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

$\newcommand{\End}{\operatorname{End}}$

let $R$ be a local ring, $\varphi\in \End(R_{R}^{2})$, $\overline{\varphi}\in \End(\overline{R}_{\overline{R}}^{2})$, $\overline{R} =R/J(R)$ , $J(R)$= Jacobson radical $R$. where neither $\varphi$ nor $1-\varphi$ is invertible. Why neither $\overline{\varphi}$ nor 1- $\overline{\varphi}$ is invertible in $\End(\overline{R}_{\overline{R}}^{2})$ ?

share|improve this question
1  
I had a go at cleaning up the LaTeX, but am not sure it still makes sense –  Yemon Choi Jul 10 '11 at 20:19
1  
I did a little more LaTeX cleaning up. I guess $R^2_R$ is the $R$-module $R^2$. –  Mark Sapir Jul 10 '11 at 20:24
2  
This is a trivial exercise. An endomorphisms $\phi\in \mathrm{End} R^n$ is invertible if and only if $\det \phi$ is if and only if $\overline{\det\phi}$ is if and only if $\overline{\phi}$ is. –  Mohan Jul 10 '11 at 21:44
1  
@Mohan: There is nothing in the original post (look at the history!) that tells us $R$ is commutative. –  darij grinberg Jul 10 '11 at 22:27
    
To support Darijs remark: In commutative algebra, no one speeks of the jacobson radical of a local ring; it's just the maximal ideal. –  Martin Brandenburg Jul 11 '11 at 7:35
show 1 more comment

1 Answer

Clearly, it is enough to prove that if $\overline{\varphi}$ is invertible, then so is $\varphi$. (In fact, showing the same thing for $1-\varphi$ is analogous.)

Also it is clear that $\mathrm{End}\left(R_R^2\right)\cong \mathrm{M}_2\left(R\right)$ (canonically in $R$), and thus we can WLOG consider $\varphi$ as a $2\times 2$ matrix over $R$, with $\overline{\varphi}$ being its projection onto $\mathrm{M}_2\left(\overline{R}\right)$.

So what we have to prove now is the following:

Proposition. Let $R$ be a (not necessarily commutative) ring, and let $J\left(R\right)$ denote the Jacobson radical of $R$. Let $n\in\mathbb N$, and let $A\in \mathrm{M}_n\left(R\right)$. Then, $A$ is invertible if and only if the matrix $\overline{A}\in\mathrm{M}_n\left(R/J\left(R\right)\right)$ is invertible. Here, $\overline{A}$ denotes the image of $A$ under the canonical projection $\mathrm{M}_n\left(R\right)\to \mathrm{M}_n\left(R/J\left(R\right)\right)$ which is induced by the canonical projection $R\to R/J\left(R\right)$.

Before we prove this, a lemma:

Lemma. Let $R$ be a (not necessarily commutative) ring, and let $J\left(R\right)$ denote the Jacobson radical of $R$. Let $n\in\mathbb N$. Then, $\mathrm{M}_n\left(J\left(R\right)\right)$ (the subset of $\mathrm{M}_n\left(R\right)$ formed by all matrices each of whose entries lies in $J\left(R\right)$) is contained in the Jacobson radical $J\left(\mathrm{M}_n\left(R\right)\right)$.

Actually it is not just contained but equal to $J\left(\mathrm{M}_n\left(R\right)\right)$, as proven in the first absatz of this text (and probably many texts about noncommutative rings), but we only need the "contained" part. Still let me give a proof of this Lemma in the Appendix at the end of this reply. But first let us prove the Proposition using the Lemma:

Proof of the Proposition. The $\Longrightarrow$ direction is trivial, so let us now prove the $\Longleftarrow$ direction.

