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

Let $\mathcal{G} = \mathbb{M}_n(\mathbb{C})$ be an $n$-by-$n$ matrix algebra over complex numbers. Next let $\mathcal{A} \cong \mathbb{M}_d(\mathbb{C})$ be a subalgebra of $\mathcal{G}$ and assume $d$ divides $n$. Then is it true that there exists another subalgebra of $\mathcal{G}$ (let's call it $\mathcal{B}$) such that

1) $\mathcal{G} \cong \mathcal{A} \otimes \mathcal{B}$.

2) Every element in $\mathcal{A}$ commutes with every element in $\mathcal{B}$.

3) The intersection of $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ are multiples of the identity.

If it is not true, what are the necessary conditions?

share|improve this question
add comment

3 Answers

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Yes, those are true and are consequences of the Double Centralizer Theorem for central simple algebras. See, for example, section 12.7 in Pierce's Associative Algebras.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Mariano has answered it but I'd like to add that $d$ divides $n$ is a red herring. If $M_d (C)$ is a subalgebra of $M_n(C)$ then decomposing $C^n$ into a direct sum of simple $M_d(C)$ modules tells you that $d$ must divide $n$.

This also tells you that the centraliser of $M_d(C)$ is isomorphic to $M_{n/d}(C)$ and all your conditions 1,2,3 follow trivially...

share|improve this answer
    
so you are saying the fact that $\mathcal{A} \cong \mathbb{M}_d$ is a subalgebra of $\mathcal{G}$ implies $d$ must divide $n$? –  kett Nov 11 '10 at 2:19
    
If $\mathcal{A}$ has the same unit as $\mathcal{G}$, then yes. –  Martin Argerami Nov 13 '10 at 2:59
add comment

Just to contribute a little, let me give a von Neumann algebra perspective.

Let $B=A'$, i.e. the commutant of $A$ in $G$. Then 2) is immediately satisfied, and so is 3), because $A\cap B$ is the centre of $A$, which is trivial.

As we are in a type I factor, $B'=A$.

Also $$ \text{alg}(A,B)=(A\cup B)''=(A'\cap B')'=(A'\cap A)'=(\mathbb{C}\,I)'=G, $$ which shows that $G$ is the algebra generated by $A$ and $B$. It remains to see that $G$ can be identified with $A\otimes B$. The map $a\times b\mapsto ab$, extended by linearity, is a *-homomorphism from $A\otimes B$ to $G$. It is clearly onto. And it is also one-to-one, because if $\sum_ja_jb_j=0$, one can use the idea in 11.1.8 in Kadison-Ringrose to see that $\sum_ja_j\otimes b_j=0$ (it is essential the fact that $a_jb_j=b_ja_j$). Finally, a bijective *-homomorphism is also isometric.

share|improve this answer
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.