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

Hello everybody.

I'm readying about derivations. It is very very known fact that all derivations $\delta: A\rightarrow M$ (A R-algebra, M A-module) are inner when the algebra is R-separable.

Someone knows some reference to see the proof, please?

Thank you!

share|improve this question
2  
I think this is Theorem 5 in: Gerhard Hochschild, On the Cohomology Theory for Associative Algebras, The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 47, No. 3 (Jul., 1946), pp. 568-579. Notice that his algebras are not necessarily unital, and that he defines "separable" by "the first Hochschild cohomology vanishes" (i. e. "all derivations are inner"). But Theorem 5 shows that his version of separability is equivalent to what is nowadays considered one of the definitions of separability. -- Also, unless your algebras are all commutative, you should write "A-bimodule" instead of "A-module". –  darij grinberg Aug 2 '11 at 10:48
    
(PS. Posting it as a comment, because I feel that having an openly accessible complete proof would be of more use.) –  darij grinberg Aug 2 '11 at 10:49
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Unless your algebras are all commutative, you should write "A-bimodule" instead of "A-module". So the correct result is:

Proposition. Let $A$ be a unital $R$-algebra (where $R$ is a commutative ring). Then, $A$ is a separable $R$-algebra if and only if every derivation from $A$ to an $A$-$A$-bimodule is inner.

Proof of the Proposition: $\Longrightarrow$: Assume that $A$ is a separable $R$-algebra. Then, there exists a $t\in A\otimes A$ (where all tensor products are over $R$) satisfying $\mu\left(t\right) = 1$ (where $\mu : A \otimes A \to A$ is the multiplication morphism of the $R$-algebra $A$) and $at=ta$ for every $a\in A$ (where we are using the standard $A$-$A$-bimodule structure on $A\otimes A$). Now, let $M$ be an $A$-$A$-bimodule, and $d: A\to M$ a derivation. Since $t\in A\otimes A$ is a tensor, we can write it in the form $t=\sum\limits_{i=1}^n t_i\otimes s_i$ for some $n\in\mathbb N$ and some $t_1,t_2,...,t_n\in A$ and $s_1,s_2,...,s_n\in A$. Then, $\mu\left(t\right)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^n t_i s_i$, so that $\mu\left(t\right)=1$ becomes $\sum\limits_{i=1}^n t_i s_i = 1$. On the other hand, every $a\in A$ satisfies $at=ta$. Since $t=\sum\limits_{i=1}^n t_i\otimes s_i$, this rewrites as $\sum\limits_{i=1}^n at_i\otimes s_i = \sum\limits_{i=1}^n t_i\otimes s_ia$. Applying the map $d\otimes \mathrm{id}$ to this equation, we get $\sum\limits_{i=1}^n d\left(at_i\right)\otimes s_i = \sum\limits_{i=1}^n d\left(t_i\right)\otimes s_ia$. Applying the action map $A\otimes M\to M,\ a\otimes m\mapsto am$ to this equation, we get $\sum\limits_{i=1}^n d\left(at_i\right)s_i = \sum\limits_{i=1}^n d\left(t_i\right)s_ia$. Thus,

$0 = \sum\limits_{i=1}^n d\left(at_i\right)s_i - \sum\limits_{i=1}^n d\left(t_i\right)s_ia$

$= \sum\limits_{i=1}^n \left(\underbrace{d\left(at_i\right)}_{=d\left(a\right)t_i+ad\left(t_i\right)\text{ (since }d\text{ is a derivation)}}s_i - d\left(t_i\right)s_ia\right)$

$= \sum\limits_{i=1}^n \left(d\left(a\right)t_is_i + ad\left(t_i\right)s_i - d\left(t_i\right)s_ia\right)$

$= d\left(a\right) \underbrace{\sum\limits_{i=1}^n t_is_i}_{=1} + a\sum\limits_{i=1}^n d\left(t_i\right)s_i - \sum\limits_{i=1}^n d\left(t_i\right)s_i a$

$= d\left(a\right) + a\sum\limits_{i=1}^n d\left(t_i\right)s_i - \sum\limits_{i=1}^n d\left(t_i\right)s_i a$.

Hence, $d\left(a\right) = - a\sum\limits_{i=1}^n d\left(t_i\right)s_i + \sum\limits_{i=1}^n d\left(t_i\right)s_i a$. In other words, $d\left(a\right) = au-ua$ where $u = -\sum\limits_{i=1}^n d\left(t_i\right)s_i$. This shows that $d$ is an inner derivation. We have thus proven that every derivation from $A$ into an $A$-$A$-bimodule is inner. The $\Longrightarrow$ direction of the Proposition is now shown.

