5
$\begingroup$

Let $M$ a right simple module and $N$ be a left simple module over a ring $R$. I'm seeking a kind of Schur's lemma, with $\mathrm{Hom}_R (M,N)$ replaced by $M \otimes_R N$. So my questions are:

Can we describe $M \otimes_R N$ explicitly?

In particular, for a fixed $M$, is $N$ such that $M \otimes_R N \neq 0$ unique up to isomorphism? If not, can we classify such $N$'s in a reasonable way?

$\endgroup$
6
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ If $R$ is an algebra over a field $k$ then $$ Hom_k(M\otimes_R N,k) = Hom_R(M,Hom_k(N,k)) = Hom_R(M,N^*), $$ so, for example if all simple $R$-modules are finite dimensional over $k$ then $M\otimes_R N \ne 0$ iff $M = N^*$. $\endgroup$
    – Sasha
    Aug 23, 2012 at 17:28
  • $\begingroup$ If $I_1$ and $I_2$ are two ideals of the ring $R$ then $\frac{R}{I_1} \otimes \frac{R}{I_2}$ is isomorphic to $\frac{R}{I_1 + I_2}$ .So if $R$ is commutative then $M \otimes N$ is $0$ or $M$ or $N$. $\endgroup$
    – Ali Reza
    Aug 23, 2012 at 18:04
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Sasha: Thank you. Actually, my intention was to understand this duality relation in a more general context... $\endgroup$ Aug 23, 2012 at 18:06
  • $\begingroup$ @AliReza: Right, but for commutative rings simple modules are just one-dimensional vector spaces over fields, so the answer is straightforward. :) In the noncommutative setting the $R/(I_1+I_2)$ description remains valid, but $I_1$ and $I_2$ are now ideals from different sides, and they are not even uniquely defined. Can we still get something useful from this sum of ideals? $\endgroup$ Aug 23, 2012 at 18:13
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, as abelian groups (or modules over the center of $R$). There is an additive homomorphism $R \to I_1\backslash R/I_2$, which is surjective and its kernel is the sum of $I_1$ and $I_2$ as abelian groups. Beyond that, it's at least as hard as double cosets, which are pretty annoying to work with. $\endgroup$
    – Will Sawin
    Aug 23, 2012 at 19:03

2 Answers 2

6
$\begingroup$

Sasha's statement is true for any pair of modules.

The center of $R$ is a commutative ring $S$. Since the endomorphisms of a simple module are a division algebra, whose center is a field, the action of $S$ on every simple module factors through some field, so the action of $R$ of course factors through an algebra over that field.

The kenel of a map to a field is a prime ideal $p$, and the map to the field factors through the residue field $k_p$.

So if we have two finitely-generated modules $M$ and $N$, their annihilators in $S$ are two prime ideals of $S$, $p_1,p_2$. If the ideals are distinct, then $S$ annihilates $M \otimes_R N$ since the action of $S$ factors through $k_{p_1} \otimes_S k_{p_2}=0$. The tensor product is zero because one ideal necessarily contains an element $e$ not in the other. In the residue field that element, since it's not in the ideal, has an inverse. Then $1= 1\otimes 1= e^{-1}e\otimes 1=e^{-1}\otimes e=e^{-1} \otimes 0 =0$.

If they are the same ideal, set $R'= R\otimes_S k_p$. It is now an algebra over a field. Apply Sasha's statement.

$\endgroup$
9
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "If the module is finitely-generated then the field is finitely-generated over $S$..." In what sense do you want $M$ to be finitely generated? As an $S$-module? $\endgroup$ Aug 23, 2012 at 19:28
  • $\begingroup$ Yes. If $R$ is reasonable you can get away with making it finitely-generated as an $R$-module but not all rings are reasonable. $\endgroup$
    – Will Sawin
    Aug 23, 2012 at 20:31
  • $\begingroup$ Perhaps you need $S$ to be Noetherian - otherwise I don't see how you show that the center of $\mathrm{End}_R M$ is a finitely generated $S$-module. Anyway, thank you! $\endgroup$ Aug 23, 2012 at 22:30
  • $\begingroup$ As I suspected, there's a way to fix it so there are no finiteness conditions needed. $\endgroup$
    – Will Sawin
    Aug 24, 2012 at 16:31
  • $\begingroup$ You forgot to invert $S - p$. $\endgroup$
    – user91132
    Aug 24, 2012 at 17:33
6
$\begingroup$

I would guess the answer in general is hopeless, even for nice (noncommutative) algebras. For example, take $A_q := \mathbb C \langle X^{\pm 1}, Y^{\pm 1}\rangle / (XY=q^2YX)$, the quantum torus. If $q \in \mathbb C^*$ is not a root of unity, this is a simple algebra with trivial center. Let $M = P_k = \mathbb C[x^{\pm 1 }]$ as vector spaces with $1$ mapping to $m_0$ and $p_k$, respectively. Give $M$ and $P_k$ right and left $A_q$-module structures using

$f(x)m\cdot X = f(q^{-2}x) m$ and $f(x)m\cdot Y = xf(x)m$

$X\cdot f(x) p_k = xf(x)p_k$ and $Y\cdot f(x)m = q^{-k}x^k f(q^{-2}x)p_k$.

Claim: All the $P_k$ are non-isomorphic, each vector space $M \otimes_{A_q} P_k$ is 1-dimensional (spanned by $m\otimes p_k$), and if $q \in \mathbb C^*$ is not a root of unity, then $M$ and $P_k$ are simple.

$\endgroup$
4

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.