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.

While reading over Alperin's Local Representation Theory and reminding myself how a module is relatively H-projective iff H contains some vertex of the module, I realized I could not prove a basic lemma about relatively H-projective modules using my current favorite definition.

Definition: A G-module U is relatively H-projective if U is a direct summand of $(U_H)^G$.

Lemma: If HKG and U is a G-module that is relatively H-projective, then U is relatively K-projective.

Proof: Use Prop 9.1.2 to change definitions of relatively projective back to the good ole relative homological definition I used to like: H-split implies G-split. Clearly K-split implies H-split just by restricting the direct sum, but then relatively H-projectivity (Prop 9.1.2 style) gives G-split, but this suffices to show relative K-projectivity (Prop 9.1.2 style). $\square$

However, when I try to do this with $U|(U_H)^G$ I get confused and can't seem to use Mackey correctly. In Alperin's proof on page 67 he uses a similar but more convenient definition: that U is a direct summand of an induced H-module. Assuming my previous question is right, this is exactly the same as a direct summand of a relatively free module. However, I'm not sure I see how $U|(U_H)^G$ is equivalent to $U|S^G$ for some H-module S. Presumably this is Frobenius reciprocity, but again something is going wrong when I try to do it. At any rate, with the "S" definition it is just transitivity of induction, so I'd like to understand both.

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote accepted

The key thing you need is that $S\uparrow^G $ is relatively $H$-projective in the following sense: for all surjections $M_1 \to M_2$ of $G$-modules, for all maps $\lambda: S\uparrow \to M_2$, if there's a map of $H$-modules $S\uparrow \to M_1$ making the diagram commute on restriction to $H$ then there's a map of $G$-modules making it commute. This follows from the universal property of induction.

Now apply this to the surjeciton $U\downarrow \uparrow \to U$ and $S\uparrow \to U$, where the first map is the natural surjection and the second is projection onto the $U$ factor. There is a $H$-map $S\uparrow \to U\downarrow \uparrow$ making this commute: project onto $U$, include this into $U\downarrow \uparrow$ by $u \mapsto 1\otimes u$. Thus there is a $G$-map $S\uparrow \to U\downarrow\uparrow$ making everything commute. This restricts to a $G$-map $U \to U\downarrow\uparrow$ splitting the natural surjection, so $U|U\downarrow\uparrow$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks. Sorry I had misunderstood your answer earlier. This is quite clear to show the equivalence of U|U↓↑ and U|S↑. –  Jack Schmidt Jan 27 '12 at 16:51
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.