6
$\begingroup$

Let $R$ be any ring with identity $1_R$.

Prove that if there exist idempotents $e_1,..., e_n, e'_1,...,e'_n \in R$ such that

$$ 1_R = e_1 +...+ e_n = e'_1+... e'_n$$ then the following conditions are equivalent:

(i) $Re_i \simeq_R Re'_i$ for all $1 \leq i \leq n$

(ii) There exists an invertible element $a \in R^\times$ such that $e'_i = ae_ia^{-1}$ for all $1 \leq i \leq n$

My attempt:

$\bullet$ $(ii) \Rightarrow (i)$

Define a ring homomoprhism $$ \psi : Re'_i \longrightarrow Re_i$$

such that $\psi(x) = xa$.

It is well defined and we check that its image lies in $Re'_i$ :

$$\psi(x) = \psi(xe'_i) = xe'_ia=x(aa^{-1})e'_ia=xae_i \in Re_i$$

To prove surjectivity just note that for any $r \in R$, we have $$re_i= \psi(ra^{-1}e'_i)$$

Injectivity follows because $a$ is a unit, and therefore $xa=0 \Longleftrightarrow x=0$, thus Ker $\psi = \{0\}$

$\bullet$ $(i) \Rightarrow (ii)$

For each $1 \leq i \leq n$ let $\phi_i$ be an isomoprhism between $Re_i$ and $Re'_i$.

Define $\phi \in $ End($R$) such that $\phi(x) = \phi_i(x)$ whenever $x \in Re_i$.

Now is the part I get stuck, I feel I am heading in the right direction and I have tried to play with the images of $e_i$ but I can't seem to get close to proving what I want.

Any suggestions please?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Where did you find this exercise? I normally put more conditions on idempotents, so I'm probably going to use stuff I shouldn't when I try this. Also, is $\phi$ well defined? And I would try to play with the images of $1$, since this is the only invertible element of $R$ that you know. $\endgroup$ – Mathematician 42 May 5 '16 at 23:18
  • $\begingroup$ If you know that $e_ie_j=0$ for $i\ne j$ and $e'_ie'_j=0$ for $i\ne j$, then $a=\sum_i\phi_i^{-1}(e_i')$ and $a^{-1}=\sum_i \phi_i(e_i)$ will do, where $\phi_i:Re_i\to Re_i'$ are the given isomorphisms. $\endgroup$ – san May 6 '16 at 2:34
  • $\begingroup$ It was one exercise my prof gave to us. I don't know which book. $\endgroup$ – proofromthebook May 6 '16 at 21:53
  • $\begingroup$ For (ii) ⇒ (i): I cannot see any reason that $Re_i$ to be a ring. If you are working with noncommutative rings then it is just a left $R$-module, although the same argument works. $\endgroup$ – Orat May 11 '16 at 18:57
3
+50
$\begingroup$

If you know that $e_ie_j=0$ for $i\ne j$ and $e′_ie′_j=0$ for $i\ne j$ (a condition forgotten to mention by the OP), then $a=\sum_i \phi_i^{-1}(e′_i)$ and $a^{−1}=\sum_i \phi_i(e_i)$ will do the job, where $\phi_i:R e_i\to Re′_i$ are the given left $R$-module isomorphisms.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ It's really kind of miraculous how the module isomorphisms produce an inner automorphism $\endgroup$ – rschwieb May 12 '16 at 3:22
4
$\begingroup$

A simple example to show that this is not in general true without the orthogonality condition:

Let $R$ be a ring of characteristic $2$ with two conjugate but non-equal idempotents $e$ and $f$, so that $Re$ and $Rf$ are isomorphic as left $R$-modules. For example, take $R=M_2(\mathbb{F}_2)$, $e=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\0&0\end{pmatrix}$ and $f=\begin{pmatrix}0&0\\0&1\end{pmatrix}$.

Then $$1=1+e+e+f+f=1+e+f+e+f.$$

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

As it is already commented by Mathematician 42 and san, this statement is usually stated with an orthogonality hypothesis (you can find, for example, Exercise 7 in here). So it is likely that your professor forget to mention about it.

You (and perhaps your professor) should be careful that the definition of an idempotent decomposition $e = e_1 + \dotsb + e_n$ requires not only $e_i^2 = e_i$ but also $e_ie_j = \delta_{ij}e_j$ (op. cit.), which I also had some trouble.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Yes Orat, I should have added that, my professor told us that afterwards $\endgroup$ – proofromthebook May 11 '16 at 19:59

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.