Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let $E$ be a finite semigroup. According to N. Bourbaki (Algèbre I p. 121 exerc. 14 c), if $M$ and $M'$ are minimal right ideals in $E$, then they are isomorphic. I spent some time browsing through Clifford and Preston's monography "the algebraic theory of semigroups", also reading a few articles by Rees, Clifford and Dubreil, and found absolutely no mention of this fact anywhere. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough. If there is any semigroup specialist, could you tell me what you think?

share|improve this question
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 2 down vote accepted

This is in Clifford-Preston. First every minimal left (right) ideal is inside the minimal two-sided ideal $I$ (which is unique), see Exercise 13 on page 84. Second, the ideal $I$ is a simple semigroup (obvious, but is also in C-P). Third, by Sushkevich's theorem (Appendix A), all maximal subgroups of $I$ are isomorphic. By Theorem 1.27, every minimal left ideal $L$ in $I$ is a left group, i.e. the direct product of the maximal subgroup and a left zero semigroup (whose order does not depend of $L$). Hence all minimal left ideals are isomorphic.

share|improve this answer
    
Got it. Thanks. –  Pnine Jul 4 '12 at 7:40
add comment

I will use Green's relations, definitions are here if you don't know them : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green's_relations.

If you represent the smallest D-class $C_\min$ by a box as in the wikipedia article, then the right (resp. left) minimal ideals are exactly the rows (resp. columns) of $C_\min$, i.e. its R- and L-classes. This can be seen by the fact that every right ideal must contain a R-class of $C_\min$ (otherwise it would not be an ideal), and that it must also be included in a single R-class of $C_\min$ to be minimal. Then it suffices to see that for all $e\in E$, if $R$ is a R-class of $C_\min$ , then so is $eR$, and $x\mapsto ex$ is an isomorphism between $R$ and $eR$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for your answer. Why should $x \mapsto ex$ be an isomorphism? This map is obviously one-one and onto but why do we have $exy=exey$ if $x,y \in R$? –  Pnine Jul 3 '12 at 20:16
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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