1
$\begingroup$

The two sets are, of course, supposed infinite.

This question is related to that one Commutation of tensor products with inverse limits in a specific case where it received a (partial) answer ($A$ noetherian is suff).

I can complement a bit: in any case, $A$ is supposed a commutative ring with unit and $1\not= 0$.

When $A$ is a domain (no zero divisor) and if $A^X\otimes_A A^Y$ is torsion-free (which I do not know in general) then the natural arrow $f\otimes g\mapsto ((x,y)\mapsto f(x)g(y))$ $$ A^X\otimes_A A^Y\rightarrow A^{X\times Y} $$ is an embedding.

Let $\Phi$ be the natural arrow $A^X\otimes_A A^Y\rightarrow A^{X\times Y}$ and $t\in ker(\Phi)$. Among all expressions $$ \alpha\, t=\sum_{i=1}^n f_i\otimes g_i\ , $$ with $\alpha\not=0$ choose one with $n$ minimal.

(H) We suppose that the tensor product $A^X\otimes_A A^Y$ is torsion-free

if $n=0$, one has $\alpha\, t=0$ and then $t=0$, we are done. If $n>0$, the family $(g_i)_{i=1}^n$ is free and for all $(x,y)\in X\times Y$ $$ \Phi(\alpha\, t)[x,y]=\sum_{i=1}^n f_i(x)g_i(y) $$ which means that $(\forall x\in X)(\sum_{i=1}^n f_i(x)g_i=0)$ and then $(\forall x\in X)(\forall i\in [1..n])(f_i(x)=0)$. This implies $\alpha\, t=0$ and then, under (H), $t=0$.

Who knows more ? (I am specially interested in necessary and sufficient conditions but, of course, any partial further result is welcome).

On the way I cannot prove (H), any kind of hint will be appreciated. Hence

Subquestion We know that, if $A^X\otimes_A A^Y$ is torsionless (as a $A$-module), the ring $A$ is a domain. Is the converse true ? otherwise can one provide a counterexample ?

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ So $A^X$ and $A^Y$ mean direct powers of $A$ (that is, $A^X = \prod_{x \in X} A$ and $A^Y = \prod_{y \in Y} A$), not invariant rings? And you ask for the canonical map to be an embedding, not just for the existence of some embedding? (Just making sure that I understand correctly.) $\endgroup$ Apr 2 '15 at 19:59
  • $\begingroup$ Also, why is the family $\left(g_i\right)_i$ free in your argument? $\endgroup$ Apr 2 '15 at 20:03
  • $\begingroup$ [And you ask for the canonical map to be an embedding]--> Yes, I need (if possible) ness and suff conditions on $A$ so that the canonical map be an embedding (if it is NOT clear from my text, I'll amend). $\endgroup$ Apr 3 '15 at 1:43
  • $\begingroup$ @Darij [Also, why is the family $(g_i)_i$ free in your argument?]-->because $n$ is minimal. If it were not free, some $\alpha_0g_{i_0}$ would be a linear combination of others for some $\alpha_0\not=0$ and then, changing $\alpha$ to $\alpha_0\alpha\not=0$ (there are no zero divisor), we could reduce $n$. $\endgroup$ Apr 3 '15 at 1:49
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, thanks -- I missed the condition that $A$ be a domain. $\endgroup$ Apr 3 '15 at 1:52
6
$\begingroup$

Let $k$ be a field, $I$ and $J$ infinite sets, and $A$ the $k$-subalgebra of $$k(t)[x_i,y_j: i\in I,j\in J]$$ generated by $$\{x_i,y_j,tx_i,t^{-1}y_j: i\in I, j\in J\}.$$

Then $$(tx_i)_{i\in I}\otimes(t^{-1}y_j)_{j\in J}-(x_i)_{i\in I}\otimes(y_j)_{j\in J}$$ is a non-zero element of the kernel of the natural map $A^I\otimes_A A^J\to A^{I\times J}$.

[EDIT: Here's a proof that this element is non-zero.

If it's zero, then it can be shown to be zero using only finitely many elements of $A$, and so $(tx_i)_{i\in I}\otimes(t^{-1}y_j)_{j\in J}-(x_i)_{i\in I}\otimes(y_j)_{j\in J}=0$ in $A^I\otimes_BA^J$ for some finitely generated subalgebra $B$ of $A$. We can choose $r\in I$ and $s\in J$ so that $$B\subseteq k(t)[x_i,y_j:i\neq r, j\neq s].$$

Now $A$ has a basis consisting of elements of the form $t^lm$ where $m$ is a monomial in $\{x_i,y_j:i\in I,j\in J\}$ and $l\geq 0$ if $m$ involves no $y_j$s and $l\leq0$ if $m$ involves no $x_i$s. The basis elements other than those for which $m$ is a power of $x_r$ or of $y_s$ span an ideal. Let $\bar{A}$ be the corresponding quotient algebra; then the image $\bar{B}$ of $B$ in $\bar{A}$ is just $k$.

Consider the image of $(tx_i)_{i\in I}\otimes(t^{-1}y_j)_{j\in J}-(x_i)_{i\in I}\otimes(y_j)_{j\in J}$ in $\bar{A}^I\otimes_{\bar{B}}\bar{A}^J$. This is non-zero since $tx_r\otimes t^{-1}y_s-x_ry_s\neq0$ in $\bar{A}\otimes_{\bar{B}}\bar{A}$, as the set $\{x_r,tx_r,y_s,t^{-1}y_s\}$ is linearly independent in $\bar{A}$, and the components for $i\neq r$ or $j\neq s$ are all zero.]

As your proof shows, this means that $A^I\otimes_AA^J$ must have torsion, and indeed, for any $s\in I$, $$\begin{align}x_s\left((tx_i)_{i\in I}\otimes(t^{-1}y_j)_{j\in J}\right) &=(tx_sx_i)_{i\in I}\otimes(t^{-1}y_j)_{j\in J}\\ &=(x_i)_{i\in I}\otimes(x_sy_j)_{j\in J}\\ &=x_s\left((x_i)_{i\in I}\otimes(y_j)_{j\in J}\right),\end{align}$$ and so $$x_s\left((tx_i)_{i\in I}\otimes(t^{-1}y_j)_{j\in J}-(x_i)_{i\in I}\otimes(y_j)_{j\in J}\right)=0.$$

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Nice example of torsion (+1) ! By the way, I "feel" that $(tx_i)_{i\in I}\otimes(t^{-1}y_j)_{j\in J}-(x_i)_{i\in I}\otimes(y_j)_{j\in J}$ might not be zero, but I see no way of proving it formally ... $\endgroup$ Apr 6 '15 at 22:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DuchampGérardH.E. I'll add a proof later today when I have time. But essentially: if it's zero in $A^I\otimes_AA^J$ then it's zero in $A^I\otimes_BA^J$ for some finitely generated subalgebra $B$. And then it's possible to find a quotient $\bar{A}$ such that $\bar{B}=k$ and the image of the element in $\bar{A}^I\otimes_{\bar{B}}\bar{A}^J$ is evidently non-zero. $\endgroup$ Apr 7 '15 at 8:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @DuchampGérardH.E. I've added the proof. $\endgroup$ Apr 7 '15 at 9:29
  • $\begingroup$ .@Jeremy I find your proof convincing (I must go into details however). As it answers my subquestion and nobody answered my main question (it seems however out of reach to have conditions, I will refine my needs), I am glad to accept it as an answer. $\endgroup$ Apr 7 '15 at 20:11

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.