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.

During the discussion on this problem I found the following simple observation:

If $M$ is a monoid and $a \in M$ then $\{x: ax = xa\}$ is a submonoid.

This is trivial to prove by checking identity and closure under multiplication. Is there a more structural/conceptual proof, for example one that introduces some ideal, a homomorphism etc.? I attempted to use the monoid algebra $\mathbb{Z}[M]$ or a monoid action $a,(x,y) \to (ax,ya)$, but couldn't formalize it.

share|improve this question
4  
Any such proof would hardly be simpler than the direct calculatons, i.e. require sub-proofs of at least the same "complexity". –  Hagen von Eitzen Jan 7 '13 at 15:11
1  
This is true. However, I prefer to have only a small number of primitive ways of constructing monoids, such as products, inverse images etc. and, if possible, view other methods as disguised compositions of the simple methods. By this metric, a direct calculation puts a larger cognitive burden. –  sdcvvc Jan 7 '13 at 15:23
3  
If $a$ is invertible then the map $x \mapsto a x a^{-1}$ is a monoid homomorphism, and the submonoid you describe is the equaliser of this homomorphism and the identity. (The category of monoids is closed under equalisers in the category of sets.) –  Zhen Lin Jan 7 '13 at 16:04
2  
If it helps, this monoid is called the "centralizer of $a$". –  Hurkyl Jan 17 '13 at 21:07
1  
Actually these two generalizations are equivalent. You have already explained the one direction. For the other one, the inverse image w.r.t. $f \times g$ gives the submonoid defined by $a f(x)=g(y) a$. Now intersect with the diagonal. –  Martin Brandenburg Feb 14 '13 at 23:58

2 Answers 2

up vote 5 down vote accepted

I don't know whether to call the following a "structural proof" or a "fancied-up proof." In any case, it's different from the obvious proof.

Let $R$ be a ring. An additive function $d \colon R \to R$ is called a derivation if $d(xy) = d(x)y + xd(y)$ for all $x,y \in R$. It is well-known that any element $a \in R$ defines an inner derivation $[a,-] \colon R \to R$, given by $x \mapsto [a,x] = ax - xa$.

Here's the part that I'm worried may be considered "cheating": It's rather easy to compute that the kernel of a derivation $d \colon R \to R$ is a subring of $R$, which contains the multiplicative identity if $R$ has one (using $d(1) = d(1 \cdot 1)=\cdots$).

Now given a monoid $M$ and element $a \in M$, consider the monoid ring $R = \mathbb{Z}[M]$ as you mentioned above. Let $d = [a,-] \colon R \to R$ be the inner derivation defined by the element $a$. Then $\ker(d)$ is a unital subring of $R$, in particular a submonoid of $R$. One readily sees that the centralizer of $a$ in $M$ is equal to $M \cap \ker(d)$, and is therefore a submonoid of $M$.

Like I said above, I'm not convinced that this answer is in the spirit intended by the question. But I thought I would offer at least a proof from a rather different perspective.

share|improve this answer
1  
1+, this is a really interesting connection. –  Martin Brandenburg Feb 14 '13 at 23:40

I completely agree with the comment by Hagen von Eitzen. Therefore, I won't interpret the question as giving the most simple proof, but rather as how to generalize it. In fact, there are various variants. For now, I only flesh out the part about universal algebra; perhaps I will add something about monoidal categories later. I hope that this sheds some light on the "nature" of this basic observation. But in any case it doesn't seem to be completely formal: None of the usual categorical constructions produce this submonoid.

$~~~\textbf{1. Universal algebra}$

Given an algebraic theory $\tau$, a class $B$ of binary operations in $\tau$ and an optional constant $e$, assume the following:

a) For all $*,\circ \in B$, we have an equality of derived ternary operations $a * (b \circ c) = (a*b) \circ c = (a \circ b) * c = a \circ (b * c)$.

b) For all $* \in B$ we have $a*e=e*a$ as derived unary operations.

c) All $* \in B$ are "bihomomorphisms" with respect to all operations outside of $B$. That is, for every $n \in \mathbb{N}$ and every $n$-ary operation $e \neq \omega \in B^c$ we have $a * w(b_1,\dotsc,b_n) = w(a*b_1,\dotsc,a*b_n)$ as well as $w(b_1,\dotsc,b_n)*a = w(b_1*a,\dotsc,b_n*a)$ as derived $n+1$-ary operations.

When we don't use $e$, then b) is dropped, as well as the condition $e \neq \omega$ in c).

Observation. Let $M$ be a $\tau$-module and $a \in M$. Then $N=\{(x,y) \in M^2 : \forall * \in B : a*x=y*a\}$ is a submodule of $M^2$.

In particular, $\{x \in M : \forall * \in B : a*x=x*a\}$ is a submodule of $M$.