Assume that $\overline{A}$ is invertible. Then, there exists some matrix $U\in \mathrm{M}_n\left(R/J\left(R\right)\right)$ such that $\overline{A}U=U\overline{A}=I_n$. Clearly, there exists some matrix $B\in \mathrm{M}_n\left(R\right)$ such that $U=\overline{B}$ (because the canonical projection $\mathrm{M}_n\left(R\right)\to \mathrm{M}_n\left(R/J\left(R\right)\right)$ is surjective). Now, $\overline{AB}=\overline{A}\overline{B}=\overline{A}U$ (since $\overline{B}=U$), so that $\overline{AB}=\overline{A}U=I_n=\overline{I_n}$. Hence, $AB-I_n$ lies in the kernel of the canonical projection $\mathrm{M}_n\left(R\right)\to \mathrm{M}_n\left(R/J\left(R\right)\right)$. But this kernel is $\mathrm{M}_n\left(J\left(R\right)\right)$. Thus, $AB-I_n\in \mathrm{M}_n\left(J\left(R\right)\right)\subseteq J\left(\mathrm{M}_n\left(R\right)\right)$ (due to the Lemma). Hence, $I_n-AB=-\left(AB-I_n\right)$ lies in $ J\left(\mathrm{M}_n\left(R\right)\right)$ as well, so that (by the definition of $J\left(\mathrm{M}_n\left(R\right)\right)$) we see that $I_n-\left(I_n-AB\right)$ is invertible. In other words, $AB$ is invertible. That is, there exists some $C\in \mathrm{M}_n\left(R\right)$ such that $CAB=ABC=I_n$. Now, $ABC=I_n$ shows that $A$ is right-invertible. Similarly, $A$ is left-invertible, and we conclude that $A$ is invertible. This proves the $\Longleftarrow$ direction of the Proposition, qed.

There might be a more interesting algebraic undercurrent flowing beneath this argument; for example, does the Lemma have anything to do with the Morita equivalence between $R$ and $\mathrm{M}_n\left(R\right)$ ? I don't know. Some noncommutative algebraist could enlighten me.


Appendix: I don't feel like bumping up this thread for the only reason to fix a single typo, so let's add an alternative proof for the lemma. It is long (though the proof linked above isn't too short either when detailed), but I am somewhat proud of the penultimate paragraph.

Proof of the Lemma. Let $D\in\mathrm{M}_n\left(J\left(R\right)\right)$ be arbitrary. We want to prove that the matrix $I_n-DE$ is invertible for every $E\in\mathrm{M}_n\left(R\right)$.

So let $E\in\mathrm{M}_n\left(R\right)$ be arbitrary. Since $D\in\mathrm{M}_n\left(J\left(R\right)\right)$, every entry of the matrix $D$ lies in $J\left(R\right)$.

Now, the entries of the matrix $DE$ are sums of products of entries of $D$ with entries of $E$. Since the entries of $D$ all lie in $J\left(R\right)$, and since $J\left(R\right)$ is an ideal, this yields that all entries of $DE$ lie in $J\left(R\right)$.

The (noncommutative) Nakayama lemma says that if $M$ is a finitely generated right $R$-module such that $M\cdot J\left(R\right)=M$, then $M=0$. Now, let $R^n$ be the right $R$-module of column vectors of length $n$ over $R$. Then, $\mathrm{End}_R\left(R^n\right)$ can be canonically identified with the matrix ring $\mathrm{M}_n\left(R\right)$, acting from the left(!) on $R^n$. Let $\left(e_1,e_2,...,e_n\right)$ be the standard basis of the right $R$-module $R^n$. Now, let $M$ be the quotient module $R^n / \left(\left(I_n-DE\right)R^n\right)$. Then, $M$ is a finitely generated right $R$-module (being a quotient of $R^n$) with generating system $\left(\overline{e_1},\overline{e_2},...,\overline{e_n}\right)$, where $\overline x$ denotes the residue class of a vector $x\in R^n$ modulo the submodule $\left(I_n-DE\right)R^n$. For every $i\in\left\lbrace 1,2,...,n\right\rbrace$, we have $e_i-DEe_i=\left(I_n-DE\right)e_i\in \left(I_n-DE\right)R^n$, so that $\overline{e_i}=\overline{DEe_i}$. Now, the vector $DEe_i$ is the $i$-th column of the matrix $DE$ (because $e_i$ is the $i$-th basis vector of the standard basis $\left(e_1,e_2,...,e_n\right)$ of $R^n$). Thus, all entries of the vector $DEe_i$ are entries of the matrix $DE$, and thus lie in $J\left(R\right)$ (since all entries of the matrix $DE$ lie in $J\left(R\right)$). Hence, $DEe_i \in R^n\cdot J\left(R\right)$, so that $\overline{DEe_i} \in \underbrace{\left(R^n / \left(\left(I_n-DE\right)R^n\right)\right)}_{=M} \cdot J\left(R\right) = M \cdot J\left(R\right)$. We have thus shown that $\overline{e_i} = \overline{DEe_i} \in M \cdot J\left(R\right)$ for every $i$. Thus, $\overline{e_i}\cdot R \subseteq M \cdot \underbrace{J\left(R\right)\cdot R}_{\subseteq J\left(R\right)\text{ (since }J\left(R\right)\text{ is an ideal)}} \subseteq M\cdot J\left(R\right)$ for every $i$.

