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.

Let $k$ be a field and $G$ a group. Suppose we have $kG$-modules $A$ and $B$, and we want to consider $A\otimes_k B$ as a $kG$-module via $g(a\otimes b)=ga\otimes gb$. The module axioms are easy enough to verify, but how does one show this action is even well-defined?

Thoughts: Consider the map $\phi_g:A\times B\to A\otimes_k B$ given by $(a,b)\mapsto ga\otimes gb$, where $g$ is just a fixed group element. I want to show this is $kG$-balanced (so that we have a well-defined group homomorphism on $A\otimes_k B$). It's obviously additive in both coordinates, but it's not clear to me why $\phi_g(a,xb)=\phi_g(ax,b)$ for $x\in kG$. This seems to involve passing $g$ by $x$, but that is very suspicious

share|improve this question
    
The easiest way to proceed, in my mind, is to note that giving a $k$-linear $G$-action on a $k$-module $M$ is the same thing as giving a group homomorphism $G \to \textrm{Aut}_k (M)$. So each element $g$ of $G$ corresponds to an automorphism $\theta_g$ of $M$ and an automorphism $\psi_g$ of $N$. Since $\otimes_k$ is functorial, we get an automorphism $\theta_g \otimes_k \psi_g$ of $M \otimes_k N$, and it's not too hard to see that this defines a homomorphism $G \to \textrm{Aut}_k(M \otimes N)$. –  Zhen Lin Sep 18 '12 at 5:03
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 2 down vote accepted

The tensor product here is the tensor product over $k$, not the tensor product over $k[G]$. You only need to show that $\phi_g$ is $k$-balanced, not $k[G]$-balanced (which won't be the case in general if $G$ is not abelian).

share|improve this answer
add comment

Let $x=kg'$, then $\phi_{g}(a,xb)=ga\otimes gkg'b=kga\otimes gg'b$. While $\phi_{g}(ax,b)=gakg'\otimes gb=kgag'\otimes gb$. So you want to show $ga\otimes gg'b=gag'\otimes gb$. Unless you make your basic ring to be $k[G]$ you cannot have such a relationship. Qianchu's remark seems to be helpful in suggesting using $x\in k$ altogether.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.