DOCSLIB.ORG

Solutions Problem 16.1 Let R Be a Ring with Unity 1. Show That

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Solutions Problem 16.1 Let R Be a Ring with Unity 1. Show That Ring Theory Problem Set 1 { Solutions Problem 16.1 Let R be a ring with unity 1. Show that (−1)a = −a for all a 2 R. SOLUTION: We have 1+(−1) = 0 by definition. Multiplying that equation on the right by a, we obtain 1 + (−1) · a = 0 · a = 0 by theorem 16.1, part i. By the distributive law, we obtain the equation 1 · a + (−1) · a = 0 and therefore we have a+(−1)a = 0. We also have a+(−a) = 0. Thus, a+(−1)a = a+(−a). The ring R under addition is a group. The cancellation law in that group implies that −a = (−1)a which is the result we wanted to prove. Problem 16.7 Let F be a field and let a; b 2 F . Assume that a 6= 0, Show that there exists an element x 2 F satisfying the equation ax + b = 0. SOLUTION: Since F is a field and a 6= 0, there exists an element a−1 in F such that aa−1 = 1. Let c = −b. Let x = a−1c. Then x 2 F since both a−1 and c are in F . We have ax + b − = a(a−1c) + b = (aa−1)c + b = 1c + b = c + b = 0 : Hence the element x in F chosen above has the property that ax + b = 0. Problem 16.11 Find all units, zero-divisors, and nilpotent elements in the rings Z ⊕ Z, Z3 ⊕ Z3, and Z4 ⊕ Z6. SOLUTION; In general, if R1 and R2 are rings with unity, then so is R1 ⊕ R2. The unity element is (1R1 ; 1R2 ). An element (a1; a2) in R1 ⊕ R2 is a unit if and only if there is an element (b1; b2) in R1 ⊕ R2 such that (a1; a2)(b1; b2) = (1R1 ; 1R2 ). By definition, (a1; a2)(b1; b2) = (a1b1; a2b2). Therefore, the element (a1; a2) is a unit if and only if there exists elements b1 2 R1 and b2 2 R2 such that a1b1 = 1R1 and a2b2 = 1R2 . This means that (a1; a2) is a unit in R1 ⊕ R2 if and only if a1 is a unit in R1 and a2 is a unit in R2. The units in Z are 1 and -1. The units in Z3 are 1 and 2. The units in Z4 are 1 and 3. The units in Z6 are 1 and 5. Therefore, The units in Z ⊕ Z are (1; 1); (1; −1); (−1; 1), and (−1; −1). The units in Z3 ⊕ Z3 are (1; 1); (1; 2); (2; 1), and (2; 2). The units in Z4 ⊕ Z6 are (1; 1); (1; 5); (3; 1), and (3; 5). Suppose that (a1; a2) is an element of R1 ⊕ R2 and that n is a positive integer. Then n n n we clearly have (a1; a2) = (a1 ; a2 ). The additive identity in R1 ⊕ R2 is (0R1 ; 0R2 ). The n n n equation (a1; a2) = (0R1 ; 0R2 ) is equivalent to the two equations a1 = 0R1 and a2 = 0R2 . Consequently, if (a1; a2) is a nilpotent element of R1 ⊕ R2, then it follows that a1 is a nilpotent element in R1 and a2 is a nilpotent element in R2. The converse is true too. To see this, assume that a1 is a nilpotent element in R1 and a2 is a nilpotent element in R2. e f Then, by definition, there exists positive integers e and f such that a1 = 0R1 and a2 = 0R2 . Let n = ef = fe. Then n is a positive integer and we have an = aef = (ae)f = 0f = 0 and an = afe = (af )e = 0e = 0 1 1 1 R1 R1 2 2 2 R2 R2 n Therefore, (a1; a2) = (0R1 ; 0R2 ) and hence (a1; a2) is a nilpotent element of R1 ⊕ R2. In summary, we have shown that (a1; a2) is a nilpotent element of R1 ⊕ R2 if and only if a1 is a nilpotent element in R1 and a2 is a nilpotent element in R2. The only nilpotent element of Z is 0. The only nilpotent element of Z3 is 0. The nilpotent elements of Z4 are 0 and 2. The only nilpotent element of Z6 is 0. It follows that The only nilpotent element in Z ⊕ Z is (0; 0). The only nilpotent element in Z3 ⊕ Z3 is (0; 0). The nilpotent elements in Z4 ⊕ Z6 are (0; 0) and (2; 