DOCSLIB.ORG

OBJ (Application/Pdf)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
OBJ (Application/Pdf) GROUPOIDS WITH SEMIGROUP OPERATORS AND ADDITIVE ENDOMORPHISM A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF ATLANTA UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS POR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE BY FRED HENDRIX HUGHES DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS ATLANTA, GEORGIA JUNE 1965 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I' INTRODUCTION. 1 II GROUPOIDS WITH SEMIGROUP OPERATORS 6 - Ill GROUPOIDS WITH ADDITIVE ENDOMORPHISM 12 BIBLIOGRAPHY 17 ii 4 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A set is an undefined termj however, one can say a set is a collec¬ tion of objects according to our sight and perception. Several authors use this definition, a set is a collection of definite distinct objects called elements. This concept is the foundation for mathematics. How¬ ever, it was not until the latter part of the nineteenth century when the concept was formally introduced. From this concept of a set, mathematicians, by placing restrictions on a set, have developed the algebraic structures which we employ. The structures are closely related as the diagram below illustrates. Quasigroup Set The first structure is a groupoid which the writer will discuss the following properties: subgroupiod, antigroupoid, expansive set homor- phism of groupoids in semigroups, groupoid with semigroupoid operators and groupoids with additive endormorphism. Definition 1.1. — A set of elements G - f x,y,z } which is defined by a single-valued binary operation such that x o y ■ z é G (The only restriction is closure) is called a groupiod. Definition 1.2. — The binary operation will be a mapping of the set into itself (AA a direct product.) 1 2 Definition 1.3» — A non-void subset of a groupoid G is called a subgroupoid if and only if AA C A. It is called an antigroupoid if and only if AA C. G-A (the complement of A. ) All other non-void sub¬ sets are said to be expansive. a a a c c b a b b a Subsets c c b c b d d d d d If G « £ a,b,c,d | then £a>c"f and £a,b| are subgroupoids and is an expansive set and is the indempotent groupoid. Definition l.U. — An element e of a groupoid is an indempotent if and only if e^ = e Theorem 1.1, — A groupoid G contains no antigroupoid if and only if every element of G is an indempotent. Proof: The proof follows directly from definitions 1.3 and l.lu Since G is idempotent, this implies that some products are contained in G. Since this true AA G-A. Hence, by definition it is not an antigroupoid. Definition 1.5. — A groupoid G is cyclic if and only if there exist an a in G such that G is the collection of sill powers of a. Theorem 1.2. — A groupoid containing no proper subgroupoid is cylic. Proof: Let A 6 G and A ^ G G contains at least one element different from A. G is cyclic, therefore it contains elements • a. n , , , / « I a. B-« e = x, x,I x, .... x Let A » jx, x, x, .... % 2r Now consider the mapping AA into A, in particular a?*" x ®= x 1’ ^ A. Hence A is not a subgroupiod of G for AA A. Therefore, G is cyclic and contains no proper subgroupoid. Theorem l.lj, — Every non-void subset of a groupoid G is a sub¬ groupoid or an antigrohpoid if and only if each non-void subset of cardi¬ nality less than or equal to five is an antigroupoid. Proofs Let A be an expansive subset of G. Then -j elements a, aA a, a^ of A such that a, a^ is in A and a, a¥ are in G-A. Then B = is an expansive set of cardinality less than or equal to five. This condition follows easily from Definition 1.3. Theorem 1.5. — Every non-empty subset of a groupoid G is a subgroupiod if and only if xy = x,ar y for all x, y in G. Proofs By Definition 1.3 , this condition must exist for any sub¬ groupoid. Suppose A any subset of G with a mapping o{ . If AA ^ G, then A is either an antigroupoid or an expansive set. But AA (Z- A, there¬ fore a subgroupoid. Theorem 1.6. — Every proper subset of a groupoid G is an antigroupoid if and only if G has exactly two elements x, y such that x = y or y = x or G is the one element groupoid. Proofs Suppose G has two distinct elements x,y. Then since y is in Similarly, x** * y and if q is in (G - -[x} ) Then q** = x = y. Theorem 1,7» — If such that K (Z K is the collection of expansive sets then the U A* is a subgroupoid or an expansive set. If is a collection of antigroupoid, then the f \ AK is an enpty h or an antigroupoid. I Proof of the . Suppose x é L-/# —7 x is a member of at least one . The Q AKfK^ K. Now since x does not be¬ long to all AK "J no mapping xx = x or xy = x. Hence the union is an expansive set. Proof of Part 2 s To show that the n AK is not empty, let X €^ A^ -=7 x é AK V AK sf\A =, (f) . Suppose that x HQ. A^ x does not belong to all AK , therefore } no mapping AA C A. Hence an antigroupoid. Theorem 