Suppose I have a finite-dimensional algebra $V$ of dimension $n$ over a field $\mathbb{F}$. Then $V$ is an $n$-dimensional vector space and comes equipped with a bilinear product $\phi : V \times V \to V$.

Suppose now that I have another finite-dimensional algebra $W$ of dimension $n$ over $\mathbb{F}$ equipped with a bilinear product $\psi: W \times W \to W$. Certainly, $V$ and $W$ are isomorphic as vector spaces but are they isomorphic as $\mathbb{F}$-algebras? The question I'm really asking here is - Are all $n$-dimensional algebras over $\mathbb{F}$ isomorphic to one another?

If the answer is yes, then this is my attempt at constructing such an isomorphism. Suppose I want to define an $\mathbb{F}$-algebra isomorphism between $V$ and $W$.

To do this I'd need to define a map $f : V \to W$ such that

  • $f(ax) = af(x)$ for all $a \in \mathbb{F}, x \in V$
  • $f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y)$ for all $x, y \in V$
  • $f(\phi(x, y)) = \psi(f(x), f(y))$ for all $x, y \in V$

If $\{v_1, \dots, v_n\}$ and $\{w_1, \dots, w_n\}$ are bases for $V$ and $W$ respectively then both $\phi$ and $\psi$ being bilinear maps are completely determined by their action on basis vectors $\phi(v_i, v_j)$ and $\psi(w_i, w_j)$ for $1 \leq i, j, \leq n$. It turns out that $$\phi(v_i, v_j) = \sum_{k=1}^n \gamma_{i,j,k}v_k$$ and $$\psi(v_i, v_j) = \sum_{k=1}^n \xi_{i,j,k}w_k$$ for some collection of scalars $\gamma_{i,j,k}$ and $\xi_{i,j,k}$ called structure coefficients. So then if both the $n^3$ collections of scalars $\gamma_{i,j,k}$ and $\xi_{i,j,k}$ are all non-zero then we can define $f : V \to W$ by $$f(a_1v_1 + \cdots + a_nv_n) = a_1 \frac{\xi_{i,j,1}}{\gamma_{i,j,1}}w_1 + \cdots + \frac{\xi_{i,j,n}}{\gamma_{i,j,n}}w_n$$ and it will turn out that $f$ is the desired isomorphism of algebras as one can then check that $f(\phi(v_i, v_j)) = \psi(w_i, w_j) = \psi(f(v_i), f(v_j))$ for all $i$ and $j$.

However what if it's the case that for $\phi$ some $\gamma_{i, j, k}$ is zero and the corresponding $\xi_{i, j, k}$ is non-zero? I don't see any way to get an isomorphism in that case. Is it still possible to construct an isomorphism in that case?

  • $\begingroup$ The right side of the equation has $i,j$, not summed or quantified, while the left side has no $i,j$. What do you mean by this? $\endgroup$
    – mr_e_man
    Jul 15, 2020 at 14:15
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Everyrone is working way to hard to provide counter examples. What about the field $\mathbb{F}$ vs. the additive group of $\mathbb{F}$ with $0$-multiplication? $\endgroup$ Jul 15, 2020 at 15:59
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @JasonDeVito Giving non-unital counterexamples is cheating! $\endgroup$
    – Earthliŋ
    Jul 15, 2020 at 16:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Earthliŋ: Perhaps it is, but I made sure to read the question for the word "unit" before posting my comment. (I also purposefully didn't provide it as an answer.) $\endgroup$ Jul 15, 2020 at 16:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ $\Bbb{Q}(\sqrt2)$ and $\Bbb{Q}(\sqrt3)$ are not isomorphic as $\Bbb{Q}$-algebras in spite of both being 2-dimensional. $\endgroup$ Jul 16, 2020 at 21:36

6 Answers 6


Another very familiar example: $\mathbb{C}\neq\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}$. The complex numbers are a field, but $(1,0)(0,1)=(0,0)$ in $\mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}$, so it has non-trivial zero-divisors.


They will not necessarily be isomorphic. Consider $V = \mathbb F[x] / (x^n)$ and $W = \mathbb F^n$ with componentwise multiplication.These are both $n$ dimensional $\mathbb F$ algebras. However, $V$ contains a nilpotent element, $x$, whereas $W$ contains no nilpotent elements. Indeed, if we had an $\mathbb F$-algebra homomorphism $f: V \longrightarrow W$ then as $0 = f(x^n) = f(x)^n$, we'd need $f(x) = 0$ so any map between the two must have a nontrivial kernel.


In general, the answer is "no", even if one requires $V$ and $W$ to be fields.