0). Suppose that (a1; a2) is an element of R1 ⊕ R2. Then (a1; a2) is a zero-divisor if and only if there exists an element (b1; b2) in R1 ⊕ R2 such that (b1; b2) 6= (0R1 ; 0R2 ) and (a1; a2)(b1; b2) = (0R1 ; 0R2 ) : The second equation just means that a1b1 = 0R1 and a2b2 = 0R2 . Also, (b1; b2) 6= (0R1 ; 0R2 ) means that b1 6= 0R1 or b2 6= 0R2 . Consequently, it follows that if (a1; a2) is a zero-divisor in R1 ⊕ R2, then either a1 is a zero divisor in R1 or a2 is a zero divisor in R2. For the converse, suppose that a1 is a zero-divisor in R1. Then a1b1 = 0R1 for some nonzero element b1 2 R1. It follows that (b1; 0R2 ) 6= (0R1 ; 0R2 ) and (a1; a2)(b1; 0R2 ) = (0R1 ; 0R2 ) : Therefore, (a1; a2) is a zero-divisor in R1 ⊕ R2 . A similar argument shows that if a2 is a zero-divisor in R2, then (a1; a2) is a zero-divisor in R1 ⊕ R2 . In summary, we have shown that (a1; a2) is a zero-divisor in R1 ⊕ R2 if and only if either a1 is a zero divisor in R1 or a2 is a zero divisor in R2. The only zero-divisor in Z is 0. The only zero-divisor in Z3 is 0. The zero-divisors in Z4 are 0 and 2. The zero-divisors in Z6 are 0, 2, 3 and 4. The above remark shows that The set of zero-divisors in Z ⊕ Z is f (a; 0) a 2 Z g [ f (0; b) b 2 Z g. The set of zero-divisors in Z3 ⊕ Z3 is f (a; 0) a 2 Z3 g [ f (0; b) b 2 Z3 g. The set of zero-divisors in Z4 ⊕ Z6 is f (a; b) a 2 Z4; b = 0; 2; 3; or 4 g [ f (a; b) b 2 Z6; a = 0 or 2:g : Problem 16.13, part (a) Show that the multiplicative identity in a ring with unity R is unique. SOLUTION: Suppose that e 2 R and that ea = a = ae for all a 2 R. Suppose also that f 2 R and that fa = a = af for all a 2 R. Then we have f = ef = e Therefore, e = f. Thus, there can only be one element in R satisfying the requirements for the multiplicative identity of the ring R. Problem 16.13, part (b) Suppose that R is a ring with unity and that a 2 R is a unit of R. Show that the multiplicative inverse of a is unique. SOLUTION: Suppose that b; c 2 R and that ab = ba = 1 and that ac = ca = 1. Then we have c = 1c = (ba)c = b(ac) = b1 = b : Hence we have c = b. The multiplicative inverse of a is indeed unique. ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS: A: Prove that if R is a division ring, then the center of R is a field. SOLUTION: First of all, suppose that R is any ring with identity. Let S be the center of R. That is, S = f s 2 R j sr = rs for all r 2 R g : We will show that S is a subring of R. The fact that S is a subgroup of R under addition can be seen as follows. For this purpose, suppose that s1; s2 2 S. Then, for all r 2 R, we have s1r = rs1 and s2r = rs2. Therefore, using the distributive laws for R, we have (s1 + s2)r = s1r + s2r = rs1 + rs2 = r(s1 + s2) for all r 2 R. Therefore, s1 + s2 2 S. Furthermore, letting 0 denote the additive identity of R, we have 0 · r = 0 and r · 0 = 0. Hence 0 · r = r · 0. Therefore, 0 2 S. Finally, suppose that s 2 S. Let t = −s, the additive inverse of s in R. We have s+t = 0. Thus, s + t 2 S. Since s is in S and s + t is in S, it follows that, for all r 2 R, we have sr = rs and (s + t)r = r(s + t). Therefore, we have sr + tr = rs + rt = sr + rt Thus, we have the equation sr+tr = sr+rt. Applying the cancellation law for the underlying additive group of R to that equation, it follows that tr = rt for all r 2 R. Therefore, t 2 S. That is, −s 2 S. This completes the verification that S is a subgroup of R under the operation of addition. To complete the proof that S is a subring of R, we must show that if s1 and s2 are in S, then so is s1s2. So, assume that s1; s2 2 S. Then, for all r 2 R, we have s1r = rs1 and s2r = rs2. Consider s1s2, which is an element of R. Using the associative law for multiplication in R many times, it follows that (s1s2)r = s1(s2r) = s1(rs2) = (s1r)s2 = (rs1)s2 = r(s1s2) for all r 2 R. Therefore, we indeed have s1s2 2 S. We have shown that S is a subring of R. If R is a ring with unity 1, then 1r = r = r1 for all r 2 R.