Edit: Thanx very much to Neil Strickland for quickly explaining to us that the following cannot be realized over finite commutative $\mathbb{C}$-algebras, as I had originally asked.

I know that there is a finite tensor category (from minimal models) with the following relations that seem rather strange to me. In particular it seems now one cannot realize it as modules over a ring. Does anyone know an algebraic situation, where something similar occurs? (maybe in a derived category?).

A non-simple unit object $\mathbb{1}$

$$0\to J\to \mathbb{1} \to Q \to 0$$ $$J\otimes Q=\{0\}$$ $$Q\otimes Q=Q$$ (for modules over a ring $R,\otimes_R$, this means $J$ is an ideal with $J^2=J$, thus $R$ often splits, see below).

such that $J\otimes J$ is an extension the-other-way-around $$M:=J\otimes J$$ $$0\to Q\to M \to J \to 0$$ (for modules over a ring $R,\otimes_R$ the product $J\otimes J$ cannot be larger then $J$)

and which acts somewhat like a second identity $$M\otimes M=M $$ $$M\otimes Q=\{0\}$$ $$M\otimes J= M$$

Any hints what some of these situations are called in literature are also very welcome.

Thanx very much for your help in advance!

  • $\begingroup$ My guess is that there is a mistake in the thought process that led you to this precise list of conditions. Perhaps you could outline your argument? $\endgroup$ Jul 6 '18 at 10:37
  • $\begingroup$ Obviousely, thank you alot for the help: I am interested in the category with conjectured (!) tensor product in arXiv:0905.0916. On p.17-19 they describe the effect I asked about for the Virasoro algebra, p.38 they describe the same for the so-called logarithmic models, both by explicit lists of tensor products. There, the unit object is called V, the subobject J is called V(2), the quotient Q is called V(0), the extension the-other-ways-around is called V*. Respecitvely W,W(0),W(2),W*. $\endgroup$ Jul 7 '18 at 7:47
  • $\begingroup$ I myself think I understand quite well also in more general settings the quotient W(0)\mapsto 0, which is described as quantum group representations. But I do not understand the effect by which the W(0) enters, and this is what I ask about. $\endgroup$ Jul 7 '18 at 7:50

In general, if $N$ is a finitely generated $S$-module, and $J$ is an ideal with $JN=N$, it is a standard fact that there exists $u\in J$ with $(1-u)N=0$. (This is one incarnation of Nakayama's Lemma.) In your context everything is finite-dimensional and therefore finitely generated. The condition $R/I\otimes_RI=0$ is equivalent to $I=I^2$, so there exists $e\in I$ with $(1-e)I=0$. In particular $(1-e)e=0$ so $e$ is idempotent. This means that there is a splitting $R=R_0\times R_1$ with $e=(0,1)$ and $I=0\times R_1$ so $R/I=R_0$. Now for any $R$-module $M$ the conditions $M\otimes_R(R/I)=0$ and $M\otimes_RI=M$ are equivalent and just mean that $M=0\times M_1$ for some $R_1$-module $M_1$. Your final condition $M\otimes_RM=M$ is then equivalent to $M_1\otimes_{R_1}M_1$. You can make this true by taking $M_1=R_1$, and I think that that is the only possibility. But anyway, as $R/I=R_0\times 0$ and $M=0\times M_1$ we have $\text{Hom}_R(R/I,M)=0$, so there can be no short exact sequence $R/I\to M\to I$.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much! The Nakayama-Argument with the splitting idempotent was unknown to me. I understand now, why this is not possible...But this leaves me puzzled: I know this category exists, yet it appearently cannot be realized as modules over a ring....? (I'll edit accordingly) $\endgroup$ Jul 6 '18 at 7:21

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.