DOCSLIB.ORG

Group Rings Let K Be Any Unitary Ring (Not Necessarily Commutative), and Let S Be a Semigroup, Define

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Group Rings Let K Be Any Unitary Ring (Not Necessarily Commutative), and Let S Be a Semigroup, Define A note on the semisimplicity of group rings 1. (Semi)group rings Let k be any unitary ring (not necessarily commutative), and let S be a semigroup, define kS := fa: S ! k j #Supp(a) 2 Ng (where Supp(a) := fs 2 S j a(s) 6= 0kg) to be the set of all functions from S to k taking only a finite number of non zero values, this is naturally a left k-module and M kS = ks;b where sb: S −! k s.t. sb(x) = δs;x (i.e. sb(x) = 0k if x 6= s; and sb(x) = 1k if x = s ); s2S with respect to this decomposition one can write X X a = (a(s))s2S = a(s)sb = assb (where the sum is actually finite) for any a 2 kS: s2S s2S The k-module kS has also a natural ring structure via the convolution product (it has also the pointwise product, but this is not the one we want), given a; b 2 kS: X ab = a ∗ b is the function defined as ab(s) := a(u)b(v); (u;v)2S×Sjuv=s P P P P P that is ab = ( u2S auub)( v2S avvb) = (u;v)2S×S aubvuvc = s2S( (u;v)2S×Sjuv=s aubv)sb. From this it is not difficult to check that (a; b) 7! ab is associative and distributive. 1.1. Remarks. — Obviously kS is a non zero commutative ring if and only if k is a non zero commutative ring and S is a non empty commutative semigroup. Assume from now on that S is a monoid, i.e. it has a neutral element e 2 S. 1.1.1. Unit. — The element 1keb 2 kS is the unit of the ring kS. Moreover, by definition, k = keb, and S = 1kSb commute each other. 1.1.2. Units. — If G = U(S) is the group (submonoid) of invertible elements in S then U(k)U[(S) = U(k)Gb ⊆ U(kS), where U(·) denotes the set of invertible elements of a unitary ring or monoid. 1.1.3. Decomposable coefficients. — Let k = k1 × k2 be a direct product of two (non trivial) unitary rings. Then 1k = x + y with x; y 2 c(k) two non trivial central and mutually orthogonal idempotents. Then, for any monoid S we get ∼ kS = (k1 × k2)S = k1S × k2S; because 1kS = 1kecS = (x + y)ecS = xecS + yecS with xecS; yecS central and mutually orthogonal idempotents. 1.1.4. Decomposable semigroups. — Let S = S1 × S2 be a direct product of two semigroups, and let k be a unitary ring. Then one can check that ∼ kS = k(S1 × S2) = (kS1)S2: 1.1.5. Group rings. — If S = G is a group, and a; b 2 kG then 0 1 ! X X X X ab = @ aubvA sb = aubu−1s s;b s2S (u;v)2S×Sjuv=s s2S u2S which is the usual form of the convolution product used in Fourier theory. 