discusses the example of @xmath0-cluster categories of dynkin type @xmath2 , using the model developed by baur and marsh @xcite .
we would like to thank idun reiten , in conversation with whom the initial idea of this paper took shape .
let @xmath5 be an algebraically closed field , and let @xmath6 be a finite acyclic quiver with @xmath7 vertices .
then the path algebra @xmath8 is a hereditary finite dimensional basic @xmath5-algebra    let @xmath9 be the category of finite dimensional left @xmath10-modules .
let @xmath11 be the bounded derived category of @xmath10 , and let @xmath12 $ ] be the @xmath13th shift functor on @xmath14 .
we let @xmath15 denote the auslander - reiten translate , which is an autoequivalence on @xmath14 such that we have a bifunctorial isomorphism in @xmath14 @xmath16 ) \simeq
d{\operatorname{hom}\nolimits}(b,\tau a).\ ] ] in other words @xmath17 \tau$ ] is a serre functor .
let @xmath18 $ ] .
the @xmath0-cluster category is the orbit category @xmath19 $ ] .
the objects in @xmath20 are the objects in @xmath14 , and two objects @xmath21 are isomorphic in @xmath20 if and only if @xmath22 in @xmath14 .
the maps are given by @xmath23 .
by @xcite , the category @xmath20 is triangulated and the canonical functor @xmath24 is a triangle functor .
we denote therefore by @xmath25 $ ] the suspension in @xmath20 .
the @xmath0-cluster category is also krull - schmidt and has an ar - translate @xmath15 inherited from @xmath14 , such that the formula ( [ ar ] ) still holds in @xmath20 . if follows that @xmath17 \tau$ ] is a serre functor for @xmath20 and that @xmath20 is @xmath1-calabi - yau , since @xmath26 $ ] .
the indecomposable objects in @xmath14 are of the form @xmath27 $ ] , where @xmath28 is an indecomposable @xmath10-module and @xmath29 .
we can choose a fundamental domain for the action of @xmath18 $ ] on @xmath14 , consisting of the indecomposable objects @xmath27 $ ] with @xmath30 , together with the objects @xmath31 $ ] with @xmath28 an indecomposable projective @xmath10-module .
then each indecomposable object in @xmath20 is isomorphic to exactly one of the indecomposables in this fundamental domain .
we say that @xmath32 $ ] has degree @xmath33 , denoted @xmath34 ) = d$ ] .
furthermore , for an arbitrary object @xmath35 in @xmath36 , we let @xmath37 $ ] be the @xmath10-module which is the ( shifted ) direct sum of all summands @xmath38 of @xmath39 with @xmath40 .    in the following theorem
the equivalence between ( i ) and ( ii ) is shown in @xcite and the equivalence between ( i ) and ( iii ) is shown in @xcite .
let @xmath41 be an object in @xmath20 satisfying @xmath42 ) = 0 $ ] for @xmath43 .
then the following are equivalent    * if @xmath44 ) = 0 $ ] for @xmath43 then @xmath45 is in @xmath46 . * if @xmath47 ) = 0 $ ] for @xmath43 then @xmath45 is in @xmath46 .
* @xmath41 has @xmath48 indecomposable direct summands , up to isomorphism .
here @xmath46 denotes the additive closure of @xmath41 . a ( cluster-)tilting object @xmath41 in an @xmath0-cluster is an object satisfying the conditions of the above theorem . for a tilting object @xmath49 , with each @xmath50 indecomposable , and @xmath51 an indecomposable direct summand , we call @xmath52 an almost complete tilting object .
we let @xmath53 denote the @xmath5-space of irreducible maps @xmath54 in a krull - schmidt @xmath5-category @xmath55 .
the following crucial result is proved in @xcite and @xcite .
[ p : number ] there are , up to isomorphism , @xmath1 complements of an almost complete tilting object .
let @xmath51 be an indecomposable direct summand in an @xmath0-cluster tilting object @xmath56 .
the complements of @xmath57 are denoted @xmath58 for @xmath59 , where @xmath60 . by @xcite
, there are @xmath1 exchange triangles @xmath61 here the @xmath62 are in @xmath63 and the maps @xmath64 ( resp .
@xmath65 ) are minimal left ( resp .
right ) @xmath63-approximations , and hence not split mono or split epi . note that by minimality , the maps @xmath64 and @xmath65 have no proper zero summands .
we first recall the definition of quiver mutation , formulated in @xcite in terms of skew - symmetric matrices .
let @xmath66 be a quiver with vertices @xmath67 and with no loops or oriented two - cycles , where @xmath68 denotes the number of arrows from @xmath13 to @xmath69 .
let @xmath70 be a vertex in @xmath71 .
then , a new quiver @xmath72 is defined by the following data    @xmath73 it is easily verified that this definition is equivalent to the one of fomin - zelevinsky .
now we consider coloured quivers .
let @xmath0 be a positive integer .
an @xmath0-coloured ( multi-)quiver @xmath71 consists of vertices @xmath67 and coloured arrows @xmath74 , where @xmath75 .
let @xmath76 denote the number of arrows from @xmath13 to @xmath70 of colour @xmath77 .
we will consider coloured quivers with the following additional conditions .    *
no loops : @xmath78 for all @xmath79 .
* monochromaticity : if @xmath80 , then @xmath81 for @xmath82 * skew - symmetry : @xmath83 .
we will define an operation on a coloured quiver @xmath71 satisfying the above conditions .
let @xmath70 be a vertex in @xmath71 and let @xmath84 be the coloured quiver defined by    @xmath85    in an @xmath0-cluster category @xmath20 , for every tilting object @xmath86 , with the @xmath50 indecomposable , we will define a corresponding @xmath0-coloured quiver @xmath87 , as follows .
let @xmath88 be two non - isomorphic indecomposable direct summands of the @xmath0-cluster tilting object @xmath41 and let @xmath89 denote the multiplicity of @xmath90 in @xmath91 .
we define the @xmath0-coloured quiver @xmath87 of @xmath41 to have vertices @xmath13 corresponding to indecomposable direct summands @xmath50 , and @xmath92 .
note , in particular , that the @xmath93-coloured arrows are the arrows from the gabriel quiver for the endomorphism ring of @xmath41 .    by definition
, @xmath87 satisfies condition ( i ) .
we show in section [ s : higher ] that ( ii ) is satisfied ( this also follows from @xcite ) , and in section [ s : symmetry ] that ( iii ) is also satisfied .    the aim of this paper is to prove the following theorem , which is a generalization of the main result of @xcite .
