DOCSLIB.ORG

MONOID HECKE ALGEBRAS Introduction a Monoid Analogue Of

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
MONOID HECKE ALGEBRAS Introduction a Monoid Analogue Of TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 349, Number 9, September 1997, Pages 3517{3534 S 0002-9947(97)01823-0 MONOID HECKE ALGEBRAS MOHAN S. PUTCHA Abstract. This paper concerns the monoid Hecke algebras introduced by Louis Solomon. We determine explicitly the unities of the orbitH algebras asso- ciated with the two-sided action of the Weyl group W . We use this to: 1. find a description of the irreducible representations of , 2. find an explicit isomorphism between and the monoidH algebra of the H Renner monoid R, 3. extend the Kazhdan-Lusztig involution and basis to ,and H 4. prove, for a W W orbit of R, the existence (conjectured by Renner) of generalized Kazhdan-Lusztig× polynomials. Introduction A monoid analogue of the Iwahori-Hecke algebra [11] was obtained by Solomon [27]–[29]. In an earlier paper [19] the author studied Solomon’s monoid Hecke al- gebras by studying the associated orbit algebras. These orbit algebras arise from the two-sided action of the Weyl group W on the Renner monoid R. In particular, the coefficients of the unity of the empty level orbit algebra were shown to be Rx;y, where Rx;y are polynomials introduced by Kazhdan and Lusztig [12]. The other orbit algebras were also shown to have unities, but their coefficients were only im- plicitly given. In this paper we give an explicit formula for the unities of all the orbit algebras, thereby obtaining a description of the irreducible representations of monoid Hecke algebras. We also obtain an explicit, but very complicated, isomor- phism between the monoid Hecke algebra and the monoid algebra of R,solvinga problem posed by Solomon [28]. We go on to extend to the monoid Hecke algebra the Kazhdan-Lusztig involution and basis for the (group) Iwahori-Hecke algebra. This then immediately yields polynomials Pθ,σ for θ, σ in the same W W orbit of R, partially solving a problem posed by Renner [26]. These polynomials× are still mysterious; however, in the simplest case they are products of relative Kazhdan- Lusztig polynomials introduced by Deodhar [6]. 1. Reductive monoids and monoids of Lie type Consider the general linear group G = GLn(F ) over an algebraically closed field F . It is the unit group of the multiplicative monoid M = Mn(F )ofalln nmatrices over F . This monoid has the following structure. The diagonal idempotents× form a Boolean lattice with respect to the natural order of idempotents: f e if ef = fe = f: ≤ Received by the editors December 3, 1993. 1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 20G40, 20G05, 20M30. Research partially supported by NSF Grant DMS9200077. c 1997 American Mathematical Society 3517 License or copyright restrictions may apply to redistribution; see https://www.ams.org/journal-terms-of-use 3518 MOHAN S. PUTCHA The G G orbits have a cross-section Λ of idempotents × I 0 e = r : r 00 These idempotents and hence the G G orbits are linearly ordered according to × rank. The orbit Jr = GerG consists of all rank r matrices and gives rise to the orbit semigroup J 0 = Ge G 0 ; r r ∪{ } where for a; b J , ∈ r ab if ab J ; a b = ∈ r · (0otherwise: We also have the orbit monoid M(J )=G J0: r ∪ r The idempotents in Jr are all conjugate, and hence M(Jr) is completely determined by the parabolic subgroups AB P = g G ge = e ge = A GL ; r { ∈ | r r r} 0 C|∈ r A 0 P − = g G e g = e ge = A GL ; r { ∈ | r r r} BC|∈ r and the natural homomorphisms δ+ : Pr GLr and δ : Pr− GLr.Wewrite → − → M(Jr)asM(G; Pr;Pr−;GLr) with δ+,δ being understood to be part of the data. There are two deficiencies with the monoid− M. First, only maximal parabolics arise as Pr, and second, the orbit monoids are not submonoids of M.Bothofthese drawbacks can be handled by considering the representation θ of M given by θ(a)= 1(a) 2(a) n(a); ∧ ⊗∧ ⊗···⊗∧ the tensor product of all exterior powers of a. The representation θ has the effect of killing the singular part of M, because θ(M)=θ(G) 0 . However, taking ∪{ } the Zariski closure of θ(M) yields an amazing monoid M. Again there is a G G cross-section Λ of idempotents, but this time Λ 0 is a Boolean lattice isomorphic× \{ } to the power set of the Dynkin diagram of G. Moreover,f any parabolic subgroup is associated with a unique orbit monoid, which now is a submonoid of M.Further, the lattice of diagonal idempotents is the dual of the Coxeter complex. Both M and M are examples