You are on page 1of 203

LONDON MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY MONOGRAPHS

NEW SERIES Maximal Orders


Previous volumes of the LMS Monographs were published by Academic Press, to whom all
enquiries should be addressed. Volumes in the New Series will be published by Oxford University
Press throughout the world. I. Reiner
University of Illinois
NEW SERIES

1. Diophantine inequalities R. C. Baker


2. The Schur multiplier Gregory Karoilovsky
3. Existentially closed groups Graham Higman and Elizabeth Scott
4. The asymptotic solution of linear differential systems M. S. P. Eastham
5. The restricted Burnside problem Michael Vaughan-Lee
6. Pluripotential theory Maciej Kumek
7. Free Lie algebras Christophe Reutenauer
8. The restricted Burnside problem (2nd edition) Michael Vaughan-Lee
9. The geometry of topological stability Andrew du Plessis and Terry Wall
10. Spectral decompositions and analytic sheaves. J. Eschmeier and M. Putinar
11. An atlas of Brauer characters C. Jansen, K. Lux, R. Parker, and R. Wilson
12. Fundamentals of semigroup theory John M. Howie
13. Area, lattice points, and exponential sums M. N. Huxley
14. Super-real fields H. Garth Dales and W. Hugh Woodin
15. Integrability, self-duality and twistor theory L. J.Mason and N. M. J. Woodhouse
16. Categories of symmetries and infinite-dimensional groups Yu. A. Neretin
17. Interpolation, identification, and sampling Jonathan R. Partington
18. Metric number theory Glyn Harman
19. Profinite groups John S. Wilson
20. An introduction to local spectral theory Kjeld B. Laursen and Michael M.
Neumann
21. Characters of finite Coxeter groups and Iwahori-Hecke algebras M. Geck and
G. Pfeiffer
22. Classical harmonic analysis and locally compact groups Hans Reiter and
JanD. Stegeman
23. Operator spaces E. G. Effros and Z.-J. Ruan
24. Banach algebras and automatic continuity H. G. Dales
25. The mysteries of the real prime M. J. Shai Haran
26. Analytic theory of polynomials Q. I. Rahman and G. Schmeisser
27. The structure of groups of prime power order C. R. Leedham-Green and
S.McKay
28. Maximal orders I. Reiner (reissue )
CLARENDON PRESS • OXFORD
29. Harmonic morphisms between Riemannian manifolds P. Baird and J. C. Wood 2003
Preface

The theory of maximal orders originates in the work of Dedekind, who studied
the factorization properties of ideals of R, where R is a ring of algebraic
integers in an algebraic number field K. As shown by Dedekind, the factoriza­
tion theory is especially simple in the extreme case where R is the ring of all
algebraic integers in K. This ring is in fact the unique maximal Z-order in K.
In this book we shall consider the generalization of Dedekind's ideal theory
to the case of maximal R-orders in separable K-algebras. The entire theory
reduces almost immediately to the case of a maximal R-order A in a central
simple K-algebra A. It turns out that there are two ideal theories, one con­
cerned with two-sided ideals, the other with one-sided ideals. The two-sided
theory is easier, since the group of two-sided fractional A-ideals in A is the free
abelian group generated by the prime ideals of A. The difficulty in the one­
sided theory is that a left A-ideal in A is also a right AI -ideal, where AI is some
other maximal order in A. It is therefore necessary to consider the set of
normal ideals in A, namely all one-sided ideals relative to the various possible
maximal orders in A. These normal ideals need not form a group, and instead
constitute the Brandt groupoid of A.
The deeper aspects of the theory of maximal orders depend on properties of
central simple algebras over local and global fields. Many of these deeper
results, such as splitting theorems, the theory of the different and discriminant,
reduced norms, and so on, become almost trivial in the commutative case.
The theory of maximal orders is of interest in its own right, and is essentially
the study of "noncommutative arithmetic". The beauty of the subject stems
from the fascinating interplay between the arithmetical properties of orders,
and the algebraic properties of the algebras containing them. Apart from aes­
thetic considerations, however, this theory provides an excellent introduction
to the general theory of orders (maximal or not). Questions involving integral
representations of groups, and those concerned with matrices with integer
entries, often reduce to the study of non-maximal orders. Many problems can
be handled by embedding such orders in maximal orders, and then using
known facts on maximal orders.
One aim of this book is to present, in as self-contained a fashion as prac­
ticable, most of the basic algebraic techniques needed for the study of orders,
ix
Vlll Preface Preface

maximal or not. The subj ect matter is arranged in the form of a textbook, also mention the proof of the Krull-Schmidt Theorem in
section 6 for

on the level of a second-year graduate course. The exercises at the end of algebras over local rings.
simple
each section are an integral part of the book. In many cases, the results of the The final third of the book covers the deeper theory of central
exercises will be needed later in the book, and occasionally are needed within algebras over global fields, and maximal orders in such algebras.
Chapter 7
The results of
the section itself. For this reason, detailed hints are given for many treats Brauer groups, crossed-product and cyclic algebras.
Grunwald­
exercises. Chapter 7 are combined with the Hasse Norm Theorem and
Wang Theorem in Chapter 8, to derive some of the major theorems
on simple
The reader is expected to be familiar with basic facts from module theory
is proved in
and algebraic number theory, such as those given in the introductory chapters algebras over global fields. In particular, Eichler's Theorem
order.
of Curtis-Reiner [1]. Vie have included, for the convenience of the reader, Chapter 8, and is used to calculate the ideal class group of a maximal
of Picard
a lengthy chapter on algebraic preliminaries. This chapter provides brief Chapter 8 also contains an introduction to Frohlich's theory
of non-max imal
surveys of topics needed later in the book, and may be skimmed quickly in groups of orders, and a discussion of locally free class groups
are in a sense
a first reading. Proofs are often omitted in sections 1-5, especially when long orders. The last chapter deals with hereditary orders, which
or computational. In the rest of the book, from section 6 on, proofs are not much harder to handle than maximal orders. Chapter 9 also includes

given in detail. The only exceptions are the Hasse Norm Theorem and the some miscellaneous facts about group rings.
y of
Grunwald-Wang Theorem; these are stated without proof, since otherwise This book is based on class notes for courses given at the Universit
and Melody
several additional chapters would become necessary. Illinois in 1969 and 1973. I would like to thank Janet Largent
My thanks
This book is intended as an introduction to maximal orders, and no Armstrong for their excellent work in typing these class notes.
with the proofrea ding, and
attempt has been made to compile an encyclopedic treatise, or to provide also go to the members of the classes who helped
Robert L. Long, who read
the historical background of each result. Our approach draws heavily from corrected errors in the notes. I especially thank
attention ; he deserves credit for
that in Deuring [1], and benefits from the numerous simplifications in the entire manuscript with great care and
and in the mathema tical content.
Swan-Evans [1]. We have not covered any of the analytic theory, which is catching innumerable mistakes in printing
I am glad to
readily available in the excellent book by Weil [1]. We have also omitted His suggestions have helped clarify the presentations. Finally
on the contents and style of the
the theory of Asano orders, which would require a book of its own. In many thank my wife Irma, not only for her advice
for her constant encourag ement
ways, the theory of orders merges into the vast topic of algebras over com­ book, and her help in its preparation, but also
mutative rings. Among the many references on this subj ect, we may mention and support.
support
the fine books by Bass [1], DeMeyer-Ingraham [1], Kaplansky [1], and It is also a pleasure to acknowledge with thanks the financial
Foundat ion and the Science Research
Matsumura [1]. I received from the National Science
Sections are numbered consecutively throughout the book. A list of perma­ Council, during part of the time when the book was being written.
nent notation precedes Chapter 1. Boldface "Theorem" indicates that the
November, 1974 Irving Reiner
theorem is one of the maj or results proved in the book. We have distributed
such honors lavishly-there are about 50 such results in the book!
This book divides naturally into three parts. The first part consists of the
preliminary material in Chapter 1, which may be skimmed in a first reading,
together with some generalities on orders in Chapter 2. The second part,
Chapters 3-6, deals mainly with the ideal theory of maximal orders. In
Chapter 3 we consider such orders in skewfields, in the complete local case.
The Morita correspondence, explained in Chapter 4, is used in Chapter 5
to study maximal orders in central simple algebras in the local case. The local
results are then applied in Chapter 6 to obtain the global theory. Many of
the techniques developed in this book are useful for the theory of non-maximal
orders. Thus, for example, Chapter 6 contains a proof of the Jordan­
Zassenhaus Theorem and a discussion of genus for arbitrary orders. We may
Acknow ledgements Contents

I would like to express my deep appreciation to Colin J. Bushnell, Charles W. Foreword V


Curtis, the late Albrecht Frohlich, Gerald J. Janusz, Tsit-Yuen Lam, Judith M. Preface Vll
McCulloh, Leon R. McCulloh, Jiirgen Ritter, Joseph J. Rotman, Martin J. Acknowledgements x
Taylor, and other colleagues, all of whom, in various ways, have provided Permanent notation xiii
support and encouragement for this reissuance of Maximal Orders. My
appreciation goes also to the London Mathematical Society and to Oxford
1 Algebraic preliminaries
University Press. Alison Jones, Ruth Walker, and Anne Moorhead at the
1 Integral closure 1
Press deserve special thanks for their gracious professionalism. I wish very
2 Homological algebra 8
much that Irv could have seen this reprinting; I know that he would have been
3 Localization 30
very pleased to have Maximal Orders available once again and to observe
4 Dedekind domains 44
the special and valued place it occupies in the literature.
5 Completions and valuations 67
August, 2002 Irma Reiner 6 Radicals of rings 77
7 Semisimple rings and simple algebras 90

2 Orders
8 Definitions and examples 108
9 Reduced norms and traces 112
10 Existence of maximal orders; discriminants 125
11 Localization of orders 131

3 Maximal orders in skewfields (local case)


12 Uniq ueness of maximal orders 135
13 Ramification index; inertial degree 138
14 Finite residue class field case 143

4 Morita equivalence
15 Pro generators 154
16 Morita correspondence 161

5 Maximal orders over discrete valuation rings


17 Maximal orders (complete local case ) 170
18 Maximal orders (local case ) 174
xii Contents

19 Ideals 181
20 Different, discriminant 184

6 Maximal orders over Dedekind domains


21 Basic results 187
22 Ideal theory 190 Permanent notation
23 Alternate approach to global ideal theory 204
24 Norms of ideals 210
25 Different, discriminant 217
26 Ideal classes; 10rdan-Zassenhaus theorem 224 alb a divides b (for elements or ideals)
27 Genus 232 atb a does not divide b
card X cardinal number of the set X
7 Crossed-product algebras A<B A is a proper subset of B
28 Brauer groups 237 A-J complement of the subset J in the set A
29 Crossed-product algebras 241 char k characteristic of the field (or ring) k
30 Cyclic algebras 259 u(A) group of units of the ring A
31 Cyclic algebras over local fields 263 a.e. almost everywhere, that is, except for a finite number of
cases

8 Simple algebras over global fields external direct sum


32 Splitting of simple algebras 272 E9 internal direct sum
33 Reduced norms 282 MI N module M is isomorphic to a direct summand of module N
34 Eichler's Theorem 292 M(r) external direct sum of r copies of M
35 Ideal class groups 306 _-tA ring A viewed as left A-module
36 Ko of maximal orders 314 EndAM endomorphism ring of A-module M
37 Picard groups 319 Mn(A) ring of all n x n matrices over a ring A

38 Non-maximal orders 340 diag(a l' - . -, an) diagonal matrix with main diagonal entries at . . . -, an
I. In identity matrix (in proper context)

9 Hereditary orders aT-' al (aR' ar) left (right) multiplication by the element a
39 Local theory of hereditary orders 351 Z = rational integers. Q = rational field
40 Global theory of hereditary orders 367 R = real field, C = complex field
41 Group rings 379 R+ = bER : � � O}
H = quaternion skewfield over R
K* = K {O}.
387
. {I,
References - where K is a field

Index 391 i =j
(Kronecker delta)
(jij = 0, i =1= j
1. Algebraic Preliminaries

This chapter reviews some basic algebraic techniques. Proofs are often
omitted, especially when they are readily available in standard references,
or when they are too long or too detailed to warrant their inclusion in this
preliminary chapter. Many readers may wish to glance briefly at the contents
of this chapter, referring back to the relevant sections when they are needed
later. Occasionally, results are stated somewhat more generally than neces­
sary for later use.
Each ring considered below will be assumed to have a unity element, and
each ring homomorphism preserves unity elements. Every module M over a
ring A is assumed unital, that is, the unity element of A acts as identity operator
on M. Let K be a commutative ring; a ring A is a K-algebra if there is a ring
homomorphism of K into the center of A. Such a homomorphism permits
us to view A, and all A-modules, as K-modules. If A, Bare K-algebras, we
call them isomorphic as K -algebras if there is a ring isomorphism cp: A � B
such that cp(C(x) = C(cp(x), C( E K, x E A.

1. INTEGRAL CLOSURE
Throughout this section let K be a field, and A a finite dimensional
K-algebra. Denote its dimension by (A : K) or dimK A.

la Minimum and characteristic polynomial; norm, trace

Let K[ XJ denote the domain of polynomials over K in an indeterminate


X. An element f(X) E K[XJ is monic if its leading coefficient equals 1.
Let V be a finite dimensional K-space, and cp a K -linear transformation on
V. We may view V as a left K[X]-module, by letting X act as cp on V. Since
(V : K) is finite, it is clear that V is a finitely generated module over the princi­
pal ideal domain K[XJ. By the Structure Theorem for such modules (see
Curtis-Reiner [1, § 16J), there is a K[X]-isomorphism
t

(1. 1 ) V � I· K[XJ/(hi(X)),
i =l
Each hi (X) is nonzero in K[XJ since (V : K) is finite. As is well known, the
2 (1 . 8 ) MINIMUM AND CHAR.POL.; NORM, TRACE 3
INTEGRAL CLOSURE (1 .2)
h(a) = O. Further, f(X) I g(X), and the polynomials f(X), g(X) have the same
f
characteristic polynomial of cp acting on V is given by
t
irreducible factors in K[ X], apart from multiplicities.
I
(1 .2) char. pol.K cp = IT hi (X).
i= 1 A remark about notation seems called for. If B is a K-algebra containing A,
On the other hand, let f(X) E K[ X]; then f( <p) acts on V just as f(X) acts then each a E A also lies in B. Viewing a as element of B does not affect the
on �h� right �an� expression in (l.l). Hence f(<p) = 0 if and only if f(X) calculation of min. pol.K a, and so we have suppressed the subscript A in
anm�Ilates thIS nght hand expression. There is thus a unique monic poly­ this notation. On the other hand, char. POl.A/K a certainly depends on the
nomIalf(X) E K[X], of least degree, such thatf(<p) = 0; call this polynomial choice of A, since it must be computed by letting a act on a K-basis for A;
the minimum polynomial of cpo It is given by indeed, char. pol.A/K a i= char. POl.B/K a if B i= A, since char. POl.A/K a has
degree (A : K).
(l. 3 ) min. pol.K cp = L.C.M. {hi (X): 1 � i � t}.
From (1 .2) and (1 .3) we have at once
Suppose now that A =
i=fo1 Kui, and let a E A. We may write
m
a · uj = aipi' 1 � j � m.
(1 .4) THEOREM. Let cp be a K -linear tran�formation on the finite dimensional iL
=1
K-space V, and let
Then
f(X) = min. pol. K cp, g(X) = char. pol.K cpo
(l.8) char. pol. K a = det (bi jX - ai )
Then f(X) divides g(X) in K[X] ; furthermore, f(X) and g(X) have the same xm - (TA/K a)Xm - 1 + ... + (-It NA/K a.
=
irreducible factors in K[X], apart from multiplicities. Finally, if h(X)E K[X],
then h(cp) = 0 if and only if f(X) divides h(X). . We call TA/K the trace map, and NA/K the norm map. Clearly
TA/K a = trace of aL , NA/K a det av
Now let A be a finite dimensional K-algebra. Each a E A determines a
=

K-linear transformation aL on A, where aL is the left multiplication x � ax, so from (1 .5) we deduce
x E A. Clearly

(1 .5) (1 .9)
{ T(ra + sf3) = rT(a) + sT(f3)
N(af3) = N(a) · N(f3), N(ra) = rmN(a),
fo� all r, s E K, a, f3 E A. Further, aL = 0 if and only if a = 0, since A has a for r, S E K, a, f3 E A. Here, m = (A:K).
umty element. Therefore the map a � aL , a E A, is a K-algebra isomorphism
of A into the ring HomK(A, A) of K-linear transformations on A. Now define
(l.6) min. po1.K a = min. pol.K aL , char. pol.A/K a = char. pol.K aL . Ib Integral elements

For h(X) E K[ X] we have h(aL) = h(a)L ' and thus h(a) = 0 if and only if Now let R be an integral domain with quotient field K, and let A be a
h(aL) = O. This shows that min. pol.K a is the unique monic polynomial ·finite dimensional K-algebra. An element a E A is integral over R if f(a) = 0
f(X) E K[ X], of least degree, such that f(a) = O. For later use, we record for some monic polynomialf(X) E R[ Xl
explicitly the following consequence of (1 .4) :
( 1 . 10) THEOREM. For an element a E A, the following three conditions are
(1 . 7) THEOREM. Let A be a finite dimensional K -algebra. For a E A, let equivalent :
(i) a is integral over R.
f(X) = min. pol. K a, g(X) = char. pol.A/K a. (ii) R[ a] is a finitely generated R-module.
Then f(X) is the unique monic polynomial in K[X], of least degree, such that (iii) a is contained in some subring B of A, such that B is a finitely generated
f(a) = 0; it has the property that f(X) I h(X) for each h(X) E K[X] such that R-module.
4 INTEGRAL CLOSURE
(1.11) (1 . 1 2) INTEGRAL CLOSURE 5
Proof If (i) holds, then there is a relation
domain (see section 2a). Keep the above notation, and let x E R[ex, P]' Then
exn a 1 exn - 1 + . . . + a n '
= R[x ] is an R-submodule of the finitely generated R-module R[ex,
R[x] is also finitely generated as R-module, and thus x is integral over R
It is then obvious that
R[ex] = R + Rex . + ... + Rexn - \
by ( 1 . 10).
(ii) If ex and P are integral elements which do not commute, it may well occur
that ex + P is not integral. For example, let R Z, K Q, A M2 (Q) (the
= = =

a finit�ly generated R-module. Thus (i) implies (ii). Clearly (ii) implies (iii),
algebra of all 2 x 2 matrices with entries in Q). Let
( l)�,
by
choosmg B = R[ex
To prove that (iii) implies (i), let us write 0
ex =
n 0
B = i L R Pi' 2
=l Both ex and P satisfy the equation X = 0, and so are integral over Z. How-
Since B is a ring, and ex ever, 2
min. pol.Q ( ex + P) = X - ± ¢ Z[X] .
n
exPi = L aijPj, Therefore ex
j= 1
We may rewrite these equations as Ie Integral closure
n The integral closure of R in A is the set of all elements of A which are
L (ex<> 1 � i � n. integral over R. If A is a commutative K-algebra, then by (1.11) the integral
j= 1 closure of R in A is a subring of A. If A is not commutative, the integral closure
Let d det (exbij - ai) E B. By Cramer 's Formula, it follows that d . Pj = °
= need not be a ring.
.
for 1 � } � n. The�efore d· B = 0, and hence d = 0, since B is a ring with
.
umty element. ThIS shows that ex DEFINITION. The integral domain R is integrally closed if the integral
( 1 . 1 2)
det (X<>ij - a) E R[X], and thus ex is integral over R. We have now shown closure of R in its quotient field K coincides with R. Thus, R is integrally
that (iii) implies (i), and the theorem is proved. closed if for ex EK,
f(ex)
(1.11) COROLLARY. Let ex, P E A be such that exp = pex. If both ex and p are
integral over R, then so are ex ( 1 .13) GAUSS' LEMMA. Let R be an integrally closed domain with quotient field
K. Let f(X) E R[X] be a monic polynomial, and suppose that
Proof Since ex and P are integral over R, by (1.10) we may write
f(X) = g(X) · h(X),
k
R[ex] where g(X) and h(X) are monic polynomials in K[Xj. Then both g(X) and
i =l j=l J
h(X) lie in R[X].
Since exp
and therefore Proof. Let K' be a finite extension ofK which is a splitting field for f(X), = P
R [ex, P] = L RuivJ.. and write
. .
I,
J
f(X) = IT (X - Xi ),
Thus R [ex, P]
follows from ( 1 . 1 0) that every element of R[ex, Let R' denote the integral closure of R inK'. Since f(X) E R[X] is monic, and
the corollary is established . f(xi) ° for each i, it follows that each Xi E R'.
=

InK'[X] we have
Remarks. (i) A slightly simpler proof can be given when R is a noetherian g(X) . h(X) = IT (X - X i ),
6 INTEGRAL CLOSURE (1.14) I
I
EXERCISES 7

whence both g(X) and h(X) are expressible as partial products II' (X - Xi)' EXERCISES
But R' is a ring by (1.11), so both g(X) and h(X) have coefficients in R'. The 1. Keep the notation and hypotheses of ( 1.14). Show that an element (J. E A is integral
coefficients of g(X) and h(X) are thus in R' n K. However, R' n K = R, over R if and only if char. pol.A/K (J. E R[X].[Hint: Use (1.7) and (1. 14).]
because R is integrally closed. Thus both g(X) and h(X) lie in R[X], and 2. Let A be a finite dimensional K-algebra, and let L be any extension field of K.
�he lemma is proved. Each elementa E A gives rise to an element 1 ®a of the L-algebra L ®K A. Prove that

In order to determine whether an element rx E A is integral over R, we char. pol. L® KA,L 1 ®a = char. pol. AIKa.
must in theory consider all monic polynomials f(X) E K[X] such that In other words, char. pol.AIKa is not affected by the change of ground field from K
f(rx) = 0, and then we must see whether any such f(X) lies in R[X]. In to L.
practice, however, this task is considerably simplified by use of the following 3. Let E ::::J K be fields, and let (E: K) = n. Each <X E E corresponds to a matrix
result. aE Mn (K), obtained by letting <X act as left multiplication on a K-basis of E. Show
by induction on r that for each matrix (<Xij) E Mr
(1.14) THEOREM. Let R be an integrally closed domain with quotient field K, .
and let A be a finite dimensional K -algebra. An element rx E A is integral over det (aij ) = NEIK {det(<Xij)}'
R if and only if 4. Let L be a finite galois extension field of K, with galois group G. Show that for
min. pol. K rx E R[Xl aEL,
char. pol. LIKa = n (X - aO'),
Proof. If min. pol. K rx E R[X], it is clear that rx is integral over R. Conversely,
let g(X) min. pol. K (X, and assume that rx is integral over R. Then f( rx) = 0
=
O'EG
and hence
for some monic poJynomial f(X) E R[X]. Therefore f(X) = g(X)' h(X) for
some monic polynomial h(X) E K[X]. It then follows from Gauss' Lemma NL/Ka = n aO'.
O'EG
that g(X) E R[X], as desired.
[Hint: Let
,./
n

We shall conclude this section by listing some examples of integrally f(X)= min. poLKa = n (X -ai), ai E L.
i= 1
closed domains. Proofs are available in standard references such as Bourbaki
[4, Ch. 5, § I] and Zariski-Samuel [I, Ch. V, § 3]. Then n (X -aO' ) E K[ X], hence is a power of f ( X). Then compare degrees of
O'EG
char. pol.LIKa and n (X -a°').]
O'EG
(1. 1 5) Examples of integrally closed domains.
5. Keep the notation of Exercise 3, and let A be a finite dimensional E-algebra.
Prove that fora E A,
(a) Every principal ideal domain is integrally closed.
(b) Every unique factorization domain is integrally closed. NAIK a = NEIK ( NAlEa).
(c) Every Dedekind domain is integrally closed (see § 4a). [Hint: Let
(d) Let R be a domain with quotient field K, and let K' be any extension
'A = 'L° EXi aXj
' = 'L <XijXi' <Xij E E.
field of K. Then the integral closure of R in K' is always integrally
closed. Relative to a suitable K-basis of A, the K-linear transformationaL on A corresponds
(e) Let S be any multiplicative subset of R (see § 3a). If R is integrally to the matrix (aij ). Hence
closed, so is the ring of quotients S-l R. TAlKa = trace of «(iu) = 'L trace of an
(f) Let K[Xl' ... , X n] be the polynomial domain in n indeterminates over i
a field K (or more generally, over a unique factorization domain K).
Then K [xl' ..., xnJ is also a unique factorization domain, and thus is
integrally closed by (b). A similar result holds for norms, by Exercise 3.]
8 HOMOLOGICAL ALGEBRA (2. 1 ) (2.3) MODULES 9

2. HOMOLOGICAL ALGEBRA L�M


This section contains a b rief review of seve ral topics from homological
algeb ra. In most cases, p roofs will be omitted. For details, we refer the reade r
� 19
N

is commutative if g . f = h. The same te rminology appli es to more complicated


to standa rd refe rences such as Ca rtan -Eilenbe rg [1], Hilton -Stammbach
[1], Jans [1], No rthcott [1], Rotman [ 1 J. We shall use the same te rminology diag rams. .
Given a A-homom o rphism f : L � M, and an a rb It ra ry A -module X,
and notation as the last of these refe rences.
the re a re two maps induced by f, namely
2a Modules: bomomorphisms, pullbacks, pusbouts, tensor products,
cbain conditions (2.3)
{ f :HOm (X, L) � Hom (X, M),
*
f*:Hom (M, X) � Hom (L, X).
Th roughout this section let A be a ring, not necessa rily commutative,
These a re defined by the commutative diag rams
having a unity element 1. All A-modules a re left A-modules, unless othe rwise
specified, and each A-module M is assumed unital (that is, 1· m = m, L
m E M). Given a pai r of A -modules L and M, denote by HomA (L, M) the
additive g roup consisting of all A-homomo rphisms from L into M. Fo r each IIM -r
�*�X
<p E HomA (L, M), let ke r <p denote the kernel of <p, im <p the image of <p, and
,

cok <p the cokernel of <p, that is, Note that HomA (X, L), HomA (X, M), etc., a re additive g roups �but not
usually A -modules), and the maps f , f* a re additive homomo rph Isms.
cok <p = M/<p(L). * .
The map f goes "in the same di rection " as f, namely from L to M. Smce
When the re is no danger of confusion, we shall w rite Hom instead of Hom A . �
f a rises fro a change in the second va riable occu rring in Hom, we say that
A sequence of A-modules and A-homom o rphisms Hom is covar iant in the second va riable.
Simila rly, f* goes "in the opposite di rection " from f. Since f* �rises fr?m
(2. 1) X1 II j�
X 2- X·3- �X a change in the fi rst va riable in Hom, we call H om contravariant m the fIrst
n
-

va riable.
is exact at Xi if ke r 1; = im 1;-1' The sequence is exact if it is exact at each
If f :L � M and g:M � N a re A-homomo rphisms, then
place, that is,
ke r 1; = im 1; 1 ' 2 � i � n- 1 . (2.4) (gf ) g .f ,
= (gf)* = f* . g*.
-
* * *
(Cont rava riance reve rses o rder of composition �f mappings !)
An exact sequence of A-modules and A-homomo rphisms will sometimes be
The concepts of cova riance and cont ravanance a re ext remely useful
called a A-exact s equence.
in wo rk ing with modules . Thus , for example, let � be another ring, an � let
A s hor t exact s equence is an exact sequence of the fo rm
M = AM� be a (A, �)-bimodule, that is, M is a left A-module and fIght
(2.2) O - L-LM�N _ O. �-module, with the actions of A and � on M commutmg: .

Exactness of (2.2) is equivalent to the following th ree conditions : f is monic, {}. m)b
ke r g = im !, g is epic. In this case, g induces an isomo rphism M/f(L) � N. If L AL is a left A-mo dule, then HomA (M, L) can be giv �n the st �uctu r� of
The short exact sequence (2.2) is s plit if f(L) is a di rect summand of M.
=

a �-module because of the bimodule structu re on M. S mce M IS a nght


This is equivalent to eithe r of the following :
�-module ' �nd M appea rs in a contravariant position, it is automatically
(i) The re exists an hE H om A (M, L) such that h . f = 1 L ' whe re I L denotes t rue that Hom A (M, L) must be a left �-module. To be explicit, fo r each
the identity map on L. f E Hom A (M, L) and each b E�, we define
(ii) The re exists an h' E Hom A (N, M) such that g . h' = IN . ( bf) m = f( mb).
A diagram of A-modules and A-homomorphisms This is the only "natu ral " definition, and it must use the fact that M is a right
I
j,i .'
!
10 HOMOLOGICAL ALGEBRA (2.5) (2.5) MODULES 11
,1-module . The hypothesis that M be a (A, ,1)-bimodule is needed to verify A �M
�hat (j f is again a A-homomorphism. Analogously, HomA (L, M) can be made
mto a right ,1-module, by setting /,M1 2�X:I g�
(g(j )x = g(x) . (j, x E L.
there is a unique A-homomorphism l/J:X � X' such that l/Jg i = g; , i = 1 , 2.
We state without proof a theorem describing the effect of applying Dually, given A-homomorphisms 1; : Mi � B, i = 1 , 2, we can form their
HomA (X,') or H omA(', Y) to A-exact sequences. pullback (or fibre product)
(2.5) THEOREM. (i) For each A-module X and each A-exact sequence Y = {(m1, m2)EMI -+- M2 :/1m1 = 12m2},
O - L� M�N, There is a commutative pullback diagram
the sequence of additive groups

.0 - HomA (X, L) � HomA(X, M) � HomA(X, N)


is exact.
(ii) For each A-module Y and each A-exact sequence where g i (m ' m2 ) = mi, i = 1 , 2. The pullback Y is also characterized by a

the s equence 01 additive groups


L f
-- M g
- N -- O, t l
universal mapping property : given any commutative uiagram

go. f*
o - HomA(N, Y) - HomA(M, Y) - HomA(L, Y)
is exact.
there is a unique cp: Y' � Y such that g; = g iCP , i = 1, 2.
It is sometimes convenient to use the concepts of pushouts and pullbacks
Next, we recall some facts about tensor products (see Curtis-Reiner
of pairs of maps. Given a pair of A-homomorphisms;; : A � M., i 1 2 [1, §12], for example). Given a right A-module L and a left A-module M
(notation: LA ' A M), we may form their tensor product L ®A M. This is an
=

we define a A,.module X, called the pushout of the pair (11 : 12 ), by the form � l �
additive group, but not usually a A-module. The tensor product L ®A M
is covariant in each variable: given A-homomorphisms I : Ll � L2 ,
X = (M1 -+-M2 )!{(/1 a, -/2 a): a E A}.
g: M1 � M2 , there is an additive homomorphism
Thus X is 0bta�ned fro� the external direct sum M 1 -+- M2 by identifying
. I ® g : L 1 ®A M I � L 2 ®A M2 .
t�e Image of A ill M1 WIth the image of A in M2 . There is a commutative
dIagram (called a pushout diagram or fibre s um) Consequently, if .,1 is another ring with unity element, and if t.,LA is a bi­
module, then for each AM we can make L ® A M into a left ,1-module in a
A�M I
natural way. The action of an element (j E.,1 on L ®A M is given by
J�lM2�X1 gl

where gi is defined by composition: Mi � Ml -+- M2 � X, i 1 , 2. The = In particular, if A is commutative and L, M are viewed as two-sided
pushout X is characterized up to isomorphism by a "universal mapping A-modules, then L ® A M is also a A-module.
property", as follows: given any commutative diagram of A-modules and The effect of applying X ® A ' or . ® A Y to exact sequences is described
A-homomorphisms in the following result, stated without proof:
12 HOMOLOGICAL ALGEBRA (2.6) (2.9) MODULES 13

leI Mi) 0AN


(�· lEI (Mi0AN),
�"
(2.6) THEOREM. (i) Given a right A-module X and an exact sequence of left

N
A-modules L � M � � 0, there is an exact sequence of additive groups
X 0 A L X 0A M X 0 AN M 0A(IONi)
A
� � � 0.
(ii) Given Y and an exact sequence of right A-modules A � B � C � 0,
ieI �
iI"eI (M 0ANJ,
there is an exact sequence of additive groups for any index set I.

A (8) A Y B 0 A Y C 0A Y
� � � 0.
noetherian if the submodules of M
Finally w e give some results on chain conditions. A A-module M
satisfy the ascending chain condition
is

Next we list a number of natural isomorphisms involving Hom and (8). (A.C.C.), that is, if every ascending chain of submodules terminates The
In most cases there is no difficulty in writing down explicitly the maps which ring A is left noetherian if the left ideals of A satisfy the A.C.C. The following
yield these isomorphisms, and we shall leave this task to the reader. It will result is used repeatedly (see Curtis-Reiner [1, §l 1 J) :
also be clear from the context whether the modules which occur are left
A-modules or right A-modules, and we shall suppress such information in (2.9) THEOREM. For a ring A, the following are equivalent:
some of the statements below. (i) A is left noetherian.
(ii) Every finitely generated left A-module is noetherian.
AM, there is a left A-isomorphism
(2.7) THEOREM. (i) Given (iii) Every submodule of a finitely generated left A-module is finitely
HomA (A, M) M, generated.
� (iv) Every nonempty collection of submodules of a finitely generated left
obtained by mapping each f EHomA (A, M) onto f( I ). The left A-structure of A-module contains a maximal element.
Hom (A, M) arises from the A-A-bimodule structure of A.
A (2.10) COROLLARY. Let R be a commutative noetherian ring, and let A be an
(ii) For each index set I,
R-algebra which is finitely generated as R-module. Then A is left and right
HomA(iIoEI Mi' N) iITEI HomA (Mi' N),

noetherian as a ring.
Proof. Every left ideal of A is an R-submodule of the finitely generated
HomA (M, IT Ni) IT HomA (M, Ni).
R-module A. Since R is noetherian, it follows from (2.9 (ii)) that the R-sub­
iEI ieI �
modules of A satisfy the A.C.C. Hence the left ideals of A satisfy the A.C.C.,
so A is left noetherian. Likewise A is right noetherian.
Choosing I to be the finite set {I, . . , k}, it follows as special cases of these
.

formulas that Hom commutes with finite direct sums in either variable : Next, a A-module M
is artinian if its submodules satisfy the descending
chain condition (D.C.C.), that is, if every descending chain of submQdules
HomA
Ct M" N ) it � HOffiA(Mi, N), terminates. The ring A is left artinian if its left ideals satisfy the D.C.C. We
have (see Curtis-Reiner [ 1 , § 1 1 J)

HomA (M, it N.) .t: � HomA (M, Ni)· (2.11) T HEOREM. The following statements are equivalent:
(i) A is left artinian.
(2.8) THEOREM. (i) GivenAM, there is a left A-isomorphism (ii) Every finitely generated left A-module is artinian.
(iii) Every nonempty collection of submodules of a finitely generated
A0AM M, � A-module contains a minimal element .
obtained by mapping I Ai0 mi EA 0 A M onto I Aimi EM. The left A-structure Just as in the preceding discussion, we obtain
of A 0 A M arises from the A-A-bimodule structure of A.
(ii) Tensor product commutes with direct sums: (2. 1 2) COROLLARY. Let R be a commutative artinian ring, and let A be an
1'''

PROJECTIVE AND FLAT MODULES 15


14 HOMOLOGICAL ALGEBRA (2 . 1 3 ) (2 . 14)
3 --+ 0
R-algebra which is finitely generated as R-module. Then A is left and right 0--+ A I --+ A2 --+ A 3 --+ 0 is an d-exact sequence, then 0 --+ FA I --+ FA2--+ FA
artinian as a ring. is an exact sequence in f!11.
--+ A" is d-exact,
(iii) F preserves exactness of sequences, that is, if A' --+ A
then F A' --+ FA --+ FAil is flA-exact.
2b Functors and categories
In order to simplify the remaining discussion of homological algebra, and 2c Projective and flat modules
also for later use in the chapter on Morita equivalence, it is convenient to
introduce some of the concepts of category theory. For simplicity, we shall A (left) A-module F is said to have a free A-basis: xJ, where
� ranges �ver
xE F IS expressIble
restrict our attention to categories of modules. (For a more detailed account some index set, if there exist elements X<xEF such that each
ients C<xEA. Such
of category theory, see MacLane [1 J.) If A is a ring with unity element, let as a finite sum x = LC x with uniquely determined coeffic
F is free if and only if F
.A A denote the category of right A-modules. The objects of .AA are right modules F are called ;'e� A-modules. Equivalently,
ule A A.
A-modules, and for each L, ME JIt A , there is a set of morphisms (or maps) is isomorphic to a direct sum of copies of the left A-mod
free module F .
from L to M, namely Hom A (L, M). Every A-module M is a homomorphic image of some
Let d 1£a category with objects A, A', ... , and flA a category with objects Indeed, choose any set o f elements m <xE M such that M= I Am<x, and .let
phism <p: F --+ M by lettmg
B, B'; .. . A (covariant) functor F: d --+ flA carries each AE d onto an object F be free with basis {xJ; then define an epimor
FAE flA, and carries each rxE Hom.'} (A, A') onto a map Frx E Hom,qj (FA, FA'), m<x, Note that if M is finitely generated as A-modu le, then F may be
<p(x<x) =

in such a way as to preserve identity maps and compositions. We assume chosen free with a finite basis.
e. For ex�m�le,
always that our functors are additive, that is, F(rxi + rx2) = Frxi + Frx2 . A A projective A-module is a direct summand of a free modul
J I E9 J2 where each Ji is a left ideal of �, then J I nd J 2 are prOjectIve
contravariant functor F: d --+ flA carries AEd onto FAEflA, and carries if A = '
. �
each rx E Hom1 s (A, left A-modules. Obviously, every free modul e IS projec tIve. Let {MJ be any
A') onto .FaE Hom�(FA', FA
clear from the definiti on of project ivity that I �i
composition of maps. family of A-modules. It is . tIve
each Mi is projec tive. As we sh � ll see, prOjec
A covariant functor F is right exact if it caqies each exact sequence is projective if and only if
and m other ar�as of
Al --+ A2 --+ A3 --+ 0 in d onto an exact sequence FAl --+ FA2 --+ FA3 --+ 0 modules play a basic role in homological algebra, .
at the begmmng
in flA. For example, if d6 denotes the category of abelian groups, and X algebra as well. We state without proof (see references listed
is some fixed right A-'module, there is a functor F: A.A --+ sit, given b � of § 2) :
M --+ X ®A M, and rx --+ 1 ® rx. We often write F = X ®A'. Theorem 2.6
is just the assertion that F is a right exact functor. 2.14) THEOREM. Let P be any A-module. The following statements are
On the other hand, let AX be a fixed left A-module, and define F: AJIt --+ si6 equivalent:
by M --+ HomA(X, M), ME A.A . We must also describe the action of F on (i) P is projective.
split.
maps; if rx E HomA (M, M/), we set Frx = rx* (see (2.3)). Then F is covariant, (ii) Every short exact sequence 0 --+ X --+ Y --+ P --+ 0 must
and (2.5) asserts that F is a left exact functor. We often write F = HomA(X, . ). (iii) Given any diagram with exact bottom row

One can also define right- or left-exactness of contravariant functors. P

>/If
We shall not give the definition here, but remark only that the functor
F:A.A --+ d6, given by F = HomA(', X), is a contravariant functor which
is left exact (by (2.5)).
A functor F: d --+ flA is exact if F is both left and right exact. We state XF Y --+ 0,
without proof:
there exists a A-homomorphism h such that f = gh.
(iv) Given any epimorphism g:X --+ Y, the induced map
(2.13) THEOREM. Let F: d --+ flA be a covariant functor. The following condi­
tions are equivalent: g*:HomA(P, X) --+ HomA(P, Y)
(i) F is an exact functor.
(ii) F preserves exactness of short exact sequences, that is, if is also an epimorphism.
16 HOMOLOGICAL ALGEBRA (2.15) (2. 1S) PROJECTIVE AND FLAT MODULES 17

(v) Bom A (P,') is an exact functor. similar situations. In order to prove certain types of theorems about pro­
jective modules, one first treats the case of a free module on one generator,
Remark. There is a concept of injective modules, dual to that of pro­ then the case of an arbitrary free module, and finally the case of projective
jective modules: a A-module L is injective if every short exact sequence modules. Of course, one needs to know that the functors which occur com­
o� L� X� Y � 0 is necessarily split. The analogue of (2.14) holds true. mute with the operation of forming direct sums. In many arguments, it
We shall seldom need to use injective modules in this book. suffices to restrict attention to finite direct sums.
A right A-module X is flat if X ®A' preserves exactness, that is, if for (2.1S) Remark. We shall show in § 3c that every ring of quotients R' of a

f
every exact sequence of left A-modules commutative ring R is a flat R-module. From (2.15) it then follows that for
9 each inclusion of R-modules L c M, there is an inclusion of R'-modules
L�M�N,
R' ®R L c R' ®R M. Further, there is an R' -isomorphism
the sequence of additive groups

®1, X®AM ®g) X®AN
R' ®R (M/ L) (R' ®RM)/ (R' ®R L),
X®AL 1 1
a result to be used repeatedly.
is also exact. We may rephrase this definition as follows: the module X A Next we note
determines a covariant functor F : A.A � dlJ. as in § 2(b), by setting
F( M) = X ®AM, M EAAt. Then X is flat if and only if F is an exact functor. (2.19) THEOREM. A right A-module X is flat if every finitely generated sub­
We have already remarked in (2.6) that F is always right exact, and the only module of X is flat.
question to be' decided is whether F is also left exact. Hence we have
Proof. See Rotman [1, Corollary 3.3 1 ]' The converse of this theorem is false.
(2.15) THEOREM. A module X A is flat if and only if X® A' preserves mono­
Using this, we prove (see also Exercise 5.3):
morphisms, that is, for each monomorphi�m f : L � M of left A-modules, the
additive homomorphism
(2.20) THEOREM. Let R be a principal ideal domain. Then every torsionfreet
R -module is flat.
is also monic.
Proof Submodules of torsionfree modules are also torsionfree. Hence by
(2.16) COROLLARY. Every projective module is flat. (2.19), it suffices to prove that every finitely generated torsionfree R -module
X is flat. But by the Structure Theorem for modules over principal ideal
Proof The right A-module AA is flat, because of the isomorphism given in domains (see Curtis-Reiner [1, §16J), each such X is R-free. Hence X is
(2.S(i)). Since tensor product commutes with direct sum (see (2.S)), it follows R-flat, by (2.16), and the theorem is proved.
that every free right A-module is flat. Now let X A be projective; then X is a
direct summand of some free right A-module F, and we may write F = X EB X' As a matter of fact, the converse of (2.20) also holds: if X is a flat R-module,
for some module X'. Let f : L � M be a monomorphism of left A-modules. then X must be torsionfree (see Rotman [1, Exercise 3.11J).
Then there is a commutative diagram
X'®AL
A flat right A -module X is faithfully flat if for each left A -module L, the
equality X ® A L = 0 implies that L = O. To test for faithful flatness, we may
llx.®f use the result :
X' ®A L. (2.21) THEOREM. Let XA be flat. The following statements are equivalent :
Since F is flat, IF ® f is monic. Hence also Ix ® f is monic, and therefore X (i) X is faithfully flat.
is flat, as claimed. (ii) A sequence of left A -modules is exact if and only if it becomes exact
after applying X ® A' to it.
(2.17) Remark. The technique of the preceding proof can be applied to many tAn R-module X is torsionfree if for each nonzero x E X and each nonzero r E R, also rx :f:. O.
18 HOMO LOGICAL ALGEBRAS (2.22) (2.24) EXTENSIONS OF MODULES 19

(iii) For each left A-homomorphism f : L � M, the map A A-exact sequence


I ® f: X ®A L � X ®A M is the zero map ifand only iff o.
o�LLx�N�O
=

(iv) For each maximal left ideal m of A, we have X =1= Xm. (2.24)
is called an extension of N by L ; sometimes we refer to the module X itself
Proof See Bourbaki [2, §3, no. 1]. as such an extension. Another extension 0 � L � X' � N � 0 is equivalent
to that in (2.24) if there exists a A-isomorphism e making the following
(2.22) COROLLARY t. Let R be a principal ideal domain, P a prime ideal of R, diagram commutative :

11.1 e) )
and R* the P-adic completion of R. Then R* is aflat R-module. If R is a dis­ O�L�X�N�O
crete valuation ring, then R* is faithfully flat as R-module. I
N

Proof (See §4e for the relevant definitions.) There is an embedding R � R*


o � L � X' � N � 0,
which makes R* into an R-module. Then R* is R-torsionfree, since R* is also where I L ' I N are identity maps. This defines an equivalence relation among
an integral domain. Therefore R* is R-flat, by (2.20). extensions of N by L. Caution : it may happen that X � X' even though the
Now suppose that R is a discrete valuation ring, with unique maximal extensions are inequivalent.
ideal P. Then PR* is the unique maximal ideal of R*, so R* #- PR*. It follows We shall introduce an additive group Ext�(N, L) whose elements are in
from (2.2 1 (iv)) that R* is faithfully flat, as claimed. one-to-one correspondence with the equivalence classes of extensions of
N by L. To begin with, choose an epimorphism cp : P � N, where P is 1\­
(2.23) COROLLARY. Let R* be the completion of a discrete valuation ring R. projective (we could even choose P A-free, if desired), and let K ker cpo
=

For each left R-module M let M* R* ® R M, a left R*-module. Then R* is This gives a A-exact sequence
'"
=

faithfully flat as R-module. This means O�K� P�


qJ
N � O,
(i) For every exact sequence of R-modules
O � L � M � N � O, with 1/1 the inclusion map. Keeping the A-module L fixed, let (j range over the
elements of Hom(K, L). For each such (J, let Xu denote the pushout of the
the sequence ofR * -modules pair of maps 1/1 : K � P , (j : K � L (see § 2a). It follows readily from Exer­
o � L* � M* � N* � 0 cise 2.2 that there is a commutative diagram with exact rows :

u) ) )
is also exact, and O�K�P�N�O
(ii) L* = 0 if and only if L = o. I
N

As a matter of fact, the results of (2.23) hold in a more general situation : o � L � Xu � N � O.


given any commutative noetherian ring R having a unique maximal ideal P,
we may form the P-adic completion R* of R. It is then true that R* is a faith­ Thus each (j E Hom(K, L) yields an extension Xu of N by L.
fully flat R-module (see Bourbaki [3J). The map 1/1 induces a map 1/1* : Hom(P, L) � Hom(K, L). For each T E im 1/1*,
it is easily verified that the extension X u +1; is equivalent to Xu . Hence, each
element of the factor group Hom(K, L)/im 1/1* determines an equivalence
class of extensions of N by L. Conversely, we show that every class can be
obtained in this manner. Given any extension (2.24), it follows from the fact
that P is projective that there exists a homomorphism p making the diagram
2d Extensions of modules

We shall first give an informal discussion of Ext� (N, L) in terms of


below commutative :
equivalence classes of extensions of a left A-module N by a left A-module L.
Then we shall define Ext� in terms of projective resolutions, and shall list
standard properties of Ext. In what follows, all modules are left A -modules,
and we shall write Hom instead of Hom,\. for convenience.
t See also Exercises 5.3, 5.4.
20 HOMOLOGICAL ALGEBRA (2 . 25) (2.28) EXTENSIONS OF MO DULES 21
Clearly p induces a map (J : K � L, and it can be verified that the extension X (2.28) Remarks. (i) Up to isomorphism, the group Ext�(N, L) depends only
is equivalent to Xu' One also checks that the class of X uniquely determines upon the modules N and L, and not upon the choice of the projective resolu­
(J modulo the image of 1/1*. Hence there is a bijection between the set of tion (2.26). (See references.)
equivalence classes of extensions of N by L, and the additive group given by (ii) We could have defined Ext�(N, L) to be ker <Pi- However, the exactness
(2.25) Extl(N, L) Hom(K, L)/I/I* {Hom(P, Ln.
=
of the sequence
The split extension corresponds to 0 in this group. (One can define an additive
structure on the set of equivalence classes of extensions, by using "Baer implies the exactness of the sequence
sums", as in Rotman [1 J. In that case, the above bijection is in fact an additive
homomorphism, and the expression (2.25) defines Ext up to isomorphism, o � Hom(N, L) cp*� Hom(Po, L) cP*-4 Hom(P 1 , L),
regardless of the choice of P and cpo We shall not go into further details of by (2.5(ii)). Therefore
ker <Pi � im <P6 � Hom (N, L).
this matter, however, but pass at OIice to the definition of Exe by means of
projective resolutions.)
Given a left A -module N, chose an epimorphism <Po : F 0 � N, with F 0 It is therefore customary to identify ExtO(N, L) with Hom(N, L).
free. Then choose an epimorphism <P 1 : F 1 � ker <Po' with F 1 free, and so on. (iii) The groups Extn (N, L) may also be computed by keeping N fixed, and
This yields a free resolution of N, that is, a A-exact sequence using an injective resolution of L (see references).
• . • � F 2 (P2
� F 1 (P� F o CP�o N � 0
I (iv) The groups Extn(N, L), n � 1, have many of the same properties as
in which each F i is A-free. It is often more convenient to use a more general
Hom(N, L). For instance, Extn is additive in each variable :
concept : a projective resolution of N is an exact sequence Ext n(N 1 + N2 ' L) � Extn(N l ' L) -+- Extn (N2 ' L),
(2.26) Extn (N, L 1 + L 2 ) � Exe(N, L 1 ) + Exe(N, L 2 )'
in which each Pi is A-projective. (If it happens that ker <Pm is projective for
some m, then the process of forming such a resolution can be terminated, Further, Extn is contravariant in the first variable, and covariant in the second
variable. Thus, each f E Hom(N, N') induces additive homomorphisms
giving a finite resolution
o � ker <P m � Pm � Pm - 1 � . . . � Po � N � O . f,,* : Extn (N', L) � Extn (N, L). n � 1.
In this case, we say that N has finite homological dimension.) Likewise, each g E Hom(L, I;) induces additive homomorphisms
Given a projective resolution (2.26), the subsequence
n � 1.
P : ' " -- P 2 -- P 1 CPl Po -- 0
CP 2
-'+

is called a deleted projective resolution of N ; it is an exact sequence except (v) If N is a projective module, then 0 � N � N � 0 gives a projective
possibly at Po ' Now let L be a A-module, and form the sequence of additive resolution of N. It follows at once from Definition (2.27) that Extn(N, L) = 0
groups for all L and all n � 1 . Conversely, it may be shown that if Ext 1 (N, L) 0 =

Hom(P, L) : 0 � Hom(P 0' L) � Hom(P l ' L) ce.4 Hom(P 2 ' L) � " ' , for all L, then N is projective.
where (as usual) Hom is an abbreviation for HomA " By (2.4) we have One of the most important properties of the groups Exe is as follows (see
(<P i + 1 )* . (<pJ* = (<P i ' <P i + 1 )* = 0, i � 1, references) :
and therefore im <pi c ker <pi + l ' Now define (2.29) THEOREM. (Long exact sequence for Ext). Let
(2.27) Ext�(N, L) ker <p! + l /im <P:,
= n � 1. o�ALB� C�O
This yields a sequence of additive groups Ext�(N, L), Ext�(N, L), . . " the be a short exact sequence of A-modules, and let L be any A-module. Then
first of which coincides with that given in (2.25). there is a long exact sequence of extension groups
22 (2. 3 1 ) EXTENSIONS O F M ODULES 23
HOM OLOGICAL ALGEBRA (2.30)

0 -+ Hom(C, L) f4 Hom(B, L) L; Hom(A, L) be reduced to that of Extn. This procedure is called dimension shifting. A
more general version is as follows : Given a A -exact sequence
� Ext 1 (C, L) � Ext 1 (B, L) .c Ext 1 (A, L)
(2. 3 1 )
� Ext2(C, L) � Ext2(B, L) C Ext2(A, L) � . . . .
where Pi is projective, 0 � i � n, then for each A-module L and for each
(2.30) � emarks. (i) We h �ve written Hom, Ext instead of HomA' ExtA , for m � 1, there is an isomorphism of additive groups
convemence. The subscnpts on the various maps g*, f* have also been Extm + n + l (N, L) � Extm(K , L).
(2.32) n
omitted ; in accordance with the notation of (2.28(iv)), we should have denoted
by g: the map Extn(C, L) -+ Extn(B, L) induced by g. (v) Let N be a A-module, and let
(ii) It is instructive to compare Theorem 2.29 with (2.5(ii)); we now see that o -+ A L B � C -+ O
(2.5(ii)) gives the start of the long exact sequence of groups occurring in (2.29). be a A-exact sequence. An analogue of Theorem 2.29 states that there is a
�urthe� ore, we can describe the homomorphism 80 explicitly, provided we long exact sequence of extension groups
VIew Ext (C, L) as the set of equivalence classes of extensions of C by L.
To be precise, given any h E Hom(A, L), we define 80(h) to be the equivalence o -+ Hom(N, A) � Hom(N, B) � Hom(N, C) � Ext 1 (N, A)
class of the extension occurring in the bottom row of the commutative S Ext 1 (N, B) � Ext 1 (N, C) � Ext2(N, A) -+ . . . .
diagram
o -+ A L B .f4 C -+ O We shall not attempt to describe the maps 8 occurring here.

hi t
lel
't'
Another basic property of extension groups is as follows (see references):
o -+ L-- .. X - .. C -+ O.
-

(2.33) THEOREM (Ladder theorem). Given a commutative diagram of A-modules


Here, X represents the pushout of the pair of maps (f, h), and the dotted
and A-homomorphisms with exact rows :
arrows denote maps defined as in the discussion preceding (2.25).
(iii) It is somewhat more difficult to describe the additive homomorphisms O -+ A -+ B -+ C -+ O
8 , 8 " . . explicitly. One procedure is to define them recursively, using the
1 2
dimension-shifting techniques given in (iv) below. Another method uses the
1 1 1
o -+ A' -+ B' -+ C' -+ 0,
fact (2.28(iii)) that we can compute all of the groups Extn( . , L) by starting
and given any A-module L, there is a commutative diagram of additive groups
with an injective resolution of L; in this context, the long exact sequence of
and homomorphisms with exact rows :
(2.29) arises naturally from an exact triangle associated with an exact sequence
of graded complexes. O-+ Hom(C, L) -+ Hom(B, L) -+ Hom(A, L) -+ Extl (C, L) -+ Ext1(B, L) -+ . . .
(iv) Formula 2.25 now appears in a more natural setting. From the short t t t t t
exact sequence O-+ Hom(C', L)-+ H om(B', L)-+Hom(A', L) -+Ext l(C', L)-+ Extl (B', L)-+ . . ' .
o -+ K '4 P � N -+ 0, P projective, We conclude with some results on finite generation of extension groups.
we obtain a long exact sequence of additive groups Let R be a commutative ring, and let A be an R-algebra. Then A itself, and
all A-modules, can be viewed as R-modules. If L, M, . . . denote A-modules,
Hom(P, L) � Hom(K, L) -+ Ext 1 (N, L) -+ Ext 1 (P, L) -+ . . . . then the additive groups HomA (L, M), L ® A M, Ext�(L, M) (n � 1) are also
But Ext 1 (P, L)= 0 by (2.28v), and so we obtain an isomorphism between the R-modules, and all of the various maps so far mentioned in this section are
expressions given in (2.25). R-homomorphisms.
Furthermore, since Extn(P, L) = 0, n � 1, we obtain an isomorphism In particular, suppose that R is a noetherian commutative ring, and that A
is finitely generated as R-module. For any A-module N which is finitely
Extn + l eN, L) � Extn(K, L), n � 1, generated over R, all of the A-modules occurring in a projective resolution of
for each module L . B y means of this formula, the calculation o f Extn + 1 may N may be chosen finitely generated over R. This readily implies
24 HOMOLOGICAL ALGEBRA (2.34) (2.37) CHANGE OF RINGS IN HOM AND EXT 25
(2.34) THEOREM. Let A be an R-algebra, finitely generated as module over the
where Y denotes the right multiplication by "y acting on r. By virtue of the
commutative noetherian ring R. Let L, M, . . . denote A-modules which are r structures rr and (M')r ' both sides of (2.36) have the structure
bimodule R N
finitely generated over R (or equivalently, over A). Then the R-modules
of left r -modules. It is easily checked that (X is a left r-homomorphism.
HomA (L, M), Ext�(L, M), n � 1, Analogously, the bimodule structures rr .R and A ,(N')r make the expressions
in (2.36) into_ right r -modules, and (X is aiso a right r -homomorphism.
are also finitely generated over R.
(2.37) THEOREM. Let A and r be R-algebras, M and N left A-modules. Suppose
2e Change of rings in Hom and Ext that r is R-flat, and that M is finitely generated as A-module. Then the map
(X in (2.36) is a two-sided r -monomorphism.
Throughout this section let R be a commutative ring with unity element.
Suppose for the moment that R' is a ring of quotients of R with respect to Proof. There is a A-exact sequence
some multiplicative subset of R (see .§ 3a). For each R-module M, we may form o � K � A (r) � Ai � 0
the R'-module
for some r. It follows from (2.5) that the sequence of R-modules
M' = R' Q9 R M.
o � HomA (M, N) � HomA (A(r), N)
Itis often necessary to know how Hom and Ext behave under passage from
R to R'. The aim of this section is to establish formulas such as is also exact. Since r is R-flat, exactness is preserved when the functor
r Q9 R ' is applied to the above two sequences. We obtain two new exact
R' Q9 R HomR (M, N) � HomR ,(M', N') sequences :
and likewise for Ext, assuming that the R-modules M and N satisfy some o � K' � A'(r ) � M' � 0,
mild hypotheses. A significant role is played by the fact that R' is R-flat (see and
§2c). We shall prove formulas of the above type in somewhat more general
o � r Q9 R HomA (M, N) � r Q9 R Hom A(A(r), N).
circumstances, which will in fact be met later on.
Let A(r) denote the left A-module which is the external direct sum of r By virtue of (2.5), the first of these sequences gives rise to an exact sequence
copies of A. If M is any finitely generated left A-module, there is an epi­
morphism CP o : A(r) � M for some r. If A is left noetherian, then by (2.9) ker CP o o � HomA' (M', N') � HomA' (A' (r) , N').
is also finitely genera ted, and so there is an epimorphism cP 1 : A(s) � ker cP 0 Therefore we obtain a commutative diagram with exact rows :
for some s. Thus we obtain a A-exact sequence
o r Q9 R HomA (M, N) r Q9 R HomA (A(r), N)
A(S) � A(r ) � M � O.
� �

(2.35)
Even if A is not necessarily noetherian, it may happen that the module M O � H om
a 1
A (M' , N') ----+ 1
H omA'a l(A , (r)" N')
occurs in some sequence of this type, with r, s finite. In such case, we say that
M is a finitely presented A-module. We emphasize that when A is left noether­ in which the vertical maps (x, (X l are precisely those given by (2.36). But (X l is
an isomorphism, since (2.7) gives
ian, every finitely generated left A-module is necessarily finitely presented.
Now let A and r be R-algebras and let M, N, . . . be left A-modules. Set r Q9 R HomA(A� >' N) � r Q9 R N(r) � (N')(r ) � HomN (A, (r), N').
A' r Q9 R A,
= M' r Q9 R M, . . . ,
=
It follows at once that (X is monic, and the theorem is proved.
so M' is a left module over the R-algebra A'. There exists an R-homomorphism A variant of the preceding result is as follows :
(2.36)
(2.38) Theorem. Let A and r be R -algebras, M and N left A-modules. Suppose
given by that r is R-flat, and that M is a finitely presented A-module. Then the map (X
'y E r, f E HomA (M, N), in (2.36) is a two-sided r-isomorphism.
26 HOMOLOGICAL A LGEBRA (2.39) (2.42) HEREDITARY RINGS 27

Prool There is a A-exact sequence 1 ® cp: : r ® R RomA (Pn - 1 , N) � r ® R RomA (Pn , N) .


A (s) � A(r) � M � 0 By (2.38), the vertical arrows in the following commutative diagram are
two-sided r-isomorphisms :
for some r and s. By (2.5), the sequence
o � RomA (M, N) � RomA (A(r), N) � RomA (A(S), N) r ® R RomA (Pn - 1 , N) 1 ® �:l r ® R RomA (Pn , N)
(2.42) t t
is R-exact. As in the proof of (2.37), we obtain a commutative diagram with RomA , (P� - 1 , N ') � RomA , (P� , N') .
exact rows :
*
The map I/! occurring above is obtained as follows : applying the exact
o � r ® R RomA (M , N ) � r ® R RomA ( A (r), N) � r ® R RomA (A(S), N) �
functor r ® . to the original free resolution of M, we obtain a free N-reso­
1a laI ja2 lution of M', namely,
o � Rom A ,(M', N') - RomA ' (A , (r), N') - RomA ,(A'(S), N') . � P'2 � P' � P'o ------':"-' M' - O.
1
As in (2.37), both maps (Xl and (X2 are isomorphisms. This implies at onc�_that This in turn yields a sequence
(X is an isomorphism, and the theorem is proved.
o - RomA , (P'0 ' NT') 1/Ji
----'---+ R omA , (P 'l l\J '
' H
) � . . . ,
(2.39) Theorem (Change of rings). Let R be a commutative ring, and let r and in which the maps I/!: occur. By definition,
A be R-algebras such that A is left noetherian and r is R-flat. Let M be a
finitely generated left A-module, and let N be arbitrary. Then the two-sided Ext�, (M', N') = ker I/! :+ I jim I/!: .
r-isomorphism given by (2.36) is the first of a family of two-sided r -isomor­ Comparing this formula with that given in (2.4 1), and using the fact that the
phisms vertical arrows in the commutative diagram (2.42) are isomorphisms, we
r ® R Ext� (M, N) � Ext�,(M', N'), n � 0, conclude at once that

where r ® R Ext� (M, N) � Ext�, (M', N'), n � 1.


A' = r ® R A, M' = r ® R M,
r ® R N.N' =
This is a two-sided r -isomorphism, since all of the maps occurring in the
proof are two-sided r-maps. The result also holds when n = 0, if we set
Proof· The hypotheses on M and A imply that M is finitely presented, so ExtO Hom. Thi s completes the proof.
=

the map (X in (2.36) is an i somorphi sm by (2.38). Now let


- P2 � P � P0 - M - O (2.43) COROLLARY. Let R be a commutative ring, and let R' be the ring of
1 quotients! of R with respect to some multiplicative subset of R. Let A be any
be a free A-resolution of M, chosen so that each Pi is A-free on a finite number left noetherian R-algebra. Then for each finitely generated left A-module
of generators. (Such a resoluti on exists since A is left noetherian.) Then M, and any A-module N, there is an R'-isomorphism
forming the sequence
R' ® R Ex..t� (M, N) � Ext �, (M', N'), n � 0,
�r �!
(2.40) o - R omA ( Po , N) - RomA ( Pl , N) - " ' , where A' R' ® R A, M' = R' ® R M, and so on. This isomorphism extends
=

we have (by (2.27)) that given by (2.36) for the case n = O.


Ext� (M, N) � ker CP:+ jim cp: ' n � 1.
1 2f Hereditary rings
Since r is R-flat, we have
A ring A with unity element is left hereditary if every left ideal of A is a
(2.4 1 ) r ® R Ext� (M, N) � ker 1® cp:+ jim 1® cp: ' .
1 projective A-module. As we shall see eventually, maximal orders are heredl-
where for n � 1 , t See §3a.
28 HOMOLOGICAL ALGEBRA (2.44) EXERCISES 29

tary rings, and some of the important facts about maximal orders are actually a submodule of a free module on k generators is isomorphic to an external
special cases of assertions about hereditary rings. direct sum of at most k left ideals of A.
(iii) There are examples of rings which are left hereditary but not right
(2.44) THEOREM. If A is a left hereditary ring, then every sub module of a free hereditary. However, if A is left and right noetherian, then A is left hereditary
left A-module M is isomorphic to an external direct sum of left ideals of A, and if and only if A is right hereditary (see Rotman [1, Corollary 9.20J ; the result
is therefore projective. is due to M. Auslander).
(iv) The proof of (2.44), for the case where M is ' not finitely generated,
Proof.t Let {m ' . . . , mk} be a free A-basis of M, and let N be any submodule proceeds in much the same manner as the above proof. The main difference
l
of M. We shall use induction on k to show that N is isomorphic to an external is that k must be allowed to be transfinite, and the proof uses transfinite
direct sum of left ideals of A. The result is obvious for k = 1 , so now let k > 1 , induction.
and assume that the theorem holds for submodules of M', where M ' =
Amz + . . . + Amk • EXERCISES
Each n E N is expressible in the form
1. Let
n = rim 1 + . . + rkmk ,
.

with uniquely determined coefficients {rJ. Let J be the set of all first coeffi­
cients r 1 which occur as n ranges over all elements of N. Then J is a left ideal
of A, and there is an epimorphism cp : N � J given by cp (n) = r 1 , n E N .
Clearly ker q> = N n M', so there is a A-exact sequence be a pullback diagram of A-modul,e s. Prove
(i) 92 induces an isomorphism ker 9 1 � ker .f2 ·
o � N n M' - N � J - O. (ii) If f2 is epic, then so is 9 1 .
2. Let
Since A is left hereditary, the left ideal J is A-projective, and so the above
sequence splits by (2. 1 4). Therefore

N � J + N n M'.
But N n M' is a submodule of M', and thus N n M' is isomorphic to an be a pushout diagram of A-modules. Prove
external direct sum of left ideals of A, by the induction hypothesis. Hence (i) 9 1 induces an isomorphism cok 11 � cok 92 ·
N is also isomorphic to such a sum. Finally, each summand is projective, (ii) If 11 is monic, then so is 92 .
whence so is N.
3. Let r and 11 be rings, and suppose we have modules Mr ' LA ' and a bimodule
AN r . Show that there is a well-defined additive homomorphism
(2.45) Rf>marks. (i) If the ring A has the property that submodules of free left
a: L ® A Homr(M, N) -4- Homr(M, L ® A N),
modules are projective, then in particular all left ideals of A are projective.
By (2.44), we may conclude that A is left hereditary if and only if submodules defined by 1 ® I -4- (I, f), where
of free modules are projective.
(I, f)m l ® jm, t E L, IE Homr(M, N), m E M.
(ii) The importance of (2.44) is that it gives us a structure theorem for =

submodules of free A-modules when A is hereditary. This structure theorem Prove that a is an isomorphism whenever L is l1-flat and M is a finitely presented
generalizes the one valid for modules over a principal ideal domain, since r-module. [Hint : Imitate the proof of (2.3 8), using ® A in place of ® R . J
clearly every such domain is hereditary. The above proof shows further that 4 . Let 11 b e a ring, and let L A b e flat, and M A finitely presented. Use Exercise 3 to
t We give the proof only for the case where M is finitely generated; it is this special case which
prove that
arises most frequently in practice. For the general case, see Cartan-Eilenberg [ 1 ] .
30 LOCALIZATION
(3. 1) RINGS O F QUOTIENTS 31
5. Let .1 be a ring, L� any module, and let M� be a finitely generated projective
module. Prove that
R x S by setting (a, s) (a', S') if and only if t(sa' - s'a) 0 for some t E S.
r-.; =

Let a/s (or S - 1 a) denote the equivalence class of the pair (a, s). Now define
a b a b ab
ta + sb
[Hint : Use (2. 1 7). ]
�±t= �
6. Let qJ : R � S be a homomorphism of commutative rings, and let
s t ---;t '
J be an ideal
in R. Prove that verifying that these operations are indeed well -defined. The set of symbols
{a/s} then forms a commutative ring, denoted by S - 1 R, with unity element
1/1 and zero element 0/1 . For s E S, we have
as S-modules.
7. Prove Schanuel's Lemma : Given two exact sequences of left A-modules (s/l) . (l/s) 1/1, =

so s/l is a unit in S - 1R, with inverse l/s. Denoting l/s by s - \ we obtain


O � M � P � X � O, ° � M' � P' t X � 0,
in which P and P' are projective, there is a A-isomorphism a/s (l/s) (a/ I ) S - 1 (a/I ).
= =

M' -+- P � M -i-- P'. We shall call S - 1 R a ring of quotients of R.


qJ,
An element a E R is an S-torsion element if ta 0 for some t E S. The above
discussion shows at once that (a, s) lies in the zero class of S- 1 R if and only
t/I. Then there exist A-exact
=

[Hint : Let A be the pullback of the pair of maps


sequences
if a is an S-torsion element of R. There is a ring homomorphism
° � K � A � P � 0, ° � K' � A � P' � 0,
with K � ker t/I � M', K' � ker qJ � M. Since
i: R � S - 1R,
P and P' are projective, A �
P + K � P' + K'.] given by i(x) x/I , x E R. Then ker i is precisely the set of S-torsion
=

8. Prove the Snake Lemma : Given a commutative diagram of modules, with exact elements of R. The map i permits us to view S- 1 R as R-module.
rows : If R is an integral domain, the map i may be regarded as an embedding
of R into S- 1 R ; in particular, if S R {O}, then S - 1 R is precisely the
= -

quotient field of R. For an arbitrary ring R, the map i is monic if and only
if R is S-torsionfree (that is, R contains no nonzero S-torsion elements, or
equivalently, S contains no divisors of zero).
there is an exact sequence
(3. 1) THEOREM. Let S be a multiplicative subset of R. Then any ring homo­
ker a � ker p � ker y � cok a � cok fj � cok y. morphism cp : R � R' which maps each element of S onto a unit of R', extends
uniquely to a ring homomorphism t/J : S- 1 R � R' such that t/J i cp.
If qJ is monic, so is qJ * If t/I is epic, so is t/I * . The lemma remains true for a diagram
0 =

of groups and group homomorphisms, if each of the groups A', B' and C' is commuta­
.

tive. [Hint : Define b by b (c) = a ' + im a, where Proof. Define


a' � b', b' = PCb), b � c. ] t/J(a/s) = cp (a)/cp(s), a E A, S E S.
It is easily checked that t/J is the desired homomorphism. If also t/J' 0 i = cp ,
3. LOCALIZATION then
t/J' ( a/s) = t/J'(a/1) · t/J'(1/s) cp(a)/cp(s) t/J(a/s),
= =

3a Rings of quotients
so t/J = t/J'.
Throughout this section, R denotes a commutative ring. A multiplicative
subset of R is a subset S closed under mUltiplication, and such that 0 ¢ S, (3.2) COROLLARY. Let cp : R � R' be a ring homomorphism mapping a multi­
1 E S. We introduce an equivalence relation on the Cartesian product plicative subset S of R into a multiplicative subset S' of R'. Then there is a
32 LOCALIZATION (3.3) (3 .4) MODULES OF Q UOTIENTS 33
unique ring homomorphism t/J : S - 1 R � S' - 1 R' which extends cp , that is, an R-submodule of S - 1 R.
t/J(a/l ) = cp (a)/l , a E R. We shall now define a homomorphism
f : R 1 ®R M � M/M'
3b Modules of quotients
by setting
Let S be a multiplicative subset of the commutative ring R, and M any f(x ® m) = txm + M',
R-module. We view S - 1 R as R-module by means of the canonical map
This map f is well-defined, since if x = aft bit in R ' then a - b is an
i : R � S- 1R, and we form the S - 1R-module
=

1 now the element


S-torsion element of R, and hence (a - b)m E M'. Consider
S- 1M = S - 1 R ® R M. I ® mo . From the manner in which R was chosen, it is clear that I ® mo 0 =

1
in R ® R M. Therefore f(1 ® mo ) = 0 in M/M', that is, tmo E M' . This
We shall call S - 1 M a module of quotients. Each X E S - 1 M is then expressible 1
implies that mo also lies in M', which completes the proof of the theorem.
as a finite sum
(3.4) COROLLARY. The module of quotients S - 1 M coincides with the module
Set s = IT Si E S; then whose elements are equivalence classes of ordered pairs (m, s), with (m, s) ,....,
(m', s') if and only if s'm - sm' is an S-torsion element of M. The class of
x = L s - 1 · a.! s s!� 1 ® m.! = � a !.ss1� 1 m .
S - 1 ® L.. 1
= /)(1 m,
S - 1 ICJ (m, s) may be identified with the element m/s = S- 1 ® m in S - l M.
say. Denote S- 1 ® m by m/s; we have thus shown that every element of
The S - 1 R-module S - lM may be viewed as an R-module by use of the
S - 1 M is of the form m/s for some m E M, s E S. It is easily checked that
homomorphism i : R � S - 1 R; in other words, an element a E R acts on
m/s ± m'/s' = (s'm ± sm')/ss'. S- 1 M as left multiplication by the element a/I of S - 1 R. We shall say that the
We shall call an element m of an R-module M an S-torsion element if element a E R acts invertibly on an R-module X if the mapping x � ax,
sm = 0 for some s E S. The collection of all S-torsion elements of M is called
x E X, gives a one-to-one map of X onto itself. It is then clear that every
the S-torsion submodule of M, and is an R-submodule of M . element of S acts invertibly on the module of quotients S - 1 M.
On the other hand, given any R-module X on which every element of
(3.3) THEOREM. Let M' be the S-torsion submodule of M. Then m/s = 0 in S acts invertibly, we can make X into an S- 1 R-module by defining
S- 1 M if and only if m E M'. (3.5) (a/s) · x = s - l ' ax, a E R, S E S, X E X.
Proof. If m E M', then tm = 0 for some t E S, whence This is the unique way in '.vhich X can be made into an S- 1 R-module so as
to preserve the action of R on X.
m/s = S- 1 ® m = (st) - 1 ® tm = O.

Conversely, suppose that S - 1 ® mo = 0 in S- 1 M. Then I ® mo = (3.6) THEOREM. Let X be an R-module on which every element of S acts invertibly,
S(S- 1 ® mo) = 0, and therefore I ® mo is expressible as a finite sum of elements and make X into an S - 1 R-module by means of (3.5). Then there is an S- 1 R­
of S- 1 M of the following three types : isomorphism
S - 1R ®R X � X.
(u + u') ® m - u ® m - u' ® m, u ® (m + m') - u ® m - u ® m',
ua ® m - u ® am, Further, for each R-module Y, every R-homomorphism f : Y � X extends
canonically to an S - 1 R-homomorphism f' : S - 1 Y � X, given by the formula
with u, u' E S - 1 R, m, m' E M, a E R. Choose t E S to be a common denomi­
nator for all of the u's which occur in these terms, so that tu E R for each such f'(u ® y) = u · f(y), U E S - 1 R, y E Y.
u (or more precisely, tu E i(R )) Let .

Proof. By (3.4), every element of S - 1 R ® R X is expressible as s - 1 ® x, with


R = C 1 . i(R) = {a/t : a E R}, s E S, X E X. Denote this element by x/so By (3.4) we have xis = x'/s' if and
1
34 LOCALIZATION (3.7) (3.9) LOCALIZATION AT PRIME IDEALS 35
only if s'x - sx' is an S-torsion element of X. But S acts invertibly on X, (3. 9) COROLLARY. A n inclusion L c M of R-modules induces an inclusion
so X is S-torsion free. Thus xis x'/s' if and only if s'x sx'.
= = S - l L c S- l M of S- l R-modules, and there is an S - l R-isomorphism
Now define a mapping 8 : S- l R ® R X � X by setti ng 8(x/s) = s- lx,
X E X, S E S. The preceding remarks imply that 8 is well-defined ; for if S- l(M/L) � S- lM/S- l L.
xis x'/s', then s- lx = S' - lX'. Clearly 8 is epic, and is an S - lR-homo­
= Recall that an R-module M is noetherian if its submodules satisfy the
morphism. Finally, 8 is monic, since if ()(x/s) 0, then s- lx ° and hence
= = ascending chain condition. A ring A is (left) noetherian if A is noetherian as
also x = 0. This proves the first part of the theorem. We omit the straight­ left A-module. Analogously, M is artinian if its submodules satisfy the
forward proof of the second part. descending chain condition.
We wish to prove that the properties of being noetherian or artinian are
preserved under formation of rings or modules of quotients. This is best
3c Flatness
accomplished by using the concept of "saturation". Let L c M be R-modules ;
Recall that an R-module is flat if tensoring with it preserves exactness call L an S-saturatedt submodule of M if MIL is S-torsionfree, that is, MIL
(see § 2c). We shall now prove that every ring of quotients S - l R is a flat has no nonzero S-torsion elements. Equivalently, L is S-saturated in M if for
R-module. m E M, s E S, the inclusion sm E L implies that m E L.
Given any R-homomorphism f : L � M of R-modules, there is an
S- lR-homomorphism j�: S- l L � S- l M, defined by setting j� = 1 ® f, (3 . 1 0) THEOREM. Let i : M
� S- l M be defined by i(m) = } ® m, m E M. There

where is a one-to-one inclusion-preserving correspondence between the set of S-satu­


rated submodules X of the R-module M, and the set of S- l R-submodules x'
Thus ojS - l M, given by
X' S - lX,
= X = i- l eX').
(3.7) f* (l/s) = f(l)/s, I E L, s E S. Proof. Straightforward exercise for the reader.
U sing this we prove
As an immediate consequence of (3 . 1 0), we obtain
(3.8) THEOREM. Let L L M � N be an R-exact sequence, and let f* 9 * be (3.1 1 ) THEOREM. If M is a noetherian R-module, then S- l M is a noetherian
'
defined as in (3 .7). Then S - l R-module. In particular, if R is a noetherian ring, so is S - l R. The analogous
S - lL � S- lM � S - l N results hold true with "noetherian" replaced by "artinian".
is an exact sequence of S- l R-modules. 3d Localization at prime ideals

Proof. Since gf 0, we have g * f*


= = (gf) * = 0. Now let x E ker g * ' and Let R be a commutative ring, and let J, J' denote ideals of R. We write
write x = mis, m E M, s E S. Then J < J' to indicate that J is properly contained in J'. Let us set
° = g * (m/s) = s- l g(m), R - J = {x: x E R, x � J} .
so } ® gem) ° in S- l N . Hence there exists an element t E S such that (3 . 1 2) Definitions. (i) J is a proper idea} if J < R.
(ii) J is a maximal ideal if J < R, and if there is no ideal J' such that
=

t . g(m) 0, that is, g(tm) = 0. But ker 9 im f, and so we may write tm f(l)
= = =

for some I E L. Then J < J' < R.


x = m/s = tm/ts = f* (l/ts) E im f* . (i ii) J is a prime ideal if J < R, and R/J has no zero divi sors.
This shows that ker 9 * = im f* . Finally, it is clear that f* and 9 * are S - 1 R­ Clearly, a proper ideal J is prime if and only if its complement R - J is
homomorphisms, which completes the proof. a multiplicative set. Starting with a prime ideal P of R, we may fonn the
multiplicative set S = R - P, and then define a ring of quotients S- l R.
For later use, we state a special case of (3 .8) : t See Bourbaki, Algebre Commutive, page 69 for this terminology.
36 LOCALIZA TION (3 . 1 3) (3. 1 5) LOCALIZATION AT PRIME IDEALS 37

This ring, hereafter denoted by Rp , is called the localization of R at P. Since questions by first settling the local case, and then app�ying this local i�for­
every element of R - P is invertible in Rp , it is easily verified that Rp has a mation to the global case. The next few theorems provIde some connectIOns
unique maximal ideal, namely p . Rp . We should remark that the ring between local and global information .
homomorphism i : R -4 Rp , defined in § 3a, enables us to view Rp (and all For each R-module M, and each prime ideal P of R, there is an R-homo-
Rp-modules) as R-modules. Thus P . Rp is the same as i(P) . Rp . morphism
If R happens to be an integral domain, then the mapping i : R _ Rp is
an embedding. In particular, when P = {O} then Rp is precisely the quotient
ip : M - Mp ,
field of the domain R. given by ip(m) = 1 ® m E Rp ® R M, m E M. Conseque�tly there is an R-homo­
.
Returning to the general case, let M be any R-module. We define M p = morphism M _ I1 M P
' where P ranges over all maxImal Ideals of R.

Rp ®R M, an Rp-module called the localization of M at P . p

(3. 1 3) Localization at maximal ideals does not affect residue class


THEOREM.
(3. 1 5) THEOREM. The map M - I1 Mp is monic. In particular, M = 0 if and
p
modules. Specifically, let P be a maximal ideal of R, and let M be an R-module . only if M p = 0 for each maximal ideal P of R.
Then for each r > 0, we may view M / p r. M as an Rp-module, and there is
an Rp-isomorphism Proof. Denote the above map by f, and suppose that m E ker f. Set
M/P" ' M � M p/p r · Mp . J = {a E R : a . m = O} ,
Proof. Let S R - P, and put M = M/ pr . M. We show first that M can
=

be made into an Rp-module. For each s E S we have Rs + P an ideal in R. If J < R, then t J is contained in some maximal ideal P of
0, so by (3.3) there exists an s E R - P such t� at s . m = O .
R, since P
=

is maximal. Hence there exist elements a E R, n E P, such that as + n R. But ip(m) =

1. =

Taking rth powers, we obtain Hence s E J, s ¢ P, which contradicts the fact that J c P. ThIs shows th �t
J R, and thus m 0 as claimed. The second assertion in the theorem IS
= =

f3s + nr 1 =
then obvious.
for some f3 E R. Therefore s is a unit in the ring R/pr, and hence acts invertibly
on the (R/pr)-module M. From (3.6) we deduce that M can be viewed as (3. 1 6) COROLLARY. Let f E HomR (L, M) induce fp : Lp - Mp . Then
Rp-module, and that there is an Rp-isomorphism (i) There are Rp-isomorphisms

M � Rp ® R M = (M )p . (ker f)p � ker fp , (im f)p � im fp , (cok f )p � cok fp ,


But by (3 .9) we have for each maximal ideal P of R.
(M)p = (M/pr ' M)p � M� /pr · Mp . (ii) f is monic if and only if each fp is monic.
(iii) f is epic if and only if each fp is epic.
Hence there IS an Rp-isomorphism M � Mp/Y Mp, and the theorem is
'
(iv) A sequence of R-modules
proved.
O�L�M� N�O
The preceding theorem is used most frequently for the special case where
r = 1 , and yieids the (R/ P)-isomorphism is exact if and only if the sequence

(3. 1 4)
for each maximal ideal P of R, and each R-module M. is exact for each P.
We often refer to problems concerning R -modules and R-homomor­
phisms as global problems, whereas those involving Rp-modules are called Proof. Given any f E HomR (L, M), there is an R-exact sequence
local problems. A fundamental technique in algebraic number theory, and t This statement is a consequence of Zorn's Lemma (see Curtis-Reiner [lJ); it does not
in its generalizations considered in this book, is the method of solving global require the hypothesis that R be noetherian.
38 LOCALIZATION (3 . 1 7) (3.20) LOCALIZATION AT PRIME IDEALS 39
o � ker f � L L M. We may emphasize that when R is noetherian, and A is finitely generated
Since Rp is R-flat, it follows that the sequence as R-module, then A is left and right noetherian, and every finitely generated
A-module is automatically finitely presented.
o � (ker f)p � Lp f4 l\1p Now let A be any R-algebra; we shall show that the question, as to whether
is Rp-exact. This gives an Rp-isomorphism (ker f)p � ker fp . Similar a given A-exact sequence is A-split, is a "local" question, that is, the answer
arguments yield the other assertions in (i). is determined by the answers for the corresponding Ap-sequences, where
If f is monic, then ker f 0, whence ker fp 0 for each P, by (i). Con­
= =
P ranges over the maximal ideals of R.
versely, if each fp is monic, then by (i) and (3. 1 5), also f is monic. This proves
(ii), and the remaining assertions in the theorem follow in a similar manner. (3.20) THEOREM. Let A be an algebra over the commutative ring R, and let

(3. 1 7) COROLLARY. Let R be an integral domain with quotient field K, and (3.21) o � L .4 M 54 N�0
regard R and all of its localizations Rp as embedded in K. Then be a A-exact sequence, where N is a finitely presented A-module. Then the
R ( j Rp ,
=
sequence is A-split if and only if for each maximal ideal P of R, the Ap-exact
p sequence
where P ranges over all maximal ideals of R.
(3.22)
Proof. Obviously, R is contained in the intersection. Conversely, let x E K
be such that x E Rp for all P. Writing x alb, a, b E R, it follows that a E bRp
=

for all P. Let f : R � R be defined by f(r) rb, r E R. Then the image of Proof. The epimorphism 9 induces a map
=

a in cok fp is zero for all P. But by (3. 1 5) and (3. 1 6), the map
9
cok f � TI cok fp * : HomA (N, M) � HomA (N, N).
p
We claim that the sequence (3.21) is split if and only if g* is epic. Indeed, if
is monic. Hence a has zero image in cok f, that is, a E bR. This shows that h : N � M is such that gh I N ' the identity map on N, then for each
x E R, so R contains n Rp , and the proof is complete.
=

<p E HomA (N, N) we have h<p E HomA (N, M), and


The reader should be cautioned that (3. l 7) does not hold for arbitrary g * (h<p) = gh · <p = <po
commutative rings R, nor does it generalize to the case of R-modules unless Thus if (3.21) splits, then g* is epic. Conversely, if g * is epic, there exists an
h E HomA (N, M) such that 9 h 1 N ' that is, gh 1 N . This completes the
additional hypotheses are imposed.
= =

Let us next record the following special cases of (2.38) and the "Change *
proof of the claim.
of rings" Theorem 2.43.
N ow let us define
(3. l 8) THEOREM. Let A be an R-algebra, where R is a commutative ring, and let (gp) * : HomA p {NP ' Mp) � HomA p (Np , Np ),
M be any finitely presented left A-module. Then for every A-module N, and where 9 induces gp : Mp � Np . By virtue of (3. l 8), we may identify (gp)
for each prime ideal P of R, there is an R p-isomorphism with (g )p . We have seen above that (3.21) is A-split if and only if g* is epic,*
*
while analogously (3.22) is Ap-split if and only if (g )p is epic. The theorem then
Rp ® R HomA (M, N) � HomA (Mp , Np ).
p
follow immediately from (3. 1 6). *
(3. 1 9) THEOREM. Let A be a left noetherian R-algebra, where R is a commutative
ring, and let P be any prime ideal of R. Then there is an Rp-isomorphism (3.23) COROLLARY. Let A be an R-algebra, N afinitely presented left A-module.
Then N is A-projective if and only if Np is Ap-projective for each P.
Rp ® R Ext� (M, N) � Ext�p(Mp , Np ), n � 0,
for each pair of left A-modules M, N such that M is finitely generated over A . Proof. Choose a free A-module F mapping onto N, so there is a A-exact
40 LOCALIZATION (3.24) 41
(3.28) LOCALIZATION AT PRIME IDEALS
sequence ° � L � F � N � 0. If N is projective, then N I F, whence Np i F p
and Np is Ap-projective. Conversely, if each Np is projective, then each (iii) For every exact sequence (3.26) in which X 0 ' . . . , Xn - 1 are projective,
localization of the above sequence is split. Hence the original sequence splits, also Kn is projective.
by (3.22), and so N is projective. We note that hdAM 0 if and only if M is projective. The following
=

result is thus a generalization of (3.23) :


Recall that A is a left hereditary ring if every left ideal of A is projective.
We have at once (3.28) THEOREM. Let A be a left noetherian R-algebra, where R is a commutative
ring, and let M be any finitely generated left A-module. Th en
(3.24) COROLLARY. Let A be a left noetherian R-algebra, where R is a commu­
tative ring. Then A is left hereditary if and only if the ring Ap is left hereditary hdA Msup {hdAp Mp },
=

p
for every maximal ideal P of R. where P ranges over all maximal ideals of R.
Proof. Suppose that Ap is left hereditary for each P, and let L be any left
ideal of A. Then L is finitely presented as A-module, since A is left noetherian.
Proof. Denote the sup by s, and let n hdA M. We show first that n � s.
The result is clear if n 00, so assume n finite. Then there is an exact sequence
=

Further, Lp is a left ideal of Ap , and hence Lp is projective. Therefore L is (3.25) with each Xi projective. Localizing at P, we obtain a projective reso­
projective, by (3.23). lution of M p' and therefore hdAp Mp � n. This holds for each P, whence
Conversely, let A be left hereditary, and let P be any maximal ideal of R.
s � n, as claimed.
By (3. 1 0), every left ideal of Ap is of the form Lp , for some left ideal L of Conversely, we prove that n � s, and we may assume that s is finite. From
A. Since L is projective as A-module, it follows as in (3.23) that Lp is Ap-pro­
(3. 1 9) we obtain
Rp ® R Ext�+ 1 (M, N) 0
jective, as desired. This complete the proof of the corollary.
=

In order to generalize (3.24), we introduce the concept of homological for all P and for all A-modules N. It now follows from (3. 1 5) that
1
dimension, which is sometimes referred to as "projective dimension". The Ext�+ (M, ) 0, and so hdA M � s. This completes the proof of the theorem.
. =

homological dimension hdAM of a left A-module M is the least positive


integer n for which there exists a A-exact sequence The left global dimension of A is defined as
(3.25) 0 � Xn � X n - 1 � . . . � Xo � M � 0, Xi projective. dim A = sup { hdA M : M = left A-module}.
We set hdAM 00 if no such n exists. Once (3.25) is given, it follows directly (We should really use the notation 1 . gl . dim . A, bu� will employ th� simpler
from definition (2.27) that Ext� (M, ' ) 0, r � n + 1. (The notation
=

= notation dim A when there is no danger of confuslOn.) Clearly, dl� A � 0


Ext� (M, . ) 0 means that Ext� (M, L) ° for each A-module L.)
= = if and only if every left A-module is projective, that is, if and only if A IS a
Now consider a A-exact sequence semisimple artinian ring (see § 7a). . .
(3.26) 0 � K n � X n - 1 � . . . � Xo � M � 0, Xi projective. We claim that dim A � 1 if and only if A IS left heredItary. Suppose that
dim A � 1, and let J be any left ideal of A. There is a A-exact sequence
By (2.32) there is an isomorphism
° � J � A � AI J � 0,
Ext�+ k (M, ' ) � Ext� (K n , ). ·

in which A is projective. Since hdA AjJ � dim A � 1, it follows from (3.27)


But by (2.28 v), Kn is projective if and only if Ext� (Kn ' . ) = 0. This gives that J is projective, as desired. Conversely, let A be left heredItary, and let
.

(3.27) THEOREM. Let M be a left A-module. The following statements are M be any left A-module. There is a A-exact sequence
equivalent : O � K � F � M � O,
(i) hdA M � n . in which F is A-free. Since A is hereditary, the submodule K of the free
(ii) Ext� (M, . ) = ° for r � n + 1. module F must be projective, by (2.44). Therefore hdA M � 1 for each M,
w hence also dim A � 1 .
42 LOCALIZAnON (3.29) EXERCISES 43
We are now ready to give a generalization of (3.24). Since Rp is faithfully flat as Rp-module, it follows that Ext s + 1 (M P ' . ) = 0,
and therefore hd Mp � s. The remaining assertion in (3.30) follows from the
(3.29) THEOREM. Let A be a left noetherian R-algebra, where R is a commu­ formula of Auslander used in the proof of (3.29).
tative ring . Then
dim A = sup {dim Ap},
p EXERCISES
where P ranges over all maximal ideals of R. 1 . Let R be a domain with quotient field K, and let M be a direct summand of a
free R-module F of rank n. Show that M and all of its localizations M p , where P
Proof. We shall use a formula due to M . Auslander (see Rotman [1, Th. 9. 14J) : ranges over the maximal ideals of R, may be embedded in the n-dimensional vector
space K ® R F over K. Then use (3. 1 7) to prove the formula
dim A = sup {hdi\ AI J: J = left ideal of A}.
M = (l Mp ,
But AIJ is a finitely generated A-module, so by (3.28)
the intersection being taken over all maximal ideals P of R .
hdi\ AIJ = sup {hdi\ ApIJp }. . 2. Let R be a domain with quotient field K , and let X, Y be submodules of an
p P
R-module M. Show that if X p = Yp in M p for each P, then X = Y. [Hint : For each
Further, by (3. 1 0), as J ranges over all left ideals of A, Jp ranges over all left P, {(X + Y)/ Y}p = 0.]
ideals of Ap . Therefore we have 3. Let R be a commutative ring, and let S, T be multiplicative subsets of R such
dim A = sup {hdi\ AplJp} =
that S e T. Prove that T - 1 R is isomorphic to the ring of quotients of S - 1 R relative
sup {dim Ap},
J, P P P to the multiplicative set which is the image of T in S - 1 R.
4. Let P ' . . . , P be a set of prime ideals of the commutative ring R, no one of which
as claimed. 1 n

contains another, and let

To conclude this section, let us show that homological and global dimen­ S =R - (P 1 U ... U Pn )'
sions are unchanged by passage to P-adic completions. The preceding (i) Show that S is a multiplicative subset of R, and that the distinct maximal ideals
theorems reduce the calculations of hdi\M and dim A to the case where the of S - 1 R are Pi s - 1 R, I � i � n.
ground ring is Rp , a local ring. If we make the additional hypothesis that (ii) Show that R p, is canonically isomorphic to the localization of S - 1 R at the
'

R is noetherian, then each Rp is also noetherian. The P-adic completion maximal ideal Pi . S - 1 R.
Rp of the ring Rp is then a faithfully flat Rp-module (see remark following (iii) Show that
(2.23), or Exercise 5.3). Using this fact, we prove
i '" 1

(3.30) THEOREM. Let Rp be the P-adic completion of the local noetherian ring if R is an integral domain, the intersection being formed within the quotient field of R.
Rp , and let Ap be a left noetherian Rp-algebra. Set (Reference : Bourbaki [2, Ch. II, § 3, no. 5].)
A.P = Rp ® R Ap , Mp = Rp ®R Mp , 5. Let S be a multiplicative subset of the commutative ring R, and let R' = S - 1R .
Let A be an R-algebra, and set A' = R' ®R A, an R'-algebra. Show that every finitely
P l'

where Mp is any finitely generated left Ap-module. Then generated left A'-module X contains a finitely generated left A-module M such that

hdi\P Mp = hdj\P Mp A' ®i\ M � A' M = X.

[Hint : The ring homomorphism A -+- A' makes X into a left A-module. Let
for each Mp . Furthermore
dim Ap = dim A.p . X = L A' Xi ' and set M L A X i ' so A'M = X .
n n

i= 1 i= 1
=

Proof. As in the proof of (3.28), we find at once that hdMp � hdMp ' On
The inclusion M c X yields an inclusion A' ®i\ M e A' ® i\ X � X, since R' is
the other hand, if s hd M P ' then for each Ap-module N p we have
R-flat. Hence the map A' ®i\ M -+- A'M is monic, and thus is an isomorphism. For
=

another approach, see Exercise 26.5.]


IDEAL THEORY, MODULES, ORDER I DEALS 45
44 DEDEKIND DOMAINS (4.0)
each x E M
4. DEDEKIND DOMAINS K -space V. Since N contains a K -basis for V, it is clear that for
is finitel y gener ated as
there is a nonzero r E R such that r ' x E N. But M
r ' M e N.
Throughout this section R denotes an integral domain with quotient field R-module. Therefore we can choose r E R, r =1= 0, such that
We shall call N �n
K. To avoid trivialities, we assume always that R =1= K. We shall define Dede­ Let M be an R-lattice, and let- N be a sublattice of M.
kind domains and shall state, without proof or detailed references, some of R-pure sub lattice of M if MIN is R-torsionfree . Equiva lently, N is R-pure III
their most important properties. Proofs and complete expositions are readily M if for each nonzero a E R,
available in texts such as Curtis-Reiner [1], Janusz [ 1], O ' Meara [1],
N n aM = aN.
Ribenboim [ l J , Samuel [ 1 ] , Weiss [1], Zariski-Samuel [ll
From the standpoint of ideal theory, Dedekind domains are the simplest Let S be the multiplicative set R {O} . Then MIN is R-torsionfree if and
-

case of (3 . 1 0),
type of domain beyond principal ideal domains, and share many of their only if N is an S-saturatedt R-submodule of A1. As a special
arithmetical properties. Dedekind domains arise naturally, as follows : let we thus obtain
R be a principal ideal domain with quotient field K, let L be a finite extension
of K, and let S be the integral closure of R in L. Then S is a Dedekind domain (4.0) THEOREM. Let M be an R-Iattice. There is a one-to-one inclusion-pre­
with quotient field L. As a matter of fact (see (4.4)), this same conclusion holds serving correspondence N +-+ W between the set of R-pure sub lattices N of M,
under the weaker hypothesis that R itself is a Dedekind domain. and the set of K-subspaces W of KM, given by
We may also remark that Dedekind domains are a special kind of maximal
W = KN, N = W n M.
order. One of the main topics of this book is the study of arithmetical proper­
ties of maximal orders analogous to those of Dedekind domains. Many of
the results stated in this section are special cases of the theorems to be de­ 4a Ideal theory, modules, order ideals
veloped in Chapter VI. call R a Dedekind
Let us fix some notation, to be used throughout this section. The annihilator Let R be an integral domain with quotient field K. We
ing three equiva lent conditions :
of an R-module M is defined by domain if it satisfies any one of the follow
a projective R-module
(4. 1 ) R is a hereditary ring, that is, every ideal of R is
annR M = {a E R : a . M = O} . (see §2t).
every nonzero prime
Likewise we set (4.2) R is a noetherian integrally closed domain such that
annR m = {a E R : a ' m = O}, ideal of R is a maximal ideal.
sible as a product of
for m E M. Call m E M an R-torsion element if annR m =1= O. The set of all (4.3) Every proper nonzero ideal of R is uniquely expres
order of occurr ence of the factors.
R-torsion elements of M is the R-torsion submodule of M, and is the kernel of nonzero prime ideals of R, apart from
A.C.C. (see (2.9)). The
the R-homomorphism M � K ® R M given by m � 1 ® m, m E M (see §3b). We recall that R is noetherian if its ideals satisfy the
The R -rank of M is defined as ring R is integrally closed if each element of K inte.gral
�ver R nec essarily lies
.
ed m R (notatIOn : J < R)
rankRM dimK (K ® R M). in R. A prime ideal of R is an ideal J properly contam
proof that these three
such that RIJ has no zero divisors (see (3 . 1 2)). For the
=

theorems stated below,


We call M R-torsionfree if M contains no torsion element except O. In conditions are equivalent, and also for the proofs of
beginning of §4. We shall
this case, we may identify M with its image 1 ® M in K ® R M ; we may then the reader may consult the references listed at the
the proofs may be
write K ® R M in the simpler form K · M, where K · M denotes the set of all seldom specify the exact locati on in these references where
finite sums {}:aimi : ai E K, mi E M } . In the same way, for each ring of quotients found.
R' ofR, the R-torsionfree R-module M is embedded in the R'-module R' ® R M ;
after making the obvious identification, w e may denote R ' ® R M by R' · M . (4.4) THEOREM. Let R be a Dedekind domain with quotient field K, and le t L
.
An R-Iattice i s a finitely generated R-torsionfree R-module. Each R­ be any field extension of K of finite degree. Then the integral closure of R m L
lattice M is an R-submodule of a finite dimensional vector space V over K, is a Dedekind domain S with quotient field L.
namely V = K · M. We call M a full R-lattice in V, the adjective indicating
t This concept has been defined immediately preceding (3. 1 0).
that M contains a K-basis of V. Let M and N be a pair of full R-lattices in a
46 DEDEKIND DOMAINS (4.5) (4.8) IDEAL THEORY, MODULES, ORDER IDEALS 47
Remarks. (i) Recall from § 1 that S consists of all elements of L which are zeros the integral closure of R in a finite separable field extension L of K. Then S is a
of monic polynomials in R[ X]. By ( 1 . 1 1 ) we know that S is a ring. The asser­ finitely generated torsionfree R-module of R-rank (L : K).
tion that S is a Dedekind domain contains the additional information that S
is integrally closed. We may also point out that each x E L is expressible as a We tum now to the ideal theory of a Dedekind domain R. A fractional
quotient x y/r with Y E S, r E R ; namely, we need only choose r to be a
= R-ideal is a full R-Iattice in K, that is, a finitely generated R-submodule J
multiple of the denominators of the coefficients which occur in min.pol.K x. contained in K, such that K · J = K. Since R is noetherian, every nonzero
(ii) The integral closure of R in K is R itself, since R is integrally closed. ideal of R is necessarily a fractional ideal, and will be called an integral ideal.
(iii) Clearly S is a torsionfree R-module, since R is a subring of the integral Given fractional R-ideals J and J', we may define
domain S. J + J' { x + y : x E J, y E J'},
=

(iv) Let K be an algebraic number field, that is, a finite extension of the
rational field Q . By (4.4), the integral closure of Z in K is a Dedekind domain, J . J' { L Xi Yi : Xi E J, Y i E J'},
=

finite
hereafter denoted by alg. into {K}. Its elements are called algebraic integers.
(v) In many texts, Theorem 4.4 is proved only when L is separable over K. J- 1 = {x E K : x J c R} .
For the general version, see Zariski-Samuel [ 1 , Chapter Y, §8, Theorem 1 9] ' Then J + J', J n J', J . J ' and J - 1 are fractional R-ideals as well. Relative
to the multiplication J . J' defined above, the set of fractional R-ideals forms
Let L be a finite field extension of K, and let TL/K be the trace map from a multiplicative group with identity element R, and with J - 1 the inverse of J.
L to K, defined as in §la. From T we can construct a bilinear trace form Property (4.3 ) of Dedekind domains extends readily to the factorization of
-r : L x L � K by setting fractional ideals, as follows :
(4.5) -r(x, y) = TL/ K(xy), x, y E L.
(4.8) THEOREM. The set of fractional R-ideals in K is afree abelian group, with
Then -r is a symmetric K -bilinear form. The form -r is called nondegenerate free generators the nonzero prime ideals of R. In other words, every fractional
if for nonzero X E L, the map -r(x, ') : L � K is not the zero map. We may ideal is uniquely expressible in the form
represent -r by a symmetric matrix 't' as follows : let L = f1' KXi ' where J =� e l . . . Pr et , e i E Z,
i=
n = (L :K), and put where the {PJ are distinct nonzero prime ideals of R, and where no ei is O.
(We agree to write R itself as an "empty product", with t 0) .
= (-r(xi, x))1 � i , j� n = ( TL/K( xi x))1 � i, j� n '
=

't'

Then -r is nondegenerate if and only if the matrix 1: is nonsingular. A standard Consider next the factorization J = I1 P/i, J' = I1 p/ i , of a pair of
result in field theory is as follows : fractional ideals. If ai � b i for each i, we say that J divides J' (notation : J I J'),
and in this case it is clear that J :=> J'. Conversely, if J :=> J' then J - 1J' c R,
(4.6) THEOREM. Let L be a finite field extension of K. The following state­ whence by (4.8) ai � bi for each i.
ments are equivalent : Given any pair of fractional ideals J, J', we call J + J' their greatest
(i) L is separable over K. common divisor, and J n J' their least common multiple. If the factorizations
(ii) The bilinear trace form from L x L to K is nondegenerate. of J and J' are as above, it follows at once from the preceding paragraph that
(iii) There exists an x E L such that TL/K(x) = 1 . (4.9) J + J' I1 Ptin (ai , b i l , J n J' = I1 p /naX (ai , bi !.
=

(iv) TL/K : L � K is an epimorphism. Two ideals J, J' of R are relatively prime if J + J' = R. By (4.9 ), if J and J'
(We remind the reader that if char K = 0, or more generally if char K are nonzero, they are relatively prime if and only if they have no prime ideal
does not divide the degree (L : K), then L is necessarily separable over K. factor in common. A set of nonzero integral ideals {J l ' . . . , Jn} is pairwise
The same is true whenever K is a finite field.) relatively prime if Ji + Jk = R for 1 � i < k � n.
We give an addendum to (4.4) for the case of separable extensions.
(4. 1 0) THEOREM. (Chinese Remainder Theorem). Let {J l ' . . . , In} be a set of
(4.7) THEOREM . Let R be a Dedekind domain with quotient field K, and let S be pairwise relatively prime integral ideals of R. Then there is a ring isomorphism
48 (4. 1 3) IDEAL THEORY, M ODULES, ORDER IDEALS 49
DEDEKIND DOMAINS (4. 1 1)

R/J1 " · In � (R/J1 ) -+- . . . + (R/JJ (4. 1 3) THEOREM. Let R be a Dedekind domain. Each R -lattice M is R -projective,
and is isomorphic to an external direct sum
An easy consequence of (4. 1 0) is the extremely important
M � J1 + · · · + Jn '
(4. 1 1 ) THEOREM. (Strong Approximation Theorem). Let P P be distinct 1" • • n where the {JJ are fractional R-ideals, and n rankRM. Further, two such
=

1' n sums L:" Ji and L:" J� are R-isomorphic if and only if m n, and the products
m
n

nonzero prime ideals of the Dedekind domain R, and let the elements a . . . , a E K
1" i= 1 i= 1
=

be given, as well as positive integers r . . , rn ' Then there exists an element


J . . . J , J ; . . . J� are in the same ideal class.
b E K such that
{ b - ai
1 n