1 2 1.1.6. Functoriality. — The construction kS is clearly covariantly functorial both in k and in S. Any monoid homomorphism ': S1 −! S2 induces a (unitary) ring homomorphism k': kS1 −! kS2 which is covariantly functorial. And any unitary ring homomorphism f : k1 −! k2 induces a (unitary) ring homomorphism fS : k1S −! k2S which is covariantly functorial. It is not difficult to check that the group ring construction is the left adjoint to the “units” functor from unitary rings to groups; this means that to give a ring homomorphism ': k1G −! k2 where k1 and k2 are rings, and G is a group it is equivalent to give ( a group homomorphism 'jG : G −! U(k2); and a unitary ring homomorphism 'jk1 : k1 −! k2 such that '(k1) ⊆ ck2 ('(G)): 1.1.7. Augmentation (or Norm) and Trace. — Let S be a monoid and k be a unitary ring, we then always have the surjective unitary ring homomorphism, called augmentation, or norm, X X α: kS −! k; assb 7! as which is a retraction of the injective unitary ring homomorphism k −! kS; a 7! aecS: Hence k is a direct summand of kS, indeed kS = k ⊕ Ker(α) for x = α(x) + (x − α(x)) 2 k ⊕ Ker(α). Obviously, for any s 2 S the element sb− eb is inside the two-sided ideal Ker(α), hence Ker(α) contains the two-sided ideal (fsb− eb j s 2 Sg), and actually Ker(α) = (fsb− eb j s 2 Sg) being X X X X X x = assb = assb− 0 = assb− ( as)eb = as(sb− eb) P for any x = assb 2 Ker(α). If S = G is a group, and A ⊆ G generates G as a group then (fgb − eb j g 2 Gg) = (fgb − eb j −1 −1 g 2 Ag) =: IA in kG, indeed if g 2 A then gd − eb = −gd(gb − eb) 2 IA, and if g1; g2 2 A then −1 d−1 −1 gb2 − gd1 = (gb2 − eb) − (g1 − eb) 2 IA, and gd1g2 − eb = gb1(gb2 − gd1 ) 2 IA, and from this it is not difficult to conclude (fgb − eb j g 2 Gg) = IA . Besides the norm we also have a k-linear trace X T : kS −! k; a = a s 7! a(e ) = a ; sb S eS s2S such that T (ab) = T (ba) for each a; b 2 ck(k)S: 1.1.8. Involution. — If S = G is a group, then the ring kG has an involution: ∗ X X −1 : kG −! kG; aggb 7! aggd g2G g2G which is k-linear and satisfies (x∗)∗ = x, (xy)∗ = y∗x∗. Hence any left kG-module M is actually also a right kG-module via mx := x∗m for any m 2 M and x 2 kG. 1.1.9. The center c(kG). — Let us consider the center of the ring kG c(kG) = ckG(kG) = fa 2 kG j ab = ba for any b 2 kGg = ckG(kecG [ Gb) P which clearly contains the commutative unitary ring ck(k). Let a = g2G aggb 2 ckG(kG) then P P a(xecG) = g2G agxgb = (xecG)a = g2G xaggb for each x 2 k implies ag 2 ck(k) for each g 2 G; moreover, for each h 2 G we must have X X X X abh = agghc = agh−1 gb = bha = aghgc = ah−1ggb g2G g2G g2G g2G 3 that is (using the functional notation) (abh)(g) = (bha)(g) for each g; h 2 G , a(gh−1) = a(h−1g) for each g; h 2 G this tourns out to be equivalent to the following condition a(h−1gh) = a(g) for each g; h 2 G: Hence a 2 ckG(kG) if and only if a is a function from G to k with finite support such that: (1) a takes values in ck(k); (2) a(h−1gh) = a(g) for each g; h 2 G, this means that a has to be constant on each conjugacy class of G, that is a is a class function. P Let C ⊆ G be a finite coniugacy class of G, then σC := g2C gb 2 ck(k)G ⊆ kG satisfies both the above requirements and therefore σC 2 c(kG). On the other hand it follows easily that c(kG) is a free ck(k)-module with bases fσC j C is a finite coniugacy class of Gg. 1.2. Examples. — n h ∼ 1.2.1. kCn. — Let Cn = fz 2 C j z = 1g = fζ j h = 0; : : : ; n − 1g =< ζ >= Z=nZ, where 2π