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.

Are these two definitions equivalent?

  1. A ring $R$ is called semiabelian by Yiqiang Zhou if its identity $1$ can be written as a finite sum $1 = e_1 + \cdots + e_n$ of mutually orthogonal idempotents $e_i$ such that each corner ring $e_iRe_i$ is abelian.

  2. A ring $R$ is called semiabelian by Weixing Chen if every idempotent $e$ of $R$ is either left semicentral or right semicentral, where an idempotent $e$ of $R$ with complementary idempotent $f = 1-e$ is called left semicentral if $fRe = 0$ and right semicentral if $eRf = 0$.

Both definitions are proper generalizations of the notion of an abelian ring, and the first definition includes all semiperfect rings.

Follow-up: The answer from leslie townes shows that these definitions are not equivalent. More specifically, it shows that $(1) \not\Rightarrow (2)$. Does $(2) \Rightarrow (1)$?

share|improve this question
    
By "abelian" do you mean commutative? –  Qiaochu Yuan Jan 7 '12 at 7:40
    
By abelian, I mean all idempotents in the ring are central. –  Anononym Jan 7 '12 at 17:18

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

If you fix any commutative ring $R$ it seems to me that the ring $M$ of all $2 \times 2$ matrices with entries from $R$ (with the usual matrix operations: entrywise addition and multiplication according to the usual formulas) is semiabelian according to the first definition but not semiabelian according to the second.

Let $e_1 \in M$ denote the $2 \times 2$ matrix with a $1$ in the upper left corner and zeros everywhere else, and let $e_2 = I - e_1$ (where $I \in M$ denotes the usual $2 \times 2$ identity matrix). Then $e_1$ and $e_2$ are mutually orthogonal idempotents summing to $I$, and each of the rings $e_i M e_i$ is isomorphic to $R$ and hence commutative. So $M$ seems to verify the requirements of the first definition.

On the other hand, $e_1 M e_2$ is the set of strictly upper triangular matrices and $e_2 M e_1$ is the set of strictly lower triangular matrices; neither of these are $\{0\}$ so this seems to show that $M$ does not satisfy the requirements of the second definition.

Of course there is nothing special about $2 \times 2$ matrices here; it seems that essentially the same things could be said of the ring of $n \times n$ matrices over a commutative ring $R$ by adjusting the discussion only a little bit.

By all means, read this very critically. I could be making a mistake--- ring theory is not my specialty.

share|improve this answer
    
Incidentally, this answer shows that the second definition does not include all semiperfect rings. –  Anononym Jan 7 '12 at 17:17

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.