E (PJi . Rp , 1 � i � n, There is a generalization of the invariant factor theorem for modules over
i
P l ' . . , Pn
principal ideal rings, as follows :
b E Rp for all P =1= . '

where P denotes a variable nonzero prime ideal of R. (4. 1 4) THEOREM (Invariant Factor Theorem). Let R be a Dedekind domain,
We shall also record
and let M, N be R-Iattices such that N c K . M. Then there exist elements
{mJ in M, and fractional R-ideals {J J and {EJ, such that
(4. 1 2) THEOREM. LetJ be an integral ideal of the Dedekind domain R, and A
any fractional R-ideal. Then there is an R-isomorphism
where r rankR M, s rankR N, and where E1 ::;, E2 ::;, . . , ::;, Es . lf N e Al,
R/J � A/JA .
= =

then R ::;, E 1 .
We may partition the set of fractional ideals of R into ideal classes, putting 1
The ideals E ' . . . , Es occurring above are called the invariant factors of
J and J' into the same class whenever J � J' as R-modules. Note that J � J' the pair M, N; they are uniquely determined by the inclusion map N c K . M.
if and only if J' Jx for some x E K. The ideal classes form a multiplicative
= If N c M and K · N K · M, then M/N is an R-torsion module, and there
=

group, the ideal class group of R, hereafter denoted by Cl R. Multiplication of is an R-isomorphism


ideal classes is given by [J][J'] [J . J'] ,
= where [J]
is the class containing
J. (R/Ei ),
i =t"1 (J jE/ i) � i t"
alg. int. {K},
=1
A basic result tells us that Cl R is a finite group whenever R =
(4. 1 5) M/N �
K an algebraic number field. (This is a special case of the Jord�n-Zassenhaus
Theorem 26.4). the latter isomorphism being a consequence of (4. 1 2). Then (see below) the
Next we recall some properties of R-lattices. Let M be an R-Iattice of R-rank order ideal of M/N is given by
n, and set V K · M, an n-dimensional vector space over K. We may write
=
ord M/N E 1 ' " Ey •
(4. 1 6) =

V = f: Kvp and set N L RVi ' a free full R-lattice in V. Since M and N are
=
Let us define the order ideal ord X of a finitely generated R-module X
i= l

full lattices in the same space V, there exists a nonzero r E R such that r ' M e N. as follows :
But M :;?; r ' M, and thus we conclude that M may be embedded in a free (i) If X 0, ord X
= R. =

R-lattice on n generators. This argument holds for any domain R. 1f however (ii) If X is not an R-torsion module, ord X O. =

(iii) If X is a nonzero R-torsion module, then X has an R-composition


R is a Dedekind domain, then by (4. 1 ) R is hereditary. Hence M is R-pro­
series (see Exercise 4. 1 ); whose composition factors are { R PJ , with Pi /
jective by (2.44), and there is an R-isomorphism
ranging over some set of maximal ideals of R. We set ord X Il Pi ' where =

M � J1 + · · · + Jn ' the number of factors equals the number of composition factors of X. The
J
where the { J are fractional R-ideals. There must be n summands because ideal p.I can be recovered from the composition factor R/Pi , namely
rankR M n. To complete the discussion of the structure of lattices over a
=
Pi = annR R/Pi ·
Dedekind domain, it is necessary to know under what conditions two such
Since the set of composition factors is uniquely determined by X, according
external direct sums of fractional ideals are isomorphic. The complete answer
is given by a theorem of Steinitz : to the Jordan-HOlder Theorem, it follows that ord X is well-defined.
50 DEDEKIND DOMAINS (4. 1 7) (4. 1 9) LOCALIZATIONS, VALUATIONS 51
We observe that if X is an R-torsion module, then ord X = R if and domains. I n the second part, w e shall consider the more general situation in
only if X O. Further, we prove
=
which R is a noetherian integrally closed domain. This more general material
may be skipped in a first reading, since it will occur only peripherally in later
(4. 1 7) THEOREM. (i) For each exact sequence of finitely generated R-modules chapters.
o � X' � X � X" � 0, Let us introduce some concepts from valuation theory (we shall consider
only rank one valuations I). Let R be the real field, R + the set of nonnegative
we have real numbers.
ord X = (ord X') (ord X").
(4. 1 9) Definition. A valuation of K is a mapping cp : K � R + such that for
(ii) For each nonzero ideal J of R, ord (RjJ) = J. a, b E K,
(i) cp(a) = 0 if and only if a = O.
Proof. (i) is clear from the fact that the composition factors of X are those of (ii) cp(ab) = cp(a)cp(b).
X' together with those of X". For (ii), we can use the factorization J IT Pfi
=
(iii) cp(a + b) � cp(a) + cp(b).
in (4.8) to write an explicit composition series for RjJ, from which it is evident
If the valuation also satisfies the stronger condition
that the composition factors of RjJ are the {RjPi} with multiplicities {eJ
(iv) cp(a + b) � max(cp{a), cp(b)),
From (4. 1 4) we obtain a structure theorem for finitely generated R­ we call cp non-archimedean. It is easily verified that every non-archimedean
modules: valuation satisfies.
(v) cp(a + b) = max(cp(a), cp(b)) whenever cp(a) =1= cp(b).
(4. 1 8) THEOREM. Every finitely generated R-module is isomorphic to a finite The trivial valuation is dermed by the formulas cp(O) = 0, cp(a) = 1 for
external direct sum of ideals of R and cyclict modules RjJ, with J an integral a E K, a # O. We shall always exclude the trivial valuation in our discussion
ideal of R. in §§4-5, so hereafter the term " valuation" always means "non-trivial
valuation".
Proof Given a finitely generated R-module X, we can find an R-exact The value group of a valuation cp is the multiplicative group
sequence {cp(a) : a E K, a =1= a}. If this value group is an infinite cyclic group, cp is a
O � N � M�X � O, discrete valuation, and is necessarily non-archimedean.
Two valuations cp, t/J are equivalent if for a E K,
with M R-free on r generators, r finite. We then have (in the notation of (4. 1 4))
cp(a) � 1 if and only if t/J(a) � 1.
s . r •

X � MjN � I J i -+- I CRJEi) , Each valuation cp on K gives rise to a topology on K, by taking as basis for
i=r+ l i= l
the neighborhoods of a point a E K the sets
as claimed. Note that the expression "L'Ji does not occur if X is an R-torsion
module {x E K : cp(x - a) < B },
where B ranges over all positive real numbers. Equivalent valuations give the
4b Localizations, valuations same topology on K.
Given any non-archimedean valuation cp on K, let us put
Throughout let R be an integral domain with quotient field K, R # K.
We shall describe some properties of the ring R, and of R-modules, with R = {a E K : cp{a) � I } .
respect to localization at prime ideals of R. In cases where proofs are omitted, Then R i s a ring, and is called the valuation ring o f cp. The set
the reader may consult the references listed at the beginning of § 4. For the
first part of this subsection, we shall restrict our attention to Dedekind P = {a E K : <p(a) < I}
t An R-module is cyclic if it can be generated by one element.
is the unique maximal ideal of R. If cp is a discrete valuation, then P is a
52 DEDEKIND D OMAINS (4.l9) (4.19a) LOCALIZATIONS, VALUATIONS 53
principal ideal, namely P Rn where n is any element of P such that We refer to vp as the exponential valuation associated with P. The proper­
cp(n) < I and cp(n) generates the value group of cpo In this case R is a discrete ties of CPP listed in (4. 19) are consequences of the following properties of vp :
=

valuation ring, by which we shall mean a principal ideal domain having a (4.l9a) For any elements a, b E K, we have
(i) vp(a) 00 if and only if a = O.
unique maximal ideal P, and such that P "# O.
One way of obtaining archimedean valuations is as follows : the ordinary =

absolute value I I on the complex field C is an archimedian valuation, whose (ii) vp(ab) vp(a) + vp(b).
=

restriction to any subfield of C is an archimedean valuation on that subfield. (iii) vp(a + b) � min (vp(a), vp(b)), with equality whenever vp(a) "# vp(b).
Now let K be a field which can be embedded in C, and let f.l : K C be an �

embedding. Define cp : K R by setting



+
As in §3d, we shall denote by Rp the localization of R at P, defined by
a E K. Rp {x/s : x E R, S E R ·- P}.
=

Then cp is an archimedean valuation on K. ,


This ring is in fact the valuation ring of the P-adic valuation CP P on K, and its
In particular, every algebraic number field K can be embedded in C. unique maximal ideal is precisely P ' Rp. Thus Rp is a discrete valuation ring,
For we may write K Q(a), and let f (X) min. pol. Q(a). Then there exist and is automatically a principal ideal domain. We may choose a prime ele­
ment n of the ring Rp , that is, an element n E Rp such that nRp p . Rp .
= =

elements {(XJ in C such that f (X) TI (X (XJ, and we may define em­
= -
=

beddings f.li : K C by�


Indeed, n may be chosen to lie in R . The fractional Rp-ideals of K are
{nnRp: n E Z}. It follows from (3.13) that localization does not affect residue
f.l i{g(a)} g(rxJ, for each g(X) E Q[ Xl
=
class fields, that is,
. , (Xrl and 2r nonreal zeros in C, arranged in R/P � Rp/ P · Rp .
If f(X) has r real zeros
, iX
1 (X l " .
2

pairs of complex conjugates 1,a


(X +
rl
..
rl
+ 1 � then there are
. , (X +
rl r2 rl
+
r2 '
This isomorphism is not only an R-isomorphism as asserted in (3. 13), but is
exactly r 1 + r inequivalent archimedean valuations of K. These are giyen
2 in fact an isomorphism of fields. More generally, there are ring isomorphisms
by the above construction, using the r + r embeddings K C defined by
1 2 �
n �. l .
letting a � (X '
i
I � i � r + r (The embedding in which a ai is equiva­
1 2' �

lent to that where a � for r1 + I � i � r 1 + r .)


(X '
i
2 Keeping the above notation, let J be any fractional R-ideal in K. Let
The non-archimedean valuations of algebraic number fields can be vp(J) denote the exponent to which P occurs in the factorization of J into a
described in a similar way, by means of embeddings into P-adic fields, which product of powers of prime ideals.
are fields complete with respect to certain non-archimedean valuations. We
shall say more about this point of view in §5. In the present subsection, we (4.20) THEOREM. Let P be a maximal ideal of the Dedekind domain R.
shall instead give the connection between prime ideals of Dedekind domains (i) For each fractional R-ideal J of K, the localization Jp is given by
and non-archimedean valuations. Jp = (P ' Rp) V'p(J)
Assume now that R is a Dedekind domain, and let P be a nonzero prime
ideal of R, or equivalently, a maximal ideal of R. For each nonzero a E K, (ii) For any finitely generated R-module X,
we may factor the principal ideal Ra into a product of powers of prime ideals, (ord X)p ord (Xp).
as in (4.8). Let vp(a) denote the exponent to which P occurs in this factorization.
=

If P does not occur, set vp(a) = O. Also, we put vp(O) + 00. Now fix some (iii) For any finitely generated R-module M, we have Mp 0 if and only if
=

K E R 1' , K > 1, and define


=

P + annR M R. =

a E K, a "# 0, Proof. Statement (i) is well known (see references), and can easily be deduced
and cpp(O) = O. Then CP P is a discrete non-archimedean valuation on K, from the formula
whose value group is the cyclic group generated by K. (If instead of K we used vp(J) = min{vp(a) : a E J} .
another real number K', with K' > 1, the valuation cp� thus obtained would be As a consequence of (i), we have R p = Jp for each integral ideal J of R
equivalent to the above-defined valuation CPP ) .
relatively prime to P.
54 DEDEKIND D OMAINS (4.21 ) (4.22) LOCALIZATIONS, VALUATIONS 55
Statement (ii) follows from the preceding remarks. First o f all, unless X (4.22) Theorem. Let R be a Dedekind domain, M an R-lattice, and let V = KM.
is an R-torsion module, both ord X and ord Xp are 0. Next, if X is a nonzero For each maximal ideal P of R, let there be given a full Rp-lattice X(P) in V,
R-torsion module, it has a composition series such that X(P) = Mp a.e.t Define
X => X' => X" => . . . => X(k ) => 0, N = O X(P),
p

whose composition factors are (say) R/P , R/P2 , • • • , R/Pk , with the {PJ the intersection being formed within V. Then N is a full R-lattice in V, and
l
maximal ideals of R. Then Np = X(P) for all P.
Xp => (X/ )p => . .. => (X ( k»)p => °
Proof Let V =

i= 1
to
Kvp and set L =
i= 1
fo
Rvi • Then L is a full R-Iattice in V,
is a descending chain of R-modules, possibly with repetitions, and with
factor modules { (R/P)p } . But and so Lp = Mp a . e.t (See Exercise 4.6). Therefore Lp X(P) a.e., and so
=

(R/P )p � Rp /(P)p � { O' Pi =1= P,


R/P, P i = P.
we may choose nonzero a, b E R such that
a . X(P) c L p c b ' X(P)
for all P. Then
Therefore N= n X(p) c a - I n L p = a - l L,
ord Xp =

P
IT (P)p = (PiIT= P P)p = (ord X)p,
i=P so N is an R-Iattice in V. Likewise L c bN, so N is a full R-Iattice in V.
as claimed. (See also Exercise 4.4). It remains for us to show that Np = X(P) for each P. Since N c X(P), it
Finally we prove (iii), remarking in advance that the proof will be valid for follows that
the more general case where R is any commutative ring, and P a maximal Np c Rp ' X(P) X(P). =

ideal of R. Let S R - P, a multiplicative subject of R. By definition,


= To prove the reverse inclusion, let us first write N R n l + . . . + Rns '
=

Mp S- l M; thus M p ° if and only if M is an S-torsion module. Since M is where of course s � r. Then each x E X(P) is expressible as a sum x iI ai ni ,
= =
=
finitely generated as R-module, we see that M is an S-torsion module if and =1
only if there exists an s E S such that s . M = 0. But this occurs if and only if ai E K. By the Strong Approximation Theorem (4. 1 1), we may find elements
ann R M q: P, that is, if and only if P + ann R M = R. This completes the bl , . . . , bs E K such that
proof. bi - ai E Rp , bi E Rp (p ' =1= P), 1 � i � s,
'

So far we have considered only localizations at a single maximal ideal P where P' ranges over all maximal ideals of R distinct from P. Let us put
of R. In order to study relationships between "local" and "global" questions, y = I bini ' Then for P' =1= P, we have Y E R p . N C X(PI) ; on the other hand,
'

one often needs results of the following type, in which the entire set of local­ y - x I (bi - a)ni E Rp ' N c Np ' so also Y E X(P). Therefore Y E N, and
=

izations are considered simultaneously. so


x = Y - (y - x) E N p '
(4.21) THEOREM. Let R be a Dedekind ring with quotient field K, and let M be
any R-lattice. View M and its localizations { M p} as embedded in the vector This shows that X(P) c NP ' and completes the proof.
space KM over K. Then
M O Let M be an R-module, where R is any domain, and define the R-modules
p Mp, =

the intersection being formed within KM, and where P ranges over all maximal (4.23) M* = Hom R (M, R), M** = HomR (M*, R).
ideals of R. The evaluation map cp : M � M** is given by
Proof By (4. 1 3), the R-Iattice M is R-projective. The desired assertion is now {cp(m)} f = f (m), fE M*.
a consequence of Exercise 3.1 .
Clearly cp = ° ifand only if M* = 0. We call M reflexive ifcp is an isomorphism.
In the same vein, we prove t "a.e." means "almost everywhere", that is, for all but a finite number of P's.

1!1!1
56 DEDE KIND DOMAINS (4.24) (4.26) RAMIFICATION INDEX ; RESIDUE CLASS DEGREE 57

(4.24) THEOREM. Let R be a Dedekind domain. Then every R-lattice is reflexive, converse is false : Krull rings are always integrally closed, but need not be
that is, M � M**. noetherian. For example Z[X l ' X2 , ] is a non-noetherian Krull ring.
• . •

Every unique factorization domain is automatically a Krull ring. As examples


Proof. By (4. 13) each R-Iattice M is isomorphic to an external direct sum of noetherian integrally closed domains, we list Z [X 1 , . . . , X n] and
of fractional R-ideals J of K. Since the functors involved in (4.23) com­ K [X 1 , · · · , XnJ .
mute with finite direct sums, it suffices to prove the theorem for the case The following generalization of (4.22) is proved in the above-named
where M = J. Now .J* = HomR (J, R), and each f E .J* extends to a map references (see, for instance, Bourbaki [5, Ch. 7, §4, No. 3]) :
f' E HomK (K, K). Each such f' is given by a right multiplication by an
element a E K, and so there is an identification (4.26) THEOREM. Let R be a noetherian integrally closed domain, and let M
and L be full R -lattices in the K -space V. Let P range over the minimal primes
J* = {a E K : J ' a c R}. of R . Then Mp = Lp a.e. Further, let there be given for each P a full Rp-lattice
1
Therefore J* = J - 1, and so J** = ( J ) 1 = J. Thus the result hol ds for
- -
X(P) in V, such that X(P) = Mp a.e. Set
M = J, and hence also for every R-Iattice M. (See also Exercise 4. 17.) N= O
p X(P).
Combining the results of (4.24) and (4.21), we find that Then N is a full reflexive R-lattice in V, and Np = X(P) for all P.
M** = Op Mp
4c Ramification index ; residue class degree
for any lattice M over a Dedekind domain R. An analogous result holds
under somewhat more general circumstances, described below. Let R be any Throughout this section, R is a Dedekind domain with quotient field K,
domain ; a minimal prime of R is a nonzero prime ideal of R which is minimal and L is a finite separable field extension of K. We shall denote by S the
among the set of all nonzero prime ideals of R. integral closure of R in L, so by (4.4) and (4.7), S is a Dedekind domain with
Let M be an R-Iattice, where R is a noetherian domain, and let V = KM. quotient field L, finitely generated as R-module, of R-rank (L : K). To avoid
Then define dual spaces trivialities, we assume always that R i= K and L i= S.
Given a maximal ideal P of R, the integral ideal P . S can be written as
V** HomK(V*, K).
9
=

The evaluation map gives a K-isomorphism V � V**. Since R is noetherian, (4.27) p·S = n P/ i ,
i= 1
M* and M* * are also R-Iattices, and there are embeddings M* c V*,
M** c V**. Explicitly we have where the {PJ are distinct maximal ideals of S, and the {eJ are positive
M** = {v E V: f(v) E R for all f E M*}. integers. Call ei the ramification index of Pi for the extension LjK, and write
(4.25) THEOREM. Let R be a noetherian integrally closed domain, M an R-lattice, (4.28) 1 � i � g.
and let P range over the minimal primes of R. Then
(i) For each P, Rp is a discrete valuation ring (that is, a principal ideal We say that Pi is unramified in LjK if ei = 1 and SjPi is a separable extension
domain with unique maximal ideal P . R p). of RjP. Likewise, we say that P is unramified in the extension LjK if each Pi
(ii) R = 0 Rp. is unramified in LjK.
(iii) For e� ch nonzero x E R, x is a unit in Rp a.e. Turning to residue class fields, we observe at once that for 1 � i � g,
(iv) M** = O Mp - the field SjPi is an extension field of RjP. We set
p

Remarks. The proof of (i) may be found in Serre [1, p. 19, Prop. 3]' As general (4.29) J; = f(Pp LjK) = (SjP i : RjP),
reference, see Bourbaki [5], Fossum [4J .
Conditions (iHiii) are the postulates for a Krull ring. Thus the theorem and call f the residue class degree of P relative to the extension LjK. The
i
asserts that every noetherian integrally closed domain is a Krull ring. The finiteness of the { J; } is a consequence of the following basic result :
58 DEDEKIND D OMAINS (4.30) (4.32) RAMIFICATION INDEX ; RESIDUE CLASS DEGREE 59
(4.30) THEOREM. Keeping the above notation, we have and so Pi :::J p . S, whence Pj occurs in the factorization of P . S into maximal
9
ideals of S.
iI
=l
eJ'j = (L : K). (iii) We may define a relative norm map NL/K which associates to each
fractional S-ideal J of L, a fractional R-ideal NL/K (J) of K. For each maximal
Proof. Let n (L : K), so rank RS n. Let Sp Rp ' S ; then Sp is a torsion­
ideal Pi of S, we set
NL/K(P) PIi, where P Pi n R, f; f(Pi, LjK).
= = =

free Rp-module of Rp-rank n. But Rp is a principal ideal domain, and so (4.32) = = =

Sp � R p(n) . Therefore Since these {PJ form a free basis for the abelian group of fractional S-ideals
SjPS � SpjP ' Sp � (RpjP ' Rp)(n ) � (RjP)(n) in L, we may then define NL/K on this group by requiring it to be multiplica­
by virtue of (3. 14). This shows that the dimension of SjPS as vector space tive :
over the field RjP is precisely n. NL/K(JJ') NL/K(J) ' NL/K( J').
=

We may also compute this dimension as follows: by (4.10) we have We could also have defined the norm map NL/K as follows : for each non­
zero ideal J of S, put
NL/K(J) ordR (SjJ),
=

There is a descending chain of RjP-modules


where ord R denotes R-order ideal (see §4a). If J' is another nonzero ideal of S,
SjPj ei :::J P/Pi ei :::J " ' :::J Pj ei - 1 jPj ei :::J 0, there is an R-exact sequence
each of whose factor modules is isomorphic to SjPj by (4. 12). Hence 0 -+ JjJJ' SjJJ' -+ SjJ 0,
-+ -+

dimR/iSjP i ei) ei . dimR/iSjP) eJ; , and by (4. 12) the term JjJl' is isomorphic to SjJ'. From (4.17) we then con­
= =

clude
for each i, 1 � i � g. This gives
ordR(SjJJ') ordR (SjJ) ' ordR (SjJ'), that is, N(JJ') N(J) ' N(J').
= =

If we now put
and the theorem is proved. N-L/K(J1 . J2- 1 ) N-L/K(J1 ) ' N-L/K(J2 ) - 1
=

for J 1 ' J2 nonzero ideals of S, it follows that NL/K is well defined on the group
(4. 31) Comments. (i) It is easily verified that Sp is the integral closure of Rp in of fractional S-ideals in L. We now show that NL/K coincides with NL/K '
L, and that { Pi ' Sp : 1 � i � g} �re the distinct maximal ideals of Spo Further­ It suffices to verify that
more, (4.33)
Sp S PI n · · · n SPg '
=

using the notation of (4.32). -But SjPi is a field extension of RjP of degree 1; ,
where Sp. is the localization of S at Pi ' and where S p Rp ' S. Note that Rp
= so as R-modules we have SjPi � (RjP)(fi) , and then (4.33) is obvious.
is a discr'ete valuation ring, but Sp is not (unless g 1). In connection with
= (iv) In the special case where K Q, R Z, one defines a counting norm
= =

this remark, see Exercise 3.4. .#2/Q by setting


'

(ii) If (4.27) holds, then we claim that Pi R P, 1 � i � g. Indeed,


n =

Pi R is a prime ideal of R containing P, or else possibly Pi R R.


n n =

The latter alternative cannot occur, since 1 1= Pi ' where p is the positive rational prime such that pZ Pi Z. Thus %L/Q(P)
= n

On the other hand, starting with any maximal ideal Pi of S, we may set is the number of elements in the finite field SjPj . As usual, %L/Q is defined on
P Pi n R, a prime ideal of R. Surely P #- 0, since for each nonzero a E Pi '
= all fractional S-ideals in L, so as to be multiplicative . Then for each nonzero
the constant term in min.pol. K (a) is a nonzero element in P. Thus Pj :::) P, ideal J in S,
60 DEDEKIND DOMAINS (4.33) (4.34) DIFFERENT, DISCRIMINANT 61

k'L/ Q(1) = card (Sj1), (4.34) THEOREM Let J be a fractional S-ideal in L. Then
where card (Sj1) denotes the number of elements in the ring Sj J. J = J- 1 . '!)(SjR) - 1 , J = J.
(v) If L is a galois extension of K, with galois group G, then for each
a E G we have SG = S, where SG = {xG: X E S}. It is well known (see references) Proof Let us abbreviate TL/K as T, and ,!)(SjR) as '!). We have
that G acts transitively on the set of prime ideals {Pi} occurring in (4.27), that
T(J · J - 1 ,!) - 1 ) = T(S · '!) - 1 ) c ' R,
is, there exist elements {aJ E G such that Pi = (P 1 )G; , 1 � i � g. Further�
more, in this case we have so J ":::J J- 1 '!) - 1 . On the other hand,
e 1 = . . . = eg ' f = . . . = fg . T(JJ) = T(JJ · S),
R :::>
1
whence JJ c '!)- 1, so J c J- 1 ,!) - 1 . This proves that j = J - 1 . ,!) - 1 . The
4d Different, discriminant
formula for J is then obvious (see also Exercise 4. 1 2).
As in §4c, let L be a finite separable field extension of K, let R be a Dedekind
domain with quotient field K, and let S be the integral closure of R in L. The discriminant of S with respect to R is defined as
Let 7: : L x L � K be the non degenerate bilinear trace form defined in (4 . 5), d(SjR) = NL/K('!) (SjR)) ,
that is,
the norm of the different '!)(SjR). Thus d(SjR) is a nonzero ideal of R, often
7:(X, y) = TL/K(xy), x, y E L. called the discriminant ideal of SjR.
For any set J c L, put
(4.35) THEOREM. (i) For each maximal ideal P of R,
7:(x, 1) = TL/K(x1) = {7:(x, y) : y E J} .
{d(SjR)}p = d(SJRp).
We prove at once that TL1K(S) c.; R. Indeed, each a E S is integral over R,
so char. pol. L/K a E R[X] by Exercise 1.1. Therefore TL/K a E R, as desired. (ii) If
n
Given any fQll R-Iattice M in L, we can define a complementary lattice S = I O Rxi , n = (L : K),
i= 1
M = {x E L : 7:(x, M) c R}.
then
The map M � M is inclusion-reversing. Let us verify that M is a full R-Iattice
in L. First observe that M is contained in some full free R-Iattice
n

N = IO RXi ' where n = (L : K). There exist elements {Yj } E L such that Proof For P a maximal ideal of R, and J any S-ideal in L, we put Jp = Rp · J,
i=1 an S p-ideal of L. As remarked earlier, Sp is the integral closure of Rp in L,
7:(xi , Y) = bij , 1 � i, j � n. Then
n
so in the passage from the pair R, S to the pair Rp, Sp' we have introduced a
M ":::J N = jI O Ry . . new pair of Dedekind domains, with quotient fields K, L, respectively. The
=1 J advantage of this procedure is that the new domain Rp is a principal ideal
Similarly, M is contained in some full R-Iattice in L . Therefore M is itself a domain, and thus Sp is R p-free on n generators, where n = (L : K).
full R-Iattice in L, as claimed Since the trace map TL/K is K-linear, it follows easily that
In particular, if J is a fractional S-ideal in L, then J is an S-submodule of
L which is an R-Iattice, and thus J is also a fractional S-ideal of L ; we call j (4.36) '!)( S pjRp) = { ,!) (SjR) }p .
the complementary ideal of J. For the case where J is S itself, we note that Furthermore, for each S-ideal J in L, we have
5 ":::J S, so that '8 - 1 is an integral ideal of S. Let us define the different of S with
respect to R as NL/K(Jp) = { NL/K(1)} P '
,!) (SjR) = 5-1, that is, forming norms commutes with localization. Applying NL/K to (4.36)
1
and then 5 = '!)(SjR) - may be referred to as the inverse different. yields assertion (i) of the theorem.
62 DEDEKIND DOMAINS (4.37) (4. 38) GLOBAL FIELDS 63
Now suppose that S happens to be R-free, say S =
i= 1
f: Rx • There exist
i For a E S, we have
elements {Yj } E L with TL/K(X iY) = bij , 1 � i,j � n. Then

S- \ where S = to Ry . . Then char . pol. (a) is the characteristic polynomial of the matrix ((Xi)' while
1)(SjR) }
j= 1 char. pol. (a) is that of (ii ii )' which establishes (4.38) at once.
=

We have Now let PI be a maXImal ideal of S, and let p . S Pt J, where e � 1=

d(SjR ) NL/K(1)(SjR)) ordR(Sj1)(SjR)) and where J is an integral ideal of S relatively prime to PI . For each a E PI J
we have ae ° in S, and therefore char. po1. S/ R a = x n. Hence from (4.38)
= =

= ordR(SjS- l) = ordR(SjS) (by (4. 12)). we conclude that TL/K(P 1 J) c P. Writing 1) instead of 1)(SjR) for convenience,
Write we then obtain PI J C P1) - 1 , and consequently 1) c PI e - 1 . Thus PI e - 1 1 1),
n and therefore P 1 1 1) whenever e > 1 .
x.! j = a!). . y}. ,
I
1 T o complete the proof, we now assume that e 1 , and we must show that
=

Then (Exercise 4.2) P 1 1 1) if and only if SjP 1 is inseparable over R. Since e = 1, we have

ord R(S/S) = R · det(ai) S = SjPS � SjP 1 -+- SjJ,


But au = TL1K(x i x) , which completes the proof of (ii). and each a E J maps onto an ordered pair (d, O), where d is the image of a
in SjP 1 . Set SjP 1 S' for convenience of notation, and let k (S/ J: R).
= =

We may remark that this theorem enables us to compute the discriminant Then for a E J,
d(SjR) by calculating each "local" component d(SjR)p , and that by (ii), each char. po1.s/Ii a = Xk · char. pol. S ' iii d .
local component can be obtained once an Rp-basis of Sp is known.
The different 1)(SjR) and the discriminant d(SjR) are of great importance This implies at once that
because they give information about ramification of prime ideals in the TSIR a TS ' /if a', a E J.
=

extension LjK. Recall that a maximal ideal Pi of S is unramified in LjK if


If S'jR is inseparable, then TS ' /R is the- zero map, and thus by (4.38) we have
e(Pp LjK) = 1, and SjPi is a separable extension of R/P. TL/K(J) c P. This yields J c P1) - \ whence P 1 1 1). The reverse argument is
Likewise, a maximal ideal P of R is un ramified in L/K if p. S= n P. , a equally simple : suppose that Sf(ii.. is separable. Then there exists an a E J
!
product of distinct un ramified prime ideals of S. such that TS ' /R a' i= 0, and therefore TL/K(J) ¢ P. Hence J ¢. P1) - 1 , that is,
P 1 f 1). This completes the proof of the first assertion of the theorem. The
(4.37) THEOREM. A maximal ideal Pi of S is unramified in the extension LjK second assertion is an obvious consequence of the first.
if and only if Pi t 1)(SjR).' A maximal ideal P of R is unramified in LjK if
and only if Ptd(SjR). 4e Global fields

�roof Let R = RjP, S SjPS, n (L : K); then S is an algebra over the field
= =
A global field K is either an algebraic number field (that is, a finite extension
R, of dimension n. For f (X) E R[X], let /(X) denote its image in R[X] . of the rational field Q), or else a function field (that is, a finite extension of a
We claim that for a E S, field k(X) of rational functions in an indeterminate X over a finite field k).
A prime of K is an equivalence class of valuations of K. We exclude once and
(4.38) char . pol.L/ K a = char. pol.s/I? a. for all the "trivial" valuation q>, defined by q>(0) 0, q>(a) 1 for a E K,
= =

To pr �ve t�is, first replace R by R p ' and S by Sp . Such a change does not a =1= 0. If K is an algebraic number field, there are the archimedean or infinite
affect R or S. Then we may write primes, arising from embeddings of K in the complex field C, and the non­
n archimedean or finite primes of K, arising from discrete P-adic valuations
n
Sp = S of K, with P ranging over the distinct maximal ideals in the ring alg.int. { K}
i Rp Xi '
I"
=1
= i IO Rxi •
=1 of all algebraic integers in K.
64 DEDE KIND DOMAINS (4.39) EXERCISES 65
If K is a function field, there are no archimedean primes, and the non­ EXERCISES
archimedean or finite primes arise from discrete valuation rings in K. In this
case, as well as in the number field case, the residue class field associated with Throughout, R is an integral domain with quotient field K. Unless otherwise stated,
a finite prime P is a finite field ; let A1P) denote the number of elements in R is assumed to be a Dedekind domain.
this residue class field (see (4.31 (iv)). 1. Let J be a nonzero ideal of R. Using (4.9), find all ideals of R which contain J.
For each finite prime P of a global field K, we normalize the P-adic valua­ Prove that RjJ is an artinian and noetherian ring. Deduce from this that every finitely
tion q> p by setting generated R-torsion R-module possesses an R-composition series.
2. Let R be a principal ideal domain, and let N c M be R-Iattices with KN KM.
a E K, a i= 0,
=

Suppose that
q>p(O) ° (see §4b). If P is a real prime of K, that is, an infinite prime arising
=

N
r r

from an embedding J.l : K -+ R, let M 2:0 Rmj, 2:° Rnj '


j= 1 j= 1
= =

a E K.
Show that
If P is a complex prime of K, that is, an infinite prime arising from an em­
bedding J.l: K -+ C such that J.l(K) cj:. R, let ordR MIN = R . det((Xjj)'

[Hint : After change of R-bases of M and N, we may assume that the matrix (aii) is
q>p(a) I J.l(a) 1 2 , a E K.
=

diagonal. Such basis changes have the effect of multiplying det((Xi} by a unit factor from
Thus we have a normalized valuation q>p for each prime P of K. R, and thus do not change R . det((Xjj)' Finally, if ((Xjj) is diagonal, it follows from (4. 1 7)
that ordR MIN is the principal ideal generated by the product of the diagonal entries.]
(4.39) THEOREM (Product Formula). Let K be a global field. Then for each 3. Let X be a finitely generated R-torsion module. Show that ordRX and annRX
= 1 a.e., and
nonzero a E K, q>p(a) have the same prime ideal factors, apart from multiplicities. Explain the connection
between this result and Theorem 1 .7.
np q>p(a) 1,
4. Let R e S be an inclusion of Dedekind domains, and let X be any finitely gener­
=

ated R-module. Prove that


_ where P ranges over all primes of K.
S ®R ordRX = ords (S ® R X).
For global fields, there is a stronger version of (4. 1 1) :
[Hint : By (4. 1 8) it suffices to handle the cases X J and X
= RjJ, with J a nonzero
=

(4.40) THEOREM (Very Strong Approximation Theorem). Let P i ' . . . , Pn be ideal of R. The result is obvious for X J, while for X
= RjJ it follows from Exercise
=

2.6.]
distinct primes of K (finite or infinite), and let Po be a fixed prime distinct
from these. Given any elements ai , . . " an E K and any e > 0, there exists an 5. Let f E HomR(M, M), where M is an R-Iattice. Prove that

element a E K such that ordR MI.f(M) = R . det 1,

q> P (a - ai) < e ,


i 1 � i � n, where det f is computed by extending f to a K-linear transformation on KM. [Hint :
q>p(a) � 1, P i= Po ' P i ' . . . , Pn •
Use (4.20(ii)) to reduce the problem to the case where R is a principal ideal domain,
and then use Exercise 2.]

(4.41) COROLLARY. Let {P i P) be distinct primes of the algebraic number 6. Let M, N be full R -lattices in a K-space V. Prove that Mp Np a.e. [Hint : There
exist nonzero a, 13 E R such that aM c N c pM.]
=
" ' "

field K, and suppose that there exists an infinite prime Po of K distinct from
PI . . . , Pn • Let a I ' . . . , an E K be such that ai E R Pi if Pi is a finite prime,
' 7. Let R be any domain, M a finitely generated R-module, and let qJ : M - M** be
where R alg. int. {K}. Let ° < e < 1. Then there exists an a E R such that the evaluation map (see (4.23)). Show that if M is R-torsionfree, then qJ is monic. Show
0 if and only if M is an R-torsion module.
=

that M* =

1 � i � n, 8. Let R be a noetherian integrally closed domain, and let M, N be full R-Iattices


in a K-space V. Suppose that M p e Np for each minimal prime P of R, and let N be
P infinite,
reflexive. Prove that M e N.
66 DEDEKIND DOMAINS (4.42) COMPLETIONS 67
n
9 . Keeping the hypotheses and notation of §4c, prove that f(X) = min . pol. K a = IT (X - aJ,
i= 1
NL/K(Sa) = R . NL/K(a), a E L. where a 1 ( a), az, . . . , an are the algebraic conjugates of a over K. Define the dis­
=

[Hint : Use (4.3 1(iii)) and Exercise 5.] criminant of a as


1 0. Prove that the symbols e(Pj , LjK) and f(Pi , LjK) defined in §4c are multiplica­
tive for towers of separable extensions.
Prove that
1 1 . Prove that the different 1:>(SjR) defined in §4d is multiplicative for towers of
separable extensions. [Hint : Let Lz => L l => K be such a tower, and let Sj be the
integral closure of R in Li, i = 1 , 2. Set
r; = TL;/K ' 1:>i = 1:>(SJR),
To prove that 1:>z 1:> 1 1:>', show the equivalence of the following statements, for IT (aj - a)Z = ± NL/K(f'(a)),
1 � i < j �n
x E Lz (use Exercise 1 .5) :
=

where f'(X) is the formal derivative of f(X).


T1 (S l ' T'(xSz)) c R; 1 5. Keeping the above notation, let f(X) E R[X], so a is integral over R. Let S be
x1:> l c 1:>' - 1 .] the integral closure of R in L. Show that

12. Let 1' : V x V -+ K be a nondegenerate symmetric K-bilinear form on a finite R El3 Ra El3 . . . El3 R an - 1 c S,
dimensional K-space V, and let M be a full R-Iattice in V. Define and hence prove that the discriminant d(SjR) divides R . disc a.
Nt {x E V: 1'(x, M) c R} . 1 6. Let co be a primitive mth root of l over K, where char K t m. Show that the only
prime ideals of R dividing disc co are those which divide m. Hence if P t Rm, then P is
=

Show that Nt is a full R-Iattice in V, and that M = M. [Hint : If N = L' Rx . is a full


R-Iattice in V, then N L RYj where 1'(xi ' Y) bij , and then N = L ' R x i = N.
unramified in the extension K(ro) of K.
Hence if N 1 C M e N z with N l ' Nz R-free, we have fil l => M => N Z ' whence Nt is a
= ' ' =

1 7. Give another proof of (4.24) by showing that every finitely generated free R­
f�ll R-Iattice in V. To prove that M M in general, show that the process of forming module is reflexive, and then proving that every finitely generated projective R-module
M from M commutes with localization, and thus the problem can be reduced to the
=

is reflexive.
case of Rp-Iattices.]
1 3. Keeping the notation of Exercise 12, let n = rankR M. Define the discriminant
ideal of M with respect to l' to be the R-ideal d(M) in K generated by
5, COMPLETIONS AND VALUATIONS
{det ("[(xj , X)) l � i , j � n : X l ' . . . , Xn E M } .
n
Prove that d(Mp) = d( M)p for each maximal ideal P of R. Show that if M
5a Completions
= L' RXi '
i= 1
then We shall review, without proof for the most part, some elementary facts
about completions. The reader is referred to the standard references, listed
d(M) = R . det (1'(x j ' X))l � i , j �n ' at the start of § 4, for details and proofs.
If N c M, where N is another full R-Iattice in V, prove that Let K be a field with a valuation qJ, topologized as in § 4b. Let K denote
the completion of K relative to this topology; then K is a field whose elements
(4.42) deN) = (ordR MjN)Z ' d(M), are equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences of elements of K, two sequences
and that deN) c d(M). Deduce from this that d(M) = deN) if and only if M N. = being equivalent if their difference is a null sequence. The field K is embedded
[Hint: To prove (4.42), first localize, and then write R in place of Rp . Use the notation in K, and the valuation qJ extends to a valuation {p on K. The field K is
of Exercise 2. Then complete relative to the topology induced by {p, that is, every Cauchy sequence
from K has a limit in K.
If qJ is an archimedean valuation, then so is {p, and K is a complete field
1 4. Let L = K(a) be a finite separable extension of K, and let with respect to an archimedean valuation. The only possibilities for K are
(5.2) COMPLETIONS 69
68 COMPLETIONS AND VALUATIONS (5. 1)
R (the real field) or C (the complex field), and in each case ijJ is equivalent to start with a discrete valuation ring Rp , and pass to its completion Rp . We
the usual absolute value. shall analyze this step in some detail below.
If ({J is non-archimedean, so also is ijJ ; the two valuations have the same
value group, and the same residue class field (up to isomorphism). In particu­ (5.2) THEOREM . Let R be a discrete valuation ring with prime element n, quotient
lar, let R be a Dedekind domain with quotient field K, where K i= R, and field K, and let R, K denote completions.
let P be a maximal ideal of R. The completion of K with respect to the P-adic (i) For each finitely generated R-module M, the map M � R ® R M is an
valuation ({Jp on K (see § 4b) will be denoted by K p (or just K, if there is no inclusion. Denote R ® R M by RM hereafter.
danger of confusion). Call Kp a P-adic field, and its elements P-adic numbers. (ii) Let V be a finite dimensional K -space, and set 11 K ® K V. Theformulas
=

The discrete valuation ({Jp extends to a discrete valuation (pp on K p . We T = RM, M = T () V,


have alr�ady remarked that the valuation ring of ({J p is the localization
Rp ; let Rp ?e the valuation ring of <pp. Every element of Rp can be repre­ give a one-to-one inclusion-preserving correspondence between the set of full
sented by a Cauchy sequence from Rp (or from R, for that matter). If n is a R-Iattices M in V, and the set of full R-Iattice T in 11.
prime element of R p , then n is also a prime element of R p Let /7 temporarily s
Proof. For (i), we note that M is isomorphic to a direct sum of cyclic module

denote a full set of residue class representatives in R of the residue class field kR .
R = R/P, with ° E /7. Each x E Rp is uniquely expressible as of the form R/nkR, k � 0, so it suffices to prove the result for M = R/n
But then M � R ® R M = R/nkR is surely monic (obvious when k = 0, and
x CXo + cx 1 n + cx 2 n 2 + " ' ,
= cxi E /7 , true for k > ° by (5. 1 ) ).
and each y E Kp is uniquely of the form y = nk . x, k E Z, where uniqueness is To prove (ii), use bases ! Suppose first that A1 is a full R-Iattice in V. We
guaranteed by the condition that CXo i= 0. (If y = 0, take k = - (0). may write
We note that K is dense in K P ' that is, given any cx E K p and any E > 0, n n
n

there exists an element a E K such that M I · R Xi ' V= I · KXi ' Sf =

i
I O RXi '
i= 1 i=1 =1
=

ijJp (a - cx) < E.


where n = (V : K). Then
Likewise R is dense in R p , and so also is R p . Sf () V = I· (R K)Xi
() = I· RXi = M,
(5. 1 ) THEOREM. (i) R p is a faithfully flat Rp-module. as desired.
(ii) For each k � 1 , there are R-isomorphisms Conversely, let T be a full R-Iattice in 11, and write
n
R/pk � Rp /nkRp � R p/nk Rp , n n

V = I KYi
T= I · RXi ' V = I Kxi ,
i= l i= l
°

i= l
°

where n is a prime element of R p .


(note that (V : K) = (1I : K)). Then Y i = I (Jij Xj , (Jij E K, 1 � i � n , and
S = ((Ji ) is an invertible matrix over K. Choose T = (tij) with entries
Proof. The first assertion is contained in (2.22) (see also Exercise 5.3). The in K
�rst part of (ii) is proved in (3.1 3). Fin�lly, tI:e composition of maps Rp �
_

. . close t� those of S - 1 (in the topology induced by the valuation); then TS


R p � R p /nkRp YIelds a map A : Rp � Rp/nk Rp , and A is an epimorphism is a unit in the matrix ring Mn(R). Set
since Rp is dense in R p . Clearly ker A Rp n nk Rp = � Rp , which com­
I "Cij Yj = I "Cij (Jjk Xk '
=

pletes the proof. y� =


Then we have
For any R-module M, let
V= IO Ky� ,
M p = Rp ® R M, Sf p = R p ® R M � R p ® RpMp .
and so
Thus the passage from M to Sf p can be accomplished in two steps : localization
(from M to M p ), and completion (from M p to Sf p ). In the second step, we
70 (5. 5 ) 71
COMPLETIONS AND VALUATIONS (5.3) EXTENSIONS OF COMPLETE FIELDS

Thus T n V is a full R-Iattice in V such that R ( T n V) = T. This completes each a E K lies in some field L with K c L c K , (L : K) finite (for example,
the proof of the theorem. L= K(a) will do). Set
LK
(5.5) iP(a) = {cp(NL/K a)} l / ( : ) .
We may now prove analogues of (4.21 ) and (4.22) :
Then we find that the value iP(a) is independent of the choice of L, and that
(5.3) Theorem. Let R be a Dedekind domain with quotient field K, let M be an every finite extension of K contained in K is complete with respect to the
R-lattice, and let V = KM. Let P range over all maximal ideals of R. valuation iP .
(i) We have When cp is archimedean, there are only two possibilities :
M = KM n { n M p } .
(i) K = C = K, cp = iP
p (ii) K = R, K = C, iP extends cp,
(ii) F o� each P, let there be given a full R p-lattice Yep) in K p V, such that where cp and iP are the usual absolute values on R or C.
Yep) = M p a.e. Dt.fme If cp is non-archimedean, so is iP. However, (p need not be a discrete
N = V n { n Y(P) }. valuation, even if cp is discrete.
p We shall consider discrete valuations in more detail below, and for this
Then N is a full R-lattice in V, and N p = Yep) for all P. purpose let us adopt a more systematic notation. If cp is a discrete valuation
on K, denote by OK its valuation ring, and by PK the maximal ideal of OK '
Proof. By (5.2), M p = KM n M p for each P. Assertion (i) now follows at Let OK = 0K/PK be the residue class field, and let PK = nK ' OK ' so nK is a
once from (4.21). To prove (ii), set X(P) = V n Y(P) for each P. By (5.2), prime element of OK ' Let vK be the exponential valuation on K, defined by
X(P) is a full R p-Iattice in V. Clearly X(P) = V n M p = M p a.e., and setting
N = n X(P). By (4.22) N is a full R-Iattice in V, and N p = X(P) for all P. aR = p�K(a) , a E K, a "# 0,
p
Therefore Np = Rp . X(P) = Y(P) for all P, by (5.2), and the theorem is and vK(O) = + 00 .
proved. Any finite extension L of K can be embedded in K, and the restriction of
We indicate the generalization of (5.3) to the case where R is a noetherian iP to L gives a discrete valuation tjJ which extends cp. We define the ramifica­
integrally closed domain. Recall that for each minimal prime P of such a tion index e = e(L/K) and residue class degree f = f(L/K) by the formulas
domain R, the localization Rp is a discrete valuation ring, and so we may vL(nK) = e, (OL : OK ) = f.
fonn its completion R p just as above.
(5.6) THEOREM. Let L be a finite extension of the complete field K, and keep the
(5.4) THEOREM. Let M be a full R-lattice in a finite dimensional K-space V, above notation. Then
where R is a noetherian integrally closed domain with quotient field K. Suppose (i) 0L is the integral closure of OK in L.
that for each mini'!!al prime P of R, we are given an R p-lattice Y(P) in Vp , (ii) Both e(L/K) and f(L/K) are finite, and
such that Yep) = M p a.e. Set
N = V n { n Y(P) } . e(L/K) ' f(L/K) = (L : K).
p (iii) For each a E L,
Then N is a full R-lattice in V, N is reflexive, and N p = Y(P) for all P. f(L/K) - l . vK(NL/K a).
vL(a) =

Proof. The theorem follows readily from (4.26) and (5.2). (iv) Let a 1 , , af E 0L be such that 0L = LO 0Kai ' and let no , n 1 ,
• . . . . · ,

ne - 1 E 0L be such that vL(n) = j, ° � j � e 1 , where e = e(L/K), f =


-

f(L/K). Then the e f elements {ainj} form a free OK-basis for 0L '
5b Extensions of complete fields
For future use, we state
Throughout this section, let K be a field complete with respect to a valua­
tion cp, either archimedean or not, and let K be an algebraic closure of K. (5.7) THEOREM. (Hensel's Lemma). Let f(X) E 0K[X] and suppose that in
Then (see references) we may extend cp to a valuation iP on K, as follows : 0K[ X ] there is a factorization
72 COMPLETIONS AND VALUATIONS (5 . 8) (5. 1 1 ) EXTENSIONS O F COMPLETE FIELDS 73

J(X) = u(X) v(X), u(X) monic, unique unramified extension W of K such that ( W : K) = (ow : O K ) f, =

namely, W = K(w) for w a primitive (qf - l )-th root of l over K. Furthermore,


where u(X) and v(X) are relatively prime. Then there is a factorization in
Ow = 0K[w], - Ow = 0K(W) ,
°K[X] :
f(X) = g(X)h(X), g(X) monic,
such that g = u, fi = v. Proof. There is a unique separable extension of OK of degree f, namely
0K(�)' where e is a primitive (qf - l)-th root of l over OK ' ,Hence by (5.8) there
Recall that L is an unramified extension of K if e(L/K) = 1 and 0L is a is a unique unramified extension W of K such that ( W : K) = (O W : OK) = f.
separable extension of OK ' The study of unramified extensions reduces at We need only show that K(w) is an unramified extension of K such that
once to the study of separable extensions of the residue class field OK by (K(w) : K) = f. However, w is a zero of the polynomial
virtue of the following basic result (see references) : 1
f(X) = Xqf - - 1 E OK [X].
Since J (X) has no repeated zeros, it follows from (5.8ii) that K(w) is unramified
(5.8) THEOREM. (i) There is a one-to-one inclusion-preserving correspondence over K. Further
between the set fields L such that
f(X) TI (X - W i),
= J(X) = TI(X - Wi ),
K c L c K, L = finite unramified extension of K,
and the set of fields k finite separable over OK' This correspondence assigns where 1 � i � qf - 1 in each product. Hence W is a primitive (qf - l )-th
to each such field L the field k given by k = 0L ' root of 1 , so by (5.8 ii)
(ii) If L K(a), where a is a zero of a monic f(X) E 0K[ X] such that a is a
=
(K(w): K) = (O K [W] : 0K) = f.
simple zero of f(X), then L is unramified over K, and
"1i
Jl
This completes the proof of the theorem.
0L = 0K[a], 0L = 0K(a), (L : K) = (OL : OK) '
Conversely, every unramified extension L of K is of this form. (5. 1 1) COROLLARY. Keep the notation of (5. 1 0). Then W/K and O W /OK are
(iii) Given k = 0K(e), let f(X) E 0K[X] be any monic polynomial such that galois extensions, with galois groups G, G cyclic of order f. The group G has
f(X) = min. po1. P K e. Then there exists a field L = K(a) c K. such that L is generator a: w ---t wq, while G is generated by (j: W � wq• Call a the Frobenius
unramified over K, and 0L = k, and further automorphism of the extension W/K.
f(X) = min. po1. K a, a = e in 0L ' Proof. It is well-known that G is cyclic of order f with generator a, since G is
(iv) L/K is a galois extension if and only if 0L/OK is a galois extension. If G the galois group of 0K(W)/0K ' and 0K(W) is the splitting field of f(X) over
is the galois group of L/K, then each a E G induces an element ii in the yalois OK ' If g(X) = min. po1.ox (w), then
group G ofodoK ' The map a � ii gives an isomorphism G � G. f- 1
g(X) = TI (X - wqi ).
(5 .9) COROLLARY. Let (E : K) < 00. There is a uniquefield W which is maximal i=O
with respect to the properties Therefore
f- 1
K e W e E, W is unramifled over K. min. po1. K w = TI (X - wqi ),
This field W is the inertia field of the extension E/K ; it is characterized i=O
by the facts that W/K is unramified, and Ow is the separable closure of OK in and hence a : w � wq is a generator of the group G.
0L ' that is,
Ow = {x E 0L : x is separable over OK } ' The extreme opposites of unramified extensions are the completely rami­
fied extensions. Recall that L is a completely ramified extension of K if
(5. 1 0) THEOREM. Suppose that the complete field K has finite residue class 0L = OK ' that is, f(L/K) = 1 . Such extensions can be classified, as follows :
field OK' and let q = card OK ' Then for each positive integer f, there is a an Eisenstein polynomial is one of the form
74 COMPLETIONS AND VALUATIONS (5. 1 2) (5.14) EXTENS IONS OF VALUATIONS 75
+ + +
n
f(X) = x a 1 Xn - 1 ...
an E OK[X], f(X) into irreducible factors in K[ X] :
where each a i E PK ' and an ¢ pi . By Exercise 5.1, f(X) is irreducible in K[ X]. r

f(X) 11 J;(X), J;(X) irreducible, J;(X) E K[Xl


=

i= 1
(5.12) T�EOREM. (i) Let L be a completely ramified extension of K of degree n.
Then mm. pol. K nL is an Eisenstein polynomial over OK ' and L K(nL ). The {J;} are necessarily distinct, and we may choose elements { � J E n such
that J;(8J = O. Any K-isomorphism W L � 0 must carry A into a K-conjugate
=

