3
$\begingroup$

Let $A$ be a finite dimensional algebra and assume all modules are also finite dimensional. A module $M$ is said to have dominant dimension at least $n$ in case the term $I_i$ for $i=0,1,...,n-1$ are projective when $(I_i)$ denotes a minimal injective coresolution of $M$. The dominant dimension of the algebra is the dominant dimension of the regular module $A$. A module $M$ is said to be $r$-torsionfree in case $Ext_A^i(D(A),\tau(M))=0$ for $i=1,2,...,r$. Note that this generalises the classical concept of reflexive modules, which are exactly the 2-torsionfree modules.

I have the following conjecture:

Conjecture: Assume $A$ has dominant dimension at least $n-1$ and that $X$ is $n$-torsionfree. Then $Ext_A^1(D(A),\tau(\Omega^{-(n-1)}(X))) \cong Ext_A^1(D(A),\Omega^{-(n-1)}(\tau(X))$.

edit: This is trivially false as Alex Dugas noted in his answer. I made an error when testing this conjecture. I actually tested the conjecture with algebras of dominant dimension at least $n$ instead of $n-1$, where it is useless for the conjecture in the other thread.

Background information:

Note that this would imply Question on $n$-torsionless modules as a special case (I decided to make a new thread since this conjecture is more compact).

It is not too good tested except for some Nakayama algebras.

Here some facts that I think should lead to a prove but I have not found one yet:

  1. A module $M$ for an algebra $A$ of dominant dimension at least $n-1$ has dominant dimension at least $r$ iff it is $r$-torsionless iff it is an $r$-th syzygy for $r \leq n-1$.

2.By a result of Auslander-Reiten for $r$-th syzygy modules $M$ we have that $M \cong \Omega^r(Tr(\Omega^r(Tr(M)))$ in $\underline{mod}-A$. Note $M \cong \Omega^r(Tr(\Omega^r(Tr(M))) \cong \Omega^r(\tau^{-1} \Omega^{-(r-1)} \tau (M)))$ and this looks like exactly what we need here but sadly we are usually not allowed to use $\Omega^{-r} \Omega^r =id$, which is wrong in general.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

The conjecture does not appear to be true as stated. However, this might just mean that it needs to be clarified or refined.

To see a counterexample, assume $A$ has dominant dimension exactly $n-1$ and take $X=A$. By your definition, $A$ is $n$-torsionfree since $\tau(A) = 0$. Then the conjectured isomorphism becomes $$\mathrm{Ext}^1(DA, \tau \Omega^{-(n-1)}(A)) \cong 0,$$ which would imply that $\Omega^{-(n-1)}(A)$ is 1-torsionfree, or equivalently has dominant dimension at least $1$. But then looking at the minimal injective resolution of $A$ would show that $A$ has dominant dimension at least $n$, a contradiction.

So maybe you want to assume that $X$ has no projective summands, which still might suffice for the application in your linked question.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, probably one should say that X has only non-projective direct summands as you say. But strangely enough the computer says that it is true also for projective modules. I have to check the computer program carefully now what is going on. $\endgroup$ – Mare Aug 7 '18 at 19:16

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.