Skip to the Main Content

Note:These pages make extensive use of the latest XHTML and CSS Standards. They ought to look great in any standards-compliant modern browser. Unfortunately, they will probably look horrible in older browsers, like Netscape 4.x and IE 4.x. Moreover, many posts use MathML, which is, currently only supported in Mozilla. My best suggestion (and you will thank me when surfing an ever-increasing number of sites on the web which have been crafted to use the new standards) is to upgrade to the latest version of your browser. If that's not possible, consider moving to the Standards-compliant and open-source Mozilla browser.

October 27, 2023

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, kk is any field, and all algebras are over kk. I’ll write M n(A)M_n(A) for the algebra of n×nn \times n matrices with entries in the algebra AA. I’ll call this a matrix algebra over AA.

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 k=k = \mathbb{R}. These are the only separable division algebras over \mathbb{R}. There are lots of other division algebras over \mathbb{R}, 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 D iD_i are separable division algebras. Then any finite product of matrix algebras M n i(D i)M_{n_i}(D_i) 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 AA 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 AA over kk is semisimple if the category AMod_{A}\mathrm{Mod} of left AA-modules is semisimple.

We then have:

Theorem 22 (Wedderburn–Artin Theorem). Suppose D iD_i are division algebras. Then any finite product of matrix algebras M n i(D i)M_{n_i}(D_i) 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 A×BA \times B is separable iff AA and BB are separable.

Lemma 24. For any algebra AA, the matrix algebra M n(A)M_n(A) is separable iff AA is separable.

Lemma 25. Any separable algebra is semisimple.

The argument is then easy as pie. Suppose D iD_i are separable division algebras. Then the matrix algebras M n i(D i)M_{n_i}(D_i) is separable by Lemma 24, so the product

i=1 mM n i(D i) \prod_{i = 1}^m M_{n_i}(D_i)

is separable by Lemma 23.

Conversely, suppose AA is a separable algebra. Then AA is semisimple by Lemma 25, so the Wedderburn–Artin theorem implies

A i=1 mM n i(D i) A \cong \prod_{i = 1}^m M_{n_i}(D_i)

for some division algebras D iD_i. By Lemmas 23 and 24, the separability of AA implies the separability of each division algebra D iD_i.    █

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:

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 A×BA \times B is separable iff AA and BB are. For this it’s nice to think about separability in a very concrete and practical way. The idea is that AA is separable iff AAA \otimes A contains an element π\pi with some special properties, called a ‘separability idempotent’. It’s called ‘idempotent’ because π 2=π\pi^2 = \pi if we think of it as an element of the algebra AA opA \otimes A^{\text{op}}, but we won’t need that here.

First remember Lemma 16: an algebra AA is separable iff the exact sequence of A,AA,A-bimodules

0IiAAmA0 0 \longrightarrow I \stackrel{i}{\longrightarrow} A \otimes A \stackrel{m}{\longrightarrow} A \longrightarrow 0

splits, where mm is the multiplication map, and we make AAA \otimes A into an A,AA,A-bimodule like this:

a(bc)=abc,(bc)a=bca a(b \otimes c) = a b \otimes c, (b \otimes c)a = b \otimes c a

The splitting gives a map

Δ:AAA \Delta \colon A \to A \otimes A

and since this is a map of bimodules and AA is generated as a bimodule by 1A1 \in A, Δ\Delta is determined by the image of 11, say

π=Δ(1)AA \pi = \Delta(1) \in A \otimes A

This element π\pi has two important properties. Since Δ\Delta is a bimodule map we have

aπ=aΔ(1)=Δ(a)=Δ(1)a=πa a \pi = a \Delta(1) = \Delta(a) = \Delta(1) a = \pi a

and since Δ\Delta is a splitting we have

m(π)=m(Δ(1))=1 m(\pi) = m(\Delta(1)) = 1

So, we’ve shown half of this without even breaking a sweat:

Lemma 26. An algebra AA is separable iff there exists a separability idempotent for AA: that is, πAA\pi \in A \otimes A with m(π)=1Am(\pi) = 1 \in A and aπ=πaa \pi = \pi a for all aAa \in A.

The converse is just as easy: given π\pi obeying these equations we just define

Δ(a)=aπ \Delta(a) = a \pi

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 AA is separable.

Proof. Given a surjection j:ABj \colon A \to B and a separability idempotent for AA, we get a separability idempotent (jj)π(j \otimes j)\pi for the quotient algebra BB.    █

And now we’re ready to get the job done:

Lemma 23. A product A×BA \times B of algebras over kk is separable iff AA and BB are separable.