i n−1 ζ = e n 2 C, be the cyclic group of order n. Then we have the group ring ZCn = Z⊕Zζb⊕· · ·⊕Zζ[, and the unitary ring homomorphism Z[t] −! ZCn; p(t) 7! p(ζb) (1) ∼ n ∼ ∼ n clearly induces an isomorphism ZCn = Z[t]=(t −1). More generally kCn = k ⊗Z ZCn = k[t]=(t −1) for any unitary ring k. 2 3 4 Note that, for n = 5 we have ab = 1 in ZC5 with a = 1 − ζb − ζb and b = 1 − ζb− ζb , hence U(ZC5) is strictly bigger than U(Z)Cc5 = ±Cc5. ∼ 1.2.2. kC1. — Let C1 =< ζ >= Z be an infinite cyclic group. Then we have the group ring C = L ζn, and the unitary ring homomorphism Z 1 n2Z Zc Z[t] −! ZC1; p(t) 7! p(ζb) ∼ −1 ∼ ∼ −1 clearly induces an isomorphism ZCn = Z[t]t = Z[t; t ]. More generally kC1 = k ⊗Z ZC1 = k[t; t ] for any unitary ring k. 1.2.3. kΣ3. — Let Σ3 be the permutation group of order 6. It can be shown that, for any characteristic zero field K, we have ∼ KΣ3 = K × K × Mat2(K): 1.2.4. kQ. — Let Q be the quaternion group of order 8. It can be shown that ∼ ∼ RQ = R × R × R × R × H; while CQ = C × C × C × C × Mat2(C): 1.3. Linear representations. — Let G be a group. We know that the category of k-linear repre- sentions is equivalent to the category of left kG-modules. Actually, to give a linear representation of G on a k-left module M ρ: G −! Autk(M) is the same as giving a unitary (k-linear) ring homomorphism ': kG −! Endk(M): Hence ring theoretic relations holding in kG are also valid in Endk(M). (1) By definition, if G is finite, ZG is always a free abelian group of rank jGj. If we consider the smallest subring of C 2π i 2π i 2 containing ζ we find Z[ζ] = fp(ζ) 2 C j p(t) 2 Z[t]g.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pub . Mat . UAB Vol . 27 N- 1 on the ENDOMORPHISM RING of A
    Pub . Mat . UAB Vol . 27 n- 1 ON THE ENDOMORPHISM RING OF A FREE MODULE Pere Menal Throughout, let R be an (associative) ring (with 1) . Let F be the free right R-module, over an infinite set C, with endomorphism ring H . In this note we first study those rings R such that H is left coh- erent .By comparison with Lenzing's characterization of those rings R such that H is right coherent [8, Satz 41, we obtain a large class of rings H which are right but not left coherent . Also we are concerned with the rings R such that H is either right (left) IF-ring or else right (left) self-FP-injective . In particular we pro- ve that H is right self-FP-injective if and only if R is quasi-Frobenius (QF) (this is an slight generalization of results of Faith and .Walker [31 which assure that R must be QF whenever H is right self-i .njective) moreover, this occurs if and only if H is a left IF-ring . On the other hand we shall see that if' R is .pseudo-Frobenius (PF), that is R is an . injective cogenera- tortin Mod-R, then H is left self-FP-injective . Hence any PF-ring, R, that is not QF is such that H is left but not right self FP-injective . A left R-module M is said to be FP-injective if every R-homomorphism N -. M, where N is a -finitély generated submodule of a free module F, may be extended to F .
