2
$\begingroup$

Let $R$ be a commutative ring. The first Weyl algebra over $R$ is the associative $R$-algebra generated by $x$ and $y$ subject to the relation $yx-xy=1$.

For which rings $R$, the first Weyl algebra $A_1(R)$ is simple?

If I am not wrong, it is necessary that $R$ will have characteristic zero. Is it true that for any intgral domain $D$ of characteristic zero, $A_1(D)$ is simple?

Theorem 2.19 is relevant for my question. It relies on Lemma 2.16.

Thank you very much.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Everything in the algebra can be rewritten to a representative of the form $\sum_i\sum_j\alpha_{ij}x^iy^j$ where $\alpha_{ij}\in R$.

If $R$ has a nontrivial ideal $M$, then we can consider the subset of elements such that $\alpha_{ij}\in M$, and it is not hard to show this is a nontrivial ideal.

Essentially you are just getting a homomorphism $A_1(R)\to A_1(R/M)$ from the reduction of $R$ to $R/M$.

So it would seem that it is necessary for $R$ to be simple if $A_1(R)$ is to be simple. I'm not positive about the converse, but it seems plausible.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much! Nice idea. Any proof/counterexample for the converse is welcome. $\endgroup$ – user237522 Feb 20 '18 at 18:45
  • $\begingroup$ @user237522 The natural thing to do would be to investigate a ideals of $R$ consisting of some subset of coefficients of an ideal of $A_1(R)$. Due to the twisting action of the relation, I wasn't able to get an immediate answer along these lines. $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Feb 20 '18 at 19:34
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your comments. $\endgroup$ – user237522 Feb 20 '18 at 20:28
  • $\begingroup$ @user237522 I wanted to add: it's not hard to show things like "the coefficients of things in an ideal" and "the set of constant terms of things in an ideal" are ideals of $R$, but I don't see a clear way to reasoning that they are not equal to $R$. $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Feb 20 '18 at 20:33
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you. (Perhaps there is another way to show the converse, for example, by applying somehow the above mentioned Lemma 2.16?). $\endgroup$ – user237522 Feb 20 '18 at 20:40

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.