version of Nakayama's lemma for group rings











up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1












I have the following rather complicated setting and I would like to know if something that resembles Nakayama's lemma can be proved in this setting, but I can make no progress with it:



Let $G$ be a finite group and let $K$ be a field of characteristic $0$. Assume that $M$ is a module over the polynomial ring $K[X]$, that $M$ is finitely generated as a $K$-module and also that there exists an action of the group $G$ on $M$, so that $M$ becomes a module the group ring $(K[X])[G]$.



I know in addition that the annihilator of $M$ in $K[X]$ is of the form $(X-c)^d$ for some $c in K$, $d>0$ and that the set of elements in $M$ annihilated by $(X-c)$ is a cyclic $K[G]$-module (also the action of $X$ and $G$ commute). Does it follow that $M$ is cyclic as a $(K[X])[G]$-module?










share|cite|improve this question






















  • So $M$ is not just a $Kleft[Xright]$-module, but actually a $Kleft[Xright] / left(X-cright)^d$-module. Note that $Kleft[Xright] / left(X-cright)^d$ is a local ring, with its maximal ideal generated by $X-c$. This may help in applying regular Nakayama.
    – darij grinberg
    Nov 20 at 20:08












  • Is the set of elements in $M$ annihilated by $left(X-cright)$ isomorphic (as a $Kleft[Xright]left[Gright]$-module) to $M / left(X-cright)M$ ? Or, at least, is there a surjective $Kleft[Xright]left[Gright]$-module homomorphism frm the former to the latter? I suspect so; this would reduce your question to the standard Nakayama lemma.
    – darij grinberg
    Nov 20 at 20:11












  • @darijgrinberg I can see the obvious isomorphism $M/N cong (X-c)M$ (where $N$ is the set of elements annihilated by $X-c$), but I don't see how to construct the 'swapped' version $M/(X-c)M cong N$ you suggest
    – E. Blioch
    Nov 20 at 20:16










  • OK, I see why $M / left(X-cright) M cong N$ as $Kleft[Xright]$-modules: Both sides are $Kleft[Xright] / left(X-cright)$-modules, which is the same as $K$-vector spaces, so it suffices to prove that their dimensions are equal; but this follows from looking at the Jordan normal form of a nilpotent endomorphism (the endomorphism being the action of $X-c$ on $M$). But this isomorphism is not canonical, so it is not clear at all that it will play well with the action of $G$.
    – darij grinberg
    Nov 20 at 20:38












  • For future discussions, let's agree to simplify our life and substitute $Y$ for $X-c$.
    – darij grinberg
    Nov 20 at 20:39















up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1












I have the following rather complicated setting and I would like to know if something that resembles Nakayama's lemma can be proved in this setting, but I can make no progress with it:



Let $G$ be a finite group and let $K$ be a field of characteristic $0$. Assume that $M$ is a module over the polynomial ring $K[X]$, that $M$ is finitely generated as a $K$-module and also that there exists an action of the group $G$ on $M$, so that $M$ becomes a module the group ring $(K[X])[G]$.



I know in addition that the annihilator of $M$ in $K[X]$ is of the form $(X-c)^d$ for some $c in K$, $d>0$ and that the set of elements in $M$ annihilated by $(X-c)$ is a cyclic $K[G]$-module (also the action of $X$ and $G$ commute). Does it follow that $M$ is cyclic as a $(K[X])[G]$-module?










share|cite|improve this question






















  • So $M$ is not just a $Kleft[Xright]$-module, but actually a $Kleft[Xright] / left(X-cright)^d$-module. Note that $Kleft[Xright] / left(X-cright)^d$ is a local ring, with its maximal ideal generated by $X-c$. This may help in applying regular Nakayama.
    – darij grinberg
    Nov 20 at 20:08












  • Is the set of elements in $M$ annihilated by $left(X-cright)$ isomorphic (as a $Kleft[Xright]left[Gright]$-module) to $M / left(X-cright)M$ ? Or, at least, is there a surjective $Kleft[Xright]left[Gright]$-module homomorphism frm the former to the latter? I suspect so; this would reduce your question to the standard Nakayama lemma.
    – darij grinberg
    Nov 20 at 20:11












  • @darijgrinberg I can see the obvious isomorphism $M/N cong (X-c)M$ (where $N$ is the set of elements annihilated by $X-c$), but I don't see how to construct the 'swapped' version $M/(X-c)M cong N$ you suggest
    – E. Blioch
    Nov 20 at 20:16