1.8. — A semigroup (associative groupoid 0 which is the union of an antigroupoid is infinite.) Proofs Every finite semigroup had in idempetent. Now some exampless Example 1.1. — Let G be the intergers under subtraction a o b = a-b the odd integers are antigroupoid and the even integers are subgroupoid and the odd integers are expansive. If G is the integer under ordinary multiplication, the negative integers form an antigroupoid. Example 1.2. — Let G be the positive integers under the multiplication ab » 1 if a # b aa « a + 1 G is a cyclic groupoid with generator 1 and has no proper subgroupoid since every subgroupoid contains 1. G is abelian and (11) 1 1(11). Clearly, G is nonassociative. Definition 1.6. — An element a of a groupoid is generally prime if and only if jf* no b and c in G ^ a » be. Theorem 1.7« -- A groupoid G which contains a generally prime ele¬ ment has a non-trivial abelian semigroup as its homomorphic image. Proofs Clearly GG £ G. Let P ** G-GG, the set of generally prime 5 elements of G. We note that PG C. G-P and GP CL G-P and that G-P is a subgroupoid. Let w be any element not in G, and let G* = P(J », De¬ fine xy = w for all x, y in G. Then G is a non-trivial abelian semigroup if we define f (x) - X for in P f (x) = w for x in GP then f is a homomorphism of G onto G. Example 1.3» — Let G be the interval numbers under 2 the multiplication a a b » ab for all a,b £ G. The set P of generally * Hence, G with x* y = w for all x, y in G * . Thus, G is a nonassociative and non-abelian groupoid which has a non-trival abelian semigroup as its homomorphic image. Definition 1.7. ~ A necessary and sufficient condition for a groupoid G have the two element group as its homomorphic image is that G contain a partial ideal I and that G-l be a subgroupoid. Proof î Let the 2-group G consist of 0 and 1 with the operation + i.e., 0+0=0, l+0=0+l=l, and 1+1=0. Define F (x) = 1 for all for x £ X and f (x) = 0 for x in G-I. It is easily shown that is a p homomorphism of G onto G . Conversely, suppose that f is a homomorphism of G onto G* . Then I = f”1 (1) is a partial ideal of G- and g 1-1 (0) is a subgroupoid. Theorem 1.8. — If I is a partial ideal of a semigroup S, S-I is a semigroup. If S is a group, S - I is a group of index two in S. Proof: Suppose a,b are in S-I and ab is in I. If c is in I, (ab)c is in S-I and a(bc) is in I contradicting associativity. If s is a group with identity e, e is in S-I and hence a in S-I d? a"1 is in S-I and x(S-I) = I for all x in I. CHAPTER II . GROUPOIDS WITH SEMIGROUP OPERATORS Review of Terms. — Isomorphism, if there exist a one to one cor¬ respondence between two sets such that operations are preserved, then we see that the sets are isomorphic. Automorphism, if there exist an isomor¬ phism on a set such that every element of the set goes over to itself, then the mapping is called an automorphism. Homomorphism, if there exist a many one mapping, correspondence between two sets such that the opera¬ tion is preserved or there exist a single value transformation such that it maps a set onto a set, then we say the sets are homomorphic. Endomor¬ phism, if a set is homomorphic to another set where the set is contained in the set, then the set is to be endomorphic. Semigroup Operators. ~ Let G be a groupoid and suppose that p is a commutative semigroup.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On the Representation of Inverse Semigroups by Difunctional Relations Nathan Bloomfield University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 12-2012 On the Representation of Inverse Semigroups by Difunctional Relations Nathan Bloomfield University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the Mathematics Commons Recommended Citation Bloomfield, Nathan, "On the Representation of Inverse Semigroups by Difunctional Relations" (2012). Theses and Dissertations. 629. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/629 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. ON THE REPRESENTATION OF INVERSE SEMIGROUPS BY DIFUNCTIONAL RELATIONS On the Representation of Inverse Semigroups by Difunctional Relations A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics by Nathan E. Bloomfield Drury University Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics, 2007 University of Arkansas Master of Science in Mathematics, 2011 December 2012 University of Arkansas Abstract A semigroup S is called inverse if for each s 2 S, there exists a unique t 2 S such that sts = s and tst = t. A relation σ ⊆ X × Y is called full if for all x 2 X and y 2 Y there exist x0 2 X and y0 2 Y such that (x; y0) and (x0; y) are in σ, and is called difunctional if σ satisfies the equation σσ-1σ = σ. Inverse semigroups were introduced by Wagner and Preston in 1952 [55] and 1954 [38], respectively, and difunctional relations were introduced by Riguet in 1948 [39].
