Timeline for Understanding the modules of semiprimitive rings
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:58 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
|
|
| Jun 16, 2013 at 19:43 | comment | added | Peter Samuelson | What do you mean by 'finite dimensional'? Do you mean 'finitely generated over $\mathbb C[x]$'? (The Weyl algebra doesn't have any representations that are finite dimensional over $\mathbb C$ - if it did, you could take trace of both sides of the matrix equation $Dx-xD = 1$ and get $0 = n$.) | |
| Jul 4, 2010 at 1:19 | comment | added | Jamie Vicary | Thanks very much for your comment! I understand that the representation theory of simple algebras can be wild. My question is to what extent the representation theory of a general semiprimitive algebra is helped by the knowledge of its subdirect product in terms of primitive rings. If an algebra is itself primitive, then it makes sense that this decomposition does not help in understanding its representation theory. | |
| Jul 3, 2010 at 18:33 | history | answered | Bruce Westbury | CC BY-SA 2.5 |