MHB Automorphisms of Central Simple Algebras - Bresar Example 1.27 .... ....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Example
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Matej Bresar's book, "Introduction to Noncommutative Algebra" and am currently focussed on Chapter 1: Finite Dimensional Division Algebras ... ...

I need help with some aspects of Example 1.27...

Example 1.27 reads as follows:
View attachment 6266My questions on Example 1.27 comprise the following:
Question 1

In the above example from Bresar we read the following:

" ... ... Of course it is outer ... for the identity map is obviously the only inner automorphism of a commutative ring. ... ... "

I have two questions regarding this remark ...

(a) ... why does Bresar assert that "the identity map is obviously the only inner automorphism of a commutative ring" ... surely a commutative ring may have some units (invertible elements other than $$1$$ ...) and so may have some inner automorphisms ... BUT Bresar is asserting that this is not the case ... ...

... can someone please clarify this issue ... (b) ... Bresar seems to be talking about $$\mathbb{C}$$ ... but he is referring to "a commutative ring" in the quote above ... but why? ... $$\mathbb{C}$$ is a field ... ?

Can someone please clarify what Bresar means ...

Question 2

In the above example from Bresar we read the following:

" ... ... We also remark that it is an element of $$\text{End}_\mathbb{R} ( \mathbb{C} )$$ but not $$M( \mathbb{C} )$$. ... "I have two questions on this remark ... as follows ...(a) ... ... Bresar proved in Lemma 1.25 (see previous post) that for

$$M(A) = \text{End}_F (A)$$ ...

so ... why isn't it true that $$M( \mathbb{C} ) = \text{End}_\mathbb{R} ( \mathbb{C} )$$ ... ?

Hopefully, someone can clarify this matter ...(b) ... can someone please explain exactly why the conjugation automorphism is an element

of $$\text{End}_\mathbb{R} ( \mathbb{C} )$$ but not of $$M( \mathbb{C} )$$ ... ?

Help will be much appreciated ... ...

Peter
======================================================

So that readers of this post can appreciate the notation and the context I am providing Bresar Section 1.5 ( which includes Lemmas 1.24 and 1.25) and also the start of Bresar Section 1.6 ... ... as follows:
View attachment 6267
View attachment 6268
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/6269
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,

Peter said:
(a) ... why does Bresar assert that "the identity map is obviously the only inner automorphism of a commutative ring" ... surely a commutative ring may have some units (invertible elements other than $$1$$ ...) and so may have some inner automorphisms ... BUT Bresar is asserting that this is not the case ... ...

If the ring is commutative, then the multiplication $axa^{-1}$ in Definition 1.26 will always work out to be $x$, so the only inner automorphism of a commutative ring is the identity map.

Peter said:
(b) ... Bresar seems to be talking about $$\mathbb{C}$$ ... but he is referring to "a commutative ring" in the quote above ... but why? ... $$\mathbb{C}$$ is a field ... ?

A field is a special type of commutative ring, just like a square is a special type of rectangle. The statement is more general when specified in terms of the least amount of structure necessary - in this case the commutative ring structure.

Peter said:
(a) ... ... Bresar proved in Lemma 1.25 (see previous post) that for

$$M(A) = \text{End}_F (A)$$ ...

so ... why isn't it true that $$M( \mathbb{C} ) = \text{End}_\mathbb{R} ( \mathbb{C} )$$ ... ?

$\mathbb{C}$ is not a central simple algebra over $\mathbb{R}$. Try seeing if you can determine why it's not central (this is why the author makes the comment about $A$ being central).

Peter said:
(b) ... can someone please explain exactly why the conjugation automorphism is an element

of $$\text{End}_\mathbb{R} ( \mathbb{C} )$$ but not of $$M( \mathbb{C} )$$ ... ?
If it were an element of $M(\mathbb{C})$ then it would need to be expressible as a a linear combination of left/right shift operators. Try looking at an example for a contradiction. For example, try looking at $z=1+i$ and seeing if you can determine a contradiction that comes from requiring

$$
1-i = \sum_{k=1}^{n}a_{k}(1+i)b_{k}
$$

Edit: I made an error in the first post because I was thinking of $a_{k}$ and $b_{k}$ as belonging to $\mathbb{R}$. The idea of looking for a counterexample in the fashion I mentioned is not as simple as I thought. Instead I will say for the time being that it's known that $z\mapsto\bar{z}$ is not a holomorphic function but any function of the form $z\mapsto\sum_{k}^{n}a_{k}zb_{k}$ is.
 
Last edited:
GJA said:
Hi Peter,
If the ring is commutative, then the multiplication $axa^{-1}$ in Definition 1.26 will always work out to be $x$, so the only inner automorphism of a commutative ring is the identity map.
A field is a special type of commutative ring, just like a square is a special type of rectangle. The statement is more general when specified in terms of the least amount of structure necessary - in this case the commutative ring structure.
$\mathbb{C}$ is not a central simple algebra over $\mathbb{R}$. Try seeing if you can determine why it's not central (this is why the author makes the comment about $A$ being central).

If it were an element of $M(\mathbb{C})$ then it would need to be expressible as a a linear combination of left/right shift operators. Try looking at an example for a contradiction. For example, try looking at $z=1+i$ and seeing if you can determine a contradiction that comes from requiring

$$
1-i = \sum_{k=1}^{n}a_{k}(1+i)b_{k}
$$

Edit: I made an error in the first post because I was thinking of $a_{k}$ and $b_{k}$ as belonging to $\mathbb{R}$. The idea of looking for a counterexample in the fashion I mentioned is not as simple as I thought. Instead I will say for the time being that it's known that $z\mapsto\bar{z}$ is not a holomorphic function but any function of the form $z\mapsto\sum_{k}^{n}a_{k}zb_{k}$ is.
Thanks GJA ... most helpful ...

Still puzzling over the last question ...

Thanks again ...

Peter
 
Hi Peter,

I realized I was overlooking two critical facts to answer your last question (instead of appealing to holomorphicity) - going to chalk it up to the late hour.

1) When we write an element $f\in M(A)$ in the form $f(x)=\sum_{k}a_{k}xb_{k},$ the $a$'s and $b$'s are fixed.

2) Since $\mathbb{C}$ is commutative, any function $f\in M(\mathbb{C})$ can be expressed as

$$
f(z)=\sum_{k}a_{k}b_{k}z=\left(\sum_{k}a_{k}b_{k}\right) z = wz
$$

where $w\in\mathbb{C}$. Thus any $f(z)\in M(\mathbb{C})$ must have the form $f(z)=wz$ where $w$ is a fixed complex number. Proving the statement now can be reduced to looking at an example. Taking $z = 1$ would require $w=1$ while taking $z=i$ would require $w=-1$.
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top