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Adjacency Matrices of Zero-Divisor Graphs of Integers Modulo N Matthew Young
    inv lve a journal of mathematics Adjacency matrices of zero-divisor graphs of integers modulo n Matthew Young msp 2015 vol. 8, no. 5 INVOLVE 8:5 (2015) msp dx.doi.org/10.2140/involve.2015.8.753 Adjacency matrices of zero-divisor graphs of integers modulo n Matthew Young (Communicated by Kenneth S. Berenhaut) We study adjacency matrices of zero-divisor graphs of Zn for various n. We find their determinant and rank for all n, develop a method for finding nonzero eigen- values, and use it to find all eigenvalues for the case n p3, where p is a prime D number. We also find upper and lower bounds for the largest eigenvalue for all n. 1. Introduction Let R be a commutative ring with a unity. The notion of a zero-divisor graph of R was pioneered by Beck[1988]. It was later modified by Anderson and Livingston [1999] to be the following. Definition 1.1. The zero-divisor graph .R/ of the ring R is a graph with the set of vertices V .R/ being the set of zero-divisors of R and edges connecting two vertices x; y R if and only if x y 0. 2 D To each (finite) graph , one can associate the adjacency matrix A./ that is a square V ./ V ./ matrix with entries aij 1, if vi is connected with vj , and j j j j D zero otherwise. In this paper we study the adjacency matrices of zero-divisor graphs n .Zn/ of rings Zn of integers modulo n, where n is not prime.
    [Show full text]
  • Zero Divisor Conjecture for Group Semifields
    Ultra Scientist Vol. 27(3)B, 209-213 (2015). Zero Divisor Conjecture for Group Semifields W.B. VASANTHA KANDASAMY1 1Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai- 600 036 (India) E-mail: [email protected] (Acceptance Date 16th December, 2015) Abstract In this paper the author for the first time has studied the zero divisor conjecture for the group semifields; that is groups over semirings. It is proved that whatever group is taken the group semifield has no zero divisors that is the group semifield is a semifield or a semidivision ring. However the group semiring can have only idempotents and no units. This is in contrast with the group rings for group rings have units and if the group ring has idempotents then it has zero divisors. Key words: Group semirings, group rings semifield, semidivision ring. 1. Introduction study. Here just we recall the zero divisor For notions of group semirings refer8-11. conjecture for group rings and the conditions For more about group rings refer 1-6. under which group rings have zero divisors. Throughout this paper the semirings used are Here rings are assumed to be only fields and semifields. not any ring with zero divisors. It is well known1,2,3 the group ring KG has zero divisors if G is a 2. Zero divisors in group semifields : finite group. Further if G is a torsion free non abelian group and K any field, it is not known In this section zero divisors in group whether KG has zero divisors. In view of the semifields SG of any group G over the 1 problem 28 of .
    [Show full text]
  • Exercises and Solutions in Groups Rings and Fields
    EXERCISES AND SOLUTIONS IN GROUPS RINGS AND FIELDS Mahmut Kuzucuo˘glu Middle East Technical University [email protected] Ankara, TURKEY April 18, 2012 ii iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTERS 0. PREFACE . v 1. SETS, INTEGERS, FUNCTIONS . 1 2. GROUPS . 4 3. RINGS . .55 4. FIELDS . 77 5. INDEX . 100 iv v Preface These notes are prepared in 1991 when we gave the abstract al- gebra course. Our intention was to help the students by giving them some exercises and get them familiar with some solutions. Some of the solutions here are very short and in the form of a hint. I would like to thank B¨ulent B¨uy¨ukbozkırlı for his help during the preparation of these notes. I would like to thank also Prof. Ismail_ S¸. G¨ulo˘glufor checking some of the solutions. Of course the remaining errors belongs to me. If you find any errors, I should be grateful to hear from you. Finally I would like to thank Aynur Bora and G¨uldaneG¨um¨u¸sfor their typing the manuscript in LATEX. Mahmut Kuzucuo˘glu I would like to thank our graduate students Tu˘gbaAslan, B¨u¸sra C¸ınar, Fuat Erdem and Irfan_ Kadık¨oyl¨ufor reading the old version and pointing out some misprints. With their encouragement I have made the changes in the shape, namely I put the answers right after the questions. 20, December 2011 vi M. Kuzucuo˘glu 1. SETS, INTEGERS, FUNCTIONS 1.1. If A is a finite set having n elements, prove that A has exactly 2n distinct subsets.
    [Show full text]
  • Right Ideals of a Ring and Sublanguages of Science
    RIGHT IDEALS OF A RING AND SUBLANGUAGES OF SCIENCE Javier Arias Navarro Ph.D. In General Linguistics and Spanish Language http://www.javierarias.info/ Abstract Among Zellig Harris’s numerous contributions to linguistics his theory of the sublanguages of science probably ranks among the most underrated. However, not only has this theory led to some exhaustive and meaningful applications in the study of the grammar of immunology language and its changes over time, but it also illustrates the nature of mathematical relations between chunks or subsets of a grammar and the language as a whole. This becomes most clear when dealing with the connection between metalanguage and language, as well as when reflecting on operators. This paper tries to justify the claim that the sublanguages of science stand in a particular algebraic relation to the rest of the language they are embedded in, namely, that of right ideals in a ring. Keywords: Zellig Sabbetai Harris, Information Structure of Language, Sublanguages of Science, Ideal Numbers, Ernst Kummer, Ideals, Richard Dedekind, Ring Theory, Right Ideals, Emmy Noether, Order Theory, Marshall Harvey Stone. §1. Preliminary Word In recent work (Arias 2015)1 a line of research has been outlined in which the basic tenets underpinning the algebraic treatment of language are explored. The claim was there made that the concept of ideal in a ring could account for the structure of so- called sublanguages of science in a very precise way. The present text is based on that work, by exploring in some detail the consequences of such statement. §2. Introduction Zellig Harris (1909-1992) contributions to the field of linguistics were manifold and in many respects of utmost significance.
    [Show full text]
  • Nilpotent Elements Control the Structure of a Module
    Nilpotent elements control the structure of a module David Ssevviiri Department of Mathematics Makerere University, P.O BOX 7062, Kampala Uganda E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Abstract A relationship between nilpotency and primeness in a module is investigated. Reduced modules are expressed as sums of prime modules. It is shown that presence of nilpotent module elements inhibits a module from possessing good structural properties. A general form is given of an example used in literature to distinguish: 1) completely prime modules from prime modules, 2) classical prime modules from classical completely prime modules, and 3) a module which satisfies the complete radical formula from one which is neither 2-primal nor satisfies the radical formula. Keywords: Semisimple module; Reduced module; Nil module; K¨othe conjecture; Com- pletely prime module; Prime module; and Reduced ring. MSC 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: 16D70, 16D60, 16S90 1 Introduction Primeness and nilpotency are closely related and well studied notions for rings. We give instances that highlight this relationship. In a commutative ring, the set of all nilpotent elements coincides with the intersection of all its prime ideals - henceforth called the prime radical. A popular class of rings, called 2-primal rings (first defined in [8] and later studied in [23, 26, 27, 28] among others), is defined by requiring that in a not necessarily commutative ring, the set of all nilpotent elements coincides with the prime radical. In an arbitrary ring, Levitzki showed that the set of all strongly nilpotent elements coincides arXiv:1812.04320v1 [math.RA] 11 Dec 2018 with the intersection of all prime ideals, [29, Theorem 2.6].
    [Show full text]
  • Classifying the Representation Type of Infinitesimal Blocks of Category
    Classifying the Representation Type of Infinitesimal Blocks of Category OS by Kenyon J. Platt (Under the Direction of Brian D. Boe) Abstract Let g be a simple Lie algebra over the field C of complex numbers, with root system Φ relative to a fixed maximal toral subalgebra h. Let S be a subset of the simple roots ∆ of Φ, which determines a standard parabolic subalgebra of g. Fix an integral weight ∗ µ µ ∈ h , with singular set J ⊆ ∆. We determine when an infinitesimal block O(g,S,J) := OS of parabolic category OS is nonzero using the theory of nilpotent orbits. We extend work of Futorny-Nakano-Pollack, Br¨ustle-K¨onig-Mazorchuk, and Boe-Nakano toward classifying the representation type of the nonzero infinitesimal blocks of category OS by considering arbitrary sets S and J, and observe a strong connection between the theory of nilpotent orbits and the representation type of the infinitesimal blocks. We classify certain infinitesimal blocks of category OS including all the semisimple infinitesimal blocks in type An, and all of the infinitesimal blocks for F4 and G2. Index words: Category O; Representation type; Verma modules Classifying the Representation Type of Infinitesimal Blocks of Category OS by Kenyon J. Platt B.A., Utah State University, 1999 M.S., Utah State University, 2001 M.A, The University of Georgia, 2006 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Athens, Georgia 2008 c 2008 Kenyon J. Platt All Rights Reserved Classifying the Representation Type of Infinitesimal Blocks of Category OS by Kenyon J.
    [Show full text]
  • On Finite Semifields with a Weak Nucleus and a Designed
    On finite semifields with a weak nucleus and a designed automorphism group A. Pi~nera-Nicol´as∗ I.F. R´uay Abstract Finite nonassociative division algebras S (i.e., finite semifields) with a weak nucleus N ⊆ S as defined by D.E. Knuth in [10] (i.e., satisfying the conditions (ab)c − a(bc) = (ac)b − a(cb) = c(ab) − (ca)b = 0, for all a; b 2 N; c 2 S) and a prefixed automorphism group are considered. In particular, a construction of semifields of order 64 with weak nucleus F4 and a cyclic automorphism group C5 is introduced. This construction is extended to obtain sporadic finite semifields of orders 256 and 512. Keywords: Finite Semifield; Projective planes; Automorphism Group AMS classification: 12K10, 51E35 1 Introduction A finite semifield S is a finite nonassociative division algebra. These rings play an important role in the context of finite geometries since they coordinatize projective semifield planes [7]. They also have applications on coding theory [4, 8, 6], combinatorics and graph theory [13]. During the last few years, computational efforts in order to clasify some of these objects have been made. For instance, the classification of semifields with 64 elements is completely known, [16], as well as those with 243 elements, [17]. However, many questions are open yet: there is not a classification of semifields with 128 or 256 elements, despite of the powerful computers available nowadays. The knowledge of the structure of these concrete semifields can inspire new general constructions, as suggested in [9]. In this sense, the work of Lavrauw and Sheekey [11] gives examples of constructions of semifields which are neither twisted fields nor two-dimensional over a nucleus starting from the classification of semifields with 64 elements.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cardinality of the Center of a Pi Ring
    Canad. Math. Bull. Vol. 41 (1), 1998 pp. 81±85 THE CARDINALITY OF THE CENTER OF A PI RING CHARLES LANSKI ABSTRACT. The main result shows that if R is a semiprime ring satisfying a poly- nomial identity, and if Z(R) is the center of R, then card R Ä 2cardZ(R). Examples show that this bound can be achieved, and that the inequality fails to hold for rings which are not semiprime. The purpose of this note is to compare the cardinality of a ring satisfying a polynomial identity (a PI ring) with the cardinality of its center. Before proceeding, we recall the def- inition of a central identity, a notion crucial for us, and a basic result about polynomial f g≥ f g identities. Let C be a commutative ring with 1, F X Cn x1,...,xn the free algebra f g ≥ 2 f gj over C in noncommuting indeterminateso xi ,andsetG f(x1,...,xn) F X some coef®cient of f is a unit in C .IfRis an algebra over C,thenf(x1,...,xn)2Gis a polyno- 2 ≥ mial identity (PI) for RPif for all ri R, f (r1,...,rn) 0. The standard identity of degree sgõ n is Sn(x1,...,xn) ≥ õ(1) xõ(1) ÐÐÐxõ(n) where õ ranges over the symmetric group on n letters. The Amitsur-Levitzki theorem is an important result about Sn and shows that Mk(C) satis®es Sn exactly for n ½ 2k [5; Lemma 2, p. 18 and Theorem, p. 21]. Call f 2 G a central identity for R if f (r1,...,rn) 2Z(R), the center of R,forallri 2R, but f is not a polynomial identity.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstract Algebra
    Abstract Algebra Paul Melvin Bryn Mawr College Fall 2011 lecture notes loosely based on Dummit and Foote's text Abstract Algebra (3rd ed) Prerequisite: Linear Algebra (203) 1 Introduction Pure Mathematics Algebra Analysis Foundations (set theory/logic) G eometry & Topology What is Algebra? • Number systems N = f1; 2; 3;::: g \natural numbers" Z = f:::; −1; 0; 1; 2;::: g \integers" Q = ffractionsg \rational numbers" R = fdecimalsg = pts on the line \real numbers" p C = fa + bi j a; b 2 R; i = −1g = pts in the plane \complex nos" k polar form re iθ, where a = r cos θ; b = r sin θ a + bi b r θ a p Note N ⊂ Z ⊂ Q ⊂ R ⊂ C (all proper inclusions, e.g. 2 62 Q; exercise) There are many other important number systems inside C. 2 • Structure \binary operations" + and · associative, commutative, and distributive properties \identity elements" 0 and 1 for + and · resp. 2 solve equations, e.g. 1 ax + bx + c = 0 has two (complex) solutions i p −b ± b2 − 4ac x = 2a 2 2 2 2 x + y = z has infinitely many solutions, even in N (thei \Pythagorian triples": (3,4,5), (5,12,13), . ). n n n 3 x + y = z has no solutions x; y; z 2 N for any fixed n ≥ 3 (Fermat'si Last Theorem, proved in 1995 by Andrew Wiles; we'll give a proof for n = 3 at end of semester). • Abstract systems groups, rings, fields, vector spaces, modules, . A group is a set G with an associative binary operation ∗ which has an identity element e (x ∗ e = x = e ∗ x for all x 2 G) and inverses for each of its elements (8 x 2 G; 9 y 2 G such that x ∗ y = y ∗ x = e).
