2
$\begingroup$

Let $R$ be a Dedekind domain and $A, B$ be finitely generated projective $M_n(R)$-modules. Is it true that

$A\oplus M_n(R)\cong B\oplus M_n(R)\:\:\Rightarrow\:\:A\cong B$?

Here, the isomorphism is over $M_n(R)$. Here are my thoughts so far:

If $P(R)$ is the set of isomorphism classes of finitely generated projective $R$-modules, then it is well known that $P(R)$ is a commutative monoid under the direct sum, i.e. $(A, B)\mapsto A\oplus B$. In fact, as $A\oplus B$ is always free for some projective module $B$, $P(R)$ is a group known as the projective class group $K_0(R)$ but I'll stick with monoids.

Next, by Morita's Theorem we have $P(M_n(R))\cong P(R)$.

Finally, as $R$ is a Dedekind domain, $P(M_n(R))\cong P(R)\cong \mathbb{N}\oplus \widetilde{K_0}(R)$.

So, if $\widetilde{K_0}(R)=0$ then $P(R)\cong\mathbb{N}$ and we are done. What about when $\widetilde{K_0}(R)\neq 0$? My feeling is the answer is still yes. As $M_n(R)$ is a free $M_n(R)$-module, then is represents the identity of $\widetilde{K}_0(R)$. So really the only 'place' $A, B$ could come from where $A\not\cong B$ is from the $\mathbb{N}$, but this is generated by a single element, so they $A\cong B$. This is very hand-wavy, however.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I’m not sure what you mean by the isomorphism being “over $M_n(R)$”. $A$ and $B$ are not $M_n(R)$-modules. $\endgroup$ – Jeremy Rickard Jan 17 '18 at 15:53
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I meant $A,B$ are projective $M_n(R)$-modules $\endgroup$ – Sam Williams Jan 17 '18 at 15:55
4
$\begingroup$

Under Morita equivalence, $M_n(R)$ is associated to $R^n$, and your question is equivalent to: For $A, B$ finitely generated projective $R$-modules, does $$A \oplus R^n \cong B \oplus R^n\quad \Rightarrow\quad A \cong B?$$ Then you can simply use the classification of finitely generated $R$-modules, and the answer is yes.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the answer, Dustan. Is this not what I was doing above? By using Morita equivalence, the questions is reduced to one over a Dedekind domain. However, I am unsure of the last part of your answer. Why is the answer true over Dedekind domains? From my understanding of the classification of fg projective modules over a DD, these are isomorphic to $I\oplus R^n$ where $I$ is a non-zero fractional ideal. So does this not just imply $I\oplus R^m\cong J\oplus R^m$, where $I, J$ are fractional ideals. Isn't this where $P(R)\cong \mathbb{N}\oplus\widetilde{K_0}(R)$ comes from? $\endgroup$ – Sam Williams Jan 17 '18 at 16:35
  • $\begingroup$ @SamWilliams I'm not sure precisely what $\widetilde{K_0}(R)$ means. Under the classification that you can read off of Wikipedia, $I \oplus R^m \cong J \oplus R^m$ is equivalent to $I \cong J$. More generally, for fractional ideals $I_1, \ldots, I_k$ and $J_1, \ldots, J_k$, we have $I_1 \oplus \cdots \oplus I_k \cong J_1 \oplus \cdots \oplus J_k$ if and only if the products of fractional ideals $I_1\cdots I_k \cong J_1 \cdots J_k$ are isomorphic. $\endgroup$ – Dustan Levenstein Jan 17 '18 at 16:48
  • $\begingroup$ It looks like $\widetilde{K_0}(R)$ is maybe the ideal class group is this context? In which case note that the direct sum of two cancellative monoids is cancellative. $\endgroup$ – Dustan Levenstein Jan 17 '18 at 16:49
  • $\begingroup$ Ah yes, of course. Thank you so much! And yes, in this context it is $\endgroup$ – Sam Williams Jan 17 '18 at 16:55

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.