4
$\begingroup$

If an associative algebra A is $\mathbb{Z}$-graded, then it is automatically $\mathbb{Z}\_2$ (aka $\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}$) graded by defining $A\_{\bar{0}}$ to be the direct sum over the even graded elements of A, and $A\_{\bar{1}}$ to be the direct sum over the odds. Conversely, what may be said to distinguish those algebras A for which a $\mathbb{Z}\_2$-grading exists, but no compatible $\mathbb{Z}$-grading exists? (Of course, compatible in the sense that the induced grading just described matches the given one.)

My motivation is the study of the B(0,n) (aka osp(1|2n)) series of Lie superalgebras, which I have been told cannot be $\mathbb{Z}$-graded, thus making their study a bit different from several of the other classes of Lie superalgebras.

The question can also be generalized greatly from above, and I think this is the right generalization. Say $\pi:R\to S$ is a surjection of abelian groups, so that an associative algebra A graded over R is automatically graded over S. What properties does an algebra have if it has an S grading, but no compatible R grading?

For a boring example, the associative algebra $\mathbb{Z}\_2$ (with itself as base field) is graded over itself as an abelian group, but clearly cannot be $\mathbb{Z}$-graded. In fact, any finite associative algebra with nontrivial grading over $\mathbb{Z}\_2$ cannot be given a compatible $\mathbb{Z}$ grading.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I can't seem to get that first line to render correctly. $\endgroup$
    – alekzander
    Nov 9, 2009 at 20:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Fixed that for you. (A rare un-ironic use of that phrase. :) ) This is a well known bug with the underscore character. The temporary workaround is to write (backslash)(underscore) whenever you mean (underscore). $\endgroup$ Nov 9, 2009 at 20:11
  • $\begingroup$ The last statement of the post (In fact, any finite associative algebra with nontrivial grading over Z_2 cannot be given a compatible Z grading.) is clearly wrong for the Grassmann algebra? You should be a bit more careful here. $\endgroup$ Nov 10, 2009 at 11:48
  • $\begingroup$ Finite, not finite-dimensional. $\endgroup$
    – alekzander
    Nov 10, 2009 at 19:35

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

A $\mathbb{Z}/2$ grading on a ring is equivalent to an action of $\mathbb{Z}/2$ on the ring: act by $(-1)$ on the odd part. Hence, it gives a $\mathbb{Z}/2$ action on the underlying variety. Similarly, a $\mathbb{Z}$ grading gives an action of $\mathbb{C}^\*$: the element $g \in \mathbb{C}^\*$ acts on $A\_i$ by $g^i$.

So, the question is when a $\mathbb{Z}/2$ action extends to an action of $\mathbb{C}^*$. In that generality, I can't think of anything intelligent to say beyond what I've said.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.