of reductive monoids. The theoryf of reductive monoids has been well developed by Renner and the author; cf. [17]. In particular the author [16] hasf proved the existence of a cross-section lattice Λ and has shown that the orbit monoids are of the form M(G; P; P −;L=K) for some pair of opposite parabolics P; P −, K/L=P P−. Renner [24] has shown the existence of the finite inverse monoid ∩ R = W; Λ ; h i where W is the Weyl group of G such that M = BσB; σ R G∈ where B is the Borel subgroup G.WecallRthe Renner monoid of M. License or copyright restrictions may apply to redistribution; see https://www.ams.org/journal-terms-of-use MONOID HECKE ALGEBRAS 3519 The theory of monoids of Lie type is an attempt to accomplish the above for finite groups of Lie type. Let G be a finite group of Lie type with Weyl group W and Borel subgroup B. The most convenient definition of a monoid M of Lie type (with unit group G) is also the most general, and is due to the author [18]. The definition is simply that all the orbit monoids are of the form M(G; P; P −;L=K); where P; P − are opposite parabolic subgroups, L = P P −, K/L. These monoids have been classified by the author [18], [20] using the∩ theory of buildings [30] and the ideas of Renner and the author [21] for reductive monoids. Renner and the author [22] obtained an analogue of the canonical monoid M for any finite group G of Lie type. Let M be a monoid of Lie type with unit group G. Theref is again a cross- section lattice Λ for the G G orbits. There is also an analogue of Renner monoid R = W; Λ such that × h i M = BσB: σ R G∈ We refer to [18] for details. We will let and ` denote the Bruhat order and the length function, respectively, on the Weyl≤ group W ;cf.[10].Fore Λ, let ∈ W (e)= x W xe = ex ; { ∈ | } W = x W xe = e /W(e): e { ∈ | } Then both W (e)andWe are parabolic subgroups of W ,andW(e) is the direct product of We and the Weyl group of the unit group of eMe.Let D(e)= x W xis of minimum length in xW (e) ; { ∈ | } D = x W x is of minimum length in xW : e { ∈ | e} Now R = WeW; e Λ G∈ and each element σ WeW can be uniquely written as ∈ 1 σ = xey− ;xD;y D(e): ∈e ∈ We call this the standard form of σ.Ifw0;v0 are respectively the longest elements of W and W (e), then w0v0 is the longest element of D(e). Following Solomon [27], [29] and Renner [25], we let `(e)=`(w0v0) 1 and, for σ = xey− in standard form, `(σ)=`(x)+`(e) `(y): − It is shown in [25] that `(σ) = 0 if and only if σB = Bσ: 1 1 If σ = xey− and θ = sft− in standard form, then define (1) σ θ if e f and x sw; tw y for some w W (f)W : ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ ∈ e License or copyright restrictions may apply to redistribution; see https://www.ams.org/journal-terms-of-use 3520 MOHAN S. PUTCHA We have shown in [15] that in the analogous situation for reductive monoids, σ θ if and only if BσB is contained in the Zariski closure of BθB. For this reason≤ we 1 say that σ is triangular if σ 1. Thus, if σ = xey− in standard form, ≤ (2) σ is triangular if and only if x y: ≤ If σ WeW and θ WeW,then ∈ ∈ σ θ implies `(σ) `(θ): ≤ ≤ 2. Hecke algebras Let G be a Chevalley group defined over Fq, B;B− opposite Borel subgroups of G, T = B B−, B = UT, B− = U−T,andWthe Weyl group of G with generating set S of simple∩ reflections. If x W ,let˙xdenote a coset representative in G.Let ∈ 1 = b C[G]: B ∈ b B | |X∈ The Iwahori-Hecke algebra HC(G)=HC(G; B)=C[G] is a semisimple algebra that is isomorphic to C[W ] by a theorem of Tits (cf. [1], [4]). Clearly HC(G; B) has a basis A = x, x W: x ∈ This basis is normalized as T = q`(x)A ;xW: x x ∈ With respect to this basis, Iwahori [11] showed that the structure constants are integer polynomials in q, depending only on W . In particular, (3) Txy = TxTy;Axy = AxAy if `(xy)=`(x)+`(y): One can therefore consider the generic Hecke algebra (W ) with basis Tx (x W ) 1=2 1=2 H ∈ over Z[q ;q− ], where q is now being treated as an indeterminate. Specifying q and tensoring with C, one recovers HC(G; B). Kazhdan and Lusztig [12] introduced an involution on (W )givenby H 1=2 1=2 1 `(y) (4) q =q− ; Tx =T−1 = q− Ry;xTy; x− y W X∈ where Ry;x = Ry;x(q) Z[q].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Combinatorial Operads from Monoids Samuele Giraudo
    Combinatorial operads from monoids Samuele Giraudo To cite this version: Samuele Giraudo. Combinatorial operads from monoids. Journal of Algebraic Combinatorics, Springer Verlag, 2015, 41 (2), pp.493-538. 10.1007/s10801-014-0543-4. hal-01236471 HAL Id: hal-01236471 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01236471 Submitted on 1 Dec 2015 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. COMBINATORIAL OPERADS FROM MONOIDS SAMUELE GIRAUDO Abstract. We introduce a functorial construction which, from a monoid, produces a set- operad. We obtain new (symmetric or not) operads as suboperads or quotients of the operads obtained from usual monoids such as the additive and multiplicative monoids of integers and cyclic monoids. They involve various familiar combinatorial objects: endo- functions, parking functions, packed words, permutations, planar rooted trees, trees with a fixed arity, Schröder trees, Motzkin words, integer compositions, directed animals, and segmented integer compositions. We also recover some already known (symmetric or not) operads: the magmatic operad, the associative commutative operad, the diassociative op- erad, and the triassociative operad. We provide presentations by generators and relations of all constructed nonsymmetric operads. Contents Introduction 1 1. Syntax trees and operads3 1.1.
    [Show full text]
  • On Free Quasigroups and Quasigroup Representations Stefanie Grace Wang Iowa State University
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Graduate Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 2017 On free quasigroups and quasigroup representations Stefanie Grace Wang Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd Part of the Mathematics Commons Recommended Citation Wang, Stefanie Grace, "On free quasigroups and quasigroup representations" (2017). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 16298. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/16298 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. On free quasigroups and quasigroup representations by Stefanie Grace Wang A dissertation submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Major: Mathematics Program of Study Committee: Jonathan D.H. Smith, Major Professor Jonas Hartwig Justin Peters Yiu Tung Poon Paul Sacks The student author and the program of study committee are solely responsible for the content of this dissertation. The Graduate College will ensure this dissertation is globally accessible and will not permit alterations after a degree is conferred. Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2017 Copyright c Stefanie Grace Wang, 2017. All rights reserved. ii DEDICATION I would like to dedicate this dissertation to the Integral Liberal Arts Program. The Program changed my life, and I am forever grateful. It is as Aristotle said, \All men by nature desire to know." And Montaigne was certainly correct as well when he said, \There is a plague on Man: his opinion that he knows something." iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Operad Theory
    AN INTRODUCTION TO OPERAD THEORY SAIMA SAMCHUCK-SCHNARCH Abstract. We give an introduction to category theory and operad theory aimed at the undergraduate level. We first explore operads in the category of sets, and then generalize to other familiar categories. Finally, we develop tools to construct operads via generators and relations, and provide several examples of operads in various categories. Throughout, we highlight the ways in which operads can be seen to encode the properties of algebraic structures across different categories. Contents 1. Introduction1 2. Preliminary Definitions2 2.1. Algebraic Structures2 2.2. Category Theory4 3. Operads in the Category of Sets 12 3.1. Basic Definitions 13 3.2. Tree Diagram Visualizations 14 3.3. Morphisms and Algebras over Operads of Sets 17 4. General Operads 22 4.1. Basic Definitions 22 4.2. Morphisms and Algebras over General Operads 27 5. Operads via Generators and Relations 33 5.1. Quotient Operads and Free Operads 33 5.2. More Examples of Operads 38 5.3. Coloured Operads 43 References 44 1. Introduction Sets equipped with operations are ubiquitous in mathematics, and many familiar operati- ons share key properties. For instance, the addition of real numbers, composition of functions, and concatenation of strings are all associative operations with an identity element. In other words, all three are examples of monoids. Rather than working with particular examples of sets and operations directly, it is often more convenient to abstract out their common pro- perties and work with algebraic structures instead. For instance, one can prove that in any monoid, arbitrarily long products x1x2 ··· xn have an unambiguous value, and thus brackets 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification.
    [Show full text]
  • Irreducible Representations of Finite Monoids
    U.U.D.M. Project Report 2019:11 Irreducible representations of finite monoids Christoffer Hindlycke Examensarbete i matematik, 30 hp Handledare: Volodymyr Mazorchuk Examinator: Denis Gaidashev Mars 2019 Department of Mathematics Uppsala University Irreducible representations of finite monoids Christoffer Hindlycke Contents Introduction 2 Theory 3 Finite monoids and their structure . .3 Introductory notions . .3 Cyclic semigroups . .6 Green’s relations . .7 von Neumann regularity . 10 The theory of an idempotent . 11 The five functors Inde, Coinde, Rese,Te and Ne ..................... 11 Idempotents and simple modules . 14 Irreducible representations of a finite monoid . 17 Monoid algebras . 17 Clifford-Munn-Ponizovski˘ıtheory . 20 Application 24 The symmetric inverse monoid . 24 Calculating the irreducible representations of I3 ........................ 25 Appendix: Prerequisite theory 37 Basic definitions . 37 Finite dimensional algebras . 41 Semisimple modules and algebras . 41 Indecomposable modules . 42 An introduction to idempotents . 42 1 Irreducible representations of finite monoids Christoffer Hindlycke Introduction This paper is a literature study of the 2016 book Representation Theory of Finite Monoids by Benjamin Steinberg [3]. As this book contains too much interesting material for a simple master thesis, we have narrowed our attention to chapters 1, 4 and 5. This thesis is divided into three main parts: Theory, Application and Appendix. Within the Theory chapter, we (as the name might suggest) develop the necessary theory to assist with finding irreducible representations of finite monoids. Finite monoids and their structure gives elementary definitions as regards to finite monoids, and expands on the basic theory of their structure. This part corresponds to chapter 1 in [3]. The theory of an idempotent develops just enough theory regarding idempotents to enable us to state a key result, from which the principal result later follows almost immediately.
    [Show full text]
  • Monoids (I = 1, 2) We Can Define 1  C 2000 M
    Geometria Superiore Reference Cards Push out (Sommes amalgam´ees). Given a diagram i : P ! Qi Monoids (i = 1; 2) we can define 1 c 2000 M. Cailotto, Permissions on last. v0.0 u −!2 Send comments and corrections to [email protected] Q1 ⊕P Q2 := coker P −! Q1 ⊕ Q2 u1 The category of Monoids. 1 and it is a standard fact that the natural arrows ji : Qi ! A monoid (M; ·; 1) (commutative with unit) is a set M with a Q1 ⊕P Q2 define a cocartesian square: u1 composition law · : M × M ! M and an element 1 2 M such P −−−! Q1 that: the composition is associative: (a · b) · c = a · (b · c) (for ? ? all a; b; c 2 M), commutative: a · b = b · a (for all a; b 2 M), u2 y y j1 and 1 is a neutral element for the composition: 1 · a = a (for Q2 −! Q1 ⊕P Q2 : all a 2 M). j2 ' ' More explicitly we have Q1 ⊕P Q2 = (Q1 ⊕ Q2)=R with R the A morphism (M; ·; 1M ) −!(N; ·; 1N ) of monoids is a map M ! N smallest equivalence relation stable under product (in Q1 ⊕P of sets commuting with · and 1: '(ab) = '(a)'(b) for all Q2) and making (u1(p); 1) ∼R (1; u2(p)) for all p 2 P . a; b 2 M and '(1 ) = 1 . Thus we have defined the cat- M N In general it is not easy to understand the relation involved in egory Mon of monoids. the description of Q1 ⊕P Q2, but in the case in which one of f1g is a monoid, initial and final object of the category Mon.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. Language of Operads 2. Operads As Monads
    OPERADS, APPROXIMATION, AND RECOGNITION MAXIMILIEN PEROUX´ All missing details can be found in [May72]. 1. Language of operads Let S = (S; ⊗; I) be a (closed) symmetric monoidal category. Definition 1.1. An operad O in S is a collection of object fO(j)gj≥0 in S endowed with : • a right-action of the symmetric group Σj on O(j) for each j, such that O(0) = I; • a unit map I ! O(1) in S; • composition operations that are morphisms in S : γ : O(k) ⊗ O(j1) ⊗ · · · ⊗ O(jk) −! O(j1 + ··· + jk); defined for each k ≥ 0, j1; : : : ; jk ≥ 0, satisfying natural equivariance, unit and associativity relations. 0 0 A morphism of operads : O ! O is a sequence j : O(j) ! O (j) of Σj-equivariant morphisms in S compatible with the unit map and γ. Example 1.2. ⊗j Let X be an object in S. The endomorphism operad EndX is defined to be EndX (j) = HomS(X ;X), ⊗j with unit idX , and the Σj-right action is induced by permuting on X . Example 1.3. Define Assoc(j) = ` , the associative operad, where the maps γ are defined by equivariance. Let σ2Σj I Com(j) = I, the commutative operad, where γ are the canonical isomorphisms. Definition 1.4. Let O be an operad in S. An O-algebra (X; θ) in S is an object X together with a morphism of operads ⊗j θ : O ! EndX . Using adjoints, this is equivalent to a sequence of maps θj : O(j) ⊗ X ! X such that they are associative, unital and equivariant.