[ t : main ] let @xmath86 and @xmath94 be @xmath0-tilting objects , where there is an exchange triangle @xmath95
. then @xmath96 .    in the case
@xmath97 the coloured quiver of a tilting object @xmath41 is given by @xmath98 and @xmath99 where @xmath100 denotes the number of arrows in the gabriel quiver of @xmath41
. then coloured mutation of the coloured quiver corresponds to fz - mutation of the gabriel quiver .
let @xmath6 be @xmath101 with linear orientation , i.e. the quiver @xmath102 .
the ar - quiver of the 2-cluster category of @xmath103 is @xmath104 & & { i_3 } \ar[dr ] & & * + + [ o][f-]{p_3[1 ] } \ar[dr ] & & i_1[1 ] \ar[dr ] & & p_1[2]\ar[dr ] \\   p_2[2 ] \ar[ur ] \ar[dr ] & & { p_2 } \ar[ur ] \ar[dr ] & & * + [ o][f-]{i_2 } \ar[ur ] \ar[dr ] & & p_2[1 ] \ar[ur ] \ar[dr ] & &   i_2[1]\ar[ur]\ar[dr ] & & p_2[2 ]    \\   & { p_3 } \ar[ur ] & & * + [ o][f-]{i_1 } \ar[ur ] & & p_1[1 ] \ar[ur ] & & i_3[1]\ar[ur ] & & p_3[2 ] \ar[ur ] & &   } \ ] ] the direct sum @xmath105 $ ] of the encircled indecomposable objects gives a tilting object .
its coloured quiver is @xmath106 & i_2 \ar@<0.6ex>^{(0)}[r ] \ar@<0.6ex>^{(2)}[l ] &   p_3[1 ] \ar@<0.6ex>^{(2)}[l ]   } \ ] ] now consider the exchange triangle @xmath107 \to i_3[1 ] \to\ ] ] and the new tilting object @xmath108 \amalg p_3[1]$ ] .
the coloured quiver of @xmath109 is @xmath110 \ar@<0.6ex>^{(1)}[r ] & i_3[1 ] \ar@<0.6ex>^{(2)}[r ] \ar@<0.6ex>^{(1)}[l ] &   p_3[1 ] \ar@<0.6ex>^{(0)}[l ]   \ar@<0.6ex>^{(2)}@/^3.5pc/[ll ] } \ ] ]
in this section we summarize some further known results about @xmath0-cluster categories .
most of these are from @xcite and @xcite .
we include some proofs for the convenience of the reader
.    tilting objects in @xmath111 give rise to partial tilting modules in @xmath9 , where a _
partial tilting module _ @xmath28 in @xmath9 , is a module with @xmath112 .
[ l : partial ]    * when @xmath41 is a tilting object in @xmath36 , then each @xmath113 is a partial tilting module in @xmath9 . * the endomorphism ring of a partial tilting module has no oriented cycles in its ordinary quiver .
\(a ) is obvious from the definition .
see ( * ? ? ?
4.2 ) for ( b ) .    in the following note that degrees of objects are always considered with a fixed choice of fundamental domain , and sums and differences of degrees are always computed modulo @xmath1 .    [
l : div ] assume @xmath114 .
* @xmath115 for any indecomposable exceptional object @xmath39 .
* we have that @xmath116 * the distribution of degrees of complements is one of the following * * there is exactly one complement of each degree , or * * there is no complement of degree @xmath0 , two complements in one degree @xmath117 , and exactly one complement in all degrees @xmath118 . * if @xmath119 , then @xmath120 . * for @xmath121 we have @xmath122 ) = \begin{cases }
k & \text { if $ c'-c+t = 0 ( { \operatorname{mod}\nolimits}m+1)$ } \\ 0 & \text { else } \end{cases}\ ] ]    \(a ) follows from the fact that @xmath123 for exceptional objects and the definition of maps in a @xmath0-cluster category .
\(b ) follows from the fact that @xmath124 ) \neq 0 $ ] , since in the exchange triangles , the @xmath125 are not split mono and ( c ) follows from ( b ) .
considering the two different possible distributions of complements , we obtain from ( c ) that if @xmath126 and @xmath127 and @xmath128 , then @xmath129 .
consider the case @xmath130 .
we can assume @xmath131 , since else the statement is void .
hence we can clearly assume that @xmath132 .
there is an exchange triangle induced from an exact sequence in @xmath9 ,    @xmath133.\ ] ] it is clear that @xmath134 , t_i^{(c-1 ) } ) = 0 $ ] , since @xmath131 .
we claim that also @xmath135 .
this holds since @xmath136 is a partial tilting object in @xmath10 , and so there are no cycles in the endomorphism ring , by lemma [ l : partial ] .
hence also @xmath137 follows , and this finishes the proof for ( d ) .
for ( e ) we first apply @xmath138 to the exchange triangle @xmath139 and consider the corresponding long - exact sequence , to obtain that @xmath140 ) = \begin{cases } k & \text { if $ t = 1 $ } \\ 0 & \text { if $ t=0 $ or $ t \in \{2 , \dots , m \}$ } \end{cases}.\ ] ] now consider @xmath141)$ ] . when @xmath142 , we have that @xmath143 ) \simeq { \operatorname{hom}\nolimits}(t_i^{(c+u+1 ) } , t_i^{(c)}[v+1 ] ) \simeq \\ { \operatorname{hom}\nolimits}(t_i^{(c-1 ) } , t_i^{(c)}[v+m - u ] ) \simeq { \operatorname{hom}\nolimits}(t_i^{(c ) } , t_i^{(c-1)}[1+u - v ] ) .
\end{gathered}\ ] ]    when @xmath144 , we have that @xmath145 ) \simeq { \operatorname{hom}\nolimits}(t_i^{(c+u-1 ) } , t_i^{(c)}[v-1 ] ) \simeq \\ { \operatorname{hom}\nolimits}(t_i^{(c ) } , t_i^{(c)}[v - u]).\ ] ]    combining these facts , ( e ) follows .
[ l : div2 ] the following statements are equivalent    * @xmath146 ) = 0 $ ] * @xmath90 is not a direct summand in @xmath147 * @xmath50 is not a direct summand in @xmath148    furthermore , @xmath149 ) = 0 $ ] for @xmath150 .
note that @xmath151 , so ( b ) and ( c ) are equivalent .
consider the exact sequence @xmath152 ) \to { \operatorname{hom}\nolimits}(t_i^{(c ) } , b_j^{(0)}[1 ] ) \to \\   { \operatorname{hom}\nolimits}(t_i^{(c ) } , t_j^{(1)}[1 ] ) \to { \operatorname{hom}\nolimits}(t_i^{(c ) } , t_j^{(0)}[2 ] ) \to \end{gathered}\ ] ] coming from applying @xmath153 to the exchange triangle @xmath154 the first and fourth terms are always zero . using [ l : div](e ) we get that the second term ( and hence the third ) is non - zero if and only if @xmath155 and @xmath50 is a direct summand in @xmath148 .
( @xcite)[l : composing ] for @xmath156 , the composition @xmath157   \circ h_k^{(v-2)}[2 ] \circ \cdots \circ   h_k^{(v - l+1)}[l-1 ] \colon t_k^{(v ) } \to t_k^{(v - l)}[l]\ ] ] is non - zero and a basis for @xmath158)$ ] .    for @xmath97 ,
see @xcite .
assume @xmath159 .
for the first claim see @xcite , while the second claim then follows from lemma [ l : div](e ) .
we include an independent proof of the following crucial property .
