3
$\begingroup$

Let $k$ be a field (you can assume it to be algebraically closed) and let $A$ and $B$ be two non-commutative algebras over $k[t]$; let us assume that both are free and finitely generated as $k[t]$-modules. Let $i:A\hookrightarrow B$ be an embedding of $k[t]$-algebras which becomes an isomorphism if we invert $t$. Let now $M$ be a finitely generated $A$-module, which is free over $k[t]$. Note that $M[t^{-1}]$ is automatically a $B$-module (since $B$ is a subalgebra of $B[t^{-1}]=A[t^{-1}]$.

Let $A_0=A/tA, B_0=B/tB, M_0=M/tM$. We have a homomorphism $i_0:A_0\to B_0$ which might be no longer injective. Assume that the $A_0$-action on $M_0$ extends UNIQUELY to an action of $B_0$.

$\mathbf{Question:}$ Is it true that in this case $M$ (considered as a subspace of $M[t^{-1}]$) is automatically a $B$-module?

The intuition behind the question is this: it seems natural that the uniqueness of the extension at 0 should imply some kind of "continuity" (which will say that $M_0$ considered as a module over $B_0$ fits into "continuous family" of $B$-modules).

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

This is not true even if $A$ and $B$ are assumed to be commutative, for some trivial reasons.

For example, let $A = k[t, s]/(s)(s-t)(s-2t)$, which represents three lines on a plane concurrent at the origin, and let $B = k[t, s]/(s)(s-t)\times k[t, s]/(s-2t)$, which is a partial resolution of $A$. There is an obvious (diagonal) morphism $A\to B$, which is injective and becomes bijective after inverting $t$.

Set $C = k[t, s]/(s-t)(s-2t)$. We got a natural surjection $A\to C$ as well. Now put $M = C$ as an $A$-module.

We have then $A_0 = A/tA\cong k[s]/(s^3)$, $B_0 = B/tB = k[s]/(s^2)\times k[s]/(s)$ and $M_0 = M/tM = k[s]/(s^2)$.

Now the $A_0$-module $M_0$ extends uniquely into a $B_0$-module, which must be supported on the first factor of $B_0$, namely $k[s]/(s^2)$. However, the $A$-module $M$ does not extend to a $B$-module, since otherwise $M = (0, 1)M \oplus (1, 0)M$ would be decomposible, which would imply $M$ was decomposible as $A$-module, and then as $C$-module, contradicting the fact that $C$ is connected.

I guess one should at least impose some connectivity assumption on the generic fibers.

response to the comment (edited 16.8.2017)

I made a serious mistake in my previous response: $M_0$ need not be irreducible.

I doubt that the condition $\mathrm{End}_{A_0}(M_0)=k$ is enough. I address the problem in some special cases here by strengthening the hypothesis on endomorphisms:

  • Every subquotient $N$ of $M_0$ satisfies $\mathrm{End}_{A_0}(N)=k$.

Proof.

By replacing $A$ (resp. $B$) with its image in $\mathrm{End}_{k[t]}(M)$ (resp. $\mathrm{End}_{k[t]}(M)[t^{-1}]$), we regard it as a $k[t]$-subalgebra.

First, we study the central fibers. We denote $\bar M = M_0$ and $\bar A=$ the image of $A$ in $\mathrm{End}_k(\bar M)$