Proof. If A×BA \times B is separable its quotients AA and BB are separable by Lemma 27. Conversely, if we have separability idempotents pp for AA and qq for BB then (p,q)(p,q) is a separability idempotent for A×BA \times B.    █

It’s also easy to show half of Lemma 24 using this trick: if AA is separable we can pick a separability idempotent π\pi for it, and tensoring π\pi with an identity matrix we get a separability idempotent for M n(A)M_n(A), so M n(A)M_n(A) 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 PP is projective iff for any surjection of modules

    YpX0 Y \stackrel{p}{\longrightarrow} X \longrightarrow 0
    we can lift any morphism f:PXf \colon P \to X to a morphism g:PYg \colon P \to Y, i.e. we can find gg with f=pgf = p \circ g.

These results hold for bimodules, too, since an A,BA,B-bimodule is the same as an AB opA \otimes B^{\text{op}}-module.

Okay. Here is the beautiful connection:

Lemma 28. An algebra AA is separable iff it is projective as an A,AA,A-bimodule.

Proof. The key is to use Lemma 16: an algebra AA is separable iff the exact sequence of A,AA,A-bimodules

0IiAAmA0 0 \longrightarrow I \stackrel{i}{\longrightarrow} A \otimes A \stackrel{m}{\longrightarrow} A \longrightarrow 0

splits,

Now suppose AA is separable. Since AAA \otimes A is a free A,AA,A-bimodule and the above exact sequence splits, AA is a summand of a free bimodule, so it is projective.

Conversely, suppose AA is projective as an A,AA,A-bimodule. The multiplication map m:AAAm \colon A \otimes A \to A is a surjection of bimodules, so we can lift the identity 1:AA1 \colon A \to A to a morphism Δ:AAA\Delta \colon A \to A \otimes A. This means precisely that Δ\Delta splits the exact sequence of bimodules

0IiAAmA0 0 \longrightarrow I \stackrel{i}{\longrightarrow} A \otimes A \stackrel{m}{\longrightarrow} A \longrightarrow 0

so AA 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 AA and BB over our field kk are Morita equivalent if their categories of left modules are equivalent as kk-linear categories:

AMod BMod {}_A \mathrm{Mod} \simeq {}_B \mathrm{Mod}

We say a property of algebras is Morita invariant if whenever AA has it and BB is Morita equivalent to AA, then BB 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 AA is Morita equivalent to the matrix algebra M n(A)M_n(A): the equivalence sends any AA-module XX to the M n(A)M_n(A)-module X nX^n. Thus, to prove the next of our three big lemmas:

Lemma 24. For any algebra AA, the matrix algebra M n(A)M_n(A) is separable iff AA is separable.

it suffices to show this:

Lemma 29. Separability is Morita invariant: if two algebras AA and BB are Morita equivalent, then AA is separable iff BB is separable.

Proof. By a version of the Eilenberg–Watts theorem, the category of A,AA,A-bimodules is equivalent to the category of colimit-preserving kk-linear functors

F: AMod AMod F \colon {}_A \mathrm{Mod} \to {}_A \mathrm{Mod}

The idea is that tensoring with any A,AA,A-bimodule gives such a functor FF, and all such functors come from A,AA,A-bimodules in this way (up to natural isomorphism). The A,AA,A-bimodule AA gives the identity functor 1: AMod AMod1 \colon {}_A \mathrm{Mod} \to {}_A \mathrm{Mod}.

In Lemma 28 we showed that AA is separable iff AA is projective in the category of A,AA,A-bimodules. Thus, AA is separable iff the identity functor 1: AMod AMod1 \colon {}_A \mathrm{Mod} \to {}_A \mathrm{Mod} is projective in the category of colimit-preserving kk-linear functors from AMod{}_A \mathrm{Mod} to itself. But this last characterization of separability depends only on AMod {}_A \mathrm{Mod}. 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 C^\widehat{C} of a small category CC is its ‘free cocompletion’. This implies that ‘bimodules’ from CC to DD, also called profunctors, are equivalent to colimit-preserving functors F:C^D^ F \colon \widehat{C} \to \widehat{D}. But if we work with categories enriched over Vect k\mathrm{Vect}_k we get an analogous result. We can think of an algebra AA as a 1-object enriched category of this sort, and then its enriched presheaf category is AMod{}_A \mathrm{Mod}, and A,BA,B-bimodules are equivalent to colimit-preserving kk-linear functors F: AMod BModF \colon {}_A \mathrm{Mod} \to {}_B \mathrm{Mod}.

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 AA is semisimple if every AA-module is projective.

