$Ae$ indecomposable iff $e$ is a primitive idempotent
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I'm trying to prove the following statement.
"Let $A$ be a (finite dimensional?) algebra over some field $K$. Then $Ae$ is indecomposable if and only if the idempotent $e$ is primitive."
It is clear to me that if $e=e_1+e_2$ for some orthogonal idempotents, then this will yield $Ae=Ae_1oplus Ae_2$. I am however, unsure about the other direction.
I assume that $Ae=P_1oplus P_2$, so that $e=e_1+e_2$ for some uniquely determined $e_1in P_1, e_2in P_2$. I can't seem to derive the orthogonality or idempotency of $e_1, e_2$.
abstract-algebra ring-theory modules
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I'm trying to prove the following statement.
"Let $A$ be a (finite dimensional?) algebra over some field $K$. Then $Ae$ is indecomposable if and only if the idempotent $e$ is primitive."
It is clear to me that if $e=e_1+e_2$ for some orthogonal idempotents, then this will yield $Ae=Ae_1oplus Ae_2$. I am however, unsure about the other direction.
I assume that $Ae=P_1oplus P_2$, so that $e=e_1+e_2$ for some uniquely determined $e_1in P_1, e_2in P_2$. I can't seem to derive the orthogonality or idempotency of $e_1, e_2$.
abstract-algebra ring-theory modules
I added the "ring-theory" tag to your post. Cheers!
– Robert Lewis
Nov 17 at 21:32
Finite dimensionality, nor being an algebra matters. This is true for all rings (with identity, anyway)!
– rschwieb
Nov 19 at 14:53
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I'm trying to prove the following statement.
"Let $A$ be a (finite dimensional?) algebra over some field $K$. Then $Ae$ is indecomposable if and only if the idempotent $e$ is primitive."
It is clear to me that if $e=e_1+e_2$ for some orthogonal idempotents, then this will yield $Ae=Ae_1oplus Ae_2$. I am however, unsure about the other direction.
I assume that $Ae=P_1oplus P_2$, so that $e=e_1+e_2$ for some uniquely determined $e_1in P_1, e_2in P_2$. I can't seem to derive the orthogonality or idempotency of $e_1, e_2$.
abstract-algebra ring-theory modules
I'm trying to prove the following statement.
"Let $A$ be a (finite dimensional?) algebra over some field $K$. Then $Ae$ is indecomposable if and only if the idempotent $e$ is primitive."
It is clear to me that if $e=e_1+e_2$ for some orthogonal idempotents, then this will yield $Ae=Ae_1oplus Ae_2$. I am however, unsure about the other direction.
I assume that $Ae=P_1oplus P_2$, so that $e=e_1+e_2$ for some uniquely determined $e_1in P_1, e_2in P_2$. I can't seem to derive the orthogonality or idempotency of $e_1, e_2$.
abstract-algebra ring-theory modules
abstract-algebra ring-theory modules
edited Nov 17 at 21:32
Robert Lewis
41.7k22760
41.7k22760
asked Nov 16 at 9:09
Dotpunkt
965
965
I added the "ring-theory" tag to your post. Cheers!
– Robert Lewis
Nov 17 at 21:32
Finite dimensionality, nor being an algebra matters. This is true for all rings (with identity, anyway)!
– rschwieb
Nov 19 at 14:53
add a comment |
I added the "ring-theory" tag to your post. Cheers!
– Robert Lewis
Nov 17 at 21:32
Finite dimensionality, nor being an algebra matters. This is true for all rings (with identity, anyway)!
– rschwieb
Nov 19 at 14:53
I added the "ring-theory" tag to your post. Cheers!
– Robert Lewis
Nov 17 at 21:32
I added the "ring-theory" tag to your post. Cheers!
– Robert Lewis
Nov 17 at 21:32
Finite dimensionality, nor being an algebra matters. This is true for all rings (with identity, anyway)!
– rschwieb
Nov 19 at 14:53
Finite dimensionality, nor being an algebra matters. This is true for all rings (with identity, anyway)!
– rschwieb
Nov 19 at 14:53
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
Let $e_iin P_i$ with $e=e_1+e_2$. Then $e_1e_2in P_1cap P_2$. But $P_1cap P_2={0}$ and so $e_1e_2=0$. This completes the proof if $A$ is commutative.
Can you clarify how we see that $e_1e_2$ is in the intersection? I would've said that $e_1e_2$ is only necessarily in $P_2$, by virtue of $P_2$ being a submodule (I'm using left-modules).
– Dotpunkt
Nov 16 at 9:21
Could you write out the argument with details?
– Dotpunkt
Nov 16 at 9:43
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
$e_1 in Ae$, so $e_1=re$ for some $rin A$. Multiplying on the right by $e$ gives $e_1e = re^2= re = e_1$. Since $e=e_1+e_2$, this tells us $e_1^2+e_1e_2 = e_1$. It follows $e_1-e_1^2 = e_1e_2$.
