Factorizing ##F_{ab}(M)## w/ Respect to Grothendieck Group - Lang's Book

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter xiavatar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Group
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the factorization of ##F_{ab}(M)## with respect to the subgroup generated by elements of the form ##[x+y]-[x]-[y]## as presented in Lang's book. Participants explore the implications of this factorization in the context of creating inverse elements and satisfying the universal property, with a focus on the structure of free abelian groups and monoid homomorphisms.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the necessity of the factorization and its relation to the universal property.
  • Another participant questions whether the factorization is akin to factoring through the commutator of the free group.
  • A different participant clarifies that ##F_{ab}(M)## is a free abelian group with a trivial commutator, emphasizing the goal of making the monoid M into an abelian group with respect to monoid homomorphisms.
  • Concerns are raised about the notation used in the factorization, specifically whether it should be written as ##[x+y]-[y]-[x]## instead, given the properties of abelian groups.
  • One participant asserts that the initial monoid is commutative, and that the quotient is taken to enforce the desired universal property, not to create inverses.
  • Another participant acknowledges the earlier explanation while noting that the specific notation is not critical since the context is abelian.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of agreement and disagreement regarding the notation and the implications of the factorization. While some points are clarified, the overall discussion remains unresolved with respect to the necessity and implications of the factorization.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the definitions and properties of free abelian groups and monoids, as well as the implications of the factorization on universal properties, but do not resolve all assumptions or the necessity of specific notations.

xiavatar
Messages
99
Reaction score
15
In Lang's book,page 39-40, he factorizes ##F_{ab}(M)## with respect to the subgroup generated by all elements of type ##[x+y]-[x]-[y]##. I don't quite understand why he does this. I know that he is trying to create inverse elements, but I don't see why that factorization necessarily satisfies the universal property.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are we basically factoring through the commutator of the free group, ##F_{ab}(M)##.
 
No, F_{ab}(M) is the free abelian group so it has trivial commutator. We want to make the monoid M into an abelian group in a way which is universal, but only with respect to monoid homomorphisms. The simplest choice is to take the free abelian group generated by M itself however this is universal with respect to all set maps from M to an abelian group, not just monoid homomorphisms into an abelian group. The characteristic difference is that for a monoid homomorphism, f(x+y)=f(x)+f(y) or equivalently f(x+y)-f(x)-f(y)=0. So when we quotient out F_{ab}(M) by the subgroup generated by [x+y]-[x]-[y] to get the Grothendieck group K(M), every induced homomorphism from the free group that came from a monoid homomorphism will vanish on this subgroup since \bar f([x+y]-[x]-[y])=f(x+y)-f(x)-f(y)=0 and so yields a well-defined map f_*:K(M)\to A. On the other hand, any set map which is not a monoid homomorphism will not vanish on this subgroup and hence won't be well defined on the quotient. This shows that the quotient is now universal only with respect to the monoid homomorphisms out of M rather than all set maps. So you can think of taking the quotient by this subgroup as throwing away all the induced maps from the free group which came from set maps g:M\to A which were not monoid homomorphisms.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Why do we write it as [x+y]-[x]-[y], shouldn't it be [x+y]-[y]-[x] since your adding inverses to the right? Or are we assuming the fact that the representatives are abelian, so we can write [x+y]=[x]+[y]=[y]+[x].
 
Last edited:
Everything in this example is abelian. The monoid Lang starts out with is commutative, you construct the free abelian group and then take a quotient which is again abelian so everything in sight commutes.

I'm not sure I understand quite what you mean by adding inverses though. Taking the quotient of F_{ab}(M) isn't what creates inverses since F_{ab} (M) is already a group by definition. So every desired inverse is already here before taking a quotient. The reason to take a quotient is that F_{ab}(M) is too big to satisfy the universal property as I explained in my previous post so we take a quotient of it to get rid of all the extra bits we don't need and force it to have the universal property we want.
 
I was just stating that if ##[x+y]=[x]+[y] \rightarrow [x+y]-[y]=[x]+[y]-[y]=[x]\rightarrow [x+y]-[y]-[x]=0##. But this isn't important since everything were working with is abelian.

I understood the rest of your explanation Terandol. Thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K