    [Show full text]
  • MAS4107 Linear Algebra 2 Linear Maps And
    Introduction Groups and Fields Vector Spaces Subspaces, Linear . Bases and Coordinates MAS4107 Linear Algebra 2 Linear Maps and . Change of Basis Peter Sin More on Linear Maps University of Florida Linear Endomorphisms email: [email protected]fl.edu Quotient Spaces Spaces of Linear . General Prerequisites Direct Sums Minimal polynomial Familiarity with the notion of mathematical proof and some experience in read- Bilinear Forms ing and writing proofs. Familiarity with standard mathematical notation such as Hermitian Forms summations and notations of set theory. Euclidean and . Self-Adjoint Linear . Linear Algebra Prerequisites Notation Familiarity with the notion of linear independence. Gaussian elimination (reduction by row operations) to solve systems of equations. This is the most important algorithm and it will be assumed and used freely in the classes, for example to find JJ J I II coordinate vectors with respect to basis and to compute the matrix of a linear map, to test for linear dependence, etc. The determinant of a square matrix by cofactors Back and also by row operations. Full Screen Close Quit Introduction 0. Introduction Groups and Fields Vector Spaces These notes include some topics from MAS4105, which you should have seen in one Subspaces, Linear . form or another, but probably presented in a totally different way. They have been Bases and Coordinates written in a terse style, so you should read very slowly and with patience. Please Linear Maps and . feel free to email me with any questions or comments. The notes are in electronic Change of Basis form so sections can be changed very easily to incorporate improvements.
    [Show full text]
  • Uniform Enveloping Semigroupoids for Groupoid Actions
    UNIFORM ENVELOPING SEMIGROUPOIDS FOR GROUPOID ACTIONS NIKOLAI EDEKO AND HENRIK KREIDLER Abstract. We establish new characterizations for (pseudo)isometric extensions of topological dynamical systems. For such extensions, we also extend results about relatively invariant measures and Fourier analysis that were previously only known in the minimal case to a significantly larger class, including all transitive systems. To bypass the reliance on minimality of the classical approaches to isometric extensions via the Ellis semigroup, we show that extensions of topological dynamical systems can be described as groupoid actions and then adapt the concept of enveloping semigroups to construct a uniform enveloping semigroupoid for groupoid actions. This approach allows to deal with the more complex orbit structures of nonminimal systems. We study uniform enveloping semigroupoids of general groupoid actions and translate the results back to the special case of extensions of dynamical systems. In particular, we show that, under appropriate assumptions, a groupoid action is (pseudo)isometric if and only if the uniformenvelopingsemigroupoidis actually a compactgroupoid. We also providean operator theoretic characterization based on an abstract Peter–Weyl-type theorem for representations of compact, transitive groupoids on Banach bundles which is of independent interest. Given a topological dynamical system (K,ϕ) consisting of a compact space K and a homeo- morphism ϕ: K → K, its enveloping Ellis semigroup E(K,ϕ) introduced by R. Ellis in [Ell60] is the pointwise closure E(K,ϕ) := {ϕn | n ∈ Z} ⊆ KK . Itisanimportanttoolintopologicaldynamicscapturingthelong-term behaviorofadynamical system. Moreover, it allows to study the system (K,ϕ) via algebraic properties of E(K,ϕ). In particular the elegant theory of compact, right-topological semigroups has been used to describe and study properties of topological dynamical systems.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Homotopy Theory of Monoids