    [Show full text]
  • Algebras of Boolean Inverse Monoids – Traces and Invariant Means
    C*-algebras of Boolean inverse monoids { traces and invariant means Charles Starling∗ Abstract ∗ To a Boolean inverse monoid S we associate a universal C*-algebra CB(S) and show that it is equal to Exel's tight C*-algebra of S. We then show that any invariant mean on S (in the sense of Kudryavtseva, Lawson, Lenz and Resende) gives rise to a ∗ trace on CB(S), and vice-versa, under a condition on S equivalent to the underlying ∗ groupoid being Hausdorff. Under certain mild conditions, the space of traces of CB(S) is shown to be isomorphic to the space of invariant means of S. We then use many known results about traces of C*-algebras to draw conclusions about invariant means on Boolean inverse monoids; in particular we quote a result of Blackadar to show that any metrizable Choquet simplex arises as the space of invariant means for some AF inverse monoid S. 1 Introduction This article is the continuation of our study of the relationship between inverse semigroups and C*-algebras. An inverse semigroup is a semigroup S for which every element s 2 S has a unique \inverse" s∗ in the sense that ss∗s = s and s∗ss∗ = s∗: An important subsemigroup of any inverse semigroup is its set of idempotents E(S) = fe 2 S j e2 = eg = fs∗s j s 2 Sg. Any set of partial isometries closed under product and arXiv:1605.05189v3 [math.OA] 19 Jul 2016 involution inside a C*-algebra is an inverse semigroup, and its set of idempotents forms a commuting set of projections.
    [Show full text]
  • Binary Opera- Tions, Magmas, Monoids, Groups, Rings, fields and Their Homomorphisms
    1. Introduction In this chapter, I introduce some of the fundamental objects of algbera: binary opera- tions, magmas, monoids, groups, rings, fields and their homomorphisms. 2. Binary Operations Definition 2.1. Let M be a set. A binary operation on M is a function · : M × M ! M often written (x; y) 7! x · y. A pair (M; ·) consisting of a set M and a binary operation · on M is called a magma. Example 2.2. Let M = Z and let + : Z × Z ! Z be the function (x; y) 7! x + y. Then, + is a binary operation and, consequently, (Z; +) is a magma. Example 2.3. Let n be an integer and set Z≥n := fx 2 Z j x ≥ ng. Now suppose n ≥ 0. Then, for x; y 2 Z≥n, x + y 2 Z≥n. Consequently, Z≥n with the operation (x; y) 7! x + y is a magma. In particular, Z+ is a magma under addition. Example 2.4. Let S = f0; 1g. There are 16 = 42 possible binary operations m : S ×S ! S . Therefore, there are 16 possible magmas of the form (S; m). Example 2.5. Let n be a non-negative integer and let · : Z≥n × Z≥n ! Z≥n be the operation (x; y) 7! xy. Then Z≥n is a magma. Similarly, the pair (Z; ·) is a magma (where · : Z×Z ! Z is given by (x; y) 7! xy). Example 2.6. Let M2(R) denote the set of 2 × 2 matrices with real entries. If ! ! a a b b A = 11 12 , and B = 11 12 a21 a22 b21 b22 are two matrices, define ! a b + a b a b + a b A ◦ B = 11 11 12 21 11 12 12 22 : a21b11 + a22b21 a21b12 + a22b22 Then (M2(R); ◦) is a magma.