(ii) Let f(X) be an n-th degree Eisenstein polynomial over OK ' and let
L = K(Ct), where min. pol. K Ct = f(X). Then L is completely ramified over of some 8j , and since we are interested in embeddings only up to equivalence,
K, (L : K) n, and Ct is a prime element of 0L ' Furthermore; 0L 0K [CtJ . we may indeed choose Pi so that Il j(8) 8j . In this way we obtain r inequiva­
=

P of L in n, and for each i, I � i � r, we have


= =

lent embeddings 11 1 , . . . ,
r

The proof is straightforward (see references), and we omit it. We call L/K
an Eisenstein extension if it is of the type described in (5. 12).
Now let E be any finite extension of K, and suppose that the residue class Now
field OK is perfect, that is, OK has no inseparable extensions. This certainly L = K(8) � K[X]/( f(X)),
is the case when OK is a finite field. If W is the inertia field of the extension and thus
E/K, then we have
011' 0E ' � I " K [X]/(J;(X) ) � I " Li •
r r

K e W e E, e ( W/K) 1, f(E/W) = 1, K ®K L � K[X]/(f(X) )


= =
j l
=
j= l
f(W/K) = f (E/K), e(E/W) = e(E/K). Hence for each a E L, we have
Thus the step from K to E is divided into an unramified step from K to W, r

followed by a completely ramified step from W to E. We have seen that E (5. 14) char. pol. L/K a11 char. POl.£; / K Il j(a),
is an Eisenstein extension of W, and if OK is finite, then W is a cyclotomic
=

j= 1
extension of E. since a acts on K ®K L just as I pj(a) acts on I" L j • In particular, we obtain
from (5. 1 4) the important formulas
5c Extensions of valuations TL/K a I Tid K Il la),
= NL/ K a 11 N Li t' k. Il i(a). =

j
Throughout this section, K denotes a field with a valuation <p, archimedean
j
� not, and (p the extension of <p to the algebraic closure n of the completion Briefly, global trace is the sum of local traces, and global norm the product
K, as in § 5b. Given a finite separable extension L over K, we wish to determine of local norms.
all extensions of the valuation <p from K to L. Each such extension determines Suppose now that R is a Dedekind domain with quotient field K, and S
an embedding of L in n which preserves the embedding of K in K. Two em­
the integral closure of R in L. For each maximal ideal P of R, let
beddings j1, j1' of L in n are called equivalent if there exists a K isomorphism -

(J : p(L) � p' (L) such that (J1l 11' · Let PI , . . . , Ilr be a full set of inequivalent
=
j=1
isomorphisms of L into n which preserve the embedding of K in K. Let
Lj K ' p/L), the composite of K and pj(L) in n (that is, the smallest subfield
= be the factorization of P ' S into a product of powers of distinct maximal
ideals {PJ of S. Then there are precisely r inequivalent valuations t/J l " ' " t/Jr
on L which extend the P-adic valuation <p p on K, obtained by choosing
of n containing both), and set nj (Lj : K). Then (see references) there are
precisely r inequivalent valuations t/J l ' . . . , t/Jr of L which extend <p, and
=

these are given by the formula t/Jj to be the P j-adic valuation on L. The fields Lj defined above are precisely
the P j -adic completions of L, and we have
(5. 1 3) I � i � r.
nj = (L j : K p ) = ejJ; , ej
e(Pi , L/K) = e(L/K p ),
=

In order to obtain a full set of inequivalent embeddings of L in n, write


L K(8), f(X) = min. pol.K 8, so f(X) is a separable polynomial. Factor
=
J; = f(Pi ' L/K) = f(LJK p ), I � i � r.
76 COMPLETIONS AND VALUATIONS (5.14) (6. 1 ) RADICALS OF RINGS 77
If K is a global field, so that the residue class fields RIP, SIPi are finite, R p is R -flat. [Hint : Flatness is transitive, since
we may normalize the P-adic valuation <{Jp of K, and the PI.-adic valuation Rp ® R ' = Rp ®Rp(Rp ® R ' )'
<(J p j of L, by setting But Rp is R-flat, and Rp is Rp-tlat, by Exercise 3.]
«J p(a) = .Al(p) - vp (a) , <{Jp; (b) = .Al(P) - Vp j (b) , a E K, b E L, 5. Does (5.2 i) remain true without the hypothesis that M be finitely generated?
6. Keeping the notation of (5.2), show that if T is R-Iattice of V with rankR T
where
T n V = O.
an <
.Al(P) = card RIP, (V: K), then it may happen that
In this �ase, <{JP j = <{J�j on K, so <{JP j l /ni is the valuation on Li which extends 7. Let R be a discrete valuation ring with maximal ideal P nR, and let R be its
=

<{Jp on Kp . Thus P-adic completion. For M a finitely generated R-module, we set !VI R ® Jl M. =

Prove
(i) M/nkM � !VI/nk!VI, k � 1 .
(ii) M n nk !VI = 7r!' M, k � 0, where we view M as a submodule of M as in (5.2).
[Hint : We can express M as a direct sum of cyclic modules of the form R/P", n � 0,
Hence for a E L,
r

«J p(NL/X a) = IT «J p(N ii/K fl ia) = IT «J p/a),


i= l
a E L. and it suffices to prove the results when M R/pn. For M = R, (i) follows from (5. 1),
=

while (ii) is clear. For M R/P", n � 1, we have !VI � R/P"R, so M � M by (5. 1 ).


i= 1 =

(This also holds if P is archimedean, with the standard normalizations of Identifying M with M, it is then obvious that (i) and (ii) hold true.]
<{J p , <(J Pi as in § 4e).
6. RADICALS OF RINGS
EXERCISES Throughout this section, A is a ring (with unity element), not necessarily
1. Let P be a maximal ideal of the Dedekind domain R, and let commutative. All modules are unital. For an A-module M, define its annihila­
+ + '" +
tor as
f(X) = X" a 1 X" - 1 a n E R[ X],
annA AI = {a E A : aM = O},
2
�here � ach ai E P, and Q".¢ p . (Call f an Eisenstein polynomial). Show that f(X) is and omit the subscript A when there is no danger of confusion. We shall
rreduc ble m . K[X]. [Hmt: By Gauss' Lemma, it suffices to show that f(X) is
� � .
lrredu�lble In R[X] . Let bars denote passage to R/P R. If f gh in R[X], then also write Hom instead of HomA . By an epimorphism A -+ B of the ring A
onto the ring B, we shall mean always a ring homomorphism which is sur­
= =

X" f g ' h_ in R[X], so g(O), h(O) E P, whence an E pl.]


jective. (This represents a change from the terminology used in category
= =

2. �e� R be a complete discrete valuation ring, R its residue class field, and suppose
that R IS a timte field with q elements. Using Hensel's Lemma (5.7), show that the theory.) As general reference for the material in this section, we cite Jacobson
.
polynomial xq - 1 - 1 splits into q - 1 distinct linear factors in R[Xl [1, 2] '
3. L �t R ?e the P-adic completion of the discrete valuation ring R. Prove directlyt 6a Jacobson radical
that R IS faIthfully flat as R-module. [Hint : We show that R is R-flat that is for
each inclusion i: L c M of R-modules, the map 1 ® i : R ® L --. R ® it is als� an
An A-module M is irreducible (or simple) if M =I=- 0 and M contains no sub­
inclusion, where ® is over R. If (1 ® i)u 0, this equation in R ® M holds as a
=
modules except 0 and M. If M is simple, then for each nonzero m E M we
have M = Am. The module epimorphism A -+ M defined by a -+ am,
�onse � uence of finitely many defining relations of the tensor product R ® M. Hence
It suffIces to prove that i' : R' ® L --. R' ® M is monic, where R' is some finitely a E A, has kernel a left ideal L in A, and thus M � AIL. Since M is simple,
generated R-submodule of R. But then R' is R-free, and so i' is clearly monic. L must be a maximal left ideal of A. Conversely, for each such L, the A-module
To show that � is fa2 t�fully flat: we show that R ® M =1= 0 if M =1= O. Choose any AIL is simple.
nonzero m E M. Smce R Is 'R-flat, R ® R m is a submodule of R ® M. But R m � R/J, The Jacobson radical of A, denoted by rad A, is defined as
J annR m < R, and then
rad A = n ann M n ann AIL,
R ® (R/J) � R/JR =1= 0.]
=
(6. 1) =

L
be
M

4. Let Rp the P-adic completion of a Dedekind domain R. Prove directlyt that where M ranges over all simple left A-modules, and L over all maximal left
t That is, without using (2.23). ideals of A. Since each ann M is a two-sided ideal of A, so is rad A.
78 RADICALS OF RINGS 79
(6.2) ( 6 . 4) JACOBSON RADICAL

The ring A is semisimple if rad A O. (Some authors call such rings


= hence Kn Kn + 1 for some n, since M is noetherian. Now let x E M be such
=

"semisimple in the sense of Jacobson".) that f(x) = O. From the hypothesis that f(M) M, it follows that M =fn(M),
=
n+
and so we may write x = fn(y) for some y E M. Then 0 = f(x) f 1 (y), =

(6.2) THEOREM. A/rad A is a semisimple ring. whence y E Kn + 1 But then y E Kn , and thus x fn(y) = O. This completes
• =

the proof that f is monic, and establishes the theorem.


Proof. Let A =A/rad A ; since (rad A) M 0 for each simple left A -module
=

M, we may view M as a simple A-module. Now let x E A be such that As an immediate consequence of the above, we have
x + rad A E rad A. Then (x + rad A) M 0, whence xM O. Hence = =

x E rad A, which shows that rad A 0, and so A is semisimple.


= (6.4) THEOREM. Let A be a left noetherian ring, and let ab = 1 in A. Then also
ba =1.
(6.3) THEOREM. rad A is the intersection of all maximal left ideals of A.
Proof Let M = AA, a noetherian left A -module ; by (6.3a), every A -epimor­
phism f : M ---4 M must be an isomorphism. Since
Proof. For each maximal left ideal L o f A w e have ann (A/L) c L , since A
has a unity element. Therefore A Aab c Ab c A,
=

we have A Ab. Let f : M ---4 M be the epimorphism defined by setting


rad A = n ann (AIL) c n L.
=

f(x) xb, x E M. Then f is an isomorphism. However, f(l - ba) =


=
L L

F or the reverse inclusion, let M be any simple A -module. Then (1 - ba)b = 0, and therefore 1 ba = O. This completes the proof.
-

ann M = n ann m. Returning to the general case, we prove next


m eM
(6.5) THEOREM. For any ring A,
But if m E M, m =1= 0, then ann m is the kernel of the epimorphism
A ---4 Am M, and so ann m is a maximal left ideal of A. Hence
=
rad A = {x E A : 1 - axb E u(A)for all a, b E A}.
ann M ::::l n L, Proof. (i) Let x E rad A, and let a, b E A ; since rad A is a two-sided ideal of
L
where L ranges over all maximal left ideals of A. Therefore A, we have y = axb E rad A. We now show that I - y E u(A) for each
y E rad A. If A(l - y) < A, there is a maximal left ideal L of A such that
rad A = n ann M ::::l n L, A(l - y) c L, and then 1 - y E L. Since rad A c L, this gives 1 E L, a
M L contradiction. Therefore A(l - y) A for all y E rad A, and so t(l - y) = I
=
and the theorem is proved.
for some t E A. Therefore 1 - t ty E rad A, whence (as above)
= -

An element u E A is a unit if there exists an element v E A such that A(1 - (1 - t)) = A, that is At = A . Hence there exists u E A such that
uv vu 1 . We shall denote by u(A) the group of units of A. In most of the
= = ut 1, and thus
=

cases arising in this' book, each element of A having a one-sided inverse is u = ut(l - y) = I y. -

�ecessarily a unit of A. To prove this, we begin with a result of independent This proves that t is a two-sided inverse of I - y, so 1 - Y E u(A), as desired.
mterest : (ii) Let x E A be such that 1 - axb E u(A) for all a, b E A . To show that
x E rad A, we need prove that xM = 0 for every simple left A-module M.
(6.3a) 1HEOREM. Let M be a noetherian left A-module, and let f E HomA(M, M) Let m E M, m i=- 0; if xm i=- 0, then M A · xm, so m = axm for some
=

be such that f(M) M. Then f is an isomorphism.


= a E A, and thus (1 - ax)m O. But 1 - ax E u(A), and hence m = 0, a contra­
=

diction. This proves that xm = 0 for each nonzero m E M, and therefore


Proof. We need only show that f is monic. For n � 1, set xM = 0, completing the proof of the theorem.
n
Kn = ker f {x E M : fn(x) = O} .
=

(6.6)COROLLARY. If we compute a radical of A by using right A-modules


Then 0 c K l c K2 c ' " is an ascending chain of submodules of M, and rather than left A-modules, we obtain the same rad A.
80 RADICALS OF RINGS (6.7) (6.9) JACOBSON RADICAL 81
Proof· The preceding theorem gives a left-right symmetric characterization then x 2 - X E N. Further, Ll a = I =1= 0 s o N < L1 • Then N is nilpotent, by
of the radical. the way in which Ll was chosen. Thus Ax contains an idempotent element
by (6.7), whence so does L, since L :::> L1 :::> Ax.
A left ideal N of A is nilpotent if there exists a positive integer k such that
,N ' � ' ' ' � = 0, (6.9) THEOREM. If A is left artinian, then rad A is the largest nilpotent left
k ideal of A.
or equivalently, X l x k = 0 for all {xJ E N. An element X E A is nilpotent
• . .

if Xk = 0 for some k. An element e E A is idempotent if e =1= 0 and e 2 = e. Proof. If L is a nilpotent left ideaL and X E L, then for all a, b E A also axb is
Obviously, a nilpotent ideal cannot contain any idempotent elements. nilpotent ; namely,
k 1
(axb) = ax ' (baxt - . b E r · b = O.
(6.7) THEOREM. Let N be a nilpotent left ideal of A, and let X E A be a non­ But then I - axb E u(A), since
nilpotent element such that x 2 - x E N. Then the left ideal Ax contains an
1 + axb + (axb) 2 + ...
idempotent y such that y - x E N.
is a two-sided inverse of 1 - axb. This proves that L c rad A, by (6.5).
Proof· Let Nk = 0, and set nl = x2 - X E N. If nl = 0, choose y = x, and On the other hand, rad A must itself be nilpotent ; for, if not, then by (6.8)
we are done. If n1 =1= 0, let rad A contains an idempotent e. Hence 1 - e E u(A) by (6.5), which is im­
Xl = X + nl - 2xnl E Ax. possible since (1 - e)e = 0 but e =1= O.

Then x, xl and nl commute with each other, and hence if X l is nilpotent, We may remark that if A is left artinian, then rad A is also the largest
.
so also IS x Xl - nl + 2xnl , a contradiction. Thus Xl is a non-nilpotent
= nilpotent right ideal. For if J is any nilpotent right ideal of A, then AJ is a
element of Ax, and direct calculation gives nilpotent two-sided ideal, whence J c AJ c rad A.
X 2l - X l = 4 nl3 - 3 n 2l . Now we prove some easy properties of radicals.

The element n2 = xi - X l is nilpotent, contains ni as factor, and commutes (6. 1 0) THEOREM. If f : A � B is an epimorphism of rings, then f(rad A) c rad B.
with � l ' Continuing in this manner, we may construct a sequence {xJ of Hence f induces an epimorphism A/rad A � B/rad B.
non-mlpotent elements of Ax, such that nf occurs as a factor in x� - x . . If
we choose i so that 2i � k, then we have x; - Xi = O. Furth�r, x. # 0 Proof. Let x E rad A, y = f(x), and let b1 , b2 E B. Then there exist a1 , a2 E A
�ince Xi is � on-nilpotent. Thus we may take y = Xi ' the desired idemp�tent such that bi = f(ai), i = 1 , 2. But 1 - a1 x a2 E u(A), whence I - b1yb 2 E u(B).
III Ax such that y - X E N . Hence y E rad B, by (6.5).

(6.8) COROLLARY. Let L be a non-nilpotent left ideal in a left artinian ring A. (6.1 1 ) THEOREM (Nakayama' s Lemma). Let M be a finitely generated left
Then L contains an idempotent element. A-module such that (rad A)M = M. Then M = O.

Proof. Let Ll be a minimal member of the (non-empty) set of non-nilpotent Proof. If M =1= 0, let m 1 ' . . . , mk be a minimal set of generators of the left
left ideals contained in L; then L/ c L1' whence L/ Ll. Now let I be
=
A-module M. Since m1 E M = (rad A)M, we may write
minimal in the set of left ideals contained in Ll such that Ll . I "# 0, and
m1 = r 1 m1 + . . , + rk mk , ri E rad A.
choose a E I so that Ll . a "# O. Then Ll . Ll a "# 0 and Lla c I, whence
Ll a = I. Hence a = xa for some X E L I ' and thus a = xka for all k � O. But then I - r 1 E u(A), so we can solve for m1 in terms of m 2 , . . . , mk ' thereby
Therefore I contains the non-nilpotent element x. reducing the number of generators of M.
If we now set
(6. 12) COROLLARY. Let M be a finitely generated left A-module, and N a
submodule such that
82 RADICALS OF RINGS (6. 1 3 ) (6 . 1 5 ) LOCAL RINGS 83

N + (rad A)M = M. P rad R, and residue class field R R/P. Let A be an R-algebra, finitely
= =

Then N = M. generated as R -module, and let qJ :A ...... A = A/PA be the natural epimorphism
of A onto the finite dimensional R-algebra A. Then we have
Proof· The hypothesis implies that M/N is finitely generated, and 1
(rad A) (M/N) M/N. The result then follows from (6. 1 1).
=
PA c qJ - (rad A) = rad A,
and (rad A)t c PA for some t. Further, qJ induces a ring isomorphism
(6 13 ) COROLLARY. Every maximal two-sided ideal J of A contains rad A.
.

A/rad A � A/rad A.
Proof· �f J � rad A, then J + rad A is a two-sided ideal of A properly
contaInIng J. Hence J + rad A A, whence J = A by applying (6. 12) with
=
Proof. We show first that rad A :::) PA. Let M be any simple left A-module ;
N J, M A. then M = Am for each nonzero m E M, whence M is finitely generated as
R-module. Now PM is an A-submodule of M, hence is ° or M. But PM ::f:. M,
= =

otherwise by Nakayama 's Lemma we find that ,M = 0. Thus PM 0, and =

6b Local rings · so PA annihilates every such M. Therefore PA c rad A.


By (6. 1 0), qJ induces an epimorphism
The ring A is local (or completely primary) if A has a unique maximal left
ideal. A/rad A ...... A/rad A.
On the other hand, there is an epimorphism t/J : A ...... A/rad A, since PA c
(6. 14) THEOREM. The following are equivalent :
rad A. By (6.2) we have t/J(rad A) c rad(A/rad A) 0, and thus t/J induces
(i) A is local.
=

an epimorphism A/rad A ...... A/rad A. Both of these quotients are finite


(ii) The set S of non-units of A is a left ideal of A. dimensional R-algebras, and thus are isomorphic. This shows that rad A
(iii) A/rad A is a skewfield (that is, a ring whose nonzero elements form a
=

qJ 1 (rad ..4), as well.


-

multiplicative group).
Next, rad A is a nilpotent ideal of the left (and right) artinian ring A, by
(6.9), and hence (rad A)! ° for some n. Thus qJ{ rad A )t} = 0, whence
Proof. Suppose first that A is local, with J its unique maximal left. ideal, so
=

(rad AY c PA, as claimed.


of course J c S. Since rad A is the intersection of all maximal left ideals of A
we have rad A J, and so J is a two-sided ideal. We claim that S J. Fo ;
We shall need some standard results on completions of a commutative
= =

let X E S ; if Ax ::f:. A, then Ax lies in a maximal left ideal of A, whence Ax c J, k

so X E J. On �he other hand, if Ax = A then for some Y E A yx 1 . Clearly


, =
local ring R, and of modules over such a ring. Suppose first that X = I· RX i
y ¢ J, otherwIse, 1 = yx E rad A. Hence Ay = A, so there exists an element i '" 1

z E A with zy = 1, and hence z = x. Thus x E u(A), a contradiction. This is a free R-module, and let P denote the maximal ideal of R. We define a
proves that S J, and shows also that each element of A J is a unit in P-adic topology on X, by taking as basis for the neighborhoods of a point
X E X the sets {x + pm X : m 0, 1, 2, . . . }. Given a sequence {Yn } from X,
= -

A, whence A/rad A is a skewfield. =

Next, suppose that S is a left ideal of A. Since every proper one-sided ideal we may write
of A lies in S, it is clear that S is the unique maximal left ideal (and also Y = r t l )x + . . . + r(nk)xk '
n n 1
rn(i) E R.
right ideal), so A is local. Then {Yn } is a Cauchy sequence in X if and only if, for each i, {r� i )} is a Cauchy
Finally, suppose that A/rad A is a skewfield. Clearly rad A c S, and we sequence in R. Further, {y,,} converges if and only if each {r�:)} converges,
need only prove the reverse inclusion. If x E A - rad A, there exists Y E A and we have
�uch that yx == 1 + n, for some n E rad A. Hence yx E u(A), and x has a left
Inverse in A. Analogously, x has a right inverse, whence x E u(A). Thus
n -t-, oo n -+ <Xl
A - rad A c u(A), so rad A c S, as desired. This completes the proof.
Thus if R is complete in the P-adic topology, then so is X. When R is not
(6. 1 5) THEOREM. Let R be a commutative local ring, with maximal ideal complete, we may form its P-adic completion it Then R ® R X is a free
84 RADICALS OF RINGS (6. 1 6) (6 . 1 8) LIFTING IDEMPOTENTS 85
R-module, and can be topologized as above. If X denotes the P-adic com­ idempotents in A. Further, each ej is primitive, that is, ej cannot be expressed
pletion of X, the above discussion shows that there is an R-isomorphism as a sum e' + e" of orthogonal idempotents; for if ej = e' + e", then Lj =
Ae' E8 Ae" gives a decomposition of Lj
X � R ® R X,

We have thus shown that there is a one-to-one correspondence between


and that this is a topological isomorphism. decompositions of A into direct sums of indecomposable left ideals, and
The following generalization of the above holds true, and we refer the decompositions of "1 into a sum of primitive orthogonal idempotents.
A

reader to Bourbaki [2, Ch. 3J or Matsumura [1 J for proofs : N ow let A = A /N, where N is a two-sided ideal of A such that N rad A,
and let a E A have image a E A. If e E A is idempotent, then e is an idempotent
c

(6.1 6) THEoREM.j- et R be a commutative noetherian local ring, with maximal in A; indeed, e 2 = e implies that e2 = e, while if e 0 then e E rad A, an
impossibility (see proof of (6.9)). Thus each decomposition 1 = I ej into
=

ideal P, and let R be the P-adic completion q[ R. Let X be a finitely generated


R-module, and let X be the completion of X relative to the P-adic topology on orthogonal idempotents in A gives a corresponding such decomposition
X, defined by taking {x + pm X} as basis for the neighborhoods of x E X. 1 = I ej in A. In general, however, it may happen that ej is primitive but
Let R ® R X be topologized by taking {� + pm (R ® X)} as basis for the ej is not. Our aim here is to show that under suitable hypotheses, ei is primi­
neighborhoods of � E R ® X. Then there is a topological R-isomorphism tive whenever ei is primitive, and indeed, that every decomposition I I Cj =

into a sum of primitive orthogonal idempotents "lifts" to a decomposition


X � R ® R X, 1 = I ej into primitive orthogonal idempotents, such that ei = Cj for each i.
and X is a complete Hausdorff space relative to its P-adic topology. Given any two-si�ed ideal N of A, we may give A the N -adic topology by
taking as basis for the open neighbourhoods of an element a E A the sets
(6. 1 7) COROLLARY. Let R be a complete commutative noetherian local ring, {a + Nr : r = 0, I, . . }. We call A complete in the N-adic topology if each
.

and let A be an R-algebra which is finitely generated as R-module. Then A is Cauchy sequence (relative to this topology) converges to an element of A.
a complete Hausdorff space relative to the P-adic topology on A . If N rad A, there are two obvious cases where A is necessarily complete
c

in the N-adic topology :


For the most part, we shall be dealing with the case where R is a complete (i) if A is a left artinian ring, then N is a nilpotent ideal by (6 .9), and hence
discrete valuation ring, and A is an R-order. In this case, A is of course R-free, any Cauchy sequence from A, relative to the N-adic topology, is constant
and we need not use (6. 16) and (6. 1 7) in their full generality. from some point on ;
(ii) if A is an R-algebra, finitely generated as R-module, where R is a com­
plete noetherian local ring with maximal ideal P, then by (6. 1 5) we have
6c Lifting idempotents
Nt (rad AY c PA
c

We shall discuss here the relationship between idempotents in a ring A, for some t. Hence any Cauchy sequence (from A) relative to the N -adic
and idempotents in a factor ring A = A/N, where N is a two-sided ideal of topology is also a Cauchy sequence in the P-adic topology and thus converges
A contained in rad A. To begin with, suppose that there is a direct sum by (6 . 1 7).
decomposition For the remainder of this section, we assume that A is complete in the
A = L1 E8 . . . E8 Lk , N -adic topology.
where each Li is an indecomposable left ideal of A. We may write (6. 1 8) THEOREM. Each idempotent C E A can be lifted to an idempotent e E A,
that is, e = c . If e l ' e2 are idempotents of A, then Ae 1 � Ae2 as left A-modules
if and only if Ae1 � Ae2 as left A-modules.
For each x E Lj ' we obtain x = I xei , whence xei = x and xej = 0 for
j =1= i. This gives Proof. We examine the proof of (6.7). Given an idempotent C E ..4, choose any
e; = ej , ejej = 0 U =1= i), Li = Aei . X l E A with X l = c. Then nl = xi - Xl E N . Once Xi and nj are chosen, let
Thus each ei is idempotent, and we call {e l , . . . , ek } a full set of orthogonal
86 RADICALS OF RINGS (6. 1 9) (6.20) LIFTING IDEMPOTENTS 87
2 i
Then ni E N , and so {xJ is a Cauchy sequence in the N -adic topology of
en e - en - 1 ; then 1 e1 + ... + en is the desired orthogonal decompo­
A . Let e = lim x . E A. Then
= =

i-+ co 1 sition in A such that ej = 8j for 1 � i � n.

e2 - e = lim nj = 0, (6.20) COROLLARY. An idempotent e E A is primitive if and only if its image


and furthermore e = Xl = 8, so e i= 0, and e is the desired idempotent in A. e E A is primitive.
Now let el ' ez E A be idempotent. Any isomorphism Ael � Aez carries
Nel onto Nez , and induces an isomorphism Ae 1 � Ae2 . Conversely, let Proof. If e is imprimitive, there is an orthogonal decomposition e e 1 + e 2
j : Ael � Ae 2 , and let g = j - l . Then in the diagram
=

into idempotents el' e 2 E A. Then e = e 1 + e 2 is an orthogonal decomposition


of e. Conversely, let e = 81 + 82 be an orthogonal decomposition into

1 - - - - -

e1 < - - -
)
._ - - - - -

- - - ' - - - --
>-
j e,
idempotents of A. The proof of (6. 1 9) shows that there exist orthogonal
idempotents e 1 , e 2 E A such that e 1 = 81 , e 2 = 8 2 , and e = e 1 + e 2 • This
completes the proof.

J (6.21 ) THEOREM. Let A be a left artinian ring, and let A = A/rad A. Let
1 = e 1 + . . . + en be a decomposition of 1 E A into orthogonal primitive
g
idempotents in A. Then
the vertical arrows are epic. Since A = Aej EB A(l - eJ, each Aej is A­ A = Ae1 EB . . . EB Aen
projective. Hence we can find A-homomorphisms f, g lifting j, g, respectively.
is a decomposition of A into indecomposable left ideals of A, and
We claim that f is an isomorphism, and need only show that fJ = g . f is
an automorphism of Ae1 (for then, by symmetry, f · g is an automorphism A = Ae1 EB · · · EB Aen
of Ae 2 ). Clearly fJ lifts g . j, and hence (fJ - l)Ae 1 c Ne 1 Let � = 1 - fJ ;
is a decomposition of A into minimal left ideals. Further, Aej � Ae ). if and only

then �" . Ae 1 c Nke 1 ; thus 1 + � + e + . . . is a well defined endomorphism


if Aej � A e r
_ _

of Ae1 ' and is a two-sided inverse of 1 - �. Since 1 - � = fJ, this shows that
fJ is an A-automorphism of Ael ' as claimed. This completes the proof., n
Proof. Since A is left artinian, it can be expressed as a finite direct sum L:' Lj
1
(6. 19) THEOREM. Let i = 81 + . . . + 8n be a decomposition of I into orthogonal
idempotents in A. Then there exist orthogonal idempotents e 1 , • • . , en E A of indecomposable left ideals of A. Writing I = L: ej , ej E Lj ' we obtain
such that a decomposition of I into orthogonal primitive idempotents. Then I = L: ej
is such a decomposition in A, and so each Aej is an indecomposable left ideal
of A. But A is a semisimple artinian ring, so (see (7. 1 )) every indecomposable
Proof. We proceed by induction on n, the result being trivial when n = 1 . left ideal of A is a minimal left ideal. The last statement in the theorem has
Assume that n > 1 and that the result holds at n - 1. Set b = 8 n - 1 + 8n ' already been established in (6. 18), so the proof is completed.
so now 1 = 8 1 + . . . + 8n - 2 + b is an orthogonal decomposition. By the
_

induction hypothesis there exists an orthogonal decomposition (6.22) COROLLARY. Let A be an R-algeqra, finitely generated as R-module,
where R is a complete noetherian commutative local ring. Then the assertions
1 = e1 + ... + en - 2 + e, e = b, in the preceding theorem remain valid for this case.
Choose a E A such that a = 8n- 1 ' and set b = eae. Then b b . 8n - 1 . b = =

8n - 1 , and eib bej 0, 1 � i � n - 2. In the proof of (6. 1 8), we take


= = Proof. In the proof of (6.21), we used the hypothesis there that A be left
Xl = b. Then the sequence {xJ converges to an idempotent en - 1 E A such artinian, in order to guarantee that
that en- 1 = 8n - 1 , and eien - 1 = en - 1 ej 0, 1 � i � n - 2. Finally, set
= (i) A is expressible as a finite direct sum of indecomposable left ideals, and
(ii) A/rad A is a semisimple artinian ring.
t For more general theorems of this type, see Azumaya [1, Th. 24].
However, both of these remain valid under the hypotheses of the present
88 RADICALS OF RINGS EXERCISES 89

corollary. The first is true, since in the present case A is a left noetherian
ring. The second holds true, by virtue of (6.1 5). Thus the proof of (6.21) applies
equally well in this case, and the corollary is established. V 1 is monic and cp - 1 II I . V 1 M l ' Hence there is a
N 1 � M l ' Thus both v1 and II I
is the identity on splitting
N 1 � M 1 EEl ker cp- lll l ' and therefore are iso­
morphisms.
EXERCISES
Next verify that the sum
1. Let J be a two-sided ideal of a ring A, such that AjJ is semisimple. Prove that
(J + rad A)jJ c rad (AjJ)
M' = N l EEl M 2 EEl · · · EEl M[
J :=J rad A. [Hint : By (6. 1 0), O.J

x E A map onto X E A/rad A. Show that x E u(A) if and only if x E u(A/rad A).
=

is direct. Then show that M' = M, x E N1 '


since for each
2. Let
1l 1 X . .
X - 1l2X - . - Iltx E M',
3. (6. 1 5),
A such that Y' c PA. Show that J c rad A. [Hint :
Keep the notation and hypotheses of and let J be any two-sided ideal of
II I (N 1 ) c
=

cp(J) is
rad A, so J
a nilpotent ideal in the and thus M1 M'. Prove next that the map
1 =

artinian ring A, whence cp(J) c c cp - (rad A) = rad A.J

In Exercises 4--8 below, let R be a complete noetherian commutative local ring,

Therefore p induces
and let A be an R-algebra which is finitely generated as R -module. We in clude here
the special case where R is a field, and {O} is its maximal ideal.
defines an A-isomorphism of M onto M', carrying M1 onto Nl '
an A-isomorphism
1 is the only idempotent in A. [Hint : Let
#-
4. Prove that A is a local ring if and only if
A be local, and let eEA be idempotent, e 1. Since e( l - e) 0, both e and 1
= e - M 2 EB · · · EEl Mt � M/N l � N 2 EB · · · EB Nu '
are non-units, whence so is their sum ; this is a contradiction. Conversely, if A is not
local, then A/rad A is not a skewfield. If P = rad R, then by (6. 1 5) we know that An induction argument completes the proof.J

§ 7, 7.
contains an idempotent other than 1 . Therefore A contains an idempotent different
A/rad A is a finite dimensional semisimple (R/P)-algebra. Hence by A/rad A Let L, M, N be finitely generated left A -modu les such that

L -+- M � L -+- N.
from 1, by ( 6 . 1 8).J
5. indecomposable left A-module is a nonzero left A-module which is not expres­
An Prove that M � N. [Hint : Express L, M, N as direct sums of indecomposable modules,
sible as a direct sum of non-trivial submodules. Let M be a nonzero finitely generated and then use the Krull-Schmidt Theorem proved above.]
left A-module, and set E HomA (M, M). Show that E is an R-algebra which is
=
8. Let {M1 ' . . . , Mt} be finitely generated indecomposable left A-modules, and let L be
finitely generated as R-module. Using Exercise 6.4, deduce that M is indecomposable
a left A -module which is isomorphic to a direct summand of M1 + . . . + Mt• S how that
M M 1 EEl M 2 into A-submodules, let 11:1 : M -+ M 1 be the corresponding projection
as A-module if and only if E is a local ring. [Hint : Given a non-trivial decomposition

of M onto M 1 Then 11:1 E E is an idempotent, and 11:1 #- 1. Conversely, if e E E is an


=
L � M. -t .. . -+- M. ,
idempotent different from 1, then M
II lr
• .

eM EEl ( 1 - e)M gives a decomposition of M.J


Prove the Krull-Schmidt Theorem : Every finitely generated left A-module M
=
where {i1 , . . . , ir } is some subset of {I, . . . , t}. [Hint : The hypothesis implies that
I" Mi � L -+- I'" where both L and I', are finitely generated left A-modules. Now
6. t
is expressible as a finite direct sum of indecomposable modules, and these direct
express L and I', as direct sums of indecomposable modules, and then use the Krull-
i= 1
summands are uniquely determined by M, up to A-isomorphism and order of
occurrence. [Hint : Since M is finitely generated over the commutative noetherian Schmidt Theorem.J
ring R, M is itself a noetheri an module. The process of decomposing M into direct
9. Let A be an R-algebra as in (6.22), and let P be the unique maximal ideal of R.
summands must therefore terminate.
Assume that P does not annihilate any nonzero R-submodule of A. Let J = rad A,
Now let
and set A = AjJ. Show that every simple left A-module occurs as a direct summand of
M = Ml EB · · · EEl M[ = Nl EEl · . . EEl Nu ' the left A-module J/J2• [Hint : Assume the result false. By § 7, there is a central
where the {MJ and {N) are indecomposable. Let lli : M -+ M i ' v/ M -+ Nj ' be the idempotent 8 in the semisimple artinian ring A such that 8 ' ( J/J2 ) = O. By (6. 1 8) there
exists an idempotent EA mapping onto 8. Then eJ c ]2 , whence mUltiplying by
equation II I = I II I V to M l ' getting the relation 1 = I II I V j in the local ring
projections associated with these decompositions. Restrict the operators in the e

j
e we obtain eJ = e J2 = eJ · J. Therefore eJ 0 by Nakayama's = Lemma. But
M J Hence some /1 1 Vj must be a unit In this ring, that is, must be an
l' J :=J PA by (6. 1 5), and so p . eA O. This gives eA 0, so e = 0 and 0, a
automorphism of M 1 . If (say) II I VI is an automorphism
HomA (M = = 8 =

of M then in the diagram cp l' contradiction.J


90 SEMISIMPLE RINGS AND SIMPLE ALGEBRAS (7 . 1 ) (7.2) WEDDERBURN'S THEOREM 91
of course, B.l is left artinian (since A is). Call these {BJ the simple components
7 . SEMISIMPLE RINGS AND SIMPLE ALGEBRAS of A ; they are uniquely determined inside A, although the { LJ are not.
7a Wedderburn's Theorem Further, every simple A-module is isomorphic to a minimal left ideal of A,
hence to some minimal left ideal of some B i .
Recall that a ring A is semisimple if rad A = O. Of particular interest, Conversely, if B l ' . . . , Bt are simple left artinian rings, then their ring direct
because they occur so frequently in practice, are the left artinian semisimple sum I· Bi is a semisimple left artinian ring whose simple components are
rings. The algebraic structure of such rings can be described explicitly, as the {B. } .
we shall see below. We shall omit proofs of some of the relatively well known No � let D be a skewfield (or division ring), that is, a ring whose nonzero
theorems stated below, referring the reader to Curtis-Reiner [IJ or Bourbaki elements form a multiplicative group. Denote by Mn(D) the ring of all n x n
[I J for details. matrices with entries in D. We call Mn (D) a full matrix algebra over D.
A minimal left ideal of A is any minimal member of the set of nonzero left Let DO (or DOPP) denote the opposite ring of D; the elements of DO are the
ideals of A. Equivalently, a minimal left ideal is a simple submodule of AA. symbols {xo : x E D } , with
(7. 1) THEOREM. Let A be a left artinian ring. The following are equivalent : (XO ± yO) = (x ± y)O, XO . yO = (yx)O, x, Y E D.
(i) A is semisimple. Then DO is also a skewfield.
(ii) A is a finite direct sum of minimal left ideals.
(iii) Every exact sequence of left A-modules is split. (7.2) THEOREM. (i) If V = f:1 D Vi is a left vector space over the skewfield D,
(iv) Every left ideal of A is a direct summand of A.
(v) A contains no nonzero nilpotent ideals. then HomD (V, V) �
Mn (DO).
(vi) Every left A-module is a direct sum of simple A-modules. n

(ii) If V = I· v iD is a right vector space over the skewfield D, then


1
Given a left artinian semisimple ring A, we may write A = L l EB · · · EB Lr , HomD(V, V) � M (D) .
n

Li minimal left ideal in A. Set


=

1 = e 1 + . . . + er , ei E Li . Proof. In case (i), for a E HomD(V, V), let


n
From the equation e.I = "
L... e.e
I }
. we deduce at once that aVj I (X ijV i , (X ij E D.
j i= 1
=

ei , eiej = 0 for i =1= j, Li Ae i .


e; = =
Then the desired isomorphism is given by a � ((X�) .
Call {eJ a full system of primitive idempotents of A. Let B l denote the sum of In case (ii), let
those {LJ which are isomorphic to L 1 , B2 the sum of those {LJ isomorphic n
to a remaining summand (if any), and so on. Then we have aVj = I V i (X ij ' (Xij E D,
i= 1
A = B l EB . . . EB Bt and let a � ((X i) '
for some t � r. It is easily shown (see references) that each Bi is a subring of
= Mn (D) is a simple ring, both
A, and that Bi . Bj 0 for i =1= j, so A is the ring direct sumt of the {BJ Each
=
(7.3) THEOREM. For each n, the matrix ring A
Bi is a simple ring, that is, a ring whose only two-sided ideals are 0 and Bi ; left and right artinian. Every minimal left ideal of A is A-isomorphic to the left
A-module L of n-component column vectors with entries in D. Further,
Mn (D ) � /In ) as left A-modules and DO � HomA(L, L). If we view L as right
ring direct sum L' B, of the rings {BJ is defined to be the Cartesian product B 1 X • • • x Br ,
i= 1 D-space, then A � HomD (L, L).
t The
with component wise addition and multiplication. This ring is in fact the
r direct product (in the
sense of category theory), and is often denoted by n Bi • We shall use the older terminology (7.4) THEOREM (Wedderburn Structure Theorem). Every left artinian simple
i= 1 ring A is isomorphic to an algebra of n x n matrices over a skewfield. The
"ring direct sum" throughout this book.
92 SEMISIMPLE RINGS AND SIMPLE ALGEBRAS ( 7.5) (7.8) SPLITTING FIELDS 93
ring A determines n uniquely, and determines the skewfield up to isomorphism. Hence to prove that B ® A is simple, it suffices to prove that D ® DI is
If L is any minimal left ideal of A, then D = HomA (L, L) is a skewfield, and simple.
A = HomD(L, L) � Mn(DO), Let D = :L. Kdi , so D ® D' = :L. di ® D'. Let X =P 0 be a two-sided ideal
of D ® D', and choose a shortest x :L di ® bi in
m

where n is the dimension of the left D-space L. = X, bi E DI. Then


1
x(l ® b� 1 ) E X, so after changing notation, we have
(7. 5) COROLLARY. Every left artinian simple ring is also right artinian and is
left and right noetherian. The same holds for left artinian semisimple rings. :L2 di ® bi E X.
m

X = dl ® 1 +

l
By virtue of (7.5), we may speak: unambiguously of artinian simple or Now let b E D', b =P 0; then y = (1 ® b) · X · ( 1 ® b - ) E X, and
semisimple rings, without having to distinguish between "left" and "right" .
A quick proof of (7.4) is sketched in Exercise 7.4. See also Exercises 1 6.9 and
:L di ® bbib - l .
m

y = dl ® 1 +
1 6. 10. 2
Since x - y E X and x - y is shorter than x, this gives y = x. Therefore each
7b Splitting fields
b. commutes with each nonzero b E D', whence each bi E K. Thus x E D,
Let K, L, E denote fields, and D, D' skewfields. The center of an algebra A a�d so x is a unit in D ® D', whence X = D ® D'. This completes the proof.
will be denoted by AC. A central simple K-algebra is a simple K-algebra A
for which AC K and (A : K) is finite. Call D a skewfield over K if De ::> K
= (7.8) COROLLARY. Let A be a central simple K-algebra, L ::> K. Then L ® K A
and (D : K) is finite. By Wedderburn's Theorem, every central simple K-algebra is a central simple L-algebra.
A is of the form Mn(D) for some skewfield D over K. Further,
Let A be any ring, M a left A-module. Each a E A determines a left multi­
AC = {aIn : a E De } � De,
plication· aL : m � am, m E M. The map a � aL is a ring homomorp�ism of A
2
so D has center K, and (A : K) = n (D : K). onto a subring AL of Homz (M, M). Call M a faithful A-module if A � AL
is monic, that is, if a . M = 0 implies that a = o.
(7.6) THEOREM . Let A be a central simple K-algebra, B an artinian simple K­ We shall say that the pair (A, M) has the double centralizer property if
algebra, not necessarily finite dimensional over K. Then B ® K A is an artinian AL HomD (M, M), where D = Hom A(M, M). It is trivially verified that
=

simple algebra with center BC. (A, AA) has the double centralizer property, since in this case D = AR , the
set of right multiplications by elements of A.
Proof. We shall first compute (B ® AY, where we write ® instead of ® K for
brevity. Let B = I· Kei , so B ® A :L. ei ® A. If u = :L ei ® ai E (B ® A)e,
(7.9) THEOREM. (i) For each A-module N, the pair (A, AA + N) has the double
=

then u commutes with 1 ® a for all a E A, whence :L ei ® (aai - aia) = O.


centralizer property.
Therefore aa. a.a
=
I for all a E A, whence each a.l E AC K, and so u = bo ® 1
=

(ii) Let M be an A-module, k a positive integer. If (A, M(k») has the double
for some bo lE B. But now u commutes with b ® 1 for all b E B, whence
centralizer property, then so does (A, M).
bo E B'. Identifying B with B ® 1 in B ® A, we have thus shown that
(B ® AY c Be. The reverse inclusion is obvious, and therefore (B ® AY Be. =
Proof. (i) Let D HomA(M, M), where M AA -i- N. Each d E D is repre­
Since B is artinian and (A : K) is finite, it is clear that B ® A is also artinian.
= =

sented by a 2 x 2 matrix (dij ) of A-homomorphisms, where


It remains to show that B ® A is simple. We may write B = M,(D), A =
M s(D'), where (D'Y = K. Now for any skewfields D, D' whose centers contain d l l : A � A, d 1 2 : A � N, d2l : N � A, d22 : N � N.
K, we have
Now let cP E HomD(M, M), and write cP (CPi)' a2 x 2 matrix of additive

G �)
=

(7.7) Mr (D) ®K Ms (D') � Mr (K) ® Ms (K) ® D ® D'


homomorphisms. Since '" commutes with the element of D, it follows
� Mr/K) ® (D ® D') � Mrs (D ® K D').
94 SEMISIMPLE RINGS AND SIM PLE ALGEBRAS (7. 10) (7. 1 2) SPLITTING FIELDS 95
B' {x E A : xb = bx for all b E B},
that ({J 1 2 = 0, ({J I = 0. Next, fix 110 E N, and define dno E D by dno (a' n) =

2 =

(0, ano )' Then the centralizer of B in A. Then B' is a simple artinian ring, and B is its centralizer
in A.
while
Proof. Let V be a simple left A-module, and let D = Homi V, V), viewed as
dn ({J(a, n) dno (({J 1 1 a, ({J 2 2 n) = (0, (({J I I a)no)'
= left operator domain on V. Then A = Hom D(V, V), and D is a skew field with
o
center K. For a E A, d E D, let aL and dL denote left multiplications on V.
Thus (({J I 1 a)no = ({J 2 (anO) for all (a, no) E M, whence (taking a = 1 ) Then bL ' dL = dL . bL for all b E B, d E D, and therefore we may make V
( )
2
a
(({J l 1 (1))no ({J22(nO)' But ({J commutes with R O E D for each a E A ' into a left D ® K B-module by setting
° °
=

(d ® b)v = dL b L v, V E V.
whence ({J u commutes with each aR , and so ({Ju = (aO)L for some ao E A.
Thence ({J22(nO) = aono ' and so ({J is (aO) L on .M. This completes the proof of (i). By (7.6), D ® K B is a simple artinian algebra of finite K-dimension. Both
To prove (ii), let D = Hom A(M, M), and let V = M(k) be the set of 1 x k DL and BL are K-subalgebras of Hom K(V, V), and the elements of DL com­
row vectors with entries in M. If we think of D as a domain of right opera­ mute with those of BL. Hence the map D ® K B -+ DL . BL is a K-algebra
tors on M, then M may be viewed as a bimodule AMD' In that case, isomorphism (the kernel must be a two-sided ideal of D ® K B), and so letting

.
E = HomA(V, V) � M (D), and we may view V as a bimodule A VE . Now S denote DL ' BL , it follows that S is a simple algebra. Further, V is a finitely
let f E HomD(M, M); we k must prove that f aL for some a E A Define
=
generated faithful S-module, so the pair (S, V) has the double centralizer
f* : V -+ V by property, by (7. 1 0).
Let ({J E Homs(V, V) ; then ({J E HomDL (V, V) = AL , so ({J = aL for some
a E A which centralizes BL . Since both A and B act faithfully on V, this shows
It is easily checked that f* E HomE (V, V). But (A, V) has the double centralizer that a E B', and therefore
property, whence f* aL for some a E A. Then also f = aL (on M), as
=
=

desired. (B')L HomiV, V).


Since B' � (B')L ' it follows from Exercise 7.2a that B' is a simple artinian ring.
(7. 1 0) COROLLARY. Let M be any faithful finitely generated left module over a Further, since (S, V) has the double centralizer property, we have
semisimple artinian ring A. Then (A, M) has the double centralizer property.
(7. 1 2) S = DL . BL = Hom ( B , ) JV, V).
Proof. Let B I , . . . , Bt be the simple components of A, and let Mi be a simple Now let x E A centralize B' ; then XL centralizes (B')L ' so XL E S by (7. 1 2).
On the other hand, since XL E AL , it follows that XL centralizes DL in S.
left B(module. Then by (7. 1) we may write M = t.. M/ri). Since Bj ' Mi = ° We now make use of the isomorphism S � D ® K B. The proof of (7.6) shows
1
for j =1= i, and since M is a faithful A-module, it follows that each r . > 0. that the elements in D ® K B which centralize D ® 1 are contained in DC ® B,
Furt�er, we know that Bi � M?t ) as left B(modules, for some si' It f�llows that is, in B itself (since DC = K). Therefore XL E BL , whence X E B, as desired.
that If k max {sJ, then AA is a direct summand of the module M(k). Hence
=

by (7.9(i)) the pair (A, M(k») has the double centralizer property, whence so For later use, we give two important consequences of (7. 1 2) :
does (A, M) by (7.9(ii) .
(7. 1 3) COROLLARY. Keeping the notation of (7. 1 1 ), let V be a simple left
We are now ready to apply this corollary to the study of simple subalgebras A-module, and set D HomA(V, V). Then
=

of a central simple algebra A, and eventually to the study of maximal sub­


(B : K)(B' : K) = (A : K).
fields of A. We begin with a fundamental result :

(7.1 1 ) Theorem. Let K c B c A, where B is a simple subring of the central Proof. The first assertion is a restatement of (7. 1 2). To prove the second, let
simple K-algebra A. Let W be a simple left B'-module. Since V is a left B' -module, we have V� W(k)
96 SEMISIMPLE RINGS AND SIMPLE ALGEBRAS (7. 14) (7. 1 5) SPLITTING FIELDS 97
where k dim V/dim }if!, and dim denotes dim K . Let do dim Do , where
=
=

Do HomB ,( W, W) is the skewfield part of B'. Let us write


Since
=

dim D = d, dim V = dn, dim A = dn 2 , E ® K Mn(D) � Mn(E ® K D ),


it follows from the uniqueness part of Wedderburn's Theorem that E splits A
dim D o = do , if and only if E splits D. We may further remark that if E splits A, then so also
for some m, n. Then does every field Q ::l E, since
k = dim V;'dim W = dn/do m, Q ®K A � 0 ® E (E ® K A ) � 0 ® E M/E) � Mr(O).
while from the first part of the corollary, We are going to show that splitting fields always exist. Indeed, if K is any
dim HomB , ( W ( ) , W( ») = dim Mk(Do)
k k algebraic closure of K, then necessarily K splits A. To see this, observe that
d · dim B = = k2 do '
K ® A is a central simple K-algebra, hence is of the form Mr(D') for some
Consequently skewfield D' over K. But then D' K, since each element of D' is algebraic
=

(dim B) (dim B') = (k 2 do/d) ' dom2 = k 2 d�m2 /d over K, and hence lies in K (see Exercise 3 1 .6).
The important problem for us is to show the existence of splitting fields
= d 2 n 2/d = dim A, which are finite separable extensions of K. This fact is contained in the follow­
which completes the proof. ing basic result :

(7. 1 4) COROLLARY. In the notation of (7.1 1 ), we have (7. 1 5) Theorem. Let D be a skewfield with center K, and let (D : K) be finite.
(i) Every maximal subfield E of D contains K, and is a splitting field for D.
A ® K IJO � Mr(B'), where r = (B : K). Further, �f m (E : K), then
=

(D : K ) m 2 , E ® K D � Mm(E).
Further, B ® K B' � A if B has center K.
=

(ii) There exists a maximal subfield L of D which is separable over K.


Proof. Keeping the terminology of the proof of (7. 1 3), we have A � Mn(DO), so
Proof. (i) Since (D : K) is finite, D contains maximal subfields. Let E be a
A ® BO � Mn(DO ® BO) � Mn((D ® Bt). maximal subfield of D . Clearly E � K, otherwise E(K) is a larger subfield of
On the other hand D ® B � Mk(D o)' whence A ® BO � Mkn(D�PP). Since D. Now choose A = D, V DD, B E in (7. 1 1 ). Obviously B' � E, and
= =

B' � Mm(D�PP), we need only show that dim B kn/m. But this is clear, since
= equality must hold, since for each x E B', E(x) is a subfield of D containing E.
Thus B' = B E, and (7. 1 3) becomes
=

dim B k2 do/d k · (kdo/d) k . (n/m).


(E : K)2 (D : K),
= = =

D ® E � Hom i V, V) � Mr(E),
K
=

For the second part of the corollary, we observe that B is a central simple
K-algebra, and thus B ® B' is simple. Therefore the algebra homomorphism where r = (V: E). But
B ® K B' � B ' B' c A r2 (D ® K E : E) (D : K) = (E : K) 2 ,
= =

so r = (E: K), and (i) is proved.


must be monic. Comparison of dimensions then shows that B ® B' � A, (ii) We use induction on (D : K), and let (D : K) n > 1, the result being
=

and the corollary is established. trivial when n 1. It clearly suffices to handle the case where char K p =I: O.
= =

Let us show first that D contains a separable extension E of K, with E =f K.


