Terminology: Algebras where long strings of products are 0? - MathOverflow most recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net2013-05-20T06:32:07Zhttp://mathoverflow.net/feeds/question/20174http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdfhttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/20174/terminology-algebras-where-long-strings-of-products-are-0Terminology: Algebras where long strings of products are 0?Dylan Thurston2010-04-02T18:08:29Z2010-06-30T05:23:32Z
<p>I'd like a name for an augmented algebra $A = \langle 1\rangle \oplus A_+$ for which there is an $N$ so that any product of more than $N$ elements in the augmentation ideal is $0$, i.e., $(A_+)^N = 0$. Is there a name? It seems related to nilpotence, and it implies that all elements in $A_+$ are nilpotent, but is stronger than that. There is a uniform bound on the degree of nilpotence, but that's not enough either, as the example of the exterior algebra in infinitely many variables over $\mathbb{Z}/2$ shows.</p>
<p>MathWorld defines a nilpotent algebra or nilalgebra to be one where every element is nilpotent. (They are therefore not considering unital algebras, contrary to an <a href="http://mathoverflow.net/questions/15107/algebra-unital-associative-algebra-better-terminology" rel="nofollow">earlier discussion</a> here.) Is this standard? Is there a better term?</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/20174/terminology-algebras-where-long-strings-of-products-are-0/20178#20178Answer by David Jordan for Terminology: Algebras where long strings of products are 0?David Jordan2010-04-02T18:44:07Z2010-04-02T18:44:07Z<p>I believe the terminology you want is that "the augmentation ideal is locally nilpotent." See, e.g. <a href="http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/NilAndNilpotentIdeals.html" rel="nofollow">http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/NilAndNilpotentIdeals.html</a>, although there are surely places in actual literature where this is used. I think an ideal being nilpotent means that the powers of the ideal are eventually zero (and is stronger than just requiring it to be a nil-ideal, meaning it's comprised of individually nilpotent elements). So a nilpotent ideal is one where there is a uniform bound, i.e. I^N=0 for some sufficiently large N. Locally nilpotent means that for any finitely generated subalgebra there exists such an N.</p>
<p>Is that the notation you want? I don't know a name for an augmented algebra whose ideal is locally nilpotent other than just that.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/20174/terminology-algebras-where-long-strings-of-products-are-0/20217#20217Answer by Vladimir Dotsenko for Terminology: Algebras where long strings of products are 0?Vladimir Dotsenko2010-04-03T08:10:35Z2010-04-03T08:10:35Z<p>Just to confirm the accepted answer, I link here relevant definitions from <a href="http://eom.springer.de/" rel="nofollow">Springer Online Encyclopaedia of Mathematics</a> (definitely more reliable source than MathWorld and even PlanetMath...):</p>
<p><a href="http://eom.springer.de/n/n066700.htm" rel="nofollow">Nilpotent algebra</a></p>
<p><a href="http://eom.springer.de/l/l060470.htm" rel="nofollow">Locally nilpotent algebra</a></p>
<p><a href="http://eom.springer.de/n/n066640.htm" rel="nofollow">Nil algebra</a></p>
<p>So the most appropriate thing to say would be "the augmentation ideal is nilpotent". This terminology is very standard.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/20174/terminology-algebras-where-long-strings-of-products-are-0/30006#30006Answer by Greg Marks for Terminology: Algebras where long strings of products are 0?Greg Marks2010-06-30T05:23:32Z2010-06-30T05:23:32Z<p>It seems to me that Jordan and Dotsenko are giving different answers from one another, and I agree with Dotsenko’s.  The condition Thurston has stated is the definition of $A_{+}$ being nilpotent.  “Locally nilpotent” is a weaker condition.  There are many examples of nonunital rings $A_{+}$ that are locally nilpotent (meaning for any finite set $a_1, \ldots, a_k \in A_{+}$ there exists $n \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $a_{i_1} \cdots a_{i_n} = 0$ provided every $i_j \in \lbrace 1, \ldots, k\rbrace$) but not nilpotent (meaning there exists $n \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $a_1 \cdots a_n = 0$ provided every $a_i \in A_{+}$, which is the condition Thurston stated).  Even better: two nice (and quite different) examples of a locally nilpotent <i>prime</i> nonunital ring can be found in E. I. Zelmanov, “An example of a finitely generated primitive ring,” <i>Sibirsk. Mat. Zh.</i> <b>20</b> (1979), no. 2, 423, 461, and J. Ram, “On the semisimplicity of skew polynomial rings,” <i>Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.</i> <b>90</b> (1984), no. 3, 347–351.  (Of course, if one merely wants an example where $A_{+}$ is locally nilpotent but not nilpotent—and so does not satisfy Thurston’s condition—one could take something like $A_{+} = \bigoplus_{i=2}^{\infty} 2\mathbb{Z}/2^i\mathbb{Z}$.)</p>
<p><i>N.B.</i> <i>Mathematical Reviews</i> incorrectly lists the title of Zelmanov’s paper as “An example of a finitely generated primary ring.”  It’s listed correctly in <i>Zentralblatt</i>.  Possibly the problem lies in the translation from the original Russian; the condition <i>primitive</i> in the English translation of the paper (<i>Siberian Math. J.</i> <b>20</b> (1979), no. 2, 303–304) is what we would today call <i>prime</i>. </p>