# Simple module

1. Apr 11, 2005

### Don Aman

I spent like 6 hours trying to prove that the endomorphism ring of a simple module is a field, helping my friend with his homework. Now I'm convinced that the result is not true. By Schur's lemma, all endomorphisms of a simple module (except 0) are isomorphisms, so it's a division ring, but I don't think it will be abelian. Only, so far I haven't found a counterexample. Can someone help me find one?

-Don

2. Apr 12, 2005

### matt grime

Module for what? Perhaps with more information we could deduce it is a 1 dimensional division algebra, thus a field. Perhaps it is finite, when we know that all finite division rings are fields. IN general though I believe it is "just a division algebra"

3. Apr 12, 2005

### Don Aman

So every simple module that I've looked at so far has an endomorphism ring that is actually a field. What I'm looking for is a simple module whose endomorphism ring is not a field. Based on what you said about finite modules always having fields, I suppose I will have to look for an infinite module. That's already a little helpful.

4. Apr 12, 2005

### matt grime

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
5. Apr 12, 2005

### Don Aman

the hint in that page made me wonder if there is an isomorphism $\operatorname{End}_R(R^R)\cong R$. But that seems unlikely to me. the cardinalities probably don't even match. I'm going to play with it some.

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
6. Apr 12, 2005

### mathwonk

for one thing some definitions of "field" do not include commutativity so check you source. for another the map Hom(R,M)-->M taking f to f(1), certainly seems inverse to the map M-->Hom(R,M) taking x to the map t-->tx, at least if M is a left R module.

Hence Hom(R,R) seems to be isomorphic to R as left R module, whether R abelian or not. Now check the ring structure. I.e. does xy got to the composition?

well xy(t) = txy. while y(t) = ty, and x(y(t)) = tyx, oops.

bah, i never enjoy non commutativity.

OK trythe map R -->Hom(R,R) taking x to the map t-->x(t) = xt.

then it should take xy to (xy)(t) = x(y(t)). hence multiplication goes to composition.

well anyway, it is apparently not true that Hom(R,R) is commutative when R is not.

7. Apr 12, 2005

### Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Some books also say, way back in the beginning, that all rings will be commutative!

8. Apr 12, 2005

### Don Aman

I want fields commutative and rings noncommutative. So I'm looking for a simple module whose endomorphism ring (which is necessarily a division ring) is not a field (so is not commutative).

I presume it will have to be a module over a non commutative ring, though I'm not positive.

I didn't follow everything else you wrote yet, mathwonk, I'm still working through it, but I'm going home now, and I wanted to say that I've checked it now, and in the case that $R=\mathbb{Z}_2$, $\operatorname{End}_R(R^R)$ has order 16, so it is definitely not isomorphic to R

9. Apr 12, 2005

### mathwonk

you have the object in question written wrong. the point is that End(R) is isomorphic to R, not End(R^R).

in the case of R = Z/2Z there are two endomorphisms, zero and the identity, hence End(R) certainly IS isomorphic to R.

10. Apr 13, 2005

### Don Aman

Well, I didn't get that from your post, I got the idea that R was isomorphic to End(R^R) from as an (incorrect) possibility from the question in the page that matt grime linked above. It says that R^R simple implies R is a division ring, and I know that the endomorphism ring of a simple module is a division ring, so I just guessed that maybe the endomorphism ring of R^R would be R. But yes, it's simply not true.

I was still digesting your suggestion when I left last night. Let me consider it again now.

Hm... I wasn't clear from what you said whether you thought this map was an isomorphism of rings, but it doesn't seem to be. For example, if r and s are in R, then rs goes to the map $t \mapsto rst$, whereas the product of the maps of r and s is $t\mapsto rtst\neq rst$. Unless I've made a mistake, this is not an isomorphism of rings, right?

11. Apr 14, 2005

### matt grime

As a left module End(R) is isomorphic to R^{op} the opposite ring, as s right module End(R) is R.

12. Apr 14, 2005

### Don Aman

Oh, I totally see that now. It *is* an isomorphism of rings. My mistake earlier was that I was making the product of maps be pointwise multiplication, instead of composition. I see why it has to be R^op as well. And Rop is isomorphic to R, right? And R, viewed as a right R-module, is simple as a module when R is a division ring. So I'm done. Thanks for your help.

13. Apr 15, 2005

### Don Aman

So I showed the construction to my friend, and he showed me that his textbook wanted him to prove it. It was in Artin. Does that just mean that Artin made a mistake?

14. Apr 15, 2005

### mathwonk

your friend wouldn't be one of those people who declines to read the chapter before trying the problems would he? tell him to read the first sentence (!!) in the chapter, on page 450.

Once you told me it was Artin, I knew the choice between whether he or your friend made the mistake was pretty easy money.

Last edited: Apr 15, 2005
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook