This question is based on an exercise in Etingof's Introduction to Representation Theory. Let $A$ be an associative algebra (say over a field $k$) and $M$ an $A$-module. Write $\rho : A \to \text{End}_k(M)$ for the action map. By a formal deformation of $M$ I mean a formal power series $\widetilde{\rho} = \rho + \rho_1t + \rho_2t^2 + \cdots$, where each $\rho_i : A \to \text{End}_k(M)$ is a $k$-linear map, satisfying $\widetilde{\rho}(ab) = \widetilde{\rho}(a) \widetilde{\rho}(b)$ for all $a,b \in A$. Two formal deformations are equivalent if they are conjugate by a power series $b = 1 + b_1t + b_2t^2 + \cdots$ where $b_i \in \text{End}_k(M)$.

My question: why does $\text{Ext}^1(M,M) = 0$ imply that any formal deformation $\widetilde{\rho}$ is equivalent to $\rho$? I can see that $\rho_1$ is a $1$-cocycle, so if we are trying to achieve $b\widetilde{\rho} = \rho b$ we should choose $b_1 \in \text{End}_k(M)$ so that $db_1 = \rho_1$. But what happens at the higher levels?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Just to clarify, do you intend $b$ to be a formal power series $1+b_1t+b_2t^2+\cdots$, or just a quadratic expression? $\endgroup$ – Alex Becker Jul 5 '12 at 17:07
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Alex, I have fixed the typo. $\endgroup$ – Justin Campbell Jul 5 '12 at 17:37

Here is a hint. Let $X$ be a module with underlying vector space $M\oplus M$ where the second summand is a submodule isomorphic to $M$, and the action on the first is $a(m,0)=(am, \rho_1(a)(m))$. If this really is a module structure $\rho_1$ must be a cocycle and the fact that $X$ splits is equivalent to your "there exists $b_1$ such that $db_1=\rho_1$". To work with the higher $b_i$s, you can look at modules with underlying vector space $M\oplus M \oplus \cdots$.

e.g. $M\oplus M\oplus M$ with the last summand having the standard $M$-action, $a(m,0,0)=(am, \rho_1(a)(m), \rho_2(a)(m))$ and $a(0,m,0)=(0,am, \rho_1(a)(m))$. The condition for this to be a module is exactly that coming from $\tilde{\rho}(ab)=\tilde{\rho}(a)\tilde{\rho}(b)$. Now, $(m,n,l)\mapsto m$ must split via $m \mapsto (m, \phi(m), \psi(m))$ for some $\phi, \psi$...

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Excellent! I figured it out. This is much better than the horrible inductive argument which initially occurred to me. I noticed there is an easy induction with long exact sequences involved here, namely to show that $\text{Ext}^1$ of $M$ and the $n^{\text{th}}$ module you construct vanishes. $\endgroup$ – Justin Campbell Jul 5 '12 at 23:14

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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