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

Let $A$ be a commutative algebra (over the complex numbers, with a unit) and let $M$ be a finitely generated projective $A$-module, and let $m_1,\ldots,m_n$ be a set of generators of $M$. The Dual Basis Theorem states that there exists $m_1^\ast,\ldots,m_n^\ast\in M^\ast$ such that $x=\sum m_i^\ast(x)m_i$ for all $x\in M$. This implies that one can write the identity map on $M$ as the tensor $\mathbf{1}=\sum m_i^\ast\otimes m_i$ and one defines $\operatorname{tr}\mathbf{1}=\sum m_i^\ast(m_i)$. What are the properties of $\operatorname{tr}\mathbf{1}$? Is there any relation to, for instance, the rank of $M$? When is it proportional to the unit element in $A$?

share|improve this question

3 Answers 3

up vote 7 down vote accepted

More abstractly: Let $A$ be a commutative unital ring and let $M$ be a f.g. projective $A$-module. The rank $rk_P(M)$ of $M$ at a prime ideal may be defined as the vector space dimension of $K\otimes_A M$ where $K$ is the residue field. Because projective modules of local rings are free, this is a locally constant function of the prime (so a constant if $A$ is a domain). The trace of the identity of $M$ is the unique element of $A$ such that in every local ring $A_P$ it goes to $rk_P(M)1$.

share|improve this answer

For any homomorphism $\varphi : A \to \mathbb C$, $\varphi({\rm tr}({\bf 1}))$ will be the corresponding trace for the finite-dimensional vector space $M \otimes_A \mathbb C$, and hence be equal to the rank of $M$ at $\varphi$.

So, if $A$ is some algebra of continuous functions on a connected space, then the trace ${\rm tr}({\bf 1})$ is a constant function, equal to the rank of $M$. In general, ${\rm tr}({\bf 1})$ is integer-valued locally constant.

share|improve this answer
Thank you for the answers! Concerning your example with the algebra of functions: Assuming $A$ is NOT a domain (like smooth functions on a manifold), what are the algebraic conditions for ${\rm tr}(\mathbf{1})$ to be proportional to the unit element? Restrictions on the ring and/or module? –  Joakim Arnlind Jun 9 '11 at 14:06
That is not so clear. Already $A= \mathbb C \oplus \mathbb C$ and $M = \mathbb C \oplus 0$ shows that non-constant functions can occur easily. I do not think that there is anything more to say than that the rank is the same at each point. –  Andreas Thom Jun 9 '11 at 14:26
Ok. A trivial follow-up question (which I could probably look up myself, but anyway ...): When is the rank a global invariant (for modules over rings that are not necessarily domains)? –  Joakim Arnlind Jun 9 '11 at 14:47
maybe a stupid comment: $tr(\mathsf{1})$ coincides with the matrix trace of $P$ if you realize $M$ via a projection $P \in M_n(A)$, i.e. $M = PA^n$. Now this is seen to be an invariant quite easily. It only depends on the iso class of the projective module (in fact, it should only depend on the $K_0$-class of it). It carries a lot of interesting information: if e.g. $A$ is the formal deformation quantization of a symplectic manifold, Fedosov's index theorem computes $tr(P)$ in terms of topological data of the corresponding vector bundle (Fedosov's book). This generalizes Atiyah-Singer... –  Stefan Waldmann Jun 9 '11 at 15:02

Let $A$ be the matrix with entries $m_i^*(m_j)$, and put $B(x)=xA+I-A$ and $f(x)=\det(B(x))$. We find that $A^2=A$, and $B(xy)=B(x)B(y)$, and $f(xy)=f(x)f(y)\in R[x,y]$. We also have $f(1)=1$. It follows that $f(x)=\sum_{i=0}^ne_ix^i$ for some elements $e_i\in R$ which are orthogonal idempotents, ie $e_ie_j=\delta_{ij}e_i$ and $\sum_ie_i=1$. If we put $R_i=R/(1-e_i)\simeq Re_i$ and $M=M/(1-e_i)M\simeq e_iM$ we see that $R=\prod_iR_i$ as rings and $M=\prod_iM_i$ as modules. Moreover, $M_i$ is locally free of rank $i$ over $R_i$.

We also have $\text{tr}(1)=\text{tr}(A)=f'(1)=\sum_iie_i$, so $\text{tr}(1)$ maps to $i$ in $R_i$. It is cleaner to work with the elements $e_i$ because they distinguish the different $R_i$ even in a finite characteristic situation, which is not true for $\text{tr}(1)$.

share|improve this answer
Dear Neil: I'd be most grateful if you could tell me whether what I wrote here is correct. –  Pierre-Yves Gaillard Aug 7 at 11:37
PS. I think $M=M/(1-e_i)M$ should be $M_i=M/(1-e_i)M$. –  Pierre-Yves Gaillard Aug 8 at 5:49

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.