13
$\begingroup$

Let $k$ be a field and $A$ a unital associative (possibly non-commutative) $k$-algebra, and let $A^e$ denote the enveloping algebra of $A$, namely, $A^e = A \otimes_k A^{op}$.

It seems that there are two typical definitions for separable $k$-algebras. Consider the following two conditions.

  1. $A$ is projective as an $A^e$-module.
  2. For any field extension $K$ of $k$, the algebra $A \otimes_k K$ is semisimple.

Also consider the following condition.

  1. $A$ is finite-dimensional over $k$ and the condition 2 is satisfied.

In some literature (e.g. Corollary 10.6 in Pierce's Associative Algebra), it is shown that 1 is equivalent to 3.

I wonder whether 2 is actually equivalent to 1 and 3, that is,

Question: Suppose that the condition 2 is satisfied. Then is $A$ finite-dimensional over $k$?

I found some people say that this question is true, and even adopt the condition 2 as the definition of separable algebras: e.g. nLab's article on separable algebra, and Lemma 3.3 in Reyes-Rogalski's Graded twisted Calabi-Yau algebras are generalized Artin-Schelter regular. I looked up some cited references, but it seems that in the proofs, $A$ is assumed to be finite-dimensional.

I'm not sure whether the question is true even when $A$ is commutative, or $A$ is a filed.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ What is the enveloping algebra? I only know this term in the context of Lie algebras. $\endgroup$
    – Echo
    Feb 9, 2022 at 11:12
  • $\begingroup$ $A^e$ is the tensor product algebra $A \otimes_k A^{op}$ of $A$ and the opposite algebra $A^{op}$. $\endgroup$
    – H. E.
    Feb 9, 2022 at 12:25
  • $\begingroup$ What definition of semisimple are you using? I know a few different ones, but it's possible that they're only equivalent when you already assume finite-dimensionality. $\endgroup$
    – R. van Dobben de Bruyn
    Feb 9, 2022 at 13:39
  • $\begingroup$ If you take the product of all matrix algebras $\mathrm{Mat}_n(k)$. Would that be semisimple in your definition? $\endgroup$
    – Echo
    Feb 9, 2022 at 14:08
  • $\begingroup$ @ R. van Dobben de Bruyn A ring is semisimple if it is a semisimple module as a left (or equivalently right) A-module, and a semisimple algebra is just a $k$-algebra which is semisimple as a ring. $\endgroup$
    – H. E.
    Feb 9, 2022 at 14:13

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
7
$\begingroup$

I claim that no infinite dimensional algebra $A$ over $k$ satisfies 2. I am indebted to the comment of @UriyaFirst for the idea of the main step in the proof.

First I claim we may assume that $k$ is algebraically closed. Indeed, if $[A:k]=\infty$ and satisfies 2, then for an algebraic closure $\overline k$ of $k$ we have that $A'=A\otimes_k \overline k$ is infinite dimensional over $\overline k$ and satisfies 2 over $\overline k$ by transitivity of extension of scalars.

So assume $k$ is algebraically closed and $[A:k]=\infty$. We show that $A$ does not satisfy $2$. If $A$ is not semisimple, then it fails 2, so we may assume that $A$ is a direct product of matrix algebras over division algebras and at least one of these division algebras $D$ is infinite dimensional over $k$. Since extension of scalars commutes with direct product and matrix algebras, it suffices to show that $D\otimes_k K$ is not semisimple for some field extension $K/k$.

The key observation is that if $F/k$ is an infinite extension, then $F\otimes_k F$ is either not Artinian or not Noetherian. If $F/k$ is not finitely generated, then $F\otimes_k F$ is not Noetherian by Theorem 11 of P. Vámos, On the minimal prime ideals of a tensor product of two fields, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 84 (1978), pp. 25-35. If $F/k$ is finitely generated but infinite dimensional then it has positive transcendence degree. The Krull dimension of $F\otimes_k F$ is the transcendence degree of $F/k$, by Rodney Y. Sharp, The Dimension of the Tensor Product of Two Field Extensions, Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society 9 Issue 1 (1977) pp 42–48. Thus $F\otimes_k F$ is not Artinian in this case.

There are two cases. If $[Z(D):k]=\infty$, then $D\otimes_k Z(D)$ has center $Z(D)\otimes_k Z(D)$ by general facts on centers of tensor products over a field, and so the center of $D\otimes_k Z(D)$ is not a finite direct product of fields by the above observation (since it fails either the Artinian or Noetherian condition). But the center of a semisimple ring is a direct product of fields by Wedderburn-Artin, contradiction.

So assume $[Z(D):k]<\infty$. Then $Z(D)=k$ because $k$ is algebraically closed. Let $\alpha\in D\setminus k$. Then $\alpha$ is transcendental over $Z(D)=k$ and so $k\leq K=k(\alpha)$ with $K/k$ a purely transcendental extension. Now using @UriyaFirst comment (but with a descending chain argument), we have that $K\otimes_k K$ is not Artinian by the above and so has an strictly descending chain of ideals $I_1\supsetneq I_2\supsetneq \cdots$. Now $D\otimes_k K$ is a free right $K\otimes_k K$-module (since $D$ is a free $K$-module) and so the $(D\otimes_k K) I_k$ form a strictly descending chain of left ideals in $D\otimes_k K$. Thus $D\otimes_k K$ is not left Artinian and hence not semisimple.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
9
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In a previous version of your answer you said that if $D$ is infinite-dimensional over $Z(D)$, then there is a subfield $F$ of $D$ of infinite dimension over $k$. The ring $D$ is a free right $F$-module. Consequently, $D\otimes_kF$ is a free right $F\otimes_kF$-module. The latter ring is not noetherian, so there is a chain of ideals $I_1\subsetneq I_2 \subsetneq I_3\subsetneq\dots$ in $F\otimes_kF$. Since $D\otimes_kF$ is free over $F\otimes_kF$, we get a strictly increasing chain of left ideals $(D\otimes_k F)I_1\subsetneq(D\otimes_k F)I_2\subsetneq\dots$, so $D\otimes_k F$ is not noetherian. $\endgroup$
    – Uriya First
    Feb 9, 2022 at 15:29
  • $\begingroup$ @Uriya First, The previous version was slightly wrong. What I really get are subfields of unbounded dimension. I guess they could still all be finite. It is an open question I believe whether a division algebra all of whose elements are algebraic over its center is necessarily finite dimensional over the center. $\endgroup$
    – Benjamin Steinberg
    Feb 9, 2022 at 15:38
  • $\begingroup$ @UriyaFirst, I found what I think is a correct proof now using your idea. $\endgroup$
    – Benjamin Steinberg
    Feb 9, 2022 at 16:02
  • $\begingroup$ For the commutative case there is an easier proof. If $A$ is commutative and satisfies 2., then $A$ is a direct product of fields and so $A\otimes_k A$ will be semisimple since tensor products commute with direct product. Thus $A$ is a projective $A\otimes_k A$-module and so $A$ satisfies 1 and hence 3. $\endgroup$
    – Benjamin Steinberg
    Feb 9, 2022 at 16:38
  • $\begingroup$ The proof is now correct as far as I can tell. Going to the algebraic closure at first indeed bypasses the complications arising if $D$ is algebraic over $k$. $\endgroup$
    – Uriya First
    Feb 9, 2022 at 17:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

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