9
$\begingroup$

Let $R$ be a graded commutative unital ring and $M$ a graded $R$-module (all gradings are over $\mathbb{Z}$). I'm looking for a reference for the following statement:

If $M$ is $R$-free, then the free graded Lie algebra over $R$ generated by $M$ is also $R$-free.

For the purposes of this question, a graded Lie algebra over $R$ is a graded $R$-module $L$ with an $R$-linear map $[-, - ] : L\otimes_RL\to L$ satisfying the following identities for all homogeneous elements $a,b,c\in L$:

(1) $[a,b]+(-1)^{|a||b|}[b,a]=0$

(2) $(-1)^{|a||c|} [a,[b,c]] + (-1)^{|b||a|}[b,[c,a]] + (-1)^{|c| |b|} [c,[a,b]] = 0 $

(3) $[a,a]=0$ if $a$ is of even degree

(4) $[a,[a,a]]=0$.

I should also say that I'm aware of Reutenauer's book, and, as far as I can tell, it does not deal with the graded case.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Is that really the statement? Does the supposed $R$-basis of $M$ not need to be connected to the grading in any way for this to be true? $\endgroup$ – Johannes Hahn Apr 26 '18 at 17:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't think I understand what you mean by "connected to the grading." Can you elaborate? To be sure that we're talking about the same thing, I'm calling a graded $R$-module free if it is a direct sum of shifts of $R$. $\endgroup$ – Ben Knudsen Apr 26 '18 at 17:47
  • $\begingroup$ I meant that there exists a basis consisting of homogeneous elements or some similar condition. Your definition for freeness is perfectly reasonable in a graded setting and I really should have thought of it myself! $\endgroup$ – Johannes Hahn Apr 26 '18 at 17:52
  • $\begingroup$ Graded in what? an arbitrary abelian group? in $\mathbf{Z}$? in $\mathbf{N}_{>0}$? in $\mathbf{N}_{\ge 0}$? $\endgroup$ – YCor Apr 26 '18 at 21:36
  • $\begingroup$ Question edited to specify grading. $\endgroup$ – Ben Knudsen Apr 26 '18 at 22:39
3
$\begingroup$

I will answer under the assumption that $2$ is invertible in $R$, the general case of which follows after extension of scalars from the case $R=\mathbb{Z}[1/2]$, which is a particular case of Proposition 8.5.1 in Neisendorfer’s “Algebraic Methods in Unstable Homotopy Theory.” The assumption that $2$ is invertible is necessary to ensure that Definition 8.1.1 coincides with the definition stated above (see the following remark on p. 262). I do not know if this assumption is necessary.

$\endgroup$

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.