@xcite [ l : disjoint ] @xmath160 and @xmath161 has no common non - zero direct summands whenever @xmath162 .    when @xmath97 , this is proved in @xcite .
assume @xmath163 .
we consider two cases , @xmath164 or @xmath165 .
consider first the case @xmath166 . without loss of generality
we can assume @xmath167 and @xmath168 , and that @xmath169 .
assume that there exists a ( non - zero ) indecomposable @xmath170 , which is a direct summand in @xmath171 and in @xmath172 .
we have that @xmath173 by lemma [ l : div](b ) .
assume first @xmath174 .
then the exchange triangle @xmath175 is induced from the degree 0 part of the derived category , and hence from an exact sequence in @xmath9 .
then the endomorphism ring of the partial tilting module @xmath176 has a cycle , which is a contradiction to lemma [ l : partial ] .
assume now that @xmath177 .
then @xmath178 , where 0 can only occur if @xmath179 . if @xmath180 , then clearly @xmath181 , and hence the partial tilting module @xmath182 contains a cycle , which is a contradiction .
assume that @xmath183 ( and hence @xmath179 ) . then @xmath184 . if @xmath181 , we get a contradiction as in the previous case .
if @xmath185 , consider the exchange triangle @xmath186 which is induced from an exact sequence in @xmath9 .
hence there is a _ non - zero _
map @xmath187 obtained by composing @xmath188 with the monomorphism @xmath189 , and thus there are cycles in the endomorphism ring of the partial tilting module @xmath190 , a contradiction .
this finishes the case with @xmath191 .
assume now that @xmath192 .
then we have @xmath193 .
since @xmath194 and @xmath195 , we have by lemma [ l : div](c ) that @xmath196 .
so without loss of generality we can assume @xmath197 .
assume that @xmath198 . then @xmath199 using lemma [ l : div](c ) and the fact that @xmath194
. then also @xmath200 .
but @xmath201 , so @xmath202 , contradicting the fact that @xmath195 .
@xmath87 satisfies condition ( ii ) .
let @xmath203 be a tilting object . in this section we show that the coloured quiver @xmath87 satisfies condition ( iii ) .
[ p : symmetry ] with the notation of the previous section , we have @xmath204 .    by lemma [ l : div2 ]
we only need to consider the case @xmath205 .
it is enough to show that @xmath206 .
we first prove    [ l : non - van ] let @xmath207 be irreducible in @xmath208 . then the composition @xmath209
\circ \gamma_i^{(0,c)}[-c ]   \colon t_j^{(c)}[-c ] \to t_i^{(m - c+1)}$ ] is non - zero .
we have already assumed @xmath210 .
assume @xmath211 \circ h_i^{(0)}[-c ] \colon t_j^{(c)}[-c ] \to t_i^{(0)}[-c ] \to t_i^{(m)}[-c+1]\ ] ] is zero .
this means that @xmath212 must factor through @xmath213 .
since @xmath50 is by assumption a summand in @xmath214 , we have that @xmath50 is not a summand in @xmath148 by proposition [ l : disjoint ] .
since @xmath215 , we have that @xmath90 is not a direct summand in @xmath147 .
this means that @xmath216 is not irreducible in @xmath208 , a contradiction .
so @xmath209 \circ h_i^{(0)}[-c ] \colon t_j^{(c)}[-c ] \to t_i^{(m)}[-c+1]$ ] is non - zero .
assume @xmath217 .
if the composition @xmath209 \circ h_i^{(0)}[-c ] \circ h_i^{(m)}[-c+1]$ ] is zero , then @xmath209 \circ h_i^{(0)}[-c]$ ] factors through @xmath218 \to t_i^{(m)}[-c+1].\ ] ] we claim that @xmath219 , b_i^{(m-1)}[-c+1 ] ) \simeq { \operatorname{hom}\nolimits}(t_j^{(c ) } , b_i^{(m-1)}[1 ] ) = 0 $ ] .
this clearly holds if @xmath90 is not a summand of @xmath220 .
in addition we have that @xmath221 ) = 0 $ ] since @xmath217 , using lemma [ l : div](e ) .
this is a contradiction , and this argument can clearly be iterated to see that @xmath209 \circ \gamma_i^{(0,c)}[-c ]   \colon t_j^{(c)}[-c ] \to t_i^{(m - c+1)}$ ] is non - zero , using lemma [ l : div](e ) .    we now show that any irreducible map @xmath207 gives rise to an irreducible map @xmath222
.    consider the composition @xmath223 \overset{g_j^{(c)}[-c]}{\longrightarrow } t_j^{(c)}[-c ] \longrightarrow t_i^{(m - c+1)}.\ ] ] since @xmath50 is a summand in @xmath214 by assumption , it is not a summand in @xmath224 .
thus , @xmath224 is in @xmath225 .
since @xmath226)= 0 $ ] for any @xmath39 in @xmath227 , the composition vanishes .    using the exchange triangle @xmath223 \overset{g_j^{(c)}[-c]}{\longrightarrow } t_j^{(c)}[-c ] \overset{h_j^{(c)}[-c]}{\longrightarrow } t_j^{(c-1)}[-c+1],\ ] ] we see that @xmath209 \circ \gamma_i^{(0,c)}[-c ] \colon t_j^{(c)}[-c ] \to t_i^{(m - c+1)}$ ] factors through the map @xmath228 \overset{h_j^{(c)}[-c]}{\longrightarrow } t_j^{(c-1)}[-c+1]$ ] , i.e. there is a commutative diagram    @xmath229 \ar^{g_j^{(c)}[-c]}[r ]   & t_j^{(c)}[-c ] \ar^{h_j^{(c)}[-c]}[r ] \ar[d ] &   t_j^{(c-1)}[-c+1 ] \ar[r ]   \ar^{\phi_1}[dl ] &   \\ & t_i^{(m - c+1 ) } & & } \ ] ]    similarly , using the exchange triangle @xmath230 \overset{g_j^{(c-1)}[-c+1]}{\longrightarrow } t_j^{(c-1)}[-c+1 ] \overset{h_j^{(c-1)}[-c+1]}{\longrightarrow } t_j^{(c-2)}[-c+2]\ ] ] we obtain a map @xmath231 \to   t_i^{(m - c+1)}$ ]    repeating this argument @xmath79 times we obtain a map @xmath232 , such that @xmath233 \circ \phi_c = \alpha[-c ] \circ \gamma_i^{(0,c)}$ ]
.    @xmath234 \ar_{h_j^{(c)}[-c]}[d ] \ar[r ] & t_i^{(m - c+1 ) }   \\    t_j^{(c-1)}[-c+1 ] \ar_{h_j^{(c-1)}[-c+1]}[d ] \ar^{\phi_1}[ur ] & \\ t_j^{(c-2)}[-c+2 ] \ar_{h_j^{(c-2)}[-c+2]}[d ] \ar^{\phi_2}[uur ] & \\
\vdots \ar[d ] &   \\
t_j    \ar^{\phi_c}[uuuur ] & \\ & } \ ] ]    we claim that    [ l : irred ] there is a map @xmath235 , such that @xmath233 \circ \beta = \alpha[-c ] \circ \gamma_i^{(0,c)}$ ] , and such that @xmath236 is irreducible in @xmath237
.    let @xmath238 be a minimal left @xmath239-approximation , with @xmath240 in @xmath241 and @xmath242 in @xmath243 .