$\Longleftarrow$: Assume that every derivation from $A$ into an $A$-$A$-bimodule is inner. Let $\mu : A \otimes A \to A$ be the multiplication morphism of the $R$-algebra $A$. Consider the $A$-$A$-bimodule $A\otimes A$; then, $\mathrm{Ker}\mu$ is a sub-bimodule of $A\otimes A$ (since $\mu$ is an $A$-$A$-bimodule map, as can be easily seen). Consider the map $\delta:A\to \mathrm{Ker}\mu,\ a\mapsto a\otimes 1-1\otimes a$. This map $\delta$ is a derivation (as can be easily shown by computation), so it is inner (by the assumption that every derivation from $A$ into an $A$-$A$-bimodule is inner). This means that there exists some $u\in \mathrm{Ker}\mu$ such that $\delta\left(a\right)=au-ua$ for every $a\in A$. Consider this $u$. Let $t=1\otimes 1-u$. Then, $\mu\left(u\right)=0$ (since $u\in\mathrm{Ker}\mu$) and $\mu\left(1\otimes 1\right)=1$ yield $\mu\left(t\right)=1$. On the other hand, every $a\in A$ satisfies

$at-ta = a\left(1\otimes 1-u\right)-\left(1\otimes 1-u\right)a$ (since $t=1\otimes 1-u$)

$= \left(\underbrace{a\left(1\otimes 1\right)}_{=a\otimes 1}-\underbrace{\left(1\otimes 1\right)a}_{=1\otimes a}\right) - \underbrace{\left(au-ua\right)}_{=\delta\left(a\right)=a\otimes 1-1\otimes a}$

$= \left(a\otimes 1-1\otimes a\right) - \left(a\otimes 1-1\otimes a\right) = 0$,

so that $at=ta$.

Thus there exists a $t\in A\otimes A$ such that $\mu\left(t\right)=1$ and such that $at=ta$ for every $a\in A$. This means that the $R$-algebra $A$ is separable. This proves the $\Longleftarrow$ direction of the Proposition. The Proposition is thus shown.

Note that a fact slightly stronger than our above proposition (by virtue of holding for nonunital $R$-algebras as well) is Theorem 5 in: Gerhard Hochschild, On the Cohomology Theory for Associative Algebras, The Annals of Mathematics, Second Series, Vol. 47, No. 3 (Jul., 1946), pp. 568-579. Notice that his algebras are not necessarily unital, and that he defines "separable" by "the first Hochschild cohomology vanishes" (i. e. "all derivations are inner"). But Theorem 5 shows that his version of separability is equivalent to what is nowadays considered one of the definitions of separability.

share|improve this answer
    
Ok! Thank you very much, darij grinberg! Firstly, sorry for my bad redaction. You're completely right, I should have written (A,A)-bimodule. Those are our structures. (I continue the comment in another post). –  muestrass Aug 6 '11 at 12:08
    
My next question is... I see clear the proof you give using that $ta=at, \forall a\in A$. The characterization that I know of a separable algebra A is in terms of the existence of an element $t\in A$ such that $\mu(t)=1$ (\mu:A^e=A\otimes A^{op}\rightarrow A) and $Jt=0$, where $J=Ker(\mu)$. I have read in many web pages that, in A separable algebra, $ta=at, \forall a\in A$, but nowadays I don't know why (yes, probably I'm blind!). So, I would like what happen with that condition. Thank you for your answers. –  muestrass Aug 6 '11 at 12:12
    
PD.: I want to vote up the three answers obtained until now (the yours and the Charles one, but I don't know how to do it!) –  muestrass Aug 6 '11 at 12:12
    
First of all, you should have written $t\in A\otimes A$ rather than $t\in A$. Second, your new question boils down to proving that $Jt=0$ (where $J=\mathrm{Ker}\mu$) is equivalent to $ta=at$ for all $a\in A$. To prove this, notice that $J$ is generated, as a left $A$-module, by the set $\left\lbrace a\otimes 1-1\otimes a\mid a\in A\right\rbrace$ (should I give a proof for that, or do you remember it now?). Hence, $Jt=0$ is equivalent to $\left(a\otimes 1-1\otimes a\right)t=0$. Now, it is important to know that $\left(a\otimes 1-1\otimes a\right)t$ does not mean the product of ... –  darij grinberg Aug 6 '11 at 19:18
    
... $a\otimes 1-1\otimes a$ with $t$ in $A\otimes A$, but the product of $a\otimes 1-1\otimes a$ with $t$ in $A\otimes A^{\mathrm{op}}$. (In fact, $J$ was considered as a submodule of $A\otimes A^{\mathrm{op}}$, not $A\otimes A$; otherwise your definition of "separable" would be wrong!) In terms of the $A$-$A$-bimodule structure on $A\otimes A$, this product is simply $at-ta$. –  darij grinberg Aug 6 '11 at 19:20
show 1 more comment

You should take a look at Théorie de la descente et algèbres d'Azumaya, M.-A. Knus and M. Ojanguren, Théorème 1.4 p 73-74.

This contains all the criteria you need and the non-commutative/commutative case

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you for your answer, Charles, I'm just trying to find that book! –  muestrass Aug 6 '11 at 12:06
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.