Direct sum of Matrix algebras is not isomorphic to some semigroup algebra
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
An $n times n$ matrix unit is any matrix which has zeros every, except at one position where it has one. By $E_ij^(n)$ we denote the $n times n$ matrix unit which has its one at the $i$-th row and $j$-th column.
Fix some field $F$, then surely the $n times n$ matrices $M_ntimes n(F)$ could be written in terms of the matrix units. And a more formal way to state that is that if $S$ denotes the semigroup of all matrix units with the zero matrix, then $M_ntimes n(F) cong F_0(S)$, where $F_0(S)$ denotes the contracted semigroup algebra, which is the usual semigroup algebra (i.e. formal sums) with the zero element identified, i.e. $F_0(S)$ has a basis $B$ such that $B cup 0$ is isomorphic with $S$.
This seems quite clear, but now suppose we look at
$$
A = M_n times n(F) oplus M_ntimes n(F)
$$
in the sense that the product of the direct factors is zero, i.e. think as an external direct sum. We can form the semigroup
$$
S = (E_ij^(n), 0), (0, E_ij^(n)) mid 0 le i,j le n cup (0,0)
$$
with the product. Then I think we also have $A cong F_0[S]$? But according to my text this should not be the case, so what am I missing. Why could $A$ be not isomorphic to a semigroup algebra?
Background: The text I am refering to is The algebraic theory of semigroups, Volume I by Clifford/Preston. In this book the following Theorem appears (page 167, Theorem 5.30):
Let $A$ be a semisimple algebra of finite order over a field $F$. If $A = F[S]$ for some (finite) semigroup $S$, then one of the simple components of $A$ is of order $1$ over $F$.
Which clearly contradicts the above situation, where both compoents of $A$ have order $n$ as matrix algebras. Also note that $F_0[S^0] cong F[S]$, where $S^0$ denotes that semigroup $S$ with a zero adjoined (i.e. taking a new element $0 notin S$ and set $0cdot x = x cdot 0 = 0$ for every $x in S$ and $S^0 = S cup0$). Hence every semigroup algebra could be regarded as a contracted semigroup algebra.
abstract-algebra matrices representation-theory noncommutative-algebra semigroups
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
An $n times n$ matrix unit is any matrix which has zeros every, except at one position where it has one. By $E_ij^(n)$ we denote the $n times n$ matrix unit which has its one at the $i$-th row and $j$-th column.
Fix some field $F$, then surely the $n times n$ matrices $M_ntimes n(F)$ could be written in terms of the matrix units. And a more formal way to state that is that if $S$ denotes the semigroup of all matrix units with the zero matrix, then $M_ntimes n(F) cong F_0(S)$, where $F_0(S)$ denotes the contracted semigroup algebra, which is the usual semigroup algebra (i.e. formal sums) with the zero element identified, i.e. $F_0(S)$ has a basis $B$ such that $B cup 0$ is isomorphic with $S$.
This seems quite clear, but now suppose we look at
$$
A = M_n times n(F) oplus M_ntimes n(F)
$$
in the sense that the product of the direct factors is zero, i.e. think as an external direct sum. We can form the semigroup
$$
S = (E_ij^(n), 0), (0, E_ij^(n)) mid 0 le i,j le n cup (0,0)
$$
with the product. Then I think we also have $A cong F_0[S]$? But according to my text this should not be the case, so what am I missing. Why could $A$ be not isomorphic to a semigroup algebra?
Background: The text I am refering to is The algebraic theory of semigroups, Volume I by Clifford/Preston. In this book the following Theorem appears (page 167, Theorem 5.30):
Let $A$ be a semisimple algebra of finite order over a field $F$. If $A = F[S]$ for some (finite) semigroup $S$, then one of the simple components of $A$ is of order $1$ over $F$.
Which clearly contradicts the above situation, where both compoents of $A$ have order $n$ as matrix algebras. Also note that $F_0[S^0] cong F[S]$, where $S^0$ denotes that semigroup $S$ with a zero adjoined (i.e. taking a new element $0 notin S$ and set $0cdot x = x cdot 0 = 0$ for every $x in S$ and $S^0 = S cup0$). Hence every semigroup algebra could be regarded as a contracted semigroup algebra.
abstract-algebra matrices representation-theory noncommutative-algebra semigroups
1
Again, $A$ will be a contracted semigroup algebra, because the $left(0,0right)$ in $S$ maps to the zero matrix. I think the theorem you're quoting is about non-contracted semigroup algebras.
â darij grinberg
Sep 9 at 13:55
@darijgrinberg Why should that be a problem? Every semigroup algebra could be considered as a contracted one, see my last paragraph....
â StefanH
Sep 9 at 13:59
1
Nope. Not every monoid can be written as $S cup left0right$ for a semigroup $S$. This works only if it has no zero-divisors.