    [Show full text]
  • MA3203 Ring Theory Spring 2019 Norwegian University of Science and Technology Exercise Set 3 Department of Mathematical Sciences
    MA3203 Ring theory Spring 2019 Norwegian University of Science and Technology Exercise set 3 Department of Mathematical Sciences 1 Decompose the following representation into indecomposable representations: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 k k k . α γ 2 Let Q be the quiver 1 2 3 and Λ = kQ. β δ a) Find the representations corresponding to the modules Λei, for i = 1; 2; 3. Let R be a ring and M an R-module. The endomorphism ring is defined as EndR(M) := ff : M ! M j f R-homomorphismg. b) Show that EndR(M) is indeed a ring. c) Show that an R-module M is decomposable if and only if its endomorphism ring EndR(M) contains a non-trivial idempotent, that is, an element f 6= 0; 1 such that f 2 = f. ∼ Hint: If M = M1 ⊕ M2 is decomposable, consider the projection morphism M ! M1. Conversely, any idempotent can be thought of as a projection mor- phism. d) Using c), show that the representation corresponding to Λe1 is indecomposable. ∼ Hint: Prove that EndΛ(Λe1) = k by showing that every Λ-homomorphism Λe1 ! Λe1 depends on a parameter l 2 k and that every l 2 k gives such a homomorphism. 3 Let A be a k-algebra, e 2 A be an idempotent and M be an A-module. a) Show that eAe is a k-algebra and that e is the identity element. For two A-modules N1, N2, we denote by HomA(N1;N2) the space of A-module morphism from N1 to N2.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Semisimplicity of Group Algebras
    ON THE SEMISIMPLICITY OF GROUP ALGEBRAS ORLANDO E. VILLAMAYOR1 In this paper we find sufficient conditions for a group algebra over a commutative ring to be semisimple. In particular, the case in which the group is abelian is solved for fields of characteristic zero, and, in a more general case, for semisimple commutative rings which are uniquely divisible by every integer. Under similar restrictions on the ring of coefficients, it is proved the semisimplicity of group alge- bras when the group is not abelian but the factor group module its center is locally finite.2 In connection with this problem, we study homological properties of group algebras generalizing some results of M. Auslander [l, Theorems 6 and 9]. In fact, Lemmas 3 and 4 give new proofs of Aus- lander's Theorems 6 and 9 in the case C=(l). 1. Notations. A group G will be called a torsion group if every ele- ment of G has finite order, it will be called locally finite if every finitely generated subgroup is finite and it will be called free (or free abelian) if it is a direct sum of infinite cyclic groups. Direct sum and direct product are defined as in [3]. Given a set of rings Ri, their direct product will be denoted by J{Ri. If G is a group and R is a ring, the group algebra generated by G over R will be denoted by R(G). In a ring R, radical and semisimplicity are meant in the sense of Jacobson [5]. A ring is called regular in the sense of von Neumann [7].
    [Show full text]
  • Idempotent Lifting and Ring Extensions
    IDEMPOTENT LIFTING AND RING EXTENSIONS ALEXANDER J. DIESL, SAMUEL J. DITTMER, AND PACE P. NIELSEN Abstract. We answer multiple open questions concerning lifting of idempotents that appear in the literature. Most of the results are obtained by constructing explicit counter-examples. For instance, we provide a ring R for which idempotents lift modulo the Jacobson radical J(R), but idempotents do not lift modulo J(M2(R)). Thus, the property \idempotents lift modulo the Jacobson radical" is not a Morita invariant. We also prove that if I and J are ideals of R for which idempotents lift (even strongly), then it can be the case that idempotents do not lift over I + J. On the positive side, if I and J are enabling ideals in R, then I + J is also an enabling ideal. We show that if I E R is (weakly) enabling in R, then I[t] is not necessarily (weakly) enabling in R[t] while I t is (weakly) enabling in R t . The latter result is a special case of a more general theorem about completions.J K Finally, we give examplesJ K showing that conjugate idempotents are not necessarily related by a string of perspectivities. 1. Introduction In ring theory it is useful to be able to lift properties of a factor ring of R back to R itself. This is often accomplished by restricting to a nice class of rings. Indeed, certain common classes of rings are defined precisely in terms of such lifting properties. For instance, semiperfect rings are those rings R for which R=J(R) is semisimple and idempotents lift modulo the Jacobson radical.
