Finite Dimensionality of Endomorphism Ring in Simple Modules?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bleys
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    module Ring
Bleys
Messages
74
Reaction score
0
Let R be a finite dimensional C-algebra (C=Complex numbers) and S a simple R-module. Why does it follow that End_{R}(S) is also finite dimensional (as C-vector spaces, I'm guessing)? I'm not really sure how to construct a basis for it using one of S, and there's probably another reason for it (is end(S) embedded in S or something?)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is S finitely generated over R (hence C)?
 
yes; I have this result
"For a finite dimensional C-algebra R, there are only finitely many isomorphism classes of simple R-modules and they are finite dimensional"
 
Perfect. So S is a finite-dimensional C-vector space and End_R(S) is a subspace of End_C(S), hence is finite-dimensional over C. In fact, you can use Schur's lemma to show that End_R(S) is one-dimensional.
 
ah of course, I didn't think of the fact End_{R}(S) is a subspace of End_{C}(S).
I'm actually going through Schur's Lemma's proof to show End_R(S) is isomorphic to C but this was the detail I wasn't understanding.

Thank you, morphism!
 
Thread 'Determine whether ##125## is a unit in ##\mathbb{Z_471}##'
This is the question, I understand the concept, in ##\mathbb{Z_n}## an element is a is a unit if and only if gcd( a,n) =1. My understanding of backwards substitution, ... i have using Euclidean algorithm, ##471 = 3⋅121 + 108## ##121 = 1⋅108 + 13## ##108 =8⋅13+4## ##13=3⋅4+1## ##4=4⋅1+0## using back-substitution, ##1=13-3⋅4## ##=(121-1⋅108)-3(108-8⋅13)## ... ##= 121-(471-3⋅121)-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24(471-3⋅121## ##=121-471+3⋅121-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24⋅471+72⋅121##...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top