â darij grinberg
Sep 9 at 14:00
@darijgrinberg Yes, sorry bad notation. I meant adjoining a zero. Which is always possible, just add an element $0$ and set $0cdot x = x cdot 0 = 0$ for every $x in S$. It does not mean to take an existing zero!
â StefanH
Sep 9 at 14:01
@darijgrinberg I changed the notation to $S^0$ for $S$ with a zero adjoined.
â StefanH
Sep 9 at 14:04
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
An $n times n$ matrix unit is any matrix which has zeros every, except at one position where it has one. By $E_ij^(n)$ we denote the $n times n$ matrix unit which has its one at the $i$-th row and $j$-th column.
Fix some field $F$, then surely the $n times n$ matrices $M_ntimes n(F)$ could be written in terms of the matrix units. And a more formal way to state that is that if $S$ denotes the semigroup of all matrix units with the zero matrix, then $M_ntimes n(F) cong F_0(S)$, where $F_0(S)$ denotes the contracted semigroup algebra, which is the usual semigroup algebra (i.e. formal sums) with the zero element identified, i.e. $F_0(S)$ has a basis $B$ such that $B cup 0$ is isomorphic with $S$.
This seems quite clear, but now suppose we look at
$$
A = M_n times n(F) oplus M_ntimes n(F)
$$
in the sense that the product of the direct factors is zero, i.e. think as an external direct sum. We can form the semigroup
$$
S = (E_ij^(n), 0), (0, E_ij^(n)) mid 0 le i,j le n cup (0,0)
$$
with the product. Then I think we also have $A cong F_0[S]$? But according to my text this should not be the case, so what am I missing. Why could $A$ be not isomorphic to a semigroup algebra?
Background: The text I am refering to is The algebraic theory of semigroups, Volume I by Clifford/Preston. In this book the following Theorem appears (page 167, Theorem 5.30):
Let $A$ be a semisimple algebra of finite order over a field $F$. If $A = F[S]$ for some (finite) semigroup $S$, then one of the simple components of $A$ is of order $1$ over $F$.
Which clearly contradicts the above situation, where both compoents of $A$ have order $n$ as matrix algebras. Also note that $F_0[S^0] cong F[S]$, where $S^0$ denotes that semigroup $S$ with a zero adjoined (i.e. taking a new element $0 notin S$ and set $0cdot x = x cdot 0 = 0$ for every $x in S$ and $S^0 = S cup0$). Hence every semigroup algebra could be regarded as a contracted semigroup algebra.
abstract-algebra matrices representation-theory noncommutative-algebra semigroups
An $n times n$ matrix unit is any matrix which has zeros every, except at one position where it has one. By $E_ij^(n)$ we denote the $n times n$ matrix unit which has its one at the $i$-th row and $j$-th column.
Fix some field $F$, then surely the $n times n$ matrices $M_ntimes n(F)$ could be written in terms of the matrix units. And a more formal way to state that is that if $S$ denotes the semigroup of all matrix units with the zero matrix, then $M_ntimes n(F) cong F_0(S)$, where $F_0(S)$ denotes the contracted semigroup algebra, which is the usual semigroup algebra (i.e. formal sums) with the zero element identified, i.e. $F_0(S)$ has a basis $B$ such that $B cup 0$ is isomorphic with $S$.
This seems quite clear, but now suppose we look at
$$
A = M_n times n(F) oplus M_ntimes n(F)
$$
in the sense that the product of the direct factors is zero, i.e. think as an external direct sum. We can form the semigroup
$$
S = (E_ij^(n), 0), (0, E_ij^(n)) mid 0 le i,j le n cup (0,0)
$$
with the product. Then I think we also have $A cong F_0[S]$? But according to my text this should not be the case, so what am I missing. Why could $A$ be not isomorphic to a semigroup algebra?
Background: The text I am refering to is The algebraic theory of semigroups, Volume I by Clifford/Preston. In this book the following Theorem appears (page 167, Theorem 5.30):
Let $A$ be a semisimple algebra of finite order over a field $F$. If $A = F[S]$ for some (finite) semigroup $S$, then one of the simple components of $A$ is of order $1$ over $F$.
Which clearly contradicts the above situation, where both compoents of $A$ have order $n$ as matrix algebras. Also note that $F_0[S^0] cong F[S]$, where $S^0$ denotes that semigroup $S$ with a zero adjoined (i.e. taking a new element $0 notin S$ and set $0cdot x = x cdot 0 = 0$ for every $x in S$ and $S^0 = S cup0$). Hence every semigroup algebra could be regarded as a contracted semigroup algebra.
abstract-algebra matrices representation-theory noncommutative-algebra semigroups
abstract-algebra matrices representation-theory noncommutative-algebra semigroups
edited Sep 9 at 14:03
asked Sep 9 at 13:25
StefanH
7,92741959
7,92741959
1
Again, $A$ will be a contracted semigroup algebra, because the $left(0,0right)$ in $S$ maps to the zero matrix. I think the theorem you're quoting is about non-contracted semigroup algebras.