But since $\left(\overline{e_1},\overline{e_2},...,\overline{e_n}\right)$ is a generating system of $M$, we have $M = \sum_{i=1}^n \underbrace{\overline{e_i}\cdot R}_{\subseteq M\cdot J\left(R\right)} \subseteq \sum_{i=1}^n M\cdot J\left(R\right) \subseteq M\cdot J\left(R\right)$ (since $M\cdot J\left(R\right)$ is a right $R$-module). Combined with the obvious inclusion $M \cdot J\left(R\right)\subseteq M$, this yields $M = M \cdot J\left(R\right)$. Hence, the Nakayama lemma (quoted above) yields that $M=0$. Since $M = R^n / \left(\left(I_n-DE\right)R^n\right)$, this shows that $\left(I_n-DE\right)R^n = R^n$. In other words, the left action of the matrix $I_n-DE$ on the right $R$-module $R^n$ (seen as a right $R$-module map $R^n\to R^n$) is surjective. Since every surjective right $R$-module map $R^n\to R^n$ is right-invertible, this yields that the left action of the matrix $I_n-DE$ on the right $R$-module $R^n$ (seen as a right $R$-module map $R^n\to R^n$) is right-invertible. In other words, the matrix $I_n-DE$ is right-invertible.

But now let us look again at the fact that the left action of the matrix $I_n-DE$ on the right $R$-module $R^n$ (seen as a right $R$-module map $R^n\to R^n$) is right-invertible. By applying the same argument to the left $R$-module $R^n$ instead of the right $R$-module $R^n$, we can show that the right action of the matrix $I_n-DE$ on the left $R$-module $R^n$ (seen as a left $R$-module map $R^n\to R^n$) is right-invertible. But this time, this means that the matrix $I_n-DE$ is left-invertible. (The reason for this is the following: If $X$ and $Y$ are two $n\times n$ matrices over $R$, then the right action of the matrix $XY$ on the left $R$-module $R^n$ is the composition $\left(\text{the right action of the matrix }Y\text{ on the left }R\text{-module }R^n\right)\circ \left(\text{the right action of the matrix }X\text{ on the left }R\text{-module }R^n\right)$, and not the other way round. Thus, an $n\times n$ matrix is left-invertible if and only if its right action on the left $R$-module $R^n$ is right-invertible.).

Thus we now know that the matrix $I_n-DE$ is left-invertible and right-invertible. This yields that the matrix $I_n-DE$ is invertible. Since this is proven for every $E\in\mathrm{M}_n\left(R\right)$, this yields that $D\in J\left(\mathrm{M}_n\left(R\right)\right)$ (by the definition of the Jacobson radical). Since we have proven this for every $D\in\mathrm{M}_n\left(J\left(R\right)\right)$, we thus have shown that $\mathrm{M}_n\left(J\left(R\right)\right) \subseteq J\left(\mathrm{M}_n\left(R\right)\right)$. The Lemma is proven.

share|improve this answer
1  
Yes, this result does follow from Morita theory. If R and S are Morita equivalent rings, then there is an isomorphism between the lattices of (two-sided) ideals of R and of S. This isomorphism preserves the anninilators of modules. Since the Jacobson radical is the intersection of all (say) right primitive ideals of a ring, this correspondence preserves the radical of a ring. The last thing that you need to know is that the correspondence between R and M_n(R) is the obvious one: it sends an ideal I of R to M_n(I). [Reference: T.Y. Lam, Lectures on Modules and Rings, Cor. 18.50.] –  Manny Reyes Sep 1 '11 at 19:58
    
"Anninilators": they send every module element to something nilpotent? ;) Thanks, a very informative comment. –  darij grinberg Sep 1 '11 at 20:25
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.