Regarding the definition of orders (as in subrings)

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Somewheresafe
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Definition
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of orders as a type of subring within the context of \(\mathbb{Q}\)-algebras. Participants express confusion regarding the terminology, notations, and implications of the definitions provided in a textbook, seeking clarification on various aspects of the concept.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether a \(\mathbb{Q}\)-algebra refers to any group algebra of \(\mathbb{Q}\), suggesting it might simply mean a \(\mathbb{Q}\)-module that is also a ring.
  • Another participant clarifies that being finitely generated as a \(\mathbb{Z}\)-module means that the subring \(R\) has a finite generating set, equating this to the definition of finitely generated abelian groups.
  • There is uncertainty about the notation \(\mathbb{Q}R\), with one participant proposing it represents a linear combination of elements from the set \(\{qr | q \in \mathbb{Q}, r \in R\}\).
  • Participants discuss whether any element in \(R\) can be expressed as a linear combination of elements in the generating set over \(\mathbb{Z}\), with one asserting that both implications hold.
  • A disagreement arises regarding whether all \(\mathbb{Q}\)-algebras are group algebras, with one participant asserting that not all \(\mathbb{Q}\)-algebras have the same properties as group algebras, citing examples of matrices that have zero divisors.
  • Another participant raises a specific example involving elements of order 2 in group algebras, prompting further discussion on the properties of these algebras.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between \(\mathbb{Q}\)-algebras and group algebras, with no consensus reached on whether they are equivalent. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of the definitions and notations used.

Contextual Notes

Participants express confusion over the definitions and notations, indicating potential limitations in the textbook's explanations. There are unresolved questions about the implications of being finitely generated and the specific nature of \(\mathbb{Q}R\).

Somewheresafe
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi everyone! I'm new. :) Anyway there's this textbook I found regarding the definition of orders (a type of subrings). I'm kinda having trouble with the notations and the phrasings used. If anyone knows about this your help would be greatly appreciated. :)

Anyway the definition goes like this:

Let A be a \mathbb{Q}-algebra. A subring R of A containing its unity is called a \mathbb{Z}-order (or simply an order) in A if R is finitely generated as a \mathbb{Z}-module and \mathbb{Q}R=A.

Some things I'm not quite sure of:

1. Does \mathbb{Q}-algebra refer to any group algebra of \mathbb{Q}? Ie, the group algebra of \mathbb{Q} over any group?

2. R is finitely generated as a \mathbb{Z}-module = R itself is a module over \mathbb{Z} with a finite generating set? (Kinda confused here. @_@)

3. I'm quite unsure about the notation \mathbb{Q}R. Is this equal to
\left\{q r | q \in \mathbb{Q}, r \in R\right\}? Or a linear combination of elements from this set? The previous pages don't actually indicate anything about it. :( (Or maybe I've missed it.)

4. Also, now that I'm at it, if I'm correct in no. 2, it means that any element in R can be expressed as a linear combination of elements in the generating set over \mathbb{Z}... but does the other way also hold? I mean, is it that any linear combination in the generating set over \mathbb{Z} is also an element in R?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Somewheresafe said:
Hi everyone! I'm new. :) Anyway there's this textbook I found regarding the definition of orders (a type of subrings). I'm kinda having trouble with the notations and the phrasings used. If anyone knows about this your help would be greatly appreciated. :)

Anyway the definition goes like this:

Let A be a \mathbb{Q}-algebra. A subring R of A containing its unity is called a \mathbb{Z}-order (or simply an order) in A if R is finitely generated as a \mathbb{Z}-module and \mathbb{Q}R=A.

Some things I'm not quite sure of:

1. Does \mathbb{Q}-algebra refer to any group algebra of \mathbb{Q}? Ie, the group algebra of \mathbb{Q} over any group?

I don't see any mention of group algebra's. So I think they just mean \mathbb{Q}-algebra as a \mathbb{Q}-module that is also a ring.

2. R is finitely generated as a \mathbb{Z}-module = R itself is a module over \mathbb{Z} with a finite generating set? (Kinda confused here. @_@)

Every abelian group defines a \mathbb{Z}-module by

nx=x+x+x+x+...+x~~~~(n~times)

what they mean is indeed that this group is finitely generated (which is equivalent to finitely generated as module). Thus there exists an epimorphism \mathbb{Z}[X_1,...,X_n]\rightarrow R.

3. I'm quite unsure about the notation \mathbb{Q}R. Is this equal to
\left\{q r | q \in \mathbb{Q}, r \in R\right\}? Or a linear combination of elements from this set? The previous pages don't actually indicate anything about it. :( (Or maybe I've missed it.)

I guess it means a linear combination of such elements.

4. Also, now that I'm at it, if I'm correct in no. 2, it means that any element in R can be expressed as a linear combination of elements in the generating set over \mathbb{Z}... but does the other way also hold? I mean, is it that any linear combination in the generating set over \mathbb{Z} is also an element in R?

Yes, both implications hold.
 
Thanks for the reply! It's a little clearer to me now! :) But just one little thing...
micromass said:
I don't see any mention of group algebra's. So I think they just mean \mathbb{Q}-algebra as a \mathbb{Q}-module that is also a ring.[\quote]
Wouldn't that be the same thing as a group algebra of \mathbb{Q}[\itex] over any group?
 
Somewheresafe said:
Thanks for the reply! It's a little clearer to me now! :) But just one little thing...
I don't see any mention of group algebra's. So I think they just mean \mathbb{Q}-algebra as a \mathbb{Q}-module that is also a ring.
Wouldn't that be the same thing as a group algebra of \mathbb{Q}[\itex] over any group?
<br /> <br /> No, certainly not every \mathbb{Q}-algebra is a group algebra. For example, each \mathbb{Q} group algebra would have no zero divisors. However, M_n(\mathbb{Q}) (the matrices) do have zero divisors if n&gt;1.
 
micromass said:
For example, each \mathbb{Q} group algebra would have no zero divisors.
What about (1 - [e])(1 + [e]) = 0 for any element e of order 2?
 
Hmm, I should have known better than to post that...
 
Hmm so they're the same?

Anyway thank you again for the replies! :)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K