Is M_n(K) isomorphic to K \otimes_F M_n(F) as F-algebras?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the isomorphism between the matrix algebra M_n(K) and the tensor product K ⊗_F M_n(F) as F-algebras, where F is a field and K is an extension field of F. Participants explore the properties of tensor products, ring homomorphisms, and the structure of vector spaces in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses uncertainty in their understanding of tensor products and attempts to establish an isomorphism between M_n(K) and K ⊗_F M_n(F).
  • Another participant proposes a mapping φ: K ⊗_F M_n(F) → M_n(K) defined by φ(k ⊗ A) = kA, but later questions its validity.
  • Some participants mention that the tensor product of an n-dimensional F-vector space is isomorphic to an n-dimensional K-vector space, suggesting this might be relevant to the problem.
  • There is a discussion about the necessity of considering all tensors in the product rather than just simple tensors to show surjectivity and injectivity of the mapping.
  • One participant notes that while showing surjectivity for simple tensors is sufficient, it may be easier to demonstrate using sums of simple tensors.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying degrees of confidence in their approaches, with some agreeing on the relevance of certain properties of tensor products while others remain uncertain about the correctness of their methods. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the isomorphism or the best approach to prove it.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge their relative inexperience with the topic, which may affect the rigor of their arguments and the clarity of their reasoning.

math_grl
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
So this is supposed be an introductory problem for tensor products that I was trying to do to verify I am understanding tensor products...turns out I'm not so much

Show that [tex]M_n(K)[/tex] is isomorphic as an [tex]F[/tex]-algebra to [tex]K \otimes_F M_n(F)[/tex] where [tex]F[/tex] is a field and [tex]K[/tex] is an extension field of [tex]F[/tex] and [tex]M_n(K)[/tex] means all the nxn matrices that have entries in K.

So I figure as F-algebras we need to show that we have a ring homomorphism that is linear (preserving the scalar multiplication) or showing they are isomorphic as F-modules (vec. sp's) then showing preservation of the multipication. Either way, my attempts are fruitless.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
i think i solved it...nevermind
 
actually i might have gotten ahead of myself...I don't think i have it.

I was trying [tex]\phi: K \otimes_F M_n(F) \rightarrow M_n(K)[/tex] where [tex]\phi (k \otimes A) = kA[/tex] as my mapping, then checking to see if it satisfied all the homomorphism conditions. This must be wrong tho.
 
K tensor over F of the n dimensional F-vector space is isomorphic to the n dimensional K-vector space by easily proven properties of the tensor product over the direct sum. Perhaps this fact is useful?

I'm new to this, as well.
 
TMM said:
K tensor over F of the n dimensional F-vector space is isomorphic to the n dimensional K-vector space by easily proven properties of the tensor product...

Sounds like a path to try but I would refrain from saying easily proven since we are not experts in this stuff yet...
 
math_grl said:
Sounds like a path to try but I would refrain from saying easily proven since we are not experts in this stuff yet...

Fair enough. I think this would lead to a nicer proof, but I think your method works anyway.

You need to consider it acting on all the tensors in your product, not just the simple ones. Every tensor in the matrix group over K can be expressed as a sum of its values in each index. These can be decomposed into their magnitude and the matrix which has a 1 in the specific index and zero elsewhere. This matrix is in the matrix group over F so the map is surjective. If the images of two simple tensors are the same, you can cancel the factor in K, showing that the tensors are the same, so it is also injective.
 
Thanks for the help. I noticed you mentioned that you said all tensor elements (finite sums of basis elements of the tensor product)...how come it doesn't suffice to just show it for the pure (simple) tensor elements since these span the tensor product as a vector space?
 
Well it does, it's just easier to show surjectivity using a sum of simple tensors. In fact you need to since arbitrary elements of the codomain do not have preimages that are simple tensors.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K