Proof. Clearly $(e,e) \in N$. Let $(x,y),(x',y') \in N$, then for all $\circ \in B$ we have $(x \circ x',y \circ y') \in M$, since for all $* \in B$ we have

$a*(x \circ x') = (a*x) \circ x' = (y*a) \circ x' = y*(a \circ x')=y*(y' \circ a) = (y \circ y') * a$.

This shows the closure property with respect to $B$. If $\omega \in B^c$ is $n$-ary and $(x_i,y_i) \in N$ for $1 \leq i \leq n$, then $(\omega(x_1,\dotsc,x_n),\omega(y_1,\dotsc,y_n)) \in N$, since for all $* \in B$ we have

$a*\omega(x_1,\dotsc,x_n) = \omega(a*x_1,\dotsc,a*x_n)=\omega(y_1*a,\dotsc,y_n*a)=\omega(y_1,\dotsc,y_n)*a$. $~~\square$

General remark. When in b) we even demand $a*e=a=e*a$, then by a) $B$ consists of at most one binary operation.

Example 1. Let $\tau$ be the theory of semigroups with $B$ consist of the product. Then the conditions are satisfied, so that for every semigroup $H$ and $a \in H$ we have that $\{(x,y) \in H^2: a*x=y*a\}$ is a subsemigroup of $H^2$.

Example 2. Let $\tau$ be the theory of monoids with $B$ consist of the product and $e$ the unit element. Then the conditions are satisfied. Thus, for every monoid $M$ and $a \in M$ we have that $\{(x,y) \in M^2 : a*x=y*a\}$ is a submonoid of $M^2$.

Example 3. Let $\tau$ be the theory of rings (optionally unital and/or commutative) with $B,e$ as before. Then the conditions are satisfied. Hence, if $R$ is a ring and $a \in R$, then $\{(x,y) \in R^2 : a*x=y*a\}$ is a subring of $R^2$. The same works with semirings.

Non-Example 4. Let $\tau$ be the theory of $\star$-rings, i.e. rings equipped with an involutive antiautomorphism. Then c) is not satisfied. And in fact, if $R$ is a $\star$-ring and $a \in R$, then $\{x \in R : ax=xa\}$ is not always a sub-$\star$-ring of $R$. A necessary condition is that $a$ is normal, i.e. that $a$ commutes with $a^\star$. A sufficient condition is that $a$ is self-adjoint, i.e. that $a=a^\star$.

Observe, however, that $\{x \in R : ax=xa, a^\star x = x a^\star\}$ is a sub-$\star$-ring of $R$. More generally, if $S \subseteq R$ is a sub-$\star$-ring of $R$, then its centralizer $\{x \in R : \forall a \in S : ax=xa\}$ is a sub-$\star$-ring of $R$. This fact is quite important in the theory of von Neumann algebras, a branch of modern functional analysis. However, the corresponding statement for theories $\tau$ does not hold without further assumptions on $\tau$!

I hope that this illustrates that the observation is not completely formal. Instead, it is a quite interesting one, which deserves more attention in other categories as well.

$~~~\textbf{2. Monoidal categories}$

The observation for monoids generalizes as follows: If $M$ is a monoid and $N$ is a submonoid of $M$, then its centralizer $C(N) = \{x \in M : \forall n \in N : xn=nx\}$ is a submonoid of $M$. Now, this statement internalizes into an arbitrary closed symmetric monoidal category $\mathcal{C}$ with equalizers:

Let $(M,\mu,e)$ be a monoid object in $\mathcal{C}$, and let $(N,\mu,e)$ be a submonoid of $M$, or even more generally any monoid equipped with a homomorphism $i : N \to M$ of monoid objects. There are two morphisms $\check{f},\check{g}: M \otimes N \rightrightarrows M$, namely the composition $M \otimes N \xrightarrow{M \otimes i} M \otimes M \xrightarrow{\mu} M$, as well as the composition $M \otimes N \xrightarrow{M \otimes i} M \otimes M \xrightarrow{S} M \otimes M \xrightarrow{\mu} M$, where $S$ denotes the symmetry. These correspond to two morphisms $f,g : M \rightrightarrows \underline{\hom}(N,M)$. Let $j : C(S) \hookrightarrow M$ be their equalizer. Then one can prove that $C(S)$ carries a unique monoid structure in such a way that $j$ becomes a homomorphism of monoids. Remark that this cannot be purely formal, for example since $f,g$ are not homomorphisms of monoids. I will omit the proof, because it is just a straight forward generalization of the case $\mathcal{C}=\mathsf{Set}$. One just as to "diagram-ize" the element calculations.

There are lots of closed symmetric monoidal categories, where this can be applied. For $\mathsf{Ab}$, we get centralizers for subrings. For $\mathsf{Mod}(R)$ we get centralizers for sub-$R$-algebras. For $\mathsf{Sh}(X)$ we get centralizers for sub(sheaves of rings on $X$). I am also pretty sure that the statement holds for higher categories, so that for example we get centralizers for subring spectra.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for this answer, especially the sub-$\star$-ring part. –  sdcvvc Feb 17 '13 at 18:57

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.