let @xmath244 be as above , and factor it as @xmath245 since @xmath246 factors through @xmath247 $ ] , we have that @xmath233 \psi '' = 0 $ ] , so we have @xmath248(\psi ' \epsilon ' + \psi '' \epsilon'')= \gamma_j^{(c , c)}[-c ] \psi ' \epsilon'.\ ] ] hence , let we let @xmath249 and since the summands in @xmath250 are isomorphisms , it is clear that @xmath236 is irreducible .
next , assume @xmath251 is a basis for the space of irreducible maps from @xmath252 to @xmath50 .
then , by lemma [ l : non - van ] the set @xmath253 is also linearly independent . for each @xmath254 , consider the corresponding map @xmath255 , such that @xmath233 \circ \beta_t = \alpha_t[-c ] \circ \gamma_i^{(0,c)}$ ] , and which we by lemma [ l : irred ] can assume is irreducible . assume a non - trivial linear combination @xmath256 is zero
. then also @xmath257 \circ \beta_t ) =   \sum k_t \alpha_t \circ \gamma_i^{(0,c)}=0 $ ] . but
this contradicts lemma [ l : non - van ] since @xmath258 is irreducible .
hence it follows that @xmath259 is also linearly independent .
hence , in the exchange triangle @xmath260 , we have that @xmath90 appears with multiplicity at least @xmath261 in @xmath262 .
so , we have that @xmath206 , and the proof of the proposition is complete .
in this section we show how mutation in the vertex @xmath70 affects the complements of the almost complete tilting object @xmath263 . as
before , let @xmath264 be an @xmath0-tilting object , and let @xmath94 .    we need to consider @xmath265 \ar^{(e)}[r ] & t_j \ar^{(d)}[r ] & t_k } \ ] ] for all possible values of @xmath266 . however , we have the following restriction on the colour of arrows .    [
p : limits ] assume @xmath267 and @xmath268
. then @xmath269 .
consider the exchange triangle @xmath270 .
note that @xmath90 is a direct summand in the middle term @xmath271 by the assumption that @xmath272 .
consider also the exchange triangle @xmath273 .
pick an arbitrary non - zero map @xmath274 , and consider the map @xmath275 .
it suffices to show that whenever @xmath276 , then @xmath277 is not irreducible in @xmath46 .
so assume that @xmath276 .
we claim that there is a commutative diagram @xmath278 \ar[d ] &   t_j \amalg x ' \ar[r ] \ar^{\left ( \begin{smallmatrix } h & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{smallmatrix } \right)}[d ] &    t_i^{(e+1 ) } \ar[r ] \ar[d ] & \\
t_i^{(c ) } \ar[r ] & t_k \amalg z \ar[r ] & t_i^{(c+1 ) } \ar[r ] &   } \ ] ] where the rows are the exchange triangles .
the composition @xmath279 is zero since    * if @xmath280 @xmath281 by using @xmath276 and lemma [ l : div](e ) * if @xmath282 , there is no non - zero composition @xmath283    hence the leftmost vertical map exists , and then the rightmost map exists , using that @xmath20 is a triangulated category .
then , since @xmath284 , t_i^{(c ) } ) = 0 $ ] by lemma [ l : div](e ) , there is a map @xmath285 , such that @xmath286 .
hence there is map @xmath287 such that @xmath288 . by restriction
we get @xmath289    under the assumption @xmath290 we have that @xmath291 can not be irreducible in @xmath292 .
hence @xmath293 , where @xmath51 is not summand in @xmath294 .
also , by proposition [ l : disjoint ] we have that @xmath90 is not a summand in @xmath294 .
if @xmath295 was irreducible in @xmath296 , then there would be an irreducible map @xmath297 in @xmath298 , and since @xmath299 , this does not hold , by proposition [ l : disjoint ] .
hence , @xmath300 , where @xmath90 is not a direct summand of @xmath301 . also by proposition [ l : disjoint ] we have that @xmath51 is not a summand of @xmath301 . by ( [ factor ] ) , this shows that @xmath274 is not irreducible in @xmath46 .
let @xmath302 .
for @xmath303 , let @xmath304 denote the complements of @xmath305 , where there are exchange triangles @xmath306    we first want to compare @xmath304 with @xmath307 .    [ l : samecomp ] assume that @xmath308 for @xmath309 and that @xmath310 .
* for @xmath311 , the minimal left @xmath312-approximation @xmath313 is also an @xmath314-approximation . * for @xmath315
, we have @xmath316 .    by assumption @xmath90
is not a direct summand in any of the @xmath317 .
assume there is a map @xmath318 and consider the diagram    @xmath319 \ar[r ] &   t_i^{(u ) } \ar[r ] \ar [ d ] & b_i^{(u ) } \ar [ r ] & \\   & t_j^{(1 ) } & & } \ ] ] since @xmath320)= 0 $ ] by lemma [ l : div2 ] , we see that the map @xmath318 factors through @xmath313 .
hence the minimal left @xmath312-approximation @xmath313 is also an @xmath314-approximation , so we have proved ( a ) .
then ( b ) follows directly .
[ l : comp ] assume that @xmath321 and there are exchange triangles @xmath322 and @xmath323 where @xmath324 and @xmath325 , i.e. @xmath326 and @xmath327 , where @xmath51 is not isomorphic to any direct summand in @xmath328 .    * the composition @xmath329 is a left @xmath314-approximation .
* there is a triangle @xmath330 with @xmath331 in @xmath332 and @xmath333 .
* there is a triangle @xmath334 .
consider an arbitrary map @xmath335 with @xmath45 in @xmath314 .
we have that @xmath336 ) = 0 $ ] , by lemma [ l : div2 ] .
hence , by applying @xmath337 to the triangle ( [ i - tri ] ) we get that @xmath338 factors through @xmath339 . by applying @xmath337 to the triangle ( [ j - tri ] ) , and using that @xmath340 ) = 0 $ ] , we get that @xmath338 factors through @xmath341 .
this proves ( a ) . for ( b ) and ( c )
we use the exchange triangles ( [ i - tri ] ) and ( [ j - tri ] ) and the octahedral axiom to obtain the commutative diagram of triangles    @xmath342 \ar@{=}[d ] & ( t_j)^p \amalg x \ar[r ] \ar[d ]             & t_i^{(e+1 ) } \ar[d ] \ar[r ] & \\
t_i^{(e ) } \ar[r ]         & ( t_k)^{pq } \amalg y^p \amalg x \ar[r ]   \ar[d ] & c \ar[r ] \ar[d ]          &   \\                      & ( t_j^{(1)})^p \ar@{=}[r ]                     & ( t_j^{(1)})^p \ar[r ]     &   } \ ] ] by ( a ) the map @xmath343 is a left @xmath314-approximation , and by lemma [ l : samecomp ] we have that @xmath344 .
hence @xmath345 , where @xmath331 is in @xmath346 , and with no copies isomorphic to @xmath51 in @xmath328 .
note that the induced @xmath314-approximation is in general not minimal .
[ l : modtri ] assume @xmath321 and @xmath347 .