    J. Austral. Math. Soc. (Series A) 47 (1989), 171-185 ON THE HOMOTOPY THEORY OF MONOIDS CAROL M. HURWITZ (Received 10 September 1987) Communicated by R. H. Street Abstract In this paper, it is shown that any connected, small category can be embedded in a semi-groupoid (a category in which there is at least one isomorphism between any two elements) in such a way that the embedding includes a homotopy equivalence of classifying spaces. This immediately gives a monoid whose classifying space is of the same homotopy type as that of the small category. This construction is essentially algorithmic, and furthermore, yields a finitely presented monoid whenever the small category is finitely presented. Some of these results are generalizations of ideas of McDuff. 1980 Mathematics subject classification [Amer. Math. Soc.) (1985 Revision): 20 M 50, 55 U 35. In 1976, D. M. Kan and W. P. Thurston [5] proved that there is a functorial construction which associates to any path-connected space a discrete group G and a map BG —> X that is a homology equivalence. The kernel of the surjection G — Yl\BG —> YliX is a perfect, normal subgroup P, such that the Quillen ( )+ construction applied to the pair [G, P) yields a space having the same weak homology type as X. Central to their proof is the functorial construction of a homological cone for any discrete group, that is, a natural embedding of a group into an acyclic group. In their construction, G is always uncountable even when X is a finite CW-complex. They posed the following question: given a finite CW-complex X, might one produce a K(G, 1) that is a finite CW-complex homologically equivalent to X.
    [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]
  • WOMP 2001: LINEAR ALGEBRA Reference Roman, S. Advanced
    WOMP 2001: LINEAR ALGEBRA DAN GROSSMAN Reference Roman, S. Advanced Linear Algebra, GTM #135. (Not very good.) 1. Vector spaces Let k be a field, e.g., R, Q, C, Fq, K(t),. Definition. A vector space over k is a set V with two operations + : V × V → V and · : k × V → V satisfying some familiar axioms. A subspace of V is a subset W ⊂ V for which • 0 ∈ W , • If w1, w2 ∈ W , a ∈ k, then aw1 + w2 ∈ W . The quotient of V by the subspace W ⊂ V is the vector space whose elements are subsets of the form (“affine translates”) def v + W = {v + w : w ∈ W } (for which v + W = v0 + W iff v − v0 ∈ W , also written v ≡ v0 mod W ), and whose operations +, · are those naturally induced from the operations on V . Exercise 1. Verify that our definition of the vector space V/W makes sense. Given a finite collection of elements (“vectors”) v1, . , vm ∈ V , their span is the subspace def hv1, . , vmi = {a1v1 + ··· amvm : a1, . , am ∈ k}. Exercise 2. Verify that this is a subspace. There may sometimes be redundancy in a spanning set; this is expressed by the notion of linear dependence. The collection v1, . , vm ∈ V is said to be linearly dependent if there is a linear combination a1v1 + ··· + amvm = 0, some ai 6= 0. This is equivalent to being able to express at least one of the vi as a linear combination of the others. Exercise 3. Verify this equivalence. Theorem. Let V be a vector space over a field k.
    [Show full text]
  • Classifying Categories the Jordan-Hölder and Krull-Schmidt-Remak Theorems for Abelian Categories
    U.U.D.M. Project Report 2018:5 Classifying Categories The Jordan-Hölder and Krull-Schmidt-Remak Theorems for Abelian Categories Daniel Ahlsén Examensarbete i matematik, 30 hp Handledare: Volodymyr Mazorchuk Examinator: Denis Gaidashev Juni 2018 Department of Mathematics Uppsala University Classifying Categories The Jordan-Holder¨ and Krull-Schmidt-Remak theorems for abelian categories Daniel Ahlsen´ Uppsala University June 2018 Abstract The Jordan-Holder¨ and Krull-Schmidt-Remak theorems classify finite groups, either as direct sums of indecomposables or by composition series. This thesis defines abelian categories and extends the aforementioned theorems to this context. 1 Contents 1 Introduction3 2 Preliminaries5 2.1 Basic Category Theory . .5 2.2 Subobjects and Quotients . .9 3 Abelian Categories 13 3.1 Additive Categories . 13 3.2 Abelian Categories . 20 4 Structure Theory of Abelian Categories 32 4.1 Exact Sequences . 32 4.2 The Subobject Lattice . 41 5 Classification Theorems 54 5.1 The Jordan-Holder¨ Theorem . 54 5.2 The Krull-Schmidt-Remak Theorem . 