  1. Take a Jordan-Hölder filtration $0 = F_0\subseteq \cdots\subseteq F_r = \bar M$.
  2. Since $F_1$ is irreducible, it acquires an induced $\bar A/\mathrm{Rad}(\bar A)$-module structure. Let $\bar e\in \bar A/\mathrm{Rad}(\bar A)$ be the idempotent corresponding to $F_1$. We lift it to an idempotent $e_1\in \bar A$. We claim that $e_1\bar M\subseteq F_1$ (thus $e_1\bar M=F_1$ by irreducibility). Suppose $e_1\bar M\subseteq F_i$ and $e_1\bar M\not\subseteq F_{i-1}$. Then $F_i/F_{i-1}$ considered as irreducible $\bar A/\mathrm{Rad}(\bar A)$-module must correspond to the idempotent $\bar e$. Thus $F_i/F_{i-1}\cong F_1$. The composite $F_i\to F_i/F_{i-1}\cong F_1\subseteq F_i$ gives an endomorphism of $F_i$, which by hypothesis is equal to a scalar. This implies $i=1$.
  3. We have $(1-e_1)F_i \cong F_i/ F_1$ and it acquires a $(1-e_1)\bar A(1-e_1)$-module structure. On the module $\bar M/F_1$ there is an induced Jordan-Hölder filtration $0 = (1-e_1)F_1 \subseteq \cdots \subseteq(1-e_1)F_r = (1-e_1)\bar M$.
  4. Repeating 2. and 3., with the ring $(1-e_1)\bar A(1-e_1)$, the module $(1-e_1)\bar M$ and the new filtration, we get idempotents $e_1, ..., e_r$ such that $e_ie_j = 0$ for $i\neq j$, and that $e_i\bar M \subseteq F_i$, $e_i\bar M \cong F_i/F_{i-1}$ via the canonical projection. Consequently, we have decomposition $\bar M = \bigoplus_j e_j \bar M$ and $F_i = \bigoplus_{j\le i} e_j\bar M$. We denote $\bar M^i = e_i\bar M$ and $\bar A^{ji} = e_j\bar Ae_i$. The algebra $\bar A$ decomposes into subspaces $\bar A^{ji}\subseteq \mathrm{Hom_k}(\bar M^i, \bar M^j)$.
  5. Let's show that $\bar A$ is the "parabolic subalgebra" of $\mathrm{End}_k(\bar M)$ with respect to the filtration $(F_i)_i$.
    • For $1\le i < j \le r$, we have $\bar A^{ji}\bar M \subseteq e_jF_i = \bigoplus_{l \le i} e_je_l\bar M = 0$. So $\bar A^{ji} = 0$ as the module $\bar M$ is faithful.
    • For $1\le i=j\le r$, the $\bar A^{ii}$-module $\bar M^i$ is irreducible. By Jacobson density theorem, $\bar A^{ii}\cong \mathrm{End}_k(\bar M^i)$.
    • For $1\le j < i\le r$, the space $\mathrm{Hom}_k(\bar M^i, \bar M^j)$ has a natural $\bar A^{jj}$-$\bar A^{ii}$-bimodule structure, which is irreducible since $\bar M^i$ and $\bar M^j$ are. We claim that $\bar A^{ji} = \mathrm{Hom_k}(\bar M^i, \bar M^j)$. Suppose otherwise. We would have $\bar A^{ji} = 0$ by the irreducibility. Let $i$ be minimum with this property. Therefore $\bar A^{j, i-1} \cong \mathrm{Hom}_k(\bar M^{i-1}, \bar M^j)$. The multiplication $\bar A^{j, i-1}\otimes_k \bar A^{i-1, i}\to \bar A^{j, i}$ considered as restriction of $\mathrm{Hom}_k(\bar M^{i-1}, \bar M^{j})\otimes_k \mathrm{Hom}_k(\bar M^{i}, \bar M^{i-1})\to \mathrm{Hom}_k(\bar M^{i}, \bar M^{j})$ forces also $\bar A^{i-1, i}=0\subseteq \mathrm{Hom}_k(\bar M^{i}, \bar M^{i-1})$. However, this implies that $F_i/F_{i-2}\cong e_i(F_i/F_{i-2})\oplus e_{i-1}(F_i/F_{i-2})$ as $\bar A$-module, contradicting the hypothesis that $\mathrm{End}_{\bar A}(F_i/F_{i-2})=k$.

In recollection, we've seen that $\bar A = \bigoplus_{j\le i}\bar A^{ji}$ and $\bar A^{ji} = \mathrm{End}_k(\bar M^i, \bar M^j)$. Next, we lift the results to the $t$-adic completions $\hat A, \hat B$ and $\hat M$. We regard $\hat A\subseteq \mathrm{End}_{k[[t]]}(\hat M)$ and $\hat B\subseteq \mathrm{End}_{k((t))}(\hat M[t^{-1}])=\mathrm{End}_{k[[t]]}(\hat M)[t^{-1}]$.

  1. Lift the idempotents $e^1, \cdots, e^r$ to idempotents $d^1, \cdots, d^r\in \hat A$, which is possible by the $t$-adic completeness. By modifying $d'_1=d_1,\; d'_2=(1-d'_1)d_2(1-d'_1),\; d'_3=(1-d'_1)(1-d'_2)d_3(1-d'_1)(1-d'_2)$, etc, we can make $d_id_j = 0$ for $i\neq j$.

