A definition of "algebra" (that is, an associative algebra, in the sense of ring theory) generally requires a commutative base ring. But there are cases where it's reasonable to consider algebras over general unital rings.

For example, suppose $R$ is a commutative ring and consider $R^2$. If we multiply ordered pairs coordinatewise, $R^2$ has an obvious $R$-algebra structure: it's an $R$-module in which the abelian group structure is extended to a ring whose multiplication is bilinear, or equivalently (*) $r \cdot \alpha \beta = (r \cdot \alpha) \beta = \alpha (r \cdot \beta)$ (writing $\cdot$ for the $R$-module action).

Now let $R$ be a general unital ring. $R^2$ is a left $R$-module, but the ring multiplication is not generally $R$-bilinear because (*) fails: $r \cdot \alpha \beta \neq \alpha (r \cdot \beta)$. So the definition of an algebra suggested above does not work. On the other hand, $R^2$ does have a ring structure and a module structure (on each side), and those structures seem compatible, so there should be some good way to refer to $R^2$ as an algebra over $R$.

So here's a definition: a "two-sided algebra" $M$ over a ring $R$ is a bimodule $_R M _R$ (including the requirement that $(r \cdot \alpha) \cdot s = r \cdot (\alpha \cdot s)$) with a ring structure on the abelian group such that $r \cdot \alpha \beta = (r \cdot \alpha) \beta$ and $\alpha \beta \cdot r = \alpha (\beta \cdot r)$, for all $\alpha, \beta \in M, r \in R$. (The term "bialgebra" would be nicer but seems well established with a different meaning.)

There's an obvious two-sided algebra structure on $R^2$. If the left and right actions in a two-sided algebra $M$ are the same, then $r \cdot \alpha \beta = \alpha \beta \cdot r = \alpha(\beta \cdot r) = \alpha(r \cdot \beta)$, so (*) is satisfied and the ring multiplication on $M$ is bilinear. So in the case of $R^2$, the two-sided algebra structure over an arbitrary ring generalizes the algebra structure over a commutative ring.

Other good examples are general product rings $R^I$, matrix rings $M_n(R)$, and polynomial rings $R[x]$. The two-sided algebras over $R$ (which we could call $_R \text{Alg}_R$) seem to form a category much like $R$-algebras in the commutative case: it has finite products, an initial object $R$, and a terminal object $0$.

Finally, my questions:

  1. Is the above correct?

  2. Are there any other approaches to this problem?

  • You forgot to specify a ring structure on the underlying abelian group on $M$. – Martin Brandenburg Jun 28 '14 at 16:17
up vote 14 down vote accepted

Algebra objects or monoid objects can be defined in any monoidal category. When $R$ is a commutative ring, then the category of left $R$-modules has a monoidal structure given by $\otimes_R$, and algebras in that category coincide with $R$-algebras. But the category of left $R$-modules has no "natural" monoidal structure when $R$ is not commutative - this is the conceptional reason why one usually assumes $R$ to be commutative (of course it has lots of monoidal structures, for example the one given by the categorical product, but this has no interesting algebras).

However, if $R$ is any ring, then the category of $R$-bimodules is a monoidal category (although not symmetric monoidal ...). According to the general definition, an algebra in that monoidal category is an $R$-bimodule $_R A _R$ equipped with a homomorphism $\mu : {}_R A \otimes_R A _R \to {}_R A _R$ of $R$-bimodules and a homomorphism $\eta : {}_R R_R \to {}_R A _R$ of $R$-bimodules such that certain diagrams commute. Equivalently, we have a ring structure $(U(A),*,1)$ on the underlying abelian group $U(A)$ of $A$ such that for all $r \in R$ and $a,b \in A$:

  • $r \cdot (a * b) = (r \cdot a) * b$
  • $(a * b) \cdot r = a * (b \cdot r)$
  • $a * (r \cdot b) = (a \cdot r) * b$
  • $r \cdot 1 = 1 \cdot r$

The last two axioms are missing in your definition. We obtain a variety of algebras in the sense of universal algebra and hence limits & colimits exist.

Notice that we really need the axiom $r \cdot 1 = 1 \cdot r$ in order to ensure that $R$ is the initial $R$-algebra.

Caution. If $S$ is a commutative ring with underlying noncommutative ring $R$ (usually, one writes $S=R$, which is confusing here), then any $S$-algebra yields an $R$-algebra, but not every $R$-algebra is of this form! In fact, we only get those $R$-algebras for which $r \cdot a = a \cdot r$ holds.

See MO/21899 for a discussion about definitions of algebras over non-commutative rings.

  • 1
    I'm still trying to digest the monoidal category concept, but the list of axioms looks like what I need, thank you. Can we say more about what a "natural" monoidal structure is, and why the bimodules have one but the left modules don't? – Hew Wolff Jul 9 '14 at 2:31

There is a simpler definition which is equivalent to the category of monoid objects in the category of $R$-bimodules. nLab calls them rings over $R$, and describes them with the "coslice category" or "under category" $R/\operatorname{Ring}$. An object in this category is a ring homomorphism $h: R \to A$ for some $A$, and a morphism from $h$ to $h': R \to A'$ is a ring homomorphism $A \to A'$ making the triangle commute.

Given a monoid object $A$ in the category of $R$-bimodules, define a corresponding object $h \in R/\operatorname{Ring}$ by $h(r) = r \cdot 1_A$. In the other direction, given $h$, define an $R$-bimodule structure on $A$ by $r \cdot a = h(r)a$, $a \cdot r = ah(r)$. The details are tedious, but these mappings extend easily to functors which give an isomorphism of categories.

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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