MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Inspired by other questions i have two questions about modules over division rings: given a division ring $D$ with center $Z(D)=K$. One has the notion of dimension for left modules (vector spaces) $V$ over $D$, which is well behaved like in linear algebra.

But does the following also hold: Given a left vector space $W$ of dimension $n$ and a right vector space $V$ of dimension $m$. Assume that at least one of them is even a $D$-bimodule, so that $V\otimes_D W$ has the structure of a $D$-module.

$Q1$: Do we have $dim_D(V\otimes _D W)=dim_D(V)dim_D(W)=nm$ in this case?

Now $D$ is naturally a $D$-bimodule, so is $D^{\*}=Hom_K(D,K)$.

$Q2$: Is there a $D$-bimodule isomorphism between $D$ and $D^{\*}$?

Both modules are one dimensional, so pick generators $x\in D$ and $y\in D^{\*}$. Now $x\mapsto y$ defines a map $D \rightarrow D^{\*}$, which satisfies $ax\mapsto ay$. Assume that $ax=xb$ for some $b\in D$, then we need to have $xb\mapsto yb$, which leads to $x^{-1}ax=y^{-1}ay$ for all $a\in D$. Can we find $x$ and $y$ such that the last relation is fulfilled? Or is there no such bimodule isomorphism?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 10 down vote accepted

The answer to both questions is positive if $D$ is finite-dimensional over its center $K$, and negative, in general, otherwise.

Q1. Suppose $V$ is a $D$-bimodule over $K$ (i.e., a $D\otimes_K D^{op}$-module), while $W$ is a left $D$-module of dimension $n$, as in your question. Then $W$ is isomorphic to a direct sum of $n$ copies of $D$, hence $V\otimes_D W$ as a left $D$-module is isomorphic to a direct sum of $n$ copies of $V$. So the $\dim_D (V\otimes_D W) = n\dim_D V$, where $\dim_D$ denotes the dimension of left $D$-modules. Now, to answer your original question, it remains to notice that the dimensions of $V$ as a left and a right $D$-module coincide, since both are equal to $\dim_KV/\dim_KD$.

It does not matter in this argument that $K$ is the whole center of $D$, only that $K$ is a field contained in the center of $D$ and $D$ is finite-dimensional over $K$. On the other hand, if $D$ is infinite-dimensional over $K$, it may happen that $D$ can be $K$-linearly embedded into itself as a proper subring. This would allow to define a $D$-bimodule structure on $V=D$ where $V$ is one-dimensional as a right module over $D$ and more than one-dimensional (possibly infinite-dimensional) as a left module over $D$. This would break your dimension formula.

Q2. Left $D$-module maps $D\to D^\ast$ are in one-to-one correspondence with elements of $D^\ast$, i.e., $K$-linear functions $D\to K$. A linear function $l\colon D\to K$ defines a $D$-bimodule map $D\to D^\ast$ if and only if one has $l(xy)=l(yx)$ for all elements $x$, $y\in D$. Taking $l$ to be the trace map (defined e.g. by tensoring $D$ with the separable closure of $K$ over $K$, identifying the result with matrices over the separable closure, and taking the traces of matrices), one can obtain a $D$-bimodule isomorphism between $D$ and $D^\ast$ when $D$ is finite-dimensional over its center $K$.

The above argument can be easily extended to the case when $K$ is just a subfield of the center of $D$ and $D$ is finite-dimensional over $K$ (one just composes the trace map with an arbitrary nonzero linear function from the center of $D$ to $K$). On the other hand, when $D$ is infinite-dimensional over $K$, it is no longer true that $D^\ast$ is a one-dimensional left $D$-module.

share|cite|improve this answer
Nice answer Leonid! – javier Mar 21 '11 at 22:05
For what it's worth, while studying D-D-bimodules over K = Z(D), with D of (finite) dimension n over K, one might remark that $D\otimes_K D^\circ$ is isomorphic to $K^{n\times n}$ (e.g. Reiner, Maximal Orders, section on Brauer group). – Matthias Künzer Mar 22 '11 at 6:24
A minor correction: In your answer to Q1 you need to assume that $V$ is $K$-balanced, i. e. that $kv=vk$ for all $v\in V$ and $k\in K$. If $D$ is finite-dim over a field such that this holds, then everething is well. Otherwise, one can easily contruct counterexamples (somewhat artificially, of course): Consider the function field $K=\mathbb{Q}(x)$ as $K$-$K$-bimodule, where left multiplication is as usual, and right multiplication given by $kp(x)=kp(x^2). Then the left and right dimensions are different. – Frieder Ladisch Mar 22 '11 at 12:33
@F.Ladisch: I made the assumption that you mention in the first sentence of my answer to Q1: "Suppose $V$ is a $D$-bimodule over $K$ (i.e., a $D\otimes_K D^{op}$-module) ..." – Leonid Positselski Mar 22 '11 at 14:13
Sorry, I did not read careful enough. I wasn't aware that the phrase "is a $D$-bimodule over $K$" means the same as "$K$-balanced". – Frieder Ladisch Mar 22 '11 at 14:35

Concerning Q2, $D$ and $D^* $ are in general not isomorphic as $K$-vector spaces: suppose that $D$ has countable infinite dimension as a vector space over $K$. The dual vector space $D^*$ has then uncountable dimension over $K$. If $K$ is a countable field (say, the rational numbers) it follows that $D$ has a countable number of elements, but $D^* $ doesn't, so there cannot exist a set bijection between the two, let alone a module isomorphism.

share|cite|improve this answer
Countability does not matter. No infinite-dimensional vector space $D$ over a field $K$ is isomorphic to its dual vector space $D^\ast$. – Leonid Positselski Mar 21 '11 at 22:13
True, the countability argument was just the easiest way I could think of to show a counterexample. Your trace argument is way more elegant :-) – javier Mar 21 '11 at 22:24

Your Answer


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.