Proof. It’s easy to use the ‘lifting property’ definition of projectivity to show that if PP is a projective module, any short exact sequence

0MNP0 0 \to M \to N \to P \to 0

splits. Thus if every AA-module is projective, every short exact sequence of AA-modules splits. But an algebra AA is semisimple if every short exact sequence of AA-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 A,AA,A-bimodules is equivalent to the category of colimit-preserving kk-linear functors

F: AMod AMod F \colon {}_A \mathrm{Mod} \to {}_A \mathrm{Mod}

Tensoring with the AA-bimodule AA gives the identity functor

1: AMod AMod 1 \colon {}_A \mathrm{Mod} \to {}_A \mathrm{Mod}

while tensoring with the AA-bimodule AAA \otimes A gives the functor

A k: AMod AMod A \otimes_k - \colon {}_A \mathrm{Mod} \to {}_A \mathrm{Mod}

The multiplication map m:AAAm \colon A \otimes A \to A thus gives a natural transformation

α M kMM(M AMod) \alpha_M \otimes_k M \to M \qquad (M \in {}_A \mathrm{Mod})

which is just the action of AA on MM. If AA is separable the multiplication map splits, and thus all these action maps α M\alpha_M split. Thus, each module MM is a summand of the module A kMA \otimes_k M, which is a free module. Thus, every module of AA is projective. By Lemma 30, it follows that AA is semisimple.    █

The Wedderburn-Artin Theorem for algebras

Theorem 22 (Wedderburn–Artin Theorem). Suppose D iD_i are division algebras. Then any finite product of matrix algebras M n i(D i)M_{n_i}(D_i) is semisimple. Conversely, any semisimple algebra is of this form.

Proof. If DD is a division algebra then every left M n(D)M_n(D)-module is a direct sum of copies of the simple module D nD^n, so DD is semisimple. Also, if AA and BB are semisimple we can show A×BA \times B is as well, using the fact that Mod(A×B)Mod(A)×Mod(B)\mathrm{Mod}(A \times B) \simeq \mathrm{Mod}(A) \times \mathrm{Mod}(B). Thus any finite product of matrix algebras over division algebras is semisimple.

The interesting part is the other direction. Suppose AA is semisimple. Then by definition any left AA-module is a direct sum of simple modules, and any finitely generated AA-module must be a finite direct sum of such. AA is thus isomorphic as a left AA-module to a finite direct sum of simple modules, which are minimal left ideals of AA. Write this direct sum as

A iI i n i A \;\cong\; \bigoplus_i I_i^{n_i}

where the I iI_i are mutually nonisomorphic simple AA-modules, the iith one appearing with multiplicity n in_i. Then the algebra of left AA-module endomorphisms of AA is

End(A) iEnd(I n i) \mathrm{End}(A) \;\cong\; \prod_i \mathrm{End}\big(I^{n_i}\big)

We can identify End(I i n i)\mathrm{End}\big(I_i^{n_i}\big) with an algebra of matrices

End(I i n i)M n i(End(I i)) \mathrm{End}\big(I_i^{n_i}\big) \;\cong\; M_{n_i}\big(\mathrm{End}(I_i)\big)

But since I iI_i is a simple module, the endomorphism algebra End(I i)\mathrm{End}(I_i) 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 I iI_i, or its cokernel would be a nontrivial quotient object — both impossible because I iI_i is simple.) Thus we have

End(A) iM n i(D i) \mathrm{End}(A) \;\cong\; \prod_i M_{n_i}\big(D_i\big)

for some division algebras D iD_i.

Since every endomorphism of AA as a left AA-module is given by right multiplication, End(A)A op\mathrm{End}(A) \cong A^{\text{op}} as algebras, and we get

A op iM n i(D i) A^{\text{op}} \;\cong\; \prod_i M_{n_i}\big(D_i)

But since a matrix algebra is isomorphic to its opposite (using the transpose of matrices), it follows that

A iM n i(D i) A \;\cong\; \prod_i M_{n_i}(D_i)

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 AA-modules are equivalent to left A opA^{\text{op}}-modules, but we’ve just seen that a semisimple algebra has AA opA \cong A^{\text{op}}.

Another way to put it is that an algebra AA is semisimple iff A opA^{\text{op}} is semisimple. Similarly, our main theorem today implies that an algebra AA is separable iff A opA^{\text{op}} is separable. So, these concepts are very different from Noetherianness, where we have distinct concepts of ‘left Noetherian’ and ‘right Noetherian’ rings, and RR is left Noetherian iff R opR^{\text{op}} is right Noetherian.

Posted at October 27, 2023 9:00 AM UTC

TrackBack URL for this Entry:   https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/cgi-bin/MT-3.0/dxy-tb.fcgi/3495

2 Comments & 0 Trackbacks

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 Vect kVect_k 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.

Posted by: Holiverse Yang on December 6, 2023 4:25 AM | Permalink | Reply to this

Re: Grothendieck–Galois–Brauer Theory (Part 6)

Thanks! I wasn’t aware of this paper. I planned, in this series of posts, to start discussing generalizations of the theory of separable algebras to other symmetric monoidal categories. I especially enjoyed this paper:

which despite the scary title has interesting results that don’t require anything about ‘triangulated’ bicategories. I wanted to take some of the key results here and give somewhat different proofs relying on a bit more category theory. Unfortunately right now I seem quite distracted by other projects!

Posted by: John Baez on December 6, 2023 1:41 PM | Permalink | Reply to this

Post a New Comment