Over a commutative ring $R$, the rank of a projective module $P$ is defined by looking at the map $\text{rank}(P) : \text{Spec}(R) \rightarrow \mathbb{N}_0$ given by $\mathfrak{p}\mapsto \text{rank}_{R_\mathfrak{p}}(P\otimes_RR_\mathfrak{p})$. This makes sense since $P\otimes_RR_\mathfrak{p}$ is projective over $R_\mathfrak{p}$, hence free because $R_\mathfrak{p}$ is local. This map is continuous, so it must be locally constant since $\mathbb{N}_0$ is discrete. If $\text{Spec}(R)$ is connected (i.e. $R$ has no nontrivial idempotents) then this map is constant; finally, the rank of $P$ is defined to be this constant.

Why can't we just define $\text{rank}(P)$ to be the least $n$ such that $P$ is a direct summand of $R^n$ (if $P$ is finitely-generated)? This is well-defined and doesn't require connectedness. Is this useful/used?

  • $\begingroup$ Perhaps I should ask you to clarify: are you asking for situations in which the minimal $n$ such that $P$ is a direct summand of $R^n$ is useful information to have? I have interpreted your question to be rather why this isn't used as the definition of rank (answer below: because it's not equal to the rank). Please do let me know if I am mistaken. $\endgroup$
    – Stephen
    Oct 28 '14 at 15:01
  • $\begingroup$ Yes. I'm also wondering if there's a connection to the actual notion of "rank". $\endgroup$
    – Ehsaan
    Oct 29 '14 at 23:23
  • $\begingroup$ The connection is just that there is an inequality: the minimal $n$ such that a projective module $P$ embeds in $R^n$ is at least as big as $\mathrm{rank}(P)$. You could also define the minimal such $n$ as the minimal number of generators for $P$ as an $R$-module. Since for each $m$ there exists a ring $R$ and a projective module of rank one that requires at least $m$ generators there is no inequality in the other direction. $\endgroup$
    – Stephen
    Oct 31 '14 at 16:10

You could of course make that definition, but you should call it something other than rank: if $P$ is any projective module that is not free, then it is not a direct summand of $R^{\mathrm{rank}(P)}$ (rank is additive and its complement would therefore be rank $0$ projective, hence $0$). For an explicit example, you have to start with $R$ something other than a polynomial ring (all finitely generated projectives over polynomial rings are free). For an arithmetic example, take any ring $R$ of algebraic integers that is not a UFD (for instance, $R=\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}]$), and a non-principal ideal $I$ (for instance, $I=(1+\sqrt{-5},2)$). Then $I$ is locally free of rank $1$ since its localizations at prime ideals are all principal, but is not a summand of $R$. For a geometric example, take the coordinate ring of an affine part of an elliptic curve, and any non-trivial line bundle on it. For instance, you could take your ring $R=\mathbb{C}[x,y]/(y^2-x(x-1)(x+1))$ and your module to be the ideal $I=(x,y)$ generated by $x$ and $y$. In analogy with the number ring case, this ideal is locally principal (all localizations of $R$ are regular one-dimensional local rings, hence PIDs) and hence locally free of rank one, but it is not a summand of $R$.

In the geometric case (affine varieties over an algebraically closed field), projective modules correspond to vector bundles, and your definition is asking for the smallest $n$ such that the vector bundle corresponding to your projective is a summand of a trivial vector bundle of rank $n$. Framed this way, it shouldn't be surprising that your definition is different from the rank (which is the fiber dimension of your bundle).


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.