2
$\begingroup$

When the tensor algebra is presented, it is usually constructed as the direct sum of all tensor powers of the space. By this construction, the graded structure of the tensor algebra is easy to prove. However, I have not been able to find any proofs of the graded structure of the tensor algebra using just the universal property. Here's my question: Has anybody come up with a proof that the tensor algebra is graded using just the universal property? I will admit that I have a hard time using universal properties in general to prove things about objects, so I've had a hard time trying to come up with an argument myself.

The reason I'm interested in this is that I've started studying category theory recently, and I've heard about the adjoint functor theorem, which seems to provide a way to define the tensor algebra without using the traditional construction in the first place (I may be wrong about this since I haven't learned enough category theory yet). I was wondering how easy it would be to prove that the tensor algebra is graded from this kind of definition.

Another reason I'm interested in this is that from studying geometric algebra, I've seen that there is an alternative grading structure for Clifford algebras that is similar to the grading of the tensor algebra (that only respects anti-commuting products, not arbitrary products like is usually implied by the use of the word "grade"), and I was wondering if an argument for the grading of the tensor algebra could be adapted to proving this as well. I'm not expecting an answer to this problem though; the question is about tensor algebras.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ First of all, hi and welcome to the MathOverflow. Your question is nicely written and well motivated, but is bit out of topic here since this Q&A site is devoted to mathematics research level questions. Why don't you try our sister site Math.SE? It is devoted to general (even very difficult) questions in mathematics. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 2, 2021 at 7:55
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I disagree with @DanieleTampieric because when MO was originally created (before M.SE, indeed before we were integrated into the SE network) it was understood that “research level” meant PhD-student-and-above, and I for one learned category theory as a PhD student. As for the OP’s question, the trick is to use the rescaling action on V. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 2, 2021 at 21:21
  • $\begingroup$ @TheoJohnson-Freyd, that surely works for infinite fields, but, if I take your meaning correctly, what about, say, a tensor algebra over $\mathbb F_p$, in which it seems that we could not use homogeneity to distinguish elements in degrees $1$ and $p$? $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Mar 16, 2023 at 4:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @LSpice Let's see. Probably I don't remember exactly what I meant more than a year ago. But conveniently I was very vague in my hint, so probably I can salvage it. Let's say our base ring is $R$. For every $R$-ring $R \to S$, consider the base-change $T V \otimes S := (T_R V) \otimes S = T_S(V \otimes S)$. [This equivalence is by universal property.] Then $T V \otimes S$ carries an action by $S^\times$. In other words, $TV$ carries an action by the algebraic group $\mathbb{G}_m$, which acts via the rescaling action on $V$. Now prove that actions by $\mathbb{G}_m$ are the same as gradings. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 17, 2023 at 22:33
  • $\begingroup$ @TheoJohnson-Freyd, right. I like that argument better than my not-quite-there approach. (I tried to do something like that, but, despite the close connections between algebraic groups and my research, couldn't manage to see them here.) Would you be willing to post it as an answer? $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Mar 18, 2023 at 0:36

3 Answers 3

6
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand\T{\mathrm T}$I assume that "the universal property" means that, for every $R$-algebra $S$, every $R$-module map $V \to S$ extends uniquely to an $R$-algebra map $\T V \to S$.

In the original version of this answer, I proceeded as follows. For each $v^* \in V^* \mathrel{:=} \operatorname{Hom}_\text{\(R\)-mod}(V, R)$, let $\alpha_{v^*}$ be the unique extension of the map $V \to R[x]$ given by $v \mapsto \langle v^*, v\rangle x$ to an $R$-module map $\T V \to R[x]$. Then, for each $n \in \mathbb Z_{\ge 0}$, $\T^nV$ is the set of $\tau \in \T V$ such that $\alpha_{v^*}(\tau)$ lies in $R x^n$ for all $v^* \in V^*$.

This definition is too coarse: it correctly identifies the degree of each homogeneous element, but, as you pointed out, it can also incorrectly assign elements degrees that they shouldn't have.