    [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]
  • Loop Near-Rings and Unique Decompositions of H-Spaces
    Algebraic & Geometric Topology 16 (2016) 3563–3580 msp Loop near-rings and unique decompositions of H-spaces DAMIR FRANETICˇ PETAR PAVEŠIC´ For every H-space X , the set of homotopy classes ŒX; X possesses a natural al- gebraic structure of a loop near-ring. Albeit one cannot say much about general loop near-rings, it turns out that those that arise from H-spaces are sufficiently close to rings to have a viable Krull–Schmidt type decomposition theory, which is then reflected into decomposition results of H-spaces. In the paper, we develop the algebraic theory of local loop near-rings and derive an algebraic characterization of indecomposable and strongly indecomposable H-spaces. As a consequence, we obtain unique decomposition theorems for products of H-spaces. In particular, we are able to treat certain infinite products of H-spaces, thanks to a recent breakthrough in the Krull–Schmidt theory for infinite products. Finally, we show that indecomposable finite p–local H-spaces are automatically strongly indecomposable, which leads to an easy alternative proof of classical unique decomposition theorems of Wilkerson and Gray. 55P45; 16Y30 Introduction In this paper, we discuss relations between unique decomposition theorems in alge- bra and homotopy theory. Unique decomposition theorems usually state that sum or product decompositions (depending on the category) whose factors are strongly indecomposable are essentially unique. The standard algebraic example is the Krull– Schmidt–Remak–Azumaya theorem. In its modern form, the theorem states that any decomposition of an R–module into a direct sum of indecomposable modules is unique, provided that the endomorphism rings of the summands are local rings; see Facchini [8, Theorem 2.12].
    [Show full text]
  • Monoids: Theme and Variations (Functional Pearl)
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Departmental Papers (CIS) Department of Computer & Information Science 7-2012 Monoids: Theme and Variations (Functional Pearl) Brent A. Yorgey University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/cis_papers Part of the Programming Languages and Compilers Commons, Software Engineering Commons, and the Theory and Algorithms Commons Recommended Citation Brent A. Yorgey, "Monoids: Theme and Variations (Functional Pearl)", . July 2012. This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/cis_papers/762 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Monoids: Theme and Variations (Functional Pearl) Abstract The monoid is a humble algebraic structure, at first glance ve en downright boring. However, there’s much more to monoids than meets the eye. Using examples taken from the diagrams vector graphics framework as a case study, I demonstrate the power and beauty of monoids for library design. The paper begins with an extremely simple model of diagrams and proceeds through a series of incremental variations, all related somehow to the central theme of monoids. Along the way, I illustrate the power of compositional semantics; why you should also pay attention to the monoid’s even humbler cousin, the semigroup; monoid homomorphisms; and monoid actions. Keywords monoid, homomorphism, monoid action, EDSL Disciplines Programming Languages and Compilers | Software Engineering | Theory and Algorithms This conference paper is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/cis_papers/762 Monoids: Theme and Variations (Functional Pearl) Brent A. Yorgey University of Pennsylvania [email protected] Abstract The monoid is a humble algebraic structure, at first glance even downright boring.
    [Show full text]
  • Monoid Modules and Structured Document Algebra (Extendend Abstract)
    Monoid Modules and Structured Document Algebra (Extendend Abstract) Andreas Zelend Institut fur¨ Informatik, Universitat¨ Augsburg, Germany [email protected] 1 Introduction Feature Oriented Software Development (e.g. [3]) has been established in computer science as a general programming paradigm that provides formalisms, meth- ods, languages, and tools for building maintainable, customisable, and exten- sible software product lines (SPLs) [8]. An SPL is a collection of programs that share a common part, e.g., functionality or code fragments. To encode an SPL, one can use variation points (VPs) in the source code. A VP is a location in a pro- gram whose content, called a fragment, can vary among different members of the SPL. In [2] a Structured Document Algebra (SDA) is used to algebraically de- scribe modules that include VPs and their composition. In [4] we showed that we can reason about SDA in a more general way using a so called relational pre- domain monoid module (RMM). In this paper we present the following extensions and results: an investigation of the structure of transformations, e.g., a condi- tion when transformations commute, insights into the pre-order of modules, and new properties of predomain monoid modules. 2 Structured Document Algebra VPs and Fragments. Let V denote a set of VPs at which fragments may be in- serted and F(V) be the set of fragments which may, among other things, contain VPs from V. Elements of F(V) are denoted by f1, f2,... There are two special elements, a default fragment 0 and an error . An error signals an attempt to assign two or more non-default fragments to the same VP within one module.
    [Show full text]