* then there is a triangle @xmath348 where @xmath216 is a minimal left @xmath314-approximation , and @xmath331 is as in lemma [ l : comp ] .
* there is an induced exchange triangle @xmath349 where @xmath350 . *
@xmath351 .
consider the exchange triangle @xmath352 \to t_i^{(e+1 ) } \to b_i^{(e+1 ) } \to\ ] ] and the triangle from lemma [ l : comp ] ( b ) @xmath353 apply the octahedral axiom , to obtain the commutative diagram of triangles    @xmath354 \ar[r ] \ar@{=}[d ] & t_i^{(e+1 ) } \ar[r ] \ar[d ]             & b_i^{(e+1 ) } \ar[d ] \ar[r ] & \\
t_i^{(e+2)}[-1 ] \ar[r ]             & ( t_i^{(e+1 ) } ) ' \amalg c ' \ar[r ] \ar[d ]   & g \ar[r ] \ar[d ]          & \\                                    & ( t_j^{(1)})^p \ar@{=}[r ]            & ( t_j^{(1)})^p \ar[r ]     &   } \ ] ] since @xmath90 does not occur as a summand in @xmath294 by proposition [ l : disjoint ] , we have that @xmath355 ) = 0 $ ] . hence the rightmost
triangle splits , so we have a triangle @xmath356 \to ( t_i^{(e+1 ) } ) ' \amalg c ' \to b_i^{(e+1 ) } \amalg ( t_j^{(1)})^p \to\ ] ] by lemma [ l : div2 ] we have that @xmath357)= 0 $ ] . by lemma [ l : div](e )
we get that @xmath358 ) = 0 $ ] , and clearly @xmath359 ) = 0 $ ] , for @xmath360 .
we hence get that all maps @xmath361 , with @xmath45 in @xmath362 , factor through @xmath363 .
minimality is clear from the triangle ( [ octa - tri ] ) .
this proves ( a ) , and ( b ) follows from the fact that @xmath331 contains no copies of @xmath90 , and hence splits off .
( c ) is a direct consequence of ( b ) .
[ p : summarize ]    * if @xmath308 for @xmath364 , then @xmath365 for all @xmath366 . * if @xmath321 and @xmath347 , then @xmath365 for @xmath367 .
\(a ) is a direct consequence of [ l : samecomp ] . for
( b ) note that by lemmas [ l : samecomp ] and [ l : modtri ] we have @xmath365 for @xmath368 and @xmath369 . for @xmath370
consider the exchange triangles @xmath371 since @xmath372 ) = 0 $ ] by lemma [ l : div2 ] and @xmath373 , it is clear that the map @xmath374 is a left @xmath375-approximation .
hence ( b ) follows .
this section contains the proof of the main result , theorem [ t : main ] . as before , let @xmath264 be an @xmath0-tilting object , and let @xmath94 .
we will compare the numbers of @xmath77-coloured arrows from @xmath13 to @xmath69 , in the coloured quivers of @xmath41 and @xmath109 , i.e. we will compare @xmath376 and @xmath377 .
we need to consider an arbitrary @xmath41 whose coloured quiver locally looks like @xmath265 \ar^{(e)}[r ] & t_j \ar^{(d)}[r ] & t_k } \ ] ] for any possible value of @xmath266 . our aim is to show that the formula @xmath378 holds .
the case where @xmath379 is directly from the definition .
the case where @xmath380 follows by condition ( ii ) for @xmath381 . for the rest of the proof
we assume @xmath382 .
we will divide the proof into four cases , where @xmath383 denotes the number of arrows from @xmath13 to @xmath70 , and @xmath384 .    * @xmath385 * @xmath386 , @xmath321 and @xmath387 * @xmath386 , @xmath321 and @xmath388 . * @xmath386 and @xmath389    note that in the three first cases , the formula reduces to @xmath390 and in the first two cases it further reduces to @xmath391    case i.
we first consider the situation where there is no coloured arrow @xmath392 , i.e. @xmath308 for all @xmath393 .
that is , we assume @xmath87 locally looks like this @xmath265   & t_j \ar^{(d)}[r ] & t_k } \ ] ] with @xmath394 arbitrary .
it is a direct consequence of proposition [ p : summarize ] that @xmath395 for all @xmath393 which shows that the formula holds .
+   + case ii .
we consider the setting where we assume @xmath87 locally looks like this @xmath265 \ar^{(e)}[r ] & t_j \ar^{(d)}[r ] & t_k } \ ] ] with @xmath321 and @xmath396 .
we then claim that we have the following , which shows that the formula holds .    in the above setting @xmath395 for all @xmath393 .
it follows directly from proposition [ p : summarize ] that @xmath395 for @xmath397 .
we claim that @xmath398 .    by lemma [ l : comp ]
we have the ( not necessarily minimal ) left @xmath314-approximation    @xmath399    first , assume that @xmath51 does not appear as a summand in @xmath326 , then the same holds for @xmath400 , and hence for @xmath401 which is a direct summand in @xmath400
.    next , assume @xmath51 appears as a summand in @xmath271 , and hence in @xmath39 .
then @xmath51 is by proposition [ l : disjoint ] not a summand in @xmath294 , and by lemma [ l : modtri ] we have that @xmath51 is also not a summand in @xmath331 .
therefore @xmath51 appears with the same multiplicity in @xmath271 as in @xmath401 , also in this case .
we now show that @xmath395 for @xmath402 .    if @xmath403 , then @xmath404 for @xmath402 and we are finished .
so assume @xmath405 , i.e. @xmath51 does not appear as a direct summand of @xmath39 .
consider the map @xmath406 we have that @xmath407 . by assumption , @xmath51 is not a direct summand in @xmath408 , and thus not in @xmath331 .
hence it follows that @xmath409 .
since , by proposition [ p : summarize ] we have for @xmath410 , that @xmath316 and the left @xmath411-approximation coincide with the left @xmath412-approximations of @xmath413 , it now follows that @xmath395 for all @xmath393 .
+ case iii .
we now consider the setting with @xmath414 non - zero , @xmath388 and @xmath321 .
that is , we assume @xmath87 locally looks like this @xmath265 \ar^{(e)}[r ] & t_j \ar^{(0)}[r ] & t_k } \ ] ] where @xmath415 by proposition [ p : limits ] , and where there are @xmath416 arrows from @xmath50 to @xmath51 .
