Let $R$ be a finitely generated ring with identity, $M_n(R)$ the set of $n\times n$ matrices. Are there any nontrivial ring homomorphisms $M_{n+1}(R)\rightarrow M_n(R)$? This should be an elementary question in abstract algebra. But even if $R$ is a field, I couldn't get a quick (negative) proof. Any comments are welcomed.

RMK: If we view the natrual map $M_{n}(R)\rightarrow M_{n+1}(R)$ as a ring homomorphism, we will not require that a ring homomorphism preserves identities.

  • 7
    $\begingroup$ The kernel of a ring homomorphism is a two-sided ideal, so when $R$ is a field the kernel of $M_{n+1}(R)\rightarrow M_n(R)$ must be $0$ (impossible) or $M_{n+1}(R)$. $\endgroup$ – Dag Oskar Madsen Mar 31 '13 at 15:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why is kernel being zero impossible? $\endgroup$ – user30035 Mar 31 '13 at 17:00
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If $R$ is a field, or even a commutative ring, and if you consider $R$-algebra homomorphisms, then the kernel cannot be zero by rank reasons. Ortherwise this seems to be a complicated question. $\endgroup$ – Fernando Muro Mar 31 '13 at 17:08
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ But even if $R$ is a field, the question does not demand that the ring homomorphism is a vector space homomorphism. There are plenty of fields $K$ and injections $K\to K$ that are far from being surjections. I don't understand your scalar matrices comments. Given $i:K\to K$ an injection which is not $K$-linear, there's an induced ring homomorphism $M_2(K)\to M_2(K)$ which is also not $K$-linear. $\endgroup$ – user30035 Mar 31 '13 at 17:39
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I think wccanard is right. There can be many strange ring homomorphisms from a field to itself. Please downvote my previous comment :) $\endgroup$ – Dag Oskar Madsen Mar 31 '13 at 17:47

According to the Amitsur-Levitzki theorem, $n \times n$ matrices over a commutative ring satisfy a polynomial identity of degree $2n$ and none of smaller degree. So there can be no injective ring homomorphism $M_{n+1}(R) \to M_n(R)$, which at least rules out the case when $R$ is a field.

  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Doesn't the same theorem solve the more general commutative case? Can there be any injective ring homomorphisms $M_{n+1}(R/I) \to M_n(R)$ when $R$ is commutative and $I$ is an ideal? $\endgroup$ – Dag Oskar Madsen Mar 31 '13 at 20:53
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @Dag Oskar Madsen: Your comment is on point! If $R$ is commutative then the kernel of any ring hom $f \colon M_{n+1}(R) \to M_n(R)$ is of the form $M_{n+1}(I)$ for some ideal $I$ of $R$ and so we get an injective map $M_{n+1}(R/I) \cong M_{n+1}(R)/\ker f \to M_n(R)$, which forces $f$ to be 0 by A-L. $\endgroup$ – Faisal Mar 31 '13 at 21:47
  • $\begingroup$ Very nice answer and comments. $\endgroup$ – yeshengkui Apr 1 '13 at 3:04
  • $\begingroup$ Very nice, I admire always your leading points. $\endgroup$ – mrs Apr 6 '13 at 16:58

Here is a slightly silly example of a non-trivial ring homomorphism $M_{n+1}(R)\rightarrow M_n(R)$ with $R$ noncommutative.

Let $R=\mathbb C \times M_2(\mathbb C)$. Then there is a ring homomorphism $M_2(R)\rightarrow M_1(R)$ sending the ideal $M_2(M_2(\mathbb C)) \subseteq M_2(R)$ to $0$ and $M_2(\mathbb C) \subseteq M_2(R)$ isomorphically to $0 \times M_2(\mathbb C)$.

There might be more interesting examples based on this idea.

  • $\begingroup$ @Dag:Thanks for your answer. But why is $M_2(M_2(R))$ an ideal of $M_2(R)$? Have you assumed that $M_2(R)$ is a direct product of $M_2(M_2(R))$ and $M_2(\bb{C})$ to define the map $M_2(R)\rightarrow M_1(R)$? Why can we have such a product? $\endgroup$ – yeshengkui Apr 1 '13 at 7:38
  • $\begingroup$ @yeshengkui: there is a canonical isomorphism $M_n(A\times B)\cong M_n(A)\times M_n(B)$, and the subspace $M_n(A)$ is an ideal of $M_n(A\times B)$ under this identification. $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Apr 1 '13 at 9:32
  • $\begingroup$ I think I am kind of cheating with this example and not giving you the sort of answer you are after. Maybe there should be more conditions on the ring $R$? $\endgroup$ – Dag Oskar Madsen Apr 1 '13 at 10:01

If $R$ is a local ring, possibly non-commutative, then there is no non-trivial homomorphism. Let $B_k$ be the semigroup of $k\times k$-matrix units and $0$. It is well known every proper homomorphic image of $B_k$ collapses all elements. So if $M_{n+1}(R)\to M_n(R)$ is nontrivial it must not collapse $B_{n+1}$ (since $B_{n+1}$ spans $M_{n+1}(R)$). But then $B_{n+1}$ embeds in $End(R^n)$ as a semigroup with zero. So $End(R^n)$ contains $n+1$ orthogonal idempotents. But this implies $R^n$ is a direct sum of at least $n+1$ non-zero projective modules. But projective is free for local rings and local rings have invariant basis number. This is a contradiction.