â darij grinberg
Sep 9 at 13:55
@darijgrinberg Why should that be a problem? Every semigroup algebra could be considered as a contracted one, see my last paragraph....
â StefanH
Sep 9 at 13:59
1
Nope. Not every monoid can be written as $S cup left0right$ for a semigroup $S$. This works only if it has no zero-divisors.
â darij grinberg
Sep 9 at 14:00
@darijgrinberg Yes, sorry bad notation. I meant adjoining a zero. Which is always possible, just add an element $0$ and set $0cdot x = x cdot 0 = 0$ for every $x in S$. It does not mean to take an existing zero!
â StefanH
Sep 9 at 14:01
@darijgrinberg I changed the notation to $S^0$ for $S$ with a zero adjoined.
â StefanH
Sep 9 at 14:04
 |Â
show 2 more comments
1
Again, $A$ will be a contracted semigroup algebra, because the $left(0,0right)$ in $S$ maps to the zero matrix. I think the theorem you're quoting is about non-contracted semigroup algebras.
â darij grinberg
Sep 9 at 13:55
@darijgrinberg Why should that be a problem? Every semigroup algebra could be considered as a contracted one, see my last paragraph....
â StefanH
Sep 9 at 13:59
1
Nope. Not every monoid can be written as $S cup left0right$ for a semigroup $S$. This works only if it has no zero-divisors.
â darij grinberg
Sep 9 at 14:00
@darijgrinberg Yes, sorry bad notation. I meant adjoining a zero. Which is always possible, just add an element $0$ and set $0cdot x = x cdot 0 = 0$ for every $x in S$. It does not mean to take an existing zero!
â StefanH
Sep 9 at 14:01
@darijgrinberg I changed the notation to $S^0$ for $S$ with a zero adjoined.
â StefanH
Sep 9 at 14:04
1
1
Again, $A$ will be a contracted semigroup algebra, because the $left(0,0right)$ in $S$ maps to the zero matrix. I think the theorem you're quoting is about non-contracted semigroup algebras.
â darij grinberg
Sep 9 at 13:55
Again, $A$ will be a contracted semigroup algebra, because the $left(0,0right)$ in $S$ maps to the zero matrix. I think the theorem you're quoting is about non-contracted semigroup algebras.
â darij grinberg
Sep 9 at 13:55
@darijgrinberg Why should that be a problem? Every semigroup algebra could be considered as a contracted one, see my last paragraph....
â StefanH
Sep 9 at 13:59
@darijgrinberg Why should that be a problem? Every semigroup algebra could be considered as a contracted one, see my last paragraph....
â StefanH
Sep 9 at 13:59
1
1
Nope. Not every monoid can be written as $S cup left0right$ for a semigroup $S$. This works only if it has no zero-divisors.
â darij grinberg
Sep 9 at 14:00
Nope. Not every monoid can be written as $S cup left0right$ for a semigroup $S$. This works only if it has no zero-divisors.
â darij grinberg
Sep 9 at 14:00
@darijgrinberg Yes, sorry bad notation. I meant adjoining a zero. Which is always possible, just add an element $0$ and set $0cdot x = x cdot 0 = 0$ for every $x in S$. It does not mean to take an existing zero!
â StefanH
Sep 9 at 14:01
@darijgrinberg Yes, sorry bad notation. I meant adjoining a zero. Which is always possible, just add an element $0$ and set $0cdot x = x cdot 0 = 0$ for every $x in S$. It does not mean to take an existing zero!
â StefanH
Sep 9 at 14:01
@darijgrinberg I changed the notation to $S^0$ for $S$ with a zero adjoined.
â StefanH
Sep 9 at 14:04
@darijgrinberg I changed the notation to $S^0$ for $S$ with a zero adjoined.
â StefanH
Sep 9 at 14:04
 |Â
show 2 more comments
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2910780%2fdirect-sum-of-matrix-algebras-is-not-isomorphic-to-some-semigroup-algebra%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Again, $A$ will be a contracted semigroup algebra, because the $left(0,0right)$ in $S$ maps to the zero matrix. I think the theorem you're quoting is about non-contracted semigroup algebras.
â darij grinberg
Sep 9 at 13:55
@darijgrinberg Why should that be a problem? Every semigroup algebra could be considered as a contracted one, see my last paragraph....
â StefanH
Sep 9 at 13:59
1
Nope. Not every monoid can be written as $S cup left0right$ for a semigroup $S$. This works only if it has no zero-divisors.
â darij grinberg
Sep 9 at 14:00
@darijgrinberg Yes, sorry bad notation. I meant adjoining a zero. Which is always possible, just add an element $0$ and set $0cdot x = x cdot 0 = 0$ for every $x in S$. It does not mean to take an existing zero!
â StefanH
Sep 9 at 14:01
@darijgrinberg I changed the notation to $S^0$ for $S$ with a zero adjoined.
â StefanH
Sep 9 at 14:04