    [Show full text]
  • Math 250A: Groups, Rings, and Fields. H. W. Lenstra Jr. 1. Prerequisites
    Math 250A: Groups, rings, and fields. H. W. Lenstra jr. 1. Prerequisites This section consists of an enumeration of terms from elementary set theory and algebra. You are supposed to be familiar with their definitions and basic properties. Set theory. Sets, subsets, the empty set , operations on sets (union, intersection, ; product), maps, composition of maps, injective maps, surjective maps, bijective maps, the identity map 1X of a set X, inverses of maps. Relations, equivalence relations, equivalence classes, partial and total orderings, the cardinality #X of a set X. The principle of math- ematical induction. Zorn's lemma will be assumed in a number of exercises. Later in the course the terminology and a few basic results from point set topology may come in useful. Group theory. Groups, multiplicative and additive notation, the unit element 1 (or the zero element 0), abelian groups, cyclic groups, the order of a group or of an element, Fermat's little theorem, products of groups, subgroups, generators for subgroups, left cosets aH, right cosets, the coset spaces G=H and H G, the index (G : H), the theorem of n Lagrange, group homomorphisms, isomorphisms, automorphisms, normal subgroups, the factor group G=N and the canonical map G G=N, homomorphism theorems, the Jordan- ! H¨older theorem (see Exercise 1.4), the commutator subgroup [G; G], the center Z(G) (see Exercise 1.12), the group Aut G of automorphisms of G, inner automorphisms. Examples of groups: the group Sym X of permutations of a set X, the symmetric group S = Sym 1; 2; : : : ; n , cycles of permutations, even and odd permutations, the alternating n f g group A , the dihedral group D = (1 2 : : : n); (1 n 1)(2 n 2) : : : , the Klein four group n n h − − i V , the quaternion group Q = 1; i; j; ij (with ii = jj = 1, ji = ij) of order 4 8 { g − − 8, additive groups of rings, the group Gl(n; R) of invertible n n-matrices over a ring R.
    [Show full text]
  • Ring (Mathematics) 1 Ring (Mathematics)
    Ring (mathematics) 1 Ring (mathematics) In mathematics, a ring is an algebraic structure consisting of a set together with two binary operations usually called addition and multiplication, where the set is an abelian group under addition (called the additive group of the ring) and a monoid under multiplication such that multiplication distributes over addition.a[›] In other words the ring axioms require that addition is commutative, addition and multiplication are associative, multiplication distributes over addition, each element in the set has an additive inverse, and there exists an additive identity. One of the most common examples of a ring is the set of integers endowed with its natural operations of addition and multiplication. Certain variations of the definition of a ring are sometimes employed, and these are outlined later in the article. Polynomials, represented here by curves, form a ring under addition The branch of mathematics that studies rings is known and multiplication. as ring theory. Ring theorists study properties common to both familiar mathematical structures such as integers and polynomials, and to the many less well-known mathematical structures that also satisfy the axioms of ring theory. The ubiquity of rings makes them a central organizing principle of contemporary mathematics.[1] Ring theory may be used to understand fundamental physical laws, such as those underlying special relativity and symmetry phenomena in molecular chemistry. The concept of a ring first arose from attempts to prove Fermat's last theorem, starting with Richard Dedekind in the 1880s. After contributions from other fields, mainly number theory, the ring notion was generalized and firmly established during the 1920s by Emmy Noether and Wolfgang Krull.[2] Modern ring theory—a very active mathematical discipline—studies rings in their own right.
    [Show full text]
  • Notes D1: Group Rings
    2 MATH 101B: ALGEBRA II, PART D: REPRESENTATIONS OF GROUPS 1. The group ring k[G] The main idea is that representations of a group G over a field k are “the same” as modules over the group ring k[G]. First I defined both terms. 1.1. Representations of groups. Definition 1.1. A representation of a group G over a field k is defined to be a group homomorphism ρ : G Aut (V ) → k where V is a vector space over k. Here Autk(V ) is the group of k-linear automorphisms of V . This also written as GLk(V ). This is the group of units of the ring Endk(V )= Homk(V, V ) which, as I explained before, is a ring with addition defined pointwise and multiplication given by composition. If dimk(V )=d d then Autk(V ) ∼= Autk(k )=GLd(k) which can also be described as the group of units of the ring Matd(k) or as: GL (k)= A Mat (k) det(A) =0 d { ∈ d | $ } d = dimk(V ) is called the dimension of the representation ρ. 1.1.1. examples. Example 1.2. The first example I gave was the trivial representation. This is usually defined to be the one dimensional representation V = k with trivial action of the group G (which can be arbitrary). Trivial action means that ρ(σ) = 1 = id for all σ G. V ∈ In the next example, I pointed out that the group G needs to be written multiplicatively no matter what. Example 1.3. Let G = Z/3.