[ l : formulas ] in the above setting , we have that @xmath381 is given by    @xmath417    @xmath418    and    @xmath419    we first deal with the case where @xmath420 and @xmath421 . by assumption @xmath39 in the triangle ( [ i - tri ] )
has @xmath422 copies of @xmath51 , so @xmath423 has @xmath424 copies of @xmath51 . hence to show ( [ form1 ] ) it is sufficient to show that @xmath331 in the triangle @xmath425 has no copies of @xmath51 .
this follows directly from the lemma [ l : modtri ] and the fact that @xmath51 ( by the assumption that @xmath421 and proposition [ l : disjoint ] ) is not a summand in @xmath294 . in this case
( [ form2 ] ) and ( [ form3 ] ) follow directly from proposition [ l : disjoint ] .
consider the case with @xmath426 and @xmath427 .
we have that @xmath39 in the triangle ( [ i - tri ] ) does not have @xmath51 as a direct summand .
assume @xmath51 appears as a direct summand of @xmath331 with multiplicity @xmath428 .
we claim that @xmath429 .
assume first @xmath430 , then on one hand @xmath51 appears with multiplicity @xmath431 in @xmath432 . on
the other hand @xmath51 appears with multiplicity @xmath433 in @xmath401 .
this contradicts proposition [ l : disjoint ] .
hence @xmath429 .    therefore @xmath401 has @xmath434 copies of @xmath51 and ( [ form1 ] ) and ( [ form2 ] ) hold . if @xmath435 , then ( [ form3 ] ) follows directly from the above and proposition [ l : disjoint ] . in the case
@xmath436 , we also need to show that @xmath51 does not appear as a summand in @xmath437 for @xmath438 .
since @xmath439 , we have @xmath440 , and the result follows from proposition [ p : summarize ] .
now assume @xmath426 and @xmath441 .
assume @xmath442 , where @xmath51 is not a summand in @xmath443 .
now since @xmath444 with @xmath51 not a summand in @xmath328 , is a minimal left @xmath362-approximation , we have that @xmath445 and @xmath51 appears with multiplicity @xmath446 in the minimal left @xmath447-approximation of @xmath448 , hence @xmath51 can not appear as a summand in the minimal left @xmath375-approximation of @xmath449 .
hence @xmath450 , and we have completed the proof of ( [ form1 ] ) and ( [ form2 ] ) in this case .
the case ( [ form3 ] ) , i.e. @xmath451 follows from proposition [ l : disjoint ] .
+ case iv .
we now consider the case with @xmath452 .
assume first there are no arrows from @xmath70 to @xmath69 .
then we can use the symmetry proved in proposition [ p : symmetry ] and reduce to case i. the formula is easily verified in this case .
assume @xmath453 , again we can use the symmetry , this time to reduce to case iii .
it is straightforward to verify that the formula holds also in this case .
assume now that @xmath454 , i.e. we need to consider the following case @xmath455 \ar@<0.6ex>^{(m)}[r ] & t_j \ar@<0.6ex>^{(0)}[r ] \ar@<0.6ex>^{(0)}[l ] & t_k \ar@<0.6ex>^{(m)}[l ]   \ar@<0.6ex>^{(m - c)}@/^3.5pc/[ll ] } \ ] ] now by proposition [ p : limits ] we have that @xmath79 is in @xmath456 .
assume there are @xmath457 @xmath77-coloured arrows    the coloured quiver of @xmath109 is of the form @xmath458 \ar@<0.6ex>^{(0)}[r ] & t_j^{(1 ) } \ar@<0.6ex>^{(m)}[r ] \ar@<0.6ex>^{(m)}[l ] & t_k \ar@<0.6ex>^{(0)}[l ]   \ar@<0.6ex>^{(m - c')}@/^3.5pc/[ll ] } \ ] ] and applying the symmetry of proposition [ p : symmetry ] we have that if @xmath421 , then @xmath459 by proposition [ p : limits ] .
hence for all @xmath460 we have that @xmath461 .
therefore it suffices to show that @xmath462 , for @xmath463 .
this is a direct consequence of the following .
assume we are in the above setting .
a map @xmath464 or @xmath465 is irreducible in @xmath46 if and only if it is irreducible in @xmath362 .
assume @xmath464 is not irreducible in @xmath362 , and that @xmath466 for some @xmath467 , with @xmath468 the indecomposable direct summands of @xmath45 .
note that by lemma [ l : div](a ) , we can assume that all @xmath469 and all @xmath470 are non - isomorphisms . if there is some index @xmath471 such that @xmath472 , the map @xmath470 factors through some @xmath473 in @xmath474 , since there are no @xmath475-coloured arrows @xmath476 or @xmath477 in the coloured quiver of @xmath41 .
this shows that @xmath464 is not irreducible in @xmath46 .
assume @xmath464 is not irreducible in @xmath46 , and that @xmath478 for some @xmath479 , with @xmath480 the indecomposable direct summands of @xmath481 . if there is some index @xmath471 such that @xmath482 , the map @xmath483 factors through @xmath484 , which is in @xmath485 , since there are no @xmath93-coloured arrows @xmath392 or @xmath486 in the coloured quiver of @xmath41 .
this shows that @xmath464 is not irreducible in @xmath362 .    by symmetry
, the same property holds for maps @xmath465 .
thus we have proven that the formula holds in all four cases , and this finishes the proof of theorem [ t : main ] .
an @xmath0-cluster - tilted algebra is an algebra given as @xmath487 for some tilting object @xmath41 in an @xmath0-cluster category @xmath488 . obviously , the subquiver of the coloured quiver of @xmath41 given by the @xmath93-coloured maps is the gabriel quiver of @xmath487 .
an application of our main theorem is that the quivers of the @xmath0-cluster - tilted algebras can be combinatorially determined via repeated ( coloured ) mutation . for this one
needs transitivity in the tilting graph of @xmath0-tilting objects .
more precisely , we need the following , which is also pointed out in @xcite .    any @xmath0-tilting object can be reached from any other @xmath0-tilting object via iterated mutation .
we sketch a proof for the convenience of the reader .
let @xmath109 be a tilting object in an @xmath0-cluster category @xmath20 of the hereditary algebra @xmath489 , and let @xmath490 be the @xmath491-cluster category of @xmath10 .
by @xcite , there is a tilting object @xmath41 of degree 0 , i.e. all direct summands in @xmath41 have degree 0 , such that @xmath41 can be reached from @xmath109 via mutation .
it is sufficient to show that the canonical tilting object @xmath10 can be reached from @xmath41 via mutation .
since @xmath41 is of degree 0 , it is induced from a @xmath10-tilting module .
especially @xmath41 is a tilting object in @xmath490 . since @xmath41 and @xmath10 are tilting objects in @xmath490 , by @xcite there are @xmath490-tilting objects @xmath492 , such that @xmath50 mutates to @xmath493 ( in @xmath490 ) for @xmath494 .
now each @xmath50 is induced by a tilting module for some @xmath495 where all @xmath496 are derived equivalent to @xmath497 . hence , each @xmath50 is easily seen to be an @xmath0-cluster tilting object . since @xmath493 differs from @xmath50 in only one summand the mutations in @xmath490 are also mutations in @xmath20 .
this concludes the proof .
a direct consequence of the transitivity is the following .
for an @xmath0-cluster category @xmath111 of the acyclic quiver @xmath71 , all quivers of @xmath0-cluster - tilted algebras are given by repeated coloured mutation of @xmath71 .
in this section , we discuss concrete computation with tilting objects in an @xmath0-cluster tilting category .
an exceptional indecomposable object in @xmath9 is uniquely determined by its image @xmath498 $ ] in the grothendieck group @xmath499 .
there is a map from @xmath500 to @xmath499 which , for @xmath501 , takes @xmath502 $ ] to @xmath503 $ ] .
