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

Assume we have a noncommuative ring $R$ with exactly 2 non-isomorphic simple left modules $S_1$ and $S_2$ (up to isomorphism) and an $R$-bimodule $M$, which switches the simples, i.e. $M\otimes_R S_1=S_2$ and $M\otimes_R S_2=S_1$.

Then we have $Hom_R(S_i,M\otimes_R S_i)=0$ by Schur's lemma ($*$).

Now assume $F$ is an arbitrary left $R$-module of finite length. What can be said about $Hom_R(F,M\otimes_R F)$ with the help of ($*$)?

If $F$ is a quotient of $R$, i.e. we have a surjection $R\rightarrow F \rightarrow 0$, then we get an injection $0\rightarrow Hom_R(F,M\otimes_R F)\rightarrow Hom_R(R,M\otimes_R F)$. Is there a method, using ($*$) to decide whether this is even an isomorphism?

So for example, if $F$ is one of the simples or a direct sum of one of the simples, then $Hom_R(F,M\otimes_R F)=0$ so the map is not an isomorphism. Otherwise both simple modules occur at least once in a Jordan-Hölder composition series. What can be said in this case?

If this question is too broad, the ring $R$ i'm interetested in is the following subring of $M_2(A)$: \begin{pmatrix}A &A \\ xA &A \end{pmatrix} where $A$ is a complete regular local ring of dimension 2, and $x\in A$ s.t. $A=\mathbb{C}[[x,y]]$. The $R$-bimodule $M$ is given as the following $R$-submodule in $M_2(Quot(A))$: \begin{pmatrix}A &x^{-1}A \\ A &A \end{pmatrix}

share|improve this question
    
Is the ring commutative? (as the tag says) Are $S_1$ and $S_2$ the only simple $R$-modules up to isomorphism? –  Dag Oskar Madsen Jan 11 '12 at 12:38
    
No the ring i'm interested in is not commutative. I gave a description of the ring and changed the tags, thanks for pointing that out. And yes the ring has exactly 2 simple modules up to isomorphism. –  TonyS Jan 11 '12 at 19:00

2 Answers 2

up vote 1 down vote accepted

The question is too broad in general, but I believe that there is a nice answer for your particular example. The first thing to note is that the given $M$ is a twisted bimodule. Namely, let $\sigma$ be the automorphism of $R$ given by $$\sigma : \begin{pmatrix} r & s \\ xt & u \end{pmatrix} \mapsto \begin{pmatrix} u &t \\ xs &r \end{pmatrix}.$$ Then we can define a bimodule isomorphism $\varphi : {}_1 R_{\sigma} \rightarrow M$ by $$\varphi : \begin{pmatrix} a &b \\ c &d \end{pmatrix} \mapsto \begin{pmatrix} b & x^{-1}a \\ d & c \end{pmatrix}.$$

It follows that tensoring with $M$ can be thought of as the endofunctor on the category of (left) R-modules that is induced by the automorphism $\sigma^{-1}$ ($= \sigma$). Consequently, the modules $F$ and $M \otimes_R F$ have the same structure (in a sense), but with the opposite composition factors. (To contrast with the general situation, the assumption that tensoring with $M$ swaps the simples, alone, does not guarantee that tensoring with $M$ preserves the length of finite-length modules.)

Thus, if you know the structure of $F$, it should not be hard to see if there are any nonzero morphisms from $F$ to $M \otimes_R F$. For example, if $F$ contains a factor of $S_1$ in its top and a factor of $S_2$ in its socle, then $M \otimes_R F$ contains a factor of $S_1$ in its socle, and there will be a nonzero map from $F$ to $M \otimes_R F$. On the other hand, if $F$ is uniserial with composition factors $S_1, S_2, S_1, S_1$ (from the top down), then $\mbox{Hom}_R(F,M\otimes_R F) = 0$.

However, for a finite-length module $F$ over the given $R$, it appears plausible that $\mbox{Hom}_R(F, M \otimes_R F)=0$ if and only if all composition factors of $F$ are isomorphic. I do not have a proof at the moment, but one might try to show that for any $F$ of finite length with $S_1$ in its top, at least one of the three cases occurs: 1) all composition factors of $F$ are isomorphic to $S_1$; 2) the socle of $F$ contains a copy of $S_2$; or 3) the length-$2$ uniserial module with composition factors $S_1, S_2$ is a quotient of $F$ and the length-$2$ uniserial with composition factors $S_2, S_1$ is a submodule of $F$. In cases 2) and 3) there will always be a nonzero map from $F$ to $M \otimes_R F$. (Note: this suggestion is based on my belief that $R$ is isomorphic to the completed path algebra of the quiver with 2 vertices, a loop at each vertex and a pair of arrows connecting the vertices in each direction, modulo the relations that the two paths of length 2 from each vertex to the other are equal. If this is incorrect, then the structure of the finite-length $R$-modules may be more complicated than I envision.)

We can also see that for a cyclic module $F$, in order for the map $\mbox{Hom}_R(F,M\otimes_R F) \rightarrow \mbox{Hom}_R(R,M \otimes_R F)$ to be an isomorphism, there must be an epimorphism $F \rightarrow M \otimes_R F$, which would have to be an isomorphism since these two modules have the same length.

share|improve this answer

Suppose $R$ is finite dimensional over an algebraically closed field and basic, so that we can suppose it is in fact an admissible quotient of the path algebra of a quiver. Your hypothesis on the simples means then that there are two vertices in the quiver. Let $e_1$ and $e_2$ be the corresponding idempotents, and $S_1$ and $S_2$ the simples.

If $M$ is the bimodule, then as a vector space we have $M=e_1Me_1\oplus e_1Me_2\oplus e_2Me_1\oplus e_2Me_2$. Then $M\otimes_RS_1=e_1Me_1\oplus e_2Me_1\cong S_2$, so that $e_1Me_1=0$ and $e_2Me_1$ is one-dimensional. Likewise, $e_2Me_2=0$ and $e_1Me_2$ is one-dimensional. If follows that $M$ is completely determined by the conditions.

Of course, your example is outside of these hypotheses! :)

share|improve this answer

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.