I Question on proof ##\Lambda^{\perp}(AU) = U^{-1} \Lambda^{\perp}(A)##

Peter_Newman
Messages
155
Reaction score
11
Say we have as special lattice ## \Lambda^{\perp}(A) = \left\{z \in \mathbf{Z^m} : Az = 0 \in \mathbf{Z_q^n}\right\}##. We define ##U \in \mathbf{Z^{m \times m}}## as an invertible matrix then I want to proof the following fact:
$$ \Lambda^{\perp}(AU) = U^{-1} \Lambda^{\perp}(A) $$
My idea:
Let ##y \in \Lambda^{\perp}(A)## that is ##y \in Az = 0##, now ##U^{-1}y = (U^{-1}Az = 0) \in U^{-1}\Lambda^{\perp}(A)## and let ##y' \in \Lambda^{\perp}(AU)## that is ##y' \in AUz = 0##, this implies ##y \in y'## which shows one direction.

I hope that this is not too simple thinking and therefore I am interested in your opinions.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your notation is confusing. You don't mean y \in Az = 0 etc.; you mean y \in \{ z \i n\mathbb{Z}^m: Az = 0 \}, but you can just write "Let y \in \Lambda^{\perp}(A). Then Ay = 0."

The central point is that if Ay = 0 then we can write Ay = AUU^{-1}y so that U^{-1} y \in \Lambda^{\perp}(AU); hence U^{-1}\Lambda^{\perp}(A) \subset \Lambda^{\perp}(AU). But conersely, if AUy = 0 then Uy \in \Lambda^{\perp}(A) so that <br /> U\Lambda^{\perp}(AU) \subset \Lambda^{\perp}(A). But if U is invertible then U(B) = C \Leftrightarrow B = U^{-1}(C) for any subsets B and C of \mathbb{Z}^m. The result follows.

The requirement that a matrix have integer entries and have an inverse with integer entries is somewhat restrictive; the only ones which come to mind are \pm I and matrices which permute the standard basis vectors.
 
  • Like
Likes Peter_Newman
Thanks for your great help @pasmith ! Yes my notation is a bit confusing and also kept myself from seeing the result directly.

In the second part, you could have done the following: ##y \in \Lambda^{\perp}(AU)## then ##AUy = 0##, then ##Uy \in \Lambda^{\perp}(A)## which implies ##y \in U^{-1}\Lambda^{\perp}(A)## , right? The "advantage" would be that then ##\Lambda^{\perp}(AU) = U^{-1} \Lambda^{\perp}(A)## is directly recognizable, but this is more or less a rewriting.
 
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...
##\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...
Back
Top