    [Show full text]
  • Adams Operations and Symmetries of Representation Categories Arxiv
    Adams operations and symmetries of representation categories Ehud Meir and Markus Szymik May 2019 Abstract: Adams operations are the natural transformations of the representation ring func- tor on the category of finite groups, and they are one way to describe the usual λ–ring structure on these rings. From the representation-theoretical point of view, they codify some of the symmetric monoidal structure of the representation category. We show that the monoidal structure on the category alone, regardless of the particular symmetry, deter- mines all the odd Adams operations. On the other hand, we give examples to show that monoidal equivalences do not have to preserve the second Adams operations and to show that monoidal equivalences that preserve the second Adams operations do not have to be symmetric. Along the way, we classify all possible symmetries and all monoidal auto- equivalences of representation categories of finite groups. MSC: 18D10, 19A22, 20C15 Keywords: Representation rings, Adams operations, λ–rings, symmetric monoidal cate- gories 1 Introduction Every finite group G can be reconstructed from the category Rep(G) of its finite-dimensional representations if one considers this category as a symmetric monoidal category. This follows from more general results of Deligne [DM82, Prop. 2.8], [Del90]. If one considers the repre- sentation category Rep(G) as a monoidal category alone, without its canonical symmetry, then it does not determine the group G. See Davydov [Dav01] and Etingof–Gelaki [EG01] for such arXiv:1704.03389v3 [math.RT] 3 Jun 2019 isocategorical groups. Examples go back to Fischer [Fis88]. The representation ring R(G) of a finite group G is a λ–ring.
    [Show full text]
  • Monomorphism - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Monomorphism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomorphism Monomorphism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In the context of abstract algebra or universal algebra, a monomorphism is an injective homomorphism. A monomorphism from X to Y is often denoted with the notation . In the more general setting of category theory, a monomorphism (also called a monic morphism or a mono) is a left-cancellative morphism, that is, an arrow f : X → Y such that, for all morphisms g1, g2 : Z → X, Monomorphisms are a categorical generalization of injective functions (also called "one-to-one functions"); in some categories the notions coincide, but monomorphisms are more general, as in the examples below. The categorical dual of a monomorphism is an epimorphism, i.e. a monomorphism in a category C is an epimorphism in the dual category Cop. Every section is a monomorphism, and every retraction is an epimorphism. Contents 1 Relation to invertibility 2 Examples 3 Properties 4 Related concepts 5 Terminology 6 See also 7 References Relation to invertibility Left invertible morphisms are necessarily monic: if l is a left inverse for f (meaning l is a morphism and ), then f is monic, as A left invertible morphism is called a split mono. However, a monomorphism need not be left-invertible. For example, in the category Group of all groups and group morphisms among them, if H is a subgroup of G then the inclusion f : H → G is always a monomorphism; but f has a left inverse in the category if and only if H has a normal complement in G.