Now $e_1-e_1^2in P_1$ (because $e_1in P_1$ and $P_1$ is a submodule) and $e_1e_2 in P_2$ (because $e_2 in P_2$ and $P_2$ is a submodule). Since they are equal, they lie in $P_1cap P_2$ which is ${0}$, so they are both zero: $e_1e_2=0$ and $e_1^2=e_1$. Similarly $e_2^2=e_2$ and $e_2e_1=0$. We've established that the $e_i$ are orthogonal idempotents.
In case anyone is mystified by the implication that $e_1^2+e_1e_2=e_1$, the idea is that you multiply $e=e_1+e_2$ on the left by $e_1$ and reduce by the previous observation.
– rschwieb
Nov 19 at 14:52
1
@rschwieb thanks for the suggestion, I'll edit to clarify
– Matthew Towers
Nov 19 at 15:08
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
Let $e_iin P_i$ with $e=e_1+e_2$. Then $e_1e_2in P_1cap P_2$. But $P_1cap P_2={0}$ and so $e_1e_2=0$. This completes the proof if $A$ is commutative.
Can you clarify how we see that $e_1e_2$ is in the intersection? I would've said that $e_1e_2$ is only necessarily in $P_2$, by virtue of $P_2$ being a submodule (I'm using left-modules).
– Dotpunkt
Nov 16 at 9:21
Could you write out the argument with details?
– Dotpunkt
Nov 16 at 9:43
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Let $e_iin P_i$ with $e=e_1+e_2$. Then $e_1e_2in P_1cap P_2$. But $P_1cap P_2={0}$ and so $e_1e_2=0$. This completes the proof if $A$ is commutative.
Can you clarify how we see that $e_1e_2$ is in the intersection? I would've said that $e_1e_2$ is only necessarily in $P_2$, by virtue of $P_2$ being a submodule (I'm using left-modules).
– Dotpunkt
Nov 16 at 9:21
Could you write out the argument with details?
– Dotpunkt
Nov 16 at 9:43
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Let $e_iin P_i$ with $e=e_1+e_2$. Then $e_1e_2in P_1cap P_2$. But $P_1cap P_2={0}$ and so $e_1e_2=0$. This completes the proof if $A$ is commutative.
Let $e_iin P_i$ with $e=e_1+e_2$. Then $e_1e_2in P_1cap P_2$. But $P_1cap P_2={0}$ and so $e_1e_2=0$. This completes the proof if $A$ is commutative.
edited Nov 16 at 13:06
answered Nov 16 at 9:12
Wuestenfux
2,3791410
2,3791410
Can you clarify how we see that $e_1e_2$ is in the intersection? I would've said that $e_1e_2$ is only necessarily in $P_2$, by virtue of $P_2$ being a submodule (I'm using left-modules).
– Dotpunkt
Nov 16 at 9:21
Could you write out the argument with details?
– Dotpunkt
Nov 16 at 9:43
add a comment |
Can you clarify how we see that $e_1e_2$ is in the intersection? I would've said that $e_1e_2$ is only necessarily in $P_2$, by virtue of $P_2$ being a submodule (I'm using left-modules).
– Dotpunkt
Nov 16 at 9:21
Could you write out the argument with details?
– Dotpunkt
Nov 16 at 9:43
Can you clarify how we see that $e_1e_2$ is in the intersection? I would've said that $e_1e_2$ is only necessarily in $P_2$, by virtue of $P_2$ being a submodule (I'm using left-modules).
– Dotpunkt
Nov 16 at 9:21
Can you clarify how we see that $e_1e_2$ is in the intersection? I would've said that $e_1e_2$ is only necessarily in $P_2$, by virtue of $P_2$ being a submodule (I'm using left-modules).
– Dotpunkt
Nov 16 at 9:21
Could you write out the argument with details?
– Dotpunkt
Nov 16 at 9:43
Could you write out the argument with details?
– Dotpunkt
Nov 16 at 9:43
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
$e_1 in Ae$, so $e_1=re$ for some $rin A$. Multiplying on the right by $e$ gives $e_1e = re^2= re = e_1$. Since $e=e_1+e_2$, this tells us $e_1^2+e_1e_2 = e_1$. It follows $e_1-e_1^2 = e_1e_2$.
Now $e_1-e_1^2in P_1$ (because $e_1in P_1$ and $P_1$ is a submodule) and $e_1e_2 in P_2$ (because $e_2 in P_2$ and $P_2$ is a submodule). Since they are equal, they lie in $P_1cap P_2$ which is ${0}$, so they are both zero: $e_1e_2=0$ and $e_1^2=e_1$. Similarly $e_2^2=e_2$ and $e_2e_1=0$. We've established that the $e_i$ are orthogonal idempotents.
In case anyone is mystified by the implication that $e_1^2+e_1e_2=e_1$, the idea is that you multiply $e=e_1+e_2$ on the left by $e_1$ and reduce by the previous observation.