an exceptional indecomposable in @xmath500 can be uniquely specified by its class in @xmath499 together with its degree .
the map from @xmath500 to @xmath499 does not descend to @xmath504 .
however , if we fix our usual choice of fundamental domain in @xmath500 , then we can identify the indecomposable objects in it as above .
let us define the combinatorial data corresponding to a tilting object @xmath41 to be @xmath87 together with @xmath505 , \deg t_i)$ ] for @xmath506 .
given the combinatorial data for a tilting object @xmath41 in @xmath504 , it is possible to determine , by a purely combinatorial procedure , the combinatorial data for the tilting object which results from an arbitrary sequence of mutations applied to @xmath41 .    clearly , it suffices to show that , for any @xmath13 , we can determine the class and degree for @xmath507 .
if we can do that then , by the coloured mutation procedure , we can determine the coloured quiver for @xmath508 , and by applying this procedure repeatedly , we can calculate the result of an arbitrary sequence of mutations .    since we are given @xmath87 , we know @xmath509 , and we can calculate @xmath510 $ ] .
now we have the following lemma :    [ one ] @xmath511=[b_i^{(0)}]-[t^{(0)}_i]$ ] , and @xmath512 or @xmath513 , whichever is consistent with the sign of the class of @xmath511 $ ] , unless this yields a non - projective indecomposable object in degree @xmath0 , or an indecomposable of degree @xmath1 .
the proof is immediate from the exchange triangle @xmath514 .    applying this lemma , and supposing that we are not in the case where its procedure fails
, we can determine the class and degree @xmath515 . by the coloured mutation procedure
, we can also determine the coloured quiver for @xmath516 .
we therefore have all the necessary data to apply lemma  [ one ] again . repeatedly applying the lemma
, there is some @xmath69 such that we can calculate the class and degree of @xmath507 for @xmath517 , and the procedure described in the lemma fails to calculate @xmath518 .
we also have the following lemma :    [ two ] @xmath519=[b_i^{(m)}]-[t^{(0)}_i]$ ] , and @xmath520 or @xmath521 , whichever is consistent with the sign of @xmath519 $ ] , unless this yields an indecomposable in degree @xmath522 .
applying this lemma , starting again with @xmath41 , we can obtain the degree and class for @xmath523 .
we can then determine the coloured quiver for @xmath524 , and we are now in a position to apply lemma  [ two ] again . the last complement which lemma  [ two ] will successfully determine is @xmath525 .
it follows that we can determine the degree and class of any complement to @xmath263 .
in this section , we discuss the application of our results to the study of the @xmath0-cluster complex , a simplicial complex defined in @xcite for a finite root system @xmath526 .
we shall begin by stating our results for the @xmath0-cluster complex in purely combinatorial language , and then briefly describe how they follow from the representation - theoretic perspective in the rest of the paper . for simplicity ,
we restrict to the case where @xmath526 is simply laced .
number the vertices of the dynkin diagram for @xmath526 from 1 to @xmath48 .
the @xmath0-coloured almost positive roots , @xmath527 , consist of @xmath0 copies of the positive roots , numbered @xmath491 to @xmath0 , together with a single copy of the negative simple roots .
we refer to an element of the @xmath13-th copy of @xmath528 as having colour @xmath13 , and we write such an element as @xmath529 .
since the dynkin diagram for @xmath526 is a tree , it is bipartite ; we fix a bipartition @xmath530 .
the @xmath0-cluster complex , @xmath531 , is a simplicial complex on the ground set @xmath527 .
its maximal faces are called @xmath0-clusters .
the definition of @xmath531 is combinatorial ; we refer the reader to @xcite .
the @xmath0-clusters each consist of @xmath48 elements of @xmath527 ( * ? ? ? * theorem 2.9 ) .
every codimension 1 face of @xmath531 is contained in exactly @xmath1 maximal faces ( * ? ? ?
* proposition 2.10 ) .
there is a certain combinatorially - defined bijection @xmath532 , which takes faces of @xmath531 to faces of @xmath531 ( * ? ? ?
* theorem 2.4 )
.    it will be convenient to consider _ ordered @xmath0-clusters_. an ordered @xmath0-cluster is just a @xmath48-tuple from @xmath527 , the set of whose elements forms an @xmath0-cluster .
write @xmath533 for the set of ordered @xmath0-clusters .    for each ordered @xmath0-cluster @xmath534
, we will define a coloured quiver @xmath535 .
we will also define an operation @xmath536 , which takes ordered @xmath0-clusters to ordered @xmath0-clusters , changing only the @xmath70-th element .
we will define both operations inductively .
the set @xmath537 of negative simple roots forms an @xmath0-cluster .
its associated quiver is defined by drawing , for each edge @xmath538 in the dynkin diagram , a pair of arrows .
suppose @xmath539 and @xmath540 .
then we draw an arrow from @xmath13 to @xmath70 with colour @xmath541 , and an arrow from @xmath70 to @xmath13 with colour @xmath0 .
suppose now that we have some ordered @xmath0-cluster @xmath542 , together with its quiver @xmath535 .
we will now proceed to define @xmath543 . write @xmath544 for the number of arrows in @xmath535 of colour @xmath541 from @xmath70 to @xmath69 .
define :    @xmath545    let @xmath79 be the colour of @xmath546 .
we define @xmath543 by replacing @xmath546 by some other element of @xmath527 , according to the following rules :    * if @xmath546 is positive and @xmath236 is positive , replace @xmath546 by @xmath547 . *
if @xmath546 is positive and @xmath236 is negative , replace @xmath546 by @xmath548 . *
if @xmath546 is negative simple @xmath549 , define @xmath550 by @xmath551 , and then replace @xmath546 by @xmath552 , with colour zero .
define the quiver for the @xmath0-cluster @xmath543 by the coloured quiver mutation rule from section 2 .
since any @xmath0-cluster can be obtained from @xmath537 by a sequence of mutations , the above suffices to define @xmath543 and @xmath535 for any ordered @xmath0-cluster @xmath542 .
the operation @xmath553 defined above takes @xmath0-clusters to @xmath0-clusters , and the @xmath0-clusters @xmath554 for @xmath555 are exactly those containing all the @xmath556 for @xmath557 .
the connection between the combinatorics discussed here and the representation theory in the rest of the paper is as follows .
@xmath527 corresponds to the indecomposable objects of ( a fundamental domain for ) @xmath36 .
the cluster tilting objects in @xmath36 correspond to the @xmath0-clusters .
the operation @xmath558 corresponds to @xmath25 $ ] . for further details on the translation ,
the reader is referred to @xcite .
the above proposition then follows from the approach taken in section [ sec : cc ] .
here we give an alternative description of coloured quiver mutation at vertex @xmath70 .    1 .   for each pair of arrows @xmath559 & j\ar^{(0)}[r ] & k } \ ] ] with @xmath560 , the arrow from @xmath13 to @xmath70 of arbitrary colour @xmath79 , and the arrow from @xmath70 to @xmath69 of colour @xmath541 , add a pair of arrows : an arrow from @xmath13 to @xmath69 of colour @xmath79 , and one from @xmath69 to @xmath13 of colour @xmath561 .
