8
$\begingroup$

In "Catégories Tannakiennes", Deligne defines the $n$th exterior power of an object $A$ of an abelian tensor category $\mathcal{C}$ as the image of the morphism $$p : A^{\otimes n} \to A^{\otimes n}, a_1 \otimes \dotsc \otimes a_n \mapsto \sum_{\sigma \in \Sigma_n} \mathrm{sgn}(\sigma) \cdot a_{\sigma(1)} \otimes \dotsc \otimes a_{\sigma(n)}.$$ Let's call this $\Lambda^n_{Deligne}(A)$. Notice that $p^2=n! p$. If $n!$ acts invertibly on $\mathcal{C}$, this is certainly the correct definition of the exterior power (but then we could also define it as suggested here). But what happens in general?

If $\mathcal{C}=\mathsf{Mod}(R)$ for some commutative ring $R$, then it is easy to see that the map $(a_1,\dotsc,a_n) \mapsto p(a_1 \otimes \dotsc \otimes a_n)$ is alternating and thus induces a surjective homomorphism $$\Lambda^n(A) \to \Lambda^n_{Deligne}(A).$$ Here, $\Lambda^n(A)$ is the usual exterior power. Is this map an isomorphism? In other words, is the map $\Lambda^n(A) \to A^{\otimes n}$ induced by $p$ injective?

The answer is yes if $A$ is free. It follows formally that it also holds when $A$ is locally free. By Lazard's Theorem we get the result if $A$ is flat. It also holds when $A$ is cyclic, because then $\Lambda^n(A)$ vanishes for $n>1$. I've also tried some other examples. Are there any counterexamples?

| cite | improve this question | | | | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In Darij Grinberg's answer $R$ is not an integral domain. What happens if we assume that $R$ is an integral domain? $\endgroup$ – Martin Brandenburg Oct 8 '14 at 10:28
  • $\begingroup$ What happens if you replace my $k$ by the polynomial ring $\mathbb{F}_2\left[\alpha,\beta,\gamma\right]$, change the definition of $L$ to $L = M / \left< \alpha x + \beta y + \gamma z, \alpha^2 x, \alpha^2 y, \alpha^2 z, \beta^2 x, \beta^2 y, \beta^2 z, \gamma^2 x, \gamma^2 y, \gamma^2 z \right>$, and change the image of $f$ to $k / \left(\alpha^2, \beta^2, \gamma^2\right)$ ? $\endgroup$ – darij grinberg Oct 8 '14 at 13:32
  • $\begingroup$ Well, that sounds good. And why do we need 3 variables, why not just 2? (Haven't checked, but the trick in your answer seems to work...) $\endgroup$ – Martin Brandenburg Oct 8 '14 at 13:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In fact, if the module $A$ is generated by two elements then the map $\Lambda^2A\to A\otimes A$ is split injective. $\endgroup$ – Tom Goodwillie Oct 9 '14 at 11:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes. $f(a\otimes b)=a\wedge b$, $f(a\otimes a)=f(b\otimes a)=f(b\otimes b)=0$. It works because if $pa+qb=0$ then $p(a\wedge b)=0=q(a\wedge b)$. $\endgroup$ – Tom Goodwillie Oct 9 '14 at 12:58
2
$\begingroup$

It is not. Here is a counterexample. (I have essentially copied the setting from https://mathoverflow.net/a/87958/2530 , which in turn goes back to a PBW counterexample by P. M. Cohn.)

Let $k$ be the commutative ring $\mathbb F_2 \left[\alpha,\beta,\gamma\right] / \left(\alpha^2,\beta^2,\gamma^2\right)$.

Let $M$ be the $k$-module $\left\langle x,y,z\right\rangle$. Let $L$ be the $k$-module $M / \left\langle \alpha x + \beta y + \gamma z\right\rangle$. We shall abusively write $x$, $y$ and $z$ both for the elements $x$, $y$ and $z$ of $M$ and for their projections on $L$ as well.

Define a $k$-linear map $f : M \otimes M \to k$ by

$f\left(y \otimes z\right) = \alpha$, $f\left(z \otimes y\right) = \alpha$, $f\left(x \otimes x\right) = 0$,

$f\left(z \otimes x\right) = \beta$, $f\left(x \otimes z\right) = \beta$, $f\left(y \otimes y\right) = 0$,

$f\left(x \otimes y\right) = \gamma$, $f\left(y \otimes x\right) = \gamma$, $f\left(z \otimes z\right) = 0$.

It is easy to see that $f$ vanishes on $\left\langle \alpha x + \beta y + \gamma z\right\rangle \otimes M + M \otimes \left\langle \alpha x + \beta y + \gamma z\right\rangle$. Hence, $f$ descends to a $k$-linear map $L \otimes L \to k$ (since $L \otimes L \cong \left(M \otimes M\right) / \left(\left\langle \alpha x + \beta y + \gamma z\right\rangle \otimes M + M \otimes \left\langle \alpha x + \beta y + \gamma z\right\rangle\right)$ as a consequence of the right-exactness of the tensor product). This latter map is also alternating, and therefore descends to a $k$-linear map $\wedge^2 L \to k$. This latter map sends $\beta y \wedge \gamma z + \gamma z \wedge \alpha x + \alpha x \wedge \beta y$ to $3 \alpha \beta \gamma = \alpha \beta \gamma \neq 0$. Hence, $\beta y \wedge \gamma z + \gamma z \wedge \alpha x + \alpha x \wedge \beta y \neq 0 \in \wedge^2 L$.

But in $L \otimes L$, we have

$p \left( \beta y \wedge \gamma z + \gamma z \wedge \alpha x + \alpha x \wedge \beta y \right)$

$= \beta y \otimes \gamma z - \gamma z \otimes \beta y + \left(\text{cyclic permutations}\right)$

$= \underbrace{\alpha x \otimes \beta y - \alpha x \otimes \gamma z}_{= - \alpha x \otimes \beta y - \alpha x \otimes \gamma z = \alpha x \otimes \left( -\beta y - \gamma z\right)} + \left(\text{cyclic permutations}\right)$

$= \alpha x \otimes \underbrace{\left( -\beta y - \gamma z\right)}_{=\alpha x \text{ (since } \alpha x + \beta y + \gamma z = 0 \text{ in } L \text{)}} + \left(\text{cyclic permutations}\right)$

$= \underbrace{\alpha x \otimes \alpha x}_{=\alpha^2 x\otimes x} + \left(\text{cyclic permutations}\right)$

$= \underbrace{\alpha^2}_{=0} x \otimes x + \left(\text{cyclic permutations}\right) = 0$.

So $p$ fails to be injective.

| cite | improve this answer | | | | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer, Darij! I think that we can simplify the calculation, since $\gamma z \wedge \alpha x + \alpha x \wedge \beta y = 0$ and therefore your element in $\Lambda^2 L$ is just $\beta y \wedge \gamma z$. The image under $p$ is then $\beta y \otimes \gamma z - \gamma z \otimes \beta y$. $\endgroup$ – Martin Brandenburg Oct 8 '14 at 8:02
  • $\begingroup$ ... and $\beta y \otimes \gamma z + \gamma z \otimes \beta y = \alpha x \otimes \gamma z + \gamma z \otimes \gamma z + \alpha x \otimes \beta y + \beta y \otimes \beta y = \alpha x \otimes \alpha x = 0$ $\endgroup$ – Martin Brandenburg Oct 8 '14 at 8:19
  • $\begingroup$ Nice. I tried to simplify the calculation like that, but I failed, so I decided to keep the symmetric form. $\endgroup$ – darij grinberg Oct 8 '14 at 13:28

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.