The obvious fix is to replace $R$-module maps $V \to R$ by $R$-module maps $V \to A$ for arbitrary $R$-algebras $A$. This works, but the only way that I can see to show that it always works is to take $A$ to be the usual explicitly constructed tensor algebra, or something close to it. For example, I have already cheated a bit by using $R[x]$, which is just the tensor algebra on $R^*$; but I could cheat even more by taking for $A$ the quotient of the polynomial $R$-algebra in $V$-many indeterminates by $r x_v = x_{r v}$. Then there is a natural homomorphism $V \to A$ given by $v \mapsto x_v$, and we could use the above trick on $\T V \to A[x]$, or just observe that $A$ itself is graded (since we're quotienting out by a homogeneous ideal) and use the degree there. But at that point we've practically constructed the tensor algebra.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I know this is a bit old now, but I think I've found a counterexample where this doesn't work. Consider the module $\mathbb Z/2 \mathbb Z$ over $\mathbb Z$. Then every linear functional is zero, which I think implies that in this definition, everything has every grade. $\endgroup$
    – sudgy
    Commented Mar 14, 2023 at 17:58
  • $\begingroup$ @sudgy, hmm$\DeclareMathOperator\T{T}\DeclareMathOperator\Hom{Hom}$. I agree that that seems to be a counterexample, and that all I showed is that, with this (wrong) definition, $\bigoplus \T^nV \to \T V$ is a surjection. In this case, I think that things could be fixed by replacing $\Hom(V^*, R[x])$ by the direct sum of all $\Hom(V^*, (R/I)[x])$ over all prime ideals $I$, but it's not clear to me whether that works in general. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Mar 14, 2023 at 18:16
  • $\begingroup$ @sudgy, OK, if instead of maps $V \to R$, or even maps $V \to R/I$ as I suggested, we use maps $V \to A$ for all $R$-algebras $A$ to define the grading, then we have a correct definition of the grading. But, right now, I can only see how to prove that by knowing something about candidate $R$-algebras … for example, it would be easy if we could use the existing tensor algebra. I am still hoping to manufacture a non-circular candidate. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Mar 15, 2023 at 21:59
  • $\begingroup$ I found a solution of my own: mathoverflow.net/a/442828/394901 $\endgroup$
    – sudgy
    Commented Mar 16, 2023 at 3:08
  • $\begingroup$ Doesn't the graded structure come from that, to get the subalgebra in $A$ generated by $f(V)$, we multiply elements in $f(V)$ with each other, resulting in images of some $R$-multilinear maps such as $f(u)f(v)$? $\endgroup$
    – Zerox
    Commented Mar 16, 2023 at 5:50
3
$\begingroup$

LSpice asked me to expand my old comment into an answer.

Let me write $R$ for whatever base commutative ring you are working over, $V$ for your $R$-module, and $TV := T_R V$ for its "tensor algebra", defined by: for any (not necessarily commutative) $R$-algebra $A$, maps $T_R V \to A$ of $R$-algebras are the same as maps $V \to A$ of $R$-modules. In other words, $T_R$ is the left adjunct to the forgetful map $\{R$-algebras$\} \to \{R$-modules$\}$. Since $T_R$ is a functor, and since the group $R^\times$ of invertible elements of $R$ acts by rescaling on $V$, we get automatically a natural action of $R^\times$ on $T_R V$.

Now for any commutative $R$-algebra $S$, I claim that there is a natural equality $$ TV \otimes S := T_S (V \otimes_R S) \cong (T_R V) \otimes_R S.$$ Indeed, to show this I simply need to show that the RHS satisfies the correct universal property for the LHS, i.e. test it against maps into $S$-algebras $A$. But if $B$ is any $R$-algebra, and $A$ is any $S$-algebra, then the hom-tensor adjunction identifies $R$-algebra maps $B \to A$ with $S$-algebra map $B \otimes_R S \to A$. The claim follows.

But $S^\times$ acts on $TV \otimes S$, extending the $R^\times$-action from before. These actions compile into an action on $TV$ by the affine algebraic group $\mathbb{G}_m = \mathrm{Spec}_R(R[z^{\pm 1}]) : S \mapsto S^\times$.