  2. Define as before $\hat A^{ji}= d_j\hat Ad_i$ and $\hat M^i = d_i\hat M$. Then

    • For any $0\le i, j\le r$, since for each $s\in \mathbb{Z}$, the succesive quotient $t^s\mathrm{Hom}_{k[[t]]}(\hat M^i, \hat M^j)/t^{s+1}\mathrm{Hom}_{k[[t]]}(\hat M^i, \hat M^j)$ is isomorphic as $\bar A^{jj}-\bar A^{ii}$-bimodule to $\mathrm{Hom}_{k}(\bar M^i, \bar M^j)$, we have $\hat A^{ji} = t^{a_{ji}}\mathrm{Hom}_{k[[t]]}(\hat M^i, \hat M^j)$ for some $a_{ji}\in \mathbb{N}\cup \{+\infty\}$ (where $t^{+\infty}$ means $0$).
    • By 5. and Nakayama lemma we see that $a_{ji}=0$ for $j \le i$.
  3. Similarly, write $\hat B^{ji} = d_j\hat Bd_i$. For any $1\le i , j\le r$, we proceed as in 7., so that $\hat B^{ji} = t^{b_{ji}}\mathrm{Hom}_{k[[t]]}(\hat M^i, \hat M^j)$ for some $b_{ji} \in \mathbb{Z}\cup \{+\infty\}$ and $b_{ji} \le a_{ji}$. The finiteness of $\hat B$ over $k[[t]]$ gives some bounds on these exponents:
    • on the diagonal $b_{ii}=0$, since otherwise $t^{-1}d_i\in \hat B$ and thus $t^{-n}d_i = (t^{-1}d_i)^n\in \hat B$ for all $n\in \mathbb{N}$, impossible.
    • off diagonal we still have $b_{ij} + b_{ji} \ge 0$, since otherwise the multiplication $\hat B^{ij}\otimes_{k[[t]]} \hat B^{ji} \to \hat B^{ii}$ gives $b_{ii} \le b_{ij} + b_{ji} < 0$. In particular, for $j > i$ we have $b_{ji} \ge -b_{ij}\ge -a_{ij} = 0$.
  4. We claim that the extension hypothesis on $M_0$ implies $b_{ji} = 0$ for $j < i$. As we already know $b_{ji} \le a_{ji} = 0$, suppose that $b_{ji} < 0$. The hypothesis says that the $k$-algebra homomorphism $\hat A\to \mathrm{End}_k(\bar M)$ factors through $\hat A\to B_0 \cong \hat B/t\hat B$. In particular, the ideal $t\hat B\cap \hat A$ falls into the kernel of the former. Since now $b_{ji} < 0$ and $a_{ji}=0$, we see that $\mathrm{Hom}_{k[[t]]}(\hat M^i, \hat M^j)\subseteq t\hat B\cap \hat A$ sends to $0$ via the reduction map $\mathrm{End}_{k[[t]]}(\hat M)\to \mathrm{End}_{k[[t]]}(\hat M) \pmod{t} \cong \mathrm{End}_k(\bar M)$, absurd.
  5. Now we have seen $b_{ji} \ge 0$ for all $1\le i, j\le r$, which means $\hat B\subseteq \mathrm{End}_{k[[t]]}(\hat M)$.

We've done, beacuse $B$, considered as subalgebra of $\mathrm{End}_{k[[t]]}(\hat M)[t^{-1}]$, is then contained in $\mathrm{End}_{k[[t]]}(\hat M)\cap \mathrm{End}_{k[t]}(M)[t^{-1}] = \mathrm{End}_{k[t]}(M)$, which extends $M$ into a $B$-module. Q.E.D.

I believe that the strengthened hypothesis is essential. We notice also that the extension of $M_0$ into a $B_0$-module may not be unique. I guess the uniqueness corresponds to the case where $b_{ji}=0$ (minimum possible) for those $b_{ji}\neq a_{ji}$.

$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. In my case I also know that the only endomorphisms of $M_0$ over $A_0$ are scalars. Do you think this might help? $\endgroup$ Aug 14, 2017 at 22:10
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, with this new hypothesis. I have added it. $\endgroup$
    – Wille Liu
    Aug 15, 2017 at 9:23
  • $\begingroup$ I think the new argument isn't quite right - the point is that the map from $(A/I_A)_0$ to $(B/I_B)_0$ is not necessarily injective (this doesn't even have to be the case when $I=0$) $\endgroup$ Aug 15, 2017 at 16:36
  • $\begingroup$ For example, consider the case when $M=(k[t]^2)$, $B=2\times 2$-matrices over $k[t]$ and $A$ is the subalgebra of of $B$ consisting of matrices which are upper-triangular at $t=0$. Then $I=0$ and all the assumptions are satisfied but the map $A_0\to B_0$ is clearly not injective. $\endgroup$ Aug 15, 2017 at 16:39
  • $\begingroup$ The point is that the map from $(A/I_A)_0$ to $End_k(M_0)$ doesn't have to be injective. $\endgroup$ Aug 15, 2017 at 16:40

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.