2 .   if the graph violates property ii , because for some pair of vertices @xmath13 and @xmath69 there are arrows from @xmath13 to @xmath69 which have two different colours , cancel the same number of arrows of each colour , until property ii is satisfied .
3 .   add one to the colour of any arrow going into @xmath70 and subtract one from the colour of any arrow going out of @xmath70 .
the above algorithm is well - defined and correctly calculates coloured quiver mutation as previously defined .
fix a quiver @xmath71 and a vertex @xmath70 at which the mutation is being carried out .    to prove that the algorithm is well - defined
, we must show that at step 2 , there are only two colours of arrows running from @xmath13 to @xmath69 for any pair of vertices @xmath13 , @xmath69 .
( otherwise there would be more than one way to carry out the cancellation procedure of step 2 . )    since in the original quiver @xmath71 , there was only one colour of arrows from @xmath13 to @xmath69 , in order for this problem to arise , we must have added two different colours of arrows from @xmath13 to @xmath69 at step 1 .
two colours of arrows will only be added from @xmath13 to @xmath69 if , in @xmath71 , there are both @xmath93-coloured arrows from @xmath70 to @xmath69 and from @xmath70 to @xmath13 . in this case , by property iii , there are @xmath562-coloured arrows from @xmath13 to @xmath70 and from @xmath69 to @xmath70 .
it follows that in step 1 , we will add both @xmath93-coloured and @xmath562-coloured arrows . applying proposition 5.1 , we see that any arrows from @xmath13 to @xmath69 in @xmath71 are of colour 0 or @xmath0 . thus , as desired , after step 1 , there are only two colours of arrows in the quiver , so step 2 is well - defined .
we now prove correctness .
let @xmath563 .
write @xmath76 for the number of @xmath79-coloured arrows from @xmath13 to @xmath70 in @xmath71 , and similarly @xmath564 for @xmath565 .
write @xmath566 and @xmath567 for the result of applying the above algorithm .
it is clear that only the final step of the algorithm is relevant for @xmath568 where one of @xmath13 or @xmath69 coincides with @xmath70 , and therefore that in this case @xmath569 as desired .
suppose now that neither @xmath13 nor @xmath69 coincides with @xmath70 .
suppose further that in @xmath71 there are no @xmath93-coloured arrows from either @xmath13 or @xmath69 to @xmath70 , and therefore also no @xmath0-coloured arrows from @xmath69 to @xmath13 or @xmath70 .
in this case , @xmath570 . in the algorithm , no arrows will be added between @xmath13 and @xmath69 in step 1 , and therefore no further changes will be made in step 2 .
thus @xmath571 , as desired .
suppose now that there are @xmath93-coloured arrows from @xmath70 to both @xmath13 and @xmath69 . in this case ,
@xmath572 . in this case , as discussed in the proof of well - definedness , an equal number of @xmath93-coloured and @xmath562-coloured arrows will be introduced at step 1 .
they will therefore be cancelled at step 2 .
thus @xmath573 as desired .
suppose now that there is a @xmath93-coloured arrow from @xmath70 to @xmath69 , but not from @xmath70 to @xmath13 .
let the arrows from @xmath13 to @xmath70 , if any , be of colour @xmath79 .
at step 1 of the algorithm , we will add @xmath574 arrows of colour @xmath79 to @xmath71 . by proposition 5.1 ,
the arrows in @xmath71 from @xmath13 to @xmath69 are of colour @xmath79 or @xmath575 .
one verifies that the algorithm yields the same result as coloured quiver mutation , in the three cases that the arrows from @xmath13 to @xmath69 in @xmath71 are of colour @xmath79 , that they are of colour @xmath575 but there are fewer than @xmath574 , and that they are of colour @xmath575 and there are at least as many as @xmath574 .    the final case , that there is a @xmath93-coloured arrow from @xmath70 to @xmath13 but not from @xmath70 to @xmath69 , is similar to the previous one .
in @xcite , a certain category @xmath576 is constructed , which is shown to be equivalent to the @xmath0-cluster category of dynkin type @xmath2 .
the description of @xmath576 is as follows .
take an @xmath577-gon @xmath578 , with vertices labelled clockwise from 1 to @xmath577 .
consider the set @xmath39 of diagonals @xmath550 of @xmath578 with the property that @xmath550 divides @xmath578 into two polygons each having a number of sides congruent to 2 modulo @xmath0 . for each @xmath579 , there is an object @xmath580 in @xmath576 .
these objects @xmath580 form the indecomposables of the additive category @xmath576 .
we shall not recall the exact definition of the morphisms , other than to note that they are generated by the morphisms @xmath581 which exist provided that @xmath538 and @xmath582 are both diagonals in @xmath39 , and that , starting at @xmath70 and moving clockwise around @xmath578 , one reaches @xmath69 before @xmath13 .
a collection of diagonals in @xmath39 is called non - crossing if its elements intersect pairwise only on the boundary of the polygon
. an inclusion - maximal such collection of diagonals divides @xmath578 into @xmath583-gons ; we therefore refer to such a collection of diagonals as an @xmath583-angulation .
if we remove one diagonal @xmath550 from an @xmath583-angulation @xmath584 , then the two @xmath583-gons on either side of @xmath550 become a single @xmath585-gon .
we say that @xmath550 is a _ diameter _ of this @xmath585-gon , since it connects vertices which are diametrically opposite ( with respect to the @xmath585-gon ) .
if @xmath586 is another diameter of this @xmath585-gon , then @xmath587 is another maximal noncrossing collection of diagonals from @xmath39 .
( in particular , @xmath588 . )    for @xmath584 an @xmath583-angulation , let @xmath589
. then we have that @xmath590 is a basic ( @xmath0-cluster-)tilting object for @xmath576 , and all basic tilting objects of @xmath576 arise in this way .
it follows from the previous discussion that if @xmath591 is a basic tilting object , and @xmath592 , then the complements to @xmath593 will consist of the objects @xmath594 where @xmath586 is a diameter of the @xmath585-gon obtained by removing @xmath550 from the @xmath583-angulation determined by @xmath584 .
in fact , we can be more precise . define @xmath595 to be the diameter of the @xmath585-gon obtained by rotating the vertices of @xmath550 by @xmath13 steps counterclockwise ( within the @xmath585-gon )
. then @xmath596 .      the coloured quiver @xmath598 of @xmath591 has an arrow from @xmath550 to @xmath586 if and only if @xmath550 and @xmath586 both lie on some @xmath583-gon in the @xmath583-angulation defined by @xmath584 . in this case
, the colour of the arrow is the number of edges forming the segment of the boundary of the @xmath583-gon which lies between @xmath550 and @xmath586 , counterclockwise from @xmath550 and clockwise from @xmath586 .
we return to the example from section 2 .
the quadrangulation of a decagon corresponding to the tilting object @xmath41 is on the left .
the quadrangulation corresponding to @xmath109 is on the right .
passing from the figure on the left to the figure on the right , the diagonal 27 ( which corresponds to the summand @xmath599 ) has been rotated one step counterclockwise within the hexagon with vertices 1,2,3,4,7,10 .