60 2 1 Introduction Category theory was developed by Eilenberg and Mac Lane in the 1942-1945, as a part of their research into algebraic topology. One of their aims was to give an axiomatic account of relationships between collections of mathematical structures. This led to the definition of categories, functors and natural transformations, the concepts that unify all category theory, Categories soon found use in module theory, group theory and many other disciplines. Nowadays, categories are used in most of mathematics, and has even been proposed as an alternative to axiomatic set theory as a foundation of mathematics.[Law66] Due to their general nature, little can be said of an arbitrary category.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Endomorphism Semigroup of Simple Algebras*
    GRATZER, G. Math. Annalen 170,334-338 (1967) On the Endomorphism Semigroup of Simple Algebras* GEORGE GRATZER * The preparation of this paper was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant GP-4221. i. Introduction. Statement of results Let (A; F) be an algebra andletE(A ;F) denotethe set ofall endomorphisms of(A ;F). Ifep, 1.p EE(A ;F)thenwe define ep •1.p (orep1.p) asusual by x(ep1.p) = (Xlp)1.p. Then (E(A; F); -> is a semigroup, called the endomorphism semigroup of (A; F). The identity mapping e is the identity element of (E(A; F); .). Theorem i. A semigroup (S; -> is isomorphic to the endomorphism semigroup of some algebra (A; F) if and only if (S; -> has an identity element. Theorem 1 was found in 1961 by the author and was semi~published in [4J which had a limited circulation in 1962. (The first published reference to this is in [5J.) A. G.WATERMAN found independently the same result and had it semi~ published in the lecture notes of G. BIRKHOFF on Lattice Theory in 1963. The first published proofofTheorem 1 was in [1 Jby M.ARMBRUST and J. SCHMIDT. The special case when (S; .) is a group was considered by G. BIRKHOFF in [2J and [3J. His second proof, in [3J, provides a proof ofTheorem 1; namely, we define the left~multiplicationsfa(x) == a . x as unary operations on Sand then the endomorphisms are the right~multiplicationsxepa = xa. We get as a corollary to Theorem 1BIRKHOFF'S result. Furthermore, noting that if a (ES) is right regular then fa is 1-1, we conclude Corollary 2.
    [Show full text]
  • From Peirce to Category Theory
    Class 23. Category Theory I: From Peirce to Category Theory Gianfranco Basti ([email protected]) Faculty of Philosophy – Pontifical Lateran University – www.irafs.org IRAFS website: www.irafs.org Course: Language & Perception Syllabus I Part (1-2/11/2019) Syllabus II Part (8-9/11/2019) www.irafs.org - [email protected] Innopolis 2019 2 Summary ▪ We present here some basic notions of Category Theory (CT), showing, on the one side, its dependence on the algebraic and then semiotic approach to the foundations of logic by Ch. S. Peirce afterward evolved in a formal calculus of relations by the work of A. Tarski and his school, on the other side its relevance as metalanguage of the operator algebra modeling of physical and computational systems. ▪ From the philosophical standpoint, CT is relevant for the possibility it offers of a formal theory of the justification of predication in logic so to make of CT the best candidate as metalanguage also of the formal philosophy. ▪ Refs.: 1. 5. 8. www.irafs.org - [email protected] Innopolis 2019 3 Formal Ontologies Scheme Nominalism Conceptualism Logical Realism Atomistic Ontology Natural Relational www.irafs.org - [email protected] Innopolis 2019 4 The logical and mathematical foundation of QFT calculation in Category Theory (CT) ▪ What is CT? It is a natural recovering of Ch. S. Peirce and E. Schroeder research project of an algebraic foundation of logic and mathematics (algebra of relations, calculus of relations) suddenly interrupted by the Loewenheim-Skolem Theorem (1921) migration of set-theoretic semantics (Boolean Algebra semantics included) to second (and higher) order logic introduction of arbitrariness («creativity», for being more politically correct) in mathematics, because second (and higher) order predicate calulus is not complete differently from first-order one (Cfr.
