Skip to main content
6 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Apr 13, 2017 at 12:57 history edited CommunityBot
replaced http://mathoverflow.net/ with https://mathoverflow.net/
Nov 10, 2009 at 19:46 comment added Graham Leuschke Right. Conversely, if M is an MCM T-module, then it is an MCM A-module since T is finite over A; as A is regular, every MCM A-module is free over A by Auslander-Buchsbaum. Since every T-endomorphism of M is also an A-endomorphism, we have T \subseteq \End_T(M) \subseteq \End_A(M), so T is a matrix ring.
Nov 10, 2009 at 13:03 comment added David E Speyer Let A be local. As I understand it, an MCM module would mean a T-module M for which there is a regular sequence of length n? That's definitely true if T is a subring of a matrix ring: If T is contained in the m x m matrices then A^m is a T-module and, since it is free as an A-module, the generators of the maximal idea of A give a regular sequence.
Nov 10, 2009 at 3:06 comment added Graham Leuschke I haven't yet thought at all about whether this is equivalent to T having a MCM module, but just wanted to point out that (a) any local ring containing a field admits a MCM module by work of Hochster in the 70s; (b) in dimensions 1 and 2 existence of MCM modules is trivial; and (c) MCM modules exist in dimension 3 (mixed characteristic) by work of Heitmann from ~2002.
Nov 9, 2009 at 23:17 comment added Kevin Buzzard I have now independently heard that the case of $A$ regular is "open and difficult". If T is finite as an A-module then (and I don't understand what I'm writing here) "this is precisely the issue of whether T has a finitely generated maximal Cohen-Macaulay module. This is true in dim < 3 and not known in dimension 3 in any characteristic, although it is known to be true in many instances. "
Nov 9, 2009 at 20:41 history answered David E Speyer CC BY-SA 2.5