For example, the rings $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2})$ and $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{3})$ are two non-isomorphic fields that both have dimension $2$ over $\mathbb{Q}$.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I guess if you require $V$ and $W$ both to be fields, then this is true iff $V$ is algebraically closed, real closed or pseudofinite. $\endgroup$
    – tomasz
    Jul 15, 2020 at 0:51

There are several answers that point out why the statement of the question cannot be true, probably the simplest example being $\Bbbk [x] / (x^2) \not\simeq \Bbbk \times \Bbbk$.

Classifying all finite-dimensional algebras of a given dimension is actually rather involved and very far from being just one algebra in each dimension.

Note that you can even come up with finite-dimensional noncommutative algebras. For example, from the quiver $$ \bullet \to \bullet $$ you can build a noncommutative $3$-dimensional algebra with $\Bbbk$-basis $e_1, e_2, \alpha$, where

  • $e_1, e_2$ are viewed as "constant paths" at the vertices, which are orthogonal idempotents, i.e. $e_i e_j = \delta_{ij}$
  • $\alpha$ is viewed as corresponding to the arrow and $e_1, e_2$ are viewed as "identities at" the vertices, so $e_1 \alpha = \alpha$ and $\alpha e_2 = \alpha$
  • the product of paths which cannot be composed are defined to be $0$ in this algebra, so $e_2 \alpha = \alpha e_1 = \alpha^2 = 0$ and extending these rules linearly gives a well-defined associative multiplication.

More generally, you can take the path algebra of any quiver and quotient by any two-sided ideal, which if you choose the ideal correctly will give a finite-dimensional algebra, which is usually non-commutative.

Finite-dimensional algebras can be studied via their categories of finite-dimensional modules (which in some cases can actually be described rather explicitly) and it turns out that the construction of finite-dimensional algebras via quivers gives all algebras up to Morita equivalence (i.e. using quivers you find the module categories of all finite-dimensional algebras).


Let $G$ and $H$ be finite groups of the same order, such that $G$ is abelian and $H$ is not.

Then the group rings $V = \mathbb{F}G$ and $W = \mathbb{F}H$ share the same dimension, but $V$ is commutative while $W$ is not.



No. For example, $\mathbf Q[\sqrt n]$ are pairwise nonisomorphic (where $n$ ranges over squarefree integers distinct from $1$), but all have dimension $2$ over $\mathbf Q$.

In general, if $K$ is not algebraically closed, then it admits a finite algebraic extension $L\supsetneq K$, and then $L$ and $K^{[L:K]}$ have the same dimension and are not isomorphic.

Even if $K$ is algebraically closed, $K^4$, $M_{2\times 2}(K)$ and $K[x]/(x^4)$ are non-isomorphic four-dimensional algebras over $K$.

Edit: as suggested in the comments, the counterexamples listed above are essentially all the counterexamples. More precisely, the answer is yes if you restrict yourself to finite-dimensional algebras over an algebraically closed field $k$ which are reduced (contain no nilpotents). In other words, the only such algebras are of the form $k^n$.

One can show that in this case, the algebra $A$ is semisimple (because it is Artinian and the Jacobson radical is zero), so by Wedderburn's theorem, it follows that it is a product of matrix rings over division algebras. Since there are no finite-dimensional division algebras over $k$ (because $k$ is algebraically closed), and no proper matrix ring is reduced (because it contains strictly upper triangular matrices, which are nilpotent), it follows that $A\cong k^n$ for some $n$.

  • $\begingroup$ $\mathbb{C}[x]/\{x^2\}$ is finite dimensional and commutative, but not isomorphic to $\mathbb{C}\times \mathbb{C}$. $\endgroup$
    – tkf
    Jul 15, 2020 at 0:15
  • $\begingroup$ @tkf: You're right. For some reason, I thought that such an algebra would automatically be semisimple, but your example shows that this is not the case. I removed the erroneous claim. $\endgroup$
    – tomasz
    Jul 15, 2020 at 0:18
  • $\begingroup$ I think you just need to add the condition that it does not contain nilpotent elements. $\endgroup$
    – tkf
    Jul 15, 2020 at 0:19
  • $\begingroup$ @tkf: I guess commutative+reduced is sufficient, because that makes the algebra the ring of regular functions of a zero-dimensional variety. But I don't see whether or not reduced finite-dimensional implies commutative... $\endgroup$
    – tomasz
    Jul 15, 2020 at 0:35
  • $\begingroup$ @tkf: I meant over an algebraically closed field. $\endgroup$
    – tomasz
    Jul 15, 2020 at 15:34

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.