Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

My question is motivated from studying logarithmic algebraic geometry. (For a detailed introduction to the subject, see this book by Arthur Ogus.) However, I believe my question is accessible to anyone who knows basic algebra.

An integral monoid is a finitely generated commutative monoid $M$ such that the cancellative rule holds: if $a + b = a + c$, then $b = c$. A face $F$ of a monoid $M$ is a submonoid such that if $a+b \in F$, then both $a \in F$ and $b \in F$.

My question is the following. Suppose $F$ is a face of an integral monoid $M$. Is there a unique submonoid $E \subseteq M$ such that:

  1. $F \subseteq E$,
  2. there exists some $E' \subseteq M$ such that $M$ is the (internal) direct sum of $E$ and $E'$, and
  3. if $E''$ is some other submonoid satisfying (1) and (2), then $E \subseteq E''$ (that is, $E$ is minimal with respect to inclusion)?


share|improve this question
There's a unique minimal submonoid containing $F$, but why do you think there should be one that splits $M$? –  Kevin Carlson Aug 21 '12 at 19:50
I mean to say that $E$ is the minimal submonoid that satisfies (1) and (2). For example, $E = M$ works, but there might also be a smaller one. –  Michael Kasa Aug 21 '12 at 20:15
Are these monoids commutative? I ask because you're using + to denote the monoid operation. –  Harry Altman Aug 21 '12 at 22:21
Yes! Thanks for the clarification. –  Michael Kasa Aug 21 '12 at 22:27
You should probably edit the clarifications into the original question. Also: I'm guessing that you actually want M to be the internal direct sum of E and E', rather than just being abstractly isomorphic to their direct sum? (These are not the same in general). –  Harry Altman Aug 22 '12 at 0:27
show 3 more comments

2 Answers

Consider the monoid $M\subseteq\Bbb Z^2$ generated by $(1,0),(1,1),(1,2).$ The submonoid $E=\langle (1,0)\rangle$ is a face of $M.$ Any $E'$ such that $E+E'=M$ must contain $(1,1)$ and $(1,2),$ so we must have $E'\supseteq\langle(1,1),(1,2)\rangle.$ Note that $(2,2)=2(1,1)=(1,0)+(1,2)$ is not uniquely expressed as a sum $f\oplus g$ for $f\in E,g\in E',$ thus, we cannot have $M=E\oplus E'$ in this case.

Edit: Following the comment. Suppose $E\neq F$. If $E$ contains $(1,1)$, then $E'$ must contain $(1,2)$ (otherwise $E=M$), and we have the same problem. If $E$ does not contain $(1,1)$, then $E'$ must. Further, if $E'$ contains $(1,2)$ then we are in the previous situation. So we are left with $(1,0),(1,2)\in E$ and $(1,1)\in E'.$ But again, $2(1,1)$ and $(1,0)+(1,2)$ are distinct sums giving $(2,2).$ So in this case we find that the only submonoid possible with the desired properties is $M.$

share|improve this answer
So here you show that for $F = <(1,0)>$, $E=F$ does not satisfy property (2). Keep in mind that I do not require $E=F$, and I do not require that $E$ is a strict submonoid of $M$. Indeed, the entire monoid $E=M$ obviously satisfies (1) and (2), and I have yet to find a smaller submonoid that violates (3). (I suspect that the answer to my question in this case is $E=M$.) –  Michael Kasa Aug 22 '12 at 15:29
@MichaelKasa, I think you're correct that $E=M$ in this case, and I edited the question to prove this. I suppose I didn't help you prove/disprove the question here, but merely gave an example where the decomposition must be trivial. However, given that $M$ always satisfies 1 and 2 makes me feel like there should be some sort of "descending argument", like taking the intersection over the family of submonoids satisfying 1&2, which we know is non-empty. –  Andrew Aug 22 '12 at 17:11
I agree with your remarks about a "descending argument," except that heretofore I have been unable to show that (2) holds for the intersection (I suppose this is really the only tricky part). –  Michael Kasa Aug 24 '12 at 3:27
add comment
up vote 0 down vote accepted

The answer is "yes" in the special case of sharp monoids; that is, monoids where the only invertible element is 0. For a sharp integral monoid $P$, there is a finite collection of indecomposible elements, where an element $x\in P$ is indecomposible if whenever $x = y+z$, then either $y=0$ or $z=0$.

In this case, a face $F \subseteq P$ determines a subset of indecomposible elements (namely, the indecomposible elements contained in $F$). Thus, it is clear that $P$ has only finitely many faces.

Since any submoniod $E$ satisfying (2) in a sharp monoid is a face, it suffices to show the following: if we have two submonoid $E_1, E_2$ satisfying (1) and (2), then their intersection $E_1 \cap E_2$ also satisfies (1) and (2).

Write the indecomposible elements of $P$ as $f_1,\ldots,f_n,e_1,\ldots,e_m$. Let $f_1,\ldots, f_n, e_1,\ldots, e_\ell$ be the indecomposible elements associated to $F_1$, and $f_1,\ldots f_n,e_p,\ldots, e_m$ be the indecomposible elements associated to $F_2$, where $1 \leq \ell < p \leq m$. Let $F_0 = F_1 \cap F_2$, and let $E_0$ be the submonoid generated by $e_1, \ldots, e_m$. Clearly $F_0 + E_0 = P$.

It suffices to show that if $$ \sum_{i=1}^n n_i f_i + \sum_{i=1}^m m_i e_i = \sum_{i=1}^n n_i' f_i + \sum_{i=1}^m m_i' e_i$$ then both $$ \sum_{i=1}^n n_i f_i = \sum_{i=1}^n n_i' f_i $$ and $$ \sum_{i=1}^m m_i e_i = \sum_{i=1}^m m_i' e_i. $$ By the cancellative rule, one implies the other.

Because $E_1 \oplus E_1' \cong P$, we can conclude that $$ \sum_{i=1}^n n_i f_i + \sum_{i=1}^\ell m_i e_i = \sum_{i=1}^n n_i' f_i + \sum_{i=1}^\ell m_i' e_i. $$ Because $E_2 \oplus E_2' \cong P$, we can conclude that $$ \sum_{i=1}^p m_i e_i = \sum_{i=1}^p m_i' e_i. $$ If we add $\sum_{i=\ell+1}^p (m_i + m_i') e_i$ to the top equation, we have $$ \sum_{i=1}^n n_i f_i + \sum_{i=1}^p m_i e_i + \sum_{i=\ell+1}^p m_i' e_i = \sum_{i=1}^n n_i' f_i + \sum_{i=1}^p m_i' e_i + \sum_{i=\ell+1}^p m_i e_i. $$ By the second equation and the cancellative law, we see that $$ \sum_{i=1}^n n_i f_i + \sum_{i=\ell+1}^p m_i' e_i = \sum_{i=1}^n n_i' f_i + \sum_{i=\ell+1}^p m_i e_i . $$ Using either direct sum decomposition, we now can conclude that $$ \sum_{i=1}^n n_i f_i = \sum_{i=1}^n n_i' f_i, $$ which is what we had to show.

Hence, the submonoid satisfying (1), (2), and (3) above is the intersection of all the monoids satisfying (1) and (2).

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.