4
$\begingroup$

Let $V$ be a vector space (over $\mathbb C$, but I don't think it matters), and $m: V\otimes V \to V$ a "multiplication" that is associative and commutative (but I do not demand that it is unital). Is it possible that $m$ is an isomorphism $V\otimes V \overset \sim \to V$? Yes: $V$ can be zero-dimensional, or $V$ can be one-dimensional and $m$ non-zero.

Since $0$ and $1$ are the only finite solutions to $v^2 = v$, any other example must have $\dim V = \infty$. But there are many $\infty$s and many possible maps, and although I am sure that there are some examples, I am having trouble writing one down. Hence:

What is an example of an infinite-dimensional vector space $V$ and an isomorphism $m: V\otimes V \overset\sim\to V$ that is associative and commutative? Or is this impossible?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ If $V$ has a unit and the multiplication is an isomorphism, then $1 \otimes a = a \otimes 1$, which forces $a$ to be a multiple of $1$. I am not sure about the non-unital case, but it seems rather hopeless. $\endgroup$ Oct 16, 2010 at 14:30
  • $\begingroup$ @Andreas Thom: Yes, I had gotten that far, and almost wrote "but necessarily not unital" where I wrote "do not demand that it is unital". I changed my mind because (1) the zero- and one-dimensional examples are unital, and (2) I hadn't come to the question yet. $\endgroup$ Oct 16, 2010 at 23:29

2 Answers 2

10
$\begingroup$

It is impossible. Let $x$ and $y$ be linearly independent vectors in $V$. Then $x \otimes y \neq y \otimes x$ but $m(x \otimes y) = m(y \otimes x)$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Well, that was easy. $\endgroup$
    – Ben Webster
    Oct 16, 2010 at 7:38
  • $\begingroup$ Yes. Clearly I had not thought about the word "commutative" much. I do want commutative in my application, but I had been eying possible constructions for associative but not commutative. $\endgroup$ Oct 16, 2010 at 7:46
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I can see how it could be difficult if you've convinced yourself that examples exist. $\endgroup$
    – S. Carnahan
    Oct 16, 2010 at 7:48
10
$\begingroup$

Even just associativity looks problematic. Following up on Scott's observation, for any $x$ we would have to have $x^2 \otimes x = x \otimes x^2$, so there is a linear dependency $x^2 = \lambda_x x$ for some scalar $\lambda_x$. Also, if $x \neq 0$, the function $x \cdot -$ would have to be injective (left cancellation). In particular, $\lambda_x \neq 0$.

Next, we have $(x^2)y = x(xy)$, and so $x(\lambda_x y) = x(xy)$. By left cancellation, $xy = \lambda_x y$ for all $y$.

By the same token, we have cancellation on the right. So if $y \neq 0$, from $x(yy) = (xy)y$, we derive $(\lambda_y x)y = (xy)y$, hence $xy = \lambda_y x$.

We now conclude $\lambda_x y = \lambda_y x \neq 0$ for any two nonzero $x, y$. Hence the dimension of $V$ is 1 at most.

$\endgroup$
0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.