Now let A Mn(D) be a central simple K-algebra, where D is a skewfield For each X E D - K we have K < K(x) ; call x purely inseparable over K
if min. pol. K x is of the form Xpe - a for some a E K. If x is not purely
=

with center K. We say that an extension field E of K splits A, or is a splitting


field for A, if inseparable, then
98 SEMISIMPLE RINGS AND SIMPLE ALGEBRAS (7. 1 6) (7. 1 7) SEPARABLE ALGEBRAS 99

min. pol.K X = f (Xpe) suffices to prove the result when A is a central simple E-algebra. We may
write L � K[ X] /(f(X)� where f(X) is an irreducible separable polynomial
for some separable polynomial f (X) E K[X]. In this case, we need only in K [X]. Let f (X) IIJ;(X) be the factorization of f(X) into irreducible
=

choose E = K(xpe). So now suppose that each X E D - K is purely inseparable polynomials in E[X]. Since f(X) is separable, the {h (Xn are distinct, and
over K. Then for each x E D, min. pol. KX is of the form Xpe - a, a E K, therefore
e � O. We note that p i n, since n is a multiple of (K(x) : K) for each X E D - K. "
Choose F to be any maximal subfield of D, so by (i) there is an isomorphism L@ K E � E[XJ/(f(X)) � I E[X] /( h(X)) .
of F -alge bras Setting Fi = E[X] /(h (X)), we see that each Fi is a field containing E.
fl : F @K D � Mr(F) for some r. Therefore

Then [fl(1 @ x)]pe fl(1 @ xp e) a . In ' whence all of the characteristic


= =
L @K A � (L @ K E) @ E A � I" Fi @ E A.
roots of fl(1 @ x) are equal, and thus (since p i n) Tr fl(1 @ x) O. This =
But now each Fi @ E A is a central simple F(algebra by (7.8), whence L @ K A
holds for each X E D. But the matrices {fl(1 @ x): x E D} form an F basis for-
is a semisimple E-algebra, as claimed.
Mr�F). Hence every matrix in Mr(F) has zero trace, which is impossible.
ThIs completes the proof that there exists a field E such that K < E c D' (7. 1 7) COROLLARY. Let A be a finite dimensional E-algebra, where E =:l K,
E separable over K. and let L be a finite separable extension of K. Then
Continuing with the proof, we let
rad (L @ K A) = L @ K rad A.
D' = { a E D : ax = xa for all a E E},
Proof Let N rad A. Then L @ N is a nilpotent ideal of L @ A, hence lies in
=

rad (L @ A). On the other hand,


�he centralizer of E in D. Then D' is a sub-skewfield of D, and we claim that E
IS the :enter of D'. By (7. 1 1 ), E is the centralizer of D' in D. Any x E (D')C L @ (A/ N) � (L @ A)/(L @ N),
centralIzes D', hence lies in E. This proves that (D'Y c E' and the reverse
inclusion is obvious, because D' centralizes E. and L @ (A/N) is semisimple by (7. 1 6). Hence L @ N ::J rad (L @ A), by
We �ave th �s obtained a central simple E-algebra D', and (D' : E) < (D : K). Exercise 6.4. Thus L @ N rad (L @ A), as claimed.
=

By the mductIOn hypothesis, there is a maximal subfield L of D' such that L


is separ��le over E. Since E is separable over K, it follows (by transitivity of 7c Separable algebras
.
separabIlIty) that L IS separable over K. Finally, we show that L is a maximal
subfield of D. If not, then there exists an X E D - L centralizing L. Then x Throughout this section, let K, E, L denote fields, D and D' skewfields,
centralizes E, so x E D', and then L < L(x) C D', so L(x) is a subfield of D' and A, B finite dimensional K-algebras. If L is a finite extension of K, the
properly containing L. This is impossible, and therefore L must be a maximal assumption that L be separable over K has many important consequences
subfield of D, as desired. This completes the proof of the theorem. (see (4.7), (7. 1 6) and (7. 1 7), for example). There is a more general concept of
separability for K-algebras, and in this section we shall present this definition
To conclude this subsection, we present a basic result concerning the and some of its consequences. Indeed, one can even define separability of
behavior of K-algebras under separable extensions of the ground field : R-algebras, wnere R is a commutative ring (see for instance DeMeyer­
Ingraham [ I ] or Exercise 7.9).
(7. 1 6) THEOREM . Let L be a finite separable field extension of K, and let A be a The most direct definition of separability is as follows : a separable K­
finite dimensional semisimple E-algebra, where E is any field containing K algebra is a finite dimensional semisimple K-algebra A, such that the center
(possibly (E : K) is infinite). Then L@ K A is also a finite dimensional semisimple of each simple component of A is a separable field extension of K. Note that
E-algebra. separability is not an intrinsic property of A, but depends on the choice of
ground field. If (K : E) is finite and A is K-separable, then A will be E-separable
Proof It is clear that L @ K A is an E-algebra of dimension (L : K)(A : E). It precisely when K is separable over E.
101
100 SEMISIMPLE RINGS AND SIMPLE ALGEBRAS (7. 1 8) (7. 1 9) SEPARABLE ALGEBRAS

(7. 1 8) THEOREM. Let A be a finite dimensional K -algebra. The following state­ (a) rad A =1= 0 , or
ments are equivalent : (b) A is semisimple, but sorp.e Ki is inseparable over K, (using the notation
(i) A is a separable K-algebra. of the first part of the pro()f).
In case (a), (iii) is false Gust pick F = K !). In case (b), Ki contains an element
(ii) There exists a finite separable field extension E of K such that E ® K A
is a direct sum of full matrix algebras over E. y such that
1
(iii) For every field F ::) K, F ® K A is semisimple . min. pol.K y = (XP)" + cc 1 (XP)" - + . . . + ccn E K[ X],
l
where char K p =1= O. Choose F to be the field K(cc//P , , ccn /p), and
=
• • • let
Proof. Let A be a separable K-algebra with simple components B 1 , . . . , Bt ,
1
and let Ki be the center of Bi ' so Ki is separable over K, 1 � i � t. For each z =
1 ® yn + CC 1 1 /P ® y n - 1 + . . . + ccn / P ® 1 E F ®K Ki .
i, by (7. 1 5) we may choose a separable finite extension field E.I of K I. which .
splits Bi ' say Then z =1= 0, since { l , y, . . . , yn} are K-linearly independent elements of Ki
Further, n
Ei ® K i Bi � Mri (E i)· zP = 1 ® ypn + cc1 ® yp ( - 1 ) + . . . + ccn ® 1 =
O.

Let us set Ki � K[ XJj(J;(X)), where J;(X) is a separable polynomial over K, Thus F ® K Ki contains a nonzero nilpotent element z. Since
and le� E; be the splitting field of J;(X) over K. Then E; is a finite separable F ® K Bi � (F ®K Ki) ® K i Bi '
extensIOn of K for each i. By Exercise 7.6, we can find a finite separable
exte �sion E of K �hich contains the fields E 1 , . " , Ep E� , . . . , E� (or, more it follows that z ® 1 is a nonzero nilpotent element in the center of F ® K Bi '
.
precIsely, E contams K-Isomorphic copies of the {EJ and {EJ). Therefore and thus generates a nonzero nilpotent ideal in F ® K Bi . Therefore neither
F ® K Bi nor F ® K A can be semisimple. This completes the proof of the
E ®K Ki � E[X]/(J;(X)) � L 'E, theorem.
where the number of summands on the right equals the degree of f(X).
I
We then have E ® K A (7. 1 9) COROLLARY. If A and B are separable K-algebras, so is A ® K B.
L 'E ® K Bp and
=

E ® K B" � (E ® K K .) ®Ki B.l


I
� "
L.. ' E ® Ki B I. Proof. Choose fields F, F' containing K such that
� L 'E ® E i (EI· ® K l. B l.) � " ' M r i(E).
"' E ® E . Mr I. (E l.). � L...
F' ® K B � Ms (F'),
L... 1

This shows that (i) implies (ii). and then choose a field E containing both F and F' (Exercise 7.6). Then
To prove that (ii) implies (iii), suppose that
E ®K A � L ' Mri (E),
and so by (7.7)
and let F ::) K. By Exercise 7.6, we may find a field L containing both E and Mrs (E).
E ®K (A ® K B) � (E ® K A) ® E (E ®K B) �
F, and then
L ®K A � L ® E (E ®K A) � L' Mr i (L). Thus A ® K B is separable over K, as claimed.
On the other hand,
Let AO denote the opposite ring of A, that is, AO = {xo : x E A}, with
L ®K A � L ® F (F ®K A). x, Y E A.
If F ® K A were not semisimple, it would contain a nonzero nilpotent ideal
�, and then L �F .N. would. be a nonzero nilpotent ideal in the semisimple Then A and AO have the same center. We set
nng L ® K A. ThIS IS ImpossIble, and so F ® K A is semisimple, as claimed. Ae = A ®K Ao,
Finally, we show that (iii) implies (i), by proving that if (i) is false' then so a finite dimensional K-algebra called the enveloping algebra of A. We may
is (iii). If (i) is false, then either
102 SEMI SIMPLE RINGS AND SIMPLE ALGEBRAS (7.20) (7.21) SKOLEM-NOETHER THEOREM 103
view A as a left Ae-module, by means of the formula Let n: M ---+- a K -projection of M onto N, so n2 = n. We set
N be
x, a E A, n' v'(l) · n L xinYi
= = .

(Indeed, every two-sided A-A-bimodule can be viewed as a left Ae-modu1e.) Since n = 1 on N, for each n E N we have
There is a left A e-epimorphism
n'( n) L x in(yin) = L x iyin = n,
=

fl : Ae A, ---+-
whence (n')2 n'. Finally, for b E B we have
=

defined by setting f1(x ® yO) xy. Clearly A is a projective left Ae-module


bn' (b ® 1) . v'(l )n v '((b ® 1) · 1)n
=

if and only if there exists a map v E Hom (A, A e) such that fl · v 1 . It is


A
e =
= =

obvious that such a map v exists if and only if for each K-basis { X l ' . . . xn }
'
= v'((l ® bO) . l)n = (1 ® bO )n' n'b. =

of A, there exist elements {yJ of A such that


Thus n' is a B-homomorphism, whence N is a B-direct summand of M as
(i) L XiYi 1 , and
=
claimed, and the theorem is proved.
(ii) For each a E A, if axi L rJ.ij Xj , 1 � i � n, with the {rJ.ij } E K, then
=

yi a = L rJ.ji Yj , 1 � i � n. 7d Skolem-Noether Theorem


Throughout this subsection, A denotes a central simple K-algebra. Each
Indeed, once v is given, we set v(l) L Xi ® y� ; condition (i) asserts that invertible element a E A determines an inner automorphism of A, given by
i= 1
=

fl · V = 1, while (ii) asserts that v is an Ae-homomorphism. Conversely, given X axa - 1 , X E A, and this automorphism fixes each element of K. The
---+-

a K-basis {x J of A, and given elements {y J E A satisfying (i) and (ii), we Skolem-Noether Theorem, to be proved below, asserts the converse : every
need only set v(a) a · L Xi ® y�, a E A.
=
algebra automorphism of A fixing each element of K must be an inner
automorphism. We shall prove a slightly more general version of this result,
(7.20) THEOREM. Let A be a finite dimensional K-algebra. Then A is a separable namely :
K-algebra if and only if A is Ae-projective.
(7. 21) Theorem. (Skolem-Noether). Let K B A, where B is a simple
subring of the central simple K-algebra A. Then every K-isomorphism qJ of B
c c

Proof. If A is K-separable, so is AO, and thus Ae is K-separable by (7.19). In


particular, then, Ae is semisimple, and so every Ae-module is projective. onto a subalgebra .8 of A extends to an inner automorphism of A, that is, there
Conversely, suppose that A is Ae-projective. We shall prove that A is K­ exists an invertible a E A such that
separable by showing that B F ® K A is semisimple for each field F ::::> K.
=

We have
Be = B ® F Bo (F ® K A) ® F (F ® AO)
=
Proof. Let ® stand for ® K throughout this proof, and let us use the notation
� F ® K (A ® K AO) F ® K Ae. = introduced in the first paragraph of the proof of (7. 1 1). We have seen there
Let fl' = 1 ® fl : F ® K Ae F ® K A, and likewise let v' 1 ® v . Then v' that a simple left A-module V is a left D ® B-modu1e, under the action
E V.
---+- =

is a Be-homomorphism such that fl' . v' 1 ; let us set


= (d ® b)v = d . b . v, V

In the same way, we may view V as left D ® .8 module.


so L XiYi = 1 . We now make use of the structure of V as left D ® .8-module, together
In order to prove that B is semisimp1e, we show that if N M are left
c
with the K-algebra isomorphism
1 ® qJ : D ® B � D ® .8,
B-modules, then N is a direct summand of M. We may view HomK (M, M) as .
to define an action (denoted by ) of D ® B on V. We then obtain a left
a B-B-bimodule, hence as a left Be-module, with
*
x , Y E B, D ® B-modu1e V, having the same elements as V, but with the action of
104 SEMI SIMPLE RINGS AND SIMPLE ALGEBRAS (7.22) EXERCISES 1 05
D ® B on 11 given by EXERCISES
(d ® b) * v = d · q>(b) . v, v E V. 1 . Prove Schur's Lemma : if M is a simple left A-module, then Hom A(M, M ) is a
skewfield. [Hint : For each nonzero IE HomA{M, M), both ker I and im I are sub­
modules of M, and so ker I 0, im I = M.]
Then V and V are a pair of left modules over the simple artinian ring D ® B,
k
=

and have the same K-dimension. It follows at once that there is a left
2. Let V(k) be the direct sum of copies of the left A-module V, and let E
D ® B-isomorphism e : V � V. In other words, there is an isomorphism =

HomA(V, V). Prove that


e E HomK (V, V) such that
Hom A( V(k), V(k)) � M {E).
(7.22) e (d · b . v) (d ® b) * e(v) d q>(b) . e(v),
= = .v E V. k
2a. Let M be a finitely generated left A-module, where A is a simple artinian ring.
Taking b 1, it follows that e E HomD (V, V) = A, so e is given by a left
= Show that HomA(M, M) is also a simple artinian ring. [Hint : Write M � V(k), where
multiplication by an element a E A. Since e is an isomorphism, a is invertible. V is a simple left A-module. Then use the preceding exercises and (7. 3).]
Formula (7.22) becomes 2b. Prove that the result in Exercise 2a remains valid when "simple" is replaced
by "semisimple".
a . (d . b 'v) d · q>(b) . av,
= V E V. t

3. Let A be a ring direct sum L: " B i , where each Bi is a ring having no two-sided
If we put d 1, and remember that A acts faithfully on V, we may conclude i= 1
ideals except 0 and B i . Show that every two-sided ideal J of A is a sub sum L:" B iv '
=

that
[Hint : J . B i = 0 or B i for each i, and J L:" JB i .]
a·b q>(b) ' a,
=

= b E B,
4. Let L be a minimal left ideal of the simple left artinian ring A, and let D
which proves the theorem.
=

HomA (L, L). Show that A = HomD (L, L). Using "Exercises 1 and 2, prove that D is a
skewfield, and that A � Mn(DO), where n is the dimension of L as left D-space. [Hint :
(7.23) COROLLARY. (i) Every K-automorphism of A is inner. This is the harder part of the Wedderburn Structure Theorem (7.4). The following
(ii) Any two K-isomorphic subfields L and E of A are conjugate, that is, quick proof is due to Milnor [ 1 ] . Since L · A is a two-sided ideal of A, we have
E = aLa- 1 for some invertible a E A. L · A = A . Let

(7.24) Theorem" (Wedderburn). Every finite skewfield is a field. i= 1


with m minimal. There is a left A -epimorphism Jjm) - A, given by (X l " ' " Xm ) _
L: x i ai . The map is monic, since if L: xiai = 0 with (say) X l =1= 0, then AXl = L implies
m
Proof. Let D be a finite skewfield with center K, and let D* D - {O}, =

K* = K {O}. 1f L is a maximal subfield of D, then (D : K) n 2 , (L : K) n.


- = =
1
Any other maximal subfield E is a finite field, and (E : K) n, so card L
+ ... +
= = that
card E. Thus E is K-isomorphic to L, whence by (7.23) E is conjugate to L. La l = Axl a l C Lam '
La 2
Since every X E D lies in a subfield K(x) of D, and hence in some maximal contradicting the minimality of m. Thus A � Jjm) as left A-modules, whence
subfield, we conclude that
AO � HomA (A, A) � HomA(Jj m), Jjm») � Mm {D),
(7.25)
so A � Mm{DO). Note that m = n . ]
5. Let A be a semisimple finite dimensional K-algebra, and let E be a separable
where a ranges over some set of invertible elements of D . But for x E L*,
(ax)L* (ax) - l aL*a- 1 , =
algebraic extension field of K, that is, for each field L with K c L e E, (L : K) finite,
the extension L/K is separable. Prove that E ® K A is semisimple. [Hint : Let N =

so in (7.25) it suffices to let a range over the left coset representatives of L* in rad (E ® K A ). For each L, N n (L ® K A) is a nilpotent ideal of L ® K A, hence is zero.
D*. Hence there are (D* : L*) sets {aL*a- 1 } occurring in (7.25), each of cardi­ But each x E N lies in some L ® K A.]
nality card L* ; these sets are not disjoint, since each contains 1: Thus D* 6. Let L 1 '
• . ., Ln be a set of field extensions of K. Show that there exists a field 0
cannot be their union, unless there is only one such set, that is, D* = L* . containing K, for which there exist K-isomorphisms I-li : Li - 0, 1 � i � n. Further,
Thus D L K, as desired.
= = if each (Li : K) is finite, the field 0 may be chosen so that (0 : K) is finite. If in addition
106 SEMI SIMPLE RINGS AND SIMPLE ALGEBRAS EXERCISES 1 07

each Lj is separable over K, then 0 may be chosen finite separable over K. [Hint : U E A, by Exercise 1 1 . But every maximal left ideal of A is of the form A(1 - e) for
Let A L 1 ®K ' " ®K Ln , a commutative K-algebra. By Zorn's Lemma, A has a some primitive idempotent e.]
maximal ideal M. Set 0
=

AIM, a field containing K, and define Jlj by composition


=
1 3. Let A be a separable K-algebra, L any extension field of K. Show that L ®K A
of maps : Lj A O. If each (Lj : K) is finite, so is (0 : K). If each Lj is finite separable
-+ -+
is a separable L-a1gebra. [Hint : For any field F => L, we have
over K, then by (7. 19) A is a direct sum of fields O ' each of which is a finite separable
J � F
extension of K, and we may pick 0 to be any Or ] F ®L (L ®K A) ®K A ,
7. Let A be a separable K-algebra, B any semisimple finite dimensional K-algebra. and the latter is semisimple by (7. 1 8).]
Prove that A ®K B is semisimple. [Hint : We may assume that both A and B are simple, 1 4. Let the separable K-algebra A have simple components { AI } ' and let Kj be the
and set L Ae, E Be. As in the proof of (7. 1 6), we have L ®K E � L' Fj ' since L
= = center of A I. . Let F be a field containing K, where possibly (F : K) is infinite. Prove that
is separable over K, where each F j is a field containing K-isomorphic copies of L and there is an F -algebra isomorphism
E. Hence
F ®K A � L' L ' Fjj ®Kj A p
A ®K B � A ®L (L ®K E) ®E B � L' (A ®L F j ) ®E B . I j
where
But A ®L Fj is a central simple Fj-algebra, and B is a central simple E-algebra, so where each F . is a field containing K-isomorphic copies of K I and F, and
each summand (A ®L F j ) ®E B is simple by (7.6).] �
(Fij : F) is finit . Show that each summand Fjj ®K j Aj is a central simple Fj[ a1gebra.
[Hint : We have
8. Let G {g 1 , gn } be a finite group of order n, and let K be a field. Show that the

= ' . • .

group algebra KG is a separable K-algebra ifand only if char K t n. [Hint : If char K i n, F ®K A L' (F ®K K j ) ®Kj A j •
I
L gj is a nilpotent element in the center of KG, so KG is not semisimple. If
11

then
(7. 1 6), hence
1 Since K.IK is finite separable, the F-a1gebra F ®K K j is semisimple by
char K t n, set A KG, and define v : A ®K A o
A Ae by is expre�sible as a direct sum of fields F ' Each F i} contains K-isomor phic copies of
i}
= -+ =

v(l ) =
1
n - L 9j ® gj- l, F ® 1 and 1 ® Kj .]
j
v(a) = a ' v( I ), a E A. Show that v is an Ae-homomorphism such that JlV = 1, where
J,l : Ae -+ A is as in § 7c.]
9. Let A be an R-algebra, where R is a commutative ring. Call A R-separable if
A is Ae-projective, where Ae A ® R A Show that if A is R-separable, then every
= o.

R-projective A-module is A-projective. [Hint : Imitate the proof of (7.20)].


t o. Let R be a commutative ring, G a group of order n. Show that RG is R-separable
if n is a unit in R.
1 1 . Let e, e' be idempotents in the simple artinian ring A, such that Ae � Ae' as
left A-modules. Show that there exists a unit U E A such that e' ueu- 1 . [Hint : Let =

A = HomD ( V, V), where V is a right vector space over the skewfield D. Since
V = e V EB (I e) V is a D-decomposition of V, then relative to a suitable D-basis
-

of V, e is represented by a diagonal matrix diag (1, . . . , 1 , 0, . . . , 0). The same holds for
e', with the same number of I 's, since Ae � A e . If U E A gives a suitable change of
'

D-bases of V, then e' ueu - 1 ] = .

1 2. If e is a primitive idempotent of the simple artinian ring A, show that Ae is a


minimal left ideal of A, and A(I e) a maximal left ideal. Further, let Ax be a maximal
-

left ideal of A. Show that xA is a maximal right ideal. Prove that if Ax and Ay are
any pair of maximal left ideals in A, then U · Ax ' u - 1 Ay for some unit u E A. =

[Hint : Let Ax be maximal, and write A Ae EB Ax with e a primitive idempotent.


e + ax, a E A. Then A
=

Set 1 = eA EB axA, so axA is a maximal left ideal. But axA


=

is a homomorphic image of xA, and x A =1= A, whence xA is also a maximal right ideal.
Further, if e and e' are primitive idempotents of A, then e' ueu - 1 for some unit =
(8. 1 ) DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES 109
Then RG = { 2:: axx : ax E R} is an R-order in A.
xeG
From example (ii) it is evident that the study of orders includes as a special
case the classical subject of algebraic number theory. On the other hand, in
dealing with representations of a finite group G by means of matrices with
entries in a domain R, one of the first steps is to pass from matrix theory to
2. Orders the study of RG-modules (see Curtis-Reiner [1] ), so as to be able to take
advantage of the ring structure of RG. Thus the study of orders also includes
Throughout this chapter let R denote a noetherian integral domain with the theory of integral representations of finite groups.
quotient field K, and let A be a finite dimensional K-algebra. Our aim here Let us show at once that every K-algebra A contains R-orders. Let M be
is to define orders, and to develop some of their basic properties. In later any full R-Iattice in A; such M 's exist, and indeed if A = 2:: . KXi ' then
chapters we shall concentrate on maximal orders. Usually R will be a Dede­ 2:: . RXi is a full R-Iattice in A. We define the left order of M as
kind domain, or at the very least, an integrally closed domain (see (1.12)), but
occasionally theorems will be stated for the general situation in which R is (8 .1) 0 z (M) = { x E A : xM e M} .
only assumed to be noetherian. Clearly O/(M) is a subring of A, and is an R-module. Let us verify that
0z(M) is a full R-Iattice in A. For each Y E A, yM is an R-Iattice in A, and so
8. DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES by §4 there exists a nonzero r E R such that r yM c M. Thus ry E 0z(M),
.

which proves that K · 0z (M) = A. Next, there exists a nonzero S E R such


For any finite dimensional K-space V, a full R-lattice in V is a finitely that S · 1 R E M. Therefore 0z(M) ' (s ' 1 R ) c M, whence 0/(M) c s - 1 M.
generated R-submodule M in V such that K . M V, where =
Since R is noetherian and s - lM is an R-Iattice, the above implies that
0z(M) is also an R-Iattice. This completes the proof that 0z (M) is an R-order
in A. Likewise, the right order

An R-order in the K-algebra A is a subring A of A, having the same unity (8.2) 0 r (M) = {x E A : Mx c M}
element as A, and such that A is a full R-Iattice in A. Note that A is both left is an R-order in A.
and right noetherian, since A is finitely generated over the noetherian For a full R-Iattice M in A, and an R-order r in A such that r · M c M,
domain R. let us compute Homr(M, M). Each q; E Homr(M, M) extends uniquely to
Let us give some examples of orders : an element of HomA(KM, KM� hence is given by a right multiplication by
(i) If A = Mn(K), �he algebra of all n x n matrices over K, then A Mn(R). = an element of 0r(M). Thus we have an identification
is an R-order in A.
(ii) Let R be a Dedekind domain, and let L be a finite separable extension (8.3)
of K. Denote by S the integral closure of R in L. Then S is an R-order in L where M is a left r -module. Note that Homr (M, M) does not depend on the
(see (4.7)). In particular, taking R Z, we see that alg. int. {L} is a Z-order
=
choice of the R-order r in A.
in L. Now let R' be an integral domain containing R, with quotient field K'.
(iii) Let a E A be integral over R, that is, a is a zero of a monic polynomia l Then R' ® R M is a full R'-lattice in the K'-algebra K' ® K A. Since M is
over R. Then the ring R[a] is an R-order in the K-algebra K[aJ . finitely generated over the noetherian ring r, we have by (2.39)
(iv) Let G be a finite group, and let A = KG be its group algebra over K,
that is, KG consists of all formal sums 2:: ax ' x, rJ..;c E K, with R' ® R Homr(M, M) � Hom R'@ R r (R' ® R M, R' ® R M),
xeG provided that R' is R-flat. It then follows from (8 .3) that there is a ring iso­
( 2:: ax ' x) + (2:: f3x ' x) = 2:: (ax + f3 J ' x, morphism
(2:: ax . x) ( 2:: f3 y . y)
xI
= axf3 y ' (x y). (8.4)
,y
108
1 10 ORDERS (8.5) (8.8) DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES 111
This holds in particular if R' is any ring of quotients of R. Hence it follows that A' is a ring containing R. Further, the map A -+ E). , A E A',
embeds A' in the R-Iattice r', and hence A' is also an R-Iattice.
(8.5) The above shows that A' is an R-order in A. Therefore A' A, since A is
=

for each prime ideal P of R. Here, the subscript P indicates localization at maximal. Hence every entry of every matrix in r' lies in A, whence r' c r.
P (see § 3d). This shows that r r', and proves that r is a maximal order. If R is integrally
=

The following result is fundamental : closed, then R is a maximal R-order in K, so the second assertion in the
theorem is the special case of the first assertion, in which A = K, A R. =

(8.6) THEOREM. Every element of an R-order A is integral over R. Furthermore,


if R is integrally closed, then for each a E A we have We shall see in §§ 17-18 that under suitable hypotheses on R and A, the
converse of (8.7) is true : every maximal R-order in Mn (A) is of the form Mn (A)
min. po1. K a E R[ X], char. pol. A/K a E R[ X]. for some maximal R-order A in A.
To conclude this section, let us consider the situat�on where an integral
Proof. For each a E A, it follows from the inclusion R[a] c A that R[a] is domain R is contained in a larger integral domain R' having the same
a finitely generated R-module, so a is integral over R by (1.10). If we assume quotient field as R. For convenience, we treat only the case where R is a
in addition that R is integrally closed, the remaining assertions are con­ Dedekind domain. We shall show that every R' -order A' comes from an
sequences of (1.14) and Exercise 1 . 1 . R-order A by extension of the ground ring from R to R', and that likewise
A maximal R-order in A is an R-order which is not properly contained in
every A' -lattice comes from some A-lattice.
any other R-order in A. If the integral closure Rei of R in A happens to be an (8.8) THEOREM. Let R be a Dedekind ring with quotient field K, and Let R' be
R-order in A, then by (8'.6) Rei is automatically the unique maximal R-order an integral domain such that R c R' c K. Then
in A. However, most of the time Rei is not a ring; furthermore, even in the (i) Every R'-lattice M' contains an R-Iattice M such that M' R'M.
=

case where A is commutative, so that Rei is a ring by (1.1 1), it may happen (ii) Every R'-order A' (in a finite dimensional K-algebra A) contains an
that Rei is not an R-Iattice. Thus, in example (ii) of maximal orders given R-order A in A, such that A' R'A.
=

above, if we drop the hypothesis of separability of L over K, then S need not (iii) Let A' R' A, as in (ii). Then every left A'-lattice M' contains a left
=

be finitely generated as R-module (see Artin [1]); in this case, there are no A-lattice M such that M' A'M R'M.
= =

maximal R-orders in L.
By way of reassurance, as well as for later use, we now prove
Proof. It is clear that K is the quotient field of R'. The domain R' is also a
Dedekind domain (see references listed in §4), though we shall not require
(8.7) THEOREM. If A is a maximal R-order in A, then for each n, Mn (A) is a
this fact here. To prove (i), we note that any R'-lattice M' can be written as a
sum
maximal R-order in Mn( A). If R is integrally closed, then Mn (R) is a maximal s

R-order in Mn (K). M' I R'mi ,


=

i= 1

Set M I Rmi ; then M is an R -lattice in M' such that R'M M', as desired.
As usual, we identify an R-Iattice M with its image 1 ® M in K ® R M,
Proof. Let B Mn (A), r Mn (A), where A is a maximal R-order in A.
= =
= =

Clearly r is an R-order in B. Let r c r', where r' is an R-order in B, and


let A' be the set of all those elements of A which occur as some entry of some and denote the latter by KM. We may then compute the R'-module R'M
matrix in r'. Obviously A c A' c A, and we shall show that A' is an R-order in KM. Let us show that
in A. Let A E A' occur in the (r, s)-position of a matrix X E r'. We can find (8.9) R' ® R M � R'M c KM.
permutation matrices P 1 , P2 E r such that A occurs in the (1,l)-position of Indeed, the above R'-isomorphism holds when M = R, and hence by (2. 17)
P 1 XP2 E r'. Let E). diag (A, 0, . . . , 0) E Mn (A). Then
=
it also holds true for every projective R-module. Since R is a Dedekind
E). E 1 P 1 XP 2 E 1 E r' for all A E A'.
= domain, by (4. 1 3) every R-lattice is R-projective. This proves (8.9), and we
Since may hereafter identify R' ® R M with R'M, by means of the map (J. ® m -+ rxm,
rx E R', m E M.
1 12 (8.9) 1 13

{
ORDERS (9. 1 ) REDUCED NORMS AND TRACES

In order to apply the "Change of Rings" Theorem (2.37), we shall need to T(ab) = T(ba), T(a + b) = T(a) + T(b), T(ra) = rT(a) ,
know that R' is R-flat. If X is any finitely generated R-submodule of R', then (9. 1)
N(ab) = N(a) N(b), N(ra) = rm N(a),
X is an R-Iattice. Therefore X is R-projective, and hence X is R-flat by (2. 1 6).
This shows that every finitely generated R-submodule of R' is R-flat, whence for a, b E A, r E K.
also R' is R-flat by (2. 19). The above definitions make no use of the assumption that A is a central
Now let !\' be an R' -order in A. By (i), we may choose an R-Iattice L in simple algebra. For central simple algebras, it is possible to introduce more
A' such that A' = R'L. We set useful concepts, namely those of reduced characteristic polynomial, reduced
norm and reduced trace. We proceed to show how this may be done.
A = 0r(L) = {x E A : Lx c L}, Since A is a simple algebra with center K, there exists by § 7b an extension
Then A and r are R-orders in A, and there is an identification A =
field E of K which splits A. This means that there is an isomorphism of
Homr(L, L), where L is viewed as left r-module. By (2.37) we obtain E-algebras

R'A R' ®R A = HomR T (R'L, R'L) = HomR T (A', A') = O/A')


= = A'. (9.2)
l
Therefore R' A = A', and (ii) is proved. If g is another such isomorphism, then h · g - is an E-automorphism of
Finally, any left A' -lattice M' may be written as Mn(E). Each such automorphism is inner, by (7.23), and so there exists an
invertible t E M n(E) such that
s

M' = I A' m i , h(u) = t · g(u) . C 1, U E E ® K A.


i= 1
Consequently the matrices g(u) and h(u) have the same characteristic poly­
Then M I Ami is a left A-lattice in M' such that M' = A'M. Furthermore,
=

R'M = R'(AM) = A'M. This completes the proof of the theorem. nomial. This show that char. pol. h(u) does not depend on the choice of
the E-isomorphism h in (9.2).
For a E A, define its reduced characteristic polynomial as
EXERCISE
red. char. pol.AIK a = char. pol. h(l ® a).
Let R be a noetherian integrally closed domain with quotient field K, and let
1.
A be a finite dimensional K-algebra. Let r be a subring of A containing R, and We shall omit the subscript AjK when there is no danger of confusion.
suppose that r is a finitely generated R-module. Show that r is contained in an
R-order in A. [Hint : if M is any full R-Iattice in A, then so is M · r, and r c 0 r(M . n.] (9.3) THEOREM. For each a E A, red. char. pol.A /K a lies in K[X], and is indepen­
dent of the choice of the splitting field E of A used to define red. char. pol.
9. REDUCED NORMS AND TRACES Proof. Let us show first that if F => K is another splitting field for A, then
red. char. pol. obtained using F is the same as that obtained by using E.
9a Central simple algebras By Exercise 7.6, there exists K-embeddings E � a, F � a, where Q is some
Throughout this subsection, let A denote a central simple K-algebra, field containing K. It suffices to prove that red. char. pol. via E is the same
that is, a simple K-algebra with center K, such that (A : K) is finite. We have as red. char. pol. via Q. We have an a-algebra isomorphism
seen in § la how to assign to each a E K a characteristic polynomial, norm and
I ® h : Q ® E (E ® K A ) � a ® E Mn (E).
trace, as follows : let aL E HomK (A, A) be left multiplication by a on A, and
set After canonical identifications, we may rewrite the above a-isomorphism
char. pol.AIK a char. pol. of a L
=
as (say)
-l h' : Q ®K A � Mn(a),
=
xm - (TAlK a) xm + . . . + ( - It NAIK a,
where m (A : K). Here T TAlK is the trace map, and N = NAIK the norm
= = so Q is also a splitting field for A. Any element u E E ® K A may also be viewed
map. For any X, Y E M (K) we know that trace (X Y) = trace ( YX). Therefore as element of a ® K A. When this is done, h'(u) is precisely the matrix h(u)
m
1 14 ORDERS (9.4) (9.5) REDUCED NORMS AND TRACES 1 15
viewed as element of Mn(O). Consequently Clearly A has center Q , and E Q(i) is a maximal subfield of A, hence is a
=

char. pol. h(u) = char. pol. h'(u), splitting field for A. Each a E A is uniquely expressible as

This holds in particular when u = I ® a, a E A, and so red. char. pol. A /K a a = a + /3j, a, /3 E E.


is the same when computed via E as via O. This completes the proof that There is an E-isomorphism
red . char. pol. does not depend on the choice of splitting field.
In order to prove that red. char. pol. a E K[X] for a E A, we observe that
by (7. 1 5) we may find a finite separable extension E of K which splits A. given by
Since any extension field of E also splits A, we may in fact take E to be a
finite galois extension of K. Let G be the galois group of E over K ; then each
(J E G is a K-automorphism of E, and K is the subfield of E fixed by G. To
clarify the following argument, we start with any K-isomorphism f : E � E' where bars denote complex conjugation. Therefore
of fields containing K, and later on we will choose E' = E, and f = (J E G.
Consider the diagram red. char. pol. A /Q a = char. pol. ( p �)
- ( - )
_

f® 1
E ®K A E' �K A X � a /3
= det
i -
I

h h' i . f3 X - &.
Y
f* = X2 - (a + &')X + (a&. /3,8) E Q [X].
Mn(E) Mn(E') . +

Here, h is the E-isomorphism in (9.2), and f* takes a matrix in M n(E) onto Hence (see (9.6a) below
a matrix in MneE') by applying f to each of its entries. The map hi is then tr A /Q a = a + &.,
defined by requiring the diagram to be commutative. Then h' is an isomor­
phism of E'-algebras, since h is an E-isomorphism. Hence for a E A, Returning to the general case, we have
f*{ h( l ® a)} = { h '(f ® In (1 ® a) = h'(1 ® a). (9.5) THEOREM. If (A : K) = n2, then
Therefore char. pol. A / K a = {red. char. pol. A/ K a } n, a E A.
red. char. pol. a (via E') = char. pol. h' ( l ® a)
Proof. Let E K split A, so E ® K A � Mn(E). By Exercise 1 .2,
:::>

= char. pol. f* { h( I ® a)}


char. pol. A /K a = char. pol. E®A /E 1 ® a, a E A,
= f {char. pol. h(l ® an
f {red. char. pol. a (via En, where ® denotes ® K By (7.3) there is a left E ® A-isomorphism E ® A �

v(n), where V is a minimal left ideal of E ® A. Hence


=

where f is applied to a polynomial in E[ X] by acting on each of its coefficients.


N ow let E' = E, and let f range over all elements of G . Then the above char. pol. E ® A/ E 1 ® a = f(x)n,
shows that for a E A, each coefficient in red. char. pol. a is fixed by f. There­ where f(X) is the characteristic polynomial of the matrix (l ® a)L which
fore each coefficient lies in K, and so red. char. pol. a E K[X], as claimed: describes the action of 1 ® a on some E-basis of V. On the other hand, the
This completes the proof. E-isomorphism in (9.2) can be obtained by mapping each Y E E ® A onto
the matrix YL giving the action of Y on some E-basis of V, and thus
(9.4) Example. Let A Q EB Q i ffi Qj ffi Q k be the skewfield of quaternions

=
=

over Q, where char. pol. h(y) = char. pol. YL ' Y E E ® A.


k = ij = -ji. Taking Y 1 ® a with a E A, we obtain
1 16 ORDERS (9.6) (9. 1 0) REDUCED NORMS AND TRACES 117
(9.6) red. char. pol. A/K a = char. pol. h(l (8) a) Since T' is symmetric, B is a two-sided ideal in the ring Mn(E). But B does
= char. pol. (1 (8) a)L ' not contain the identity matrix In , and thus B = O. Hence T' is nondegenerate,
whence so is T. This completes the proof.
Hence char. pol. A /K a = f(X)", as desired.
Let us write If char K divides n, it follows from (9.7) that the ordinary trace map TAlK
is the zero map. Hence in this case it is essential to use the reduced trace,
(9.6a) red. char. pol.A IK a = xn - ( tr a) X n - 1 + . . . + ( - l)" nr(a), a E A. rather than the ordinary trace, in Theorem 9.9 and its applications.
We call tr(a) the reduced trace of a, and nr(a) the reduced norm of a. It follows
at once from (9.5) that 9b Semisimple algebras
n
(9.7) TA/K a = n ' tr (a), NA/K a = (nr (an . In the preceding subsection we have defined the reduced characteristic
polynomial, reduced norm and reduced trace, for elements of a central
Furthermore, using the notation of (9.6), the map a � ( 1 (8) a)L ' a E K, gives simple K -algebra A. The aim of this subsection is to generalize these concepts
a K-algebra isomorphism of A into Hom E (V, V). Since
to the case where A is an arbitrary finite dimensional semisimple K -algebra.
tr(a) = trace of (1 (8) a)L ' nr(a) = determinant of (1 (8) a)L ' We begin the discussion with some elementary results from linear algebra.
Let K c L be fields, with (L : K) = n. Each a E L maps onto a matrix Ii E Mn(K)
we conclude that

(9.8)
{ tr(ab)
nr(ab)
=

=
tr(ba), tr(a + b) tr(a) + tr (b),
nr(a) ' nr(b),
=

nr(sa ) sl1 · nr(a),


=
tr(sa) = s ' tr(a),
describing the action of left multiplication by a on some K -basis of L. Given

f(X) =
i
L ai X E L[X],
define i
for a, b E A, s E K. I(X) = L Iii X E Mn (K [X]).
(9.9) THEOREM. The reduced trace map gives rise to a symmetric nondegenerate We now define a norm map NL/K : L[X] � K [X ] by setting
K -bilinear form T : A x A � K, by setting
NL/K f(X) = det l (X), f(X) E L[X].
T(a, b) = tr(ab), a, b E A.
Let us establish some basic properties of this norm :
Further, T is associative, that is,
T(ab, c) = T(a, bc) for a, b, c E A. (9.10) THEOREM. Let K c L be fields, with (L : K) = n. Then
(i) N L/K is multiplicative.
Proof. It is clear that T is symmetric and associative, and we need only prove (ii) For a I ' . . . , as E L, we have
that T is nondegenerate. Let E ::J K split A, so E (8) K A � Mn(E). We may
extend T to an E-bilinear map (9. 1 1 ) NL/ K (XS + a 1 xs - 1 + . . . + a)
n n 1
= x s + (TL/K ( ) X s - + . . . + NL/K as '
T' : (E (8) A) x (E (8) A) � E, 1
and indeed from the definition of reduced trace, we have (iii) Let V be an s-dimensional L-space, and let cp be an L-endomorphism
of V. We may view cp as a K -endomorphism of V. Then
T'(U, v) = trace (uv),
(9. 12) char. pol. Y/K cp = N L/K (char. po1 . Y/ L cp).
where trace (uv) is the ordinary trace of the matrix uv. Furthermore, r is
nondegenerate if and only if T' is non degenerate. Proof. Write N in place of N L/K ' and let f, g E L[ X]. The map a � Ii, a E L,
Let is a ring homomorphism. Therefore jg = jg, and so
B = {u E Mn(E) : trace (uv) = 0 for all v E Mn(E)}. N(fg) = det (jg) = (det l) (det g) = (Nf) (Ng).
1 18 ORDERS (9. 1 2 ) (9. 1 3) REDUCED NORMS AND TRACES 1 19
This establishes (i). Now perform elementary row operations on this determinant, from the
Next we have bottom up : add X times the sth row of blocks to the (s - l )th row, then X
N(XS + a 1 X s - 1 + . as ) det ( l XS + a 1 XS - 1 + ' " times the (s - l)th row of blocks to the (s - 2)th row, and so on. This gives
. . + = + as )
0" 5 5 l e X)
= x ns + (tr a 1 )Xns - 1 + . . . + det as '
-1 5 ... 6 *
with the second equality following from an obvious calculation. This yields
char. pol. Y/K cP =
assertion (ii), since by § I we have
6 6 ... 0 *
tr a 1 = TL/K a 1 ' det as = NL/K as ' 6 6 ' " -1 *
To prove (iii), we first write V = '
I � where each � is an L-subspace of = det l e x) = N L/K f(x) .
V such that cp( �) c � . Then
char. pol. Y/K cP = IT char. pol. Y; /K cP, This completes the proof of (iii), and establishes the theorem.
i

and likewise with K replaced by L. In view of assertion (i), it therefore suffices Any semisimple K -algebra A may be written as a direct sum I ' Ai of simple
to establish (9. 1 2) for each � . Changing notation, we may hereafter assume algebras Ai ' whose centers are finite extensions of K. In order to define
that V is an indecomposable K[ cpJ-module. Thus we may write red. char. POLA/K a for each a E A, we shall first treat the case in which A is
a simple K-algebra ; the extension to the semisimple case will be straight­
V = L [ X] /( f (X» for some f(X) E L[X] , forward.
with cp acting on V as left multiplication by X. Then
(9. 1 3) Definition. Let B denote a central simple L-algebra with (B : L) m2 , =

char. POL /L cp = f(X) = x s + at x s - 1 + . . .


Y + as (say). and let K be a subfield of L with (L : K) = n. For each b E B, we define its
n reduced characteristic polynomial relative to K by
Now let L =I · Kuj , and let us calculate the action of cp on the K-basis red. char. POL B/K b = NL/K (red. char. pol.B /L b)
j= 1
.
of V consisting of the elements {UjXi : 1 � j � n, 0 � i � s - I } . Relative = x mn - (trB/K b)xmn - 1 + ... + ( - l rn nrB/K b .
to a suitable indexing of these basis elements, the action of cp is given by the We call tr 8/K the relative reduced trace, and nrB/K the relative reduced norm.
matrix When L = K, the preceding concepts reduce to those given in § 9a.
0 0 0 - as Before proceeding to the case of semisimple K-algebras, let us establish
I 0 0 - as 1 some basic properties of relative reduced traces, norms, and characteristic
Jl = - polynomials.
0 I 0 - as 2
-
. . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. (9. 1 4) THEOREM. Let B be a central simple L-algebra, K a subfield of L, and let
0 0 . . . I - a1 (B : L) = m2 , (L : K) = n. For each b E B, we have
This matrix Jl is an s x s array of blocks, each of size n x n. We have (9. 1 5) trB/K b = TL/K (trB/L b), nrB/K b = NL/K (nrB/L b),
XI (j . . . 6 as (9. 1 6) char. po1.B/K b = {red. char. pol.B/K b }m,
-I Xl . . . 0 as - 1 (9. 1 7) TB/K b = m ' trB/K b, NB/K b = {nrB/K b}m.
char. poLy/K CP = det (XI - Jl) =
Proof. Given b E B, let us set
(j (j X l <X 2
l
6 O . . . - 1 Xl + <X l I. heX) = red. char. poL B/L b = xm - a 1 x m- + '" + ( - l r am .
120 ORDERS (9. 1 8) (9.20) REDUCED NORMS AND TRACES 12 1
Then a l = trB/ L b, a = nr B/ L b, according to the definitions in §9a. But hence we have trB/ L ab 0 for all b E B. Therefore a 0 by (9.9), which
therefore m = =

completes the proof.


red. char. pol . B/K bN L/K h(X)
=
(We remark that the existence of a symmetric associative bilinear form
n
= x m - ( TL/K a ) x mn -
l + . . . + ( - l )mnNL/Ka ' on B to K tells us that B is a Frobenius algebra over K (see Curtis-Reiner
l m [ 1 , (61 .3)J); we know this anyway, since every simple K -algebra is a Frobenius
by (9. 1 1). Comparing this expression with that given in (9. 1 3), we conclude algebra. The significance of (9. 1 9) lies in the fact that the form arises from the
at once that reduced trace map tr B/K ')
nr B/ K b = N L/K a ' Suppose now that A is any semisimple K-algebra, and write
A 1 E8 . . . E8 At (simple components),
m
=A
This yields the desired formulas (9. 1 5).
Next, we may compute char. POLB/K b by considering the left multiplication K i = center of A i ' (Ai : K i ) = m�, 1 � i � t.
by the element b acting on a K -basis for B ; a corresponding statement holds Each K. is a finite extension field of K. Every element a E A is uniquely
with K replaced by L. Therefore expressi b le as a a l + . . . + at ' ai E Ai ' We define
=

t
char. pol. B/K b = NL/K (char. pol. B/L b) by (9. 12) (9.20) red. char. pol. A / K a = TI red. char. pol. A;/K Q i
i= 1
= N L/K {(red. char. pol.B/L bt } by (9.5) t
= { NL/K (red. char. pol. B/L b)} m by (9. 1 0)
= TI NK;/K (red. char. pol.A dKi a J
i= 1
= {red. char. pol. B/K b} m. As usual, we define tr A/K and nrA/K by the equation
This proves (9. 16) ; since (9. 1 7) is an obvious consequence of (9. 1 6), the (9.21) red. char. pol. A/K a = xr - (trA/K a)X r - l + . . . + ( - l y nrA/K a
theorem is established. for each a E A, where r = L mi (K i : K). For future use, we record the following
obvious consequences of these definitions :
(9. 1 8) COROLLARY. The analogues of formulas (9.8) hold for trB/K and nr B/K ' t t
(9.22) trA/K a L trA ;/ K a i = L TK ;/K (trA ;/K i ai)'
=

Proof. The assertion is clear from (9.8) and (9. 1 5). We remark merely that i= 1 i= 1
t t
a E K, b E B. (9.23) nrA /K a = TI nr A ;/K a i TINK ;/K (nrA ;/K i aJ
=

i= 1 i =1

We are now ready to generalize Theorem 9.9, as follows : From (9. 1 6), we also obtain
t t
char. pol. AIK a = TI char. pol. A dK ai = TI {red. char. Pol. Ai/K aJ m i,
(9. 1 9) THEOR EM . Let B be a simple K-algebra whose center L is separable over
(9.24)
i= 1 i=1
K. Then the map tr B/K , gives rise to a symmetric associative nondegenerate t t
bilinear form from B x B to K. (9.25) TA lK a = L m i trA d K a i ' NAI K a = TI {nr A ; /K aJ m i.
i= 1 i= 1
Proof. The form is given by -r(a, b) = trB/K (ab), a, b E B, and we need only Of course, the analogues of formulas (9.8) remain true for trA IK and nrAI K '
check that -r is nondegenerate. If -r(a, b) = 0 for all b E B, then From (9. 1 9) we have at once
TL/K (a . tr B/L (ab)) = TL/K (tr B/ L (a ' ab)) = 0 for all a E L, b E B. (9.26) THEOR EM . Let A be a separable K-algebra. Then the map trA 1 K gives
rise to a symmetric associative nondegenerate bilinear trace form from
But TL/K gives a nondegenerate trace form, since L is separable over K, and A x A to K.
1 22 ORDERS (9.27) (9.3 1) REDUCED NORMS AND TRACES 1 23

Finally, we show that reduced characteristic polynomials, norms and (9.3 1) THEOREM. Let A be a separable K-algebra. Then
traces, are not affected by change of ground field. We prove char. pol. K aL = char. po1. K aR
for each a E A.

.
(9.27) THEOREM. Let A be a separable K-algebra, and let F be any field contain­
ing K (not necessarily finite dimensional over K). View A as embedded in
the separable F -algebra F ® A, where ® means ® K ' Then for all a E A, n
Proof. Let A = I KXi ' and let {y 1 ' . . . , Y } be a dual basis of A relative
n
=1 i
(9.28) red. char. POI . F ® A/F a = red. char. pol. A/K a,

.
to the reduced trace form, so
(9.29)
n
A = I Kyj , 1 � i, j � n,
Proof. By Exercise 7. 1 3, F ® A is a separable F-algebra. We have j= 1
(9.30) char. po1.F ® A/F a = char. pol. A/K a where tr is an abbreviation for trA/K . We shall compute char. pol.K aL by
by Exercise 1 .2, a fact which we shall use presently. It suffices to prove the letting aL act on the K-basis { Xi }' and we shall compute char. pol. K aR by
theorem for the case where A is a central simple L-algebra, with L a finite letting aR act on the K-basis {yj }. For 1 � j � n, let
separable extension of K. By Exercise 7. 14, we may write aL(x) = aXj = I !X ij Xi ' aR(y) = YP = I Pij Yi '
i i
d

� I · Bj ' where the !Xij ' Pij E K. Then


F®A
j= 1 char. pol.K oL = det (Xb ij - !Xij )' char. pol.K aR = det(Xb ij - Pij )'
where each Fj is a field containing L and F. Here, each B}. is a central However, for each i, j we have
simple F[algebra, and (B;= Fj) = (A : L) m 2, say. For a E A, write
=

. tr YPXi .
a b 1 + . . . + bd , bj E Bj . Then (9.24) YIelds
= Cl ij = tr y iaxj , Pij =

d
Thus the matrices (!X ij ) and (Pij ) are transposes of one another, and hence
char. pol.F ® A/F a = Tl {red. char. pol. Bj/F bj} m have the same characteristic polynomial. This completes the proof of the
j= l
theorem.
= {red. char. pol.F ®A/F a}m.