    [Show full text]
  • Computing the Endomorphism Ring of an Ordinary Elliptic Curve Over a Finite Field
    COMPUTING THE ENDOMORPHISM RING OF AN ORDINARY ELLIPTIC CURVE OVER A FINITE FIELD GAETAN BISSON AND ANDREW V. SUTHERLAND Abstract. We present two algorithms to compute the endomorphism ring of an ordinary elliptic curve E defined over a finite field Fq. Under suitable heuristic assumptions, both have subexponential complexity. We bound the complexity of the first algorithm in terms of log q, while our bound for the second algorithm depends primarily on log jDE j, where DE is the discriminant of the order isomorphic to End(E). As a byproduct, our method yields a short certificate that may be used to verify that the endomorphism ring is as claimed. 1. Introduction Let E be an ordinary elliptic curve defined over a finite field Fq, and let π denote the Frobenius endomorphism of E. We may view π as an element of norm q in the p integer ring of some imaginary quadratic field K = Q DK : p t + v D (1) π = K with 4q = t2 − v2D : 2 K The trace of π may be computed as t = q + 1 − #E. Applying Schoof's algorithm to count the points on E=Fq, this can be done in polynomial time [29]. The funda- 2 mental discriminant DK and the integer v are then obtained by factoring 4q − t , which can be accomplished probabilistically in subexponential time [25]. The endomorphism ring of E is isomorphic to an order O(E) of K. Once v and DK are known, there are only finitely many possibilities for O(E), since (2) Z [π] ⊆ O(E) ⊆ OK : 2 Here Z [π] denotes the order generated by π, with discriminant Dπ = v DK , and OK is the maximal order of K (its ring of integers), with discriminant DK .
    [Show full text]
  • Clean Rings & Clean Group Rings
    CLEAN RINGS & CLEAN GROUP RINGS Nicholas A. Immormino A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY August 2013 Committee: Warren Wm. McGovern, Advisor Rieuwert J. Blok, Advisor Sheila J. Roberts, Graduate Faculty Representative Mihai D. Staic ii ABSTRACT Warren Wm. McGovern, Advisor Rieuwert J. Blok, Advisor A ring is said to be clean if each element in the ring can be written as the sum of a unit and an idempotent of the ring. More generally, an element in a ring is said to be clean if it can be written as the sum of a unit and an idempotent of the ring. The notion of a clean ring was introduced by Nicholson in his 1977 study of lifting idempotents and exchange rings, and these rings have since been studied by many different authors. In our study of clean rings, we classify the rings that consist entirely of units, idempotents, and quasiregular elements. It is well known that the units, idempotents, and quasiregular elements of any ring are clean. Therefore any ring that consists entirely of these types of elements is clean. We prove that a ring consists entirely of units, idempotents, and quasiregular elements if and only if it is a boolean ring, a local ring, isomorphic to the direct product of two division rings, isomorphic to the full matrix ring M2(D) for some division ring D, or isomorphic to the ring of a Morita context with zero pairings where both of the underlying rings are division rings.
    [Show full text]
  • On Automorphism Groups and Endomorphism Rings Of
    TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 210, 1975 ON AUTOMORPHISMGROUPS AND ENDOMORPHISMRINGS OF ABELIANp-GROUPS(i) BY JUTTA HAUSEN ABSTRACT. Let A be a noncyclic abelian p-group where p > 5, and let p A be the maximal divisible subgroup of A. It is shown that A/p A is bounded and nonzero if and only if the automorphism group of A contains a minimal noncentral normal subgroup. This leads to the following connection be- tween the ideal structure of certain rings and the normal structure of their groups of units: if the noncommutative ring R is isomorphic to the full ring of endomorphisms of an abelian p-group, p > 5, then R contains minimal two- sided ideals if and only if the group of units of R contains minimal noncentral normal subgroups. 1. Throughout the following, A is a p-primary abelian group with endomor- phism ring End A and automorphism group Aut A. The maximal divisible sub- group of A is denoted by p°°A. W. Liebert has proved the following result. (1.1) Theorem (Liebert [7, p. 94] ). If either A¡p°°A is unbounded or A = p°°A then End A contains no minimal two-sided ideals. IfA/p°°A is bounded and nonzero then End A contains a unique minimal two-sided ideal. The purpose of this note is to show that, for p 5s 5, the same class of abelian p-groups has a similar characterization in terms of automorphism groups. The following theorem will be established. Note that Aut A is commutative if and only if ^4 has rank at most one (for p # 2; [3, p.
    [Show full text]