  • OK, I see why $M / left(X-cright) M cong N$ as $Kleft[Xright]$-modules: Both sides are $Kleft[Xright] / left(X-cright)$-modules, which is the same as $K$-vector spaces, so it suffices to prove that their dimensions are equal; but this follows from looking at the Jordan normal form of a nilpotent endomorphism (the endomorphism being the action of $X-c$ on $M$). But this isomorphism is not canonical, so it is not clear at all that it will play well with the action of $G$.
    – darij grinberg
    Nov 20 at 20:38












  • For future discussions, let's agree to simplify our life and substitute $Y$ for $X-c$.
    – darij grinberg
    Nov 20 at 20:39













up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
2
down vote

favorite
1






1





I have the following rather complicated setting and I would like to know if something that resembles Nakayama's lemma can be proved in this setting, but I can make no progress with it:



Let $G$ be a finite group and let $K$ be a field of characteristic $0$. Assume that $M$ is a module over the polynomial ring $K[X]$, that $M$ is finitely generated as a $K$-module and also that there exists an action of the group $G$ on $M$, so that $M$ becomes a module the group ring $(K[X])[G]$.



I know in addition that the annihilator of $M$ in $K[X]$ is of the form $(X-c)^d$ for some $c in K$, $d>0$ and that the set of elements in $M$ annihilated by $(X-c)$ is a cyclic $K[G]$-module (also the action of $X$ and $G$ commute). Does it follow that $M$ is cyclic as a $(K[X])[G]$-module?










share|cite|improve this question













I have the following rather complicated setting and I would like to know if something that resembles Nakayama's lemma can be proved in this setting, but I can make no progress with it:



Let $G$ be a finite group and let $K$ be a field of characteristic $0$. Assume that $M$ is a module over the polynomial ring $K[X]$, that $M$ is finitely generated as a $K$-module and also that there exists an action of the group $G$ on $M$, so that $M$ becomes a module the group ring $(K[X])[G]$.



I know in addition that the annihilator of $M$ in $K[X]$ is of the form $(X-c)^d$ for some $c in K$, $d>0$ and that the set of elements in $M$ annihilated by $(X-c)$ is a cyclic $K[G]$-module (also the action of $X$ and $G$ commute). Does it follow that $M$ is cyclic as a $(K[X])[G]$-module?







commutative-algebra modules representation-theory






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Nov 20 at 19:29









E. Blioch

505




505












  • So $M$ is not just a $Kleft[Xright]$-module, but actually a $Kleft[Xright] / left(X-cright)^d$-module. Note that $Kleft[Xright] / left(X-cright)^d$ is a local ring, with its maximal ideal generated by $X-c$. This may help in applying regular Nakayama.
    – darij grinberg
    Nov 20 at 20:08












  • Is the set of elements in $M$ annihilated by $left(X-cright)$ isomorphic (as a $Kleft[Xright]left[Gright]$-module) to $M / left(X-cright)M$ ? Or, at least, is there a surjective $Kleft[Xright]left[Gright]$-module homomorphism frm the former to the latter? I suspect so; this would reduce your question to the standard Nakayama lemma.
    – darij grinberg
    Nov 20 at 20:11












  • @darijgrinberg I can see the obvious isomorphism $M/N cong (X-c)M$ (where $N$ is the set of elements annihilated by $X-c$), but I don't see how to construct the 'swapped' version $M/(X-c)M cong N$ you suggest
    – E. Blioch
    Nov 20 at 20:16










  • OK, I see why $M / left(X-cright) M cong N$ as $Kleft[Xright]$-modules: Both sides are $Kleft[Xright] / left(X-cright)$-modules, which is the same as $K$-vector spaces, so it suffices to prove that their dimensions are equal; but this follows from looking at the Jordan normal form of a nilpotent endomorphism (the endomorphism being the action of $X-c$ on $M$). But this isomorphism is not canonical, so it is not clear at all that it will play well with the action of $G$.
    – darij grinberg
    Nov 20 at 20:38












  • For future discussions, let's agree to simplify our life and substitute $Y$ for $X-c$.
    – darij grinberg
    Nov 20 at 20:39


















  • So $M$ is not just a $Kleft[Xright]$-module, but actually a $Kleft[Xright] / left(X-cright)^d$-module. Note that $Kleft[Xright] / left(X-cright)^d$ is a local ring, with its maximal ideal generated by $X-c$. This may help in applying regular Nakayama.
    – darij grinberg
    Nov 20 at 20:08












  • Is the set of elements in $M$ annihilated by $left(X-cright)$ isomorphic (as a $Kleft[Xright]left[Gright]$-module) to $M / left(X-cright)M$ ? Or, at least, is there a surjective $Kleft[Xright]left[Gright]$-module homomorphism frm the former to the latter? I suspect so; this would reduce your question to the standard Nakayama lemma.
    – darij grinberg
    Nov 20 at 20:11












