Introduction to Simple Matrix Rings in Noncommutative Algebra

  • #1
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
3,997
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 Bresar's Example 1.10 on a simple matrix ring over a division ring ...

Example 1.10, including some preamble, reads as follows:
?temp_hash=0d1733a7c5582f06a2878772fa2eb20b.png
In the above text from Bresar we read the following:

" ... and hence also ##(d a_{jk}^{-1} ) E_{ii} \cdot a_{jk} E_{il} = d E_{il} \in I ## for every ##d \in D##. Consequently, ##I = M_n(D)##. ... ... "My questions are as follows:Question 1I am assuming that ##(d a_{jk}^{-1} ) E_{ii} \cdot a_{jk} E_{il} = d E_{il}## because you can take the "scalars" out of the multiplication and multiply them as in

##c_1 (a_{ij} ) \cdot c_2 (b_{ij} ) = c_1 c_2 (a_{ij} ) \cdot (b_{ij} )##Is that correct?(Note: why we are messing with multiplications by scalars in a problem on rings, I don't know ... we seem to be treating the ring ##M_n (D)## as an algebra over ##D## ... )

Question 2Bresar seems to be assuming that ##d E_{il} \in I ## for all ##1 \le i, l \le n## and for every ##d \in D## implies that ##I = M_n (D)## ...

But ... ... why exactly is this true ...My thoughts ... maybe it is true because the ##E_{il}## generate the ring ##M_n (D)## ... or to put it another way ... any element in ##I## or ##M_n (D)## can be written uniquely in the form ##\sum_{i, j = 1}^n d_{ij} E_{ij}## ...and further, that all the ##E_{ij}## belong to I ...Help with these questions will be appreciated ...

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

So that readers of the above post can appreciate the relevant context of the post, I am providing the introduction to Section 1.3 Simple Rings ... as follows:
?temp_hash=0d1733a7c5582f06a2878772fa2eb20b.png

?temp_hash=0d1733a7c5582f06a2878772fa2eb20b.png
 

Attachments

  • Bresar - Example 1.10 on Matrix Rings ... ....png
    Bresar - Example 1.10 on Matrix Rings ... ....png
    43.5 KB · Views: 885
  • Bresar - 1 - Simple Rings - PART 1 ... ....png
    Bresar - 1 - Simple Rings - PART 1 ... ....png
    75.8 KB · Views: 642
  • Bresar - 2 - Simple Rings - PART 2 ... ....png
    Bresar - 2 - Simple Rings - PART 2 ... ....png
    81.8 KB · Views: 686
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Math Amateur said:
Question 1
I am assuming that ##(d a_{jk}^{-1} ) E_{ii} \cdot a_{jk} E_{il} = d E_{il}## because you can take the "scalars" out of the multiplication and multiply them as in
##c_1 (a_{ij} ) \cdot c_2 (b_{ij} ) = c_1 c_2 (a_{ij} ) \cdot (b_{ij} )##
Is that correct?
Yes.
(Note: why we are messing with multiplications by scalars in a problem on rings, I don't know ... we seem to be treating the ring ##M_n (D)## as an algebra over ##D## ... )
Yes. If you consider ##(n \times n)-##matrix multiplication then it is defined with ##n## scalar multiplications in ##n^2## positions - a total of ##n^3## scalar multiplications (*). Therefore it is essential how scalars multiply with each other. Imagine our scalar multiplication was defined by ##a\cdot a=0## for all scalar ##a##. We'd get a pretty different matrix ring. (I didn't write ##a \in D## for it would have suggested ##D## to be a division ring, which can't be with such a definition of multiplication. Therefore I simply wrote "scalar ##a##".)
Question 2
Bresar seems to be assuming that ##d E_{il} \in I ## for all ##1 \le i, l \le n## and for every ##d \in D## implies that ##I = M_n (D)## ...
But ... ... why exactly is this true ...
With ##dE_{il} \in I## we have all scalar multiples in ##I##, esp. ##d^{-1}(dE_{il})=E_{il}## and all of them, i.e. the entire basis or ##M_n(D)=\sum_{ij}a_{ij}E_{ij} \subseteq \sum D\cdot I \subseteq I \subseteq M_n(D)##.
My thoughts ... maybe it is true because the ##E_{il}## generate the ring ##M_n (D)## ... or to put it another way ... any element in ##I## or ##M_n (D)## can be written uniquely in the form ##\sum_{i, j = 1}^n d_{ij} E_{ij}## ...and further, that all the ##E_{ij}## belong to I ...
Yes.

(*) I know it can be done with less than ##n^3## and that the current record holder is est. ##\omega = 2.37_3##.
 
  • Like
Likes Math Amateur

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
0
Views
2K
Back
Top