Since (9.32) COROLLARY. Let A = I · KX i ' and let


char. pol . A/ K a = {red. char. pol. A /K a}m
by (9.1 6), we now deduce (9.28) as a direct consequence of (9.30). The formulas
in (9.29) follow from (9.28), and the theorem is proved.
Then
NA /K a = det (yij ), TA /K a = trace of (Yij)'
For each element a of a K-algebra A, we have computed char. pol. A/K a It should be pointed out that (9.31) and (9.32) need not be true for arbitrary
by letting a act from the left on a K-basis of A . We shall conclude this section finite dimensional K-algebras A. The following example is given in Bourbaki
by showing that when A is a separable K-algebra, we could equally well have [1, § 1 2, no. 3J : let A = K EB Kx EB Ky, where
calculated the characteristic polynomial of a by letting a act from the right.
XY = y, YX = 0,
For each a E A, we defined
aL : x � ax, x E A, aR : x � xa, x E A ,
so aL and aR are a pair of K-linear transformations on A. In § l we defined
char. pol.A/K a = char. pol. K aL '
XL =
( )
Relative to the basis { I , x, Y } , we have
0 ° 0
1 1 0 ,
0 0 1
We now prove
1 24 ORDERS (9.33) (10. 1 ) EXISTENCE O F MAXI MAL ORDERS ; DISCRIMINANTS 1 25
and X L ' xR have different characteristic polynomials. Furthermore, X L and
have different traces, and if char K i= 2, then (1 + X)L and ( 1 + X )R have
But then by (9.28)
xR
red. char. pol.A/ K a red. char. pol. E ® 1 ®a
different determinants.
=
KA/E
n
=
I1 char. pol. (I/Ii (1 ® a)) = f(X),
EXERCISES i= 1
where tP .. : E ®K A
1.
---+ Mm (E i ) ']
Let A be a central simple K-algebra, and let E be a subfield of A such that
4. Let L be a finite separable extension of K with (L : K) = n, and let 1/1 1 ' . . . , 1/1" be
(A : K) = (E : K) 2 . Show that for every a E E,
the distinct embeddings of L into an algebraic closure of K. Prove that for each
K f(X) E L [X],
red. char. pol.A/K a (min. pol.K a)(E: (a».
=
"
NL/Kf(X) = I1 1/IJ (X),
[Hint : Let f(X) = min. pol.K a; then f(X) has degree (K(a) : K). But red. char. pol.A/K a i= 1
i s a power of f(X), and has degree (E : K).] '
where 1/IJ (X) is obtained from f(X) by applying 1/1 i to each of its co efficients.
2. Let A be a central simple K-algebra, where K is any perfect field (that is, K has 5. Let A Mr(D), where D is a skewfield with center K. Let a E A be given by
=

no inseparable extensions). Using (9.5), prove directly that red. char. pol.A/ K a E K[ X] a = ( exi) E Mr(D). Show that
for each a E A. [Hint : Show that if E is an extension field of K, and f(X) E E[X] is r

such that f(Xr E K [X], then also f(X) E K[X].] trA/ K a =


L trD/K(exii )·
i= 1
3. Let A be a separable K-algebra, and choose a field E => K such that
d
[Hint : Choose E K to be a splitting field for D, and let
E ®K A L ' Bj ' 1 �' j � d. =>


=
j= 1
fl : D ---+ E ®K D Ms(E).
Let nj : E ®K A ---+ Bj . Prove that for every a E A, Then fl' : A ---+ E ®K A � Mrs(E) is given by
d ' (fl (exi) ) 1
fl (a) =
(9.33) red. char. pol. A /K a =

j
I1 char. pol. q>jn/l ® a). � ".j � r '

=1 and
r

[Hint : Let f(X) denote the expression on the right hand side of (9.33). As in the proof trA/K a = trace of fl'(a) = � trace of fl( exu )
i= 1
of (9.3), the isomorphism q>j is unique up to an inner automorphism of Mn/E), and
hence f (X) does not depend on the choice of the maps { q>j }. The proof of (9.3) carries
r

=
L trD/K (exJ ' ]
over to this case, and shows that f(X) does not depend on the choice of E, and that i= 1
f(X) E K[X].
To prove (9.33), it suffices to treat the case where A is a central simple L-algebra,
with LjK separable. Choose E => L so that 10. EXISTENCE OF MAXIMAL ORDERS ; DISCRIMINANTS
. Throughout this section, A is a separable K-algebra, where K is the quotient
field of a noetherian integrally closed domain R. Let A be an R-order in A.
and so that
In dealing with reduced characteristic polynomials and reduced norms and

n
traces, we shall omit the subscripts AjK when there is no danger of confusion.
E ®K L L ' E i ' where (L : K) n,
i=1
=

( 1 0. 1 ) THEOREM. For each a E A we have


and where each E i equals E and contains an isomorphic copy of L. Then
red. char. pol. a E R[X] , tr a E R, nr a E R.
E ®K A � (E ®K L) ® L A � i f ' Ei ®L A =
f' M m (E J
By (8.6), char. pol. a E R[ X]. The same holds for red. char. pol. a by
=1 i= 1 Proof.
1 26 ( 1 0.4) EXISTENCE OF MAXIMAL ORDERS ; DISCRIMINANTS 1 27
ORDERS ( 1 0 .2 )
(9.24) and Gauss' Lemma. The assertions about tr, nr are then clear from r is an R-Iattice. Let
(9.21 ). m

A = I · Kuj ,
i= I
In brief, (10. 1 ) asserts that integral elements have integral reduced norms
and reduced traces. We shall use this fact repeatedly. Let us define the Then a i= 0 since A is separable over K. We claim that
discriminant of A to be the ideal d(A) of R generated by the set of elements
{det (tr x I.xJ. ) I "" I, J�
� . .
m
}, XI' E A, i= I
where m = (A : K). Each x.x

I J. E A, so the m x m matrix (tr x.x
I J. ) has entries Let X E r, and write X =
I I , r.I E K. Then
.i..J r.u.
"
m R, and thus d(A) c R. Furthermore, if X l , . . . , X are chosen so as to be m

linearly independent over K, then since the bil�ar reduced trace form tr xUj = I rj ' tr uiuj ' 1 � j � m.
A x A -+ K is nondegenerate, it follows at once that det(tr x.x i= I
I J.) i= O. Thus
d(A) is a nonzero ideal of R. Since each xuJ. E r, we have tr xuj E R. If we use Cramer's Rule to solve the
above system of equations for the {rJ, we thus obtain
( 1 0.2) THEOREM. Let A have a free R-basis U I ' • . . , um ' Then the discriminant
d(A) is the principal ideal R . det (tr uiuj ). ri = (element of R)/ a, 1 � i � m.

Proof. This principal ideal surely lies in d(A). On the other hand, let X ' This proves that r c a - I. I Rui , and hence that r is an R-Iattice.
I
. . . , Xm E A . We may write Xi I rik uk , rik E R, and then
=
(10.4) Corollary . Every R-order in A is contained in a maximal R-order
tr xixj = I r ik rj1 ' tr ukul ' 1 � i, j � m. in A. There exists at least one maxi m al R-order in A.
k, l
Therefore Proof. Let A be an R -order in A, and let C be the collection of R-orders in
det(tr XiX) = det ( rik ) det (tr UkU1 ) · det (rjl )',

A containing A. Then C is non-empty. If {Ao J is a chain of orders containing
where ' denotes transpose. But det ( rik ) E R, and thus we deduce that A, let
d(A) c R det (tr UjUj), which completes the proof.
'

ex ex

If P is any prime ideal of R, and Rp is the localization of R at P, then A. Each X E A' lies
Then A' is a subring of A containing R, and K · A' =

A p Rp ® R A is an Rp-order in A. It follows at once from Exercise 4. 1 3 that


=
in some Aex , hence is integral over R. It follows from (10.3) that A' is an R-order
�(A p) = {d\A)} p ' If R is a Dedekind domain, then each Rp is a principal in A. We have now shown that any increasing chain of elements of C has an
Ideal domam, and Ap has a free Rp-basis. Thus we may use (10.2) to compute
upper bound in C. By Zorn's Lemma, C has a maximal element Ao , which
d(Ap), and then we have (by Exercise 3.1 or (4.2 1 ))
is then obviously a maximal R-order in A.
It remains to prove that A contains at least one maximal R-order. The
d(A) = np d(A p ). discussion preceding (8. 1 ) shows that there exists a full R-Iattice M in A.
Returning to the case where R is any noetherian integrally closed domain, Setting A 0 I (M), it follows from §8 that A is an R-order in A. Hence
=
.
A
we prove is contained in some maximal R-order Ao in A, by the first part of thIS proo f,
and the corollary is established.
(1 0.3) THEOREM. Let r be a subring of A containing R, such that K . r A, =

and suppose that each a E r is integral over R. Then r is an R-order in A. We remark that the crucial step in the proof of (10.3) is the fact that (tr uiu)
Conversely, every R-order in A has these properties. is a nonsingular matrix, or equivalently that trAIK gives rise to a nondegenerate
bilinear form A x A -+ K. If char K 0, it is clear from (9.25) that the
=

Proof. We already know that every R-order has the indicated properties. Now ordinary trace TAlK already gives a nondegenerate form, and so the proof
let r be a subring satisfying the given conditions ; we need only check that of (10.3) could have been given using ordinary traces instead of reduced
1 28 ORDERS (1 0 .5) (l 0.6) EXISTENCE OF MAXIMAL ORDERS ; DISCRIMINANTS 129
traces. Nevertheless, even when char K 0, the reduced trace and reduced
=
Proof. Suppose that A is a separable K -algebra until further notice, and let
norm will play a basic role in our later discussions. A be a maximal R-order in � . Then
(Without the hypothesis that A be a separable K-algebra, it may happen A = A(e 1 + . . . + et ) c Ae1 EB ' " EB Aet ,
that there are no maximal R-orders in A, as already pointed out in §8. The and each Ae. is an R-order in A . . If Ae. e r e A I. , where r. is a maximal
following example, due to Faddeev [ 1 , & 2 5J (see Roggenkamp and Huber­ R-otder, the� I " � is an R-orde ; in A � ontai ning A. Theref�re A = I " � ,
Dyson [1, pp. 201-202]) shows how to construct an infinite strictly increasing and so Ae. = r. for each i.
chain of orders, in case A is not semisimple. Conver;ely, l�t Ai c Ai be a maximaI R-order, I � i � t, and let A = I · Ai '
Let A be any R-order in the K-algebra A, and assume that rad A =1= O. Set If A e r e A with r maximal, then A . e re. , whence A. = r eIo for each i.
Lk = A n (rad A)\ k � L Therefore r = I· rei = A, proving th;t A is � maximal o�der.
We claim next that R.I is an R-Iattice, and is also a noetherian integrally
closed domain. Indeed, Rj is an R-Iattice by (10.3), since Kj is a separable
Then each Lk is an R-pure A-submodule of A (see (4.0» , and is a full R-Iattice
in (rad At Since rad A is nilpotent, there exists an integer n � 1 such that
(rad A)n =1= 0, (rad At + I = O. Let r be a non-unit in R, and set K-algebra. Thus Rj is noetherian. Further, if a E Kj is integral over Rp then
Ak = A + r k L I + r 2 k L 2 + . . + r nk Ln , k � 1 .
R.[a] is a finitely generated Rj-module, hence is also finitely generated over
- - . -
R: But then it follows by ( 1 . 1 0) that every element of RJa] is integral over R.
Then each A is an R-order in A , and A = A o C A l C A 2 C . . . . We show Thus a is integral over R, and so a E Rj . This completes the proof that Ri is
k integrally closed.
k that Ak = A k + 1 for some k.
that the chain is strictly increasing. For suppose
Multiplying by ,n(k + 1 ), it follows that Ln c r A. Therefore Now let Ai be a maximal R-order in Ai ' Since the elements of Rj commute
with those of A.I , and both R. and A.I are R-Iattices, also R . . A. is an R-Iattice.
Ln c �A n (rad A)n = �Ln ' Thus R . · A. is an R-order in A . , whence A. = R . . A. , whi ch shows that
I

the equality following from the fact that Ln is R-pure in A. This gives A. is ne�ess �rily an R.-order in A : . But any R.I � orde; in A. is also an R-order
Ln = �L a contradiction since L is an R-Iattice and r is not a unit of R. id A . , since R. is finitely generated over R. Hence A.l � ust be a maximal
In parti�ular, the above shows that A is always strictly contained in the R .-o ;der in A l� . Conversely, the same remarks show that every maximal
larger R-order Al ' and thus A has no maximal R-orders whatsoever.) R I�-order in A.I is also a maximal R-order in A . . This completes the proof of
I

(i)-(iii).
Let us now return to the case where A is a separable K-algebra. We To prove (iv), let us now assume that R is a complete discrete valuation
shall now prove that a decomposition of A into simple components A = ring, and that A is a semisimple K-algebra. The hypothesis of separability
A l ffi . . ffi At yields a corresponding decomposition of maximal orders and
hereditary orders in A. We may write 1 = e 1 + . . . + et , ej E Aj ; the {ej } are
.
was used to establish that each R.I is an R-Iattice, and is a noetherian integrally
then central idempotents of A such that ejej ::::: 0, i =1= j, and Ai Aej for each i.
closed domain. But these facts hold even without this hypothesis, by § 5,
=
since we are assuming that R is complete. Indeed, each Rj is also a complete
discrete valuation ring, and is finitely generated over R by Theorem 5.6.
(10 . 5) THEOREM. Let A be a separable K-algebra with simple components The preceding proofs of (i)-(iii) thus hold equally well in the present case,
{A.}, and let R.l be the integral closure of R in the center Ki of Ai ' Then and the proof of the theorem is complete.
(i) For each maximal R-order 7\ in A, we have A = I " Aep where the {eJ
are the central idempotents oj A such that Aj = Aej . Further, each A ej is a The preceding theorem shows that the study of maximal orders always
maximal R -order in A . . .
reduces to the case of simple algebras, and even to the central simple case
(ii) If Aj is a max/mal R-order in Aj ' 1 � i � t, then I " Ai is a maximal if the ground ring is a Dedekind domain. As we shall see eventually, when
R -order in A. R is a Dedekind domain, every maximal R-order is hereditary. We shall not
(iii) An R-order Aj in Aj is a maximal R-order if and only if Aj is a maximal use this result in the discussion below, however.
R(order. Let A be any R-order in A ; by a left A-lattice we mean a left A-module M
(iv) When R is a complete discrete valuation ring, all the preceding assertions which is an R-Iattice. In analogy with the results in §4a, we prove
remain true under the weaker hypothesis that A is a semisimple K-algebra,
not necessarily K -separable. (10.6) THEOREM. Let A be an R-order in a semis imp Ie K-algebra A. Then
1 30 ORDERS ( 1 0.7) (1 0.9) LOCALIZATION OF ,ORDERS 131
every left A-lattice M is A-isomorphic to a submodule of a free module A(k) by the discussion in § 2f, the ring A is left hereditary if and only if A is right
for some k. hereditary. We may remark that hereditary orders enjoy yet another pro­
perty of maximal orders ; in (40.7) we shall prove the following result of
Proof. We may embed M in KM ( = K ® R M), and KM is a finitely generated Harada [2] :
left A-module. Hence there is an A-exact sequence
A (k ) � KM � O (10.9) THEOREM Every hereditary R-order Aj in Ai is also an Rj-order, where
.

R.I is the integral closure of R in the center of Ai ' as in ( 1 0.5).


for some k, and this sequence splits since A is semisimple. Thus there is an
A-isomorphism qJ of KM into A(k) ; this isomorphism carries M into a
A-lattice qJ(M) in A (k) . Since A (k) is a full R-Iattice in A (k ), there exists a nonzero EXERCISES
r E R such that r ' qJ(M) c A (k ). The map defined by m � r ' qJ(m), m E M, Throughout, R is a Dedekind domain with quotient field K, and A is a separable
then gives the desired embedding of M into A(k) . K-algebra.
1. Let tr : A � K be the reduced trace map. If a E A is integral over R, show that
The ring A is left hereditary if every left ideal of A is projective, or equiva­ tr (am) E R for each positive integer m. Is the converse true?
lently (see § 2f) if submodules of free A-modules are projective. The above 2. Find d(A) for A Z EB Zi EB Zj EB Zk (see (9.4)). Set Ao = A + Z a, where
=

result gives at once a = (1 + i + j + k)/2, and find d(Ao)' Prove that Ao is a maximal Z-order in A, where
A = QA.
(1 0.7) COROLLARY. The R-order A is left hereditary if and only if every left 3. Let A c A' be a pair of R-orders in A. Show that d(A') l d(A), and that deAf) =
A-lattice is projective. d(A) if and only if A' A . [Hint : First localize so as to reduce the problem to the case
where R is a principal ideal domain.]
=

( 1 0.8) THEOREM. IfA is a left hereditary R-order in the semisimple K-algebra A, 4. Let A be any R-order in A. Deduce from Exercise 3 that A is contained in a
with central idempotents {eJ as in ( l 0.5), then A = I' Aei , and each Aei is a maximal R-order in A.
left hereditary R-order in Ai ' Conversely, the direct sum of left hereditary 5. Let r be a subring of A containing R, such that r is finitely generated as R­
orders is left hereditary. module. Prove that r lies in a maximal R-order in A. [Hint : Use Exercise 8. 1 .]
6. Let A be an R-order in a separable K-algebra A, and let S be a domain containing
Proof. Let A be a left hereditary order. There is an exact sequence of left R, with quotient field L. Then S ® R A is an S-order in L ® K A. Prove the discriminant
A-modules
o � A' � A � Aei � 0,
formula :

and A' = A (l A(l ej ) is an R-order in the algebra A' = A EB · · · EB At '


-

It is easily seen that A' is also left hereditary. Now Aei is a left A-lattice, where the last equality is an identification.
hence is A-projective by (1 0.7), and so the above sequence splits, that is, 7. Let A be an R-order in A, and let L be a left A-lattice in A, M a right A-lattice in
A' is a direct summand of A : A, such that K . L = K . M = A. Prove that for each a E A,

A = A' EB J, J = left ideal of A. ord R L/aL = R · NAtK a = ordR M/Ma.

Multiplying by ei , we find that J = Aej . An induction argument then proves [Hint : By (4.20) or Exercise 4.4, it suffices to prove the result when R is a discrete
that A = I' Aej . valuation ring. In this case, L and M have free R-bases, which are also K-bases for
Suppose co�versely that Ai is a left hereditary R-order in Aj' I � ! � t, A. If L �. RXj and we write ax j = � (Xj j xj > (Xi j E R, then ord� L/aL R . det((Xj)
by Exercise 4.2. But det(iXjj ) = NA tK a by § 1 . For the correspondmg statement about
= =

and let A = I Aj . Each left A-lattice M then decomposes as M = I e jM, M, use (9.32).] ,
and eiM is a left Arlattice. Thus each e jM is Arprojective, and so M is
A -projective.
11. LOCALIZATION OF ORDERS
It should be pointed out that an R-order A is left and right noetherian, so Here we investigate the relation between an R..,order A in A and its
(1 1 .3) LOCALIZATION OF ORDERS l 33
l 32 ORDERS (1 1 . 1)
localizations Ap and completions Ap , where P ranges over the prime ideals The following result shows that in order to decide whether A is maximal,
of R. We keep the hypotheses of section 10. it suffices to consider the ring structure of the localizations of A at the minimal
primes of R, together with the structure of A as an- R-module. We recall
( 1 1 . 1) THEOREM. Let S be a multiplicatively closed subset ofR. F or each maximal (see page 55) that A is a reflexive R-module if A A * * , where =

R-order A in A, S - l A is a maximal S - l R-order in A . A* = HomR (A, R ), A** = HomR (A*, R ).

Proof. By ( 1 . 1 5e) and (3. 1 1 ), we know that S - 1 R i s noetherian and integrally We saw in (4.25) that for any noetherian integrally closed domain R, we have
closed, since R has these properties by hypothesis. Let i: A � S - 1 A be the ( 1 1 .3) A**
n Ap ,
homomorphism x � 1 ® x, X E A, defined as in (3. 1 0). p
=

Now S - 1 A is an S - 1 R-order in A ; let r be any larger order in A, and choose where P ranges over the minimal left ideals of R. Using this, we prove
a nonzero a E R such that a ' r c: S- lA. Then Ll = i - 1 (ar) is an S-saturated
submodule of A such that ar = S - 1 Ll. Since i is a two-sided A-homomor­ ( 1 1.4) THEOREM. (Auslander-Goldman [1] ). A n R-order A is maximal if and
phism, Ll is a two-sided A-module. Then the right order 0 (Ll) coincides only if A is a reflexive R-module such that for each minimal prime P of R,
with A, since 0r(Ll) => A and A is maximal. Hence by (8.4) we h ave Ap is a maximal Rp-order.
S- 1A = O r(S - l Ll) = 0r(ar) = r, Proof. Obviously A c: A ** since A c: Ap for each P. By (4.26), A ** is a full
which completes the proof. R-Iattice in A. Furthermore, A ** is a ring by ( 1 1 .3), since it is an intersection
of rings. Thus A ** is an R-order in A containing A. If A is a maximal R-order,
( 1 1 .2) CoROLLARY. A
n R-order A in A is maximal if and only if for each then we have A ** A, and hence A is reflexive. The fact that each Ap is
=

maximal ideal P of R, Ap is a maximal Rp-order in A . maximal has already been shown in (1 1 . 1).
Conversely, let A be reflexive, and let each Ap be maximal. Then
Proof. If A is maximal, so is each Ap by (1 1 . 1). Conversely, assume that each A = A** = n Ap , P minimal.
Ap is maximal, and let A c: r, where r is any R-order in A. Then Ap c: rp , p
so that Ap rp for all P. But then (r/A)p 0 for all P, whence r A by
= = = If A c: r, with r an R-order in A, then Ap c: rp for each P, whence Ap = rp
(3. 1 5). for each P. Thence
r c: n rp n Ap A,
The following material, up to ( 1 1 . 5), can be skipped by the reader interested
= =

p
only in the case where R is a Dedekind domain. The above result shows that so A is maximal. This completes the proof.
the question of whether an R-order A is maximal is a "local" one, and can be
decided by knowing whether the localizations Ap are maximal orders, where
P ranges over the maximal ideals of R. Now if pI c: P are a pair of prime In applying ( 1 1 .2) or ( 1 1 .4), we are faced with the problem of deciding
ideals of R, we have an inclusion Ap c: Ap' , and indeed whether the Rp-order Ap in A is maximal. The underlying ring Rp is an
integrally closed local noetherian domain, with unique maximal ideal
Ap' � (Rp)p' . Rp ® Rp Ap , p . Rp . For such a domain, we now show that we may pass to the completion,

that is, Ap' is a localization of Ap at the prime ideal pl . Rp of Rp . Hence if and then consider the problem in the complete case.
Ap is a maximal Rp-order, then by ( 1 1 . 1 ), Ap' is necessarily a maximal
Rp,-order. Thus the hypothesis that Ap be a maximal order for each maximal (1 1 .5) THEOREM. Let R be an integrally closed local noetherian domain, R its
ideal P of R is a rather strong one, since it implies that Ap' is a maximal completion, and K the quotient field of R. Let A be an R-order in A, and set
Rp,- order for every prime ideal pI of R. The weakest hypothesis would be A = R ® R A,
the assumption that Ap' is a maximal order for every minimal prime pI of
R. (Recall that a minimal prime of R is any minimal member in the set of so A is an R-order in A. Then A is a maximal R-order in A if and only if A is
nonzero prime ideals of R .) a maximal R-order in A.
1 34 ORDERS

Proof· Suppose A maximal, and let A c Ll, where Ll is an R-order in A.


Then r = A n Ll is an R-order in A and r = Ll, by (5.4). Since A c r, we
deduce that A = r, and thus A = Ll. This proves that A is maximal.
Conversely, let A be maximal, and let A c r for some R-order r in A.
Then A c t, so A = r, and thus by (5.4) A = A n A = A n t = r. This
completes the proof.
3. Maximal Orders in Skewfields (Local Case)
(1 1 .6) COROLLARY. Let R be a Dedekind domain, and A an R-order in A. Then
A is a maximal order if and only if for each prime ideal P of R, the P-adic Throughout this chapter, let R be a complete discrete valuation ring, that
completion A p is a maximal Rp-order in Ap . is, R is a principal ideal domain with a unique maximal ideal P = ltR =F 0,
and R is complete relative to the P-adic valuation. Let K be the quotient
Proof· This follows from ( 1 1 . 2) and ( 1 1 .5). field of R, and R = .RIP its residue class field. We call K a local field. Let
D be a skewfield whose center contains K, such that (D : K) is finite. The aim
EXERCISE of this chapter is to study the structure of maximal R-orders in D. As we shall
1 . Let R' be a ring of quotients of the domain R, and let M be an R-Iattice, X a full
see, the results in this case are surprisingly explicit, and generalize several
R'-lattice in KM. Show that M (\ X is an R-Iattice in M of the same R-rank as M.
of the theorems listed in § 5. The presentation below is based on a beautifully
written article by Hasse [ 1 ].

12. UNIQUENESS OF MAXIMAL ORDERS

We are going to show that D contains a unique maximal R-order Ll. The
argument will depend strongly on the use of Hensel's Lemma (5.7). Let v be
the exponential P-adic valuation defined on K (see § 5b, where v was denoted

1
by vK ). Then it is easily seen that for a, b E K we have

( 1 2. 1 )
(i)
(ii)
v(a) = 00 if and only if a = °
v(ab) = v(a) + v(b) = v(ba)
(iii) v(a + b) � min (v(a), v(b))
(iv) The value group of v is infinite cyclic,
where the value group of v is defined to be {v(a) : a =F O}.

( 12.2) THEOREM . Let f(X) = C(oxn + C( l xn - l + ... + C(n E K[X] be irreducible.


Then
° � i � n.

Proof. Let t = min {V(ClJ ° � i � n}. If the theorem is false, then t <
min (V(Clo )' V(Cl )). Let r be the largest subscript for which V(ClJ = t. Then
n
r =1= 0, r =1= n, and
C(; 1 . f(X) = poxn + ... + p,xn- ' + . . . + Pn , Pi E R,
where f3, = 1 and f3,+ l ' . . . , P E P. However, in R[X] the right hand expres­
n
sion is a product xn - ' ( 1 + Pr - 1 X + . . . + PoX') of two relatively prime
1 35
1 36 MAXIMAL ORDERS IN SKEWFIELDS (LOCAL CASE) ( 1 2.3) ( 1 2.7) UNIQUENESS OF MAXIMAL O RDERS 137

polynomials, with the first factor monic. It follows by Hensel's Lemma that v satisfies (ii). For a E K, we have w(a) = v(a) by (1 2.4). Next, the value group
a; 1 . f(X) is reducible, whence so is f(X), a contradiction. This completes of w, {w(a) : a E D, a =1= O}, is a nonzero additive subgroup of m - 1 Z, and is
the proof. therefore isomorphic to Z.
It remains for us to show that w satisfies (iii), and for this it suffices to con­
Now let ND/K and TD/K be the norm and trace maps, defined by sider the case where a = 1 and w(b) � 0, with b E D. But then b is integral
over R by (1 2.5), so by ( 1 . 1 1) also 1 + b is integral over R. Hence
char. pol. D/K a = xm - (TD/ K a)Xm - 1 + . . + ( - I t ND/ K a,
. a E A,
w(1 + b) � 0 = min (w( I ), w(b)),
where for the rest of this section we put (D : K) = m. We now set
as desired. This completes the proof.
(1 2.3) w(a) = m - 1 ' v(ND/K a), a E D.
Let us set
(1 2.4) THEOREM. For a E D, let f(X) = min. pol. K a. Then
l l (1 2.7) 1\ = {a E D : w(a) � O} = {a E D : ND/K a E R} .
w(a) = (K(a) : K)- . v(f(O)) = (K(a) : K) - . v(NK(a)/K a).
Then 1\ i s a ring containing R, b y ( 1 2 6) . W e call 1\ the valuation ring o f w.
.

Proof. Since D is a skewfield, f(X) is irreducible, and therefore char. pol. D/K a = We shall show in ( 1 3.3) that 1\ is finitely generated as R-module. Taking this
f(x)m/n , where n = degree of f(X) = (K(a) : K). Therefore for granted, we have
ND/K a = ( - It · {f(o)}m/n,
whence ( 12.8 ) Theorem. 1\ is the unique maximal R-order in D, and is the integral
. v( {j{o)}m/n) = n - 1 . v(f(O)), closure of R in D.
w(a) = m -1
which completes the proof. Proof Clearly K 1\ = D, and so 1\ is an R-order in D. But by (8.6), every
.

element of an R-order in D is integral over R, hence lies in 1\ by ( 1 2.5). There­


Using ( 1 2.2) and (1 2.4), we may prove the fundamental fore 1\ is the unique maximal R-order in D, and the result is proved.
(1 2.5) THEOREM. An element a E D is integral over R if and only if ND/ K a E R,
or equivalently, if and only if w(a) � O. We are now going to prove that w is the unique extension of v to D satisfying
( 1 2. 1 ), and begin with
Proof. It is obvious that w(a) � 0 if and only if Na E R, where we write N for
ND/K ' If a is integral over R, then char. pol. D/K a E R[X] by Exercise 1 . 1 , (1 2.9) LEMMAt. Let f(X) = xn + a 1 xn - 1 + .. . + an E K[X] be irreducible.
whence Na E R . Conversely, let Na E R , and set Then
k
f(X) = xn + a 1 X n - 1 + . . . + an min. pol K a. v(ak) � • v(an),
- 1 � k � n.
= .
n
Then f(O) = an ' and since ± Na is a power of f(O), it follows that an E R. But
Proof. Let E be a splitting field for f(X) over K, and write f(X)
f(X) is irreducible in K[X], so by ( 1 2.2) we deduce that
=

(X - P 1 ) · · · (X - Pn), Pi E E. Let v' be the extension of v to E defined as in


v(aJ � min (v( I ), v(an )) = 0, 0 � i � n. (1 2.3), namely,
l
v' (P) = (E : K)- . v(NE/K P) , p E E .
Hence f(X) E R [ X], so a is integral over R. This completes the proof.
But min. pol.K Pj = f(X), so by (12.4) we have
( 1 2 6) THEOREM. The map w is a discrete valuation on D which extends v, that
. l
v'(P) = (K(P) : K)- . v(f(O)) = n - 1 . v(an)
is, w satisfies conditions (1 2. 1 ), and w(a) v(a), a E K .
=

for each j. However, ± ak is the kth elementary symmetric polynomial in


Proof. Consider the conditions ( 1 2. 1) on w; (i) dearly holds, since a = 0 if t For a generalization of this lemma, see the discussion of Newton's polygon in Weiss [1,
and only if Na = O. Condition (ii) is satisfied since N is multiplicative, and section 3 . 1].
138 MAXIMAL ORDERS IN SKEWFIELDS (LOCAL CASE) (12. 1 0) (13.1) RAMIFICATION INDEX, INERTIAL DEGREE 1 39
P l ' . . . , Pn , so by (12. 1) ii) and iii) we obtain group of w is a subgroup of m - l Z, where m = (D : K). H ence the value group
v(ak) = v'(ak) � � v(an)•
of w equals e - l Z, for some positive integer e dividing m. We write e = e(DIK ) ,
n and call e the ramification index of D over K . Thus, the least positive number
for each k, as desired. in the set {w(a) : a E �} is precisely l i e .
We shall now normalize the valuation w, by replacing w by the equivalent
( 1 2. 1 0) THEOREM. The valuation w is the unique extension of v to D having valuation vD ' where vD e ' w. Then vD has value group Z, and for a E D,
{
=

properties (12. 1 ).
vD(a) = (elm) . v(ND/ Ka)
Proof. Let u : D --+ be another such extension of v. If u i= w, there
R u { oo} (13.1)
= e ( K (a) : K ) - l v(f(O)), where f(X) = min. pol. K a.
exists a nonzero a E D such that u(a) i= w( a ). Replacing a by a - l if need be,
'

we may assume that u(a) >


w(a). Let Let n E R be a prime element, so v(n) 1. We may choose nD E � so that
=

f(X) = min. pol. K a = xn + alX n - l + . . . + an E K[X] . vD(nD) = 1 ; call nD a prime element of �. We have at once
=
Then w(a) = v(an)ln by (12.4), while v(a) � (jln) v(an) by (12.9), since f(X)
. is vD(n) e.
irreducible. Therefore The group of units of � is given by

· .
u(aJ. an - J ) = v(aJ.) + (n - j) u(a) >
j n -j
-n ' v(a ) + --
n
n
' v(an) = v(an), u(�) = {a E � : vD(a) = O} = {a E � : ND/ K a E u(R)}.

Each nonzero a E D is uniquely expressible as


for 0 � j � n - I, where ao = 1 . But now
"
a = n� . a' = a .�, n = vD(a), where a', a" E u(�).
whence Note that a' and a" need not be equal.

( 1 3.2) THEOREM. Let nD be a prime element of �, and set p = nD� ' Then
This gives a contradiction, so the theorem is proved. every nonzero one-sided ideal of � is a two-sided ideal, and is a power of p. The
residue class ring �/p is a skewfield over the field R, and p n R = P.
The preceding discussion is of course valid for the special case where D
is an extension field of the complete P-adic field K. It shows that the P-adic Proof. For L any nonzero left ideal in �, let
I
valuation on K can be extended to a discrete valuation on D, by means of
= min {v D(a) : a E L},
formula (1 2.3), and that this extension is unique (up to equivalence).
and choose an element x E L such that vD(x) = I. Then for each y E L we have
yx - 1 E �, so Y E �x
c L. This proves that L = �x. Furthermore, �x = x�
13. RAMIFICATION INDEX, INERTIAL DEGREE
since
Keeping the notation of § 1 2, let D be a skewfield of finite dimension over a
vD(x - 1 ax) = vD(a), a E D.
complete P-adic field K contained in the center of D, and let � be the unique
maximal R-order in D. We shall define the ramification index e = e(DIK ) Thus L is a two-sided ideal of �, and clearly
and inertial degree f = f(DIK), and shall show that the analogue of Theorem
L = nb� = �nb p i , since n;; 1 E �. X '
5.6 holds true in this case. In fact, the discussion below does not make use of
=

any of the earlier results from §5, and so provides a proof of Theorem 5.6, by The above shows that p is a maximal left ideal of �: The ring K = �/p
choosing D to be a field. therefore has no left ideals except 0 and K, and thus K is a skewfield. Finally,
Let v be the exponential valuation on K, and let w be the extension of v to p n R is a prime ideal of R, and is nonzero since p is a full R-lattice in D.
the skewfield D. We have seen that the value group of v is Z, while the value Thus p n R = P, whence P . K 0, so K is a skewfield over R.
=
1 40 MAXIMAL ORDERS IN SKEWFIELDS (LOCAL CASE) 141
(1 3 . 3) ( 1 3.5) RAMIFICATION INDEX, INERTIAL DEGREE

We now define the inertial degree of D over K as Passing t o the residue class ring K, we obtain the relation I Y l iai = �,
f = f(D/K) = (� : R). with Y 1 1 =f. 0, which contradicts the linear independence of the {aJ over R.
We have therefore established that the s · t products {aib ;} are elements of D
Note that � = IJ./p is a vector space over R, since P c p. The fact that f is linearly independent over K, so st � rn. This proves that f is finite, and shows
finite follows from the theorem below, which generalizes Theorem 5.6, and also that ef � m.
indeed provides an independent proof thereof. N ow let at ' . . . , af ' bo ' . . . , b e _ 1 E IJ. be elements satisfying the hypotheses
of the theorem. The e ' f elements { a ib) are linearly independent over K,
(1 3.3) THEOREM. Let D be a skewfield of finite dimension m over a compLete by the first part of the proof, and we need only show that IJ. = � R aibj ' Let
P-adic field K contained in the center of D. Let e = e(D/K) be the ramification I, )

index of D over K, and f = f(D/K) the inertiaL degree of D over K. Both e and X E IJ., x =f. 0, and let vD(x) = ke + j, where ° �j � e - 1 . Then
f are finite, and x = (n kb)u, u E u(IJ.).
e . f = (D : K) = m. Since the {aJ form an R-basis for 'X, we may find elements {r J in R such that
Let a l ' . . . , af E IJ. be such that � = I:,0 Rai ' and let bo ' . . . , be - 1 E IJ. be such . u = r al + . . . + rfaf + Z, with Z E p. Hence we have
I
that vD(bj ) j, ° � j � e - 1 . Then the e ·f products {ai bj } form a free
=

R -basis for IJ.. x = ( I ri nk ai)bj + Xl' where


i

�roof. F�rst, let { a i : 1 � i � s} be elements in IJ. whose images {aJ in If x I 0, we may repeat this procedure with Xl ' and continue if need be with
=f.
� are
lInearly mdependent over R, and let { b .: 1 � j � t} be elements of K such x2 ' X3 ' Note that k is the greatest integer in vD (x)/e. Hence after n ' e
• • . •

that the integers {vD(bj)} are incongr u�nt mod e. We claim that the s · t steps, we obtain an equality
products {a ibj} are linearly independent over K. If not, there is a relation f
e-t .
( 1 3.5) x I I (rU ) nk + dP nk + I + ' " + r�j) nk-t- " - l ) aibj + Y" ,
( 1 3.4) Q:: Cl 1 i aJb 1 + . . . + CL Clt iaJbt = 0, Clji E K, =
j=o i= l
where we may assume that for each b). , at least one of the coefficients where vD( Y ) � vD(x) + ne.
.
Clj 1 ,
, Cljs IS nonzero. Write
• . .
For fixed" i, j, the sequence
nj = . min { V(CljJ : 1 � i � s}, Clji = nni . f3ji ' r��
I)
)n\ r�I)� )n k + r��)n
I)
k+ \ . . .
Then each f3ji E R, and for each j there is an index k for which f3jk rI P. We is a Cauchy sequence from R, relative to the P-adic valuation of R. Since R
may rewrite ( 1 3 .4) as is assumed complete, this sequence has a limit Sij E R. If we set x' =

. . a I.b ). E IJ., then for each n we have from (1 3.5)


C I f3lia )n" l b l + . . . + ( L f3t i a)nn t bt = 0. � sI)
"
i, j
Since vD(n) e, replacing each b. by nnjb . does not affect the hypotheses or
=

VD(x - x') � min (vD(y"), k + n - 1 ).


the conclusion. After making th is repla� ement, and renumbering the a's
and b's if need be, we obtain a relation
Thus vD(x - x') = 00, so x = x' . Therefore x E I R ai bj , and the theorem is
C L yl i a)b l + . . . + (L yt i a)bt = 0, proved.
where each Yji E R, and
We have now established that IJ. is finitely generated as R-module, and
indeed that IJ. is a free R-module on m generators. This shows that Theorem
and Y 1 1 ¢ P. Therefore
1 2.8 is valid, that is, IJ. is the unique maximal R-order in D.
2: ( � Yji a)b/b l = 0, and b)b1 E P for 2 � j � t.
) 1
( 1 3.6) COROLLARY. The skewfield D is compLete relative to the valuation vD ·
1 42 MAXIMAL ORDERS IN SKEWFIELDS (LOCAL CASE) ( 1 3 .7) (14 . 1) FINITE RESIDUE CLASS FIELD CASE 1 43
Proof Keeping the notation of ( 1 3.3), we have D = ?:. Kaibj ' Let {X l ' x 2 , . . . } 4. A fractional d-ideal is a full left d-lattice in D. Show that the set of fractional
I, ) d-ideals, with the obvious definition of multiplication, is an infinite cyclic group
be a Cauchy sequence from D, whence vD (xn - xn - l ) � 00 as n � 00 . Write generated by the ideal p. Prove also that p rad d.
=

r��J
I)
E K, n � 1.
14. FINITE RESIDUE CLASS FIELD CASE
Set
vD(xn - xn - l ) = e ' kn + ln '
=
Throughout this section we assume that R is a finite field with q elements.
2
Let D be a skewfield with center K, and let (D : K) n . We call n the index

=
so also lim kn
n -+ if
= 00. We have then of D. Denote by v the valuation vK on K, and by vD that on D, as in ( 1 3 . 1 ).
Xn - xn - l nkn . Yn ' Yn E d . Let d be the unique maximal R-order in D. We shall see here that the struc­
tures of D and d can be described explicitly in this case, and depend only on
Write Yn as an R-linear combination of the {aibj } ; then by ( 1 3.3), it follows the index n and some integer r such that 1 � r � n, (I', n) = 1 .
from the above equation that The discussion to follow depends heavily on the results listed in §5b, and
r��) - r�� l we shall use the notation introduced there. Since R is finite, we know from
- ) E nknR •

=
I) I)
(5. 1 0) and (5. 1 1 ) that for each positive integer f, there is a unique unramified
Hence {r�� ), r�J ), . . . } is a Cauchy sequence from K, with limit p . . , say. Then
I) extension W of K with (W: K) = f, given by W K(w), where w is a primi­
obviously tive (qf - l )th root of 1 . If Ow denotes the valuation ring of W, and Ow the
residue class field of ow ' then

2 Ow = R[w], ( W: K) = (ow : R) = f
(13.7) THEOREM. Let K be the center of the skewfield D, and set (D : K) = n ,
e = e(D/K), f = f(D/K). Then Further, TV;'K is a galois extension with cyclic galois group of order f, generated
e l n, n lf by the Frobenius automorphism (J defined by w � wq• Likewise, 0w/R is a
galois extension, with galois group cyclic of order f, generated by the auto­
Proof Let w be the extension of v to D defined in ( 12.3). By definition of e, morphism if which maps ill onto illq •
we have w(nD) = l/e. Then K(nD) is a subfield of D, and has ramification Before turning to the study of skewfields, we need one more preliminary
inde� e. Hence by (5.6) or ( 1 3.3), we have e l (K(nD) : K). But K(nD) lies in some result.
maxImal subfield E of D, whence (K(nD) : K) I (E : K). Since (E : K) = n by
(7. 1 5), the result follows. (14.1) THEOREM. Let W be an unramified extension of K of degree f, and let v
be the valuation on K. Given any element r:x E K, the equation
EXERCISES NW K X
'
= r:x,
1. Let Y be any full set of representatives in d of the residue classes in K, where we is solvable for x if and only if f divides v(r:x).
assume that 0 E Y. Prove that every nonzero X E D is uniquely expressible as
Proof The prime element n of R is also a prime element for Ow . Each nonzero
x = 7r�D()C) . (s o + Sl7rD + S27r� + . . . ), Si E Y , So f= O.
2. Prove that the order ideal ordR Li eq uals pI, where f
x E W is thus expressible as x = nkxo , Xo E u(ow ). Then vw(x o ) = 0, whence
f(D/ K).
[Hint : X � RU) as R-modules.]
Nx o E u(R), where N denotes NW/ K ' But
=

n
Nx n fN(x o )'
3. Prove that v(ND{K 7rD) = f, and that v(nrD{K 7rD) = me.
=

[Hint : e - i = m - i v(ND{K 7rD), m (D: K), so v( ND{K 7rD) = f. Next,


=
and thus the condition that f divides v(cr) is a necessary one.
To prove sufficiency, it is enough to deal with the case where r:x E u(R).
ND{K 7rD = (n r 7rD)v'(D : Kl, so f =
.j(D : K) v(n r 7rD) = .JiJ. v(nr 7rD ). ] Since the galois groups of W/K and of 0w/R are isomorphic, it follows at
1 44 MAXIMA L ORDERS IN SKEWFI ELDS (LOCAL
CASE) ( 14.2) (14.3) FINITE RESIDUE CLASS FIELD CASE 1 45
once from Exercise 1 .4 that
Condition (1 4.2) thus becomes
a == Nai + ni TW/K (yb) (mod n i + 1 R).
where N, T are the norm and trace maps from Ow to R, while N and T are But y is a unit in ow ' and T is epic, so we can always choose b E Ow s�tisfy�ng
those from W to K. We shall show that both N and T are epic. We know this for the above condition. We have therefore obtained our next approxImatIOn
1: since Ow is separable over R (see (4.6)). Next, the multiplicative group of Ow is a I. + . If we set x = . lim aj , then x E Ow and a = N W/K x, which completes
cyclic of order qf - 1 , with generator w. Since Gal (ow/R) is cyclic with 1 1 _ co

generator if: w � wq, the distinct algebraic conjugates of w over R are the proof of the theorem.
{wq i : 0 � i � f - I} . Now we are ready to consider skewfields. The first important consequence
Each nonzero element of Ow is of the form wt, 1 � t � qf - 1 , and (by of the hypothesis that R be finite is as follows :
Exercise 1 .4) we have
( 1 4.3) Theorem. If (D : K) =
n2, then
N(wt ) W t( 1 + q + ' " + qf - 1) (jj t(qf - 1 )/(q - 1 ) .
= =

=
e(D/K) f(D/K) = n.
Thus N(wt)= 1 if and only if (q - 1 ) I t. Hence exactly - l)/(q - 1 ) (qf
elements of O w have norm 1 , s o there are q - 1 distinct nonzero norms. This
Proof. � is a skewfield of finite dimension f over R, hence is a fi�e sk:,wfield.
proves that N is epic.
By Wedderburn's Theorem (7.24), � must be a field. Hence � =
R(a) for
Continuing with the proof, let a E u(R). Since N is epic, we may choose
some a E �, so by (1 3.3) or (5.6) we have
b o E Ow such that a == Nbo mod nR . For i � 1 , suppose that we have found
an element (K (a) : K) � (� : R) = f.
But K(a) is a subfie1d of D, whence (K(a) : K) � n by (7. 1 5). Therefore f � �,
such that = =
so f n by (1 3.7). Finally, ef n2 implies that e n, and the proof IS
=

a == Nai (mod niR). complete.


Of course aj E u(ow) since Nai E u(R). We proceed to construct the next
i
approximation, and set aj + 1 ai + bn , with b E Ow to be determined so that
=
As a consequence of the above theorem, we now know that
n� = p ", � =
R(�),
( 14.2) a == Nai + 1 (mod ni + 1 R).
where p is the unique maximal ideal of .1, n is a prime element of R, and �
Since i � 1 , by Exercise 1 .4 we have is a primitive (q" - l )th root of l over R. We wish to prove, in analogy with
the results of § 5b for the case of fields, that the skewfield D c� mes from �n
f- l
Nai + = IT «(1S(a J + (1S(b)ni ) un ramified extension, followed by a completely ramified extenSIOn. To begm
1
=o with choose any element co E � such that w = �, and set W = K(co). Then
S
f- l W i; a subfield of D, and by (5.8) lIT! is an umramified extension of K such
i
== Nai + ni I Cs (mod n + 1 R), that ( W: K) (Li : R)
= n, and hence W is a maximal subfield of D. Further,
=

where for each s,


s=o by (5. 10) W is a cyclotomic extension of K containing all of the (q" - l)th
roots of 1. Hence we could have chosen co to be a primitive (q" - 1)th root
Cs = a i . (1(ai ) · . . (1s - 1 (aJ . (1s + 1 (aJ . . . (1f - 1 (a ) ' (1S(b) of l over K. We shall call W an inertia field of D.
i .
If we set y (1(aj ) ' (12(aJ . . ' (1f - 1 (aJ,
We now know that every skewfield D of index n contains an inertia field
=
then Cs =
(1S(y) . (1S(b) = (1S(yb), whence K(co) as maximal subfield, where co is a primitive (q" - l )th root of l over K.
f-l To what extent is the subfield W of D unique? It is unique up to K-isomor­
I Cs = TW/K (yb). phism by (5. 1 0), but there may be many mutually K-isomorphic subfie!ds
s=o
of D. Obviously W K(wi) for any j relatively prime to q" - 1, so replacmg
=
1 46 MAXIMAL ORDERS IN SKEWFIELDS (LOCAL CASE) ( 14.4) (14.5) FINITE RESIDUE CLASS FIELD CASE 1 47
w by such a power 0} does not affect W. However, (see Exercise 14. 1 ) there since � = �/p is a field . But co is a primitive (q" - l )th root of 1 in �, whence
are usually more than q" - 1 distinct (q" - l )th roots of 1 in D. Indeed, if n = h, and so (k, n) = 1. Now choose r, t E Z with kr - nt = 1 , 1 � r � n,
rt E D is nonzero, then rtWrt- 1 is also a (q" - l )th root of 1, and need not be so surely (r, n) = 1 . Setting
a power of w. We call the elements w, rtWrt - 1 conjugate in D, and likewise the
fields W and rtWrt- 1 are conjugate subfields of D. we have
vD(nD ) = rvD(rt) - tvD(n) = rk - tn = 1,
(14.4) THEOREM. The inertia field of D is unique up to conjugacy.
so nD i s indeed a prime element of � . Furthermore,
Proof. By (5. 10), W is unique up to K-isomorphism. Hence W is unique up
to conjugacy in D by (7.23). We remark that if K is an infinite field, then by
Exercise 14.1, there are infinitely many primitive (q" - l)th roots of 1 in D, Therefore n� commutes with w, and certainly also commutes with nD •
and thus there are infinitely many distinct inertia fields in D. Thus n� lies in the center of D, and is then obviously a prime element of R.
We do not know at this point that n� equals a preassigned prime element
Let nD be a prime element of �. Since n� = n��, the field K(nD) is a n of R, and we show next that we can modify the above nD so as to accomplish
completely ramified extension of K of degree n, and is a maximal subfield this. For any A E u(o w )' AnD is also a prime element of �, and
of D. By ( 1 3.3) we have (AnD) . w . (AnD ) - l = A ' wqr . A - 1 = wqr,
� = I:. Rw i nb = R [w, nDJ,
"- 1 since A lies in the inertia field K( w). It remains to prove that A may be chosen
i, j = 0 so that ().nD)" = n. Now the galois group Gal(W/K) is cyclic of order n,
generated by the automorphism a : w � wq • Since (r, n) = 1 , the auto­
Thus D is obtained by adjoining the element nD to any of its inertia fields morphism p : w � wqr also generates this galois group. But p(x) = nDxn; \
K(w), or equivalently, by adjoining w to the field K(nD)' Note that w and x E W. Therefore by Exercise 1 .4,
nD do not commute, unless n = l .
The inertia field K(w) is uniquely determined up to K-isomorphism by the N W/K x = x . nDxnD- 1 • nD2 xnD- 2 . . . n"D- 1 xnD- (" - 1)
index n, and our next task is to improve our choice of the prime element nD • X E W.
(14.5) THEOREM . Let W E D be a primitive (q" - l)th root of 1, and let n be any This shows that for each A E u(ow )'
prime element of R. Then there exists a prime element nD E � such that (AnD)" = (N W/K A) ' n� .
n� = n, N ow any preassigned prime element n of R is expressible as n {3 . n� for =

where r is a positive integer such that 1 � r � n, (r, n) l . The integer r is


=
some (3 E u(R). By (14. 1) we may choose A E u(o w ) such that N W/K A = {3.
uniquely determined by D, and does not depend upon the choice of w or n. Therefore (AnD )" = n, as desired.
Finally, we prove the uniqueness of r. To begin with, if WI is another
Proof. By Exercise 14.2, there exists a nonzero rt E D such that primitive (q" - l )th root of 1 in D, then there exists a nonzero {3 E D such
that WI = {3wt {3 - 1 for some t. Let n� {3n D {3 - 1 , another prime element of
=

�. Then we have
Replacing rt by n1a if need be, we may assume that rt E �. Now let vD(rt) = k, (n� )" = {3n{3 - 1 = n, n�w'n�- l = {3 · w tqr . p- 1 = (wl)qr,
and put h n/(k, n) . Then
=

8 E u(�), b E Z, so the choice of r does not depend on which root of unity is used. We must
still show that r does not depend on the choice of the prime element nD . Let
and h is the least positive integer for which such an expression for rth is nl be any prime element of �, and suppose that
possible. Then
w qh = rth • W · rt -h 8 ' W · 8 - 1 == w (mod p),
=
nl w . nl - 1 = wq S

148 MAXIMAL ORDERS IN SKEWFIELDS (LOCAL CASE) (14.6) (14.7 ) FINITE RESIDUE CLASS FIELD CASE 149
d.
for some s between 1 and n. We may write n' = ynD with y E u(8), and then a K-subalgebra of M ( W). We shall verify that D is the desired skewfiel
D is expressi ble as a K-linea r combin ation of the n2
Each element a E
wqS ynD . w . (ynD ) - l = y . wqr . y - l . ble
elements { (W*)i . (n; Y } . Since (W*)i = (wi)*, it follows that a is expressi
=

Passing to � we obtain the equality QjqS = Qjqr. Therefore s = r, since Qj is a in the form
primitive (qn - l )th root of unity. This completes the proof of the theorem . n- l
a- - I rxj* (nD* )j' rxJ. E W.
The above shows that once the complete field K is given, the skewfield D j=O

[ �' - 1
is completely determined by its index n, and by the integer r. Indeed, we first Since
form the field K(w), with w any primitive (qn - l )th root of 1 . Then we pick
any prime n E R, and adjoin to the field W an element nD satisfying the
0
(n*D )1 =
conditions listed in ( 14.5). This determines the skewfield D = K(w, nD ) up n1J.
to K-isomorphism. We call the fraction r/n the Hasse invariantt of D. we obtain
We are still left with the problem of deciding whether each fraction r/n
rxo rx l rx 2 rx n - l
arises from some skewfield.
nf)(rxn _ l ) e(rx o ) e(rx l ) e(rxn )
-2
(14.6) THEOREM. Let 1 � r � n, (r, n) = 1 . Given the complete field K, there nf) 2 ( rxn _ ) nf) 2 ( rx f) 2 ( rxo ) e 2 (rxn _ 3 )
(14.7) a= 2 n_ 1)
exists a skewfield D with center K, index n, and Hasse invariant r/n.

nf)n - 2 ( rx 2 ) nf)n - 2 (rx 3 ) nf)n - 2 (rx4) f)n - 2 ( rx l )


Proof. Let W = K(w), where w is a primitive (qn - l )th root of I . If there is
1 en - l ( rxo )
such a skewfield D with the desired properties, then W must be a maximal n en - l (rx l ) nf)n - l (rx 2) nf)" - (rx 3 )
subfield of D, and hence W splits D. Therefore W ® K D :;; Mn( W), and hence
each element d E D is representable by a matrix d* E Mn( W). We will therefore Hence if a = 0, then each rx.I = O. This shows that D is a vector space over W
. 2
try to find a set of matrices in M n(W) which constitute a skewfield having the with basis { (n; Y : O � j � n - I } , and therefore (D : K) = n . .
desired properties. Next suppos e that a E D is a zero divisor, but that a #- O. Let a be gIVen as
that each
Let f) be the automorphism of W for which f)(w) = wqr, and let n be a prime above ; after replacing a by n1a with suitable 1, we may assume
element of R. For rx E W, define is a unit in (This depend s on the observa­
rx . E ° and that at least one rx . ow '
rx 0 0 0 0 0 0 tion th�t n is also a prime e1e � ent for ow .) Now (by Exercis e 1 .4),

0 f)(rx) 0 0 0 0 I 0 mod now '

But det a = 0, since a is a zero divisor in D. Therefore N W/K O E


rx* = 0 0 f) 2 ( rx) 0 , n*D - rx n ow n R,
unit in Hence we may write rx o = nf30 for some
0 0 0 I whence rxo is not a ow '
0 0 0 f)n - l (rx) n 0 0 0 f3 0 E ow ' But then
det a == n ' NW/K rx l mod n 2 ow '
The map r:t � r:t*, r:t E Jtf!, gives a K-isomorphism of Jtf! onto the field
Jtf/* = K(w*) c Mn (K), where we identify each A E K with the scalar matrix so also rx l = nf3 l for some f3 l E ow ' Continuing in this way, it follows that
n
AI E Mn(K). It is easily checked that each rx . is a multiple of n, which is a contradiction. This proves that D has
no ze �o divisors except O. Hence for each nonzero a E D, the K-homo­
(n;)" nIn ' n; ' w* . (n;) - l = (w*)qr.
=
morphism x � ax, x E D, is monic. Since (D : K) is finite, this shows that
We now set n- l D = aD = Da for each nonzero a E D, and hence D is a skewfield.
D = K[w*, n; ] = L K(w* Y(n; Y, Observe next that W* is a subfield of D, and that (W* : K) = n. If a E D
i, j = O
' ' commutes with w*, then since the diagonal entries w, f)(w), . . . , f)n - l (w) of
t Later on, we shall call the fraction /
r n the Hasse invariant of D, where r E Z is chosen so that
' '
rr == 1 (mod n) , 1 � r � n. w* are pairwise distinct, it follows that a is a diagonal matrix. Hence by
1 50 MAXIMAL ORDERS TN SKEWFIELDS (LOCAL CASE) (1 4.8) (14.9) FINITE RESIDUE CLASS FIELD CASE 151
(14.7) we have a E W*, and so we have shown that W* is a maximal subfield and the subscripts i, j range from 1 to n 2 . Set X i = I aijyj' aij E K. Then
of D. On the other hand, if a also commutes with n� . then writing a = Ct� a IJ tr(x.x . ), and so by Exercise 4.2 we have
I: :
. . =
I J
with Cto E W, it follows at once that 8(Cto ) Cto . Hence Cto E K, and a = u1n
ordR(Lij/1) = R . det (aij) d(/1jR),
=

for some u E K, which shows that K is the center of D. Finally, the equation
=

(n�)" nln proves that n� is a prime element for D. Thus D is a skewfield


= as claimed.
with Hasse invariant rjn, as claimed.
Let us now calculate :D(/1jR) and d(/1jR) explicitly.
We shall conclude this section by calculating the discriminant d(/1jR) of
the R-order /1 (see § 1 0) as well as the different :D :D(/1jR), defined below.
= (1 4.9) Theorem. We have
To begin with, let tr : D --+ K be the reduced trace map, and let r: : D x D --+ K pn(n - l ).
be the trace form given by r:(a, b) = tr(ab), a, b E D. By (9.8), r: is a symmetric :D"(/1jR) = �- 1 /1, d(/1jR) =

nondegenerate associative bilinear form. We may then define


Proof. The formula for the discriminant follows from that for the different,
Li = {x E D : r:(x, /1) c R} = {x E D : tr(x/1) c R} , by taking norms. Let us write Li n� m /1 ; then m is maximal such that
=

tr n� m /1 c R. Hence we need only show that


By Exercise 4. 1 2, � is a full R-I attice in D, and is clearly a two-sided /1-module.
Since n�Li c /1 for some r, it follows from (1 3.2) that tr(n� (n - 1) /1) c R, tr(n� n /1) � R.
Li nD- m . �
Suppose nD chosen as in ( 1 4.5), so that n� = n. Since
=

for some integer m, and m � 0 since Li � /1. Call � the inverse different, and n- 1
define the different as /1 = IO ow · (n D Y,
:D = :D(/1jR) = n� . /1. j= O
we have
F or a nonzero ideal L n1 /1 of /1, define the norm n- 1
n - (n - 1 ) /1 = n - 1 . nD /1 I (n - 1 ow ) . (nD Y ill Ow .
=

= °

ND/K L = ordR (/1jL), j= 1


where ordR is the R-order ideal (see § 4a). We have, as
in (4.3 1 iii), Let a E D ; to compute tr a, we may use the isomorphism W ® K D � Mne W)
ordR (/1jnb /1) = {ordR(/1jnD �)} 1 = pnl , to represent 1 ® a as an element of Mn ( W), and then take the trace of the
matrix thus obtained. But the isomorphism W ® K D � Mn( W ) has been
since (� : R) = n in this case. Therefore exhibited explicitly in (1 4.7), and hence

(14.8) LEMMA. d(/1jR) = N D/K (:D(/1jR)).


