$Ae$ 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 $e_1, e_2$.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • 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

















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 $e_1, e_2$.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • 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















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 $e_1, e_2$.










share|cite|improve this question















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






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








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




















  • 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












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.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • 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


















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.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • 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











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














 

draft saved


draft discarded


















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

























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.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • 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















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.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • 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













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.






share|cite|improve this answer














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.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








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


















  • 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










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.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • 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















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.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • 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













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.






share|cite|improve this answer














$e_1 in Ae$, 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.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








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


















  • 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


















 

draft saved


draft discarded



















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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







Popular posts from this blog

Mont Emei

Province de Neuquén

Journaliste