Now, I claim that for any $R$-module $W$, an action on $W$ by $\mathbb{G}_m$ is the same data as a $\mathbb{Z}$-grading of $W$. But this is just the Peter–Weyl theorem and the fact that the regular representation $\mathcal{O}(\mathbb{G}_m) = R[z^{\pm 1}]$ breaks up as a direct sum of $\mathbb{Z}$-many one-dimensional modules.

In detail, because we are working with algebraic groups, it is well-defined to talk about "the subspace $W_n$ of $W$ on which $z \in \mathbb{G}_m$ acts by $z^n$", and it is easy to show that this is a direct summand. The only slightly non-easy fact is that the inclusion $\bigoplus_n W_n \subset W$ is an isomorphism, or in other words that every element of $W$ is a finite sum of elements with well-defined eigenvalues. The cleanest way to show this is to convince yourself that an action of an affine algebraic group $G$ on a module $W$ consists of a coaction $W \to \mathcal{O}(G) \otimes W$; then the statement that we need (about decomposing as a finite sum) follows just the fact that elements of any tensor product, and in particular $\mathcal{O}(G) \otimes W$, are finite sums of pure tensors.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ This is a great answer, and really gets at the spirit of the behaviour over general rings in a way that my answer, which was basically an over-optimistic generalisation of the situation over a field, does not. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Mar 22, 2023 at 23:37
1
$\begingroup$

After all of this time I found a simple and direct solution. I can't believe I didn't think of this before:

Let $V$ be an $R$-Module and let $T(V)$ be its tensor algebra. Define $T^n(V)$ to be the span of all products of $n$ vectors in $T(V)$, and consider the (for now possibly distinct) space $\bigoplus_{n = 0}^\infty T^n(V)$. Multiplying two homogeneous tensors in this direct sum produces another homogeneous tensor, and we can extend this by linearity to show that $\bigoplus_{n = 0}^\infty T^n(V)$ is a graded algebra.

Now let $A$ be an arbitrary algebra with a module homomorphism $f : V \to A$. By the universal property of the tensor algebra, this extends to an algebra homomorphism $g : T(V) \to A$. We can define the restriction of $g$ onto each $T^n(V)$ and then extend by linearity to produce a map $h : \bigoplus_{n = 0}^\infty T^n(V) \to A$. This map is an algebra homomorphism that is an extension of $f$ (and it's trivial to show that this extension is unique), showing that $\bigoplus_{n = 0}^\infty T^n(V)$ satisfies the universal property that uniquely defines the tensor algebra. Thus, $T(V) \cong \bigoplus_{n = 0}^\infty T^n(V)$, showing that $T(V)$ itself is graded.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I thought your goal was to prove the graded-ness by using only the universal property. As I mentioned, and indeed as you said in your original question, it is indeed easy to prove graded-ness if you are willing either to construct the tensor algebra, or at least to use the tensor algebra as a model target of $R$-module homomorphisms from $V$. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Mar 16, 2023 at 3:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is using only the universal property. It doesn't utilize any pre-existing construction at all. $\endgroup$
    – sudgy
    Commented Mar 16, 2023 at 5:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I deleted my second comment; I forgot that $T(V)$ is not a ‘bare’ algebra, but an algebra with a distinguished map $V \to T(V)$. So I do not have a technical objection to this approach. But it still seems philosophically like you are showing, without explicitly referring to tensors, that the usual construction is the only one that could work—at which point what have we gained in understanding over just carrying out the usual construction anyway, since we have to do something like that to show that this universal object exists? $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Mar 16, 2023 at 5:27
  • $\begingroup$ The original motivation for this question was about utilizing other possible constructions. I've heard people say that you can directly get the tensor algebra from the general adjoint functor theorem so I was wondering how you could derive the usual properties of the tensor algebra without the usual construction. $\endgroup$
    – sudgy
    Commented Mar 16, 2023 at 5:32

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .