Grothendieck–Galois–Brauer Theory (Part 6)
Posted by John Baez
I’ve been talking about Grothendieck’s approach to Galois theory, but I haven’t yet touched on Brauer theory. Both of these involve separable algebras, but of different kinds. For Galois theory we need commutative separable algebras, which are morally like covering spaces. For Brauer theory we’ll need separable algebras that are as noncommutative as possible, which are morally like bundles of matrix algebras. One of my ultimate goals is to unify these theories — or, just as likely, learn how someone has already done it, and explain what they did.
Both subjects are very general and conceptual. But to make sure I understand the basics, my posts so far have focused on the most classical case: separable algebras over fields. I’ve explained a few different viewpoints on them. It’s about time to move on. But before I do, I should at least classify separable algebras over fields.
In all that follows, is any field, and all algebras are over . I’ll write for the algebra of matrices with entries in the algebra . I’ll call this a matrix algebra over .
Here’s the classification of separable algebras: they’re all finite products of matrix algebras over separable division algebras.
A division algebra is just an algebra where every nonzero element has a multiplicative inverse. A separable division algebra is just a division algebra that’s separable.
For example: you’ve probably heard that the real numbers, complex numbers and quaternions are division algebras over . These are the only separable division algebras over . There are lots of other division algebras over , but they’re all infinite-dimensional. In fact, over any field, separable division algebras must be finite-dimensional — and thus by the classification theorem, all separable algebras are finite-dimensional! But I will not prove this today.
Here’s that classification again:
Theorem 21. Suppose are separable division algebras. Then any finite product of matrix algebras is separable. Conversely, any separable algebra is of this form.
This looks a lot like the Wedderburn–Artin theorem, which classifies semisimple algebras, and indeed we’ll reduce it to that. So I should remind you of that!
Remember, an object in an abelian category is simple if it has no nontrivial quotients — or equivalently, no nontrivial subobjects. An object in an abelian category is semisimple if it’s a (possibly infinite) direct sum of simple objects. An abelian category is semisimple if all its objects are semisimple. And finally — whew! — an algebra over is semisimple if the category of left -modules is semisimple.
We then have:
Theorem 22 (Wedderburn–Artin Theorem). Suppose are division algebras. Then any finite product of matrix algebras is semisimple. Conversely, any semisimple algebra is of this form.
This is well-known, but the proof is so nice I’ll include it at the end of this article.
Using this, we can prove Theorem 21 if we can show three things:
Lemma 23. A product of algebras is separable iff and are separable.
Lemma 24. For any algebra , the matrix algebra is separable iff is separable.
Lemma 25. Any separable algebra is semisimple.
The argument is then easy as pie. Suppose are separable division algebras. Then the matrix algebras is separable by Lemma 24, so the product
is separable by Lemma 23.
Conversely, suppose is a separable algebra. Then is semisimple by Lemma 25, so the Wedderburn–Artin theorem implies
for some division algebras . By Lemmas 23 and 24, the separability of implies the separability of each division algebra . █
So, let’s prove the lemmas! This will be a pleasant romp through various ideas in algebra. My exposition today relies heavily on this wonderful blog post:
- Qiaochu Yuan, Separable algebras, Annoying Precision, March 27, 2016.
If you want to learn more about separable algebras you should definitely read this!
New separable algebras from old: separability idempotents
We’ll begin by proving Lemma 23, which says is separable iff and are. For this it’s nice to think about separability in a very concrete and practical way. The idea is that is separable iff contains an element with some special properties, called a ‘separability idempotent’. It’s called ‘idempotent’ because if we think of it as an element of the algebra , but we won’t need that here.
First remember Lemma 16: an algebra is separable iff the exact sequence of -bimodules
splits, where is the multiplication map, and we make into an -bimodule like this:
The splitting gives a map
and since this is a map of bimodules and is generated as a bimodule by , is determined by the image of , say
This element has two important properties. Since is a bimodule map we have
and since is a splitting we have
So, we’ve shown half of this without even breaking a sweat:
Lemma 26. An algebra is separable iff there exists a separability idempotent for : that is, with and for all .
The converse is just as easy: given obeying these equations we just define
and check using our two equations that it’s a map of bimodules and a splitting.
Using this trick, we easily see:
Lemma 27. Any quotient of a separable algebra is separable.
Proof. Given a surjection and a separability idempotent for , we get a separability idempotent for the quotient algebra . █
And now we’re ready to get the job done:
Lemma 23. A product of algebras over is separable iff and are separable.
Proof. If is separable its quotients and are separable by Lemma 27. Conversely, if we have separability idempotents for and for then is a separability idempotent for . █
It’s also easy to show half of Lemma 24 using this trick: if is separable we can pick a separability idempotent for it, and tensoring with an identity matrix we get a separability idempotent for , so is also separable. But the converse is apparently not so easy using this method. It pays to turn to some more abstract ideas.
Separable algebras and projective modules
We’ll use a beautiful connection between separable algebras and projective modules. There are various equivalent definitions of ‘projective module’, but we’ll just need two of the most famous:
a module is projective iff it is a summand of a free module,
a module is projective iff for any surjection of modules
we can lift any morphism to a morphism , i.e. we can find with .
These results hold for bimodules, too, since an -bimodule is the same as an -module.
Okay. Here is the beautiful connection:
Lemma 28. An algebra is separable iff it is projective as an -bimodule.
Proof. The key is to use Lemma 16: an algebra is separable iff the exact sequence of -bimodules
splits,
Now suppose is separable. Since is a free -bimodule and the above exact sequence splits, is a summand of a free bimodule, so it is projective.
Conversely, suppose is projective as an -bimodule. The multiplication map is a surjection of bimodules, so we can lift the identity to a morphism . This means precisely that splits the exact sequence of bimodules
so is separable. █
New separable algebras from old: Morita equivalence
Morita equivalence will ultimately become a hugely important character in my story, but for now it’s just a tool, so I’ll treat it quite superficially here. Two algebras and over our field are Morita equivalent if their categories of left modules are equivalent as -linear categories:
We say a property of algebras is Morita invariant if whenever has it and is Morita equivalent to , then has it too. The intuition is that some property of an algebra is Morita invariant if you can detect it just by examining the category of modules of that algebra. And soon we’ll see that separability is Morita invariant!
One can show that any algebra is Morita equivalent to the matrix algebra : the equivalence sends any -module to the -module . Thus, to prove the next of our three big lemmas:
Lemma 24. For any algebra , the matrix algebra is separable iff is separable.
it suffices to show this:
Lemma 29. Separability is Morita invariant: if two algebras and are Morita equivalent, then is separable iff is separable.
Proof. By a version of the Eilenberg–Watts theorem, the category of -bimodules is equivalent to the category of colimit-preserving -linear functors
The idea is that tensoring with any -bimodule gives such a functor , and all such functors come from -bimodules in this way (up to natural isomorphism). The -bimodule gives the identity functor .
In Lemma 28 we showed that is separable iff is projective in the category of -bimodules. Thus, is separable iff the identity functor is projective in the category of colimit-preserving -linear functors from to itself. But this last characterization of separability depends only on . So, separability is Morita invariant! █
I got this beautiful proof from Qiaochu Yuan’s blog.
I used to be intimidated by the Eilenberg–Watts theorem, but then I realized it’s a spinoff of the Yoneda embedding for enriched categories. For ordinary categories, part of the Yoneda business is that the presheaf category of a small category is its ‘free cocompletion’. This implies that ‘bimodules’ from to , also called profunctors, are equivalent to colimit-preserving functors . But if we work with categories enriched over we get an analogous result. We can think of an algebra as a 1-object enriched category of this sort, and then its enriched presheaf category is , and -bimodules are equivalent to colimit-preserving -linear functors .
Semisimple algebras and projective modules
We have just one more lemma to show: Lemma 25. This says that separable algebras are semisimple. To prove this we’ll use a nice connection between semisimple algebras and projective modules.
Lemma 30. An algebra is semisimple if every -module is projective.
Proof. It’s easy to use the ‘lifting property’ definition of projectivity to show that if is a projective module, any short exact sequence
splits. Thus if every -module is projective, every short exact sequence of -modules splits. But an algebra is semisimple if every short exact sequence of -modules splits. █
Most of the work is hidden in the last sentence! You can see a proof of that fact here. It’s a bit tiring and Zorny, so I won’t include it.
Separable algebras are semisimple
Now we’re ready to prove our last big lemma:
Lemma 25. Any separable algebra is semisimple.
Proof. We use the Eilenberg-Watts theorem again: the category of -bimodules is equivalent to the category of colimit-preserving -linear functors
Tensoring with the -bimodule gives the identity functor
while tensoring with the -bimodule gives the functor
The multiplication map thus gives a natural transformation
which is just the action of on . If is separable the multiplication map splits, and thus all these action maps split. Thus, each module is a summand of the module , which is a free module. Thus, every module of is projective. By Lemma 30, it follows that is semisimple. █
The Wedderburn-Artin Theorem for algebras
Theorem 22 (Wedderburn–Artin Theorem). Suppose are division algebras. Then any finite product of matrix algebras is semisimple. Conversely, any semisimple algebra is of this form.
Proof. If is a division algebra then every left -module is a direct sum of copies of the simple module , so is semisimple. Also, if and are semisimple we can show is as well, using the fact that . Thus any finite product of matrix algebras over division algebras is semisimple.
The interesting part is the other direction. Suppose is semisimple. Then by definition any left -module is a direct sum of simple modules, and any finitely generated -module must be a finite direct sum of such. is thus isomorphic as a left -module to a finite direct sum of simple modules, which are minimal left ideals of . Write this direct sum as
where the are mutually nonisomorphic simple -modules, the th one appearing with multiplicity . Then the algebra of left -module endomorphisms of is
We can identify with an algebra of matrices
But since is a simple module, the endomorphism algebra must be a division algebra, by Schur’s Lemma. (The proof of this lemma is instantaneous: if some nonzero element of this algebra had no inverse, either its kernel would be a nontrivial subobject of , or its cokernel would be a nontrivial quotient object — both impossible because is simple.) Thus we have
for some division algebras .
Since every endomorphism of as a left -module is given by right multiplication, as algebras, and we get
But since a matrix algebra is isomorphic to its opposite (using the transpose of matrices), it follows that
as desired. █
By the way, while we defined an algebra to be semisimple if its category of left modules is semisimple, the Wedderburn–Artin theorem implies that an algebra is semisimple iff its category of right modules is semisimple. The reason is that right -modules are equivalent to left -modules, but we’ve just seen that a semisimple algebra has .
Another way to put it is that an algebra is semisimple iff is semisimple. Similarly, our main theorem today implies that an algebra is separable iff is separable. So, these concepts are very different from Noetherianness, where we have distinct concepts of ‘left Noetherian’ and ‘right Noetherian’ rings, and is left Noetherian iff is right Noetherian.
Re: Grothendieck–Galois–Brauer Theory (Part 6)
Some results I’m not sure if you are aware of, but as a supplement, they are also very interesting.
In arXiv:1706.06904, Kong and Zheng discussed separable algebras and semisimple algebras in a more general context. They generalized the definition of division algebras, matrix algebras in a semisimple monoidal category. And they generalized some classical results, such as the classification theorem of separable algebras, the Morita invariants of separability, and separability implies semisimplicity, from to the so-called “multi-fusion” categories. Almost all the proofs are categorical and are not relying on the some properties of fields. That is why I think these results are beautiful.
Thanks for your attention to this comment.