– rschwieb
Nov 19 at 14:52
1
@rschwieb thanks for the suggestion, I'll edit to clarify
– Matthew Towers
Nov 19 at 15:08
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
$e_1 in Ae$, so $e_1=re$ for some $rin A$. Multiplying on the right by $e$ gives $e_1e = re^2= re = e_1$. Since $e=e_1+e_2$, this tells us $e_1^2+e_1e_2 = e_1$. It follows $e_1-e_1^2 = e_1e_2$.
Now $e_1-e_1^2in P_1$ (because $e_1in P_1$ and $P_1$ is a submodule) and $e_1e_2 in P_2$ (because $e_2 in P_2$ and $P_2$ is a submodule). Since they are equal, they lie in $P_1cap P_2$ which is ${0}$, so they are both zero: $e_1e_2=0$ and $e_1^2=e_1$. Similarly $e_2^2=e_2$ and $e_2e_1=0$. We've established that the $e_i$ are orthogonal idempotents.
In case anyone is mystified by the implication that $e_1^2+e_1e_2=e_1$, the idea is that you multiply $e=e_1+e_2$ on the left by $e_1$ and reduce by the previous observation.
– rschwieb
Nov 19 at 14:52
1
@rschwieb thanks for the suggestion, I'll edit to clarify
– Matthew Towers
Nov 19 at 15:08
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
$e_1 in Ae$, so $e_1=re$ for some $rin A$. Multiplying on the right by $e$ gives $e_1e = re^2= re = e_1$. Since $e=e_1+e_2$, this tells us $e_1^2+e_1e_2 = e_1$. It follows $e_1-e_1^2 = e_1e_2$.
Now $e_1-e_1^2in P_1$ (because $e_1in P_1$ and $P_1$ is a submodule) and $e_1e_2 in P_2$ (because $e_2 in P_2$ and $P_2$ is a submodule). Since they are equal, they lie in $P_1cap P_2$ which is ${0}$, so they are both zero: $e_1e_2=0$ and $e_1^2=e_1$. Similarly $e_2^2=e_2$ and $e_2e_1=0$. We've established that the $e_i$ are orthogonal idempotents.
$e_1 in Ae$, so $e_1=re$ for some $rin A$. Multiplying on the right by $e$ gives $e_1e = re^2= re = e_1$. Since $e=e_1+e_2$, this tells us $e_1^2+e_1e_2 = e_1$. It follows $e_1-e_1^2 = e_1e_2$.
Now $e_1-e_1^2in P_1$ (because $e_1in P_1$ and $P_1$ is a submodule) and $e_1e_2 in P_2$ (because $e_2 in P_2$ and $P_2$ is a submodule). Since they are equal, they lie in $P_1cap P_2$ which is ${0}$, so they are both zero: $e_1e_2=0$ and $e_1^2=e_1$. Similarly $e_2^2=e_2$ and $e_2e_1=0$. We've established that the $e_i$ are orthogonal idempotents.
edited Nov 19 at 15:11
answered Nov 16 at 22:51
Matthew Towers
7,23422244
7,23422244
In case anyone is mystified by the implication that $e_1^2+e_1e_2=e_1$, the idea is that you multiply $e=e_1+e_2$ on the left by $e_1$ and reduce by the previous observation.
– rschwieb
Nov 19 at 14:52
1
@rschwieb thanks for the suggestion, I'll edit to clarify
– Matthew Towers
Nov 19 at 15:08
add a comment |
In case anyone is mystified by the implication that $e_1^2+e_1e_2=e_1$, the idea is that you multiply $e=e_1+e_2$ on the left by $e_1$ and reduce by the previous observation.
– rschwieb
Nov 19 at 14:52
1
@rschwieb thanks for the suggestion, I'll edit to clarify
– Matthew Towers
Nov 19 at 15:08
In case anyone is mystified by the implication that $e_1^2+e_1e_2=e_1$, the idea is that you multiply $e=e_1+e_2$ on the left by $e_1$ and reduce by the previous observation.
– rschwieb
Nov 19 at 14:52
In case anyone is mystified by the implication that $e_1^2+e_1e_2=e_1$, the idea is that you multiply $e=e_1+e_2$ on the left by $e_1$ and reduce by the previous observation.
– rschwieb
Nov 19 at 14:52
1
1
@rschwieb thanks for the suggestion, I'll edit to clarify
– Matthew Towers
Nov 19 at 15:08
@rschwieb thanks for the suggestion, I'll edit to clarify
– Matthew Towers
Nov 19 at 15:08
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3000921%2fae-indecomposable-iff-e-is-a-primitive-idempotent%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I added the "ring-theory" tag to your post. Cheers!
– Robert Lewis
Nov 17 at 21:32
Finite dimensionality, nor being an algebra matters. This is true for all rings (with identity, anyway)!
– rschwieb
Nov 19 at 14:53