Hence we have at once
Proof. Keeping the above notation, we observe that left multiplication by
n� gives an R-isomorphism tr (n� (n - 1)/1) = TW/K (ow ) c R.
On the other hand, if tr (n� n /1) c R, then the above argument gives
Therefore TW/K (n - 1 o w ) c R, whence TW /K (OW ) c nR. If T denote�the t�ace map �ro �
N D/K(:D) = ordR (/1j:D) = ordR (Lij/1). o to R, then since the galois groups of WjK and owjR are IsomorphIc, It
Now we imitate the proof of (4.35). We may write follows that for each A E o W ' T(X) is the image of TWI K (A). We may thus con­
clude that T is the zero map, which contradicts the fact that Ow is separable
/1 = I O Rxi ' � = IO Ryj , where tr (xiy) = bij , over R. This proves that tr n� n /1 � R, and establishes the theorem.
1 52 MAXIMAL ORDERS IN SKEWFIELDS (LOCAL CASE) EXERCISES 1 53
EXERCISES (compare degrees !), whence

1 . Let D be a skewfield whose center K is infinite. Let a E D - K, f(X) red. char. POL D/K (X char. PO I. W/K (x, (x E w.
min. pol. K a. Show that there are infinitely many elements a' E D such that f(a') = O.
=
=

[Hint : For each nonzero x E D, f(xax - 1) o. Since a ¢ K, there exists an element


This yields the formula for nr( IX).
y E D which does not commute with a ; the same holds for each y + (X, (X E K. If
Another proof can be given by using the matrix representation of 1lD and IX (IX E W)
=

occurring in the proof of ( 14. 6). Then


(y + cr:) a (y + cr:) - 1 (y + p)a (y + fJ) - 1 , cr:, P E K, cr: =1= p,
=
nrD/K 1lD det 1lj; ( _ l)n - l 1l,
then setting z y + p, it follows that z - 1(Z + cr: - P) commutes with a. Hence z
= =

commutes with a, a contradiction. Thus { (y + cr:)a (y + cr:) - 1 : cr: E K} is an infinite set


= n- 1
nrD/ K IX = det IX * = TI (ji(cr:) = N W/ K cr: .]
i=O
of zeros off (X) ] .
2. Keep the notation of ( 14.4) and the discussion preceding it. Show that for each i, 6. Let D be a skewfield whose center K is complete with respect to a discrete valua­

o � i � f - 1, wq is conjugate to w in D. tion, with a finite residue class field R (as in §14). Let
i

3. Let K be the 2-adic completion of the rational field, R its ring of 2-adic integers,
K EB K i E8 Kj E8 Kk (quaternions over K),
nr D = {nrD/K(d) : d E D}.
and VK the valuation on K. Let D
Prove that nr D = K. [Hint : Use the notation and results of the preceding exercise.
=

and set
+ + +
Then
A = R + Ri + Rj + Rk + Ra, a = (1 i j k)j2.
nr D :::> N W/K( W) = {x E K : n l vK(x)},
Show how to extend vK to a valuation on D, and prove that A is its valuation ring.
Find the discriminant of A, and compute e(DjK), f(DjK), a prime element 1lD ' the by (14. 1 ). But nr D also contains ( _ l)n - 11l, whence nr D = K.]
residue class field K, an R-basis for �, and the inertia fields of D over K.
4. Let K be the 3-adic completion of Q. Show that there exists an element a E K
with a 2 - 2. Let <I>4(X) = X 4 + 1, the cyclotomic polynomial of order 4. Show that
=

<I>iX) = (X2 - aX - 1)(X2 + aX - 1) in K [X] ,


and that each quadratic factor is irreducible in K [ X] . Let w be a zero of the first factor
in some extension field of K. Prove that w is a primitive 8th root of unity, and that
X2 - aX - 1 = (X - w)(X - w
3
),
+ (X - 7).
5
X2 aX - 1 = w )( X - W

5. Keeping the notation of (14.5), let W be an inertia field for D. Prove that
n rD/K(1lD) ( _ l)n - 1 1l,
= nrD/K(cr:) = Nw/icr:) , cr: E W
[Hint : Since xn - 1l is irreducible in K[X] by Exercise 5. 1, it follows that
min. pol. K 1lD = xn - 1l. But then
red. char. pol. D/K 1l D = min. pol. K 1l D '
by Exercise 9.1. This gives the desired formula for nr(1lD). Next, let cr: E W and let
f(X) min. pol.K cr:. By Exercise 9.1,
=

K
red. char. PO l. D/K cr: {f(X)} (W : (a)) . =

But also
K
char. pol. W/K cr: = { f(X)} ( W: (a))
(1 5.1) PROGENERATORS 1 55

Let id.rJ be the identity functor on d. Two categories d and f!J are called
equivalent if there exist functors F, G :

such that GF '" idSli and F G idEM' For example, if A denotes the opposite
'" 0

4. Morita Equivalence ring of A (same elements, but multiplication is reversed), then the categories
AJIt and JItAO are equivalent.
We shall need to study the relationship between A-modules and Mn{A)­ N ow let F: d -+ r!J be any functor. Call F faithful if the map
modules, where as usual Mn(A) is the ring of all n x n matrices over the ring
(15.1) a E Hom (A, A') -+ Fa E Hom(FA, FA')
A. The generalization of this relationship leads to the concept of Morita
equivalence, and we sketch here some of the main results of this theory. As is injective, that is, if Fa = 0 implies that a = O. For example, if M is a
references, we cite Bass [1], P . M. Cohn [1], Faith [1]. While the general faithfully flat right A-module, then the functor M ®A ' : AJIt -+ dlJ is faithful
theory holds for abelian categories, we shall make the simplifying assumption (see (2.2 1)).
that our categories are in fact categories of modu les. Denote by . 11,\ the On the other hand, the functor F : d -+ r!J is full if the map in (15 . 1 ) is
category of right A-modules, by /).JltA the category of (�, A)-bimodules, and surjective, that is, if each (3 E Hom(FA, FA') equals some Fa . For example,
so on . let i\ =AI I where I is a two -sided ideal of A. Let d be the category of pro ­
jective left A -modules, f!J the corresponding category for A, and let F : d -+ r!J
be given by F(M) = M/IM. Then F is a full functor, since each A-homomor­
15. PROGENERATORS
phism {3 : M/IM -+ N/IN, where M, N E d, can be lifted to a A-homo­
We shall use the notation of § 2b. Let d be a category with objects A, A', . . ,
. morphism a : M -+ N, and thus (3 = Fa.
and f!J a category with objects B, B', . . We shall write A E d to indicate that
. . We recall from (2. 14) that an object X E d is projective if the functor
A is an object in d. All functors F : d -+ f!J considered below are assumed to
Hom(X, ' ) : d -+ dlJ
be additive. Unless otherwise stated, functors are taken to be covariant.
Let F : d -+ r!J and G : d -+ f!J be a pair of functors. A natural transforma­
is exact. This functor carries A E d onto the abelian group Hom(X, A), and
tion t : F -+ G is a family
takes each a E Hom(A, A') onto
a* : Hom(X, A) -+ Hom(X, A'),
where for each A E d,
where a* f af, f E Hom(X, A).
=
tA E Hom.@ {FA, GA),
Whether or not X is projective, let us consider the functor Hom(X, . ). We
and where for each a E Hom(A, A'), the diagram call X a generator of the category d if Hom(X, ' ) is a faithful functor, that is,
if a* = 0 implies that a = O. In other words, X is a generator if and only if
FA � GA
Fal Gal for each nonzero a: A -+ A' there exists an f : X -+ A such that af =1= O.
Dually, X E d is injective if the contravariant functor Hom{ " X) is exact,
FA' � GA' while X is a cogenerator for d if Hom( " X) is faithful.
is commutative. If furthermore each tA is an isomorphism, we call the functors
( 15.2) THEOREM. An object X in the category d is a generator for d if and
F and G naturally equivalent, and write F '" G.
only if every A E d is a quotient of a direct sum of copies of x.
Example. Let d f!J AJIt, F the identity functor, G the functor A ®A
= = • .

Proof. Let X be a generator, and let A E d. For each f E Hom(X, A), let
For each A E d, let tA : A -+ A ®A A be the left A-isomorphism given in (2.8).
XJ be a copy of X, and set Y = I· XJ ' Each XJ maps into A (by means of f),
Then t is a natural equivalence from F to G. J
1 54
1 57
1 56 MORITA EQUIVALENCE ( 1 5.3) ( 1 5. 6) PROGENERATORS

so there is a map 11 : Y � A, defined by 11 = I"! Thus direct sum IO X, V There are the usual injection maps {i;,} and projection
maps {p;, } , with
11 ( I xj ) I f (xj ) , Xj E Xj " ;, .
X;. � I XV '
=

Clearly p;. V
(15.3) im fl = f(X) c A. We shall say that a functor F : d � 14 preserves direct sums if for each family
j eHom (X, A) { X;. }, there is an isomorphism
Let us show that im fI A ; if not, there exists a nonzero map
= F( I o Xv ) � IO FXv '
cr:: A � A jim fl.

Since X is a generator, there must be an f : X � A such that rtf =1= O. But induced by the maps {Fi;. , Fp;. }. For example, tensor product functors
(af)X rt(f(X)) 0, since f(X) c im 11. This gives a contradiction, and
= =
preserve direct sums. So also does the functor HomA(P, ' ), where P is any
shows that 11 is an epimorphism of Y onto A. Therefore A is a quotient of a finitely generated projective A-module (see Exercise 15.3).
direct sum of copies of X, as claimed.
C ? nversely, suppose that for each A E .91 there is an epimorphism ( 15.6) THEOREM. Let F: .91 � f!4 and G: .91 � 14 be a pair of right exact functors
e : I Xi � A, where each Xi is a copy ofX. We must show that X is a generator which preserve direct sums. Let t: F � G be a natural transformation, and let
for d. Let rt : A � A' be nonzero ; then also tXe =1= 0, since e is epic. If we write X be a generator for d. If tx : FX � GX is an isomorphism in the category
e = LO ep where ei : X i � A, then tXe IO tXei. Therefore tXei =1= 0 for some
=
f!4, then t is a natural e q uivalence of functors.
i. But X:-i � X, and so there exists an f : X � A such that tXf =1= O. This proves
that X IS a generator for .91, as desired. Proof. Since t {tA : A E d } is a natural transformation, each
= ct: A � A'
gives rise to a commutative diagram
The construction in (15.3) is of special importance in the following circum­
stance. Let X E AvH, and define the trace ideal of X as FA � FA'
(15.4) trace X = f(X) c A.
tAl J
tA
GA � GA'.
that
It is easily verified that trace X is a two-sided ideal of A. We are assuming that tx is an isomorphism, and are trying to prove
each tA is an isomorphism.
I X
°

(15.5) COROLLARY. The left A-module X is a generator for AvH if and only Since X is a generator of .91, each A E .91 is a quotient of a direct sum
if trace X A. =
of copies of X. Hence there is an d-exact sequenc e

Proof. If trace X A, then the proof of the preceding theorem shows that U � V � A � 0, where U = IO X, V = IO x.
=
A is a quotient module of IO Xi ' where each Xi � X. But every A-module But F is right exact, and so the sequence
A is a quotient of a direct sum IO Aj ' with each Aj � A.. Hence A is also a
quotient of a direct sum of copies of X, whence X is a generator for AvH
FU � FV � FA � O
by ( 1 5.2). is 14-exact. Hence there is a commutative diagram with exact rows :
Suppose conversely that X is a generator. The proof of (15.2) shows that FU - FV - FA - O
im 11 =A in (15.3), where A is any A-module. Taking A AA, we see that = tu t tV t tA t
the trace ideal of X equals im 11, and thus coincides with A as claimed. G U - GV ---+ GA - O.
dire �t su�s by
It is clear from (15.2), or directly from the definition of generator, that Now F U � IO FX, G U � I O GX, because F and G preserve
F U U . LIkewIse tv
A is itself a generator for the category AvH. Indeed, every nonzero free hypoth esis. Since tx : FX � GX, it follows that tu : � G
above diagram shows that
module is a generator. is an isomor phism, and the commutativity of the
Given a possibly infinite family {X;,} of objects in .91, we may form their tA is also an isomorphism, as desired.
1 58 MORITA EQUIVALENCE ( 1 5.7) ( 1 5.9) PROGENERATORS 1 59

An object P E .91 is faithfully projective if it satisfies the following three Now let A and A' be arbitrary, and let
conditions :
(i) P is a projective object in .91. U --+ V --+ A --+ O
(ii) P is a generator for .91. be an .91 -exact sequence in which U and V are direct sums of copies of P.
(iii) Hom(P, ' ) preserves direct sums. Then the sequence
In particular, considering the category /\At, we call a left A - module P a
progenerator for /\Jt if FU --+ FV --+ FA --+ °
(i) P is a finitely generated projective A-module, and is !!A-exact, since F is an exact functor. Since Hom is a left exact functor, we
(ii) P is a generator for /\Jt. obtain a commutative diagram with exact rows
Note each such P is faithfully projective, since by Exercise 1 5.3 Hom(P, ' )
necessarily preserves direct sums. ° --+ Hom (A, A') --- Hom (V, A') --- Hom (U, A')
t FI t F2 t F3
(15.7) THEOREM. Let P be a faithfully projective object in the category .91, and ° --+ Hom (FA, FA') --+ Hom (F V, FA') --+ Hom (F U, FA').
let
A = Homd (P, P), !!A = /\Jt. By the preceding paragraph, both F2 and F 3 are isomorphisms. Hence so
is F l ' and this completes the proof that F : .91 --+ !!A is a full and faithful
View P as right A-module. Then the functor functor. (For another proof see Exercise 1 5.6.)
In order to deduce that F gives an equivalence of categories, it remains
Hom(P, . ) : .91 --+ !!A
for us to show that every left A-module M is of the form FA for some A E d.
gives an equivalence of categories. Let us first write a A-exact sequence

x0 ' X 1 A-free.
Proof. It is clear that A is a ring, and that P can be viewed as a right A-module.
Then for each A E .91, Homd (P, A) is a left A-module. Thus the functor
F : .91 --+ !!A, given by F(A) Hom(P, A), is well defined. Clearly FP A.
=
Since A F(P), we may write Xi = F( Ui), with � a direct sum of copies of
=
=

Since P is a projective object, the functor F is exact. P, i = 0, 1. By the preceding paragraphs,


In order to show that F is a category equivalence, we use the result of
Exercise 15.2. We show first that F is full and faithful, that is, for each pair
A, A' E .91, the map
so we have � = Fa for some a: U 1 --+ U 0 . Let A = cok a, and apply F to the
(15 . 8) F: Hom(A, A') --+ Hom(FA, FA') .91-exact sequence
U1 7 U0 --+ A --+ 0,
given by a --+ Fa, is an isomorphism. Let us first verify this when A = I O P A. ,
where each PA. � P. By (2.7) thus obtaining a A-exact sequence
Hom(A, A') � n Hom(PA. , A') � n FA', X l -r X0 --+ FA --+ 0.
A.
the latter because Hom(P A. ' A') � Hom(P, A') FA'. On the other hand, F
= Therefore M � FA, and the proof of the theorem is complete.
preserves direct sums since P is faithfully projective, and thus
·
Hom/\ (FA, FA') � Hom/\ (Io FPA. ' F A') � n Hom/\ (A, FA') � n FA'. (1 5.9) Corollary. Let M be a progenerator for the category �Jt, where � is
A. A. a ring, and let A = Hom� (M, M) be the endomorphism ring of M. View M as a
We have now shown that the map F in (1 5.8) is an isomorphism whenever bimodule �M/\ . Then there is an equivalence of categories
A is a direct sum of copies of P. Hom�(M, . ) : �Jt --+ /\Jt.
(16. 1 ) MORITA CORRESPONDENCE 161
160 MORITA EQUIVALENCE

7 . Let Pll. be a progenerator for vIt ll. ' and let G, H : vIt ll. � .916 be the covariant
EXERCISES
functors defined by
1. Let F : .91 � P.I be an equivalence of categories. Show that A is projective if and '
G(L) = Homll.(P, L), H(L ) = L ®A P*,
only if FA is projective.
where P* = Homll.(P, I1) (viewed as left l1-module). Show that the functors G, H are
2. Let F : .91 � � be a full faithful functor such that every B E fA is the image FA of
some A E d. Prove that F is a category equivalence. naturally equivalent. [Hint : Prove
(i) P* is a finitely generated projective left l1-module.
3. Let P be a finitely generated projective left A-module. Show that the functor
(ii) The functors G and H are exact, and preserve direct sums.
HomA (P, . ) : A vIt � .916- (iii) There is a natural transformation t: H � G, given by

preserves direct sums. [Hint : First check the case where P = A, then use the fact that

HomA(P + p" . ) '" HomA(P, ' ) + HomA(P', ' ).] where tL is defined by the formula

4. Let AvIt � ll.vIt be an equivalence of categories, where A and 11 are rings. Show {tL(l ® cp) } x = i· cp(x), lE L , CP E P*, X E P.
that A is left hereditary if a�d only if 11 is left hereditary. [Hint : A is left hereditary if
(iv) tll. : H(M � G(M·
and only if subobjects of projective objects in A vIt are projective.]
Then use ( 1 5.6).]
5. Let .916° denote the category which is opposite to .916, that is, .916° has the same
objects as .916, but all arrows are reversed.
(i) Prove that direct products in .916 correspond to direct sums in .916 0 . 16. MORITA CORRESPONDENCE
(ii) Given an object A ' in a category .91 , define a functor G : .91 � .9I6 ° by setting
Let MA be a nonzero right Ll-module, and set
G(A) = { Homd (A, A') f E .9I6 � for each A E d.
(16.1) A = HomA (M, M), M* = HomA(M, Ll).
(There is an obvious definition of the action of the functor G on maps in d.) Prove
that G is a right exact covariant functor which preserves direct sums ! Let A act on the left on M, so there is a bimodule structure j\MA· By definition,

6. Use Theorem 1 5 .6 to prove that the map F in (1 5.8) is an isomorphism. [Hint : M* = HomA(j\MA, ALlA)'
Keep the notation of the proof of ( 1 5 . 7), so
the set of all right
Ll-homomorp hisms from M to Ll. The left action of Ll on
F(A') = Homd (P, A') for each A' E d.
the bimodule ALlA enables us to make M* into a left Ll-module. The left
Keeping A' fixed, define functors G, H : .91 � .9IlJo by action of A on the bimodule A MA likewise makes M* a right A-module
(see §2). It is easily verified that M* is a bimodule AM* A '
G(A) = { Homd (A, A')r, H(A) = { Hom�(F A, FA') t, A E .91,
We define a map
with obvious definitions of G and H on maps. Since P is a fai thfully projective object (16.2) m(fm')
J1 : M ® A M* --+ A, m ® f --+ (m, f), where (m, f)m' =

in .91, the functor F is exact and preserves direct sums. Use this to prove that H is a
right exact covariant functor which preserves direct sums. for m, m' E M, f E M*. Likewise, let
The functor F : .91 � � determines homomorphisms
(16.3) T: M* ®A M --+ Ll, f ® m' --+ [f, m'] , where [f, m'] = fin' ·
FA, A' : Homd (A, A') � Hom!i (F A, FA'), A, A' E d.
It is easily checked that J1 and T are well defined, J1 is a two-sided A-homo­
For each A E d, define tA : HA � GA by tA = {FA ' A ' r, Prove that t : H � G is a morphism, and T a two-sided Ll-homomorphism. Further, one obtains
natural transformation .
In order to prove that the map F in ( 1 5.8) is an isomorphism, it suffices to establish (16.4) (m, f)m' = m [f, m'] , g(m, f) = [g, m] f,
that each tA is an isomorphism in .9IlJo. By ( 1 5.6), this will follow once we know that
tp is an isomorphism in .9IIJO. But this is true since
for m, m' E M, f, g E M*. Finally, we note that

(16. 5) im T = trace MA '


GP = Homd (P, A ') = FA'

HP = Hom� (FP, FA') = HomA(A, FA') � FA'.] where "trace" is defined as in (15.4).
162 MORITA EQUIVALENCE (1 6.6) (1 6.9) MORITA CORRESPONDENCE 163
(16.6) Definition. A Morita context consists of a pair of bimodules A Mt. ' generator for .,I(t. . Finally, J1 epic implies J1 monic, by Exercise 16.1, and
t.NA relative to rings �, A, and bimodule maps likewise for T. This completes the proof.
J1 : M ® t. N � A, T : N ® A M � �,
The same argument shows
given symbolically by J1(m ® n) = (m, n), T(n ® m) = [n, m], interrelated by
the formulas (16.8) COROLLARY. For any Morita context (16.6), we have
(m, n)m' m en, m'], n(m, n') En, m]n',
lA E im J1 � J1 epic � J1 monic,
= =

for all m, m' E M, n, n' E N. If both J1 and T are isomorphisms, we call the it. E im T � r epic ====9 r monic.
rings �, A Morita equivalent.
Recall that Mt. is a progenerator of .,1(.1. if M is a finitely generated projective
We have just seen how to construct a Morita context by starting with Mt. ' �-module which is a generator of the category .,I(t. . The preceding results
and defining A, M* by (16. 1). We call it the Morita context derived from the give at once
right �-module M . We now proceed to investigate this derived context
more fully, keeping the notation of ( 16. 1)-(16.5). (1 6.9) Corollary. The module Mt. is a progenerator of At. if and only if both
of the maps J1, T in ( 1 6.7) are isomorphisms. If Mt. is a progenerator, then the
(16.7) THEOREM. Let M be a nonzero right �-module, and let A = Homt.(M, M). Morita context derived from M gives a Morita equivalence between the
Let rings � and Homt.(M, M) .
J1 : M ® t. Homt.(M, �) � Homt.(M, M),
Remark. Let Mt. be a progenerator of .,I(t. . Then M is a projective object
T : Homt.(M, �) ® A M � �, in the category .,I(t. ' and by ( 15.9) there is an equivalence of categories
be the maps defined in (16.2) and (16.3). Then J1 is epic if and only if M is a ( 1 6. 1 0) Homt.(M ) : At. � .,I(A'
, ·

finitely generated projective right �-module; in this case, J1 is also monic.


On the other hand, T is epic if and only if M is a generator oj the category where A Homt.(M, M), and M is viewed as a bimodule AMt. . It is sometimes
=

A t.; in this case, T is also monic. useful to exhibit this category equivalence in terms of tensor products,
Finally, J1 is epic if and only if lA E im J1, and T is epic if and only if it. E im T. rather than Hom. Define M* as in (16. 1 ) ; by Exercise 2.5, there is an iso­
morphism
Proof The last statement in the theorem is obvious, since im J1 is a two-sided
ideal in A, and im T a two-sided ideal in �. and it is easily verified that this is a right A-isomorphism which is natural in
The identity map 1 M on M is the identity element lA . Hence if J1 is epic, L. In other words, there is an equivalence · of functors
we may write
(16.1 1)
h E Homt. (M, �). (This also follows from Exercise 1 5.7.) Hence the equivalence in ( 1 6. 10) can
i=1
also be given as
fJ
Define right �-homomorphisms �(r) � M by

a(a l , · · · , ar ) = L miai , [3(m) = (JI m , . . . , f,.m). We shall show below that every Morita equivalence of rings �, A is
1 obtained in the manner described above, by means of the Morita context
It is easily seen that a[3 = 1 M , whence M I � (r), and thus Mt. is finitely generated derived from a progenerator Mt. of category .,I( t. . As a first step in establish­
and projective. The argument can be reversed, and thus J1 is epic if and only ing this fact, let us start with an arbitrary Morita context (16.6), not neces­
if Mt. is finitely generated and projective. sarily derived from a �-module M, and let us see what conclusions may be
Next, im T trace Mt. . Hence by ( 15.5), T is epic if and only if M is a
=
drawn if we assume that J1 is epic.
1 64 M ORITA EQUIVALENCE ( 1 6. 1 2) ( 1 6. 1 3) MORITA CORRESPONDENCE 1 65
(16. 1 2) THEOREM. Suppose that the map J1 occurring in the Morita context whereas
(1 6.6) is epic. Then both MA and A N are finitely generated projective modules,
and A acts faithfullyt on N. Furthermore, n' · { (J1' (tjJ ® 1) · (m ® n)} = n' · { /( tjJm ® n)} = n' · {tjJm, n}
= < n ' , tjJm ) · n {(tjJm)n' } · n en' , m] · n.
M � RomA (N, L\), = =

This shows that (16. 1 3) is commutative.


The first of these is a (A, L\)-bimodule isomorphism, and the second is an iso­ Up to this point, we have not used our hypothesis that J1 is epic. Under this
morphism as rings of right operators on N. hypothesis, we know from (1 6.8) that J1 is in fact an isomorphism. We shall
show that the other maps qJ, J1' and tjJ ® 1 in (16. 1 3) are also isomorphisms.
Proof. Let us form the Morita context derived from A N, by setting We begin by proving that tjJ itself is an isomorphism. Choose Z E M ® N so
that J1(z) = 1 A ; then

Then A ' is a ring, and there are bimodule structures N " ' N* ' and If m E ker tjJ, then [N, m] = 0, whence
bimodule homomorphisms A A A A
m = I (mi , ni )m = I mJni , m] = 0,
J1' : N* ® A N -+ A ', f ® n -+ {f, n } , and thus tjJ is monic. To prove tjJ epic, let f E N* and set
!' : N ®A ' N* -+ L\, n ® f -+ < n, f ) f(n), m = I mi ' f(nJ .
=

where
We show that tjJ(m) = f by checking that for each n E o N, {tjJ(m)}n = f(n).
{f, n}g f < n, g ) . We have
[n, I m i · f(ni )]
=

{tjJ(m)}n = = I [n, mJ f(nJ


We may now define a right L\-homomorphism tjJ by
But f is a L\-homomorphism, and [n, m J E L\, whence
tjJ : M -+ N*, m -+ [ . , m],

where we use ( , ) and [ , ] for the maps J1, ! occurring in (1 6.6). Also define a
ring homomorphism This completes the verification that tjJ is an isomorphism. It follows at once
that tjJ ® 1 is also an isomorphism.
qJ : A -+ A' , A -+ AR ,
Now we note that
where AR is right mUltiplication by A on N. Let us verify that the following 1A' qJJ1(z) J1' { (tjJ ® 1)z},
= =

diagram is commutative : whence by (16.8) J1' is an isomorphism. Since (16.13) commutes, it follows
I/I ® l that qJ is an isomorphism, as claimed. This in turn implies that A acts faith-
M ® A N ---+) N* ® A N fully on N.
'
( 16 . 1 3) fl t t fl
0

Finally, since J1 ' is epic, it follows by (16.7) that N is a finitely generated


A -----+ A'. projective left L\-module. But then N* is a finitely generated projective right
L\-module, since (AL\)* L\A . We have shown above that M � N*, whence
=

To prove equality of two elements of A ' , we compute their action on an we may conclude that MA is finitely generated and projective. This completes
arbitrary element n' E N. We have the proof.
n ' {(qJ J1) · (m ® n)} = n ' · (m, n) = en' , m]n,
We called the rings L\, A Morita equivalent if there exists a Morita context
( 1 6.6) in which both J1 and ! are epimorphisms (and hence isomorphisms).
t This means that for A E A, if N A = 0 then A = o.
We saw in (1 6.9) that the Morita context derived from a progenerator MA
166 MORITA EQUIVALENCE (16. l 6) MORITA CORRES PONDENCE 1 67
(1 6. 1 4)
of At� always gives a Morita equivalence, and in that special case we con­ The first equation in (16. l 5) then asserts that AM has trace ideal A, whence
structed an equivalence of categories At� � At", where A = Hom�(M, M). AM is a generator of AAt by (1 5 . 5). Likewise, the second equation in ( 1 6. l 5)
We now prove that every Morita equivalence of rings is derived from a implies that M� is a generator of At� . Further, since J1 is epic, it follows from
progenerator, and gives an equivalence of categories. ( 1 6. 1 2) that M� is finitely generated and projective ; the same holds for A M
since L is epic. This proves the first part of (i), and the second part follows by
(16. 1 4) T�eorem. Let the rings .1 and A be Morita equivalent relative to a symmetry.
Morita context AM� , �NA as in (16.6). Then The assertions in (ii) and (iii) are immediate consequences of ( 16.12), using
(i) M is a progenerator for both At� and AAt. symmetry arguments. (See also Exercise 16.7). To prove (iv) we observe that
N is a progenerator for both �At and AtA •
for each X E AtA '
(ii) There are bimodule isomorphisms {( . ® N)( · ® M) } X = (X ®A M) ®� N � X ®A (M ® � N)
N � Hom�(M, .1) � HomA(M, A), � X ®A A � X,
(iii) There are ring isomorphisms since M ® � N � A as A-A-bimodules . All of these isomorphisms are
A � Hom�(M, M) � Hom�(N, N), natural in X, and thus ( . ® N) ( . ® M) is naturally equivalent to the identity
functor on ..-#A. Analogous arguments hold for the other functors in (iv),
where Hom�(N, N) acts as a ring of right operators on N, and likewise so we obtain category equivalences, as claimed. The natural equivalences of
HomA(M, M) on M. the type · ®A M HomA (N, · ) follow from (ii) and (16.1 1).
'"

(iv) There are inverse pairs of equivalences of categories Finally S(A) = M, so the right ideal J of A maps onto S(1) = J ® /\ M.
But J ® A M � J M as .1-modules, since A M is projective. This implies the
first statement in (v). The second statement follows by symmetry. Finally,
where if 1 is a two-sided ideal of .1, then 1 corresponds to the sub-bimodule M1 of
AM� , and this in turn corresponds (via T) to the two-sided ideal Hom�(M, M1).
S = . ®A M '" HomA (N , · ), T = · ® � N "' Hom�(M, · ), This completes the proof.
S' = N ® A · '" HomA (M , · ), T' = M ®� . '" Hom�(N, · ).
Let us briefly consider the special case where M� is free on r generators,
(v) The correspondence J --+ JM gives an isomorphism of the lattice of and where
right ideals of A and the lattice of submodules of M� , and the two-sided ideals
( 16. 16)
correspond to sub-bimodules of AM � .
The correspondence 1 --+ M1 gives an isomorphism of the lattice of left Clearly M� is a pro generator for vH.." and there is a category equivalence
ideals of .1 and the lattice of submodules of AM, and the two-sided ideals Hom�(M, . ) : At� --+ AtA.
correspond to sub-bimodules of AM� .
The correspondence 1 --+ Hom�(M, M1) gives an isomorphism between the The isomorphism in ( 16. 1 6) can be described explicitly, once we start with a
lattice of two-sided ideals of .1 and the lattice of two-sided ideals of A, once we free .1-basis {m 1 , , mr} of M. Each f E A determines a matrix Tf E Mr(.1),
• • •

identify A with Hom�(M, M). such that


f(m 1 , · · · , mr) = (m 1 , · · · , mr) Tf ·
Proof. By hypothesis both f1 and L in (16.6) are epic, so there exist m's in This equation means that
M, n s in N such that
'

(16. 15) (16. 1 7) f(m) = I mi L ij ' 1 � j � r,


i=l
It is easily checked that for n E N,
For any two-sided ideal 1 of the ring .1, let Mr(1) denote the set of all r x r
( . , n) E HomA ( M , A), matrices with entries in 1.
1 68 1 69
MORITA EQUIVALENCE ( 1 6. 1 8) EXERCISES

(16. 18) COROLLARY. The map I -+ Mr(l) gives an isomorphism between the left noethe rian R-algeb ra. and let M be a finitely generat

ed left A-mod u e . Sh.,?w that
of 71..11, where /\. R Q9 R A
lattice of two-sided ideals of .1 and the lattice of two-sided ideals of M,(.1). M is a generator of "JIt if and only if R Q9 R M is a genera tor =

Prove the corresponding result for progen erators .

Proof By (16.14(v)), the map I -+ Hom&(M, MI) gives the desired isomorphism, 7. Show that the isomor phisms in ( 1 6. 14(ii)) are given
as follows :

once we identify A with Mr(.1) asin (16. 16). We have N � Hom/j, (M, tl.), n _ En, . ] ; N � Hom,,(M, A), n - ( " n).
. M � H o m . (N, tl.), m - [ ', m J .
M � H om"(N ' A) , m - (m , ' ) , a

letting the elements of A and tl.


Further, each isomorp hism in ( 1 6. 14(iii)) is given by
where {ml , . . . , m,} is a free .1-basis for M. Let f E A correspond to Tf E Mr(A), act as left or right multiplications on the module s M
or N.
as in (16. 17). It is clear that f E Hom&(M, MI) if and only if each 7:ij in ( 16. 1 7) ence of rings is transiti ve.
8. Show that Morita equival
lies in I. Hence the image of Hom&(M, MI) in Mr(.1) is precisely Mr(l), which ring A. Prove that M is a
9. Let M be a minimal left ideal of the simple left artinian
proves the corollary. , M), and view M as a bimodul e AM A' Prove
progenerator for "A. Set !l. Hom,,(M
=

(i) tl. is a skewfie ld.


EXERCISES (ii) M is a finite dimensional tl.-space .
(iii) A � HomA(M, M). .
1. Keep the notation in ( 16.1)-( 16.5). Prove that if f..l is epic, then /1 is monic, and [Hint : Use ( 1 5.5) to show that M is a generator for "A.

By Sc ur's L�mma, tl. IS a
( 1 6. 14). ThIS provIdes another
likewise for r. [Hint : It suffices to prove the result for f..l, by symmetry. Let f..l be epic, skewfie ld. Assertio ns (ii) and (iii) then follow from
.4).]
proof of the harder part of Wedderburn's Theorem (7
and write 1" f ( mj ' fJ Let L nj Q9 gj E ker /1, so L( nj , gj ) O. Then
Y:
H ? m/j,( V). Prove
tl.(r) a right tl.-space, and let A
= =

1 10. Let tl. be a skewfield, VA


=
=

a simple left artinian ring, and that tl. Hom,,(V, V)' [Hmt : VIew V � s a
L nj ® gj L (mj , f)nj ® gj L mi Q9 [ f , nj ] gj that A is =
=
.
ideals satIsfy the D.C.C., SInce
j i,j =

bimodu le " VA ' By (16. 1 8), the ring A is simple. Its left
set of tl.-subsp aces of V by ( 1 6. 14). Finally, tl. � Hom,,(V, V)
they are in bijection with the
by ( 16. 14). This proves the easier part of Wedderb urn's Theorem (7.4).J
2. Consider an equivalence of categories A" +
AA ' where A, tl. are rings. Show
that this equivalence comes from a Morita context. [Hint : Set M T(tl.), N S(A). = =

Then there are bimodule structures /j,M" , "N/j, which give a Morita equivalence be­
tween A and tl.. Further, the functors S and Q9 N are naturally equivalent, as are T
.

and , Q9 M.]
3. Let M be a free right tl.-module on r generators, and set A Hom/j,(M, M). =

Then M is a progenerator for AA ' and there is an equivalence of categories

where M* HomA(M, tl.). What is the two-sided ideal in A which corresponds to a


=

given two-sided ideal J in !l.?


4. Show that Morita equivalent rings have isomorphic centers. [Hint : Identify the
center of A with the ring of bimodule endomorphisms ofAMA .]
5. Let R be a commutative ring, A a left noetherian R-algebra, and M a finitely
generated left A-module. Suppose. that for each maximal ideal P of R, the localization
Mp is a generator for the category of left Ap-modules. Prove that M is a generator for
"A. Also prove the corresponding statement when "generator" is replaced by "pro­
generator".
6. Let R be the completion of the commutative local noetherian ring R, let A be a
( 1 7.3) MAXIMAL ORDERS (COMPLETE L O C A L CASE) 17 1

(1 7.3) Theorem. (i) Let A = M,(fl). Then A is a maximal R-order in A, and has a
unique maximal two-sided ideal nDA. The powers
(nDAr = n';; A, m = 0, 1, 2, . . . ,
give all of the nonzero two-sided ideals of A.
5. Maximal Orders Over Discrete Valuation Rings (ii) Every maximal R-order in A is of the form uAu - 1 for some u E u(A),
and each such ring is a maximal order.
.
Throughout this chapter, R denot es a discrete valuation ring with (iii) Every maximal order A' is left and ri� ht heredit� ry, and each of Its n�- �
quotie nt sided ideals is principal. The unique maxImal two-SIded Ideal . of uAu _ IS
field K, maximal ideal P nR i= 0, and residu e class field R 1 1
RIP. We . 1 ' unDu - . u Au - .
=

have already seen in (10.5) that the study of maximal R-orders U ' nDA u - , t h at IS,
=

in separable
K-algebras can be reduced to the case of central simple algebras.
We shall Proof. We know by (8.7) that A is a maxi�al � rder. �eeping the nota­
investigate this case in detail here, by using the results from Chapt
maximal orders in skewfields, and then applying the Morit er IlI on tion (17.2), we set M = I' m ifl ; then we may IdentIfy � wIth Hom� (M, M).
a equivalence
between skewfields and full matrix algebras over skewfi elds. Since M� is a progenerator for the ca�egory JIt �, It �ollows from ( � 6.9)
We assum e throughout that A is a centra l simple K-algebra, and that A is Morita equivalent to fl, relatIve to the Monta context derlved
.
is a minimal left ideal of A. Set D HomA (V, V), and view VD as a that V from M � . By ( 16. 1 8), the two-sided ideals of A are given �y M,(l), :Ith I
bimodule.
If t v 1 ' , v,} is any right D-basis for V, then for each a E AA we
=

ranging over the two-sided ideals of fl. But each nonzero I IS some nDfl, by
• • •
may write (13.2). This proves (i), once we observe that
(17.1 ) a(v 1 , . . . , v) = (V 1 ' . . . , V,)(O: i)' (O:ij) E Mr(D), Mr(n�fl) n� ' Mr(fl) (nDA)m.
and the map defined by a -* (o:J permits us to identify A with Mr(D)
= =

. Furthermore, every one-sided ideal of fl is isomorphic to fl by ( 1 3.2), whence


Likewise, if fl is an R-order in D, we may choose a free fl-lattice
in V, say fl is left and right hereditary. By Exercise 1 5 .4, we may conclude that also A
M t; mifl . For each a E Hom�(M, M) we may write is left and right hereditary.
i= 1
=

. as the
(1 7.2) a(m 1 ' . . . , mJ
Now let us prove that every right ideal of A is principal,t that IS, ?
=
) (O:i) E M/fl).
(m 1 ' . . . , m,)(O: i ' form xA for some x E A. By ( 16. 14), every right ideal of A can be wntten as
The map defined by a -* (O:i) then gives an identification of Hom (M, L) for some fl-submodule L of M. However, M is fl-free, and every
Hom�(M, M) right ideal of fl is principal, and is isomorphic to fl. Hence by (2.44) we may
with Mr(fl), and this identification is consistent with that obtained
from (17. 1).
Finally, we set write L f; l .fl, a free fl-module on s generators, where necessarily s � r.
. J
=

r
Let fls x d�� �te the set of s x r matrices with entries in fl. There is then a
bijection Homd (M, L) � fls X " given by f � U f ' where
17. MAXIMAL ORDERS (COMPLETE LOCAL CASE)
f(m 1 , . . . , m,) = (1 1 , . . , I) U f '
.

In this section we assume always that R is a complete discrete valuation


ring. We know by §12 that the skewfield D contains a unique maximal R-order On the other hand, there is a unique B E fl' x S such that
fl, which is the integral closure of R in D. Denote by nD a prime element of fl, (1 1 ' . . . , I) = (m 1 ' . . . , m,)B,
and let :p nDfl. We have seen in (13.2) that the powers {:pm} give all nonzero
=

one-sided ideals of fl, and that these ideals are necessarily two-sided ideals. and thus we have
We set � fl/:p, a skewfield of finite dimension over the field R.
= f(m 1 , . . . , m,) = (m 1 ' . . . , mr) . BU f'
Let A Mr(D) be a central simple K-algebra. Our aim here is to show that
r it follows that Hom � (M, L) rcan be identified
=

Mr(fl), and its conjugates, give all possible maximal R-orders in A. We shall Comparing this with (17.2),
also study the one-sided and two-sided ideals of such orders. with the right ideal B · fls x of M,(fl). But for each U E fls x , we have
t Caution : A principal ideal xA is not isomorphic to A, except when x E u(A).
1 70
1 72 MAXIMAL ORDERS OVER DISCRETE VALU ATION RINGS 1 73
(1 7.4) ( 1 7.6) M AXIMAL ORDERS (COMPLETE LO CAL C A SE)

B U = [B OJ [�J Proof By (1 7.4) we may choose A = Mr(Ll). We may write rad. A n;� for
some m > O. If m > 1, then A/rad A contains the nonzero mlpotent Ideal
=

nDA/rad A, which is impossible since A/rad A is semisimple. Thus m 1, and =

where the right-hand expression is a product of two r x r matrices. Therefore A/rad A � Mr(A/nDLl) = M/Ll/rad Ll).
This finishes·the proof.

and so we have shown that the given right ideal of A is principal, with gener­ Now let X be any full R-Iattice in A, and define its left and right orders as in
ator [B 0] . A corresponding statement holds for left ideals of A, by sym­ (8. 1 ), (8.2).
metry. (A rather different proof of these facts is given in (1 8.7).)
Turning next to the proof of (ii), let A' be another maximal order in A. ( 1 7.6) THEOREM. O/(X) is a maximal order if and only if o/X) is a maximal order.
Then A'A is a full right A-lattice in A, so there exists a nonzero rx E R such that
rxA'A c A. Then rxA'A is a right ideal of A, hence is principal by the above, Proof Let A = o/X) be maximal, and set A' = O/(X). Then X is a right
and so A'A = uA for some u E A. Clearly A uA, whence u E u(A) by (6.4).
=
A-l attice in A, so as in (17.3) we may write X = uA for some u E u(A). Then
Therefore uAu - 1 . X C X,
uA = A'A A" A'A = A" u A =:;, A'u,
=
whence u Au - 1c A'. Since uA u 1 is a maximal order, we obtain uAu - 1 = A',
-

and so A' is maximal, as claimed.


and thus A' � uAu - 1 . But uAu - 1 is also an order, and hence A' = uAu - 1
since A' is maximal, Keeping the notation of ( 1 7. 3), let us determine all one-sided ideals of A,
Finally, the inner automorphism of A given by x � uxu- \ x E A, carries and especially the maximal such ideals. We begin with an easy result.
A onto A'. The assertions about A' follow at once from those about A' and
the proof is complete. ( 1 7. 7) THEOREM. Every matrix with entries in Ll can be diagonalized by means oj
r
elementary row and column operations. Given any x E Lls x , there exist matrices
(1 7.4) COROLLARY.Let A = HomD ( V, V), where D is a skewfield with center u E u(Ms(Ll)), v E u(Mr(Ll)), such that
K, and where V is a simple left A-module which is a right vector space over D.
Let Ll be the maximal R-order in D, and let A be any maximal R-order in A. Then uxv = 0�a �
diag (7r;t, . . . , n�S), • � as
• •

1
there exists a full free Ll-lattice M in V such that A Hom A (M, M). Con­
=
The integers a I ' . . . , as are uniquely determined by x. (Possibly some oj the
versely, each such A is maximal. {ai} are infinite, and we interpret nrc; as 0.)
Proof Let N be any free Ll-Iattice spanning V, and set A' = Hom A (N, N). Proof One can imitate the usual proof for the case where Ll is a (commutative)
By the above theorem, there exists u E u(A) such that A uA'u - 1 • But then=
principal ideal domain. Indeed, the argument is even simpler in �his cas e,
choose M uN, and we have
=
. . .
since Ll is a local ring without zero divisors, and the fact that multIplIcatIOn In
Hom A (uN, uN) = U · Hom A (N, N) ' u - 1 = A, Ll is non-commutative does not cause any difficulties. We shall not give the
details of the proof. For more general theorems of this type, see Knebusch [1].
as desired. Note that since NA is free, so is MA • The fact that each Hom A (M, M)
is maximal has already been observed in ( 1 7.3(i)). (1 7.8) THEOREM. (i) Set A = A/rad A Mr( �)' There is a one-t �one cor�es­

pondence J � J between maximal right ideals oj A and those of A. Here, J is
Another important consequence of (1 7.3) is the image of J in X, and A/ J � X/J. The module A/J is a simple A -module.
(ii) Let Xl diag (nD , 1 , . . . , 1) E M/Ll). Then x l A is a maximal right ideal
=

(1 7.5) COROLLARY. For every maximal R-order A in A, we hav(! oj A, and its conjugates
rad A = nDA, A/rad A � M/Ll/rad Ll), { u . X A . u - 1 : u E u(An
1
where "rad" denotes Jacobson radical, and where Ll/rad Ll is a skewfield. give all of the maximal right ideals of A.
1 74 MAXIM AL ORDERS OVER DISCRE TE VALUAT
1 75
ION RINGS (17.8) (1 8.1) MAXIMAL O RDERS (LOCAL CASE)

(iii) For x E A, the right ideal xA is maximal if and only if the left ideal Ax is
maximal.
be a discrete valuation ring, not necessarily complete. Let R denote the P­
adic completion of R, and K the quotient field of R . Given any separable
K-algebra B, we may form the K-algebra B = K ® K B, which is a separable
Proof. Each maximal right ideal J of A contains rad A, by (6.3) and (6.6). K-algebra by Exercise 7.1 3. Of course, when B is a central simple K-algebra,
Therefore we know from (7.8) that B is a central simple K-algebra. However, if B is
A/J � (A/rad A)/(J/rad A) = A/J. merely assumed separable over K, then it may well happen that 13 will have
Since J is maxima� A/J is a simple A-module, whence A/J is a simple A­ more simple components than B. This may occur even when B is a field (see
mod�e. Therefore J is also maximal. Conver sely for each maximal right ideal Exercise 7.7, for example). Even in the case where B is central simple over K,
Y of A, the k�rnel of the epimorphism A -+ A/Y is a maximal right ideal J of the full matrix algebras B, 13 may consist of different size matrices. Despite
A such that J Y. This proves (i).
= these precautionary remarks, however, we can obtain results on R-orders in
Next, we have B by using the theorems in §17 on R -orders in B.
1 X l = e l l diag (1 , 0, . . . , 0) E A, If r is any R-order in B, then setting t = R ®R r, we obtain an R -order
t in B. If M is any r -module, then M R ® R M is a t-module. We shall use
=
-

-
=

whence such notation hereafter without further comment. By (1 1 .5), r is a maximal


A/X lA A/(l = - el l) A � e l lA. order in B if and only if t is a maximal order in B.
But e l l is a primitive idempotent in A, so e l lA is a simple A-module. Thus (18.1) THEOREM. Every maximal R-order r in a separable K-algebra B is left
x l A is a maximal right ideal of A, as claimed. The same argument shows that and right hereditary.
Ax 1 is a maximal left ideal of A.
By (17.3), every maximal right ideal of A has the form xA for some x E A. Proof. By (10.5), the maximal R -order t is expressible as a ring direct sum
As in (1 7.7), choose u, v E u(A) so that L·A . of maximal R.-orders in central simple algebras, where each Ri is a
uxv = diag (n;l , . . . , n;;), com�lete discrete v �luation ring in the center of some simple componen!
of B. Each of these direct summands Ai is hereditary by (17.3), and thus r
But if 0 ;:::::; bi ;:::::; ai ' 1 ;:::::; i ;:::::; r, then itself is hereditary. Therefore also r is hereditary, by §3d.
uXV ' A = diag (n�I, . . . , n;;) ' A
diag (n�\ . . . , n�) ' A c A.c
(18.2) THEOREM. Let A be any R-algebra, finitely generated as R-module, and
Since xA is maximal, so is uxv . A, because left multiplication by u carries A let A A/nA .
=

onto itself, and carries xA onto uxv . A. Hence we have a = . . = a 0' (i) For each s � 1, there is a ring isomorphism
1 r- l
. =

a
r
= 1, and thus A/nsA � A /nsA .
uxv = diag (1, . . . , 1, nJ = Xn (ii) There are ring isomorphisms
say. But xr = tX l t' for some t, t' E u(A), and thus uxv = tX l t' , so A/rad A � A/rad A � A/rad A.
xA = u 1t . X A1 = (u - 1 t) . X 1 A . (u - 1 t) - l . (iii) Let M, N be finitely generated left A-modules. Then M � N as A­
modules if and only if M � N as A -modules .
-

This completes the proof of (ii).


