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

Suppose that $Q$ is a quaternion division algebra with center $k$, where $k$ is an arbitrary commutative field (let's say with $\operatorname{char}(k) \neq 2$ if necessary). Assume that $D$ is an arbitrary skew field (which a priori has nothing to do with $Q$ nor with the base field $k$), and assume that there is an injective ring homomorphism $\varphi \colon D \hookrightarrow Q$.

Is it true that $D$ is either a commutative field or a quaternion division algebra again?

My first guess was that this should be obviously true, but failing to see an obvious argument, I wonder whether it's true at all...

share|improve this question
1  
Just to be sure about your notation, do you use "division algebra" and "skew field" interchangeably? So, the $2\times 2$ matrices are neither a skew field nor a division algebra, right? –  Filippo Alberto Edoardo Feb 4 '13 at 16:19
    
@Filippo: I use "division algebra" for "skew field which is finite-dimensional over its center". –  Tom De Medts Feb 5 '13 at 9:02

2 Answers 2

up vote 4 down vote accepted

First note that if $A$ is the $2\times 2$ matrix algebra over a field, and $z\in A$ has trace zero, then by the Cayley Hamilton Theorem, $z^2=-det (z)$ is a scalar. Hence, if $x,y \in A$ then $(xy-yx)^2$ is a scalar matrix. Secondly, if $A$ is the $n\times n$ matrix algebra over a field, with $n\geq 3$, then it is easy to get two matrices $x,y\in A$ such that $(xy-yx)^2$ is $not$ a scalar.

Suppose $D$ is a skew field, and is finite dimensional (of degree $n$) over its centre $K$. We may assume that $D$ is not commutative. Then the centre cannot be a finite field and hence $D$ is Zariski dense in $D\otimes _K {\overline K}\quad $ (${\overline K}$ is the algebraic closure of $K$). If $degree (D)\geq 3$, then by the preceding paragraph, $(xy-yx)^2$ is not in $K$ for some $x,y\in D$.

Your condition says that for all $x,y\in Q$ we must have $(xy-yx)^2$ lies in the centre of $Q$. Hence the same is true for $D$. Hence $D$ is indeed quaternionic.

[Edit] Tom is right. You do not need to assume that $D$ is finite dimensional over its centre. This can be proved as follows. Let $K$ and $L$ be the centres of $D$ and $Q$ respectively. Since $Q$ is quaternionic, the $L$ vector space spanned by $D$ in $Q$ is (an algebra) and is therefore all of $Q$. Hence $K\subset L$. I will now prove that the trace of $b\in D$ and the norm of $b$ (all viewed in $Q$) lie in $K$ itself. If $b\in K$ this is clear.

If $b\notin K$, then there exists $a\in D$ which does not commute with $b$. The equation $$ab^2-b^2a= trace (b)(ab-ba)$$ follows from Cayley Hamilton in $Q$ and shows that $trace (b)$ is an element of $D$. Hence the norm also: $det (b)=trace (b)b-b^2$.

If $a,b\in D$ and don't commute, then it follows that the $K$ vector space spanned by $1,a,b,ab,ba, aba, bab$ is a sub-algebra $R$ and is hence quaternionic. This can be extended to any three generic elements elements $a,b,c$ as well. Hence every generic element $c\in D$ already lies in the subalgebra $R$. That is: $D=R$ is finite dimensional over $K$.

share|improve this answer
    
What do you mean by "Zariski dense"? Are you speaking of the Zariski density of $D$ or of $\mathrm{Spec}(D)$, which is a bit weird as $D$ is not commutative? –  Filippo Alberto Edoardo Feb 5 '13 at 0:30
1  
the space $V=D\otimes {\overline K}$ is a vector space and hence an affine space. If $K$ is infinite, then $D$ is Zariski dense in the affine space $V$. Let $x,y,z\in V$ be arbitrary and let $w=(xy-yx)^2$. Then the condition $wz=zw$ for all $x,y,z \in V$ is a collection of polynomial equations on $V$; if this does not hold on $V$, then by Zariski density, it does not hold on $D$ either. –  Venkataramana Feb 5 '13 at 1:22
    
@Aakumadula: Thanks for your answer! The fact that $(xy - yx)^2$ is a central element is a nice observation. Two questions/comments though: (1) I assume you mean $\deg(D) \geq 3$ instead of $\dim(D) \geq 3$ (where the degree is the square root of the dimension)? (2) I am not assuming $D$ to be finite-dimensional over its center, and the Zariski density argument seems to fail in the infinite-dimensional case. –  Tom De Medts Feb 5 '13 at 9:15
    
@Tom De Medts: you are right. I should have said $Deg (D)\geq 3$. As to the other observation, I think (I have not thought it through), that you can find $x,y \in D$ of trace zero such that they do not commute, and since $(xy-yx)^2$ is central, the algebra generated by the centre $K$ of $D$ and $x,y$ is finite dimensional over $K$ because if you see $x^2$ in a (multiplicative) word in $x,y$ you may replace it a scalar; if you see yxyx in the word, it can be replaced by $xyxy$ and a sum of lower degree terms... . You can then argue that this algebra is 4 dimensional (i.e. quaternionic). –  Venkataramana Feb 5 '13 at 10:26
    
I am a bit lost. The OP seemed to ask for very general $D\hookrightarrow Q$ and you assume that $D$ be finite dimensional over its center $K$ (which, as the OP said in his answer to a comment, is his definition of division algebra...) –  Filippo Alberto Edoardo Feb 5 '13 at 11:59

Yes, it is. This follows from the theory of central simple algebras. Here's another proof, possibly similar to Aakumadula's: let $D'=D\otimes \bar{k}\cong GL_2(\bar{k})$. If $D'$ has basis $1,a$ then it's commutative; otherwise, it has basis $1,a,b$. I claim that $a,b$ have a common eigenvalue in $\bar{k}^2$. Indeed, suppose not. Then $a,b$ are diagonalizable. Pick a basis in which $a$ is diagonal. Then $b$ won't be either upper- or lower-triangular, and you can see combinatorially that $1,a,b,ab$ are linearly independent, so $D'=Q'$ and $D=Q$. Thus $D'$ is the space of upper-triangular matrices in some basis. But this is impossible, e.g. since then $D'$ has an ideal fixed by the Galois action.

share|improve this answer
1  
Your $GL$ should be $M_2$, the matrix ring. –  Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Feb 5 '13 at 0:19
1  
Your tensor product seems to be over $k$, but the OP did insist that $D$ "has nothing to do with $k$", so it might not be a $k$-algebra... –  Filippo Alberto Edoardo Feb 5 '13 at 0:31
    
@Dmitry and Filippo: Indeed, I am not assuming that $D$ is a $k$-algebra (otherwise the result is rather obvious for dimension reasons). –  Tom De Medts Feb 5 '13 at 9:00

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.