    [Show full text]
  • Endomorphism Monoids and Topological Subgraphs of Graphs
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector JOURNAL OF COMBINATORIALTHEORY, Series (B)28,278-283 (1980) Endomorphism Monoids and Topological Subgraphs of Graphs LAsz~6 BABAI Department of Algebra and Number Theory, Eiitvtis L. University, H-1445 Budapest 8, Pf: 323, Hungary AND ALES PULTR KAMAJA MFF, Charles University, Sokolovska 83, Prague 8, Czechoslovakia Communicated by the Managing Editors Received July 19, 1977 We prove, that, given a finite graph Y there exists a finite monoid (semigroup with unity) M such that any graph X whose endomorphism monoid is isomorphic to M contains a subdivision of Y. This contrasts with several known results on the simultaneous prescribability of the endomorphism monoid and various graph theoretical properties of a graph. It is also related to the analogous problems on graphs having a given permutation group as a restriction of their automorphism group to an invariant subset. 1. INTRODUCTION The endomorphismsof a graph X are those transformations to its vertex set V(X) which send edges to edges. The endomorphisms of X form a monoid End X (under composition). The following is well known: THEOREM 1.1. Every monoid A4 is isomorphic to End Xfor somegraph X, This holds with finite X for finite A4 [7-91. (By graphs we mean undirected graphs, without loops and parallel edges.) Many results show that X can be chosen from particular classes of graphs: X may be required to have a given chromatic number 23, to contain a given subgraph, to have prescribed connectivity, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Contracting Endomorphisms and Gorenstein Modules
    CONTRACTING ENDOMORPHISMS AND GORENSTEIN MODULES HAMID RAHMATI Abstract. A finite module M over a noetherian local ring R is said to be Gorenstein if Exti(k; M) = 0 for all i 6= dim R. A endomorphism ': R ! R of rings is called contracting if 'i(m) ⊆ m2 for some i ≥ 1. Letting 'R denote the R-module R with action induced by ', we prove: A finite R-module M ' ∼ i ' is Gorenstein if and only if HomR( R; M) = M and ExtR( R; M) = 0 for 1 ≤ i ≤ depthR. Introduction Let (R; m) be a local noetherian ring and ': R ! R a homomorphism of rings which is local, that is to say, '(m) ⊆ m. Such an endomorphism ' is said to be contracting if 'i(m) ⊆ m2 for some non-negative integer i. The Frobenius endomorphism of a ring of positive characteristic is the prototyp- ical example of a contracting endomorphism. It has been used to study rings of prime characteristic and modules over those rings. There are, however, other nat- ural classes of contracting endomorphisms; see [2], where Avramov, Iyengar, and Miller show that they enjoy many properties of the Frobenius map. In this paper we provide two further results in this direction. In what follows, we write 'R for R viewed as a module over itself via '; thus, r · x = '(r)x for r 2 R and x 2 'R. The endomorphism ' is finite if 'R is a finite ' R-module. For any R-module M, we view HomR( R; M) as an R-module with ' action defined by (r · f)(s) = f(sr) for r 2 R, s 2 R, and f 2 HomR(R; M).
    [Show full text]
  • Endomorphism Rings of Protective Modules
    TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 155, Number 1, March 1971 ENDOMORPHISM RINGS OF PROTECTIVE MODULES BY ROGER WARE Abstract. The object of this paper is to study the relationship between certain projective modules and their endomorphism rings. Specifically, the basic problem is to describe the projective modules whose endomorphism rings are (von Neumann) regular, local semiperfect, or left perfect. Call a projective module regular if every cyclic submodule is a direct summand. Thus a ring is a regular module if it is a regular ring. It is shown that many other equivalent "regularity" conditions characterize regular modules. (For example, every homomorphic image is fiat.) Every projective module over a regular ring is regular and a number of examples of regular modules over nonregular rings are given. A structure theorem is obtained: every regular module is isomorphic to a direct sum of principal left ideals. It is shown that the endomorphism ring of a finitely generated regular module is a regular ring. Conversely, over a commutative ring a projective module having a regular endomorphism ring is a regular module. Examples are produced to show that these results are the best possible in the sense that the hypotheses of finite generation and commutativity are needed. An applica- tion of these investigations is that a ring R is semisimple with minimum condition if and only if the ring of infinite row matrices over R is a regular ring. Next projective modules having local, semiperfect and left perfect endomorphism rings are studied. It is shown that a projective module has a local endomorphism ring if and only if it is a cyclic module with a unique maximal ideal.
    [Show full text]