Added. This argument works as long as R has the invariant basis number property for finitely generated free modules and finitely generated projective $R$-modules are free. In particular it applies to free algebras and firs (free ideal rings) if memory serves.

  • $\begingroup$ If $M_{n+1}\to M_n$ is a ring map, we get $n+1$ idempotents in $M_n$ which are orthogonal and add up to $1$; in particular, they are distinct. This is enough to go, so one does not really need the very nice fact about the set $B_k$ you mention. (Or I am missing something) $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Apr 1 '13 at 2:58
  • $\begingroup$ @Benjamin, what do you mean by $k \times k$-matrix units? $\endgroup$ – yeshengkui Apr 1 '13 at 3:05
  • $\begingroup$ @Mariano, but the ring homomorphism not necessarily preserves identities. Is it easy to classify idemotents in $M_n(R)$? $\endgroup$ – yeshengkui Apr 1 '13 at 3:08
  • $\begingroup$ Ah. Well, orthogonality is enough to show that the $n+1$ idempotents are different, so non-unitality of the map does not hurt. $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Apr 1 '13 at 3:10
  • $\begingroup$ @Yeshegkui, a matrix unit means a matrix of the form $E_{ij}$ which has zeroes in all entries except the ij entry, which is 1. The matrix units are a basis for the matrix ring (in fact it is the contracted semigroup algebra of the matrix unit semigroup). $\endgroup$ – Benjamin Steinberg Apr 1 '13 at 11:35

We can also rule out the case of commutative $R$ by appealing to the Artin–Procesi theorem: an Azumaya algebra of constant rank $(n+1)^2$ (e.g. $M_{n+1}(R)$) satisfies all the $\mathbb Z$-multilinear identities of $M_{n+1}(\mathbb Z)$ but no nonzero homomorphic image of it satisfies all the $\mathbb Z$-multilinear identities of $M_n(\mathbb Z)$.

It's perhaps worth noting that if R is a field, then there's a fairly straightforward way of proving that there is no injective ring homomorphism M_{n+1}(R) \to M_n(R). In fact, suppose we have a nonzero ring homomorphism M_{n'}(R) \to M_n(R). Then this allows us to view R^n as a left M_{n'}(R)-module. Now if R is a field, then M_{n'}(R) is simple, and so R^n decomposes into a finite direct sum of irreducible M_{n'}(R)-modules. It's a standard fact (and one that is easy to prove) that each such module is isomorphic to R^{n'}. We thus obtain an isomorphism R^n = R^{n'} \oplus \cdots \oplus R^{n'} of M_{n'}(R)-modules, and hence of R-vector spaces by restricting the action to the subring of scalar matrices. But then linear algebra allows us to conclude that n'|n. Nevermind. :)

Update: It's possible to have a nontrivial ring map $M_{n+1}(R) \to M_n(R)$ with $R$ finitely generated (and necessarily noncommutative). The idea, inspired by my previous mishap and wccanard's comment, is to find a finitely generated ring $R$ for which there is an isomorphism $R^{n+1} \cong R^n$ of left $R$-modules. In this case one obtains ring isomorphisms $$ M_{n+1}(R) \cong \mathrm{End}_R(R^{n+1}) \cong \mathrm{End}_R(R^n) \cong M_n(R). $$ The ring theorists provide us with examples of such rings. In fact, for any positive integers $n < m$, Leavitt gives a finitely generated ring $L_{n,m}$ for which there is a left $L_{n,m}$-module isomorphism $L_{n,m}^n \cong L_{n,m}^m$ and, consequently, a ring isomorphism $M_n(L_{n,m}) \cong M_m(L_{n,m})$.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How do you get in your argument (after "then $M_{n'}(R)$ is simple") that $R^n$ is a finitely generated module over $M_{n'}(R)$? (I guess $n'=n+1$) $\endgroup$ – YCor Mar 31 '13 at 21:48
  • $\begingroup$ For the second part I think you are assuming the ring homomorphism preserves identity. $\endgroup$ – Dag Oskar Madsen Mar 31 '13 at 21:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Finiteness doesn't come for free -- for example take some crazy map $\mathbb{C}\to\mathbb{C}$ making $\mathbb{C}$ into an infinite-dimensional $\mathbb{C}$-vector space, and then let $n=n'=1$. $\endgroup$ – user30035 Mar 31 '13 at 21:56
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, very good point. It seems like the only way to salvage the argument is to assume that the ring map is actually a map of $R$-algebras, but in this case there's a much easier argument... Oh well. $\endgroup$ – Faisal Mar 31 '13 at 22:31

Since it is not clear that $R$ must be commutative (none of the tags eliminate this possibility), the finite generation hypothesis (which I interpret as finitely generated as an algebra over a field) is not significant, in view of the existence of rings for which all finitely generated projective modules are cyclic and free.

The standard dense subalgebra of the Cuntz C*-algebra is such an example, and is finitely generated as an algebra over the complexes, and satisfies $M_n R $ isomorphic to $R$ for all $n$, yielding unital maps (isomorphisms) $M_{n+1}R \to M_n R$.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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