I want to understand the tensor product $\mathbb C$-algebra $\mathbb{C}\otimes_\mathbb{R} \mathbb{C}$. Of course it must be isomorphic to $\mathbb{C}\times\mathbb{C}.$ How can one construct an explicit isomorphism?

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Take obvious basis vectors in tensor product map them into basis vectors of direct sum $\endgroup$ – Norbert Aug 12 '12 at 18:46
  • $\begingroup$ I mean an isomorphism of $\mathbf{C}$-algebras with respect to the left $\mathbf{C}$ in the tensor product... $\endgroup$ – Mikhail Borovoi Aug 12 '12 at 18:54
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ You should write this in your question. $\endgroup$ – Norbert Aug 12 '12 at 18:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why do you say "of course it must be isomorphic to..."? Because of dimension reasons or because of galois theory? $\endgroup$ – mland Aug 12 '12 at 21:29
  • $\begingroup$ Related: math.stackexchange.com/questions/263192 $\endgroup$ – Watson Nov 22 '18 at 20:35

An explicit isomorphism of $\mathbb C$-algebras is given (on generators) by $ \mathbb C\otimes _\mathbb R \mathbb C\stackrel {\cong }{\to} \mathbb C\times \mathbb C: z\otimes w \mapsto (z\cdot w,z\cdot\bar w)$.
Here $ \mathbb C \otimes _\mathbb R \mathbb C$ is considered as a $\mathbb C$-algebra through its first factor: $z_1\cdot (z\otimes w)=z_1 z\otimes w $


Write $\mathbb C=\mathbb R[x]/\langle x^2+1\rangle$ for one of the copies. Then, using a universal property of tensor products, $$ \mathbb C\otimes_{\mathbb R} \mathbb C \;\approx\; \mathbb R[x]/\langle x^2+1\rangle \otimes_{\mathbb R}\mathbb C \;\approx\; \mathbb C[x]/\langle (x+i)(x-i)\rangle \;\approx\; \mathbb C[x]/\langle x+i\rangle \oplus \mathbb C[x]/\langle x-i\rangle $$ the last isomorphism via Sun-Ze's theorem (a.k.a. "Chinese Remainder Theorem"). That last isomorphism can be made explicit by choice of polynomials $A(x),B(x)$ such that $A(x)\cdot (x+i) + B(x)\cdot (x-i)=1$.

Edit: this treats "right" $\mathbb C$-algebra, but/and reversing the roles gives the same outcome as "left" algebra.


As a minor complement to Georges's answer, I'll try to convince the reader that it's better to write $$ \mathbb C\otimes_{\mathbb R}\mathbb C\simeq\mathbb C\times\overline{\mathbb C} $$ than $$ \mathbb C\otimes_{\mathbb R}\mathbb C\simeq\mathbb C\times\mathbb C. $$ For each complex vector space $V$ define the conjugate vector space $\overline V$ as being the abelian group $V$ with the multiplication by (complex) scalars $*$ defined by $z*v:=\overline zv$. [Of course $\overline{\mathbb C}$ is canonically isomorphic to $\mathbb C$, but in general $\overline V$ is not canonically isomorphic to $V$.] Then the map $$ \mathbb C\otimes_{\mathbb R}V\to V\times\overline V,\quad z\otimes v\mapsto(zv,z*v) $$ is a $\mathbb C$-linear isomorphism.

More generally, let $L/K$ be a finite Galois extension with Galois group $G$ and let $A$ be an $L$-algebra. [In this post, an $L$-algebra is just an $L$-vector space $A$ together with an $L$-bilinear map $A\times A\to A$.] For each $\sigma$ in $G$ let $*_\sigma$ be the multiplication by scalars in $L$ defined on $A$ by $z*_\sigma a:=\sigma(z)\,a$, and let $A_\sigma$ be the resulting $L$-algebra. Then the map $$ \phi_A:L\otimes_KA\to\prod_{\sigma\in G}A_\sigma,\quad z\otimes a\mapsto(z*_\sigma a)_{\sigma\in G} $$ is an $L$-algebra isomorphism.

This is proved as Proposition 8 on page A.V.64 of the book Algebra, Chapters 4-7 by Bourbaki, book freely and legally available here.

Here is a simple proof:

It suffices to prove the statement obtained by replacing the $L$-algebra $A$ with an $L$-vector space $V$. If $(V_i)$ is a family of $L$-vector spaces such that each $\phi_{V_i}$ is an isomorphism, then $\phi_{\oplus V_i}$ is also an isomorphism. It suffices thus to prove that $\phi_L$ is an isomorphism.

Let $B$ be a $K$-basis of $L$. It suffices to show that the $\phi_L(1\otimes b)$, when $b$ runs over $B$, form an $L$-basis of $\prod L_\sigma$. It even suffices to check that the $\phi_L(1\otimes b)$ are linearly independent over $L$.

Suppose by contradiction that there are $x_b$ in $L$, not all zero, such that $\sum_bx_b\,\phi_L(1\otimes b)=0$, that is $\sum_b\sigma(x_b)\,b=0$ for all $\sigma$. The latter condition is equivalent to $\sum_bx_b\,\sigma(b)=0$ for all $\sigma$. If this condition holds, then the square matrix $(\sigma(b))_{\sigma,b}$ is singular, and there are $y_\sigma$ in $L$, not all zero, such that $\sum_\sigma y_\sigma\,\sigma(b)=0$ for all $b$, which contradicts Dedekind Independence Theorem.


To fill in some details to paul garret's answer, to prove $\mathbb{R}[x]/⟨x^2+1⟩ \otimes_{\mathbb{R}} \mathbb{C} ≈ \mathbb{C}[x]/⟨x^2+1⟩$, prove the general fact $R[x_1, . . . , x_n]/I \otimes_R R[y_1, . . . , y_m]/J ≈ R[x_1, . . . , x_n, y_1, . . . , y_m]/⟨I, J⟩$.

Then observe that $$\mathbb{R}[x]/⟨x^2+1⟩ \otimes_{\mathbb{R}} \mathbb{C} ≈ \mathbb{R}[x]/⟨x^2+1⟩ \otimes_{\mathbb{R}} \mathbb{R}[y]/⟨y^2+1⟩ \\≈ \mathbb{R}[x,y]/⟨x^2+1,y^2+1⟩ ≈ \mathbb{R}[y,x]/⟨y^2+1,x^2+1⟩ ≈ \mathbb{C}[x]/ ⟨x^2+1⟩. $$


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.