    [Show full text]
  • 6. Localization
    52 Andreas Gathmann 6. Localization Localization is a very powerful technique in commutative algebra that often allows to reduce ques- tions on rings and modules to a union of smaller “local” problems. It can easily be motivated both from an algebraic and a geometric point of view, so let us start by explaining the idea behind it in these two settings. Remark 6.1 (Motivation for localization). (a) Algebraic motivation: Let R be a ring which is not a field, i. e. in which not all non-zero elements are units. The algebraic idea of localization is then to make more (or even all) non-zero elements invertible by introducing fractions, in the same way as one passes from the integers Z to the rational numbers Q. Let us have a more precise look at this particular example: in order to construct the rational numbers from the integers we start with R = Z, and let S = Znf0g be the subset of the elements of R that we would like to become invertible. On the set R×S we then consider the equivalence relation (a;s) ∼ (a0;s0) , as0 − a0s = 0 a and denote the equivalence class of a pair (a;s) by s . The set of these “fractions” is then obviously Q, and we can define addition and multiplication on it in the expected way by a a0 as0+a0s a a0 aa0 s + s0 := ss0 and s · s0 := ss0 . (b) Geometric motivation: Now let R = A(X) be the ring of polynomial functions on a variety X. In the same way as in (a) we can ask if it makes sense to consider fractions of such polynomials, i.
    [Show full text]
  • Hyperbolicity of Hermitian Forms Over Biquaternion Algebras
    HYPERBOLICITY OF HERMITIAN FORMS OVER BIQUATERNION ALGEBRAS NIKITA A. KARPENKO Abstract. We show that a non-hyperbolic hermitian form over a biquaternion algebra over a field of characteristic 6= 2 remains non-hyperbolic over a generic splitting field of the algebra. Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Notation 2 3. Krull-Schmidt principle 3 4. Splitting off a motivic summand 5 5. Rost correspondences 7 6. Motivic decompositions of some isotropic varieties 12 7. Proof of Main Theorem 14 References 16 1. Introduction Throughout this note (besides of x3 and x4) F is a field of characteristic 6= 2. The basic reference for the staff related to involutions on central simple algebras is [12].p The degree deg A of a (finite dimensional) central simple F -algebra A is the integer dimF A; the index ind A of A is the degree of a central division algebra Brauer-equivalent to A. Conjecture 1.1. Let A be a central simple F -algebra endowed with an orthogonal invo- lution σ. If σ becomes hyperbolic over the function field of the Severi-Brauer variety of A, then σ is hyperbolic (over F ). In a stronger version of Conjecture 1.1, each of two words \hyperbolic" is replaced by \isotropic", cf. [10, Conjecture 5.2]. Here is the complete list of indices ind A and coindices coind A = deg A= ind A of A for which Conjecture 1.1 is known (over an arbitrary field of characteristic 6= 2), given in the chronological order: • ind A = 1 | trivial; Date: January 2008. Key words and phrases.
    [Show full text]
  • SCHUR-WEYL DUALITY Contents Introduction 1 1. Representation
    SCHUR-WEYL DUALITY JAMES STEVENS Contents Introduction 1 1. Representation Theory of Finite Groups 2 1.1. Preliminaries 2 1.2. Group Algebra 4 1.3. Character Theory 5 2. Irreducible Representations of the Symmetric Group 8 2.1. Specht Modules 8 2.2. Dimension Formulas 11 2.3. The RSK-Correspondence 12 3. Schur-Weyl Duality 13 3.1. Representations of Lie Groups and Lie Algebras 13 3.2. Schur-Weyl Duality for GL(V ) 15 3.3. Schur Functors and Algebraic Representations 16 3.4. Other Cases of Schur-Weyl Duality 17 Appendix A. Semisimple Algebras and Double Centralizer Theorem 19 Acknowledgments 20 References 21 Introduction. In this paper, we build up to one of the remarkable results in representation theory called Schur-Weyl Duality. It connects the irreducible rep- resentations of the symmetric group to irreducible algebraic representations of the general linear group of a complex vector space. We do so in three sections: (1) In Section 1, we develop some of the general theory of representations of finite groups. In particular, we have a subsection on character theory. We will see that the simple notion of a character has tremendous consequences that would be very difficult to show otherwise. Also, we introduce the group algebra which will be vital in Section 2. (2) In Section 2, we narrow our focus down to irreducible representations of the symmetric group. We will show that the irreducible representations of Sn up to isomorphism are in bijection with partitions of n via a construc- tion through certain elements of the group algebra.
    [Show full text]