  • @darijgrinberg I can see the obvious isomorphism $M/N cong (X-c)M$ (where $N$ is the set of elements annihilated by $X-c$), but I don't see how to construct the 'swapped' version $M/(X-c)M cong N$ you suggest
    – E. Blioch
    Nov 20 at 20:16










  • OK, I see why $M / left(X-cright) M cong N$ as $Kleft[Xright]$-modules: Both sides are $Kleft[Xright] / left(X-cright)$-modules, which is the same as $K$-vector spaces, so it suffices to prove that their dimensions are equal; but this follows from looking at the Jordan normal form of a nilpotent endomorphism (the endomorphism being the action of $X-c$ on $M$). But this isomorphism is not canonical, so it is not clear at all that it will play well with the action of $G$.
    – darij grinberg
    Nov 20 at 20:38












  • For future discussions, let's agree to simplify our life and substitute $Y$ for $X-c$.
    – darij grinberg
    Nov 20 at 20:39
















So $M$ is not just a $Kleft[Xright]$-module, but actually a $Kleft[Xright] / left(X-cright)^d$-module. Note that $Kleft[Xright] / left(X-cright)^d$ is a local ring, with its maximal ideal generated by $X-c$. This may help in applying regular Nakayama.
– darij grinberg
Nov 20 at 20:08






So $M$ is not just a $Kleft[Xright]$-module, but actually a $Kleft[Xright] / left(X-cright)^d$-module. Note that $Kleft[Xright] / left(X-cright)^d$ is a local ring, with its maximal ideal generated by $X-c$. This may help in applying regular Nakayama.
– darij grinberg
Nov 20 at 20:08














Is the set of elements in $M$ annihilated by $left(X-cright)$ isomorphic (as a $Kleft[Xright]left[Gright]$-module) to $M / left(X-cright)M$ ? Or, at least, is there a surjective $Kleft[Xright]left[Gright]$-module homomorphism frm the former to the latter? I suspect so; this would reduce your question to the standard Nakayama lemma.
– darij grinberg
Nov 20 at 20:11






Is the set of elements in $M$ annihilated by $left(X-cright)$ isomorphic (as a $Kleft[Xright]left[Gright]$-module) to $M / left(X-cright)M$ ? Or, at least, is there a surjective $Kleft[Xright]left[Gright]$-module homomorphism frm the former to the latter? I suspect so; this would reduce your question to the standard Nakayama lemma.
– darij grinberg
Nov 20 at 20:11














@darijgrinberg I can see the obvious isomorphism $M/N cong (X-c)M$ (where $N$ is the set of elements annihilated by $X-c$), but I don't see how to construct the 'swapped' version $M/(X-c)M cong N$ you suggest
– E. Blioch
Nov 20 at 20:16




@darijgrinberg I can see the obvious isomorphism $M/N cong (X-c)M$ (where $N$ is the set of elements annihilated by $X-c$), but I don't see how to construct the 'swapped' version $M/(X-c)M cong N$ you suggest
– E. Blioch
Nov 20 at 20:16












OK, I see why $M / left(X-cright) M cong N$ as $Kleft[Xright]$-modules: Both sides are $Kleft[Xright] / left(X-cright)$-modules, which is the same as $K$-vector spaces, so it suffices to prove that their dimensions are equal; but this follows from looking at the Jordan normal form of a nilpotent endomorphism (the endomorphism being the action of $X-c$ on $M$). But this isomorphism is not canonical, so it is not clear at all that it will play well with the action of $G$.
– darij grinberg
Nov 20 at 20:38






OK, I see why $M / left(X-cright) M cong N$ as $Kleft[Xright]$-modules: Both sides are $Kleft[Xright] / left(X-cright)$-modules, which is the same as $K$-vector spaces, so it suffices to prove that their dimensions are equal; but this follows from looking at the Jordan normal form of a nilpotent endomorphism (the endomorphism being the action of $X-c$ on $M$). But this isomorphism is not canonical, so it is not clear at all that it will play well with the action of $G$.
– darij grinberg
Nov 20 at 20:38














For future discussions, let's agree to simplify our life and substitute $Y$ for $X-c$.
– darij grinberg
Nov 20 at 20:39




For future discussions, let's agree to simplify our life and substitute $Y$ for $X-c$.
– darij grinberg
Nov 20 at 20:39















active

oldest

votes











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%2f3006780%2fversion-of-nakayamas-lemma-for-group-rings%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown






























active

oldest

votes













active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes
















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3006780%2fversion-of-nakayamas-lemma-for-group-rings%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

Quarter-circle Tiles

build a pushdown automaton that recognizes the reverse language of a given pushdown automaton?

Mont Emei