Finally, let xA be maximal, By the above, we may write x U'X l v' for some Proof. Assertion (i) follows immediately from Exercise 5.7. Taking s = 1 in
(i), we have A � A/nA . We then obtain (ii) by applying (6. 1 5) twice, once for
=

u', v' E u (A). Then Ax = AX l . v', whence Ax is a maximal left ideal of A, as


claimed. This proves the theorem. the R-order A and once for the R -order A.
To prove (iii), we note that if M � N, then obviously M � N. Conversely,
let <p : M � N, and let t/J <p l . Since R is a flat R-module (see (2.23) or
= -

18. MAXIMAL ORDERS (LOCAL CASE) Exercise 5.3), it follows at once by (2.38) that
Keeping the notation introduced at the beginning of this chapter, let R R ® R HomA(M, N) � HOll1A (iW , N).
1 76 MAXIMAL ORDERS OVER DISCRETE VALUATION RINGS (18.3) (1 8.5) MAXIMAL ORDERS ( L O C A L CASE) 1 77

Thus we may view HomA(. M, N) as the P-adic completion of Homt\(M, N). Proof Maximal orders have the indicated properties, by ( 1 8.1) and (18.3).
But Hom A(M, N) is dense in its completion (see §5, or (6. 1 6)), and so we can Conversely, let A be hereditary, with unique maximal two-sided ideal rad A,
find an f E HomA(M, N) such that and let r be an order properly containing A. Then r is a left A-lattice, hence
is a finitely generated projective left A-module by ( 10.7). It follows then from
f == <p (mod n ' HomA (M, N)).
(1 6.7) that the map
Likewise, we may choose g E HomA (N, M) such that g == l/J (mod n). Then fl : HomA (r, A) ® A r --+ HomA (r, r)
gfE HomA (M, M) is such that is epic, where
m - (gf)m E nM , m E M. J1(f ® y) =
(f, y), y'(f, y) =
[y',f]y,
However, M n nM nM by Exercise 5.7, and thus m
m E M. This gives
= - (gf)m E nM for all and [y ', f] is f evaluated at y '. Suppose that J1{ L� ® yJ = 1. Then
LY y ) = y for all y E r, that is,
U; ,
M = (gf)M + nM.
L [y, }JYi y, Y E r.
=

But rad � = nR, and M is a finitely generated R-module, so by Nakayama' s


Lemma It follows from the above that M = (gf)M. Therefore gf is a A-auto­ Now consider the trace ideal T of the left A-module r (see ( 1 5.4)). Then T
morphism of M, by (6.3a). Likewise, fg is a A-automorphism of N. Thus both is the two-sided ideal of A spanned by
fand g are isomorphisms, which shows that M � N, and completes the proof
of the theorem.
{ [y , f] : y E r, f E HomA (r, A)},
so the above equation implies that Tr r. Let us show that T is a proper
=

(1 8.3) Th,eorem. Let A be a maximal R-order in a central simple K-algebra A. ideal of A. If T = A, then r is a progenerator of A.A. This gives (by (16.14))
Then A has a unique maximal two-sided ideal �, given by � An rad A . =
A = Homn(r, r), where n = HomA(r, r),
Then rad A � �, and every nonzero two-sided ideal of A is a power of �,
Further, rad A is the P-adic completion of rad A. and where Arn is viewed as a bimodule. But then n = r, since every A-endo­
morphism of Ar is given by right multiplication by an element of r. Therefore
A

�roof" Since is .a maximal R -order in the central simple J(-algebra A, the we obtain A Homn(r, r) = r, a contradiction.
=

nng A/rad A I� sIm ple. Hence also A/rad A is simple, by ( 1 8.2). But every We have now shown that T is a proper ideal of A, and thus T is contained in
. the unique maximal two-sided ideal rad A of A. Since T r r, it follows that
maxImal two-sIded Ideal of A contains rad A by (6. 1 3), and thus rad A is the =

unique maximal two-sided ideal of A. Furthermore, (18.2(ii)) implies at once (rad A)r = r, which is impossible by Nakayama's Lemma. This shows that
that A is a maximal order, and completes the proof of the theorem.
rad A = A n rad A, R ® R rad A rad A. =

Next, since A is simple, every nonzero two-sided ideal M of A is such that We are going to show that maximal R-orders in separable K-algebras are
KM A. Thus M ::> nSA for some s, and hence M is the inverse image of a
=
principal ideal rings, that is, every one-sided ideal is principal. Theorems
two-sided ideal of A/nsA. But A/ns A � A/nsA, and all two-sided ideals of 10.5 and 18.2 will enable us to reduce this question to the case of maximal
A/nsA are images of powers of rad A. It follows at once that M itself is a orders in central simple algebras. The key to the proof is the fact that such an
power of �, as claimed. This completes the proof of the theorem. order A is a primary ring, that is, A/rad A is a simple artinian ring. We begin
with a result on primary algebras.
W,e next give a criterion, due to Auslander-Goldman [1], for an order to be
maxImal. THEOREM. Let B be a primary finite dimensional algebra over a field k,
(1 8.5)
and let M, N be finitely generated projective left B-modules. Then M � N if
(18.4) THEOREM. Let A be an R-order in the central simple K-algebra A. Then and only if (M : k) = (N : k).
A is maximal if and only if A is hereditary, and rad A is its unique maximal
two-sided ideal. Proof Let 13 = B/rad B, a simple artinian ring, and let b E B map onto 5 E 13.
1 78 MAXIMAL ORDERS OVER DISCRETE VALUATION RINGS (18.6) (18.7) MAXIMAL ORDERS (LOCAL CASE) 1 79
Suppose that (1 8.7) Theorem. Let A be a maximal R-order in a central simple K-algebra A.
B = Be l EB · · · EB Ben (i) Let M and N be left A-lattices. Then M � N if and only if M and N have
the same R -rank.
is a decomposition of B into a direct sum of indecomposable (ii) Every one-sided ideal of A is principal.
left ideals
�h!�e th� i eJ are primitive idem Eotents in B. By (6.21), Bei � Bej if and onl ; (iii) Every maximal R -order in A is a conjugate uAu - 1 of A, where u E u(A).
I� Bei � B�j : and the � odules {BeJ are minimal left ideals of
E. Since E is (iv) Let A K ® K A � MiE), where E is a skewfield with center K, and
=

sImple artIman, the {BeJ are mutually isomorphic. Therefore Be. let Q be the unique maximal R -order in E. Then
� Be 1 £or
a11 1.. But M and N are direct summands of B(s) for some s, whenc ! -

. e by the A/rad A � MiQ/rad Q),


Kr�ll-SchmIdt Theorem (Exercise 6.6), both M and N are direct sums of
c�pIes of Be l ' Hence M � N if and only if M and N have and Q/rad Q is a skewfield.
the same k-dimen­
SlOn.
Proof Since A is hereditary, M is A-projective by (10.7). Thus M M/nM =

We need one more preliminary result : is A-projective, since if M I A(r) then M I A(r). Now let M, N be any left A-lattices.
Then by ( 1 8.6), M � N if and only if M � N as A-modules. Since A/rad A is a
(18.6) THEOREM. Let A be any R-order in a finite dimensional K-algebra simple artinian ring by (1 7.5). it follows from (18.2) that A is a primary ring.
KA,
�d let M, N be projective left A-lattices. Set A A/nA, M M/nM, Hence by ( 1 8.5), M � N if and only if (M: R) = (N : R). Finally, we note that
N = NlnN. Then M � N as A-modules if and only if M � it as A-modules. (M : R) = rankR M. This proves that M � N if and only if M and N have the
= =

same R-rank.
Proof� �lear1y � � N implies that M � N. Conversely, let cp : M � Suppose next that M is a left ideal of A. Then KM is a left ideal of the simple
. both M and N are A-proje N
be a A -Isomor�hIsm. Sm�e ctive, we may find artinian ring A, whence KM Ae = K . Ae for some idempotent e E A.
cp, cp - , respect ively, making the following
. 1
=

A -homomorphIsms a, f3 lIftmg Hence A e � M by (i) ; if this isomorphism maps e onto m, then M = Am . This
.
dIagram commute : completes the proof of (ii). It should be pointed out that this proof is com­
pletely independent of that given for the corresponding statement in (17.3(iii)),
and so constitutes another proof of that statement.
The argument in ( 17.3) which proves that every maximal order is conjugate
to A, carries over unchanged to the present case. It remains for us to prove
(P
(iv). Keeping the notation of (iv), we showed in ( 1 7.5) that
M I N.
( (p _ 1
A/rad A � Mt(Q/rad Q).
Thus the desired formula for A/rad A holds by virtue of ( 1 8.2). This completes
For m E M, we have (f3a) m - m E ,,:M. Hence M = f3aM + nM, so M f3aM =
the proof of the theorem.
by �akayama ,s Le�ma. Then f3a IS an automorphism of M by (6.3a). Likewise,
af3 IS an automorphIsm of N, and so a : M � N, as desired. (1 8.8) Remarks. (i) The integer t occurring in ( 1 8.7(iv)) is called the capacity
of rad A. If A � M/D), where D is a skewfield, and if
There is a generalization of the above theorem, in which the hypothesis on
M and � IS . drop e . he general version states : If KA is K-separable, then fj K ® K D � M/E)
� � �
there �XIStS a pOSItIve mteger q depending on A, such that for any pair of
=

for some skewfield E, then


A-lattIces M, N, we have M � N if and only if M/nqM � NlnqN. Indeed,
may be chosen so that nq - 1R is the Higman ideal of A (see Curtis-Reine�
A M (fj) � MjE).

r
[1, Th. 75 . 1 1], where the Higman ideal is denoted by i(A)). This E is the same as that which occurs in (1 8.7(iv)), and t = rs.
We are now ready to generalize ( 1 7.3)-(1 7.6) to the present case, in which (ii) The statements and proofs of (1 7.4) and (17.6) carry over unchanged to
R need not be complete. the present case where R need not be complete.
1 80 MAXIMAL ORDERS OVER DISCRETE VALUATION RINGS ( 18.9) IDEALS 181
(iii) If A is a maximal order in a skewfield D with center K, (l8.2) shows that for each i, whence by (18.7(i)) we may conclude that AiM � AiN for each i.
�/rad � � A/rad A . Hence M � N, and so M � N by (18.2(iii)).
Finally, if M is a left ideal of A, then KM = Ae = K Ae for some idem­
Here, � is a maximal R -order in the central simple K -algebra D. But if 15
.

potent e in the semisimple ring A. Thus M � Ae by the first part of this proof,
is not a skew field, then �/rad � is certainly not a skewfield. Indeed, in terms and the theorem is established.
of the notation of the first remark above, we have
�/rad � � M (n/rad n),
s EXERCISES
where n is the maximal R -order in E. Unless otherwise stated, R denotes a discrete valuation ring, not necessarily complete.

Generalizing (1 7.8), we have 1. Let � be a maximal R-order in a skewfield D with center K. Show that every
left �-lattice is free. [Hint : Since � is hereditary, each left �-lattice M is isomorphic
to a direct sum of ideals of �. Each such ideal is principal, hence is isomorphic to �.]
(18.9) THEOREM. Let A be a maximal R-order in a central simple K-algebra A.
(i) There is a one-to-one correspondence J � J between the set of maximal 2. Prove ( 1 8.9(ii), (iii)) without using the results for the case where R is comE.let�
right ideals J of A, and the set of maximal right ideals J of A/rad A. [Hint : Let A A/rad A, and let xA, yA be � aximal rig?t ideals of A. T?en xA, �
are maximal right ideals of the simple ring A. By ExerCIse 7. 1 2, there eXIsts u E u(A)
=

(ii) All maximal right ideals of A are mutually conjugate under inner auto­
such that U ' xA . u- I yA . Choose v E A with v u ; then v E u(A) by Exercise 6.2.
Therefore v . xA . V- I yA, since these maximal right ideals have the same image in
morphisms by units of A.
= =

A.
(iii) If xA is a maximal right ideal of A, then Ax is a maximal left ideal of A.
=

Further, Ax is a maximal left ideal of A, by Exercise 7. 1 2. Therefore Ax is a maximal


Proof The proof of (i) is exactly the same as in ( 1 7.8). Next, let xA and yA be left ideal of A.]
maximal right ideals of A. Since A/xA is an R-torsion module, it follows from 3. In this exercise, R denotes a semilocal Dedekind domain, that is, a Dedekind do­
Exercise 5.7 that there is a right A-isomorphism A/xA � A/xA whence xA
,
main with only a finite number of maximal ideals {PI ' . . . , PJ. Let A be an R-order in a
is a maximal right ideal in A. But then Ax is a maximal left ideal in A by separable K-algebra A, and let M, N be left A-lattices. Show that M � N if and only
(1 7.8), and so Ax is a maximal left ideal in A. This proves (iii). if M p . � NPi' 1 � i � n. [Hint : Let J,, : Mp., � Np. , 1 � i � n. Replacing 1; by rx1; ,
Next, by (17.8) there exists u E u(A) such that yA = U ' xA. Choose v E A rx E R Pi ' we may assume that each 1; E Hom A(M, N). Choose P I ' . . . , Pn E R such
,

that p. == 1 (mod Pi)' Pi == 0 (mod P), j =1= i. Set f I PJ , and show that f:M � N
'-

with v == u (mod nA.) ; since v, u have the same image in A/nA, and since
is an e �imorphism, by verifying that fPi : MPi � NPi is epic for 1 � i � n. Deduce from
=

nA c rad A, it follows from Exercise 6.2 that v E u(A). But then yA and vxA
are a pair of maximal right ideals of A, having the same image in A/rad A. this that f is an isomorphism.]
It follows from (i) that yA vxA = V ' xA ' V - I as desired, which completes
=
4. Which of the results of this section remain true when R is assumed to be a semi­
the proof. local Dedekind domain, rather than a discrete valuation ring?

(18.10) THEOREM. Let A be a maximal R-order in a separable K-algebra A. 19. IDEALS


Then every one-sided ideal of A is principal. If M and N are left A-lattices, Throughout this section, let A be a maximal R-order in a central simple
then M � N if and only if KM � KN as left A-modules. K -algebra A, where R is a discrete valuation ring, not necessarily complete.
We shall study here the factorization properties of one-sided ideals of A,
Proof If M � N, then clearly KM � K N . Conversely if KM � K N then and begin with a number of definitions.
KM � KN as left A -modules. If we decompose A into simple components,
For a pair of full R-Iattices M, N in A, define their product M · N in the
then there are corresponding decompositions usual way, as the full R-Iattice consisting of all finite sums I,m ini ' mi E M,
n. E N. Call M a normal ideal in A if both 0z(M) and 0r(M) are maximal
o�ders. By ( 17.6) and ( 1 8. 8(ii)), if one of these orders is maximal, then so is the
and each Ai is a maximal R j -order in a central simple algebra, as in the proof other. Call these orders similar; by (18.7), they are necessarily conjugate in A.
of (18. 1). From the isomorphism KM � KN it follows that K · l \M � K · A iN The normal ideal M is two-sided if O/(M) O / M). In the special case where
=
1 82 MAXIMAL ORDERS OVER DISCRETE VALUATION RINGS ( 19.1) (19.6) IDEALS 1 83
A = K, the normal ideals are precisely the fractional R-ideals of K (see §4a), A x - lAx A'
(19.5) =
and are of course two-sided. Ax � X - I . Ax ' x A'x '
An integral ideal in A is a normal ideal M such that M c O,(M).
We have thus proved that the property of an integral ideal being maximal
(19. 1) THEOREM. If M is a normal ideal such that M e ° ,(M), then also M c ° r(M), does not depend on whether we consider it as a left ideal in its left order, or a
and conversely. right ideal in its right order. We may also conclude that all maximal integral
ideals in A are mutually conjugate, since each pair of maximal orders are
Proof Let A = O,(M), so M is a left ideal of A. Hence M = Ax for some conjugate, and for a given maximal order A; any two maximal left ideals of A
x E u(A), and clearly are conjugate by (18.9)
Let M, N be any pair of full R-Iattices in A. We say that their product M · N
(19.2) 0r(M) = O/Ax) = x- lAx.
is proper if 0r(M) = O,(N). Likewise, a product M I ' M 2 . . . Mk is proper if
Since x E A, we have xA c
A, whence 0r(Mi) = O,(Mi + 1 ), 1 � i � k - 1.
M = X - I . xA . x c X - I Ax = ° r(M).
(19.6) THEOREM. Let M be a proper left ideal of the maximal order A, such that
This completes the proof. the A-module AIM has a composition series of length k. Then M is expressible
as a proper product of k maximal integral ideals

If M is a two-sided normal ideal with A = 0lM) = O/M), we shall also


M = M 1 M2 " ' Mk ,
refer to M as a two-sided A-ideal in A.
with
(1 9.3) THEOREM. The set of two-sided A-ideals in A is an infinite cyclic group
with generator rad A and identity element A, relative to the usual multiplication
of lattices. Proof Use induction on k, the result being trivial when k = 1. Assume that
k > 1, and that the theorem is known for the case k - 1. We can choose a
Proof Let � rad A, so by (18.3) every nonzero two-sided ideal of A is a
= maximal left ideal Ax of A such that M c Ax c A, and then AxlM has
power of �. In particular we have nA = �m for some m. Define �- l = composi tion length k - 1. Let A' = X - I Ax ; then A' is a maximal order,
n - l � m - t, a two-sided A-ideal in A. Then � . � - 1 = � - 1 . � = A . 1 f X is any and there is a bijection W � X - I W between the set of A-modules W and the
two-sided A-ideal in A, then for some s, nSX is a two-sided ideal in A, and so set of A'-modules X- I W Therefore X- I M is a left ideal of A', and x - IAxlx- 1 M
X = n - s �k for some k. Thus X is a power of �, and X - I = nS( '-l3 - 1t This has composition length k - 1 as left A' -module. It follows from the induction
completes the proof. hypothesis that we may write X - I M = M2 . . . Mk ' a proper product of
maximal integral ideals, with
An integral ideal M will be called a maximal integral ideal if M is a maximal ° l M 2) = ° ,(x - 1 M) = X - I Ax = A'.
left ideal in O,(M). (Some authors refer to such ideals as indecomposable
ideals, but we shall not use this terminology here.) If we set M 1 = Ax, then M 1 is a maximal integral ideal such that ° r(M 1 ) = A'.
Therefore the factorization
(1 9.4) THEOREM. If the normal ideal M is a maximal left ideal of O,(M), then M M = Ax ' x - 1 M = M 1 M2 " ' Mk
is a maximal right ideal in ° r(M), and conversely.
expresses M as a proper product of maximal integral ideals. Once such a
Proof Let M = Ax be a maximal left ideal in A, where A = O,(M). By factorization is known, then there are obvious inclusions
(19.2), Or(M) = X - I Ax = A', say. By (1 8.9), xA is a maximal right ideal in A.
Therefore X - I . xA ' x is a maximal right ideal in x - lAx. This proves that M
is a maximal right ideal in A', as claimed. We also remark for future use that Since all of these orders are maximal, equality must hold. This completes the
conjugation by X - I yields an isomorphism of R-modules : proof.
1 84 (20.2) DIFFERENT, DISCRIMINANT 1 85
MAXIMAL ORDERS OVER DISCRETE VALUATION RINGS (20. 1)
(1 9.7) COROLLARY. Let rad A have capacity t, that is, trA / K(x A) c R <=> trAI K(xA) c R <==> X E X.
A/rad A � M/S)
This proves that 1 A n A . If 'l' � rad A, then � = A n �, where
� = rad A. Thus if A = �- k, then A = '.l3 - k• This gives the desired result.
=

for some skewjield S. Then rad A is expressible as a proper product of t maximal


integral ideals. For later use, we remark that the proof is equally valid for the more general
case where A is a separable K-algebra.
Proof. MiS) is a direct sum of t simple left A-modules, and hence A/rad A has
composition length t. .
(20.2) THEOREM. Let A = Mr(D), where D is a skewjield with center K, and
EXERCISES let A = Mr(A), where A is a maximal R-order in D. Then

1. Show t hat in a proper product of maximal integral ideals, the factors need not
�(A/R) = �(A/R) ' A.
, one another. [Hint : Suppose that M ' M
commute WIth M 2 ' M ' where M l ' M 2
are maXIma I Integra I Ideals. If the algebra A is M n(D), where n > 1,l then M 1 is not a
1 2 =
Proof. Let x (d i) E M/D), and let A = ((3i ) E Mr(A). Then by Exercise 9.5,
' ' '
two-sided O,(M l)-ideal. Therefore
=

trA/ K(XA) = ? trD/K(diij).


.
I, )

2, Show that in some cases an integral ideal may be expressed in more than one way Hence if each d" E X, then x E A. On the other hand, let A have entry {3
( ) ( )
as a pr� p�r product ;f m aXimal integral ideals, [Hint : Let A M 2 (K), A M 2 (R),
O
= = at position (k, i), and zeros elsewhere, with (3 variable in A. Then
tr A/K (XA) = trDI K(dzk {3), so if x E A then dZk E X. This proves that A = M/X). If
Xl 0 ' X2 0 , where n is a prime element of R. Then X l ' X 2 commute, and
X = (rad A) - m, then
= =

n 1
1
nA = AX 1 ' x; (Ax 2 ) X 1 = A X 2 . X ; l (Ax 1 )X 2
A = Mr((rad A) - m) = { Mr(rad A)} m = { rad A} - m,
gives two different factorizations of nA.]
-

which proves the theorem.


20. DIFFERENT, DISCRIMINANT Together, these results yield
�hroughout this section, R denotes a discrete valuation ring, not neces­
sanly complete, and A a maximal R-order in a central simple K-algebra A. (20.3) Let /( ® K A � Mt(E), where E is a skewjield with cente!, K
THEOREM.
Let tr A/K denote the re ?uced trace map, and l' A/K : A x A � K the bilinear and index m, that is, m2 = (E: /(). Suppose that the residue class jield R is
reduced trace fo�m defmed by 1'(a, b) = tr (ab). We shall drop the subscript jinite. Then
A/K when there IS no danger of confusion. �(A/R) = �m - l .
We define Proof. By (20.1) it suffices to prove that �(A/R) = �m- l . Now A is a maximal
A = {x E A : 1'(x, A) c R} = {x E A : tr (xA) c R}. R-order in M/E), so by (17.4) we may write A = M/Q) for some maximal
R-order Q in E. By (20.2) we obtain
By Exercise 4. 1 2 A is a full R-lattice in A, and is clearly a two-sided A-module
,

containing A (by ( 10. 1)). Let � = rad A; then by (19.3) we have A = � - m �(A/R) = �(Q/R) ' A.
for some m � O. Call A the inverse different, and define the different But �(Q/R) = (rad Q)m - l by (1 4.9), which completes the proof.
� = �(A/R) = �m. For any left ideal L of A, define its norm as
(20. 1) THEOREM. If R is the P-adic completion of R, then �/ K(L) = ordR A/L.

�(A/R) R ® R �(A/R).
=
(20.4) THEOREM. The discriminant d(A/R) is given by

Proof. By (9.29), tr A/R extends the map trA/K ' Hence for each x E A we have d(A/R) = NAI K (�(A/R)).
1 86 MAXIMAL ORDERS OVER DISCRETE VALUATION RINGS (20.4)
Proof Both the discriminant and the different behave properly under the
passage from R to R, by (20. 1) and Exercise 10.6. So likewise does the norm
and thus it suffices to prove the result for the case where R is complete. But
then A � M/O) as in the proof of (20.3), and !:l(A/R) = n� . A for some k.
Therefore
N(!:l(A/R)) = ord R A/�A = ordR n;- kA/A = ordR A/A.
6. Maximal Orders over Dedekind Domains
The rest of the proof is exactly like that of (14.8).
Throughout this chapter, R denotes a Dedekind domain with quotient
field K, R i= K, and P ranges over the maximal ideals of R. Let Rp be the
localization of R at P, and Rp the P-adic completion of R. Let Kp be the
quotient field of Rp . For A any R-order in the separable K-algebra A, and M
any A-module, set
.A P = Rp ®R A, M p = Rp ®R M, Ap = Kp ®K A.
Then .Ap is an Rp-order in Ap, and Mp is a A.p-module. It follows from
Exercise 7 . 1 3 that Ap is a separable Kp-algebra.
In this chapter we shall generalize the theorems obtained in Chapters III
and V. There are two ways of accomplishing this. In the first approach,
followed in §§ 21-22, we use the local results from Chapter V, together with
the techniques of § Sa, to obtain global results. The second approach, given
in § 23, is independent of the first, and also yields the basic theorems for the
global case. In this second method, we give some straightforward generaliza­
tions of some of the familiar proofs in algebraic number theory. Indeed, this
same dichotomy already occurs in algebraic number theory. One can develop
the ideal theory of Dedekind domains either from the standpoint of valuation
theory (first approach), or by manipulations with the ideals themselves
(second approach). Just as in algebraic number theory, however, we cannot
in the long run avoid the use of P-adic completions. Many of the deeper
results depend on the interrelations between the global and local theories.
Indeed, we have already seen in (20.3) that when R is a discrete valuation ring,
we may calculate the different !:l(A/R) by passing to completions.

21. BASIC RESULTS


Let A be an R-order in the separable K-algebra A, and suppose that there
are decompositions
(2 1 . 1) Ap = LO Ai (simple components), .Ap = L" Ai '
where Ai is an Rp-order in Ai ' Let Ki be the center of Ai ' and Ri the integral
closure of Rp in Ki • By ( 10.5), the maximal Rp-orders in Ai coincide with the
maximal Ri -orders in Ai ' In particular, if A is a maximal R-order in A , then

1 87
188 MAXIMAL ORDERS OVER DEDEKIND DOMAINS (21.2) (21.6) BASIC RESULTS 1 89
by (1 1 .6) Ap i � a maximal R p-order in Ap , and so by (10.5) there is a de­ is split. This gives a decomposition of M, unless W 0 or W KM, which
composition Ap IO A i with each Ai a maximal Ri -order in the central
= =

= '
completes the proof.
simple Ki -algebra Ai . We may then apply the results of Chapter V, on maximal
orders in central simple algebras over complete fields, to the orders At. . We are now ready to determine all maximal R-orders in A. We have seen
Conversely, if the order A p is known to have a decomposition as in (21 . 1) that it suffices to handle the case of central simple algebras . We prove
for each P, and if each Ai is a maximal order in Ai ' then we may conclude
from (10.5) that A is necessarily a maximal order in A. As an illustration of (21 .6) Theorem . Let A = HomD CV, V) be a simple algebra, where V is a right
these remarks, we prove a number of basic results. vector space of dimension r over the skewfield D with center K. Let d be some
fixed maximal R-order in D, and let M be any full right d-lattice in V. �hen
(21 .2) Theorem. Let M be a full R-Iattice in A. Then 01(M) is a maximal Hom� (M, M) is a maximal R-order in A. If A' is any maximal R-order m A,
R-order in A if and only if 0r(M) is a maximal R-order in A. then there exists a full right d-Iattice N in V such that A' Hom� (N, N).
=

Proof. We know that Rp is R-flat, by (2.22) or Exercise 5.4. As in the proof of Proof Letting A = Hom� (M, M), we have
(8.5), it follows that
Ap = Rp ® R A = Hom�p (Mp, Mp )
(21.3)
for each P. B y (18.7) every right ideal o f/). p i s principal, whence Mp i s dp-fre� .
and likewise for left orders. Now suppose that A 01 (M) is maximal, and
=
Hence by (8.7) Ap is a maximal Rp-order. This holds for each P, and so A IS
l�t r = qr (M). Keeping the notat�on of (21 .1), there is also a decomposition maximal by (1 1 .2). .
Mp I Mi , where Mi is a full Rp -lattice in Ai ' and where A.t 01 (M.t ). Now let A' be any maximal R-order in A . Since A and A' are a pair of full
R-Iattices in A, we have A� = Ap a.e., say except at P I " ' " Pn• By (18.7),
= =

But then there is a decomposition


for each P there exists an element u p E u(A) such that A� u pApu; \ and we
=

may take up 1 for P =1= P I ' . . . , Pn. For each PJ set X(P) u pMp ; then we
=
=

have A� Hom�p (X(P), X(P)) .


=

Since A is maximal, so is each Ai ' whence so is each ri by (17.6). Therefore r


is maximal, by the remarks preceding the theorem, and the proof is complete. If we define N n X(P), then by (4.22) N is a full right d-Iattice in A,
=

such that Np = X(;) for all P. But then A' and Hom� (N, N) are a pair of
(21 .4) Theorem. Maximal orders are left and right hereditary. full R-Iattices in A, with the same localizations for each P. Therefore
A' = Hom� (N, N) by Exercise 3.2, and the theorem is proved.
Proof Let A be a maximal R-order in A, and use the notation of (21 . 1). Each

Ai is hereditary by (17.3), whence Ap is hereditary for each P. Thus A is itself (21 . 7) COROLLARY. Keeping the above notation, every maximal order in A is
hereditary, by (3.24) and (3.30). Morita equivalent to d.

(21 .5) COROLLARY. Let A be a maximal order. Then every left A-lattice M Proof Every maximal order A in A is of the form A �� m� (M, M), wh ere
=

is A-projective. Further, M is indecomposable if and only if KM is a simple . a


M is some full right d-Iattice in V. Since d is hereditary, It IS clear that M IS
A-module. finitely generated projective d-module. We wish to show that M is � prog� nera­
tor for the category vI(� , and so we must verify that Hom� (M, ) IS a faIthful
.

Proof· Since A is hereditary, M is projective by (10.7). If M decomposes, so functor. But for each d-module L, we known that
does KM. Conversely, let W be any A-submodule of KM, and set N = M n W
Then N is a A-submodule of M, and by (4.0) the A-module MIN is an R­ { Hom� (M, L) } p � Hom�p (Mp, Lp )
lattice. Hence MIN is A-projective, and so the A-exact sequence
for each P. Since Mp is dp-free by Exercise 18.1, it follows. from §1 � that
o � N � M � MIN � 0 Hom �p (Mp , . ) is a faithful functor. Therefore Hom� (M, ' ) IS also faithful,
191
(22.4) IDEAL THEORY
190 MAXIMAL O RDERS OVER DEDEKIND DOMAINS (22. 1)
bra over the field RIP.
and so we have proved that MA is a progenerator for AlA ' Hence A and ,1. are of R, and 7\. = A/� is afinite dimensional simple alge
Morita equivalent, by ( 1 6.9), and the result is established. .
Proof Let � be a prime Ideal of A , an
d· set P � n R A A/� Sinc
=

O. On the other hand, P < R


·
smc
e � is a
e
,

.11 ¢ � .
-
-

·
full R-lattice in A, we have P =f-
EXERCISES
If rx, p E R, then
M � aA c � or pA c �
1. Let A be a maximal R-order in a separable K-algebra A, and let be any left
rxp E P ==> rxA ' PA c ===>

A-lattice. Show that the endomorphism ring EndA M is a maximal R-order in the
separable K-algebra End A KM. ==> rx E P or P E P.
over the
[ Hint : It suffices to prove the result when A is a central simple K-algebra, and where 7\ is a finite dimensional algebra
Thus P is a prime ideal of R, and
R is a discrete valuation ring. Set r
left A - module. Then D = EndA V
= EndA M, B = End A K M, and let
is the skewfield part of A. We have KM
V be a simple
� V(t) fiel
���{ �e observe that rad A is nilpotent, since is artin
A ian. Thus rad � 0 =

for some t, whence B V(t) � M (D). Thus B is also a central


EndA simple K-algebra. f a re
However, the simple components
� 0
t
Now choose a left A-lattice L in V such that K L V. Then KM ( K L)(t) whence by (22 2) and so A is semisimple. e .
another. Hence by (22.2) ther I�
= � ,

tWO- SI'd ed 1' d of A whi ch ann ihila te one


M � L(t) by ( 1 8. 10). Therefore e als . refore A
ent, that IS, A ' a simple algebra ' The
I\, IS
r M� Vt) � M (�)' only one simple compon . . .
-SI'd ed 1'd ea1
= EndA EndA ' ea1 s, w hence m 1-' IS a maXImaI tWO
t has no nontrivial two-SIded 1 d
where � EndA L is a maximal R-order in D. Hence r is a maximal R-order in B,
of A.
=

1) auto -
as claimed. ] 1-' be any maxIma" l tWO -SI ded 1' deaI o f A . Then (22. :. .
eonversely, l et m . ' sIbI lItIe s for
T contam m 1-', sm�e th� on 1 y pos
matically holds true when S and and esta IS
bI" h es
s that � is a pnme Ideal,
22. IDEAL THEORY S and T are � and A. This show
the theorem.
In this section we shall develop the theory of one-sided and two-sided
prove.
ideals in maximal orders over a Dedekind ring R with quotient field K, Keeping the above notation, we
by using the results of §§ 1 8, 19 for the local case. Let P, Q, . . denote prime
simple K -� lgeb.r a A'
.

ideals of R, always assumed to be nonzero. To begin with, let A be any R-order (22 4) THEOREM Let A be a maximal R-order in a central
set of pnme 1d ea Is
'

in a separable K-algebra A.
.

nce m1-' � P b e twe en the


There is a one-to-one corresponde
A prime ideal of A is a proper two-sided ideal � in A, such that K · � of R, gwen by
A, =
� of A, and the set of prime ideals P
and such that for every pair o f two-sided ideals S, T in A,
P R n � , � = A n rad Ap .
=

S· T � S � or T c �. rad A P ' the unique prime idea


l of A p ' For each prime ideal
(22. 1) 1-' . 1\.p
c ==> c
Furth er, m A -
_

R different from P, we have � Q = Q


A .
There is no loss of generality in imposing this condition only for the special Q of
case where both S and T contain � ; for if (22. 1) holds in this special case, then 1-', P
A, and set A = Aim R n �. Then
Proof Let � be a prime ideal of
-

in the general case we have


ann R A P, so by (3.6) it follows that
=

S' T c � ==> (S + �) (T + �) c � ==> S + � c � or T+ � c �


A � R p ® R A � Ap / � Ap ' "

==> S c � or T c �. . 1-' . A p is a maximal two -side


m d ideal of Ap .
But 1\ IS a sImpI e rI'ng, and hence
T '

Hence (22. 1) is equivalent to the following condition : for each pair oftwo-sided Ap are powers of rad Ap . The re f,ore
By ( 1 8.3), all two-sided ideals of
ideals J, j in A/�,
�p =
� . Ap = rad Ap ,
J' = O. cative set
(22.2) J · J' = O ==> J = O or torsionfree relative to the multipli
as claimed. Furthermore, A/� is
(22.3) THEOREM. The prime ideals of A coincide with the maximal two-sided R P, so by (3. 10) we obtain
� A n � p A n rad Ap .
-

ideals of A. If� is a prime ideal ofA, then P � n R is a (nonzero) prime ideal


=
=
1 92 (22. 8) IDEAL THEORY 193
MAXIMAL ORDERS OVER DEDEKIND DOMAINS (22 .5 )

Finally, for Q # P we have R Q ® R (A/�) = 0, and thus � Q AQ . =


This gives Lp L; 1 = Ap Y . Y - 1 Ap = Ap , as desired, and shows that
'

Conversely, given a prime ideal P of R, we may form the two-sided ideal L · L- 1 = A. The argument also yields the formula
PA of A. Then PA # A, since A is an R-Iattice, and so there exists a maximal (Lp) - 1 . Lp = y - 1 Ap Y = 0r {Lp)
two-sided ideal � of A with PA c �. Clearly P R n �, since the inter­= for each P, whence L- 1 . L = Or{L). Likewise (L- 1 ) - 1 = L, since this holds
section is a prime ideal of R containing P. The preceding discussion shows locally at each P, and the theorem is established.
that � = A n rad Ap, so P uniquely determines �. This completes the proof
of the theorem. (22.8) COROLLARY. Keeping the above notation, we have

Now let L be any full R-Iattice in the separable K-algebra A, and define O lL- 1 ) = 0r{L), Or{L- 1 ) = OlL).

(22. 5) L- 1 = {x E A : L · x · L c L} . Proof The first equality holds locally :


Clearly 0 /L; 1) = O ly - 1 Ap) = y - 1 Ap Y = Or{Lp).
(22.6) L 1
- = {x E A : L · x c 01{L) } = {x E A : x · L c 0 r{L) } . Thus the first assertion is correct, and the second follows in the same way.
If A = 0 1 {L), then ctA c L c {3A for some nonzero ct, {3 E R. Therefore
ct- 1 A � L- 1 � {3- 1 A, since We now repeat several definitions, which were first given in the local c� se
in §19. All ideals considered below are full R-Iattices in A. Call a full R-latttce
ct- 1A = {x E A : etA · x c A} :=J {x E A : L · x c A } = L- 1 ,
M a normal ideal if both 01{M) and O/M) are maximal orders. An integral
and likewise for the other inclusion. Thus L- 1 is also a full R-Iattice in A. ideal of A is a normal ideal M such that M c O,{M).
We shall call L a full left A-lattice in A, to indicate that L is a left A-module
which is a full R-Iattice in A. Then L- 1 is a full right A-lattice in A. (22.9) THEOREM. If M is a normal ideal such that M c O ,{M), then also
We may identify L- 1 with HomA (L, A), where L, A are viewed as left M c 0r{M), and conversely.
A-modules. For each prime ideal P of R, Lp is a full left Ap-Iattice in A. By
(3 . 1 8) we have Proof It suffices to establish the result after localizing at an arbitrary prime
{L- 1)p = Rp ® R HomA (L, A) � HomAp (Lp , Ap ) = {Lp ) - 1 . ideal P of R. But the local result has already been proved in (19. 1). (See also
Exercise 22.9.)
Hereafter, we shall identify (L- 1)p with (Lp ) - 1 . Likewise, we identify
Rp ® R L- 1 and { Lp ) - 1 , If M is a normal ideal with O, {M) = 0 r {M) = A, we shall also refer to M
as a two-sided A-ideal in A.
where Rp , Lp are P-adic completions of R, L, respectively.
(22. 1 0) Th.eorem. Let A be a maximal R -order in the central simple K -algebra
(22.7) THEOREM. Let L be afuil left A-lattice in A, where A is a maximal R-order A. Then the set of two-sided A-ideals in A is the free abelian group generated
in a separable K-algebra A. Then by the prime ideals of A. The group operation is the usual multiplication of
L ' L- 1 = A, lattices, the identity element is A, and inverses are given by (22. 5).

Proof In order to prove that L · L- 1 = A, it suffices by Exercise 3.2 to prove Proof Let � 1 ' �2 be distinct prime ideals of A, and let Pi = �i n R, so

{
th at P =I- P2• For Q any prime ideal of R, we have
1
Lp ' (Lp) 1 - = Ap AQ ' Q # Pi '
(22. 1 1 ) {�i ) Q =
for each P. By ( 1 8. 10) we may write Lp = ApY for some Y E A. Then A = Ay, {�)Q ' Q = Pi '

which implies by (6.3a) that y E u{A ). Therefore But then � �2 = �2 � ' since this is true locally at every �.
1

1 .
Now let M be a two-sided A-ideal in A. Then for each Q, MQ IS a tWO-SIded
{Lp) - 1 = {x E A : Ap Y ' x c Ap } = y - 1Ap -
1 94 (22. 1 5) IDEAL THEORY 195
MAXIMAL ORDERS OVER DEDEKIND DOMAINS (22 .12)
A Q-ideal in A, and so by (19.3) we have ei e(Pi , LIK). Each Pi determines a prime ideal �i of A by (22.4), and we may
=

MQ = nQm Q for some


mQ E Z ,
write
Pi A �ti, 1 � i � d,
=

where n is � h� p rime id �l � f A correspond ing to �. It should be pointed out for some positive integers {mi } .
: .
t� at t �e defInItIOn of nQ gIven ill (19.3) agrees wIth the definition of inverse (i) The factorization of PA into prime ideals of A is given by
gIven m (22.6). Furthermore, m
Q 0 a.e., since M Q A Q a.e. It follows at
d

once that PA TI � ieim i.


= =

i= 1
=

M I1 .Q Q ,
III
Q
=
(ii) For each i, mi is the ramification index of the skewfield part of the central
since this result holds everywhere l ocally. Indeed, for any P we have simple L-algebra A, where denotes P(adic completion .

(iii) If the residue class field RIP is finite, then for each i, mi is the index of the
m I1 .Q pm Q, skewfield part of A .
Mp = �p p =

Q
�y (22. l 1 �. Finally, the ideal group is free abelian on the generators {�}, Proof From (4.27) we have P S = TI P t \ whence
smce the Ideal M uniquely determines the exponents in the factorization of PA TI (Pi Ati TI �tm i
=

M. This completes the proof.


=

as claimed. Now keep i fixed, and let L, A, A denote Pi-adic completions.


(22. 1 2) COROLLARY. The preceding theorem is valid for the more general case Since A is a maximal S-order in A, by (17.3) we may write
where A is a maximal R-order in a separable K-algebra A . M/D), A A Mr(�)'
= =

where D is a skewfield with center L, and � is the maximal S-order in D. If m


Proof Let A �nd A b� decomposed into components as i n (10.5). Then every over L, then by §13 we have
denotes the ramification index of D
two-s � ded A-I ?eal lY! In A decompo�es into a direct sum I'Mi , where Mi is a
two- sIded Ai-I �eal I � the central SImple Ki-algebra Ai ' In particular, each Pi � ( n D �r ,
.
=

maXImal tWO-SIded Ideal of A is of the form where n is a prime element of �. Therefore


D
(22. 1 3) ;A (rad Ar .
Pi A = Mr(Pi �) = n =

for some j, � � j � t, �nd some prime ideal �j in Aj " Conversely, each such re
. On the other hand, rad A is the p(adic completion of �i by ( 18.3). Therefo
expreSSIOn IS a pnme Ideal of A. It follows at once that if we express M J. as a equatio n A we
when we take completions on both sides of the Pi �ti =

power product of prime ideals of AJ. , then ion


obtain pi\. (rad Ari• This shows that mi m, and establishes (ii). Assert
=

(iii) follows from (i), by virtue of (14.3).


=

(22. 1 3 a)

is a powe r product of the corresponding prime ideals of A of the form (22. 1 3). Let us turn next to the theory of one-sided ideals in a separable K -algebra
. .
Smce � IS the product (for 1 � j � t) of the expressions in (22 . 1 3a), it is clear A. A normal ideal M is called a maximal integral ideal in A if M is a maximal
that M IS a power product of prime ideals of A. It is then also obvious that left ideal in its left order O I(M).
the prime ideals of A generate a free abelian group, and so the result is proved.
(22. l 5) THEOREM. For each maximal left ideal M of a maximal R-order A in a
�e h �ve at our disposal all of the information necessary to describe how separable K -algebra A, there is a unique prime ideal � of A such that
a pnme Ideal P of R behaves in a maximal R-order in a simple K-algebra : annA AIM {x E A : xA e M} .
(22. 1 6) � c M e A, � = =

(22.14) THEOREM: Let A be a central simple L-algebra, and let L be a finite We say that M belongs to � . Then AIM is a simple left module over the simple
separable extenswn of K. Let S denote the integral closure of R in L. Given a ring A/� . Conversely, each � determines a maximal left ideal M of A which
prime ideal P of R, let P I ' . . . , Pd be the distinct primes of S dividing P, and set belongs to � .
1 96 (22. 17) IDEAL THEORY 1 97
MAXIMAL ORDERS OVER DEDEKIND DOMAINS (22. 19)
e that
Proof Given a maximal ideal M of A, we can decompose M and A according Proof Use induction on k, the result being trivial when k 1. Assum a
=

case k - 1. We can choose


to the decomposition of A into simple components. It is then sufficient to k > 1 and that the theorem is known for the
maxi� al left ideal N of A such that M e N c A, and then N
si­
IM has compo
prove the result when A is a central simple K-algebra. Now let � = annA AIM,
and N are norma l ideals, with left
a two-sided ideal of A. Choose a nonzero rt E R such that rtA e M ' then tion length k - 1 as left A-module. Both M
rt E�, so rtA c �, and thus A/� is an artinian ring. But AIM is a faith ful left order A. By (22.7) we have
(A/�)-module, and is a simple module. Therefore the ring A/� is a simple
N ' N- 1 = A, N- 1 . N = ° r{N) = A' (say).
artinian ring, and so � is a prime ideal of A, as claimed. Clearly � = �A e M.
Furthermore, if .Q is any two-sided ideal of A contained in M, then Now there is a bijecti 9n W � N - 1 W between the set of left A-subm odules
1 W of A', with the inverse
-
.Q c annA AIM = �. Thus there is a unique prime ideal of A contained in M. W of N, and the set of left A/-sub modul es N-
1
mapping given by N - 1 W � N{N- 1 W). Therefore N- M is a left
Conversely, given a prime ideal � of A, by Zorn ' s Lemma there exists a ideal of A',
1 has compo sition length k - 1 as left A' -modu le.
maximal left ideal M of A such that � c M e A. Then � c annA AIM, so and the quotient A'IN - - M
equality must hold, and thus M belongs to �. This completes the proof. It follows from the induction hypothesis that we may write
N - 1 M = M 2 ' " Mk ,
(22. 1 7) THEOREM . Let M be a normal ideal in the separable K-algebra A . If M
is a maximal left ideal of 01{M), then M is a maximal right ideal of 0r {M), and a proper product of k - 1 maximal integral ideals, with
1 1
conversely. O /{M 2 ) O /{N - M) = A',
=
0r{Mk ) = O r{ N- M) = 0r{M).
But then M = N M 2 . . . Mk is the desired proper product of k maxima
l
Proof As remarked above, it suffices to prove the result for the special case is proved .
integral ideals, and the theorem
where A is a central simple K-algebra. Let A = 0lM), and let � be the prime
ideal of A to which M belongs. Setting P R n �, it is clear that of the algebraic
We shall next prove the non-c ommutative analogue
=

ann R AIM = P, whence by (3.6) we have Ap i Mp � AIM. Thus Mp is a maximal conta in is to divide " (see H. Cohn [1]). In the
number theory dictum "To
proof, it will be conve nient to use the notati on N N ij
left ideal of Ap. If we set A' = 0r{M), it then follows from (19.4) that Mp is = to indicate that the
a maximal right ideal of A� . a prope r produ ct
normal ideal N has left order A,, and right order A)'. Thus . .
might be written as N 1 2N 23 ' where A 1 , A 2 and A 3 need
On the other hand, let Q be any prime ideal of R different from P. Then not be dlstm ct.
�Q MQ = AQ , and so
=

From (22.8) we obtain


AQ = O r{M Q ) AQ MQ .
=' =

(N i)- l = {N - 1) i ' N ' N - 1 = Ai ' N - , N = AJ. .


1
Now let M e N c A', where N is any right ideal of A'. Then MQ = NQ for j
Q # P, whereas Np is either Mp or A� . In the former case we see that N = M, is integral.
while in the latter case N = A'. Thus M is a maximal right ideal of A', and the (22. 19) THEOREM . (i) A proper product of integral ideals
A Then M e N
theorem is proved. {I' i) Let M 1 2 ' N 1 4 be normal ideals with the same left order 1 ·
if and only if M 1 2 = N 1 4 ' C42 for some integr al ideal C.
(iii) Let M 2 ' N 3 4 be normal ideals. Then M e N ifand
only if M is a proper
Let M, N be any pair of full R-Iattices in the separable K-algebra A. Their 1
product M . N is proper if ° /M) = ° /( N). Likewise, a product M 1 M2 . . . Mk product
is called proper if (22.20)
0r{M i ) = O /{M i + 1 )' 1 :::; i :::; k - 1.
Generalizing ( 1 9.6), we prove for some integral ideals B, C.

(22. 1 8) T�eorem. Let M be a full left ideal of the maximal R-order A in the Proof To prove (i), we show by induction on k that
separable K-algebra A, and suppose that the A-module AIM has composition M 1 2 M 2 3 · , · Mk , k + 1 c A k + 1 ,
length k. Then M is expressible as a proper product of k maximal integral 1 , so let k > 1 , and
ideals M 1 . . . Mk ' such that if the M's are integral ideals. The result is clear for k =

O/{M) = O /{M 1 )' 0r{M) = 0r{Mk )· assume the result for k - 1 factors. Then
198 (22. 22) 1 99
MAXIMAL ORDERS OVER DEDEKIND DOMAINS (22.21) IDEAL THEORY

M 1 2 · · · Mk l , k Mk, k + C Ak Mk, k + = M M 1 2 used to define q> 1 2 ' Finally, q> 1 2 is an isomorphism since it has an inverse
. - l l k, k + l c Ak + l ,
as desIred. q> 2 1 ' given by q> 2 1 ( Y) = M YM - l , Y E 1(A2)· This completes the proof.
We n�xt prov� (iii), since (ii) will then follo'N as a special case. If (22.20)
holds wIth B, C mtegral, then (22.22) COROLLARY. Let M 1 2 be a maximal integral ideal which belongs to the
M 1 2 C A3 N 34 A4 = N 34 ' prime ideal � 1 of A I ' and to the prime ideal � 2 of A2 · Then � 2 = q>1 2( � 1 ) '
as claimed. Conversely, let M l 2 c N 3 4' and set
Proof It is clear from (22.21) that q>1 2( � 1 ) is a prime ideal of A2 , and that
B 1 3 = M 1 2(A3 M 1 2 ) - l , C42 = (N34) - 1 M 1 2 · q> 1 2( � 1 ) = M - l � l M. We have
1 l 1
It is easily ve rified that B, C are normal ideals with the indicated orders.
. Next, �1 e M => M- l c � � � M - � l M c � � � 1 M M. =

the normal Ideals M nd A3M have the same right order, and M Thus q> 1 2(� 1 ) is a prime ideal of A2 contained in M, whence M belongs to
� c A3M,
so by (22.6) we obtam M - l ::J (A3 M) - l . Therefore B e M , M l q> 1 2( � I )' This completes the proof.
- =A
and hence B is integra l. Further, C = N - 1 M C N- l N = A 4 '
so C is al��
integral. Finally, (22.23) COROLLARY. Let M 23 be a maximal integral ideal belonging to the
B 1 3 N34 C42 M(A3 M) - l . N · N- l M = M(A3 M) - l . A3 M prime ideal �2 of A2 • Then for each normal ideal B = B 1 2, the quotient
B 1 2 IB 1 2 M 23 is a simple left A 1 -module, and
=

= M · A2 M,
annA l BIBM = {x E A l : xB BM} = q> 2 1 ( � 2) '
=

which completes the proof of (iii). To prove (ii) note that when A = A
we obtain B = M(AI M)- l = A l in the above. This establishes the theore�: 1
Proof If BM c X c B is a chain of left AI -modules, then M c B - X C A2
1
C?f course, the analogue of (ii) holds for a pair of normal ideals with the same is a chain of left A2-modules. Thus B - X is either M or A2 , whence X is
nght order. either BM or B. This shows that BIBM is a simple left A I -module. As in the
1
proof of (22. 15), annA l BIBM is a prime ideal of AI ' But q> 2 1 ( �2) = B�2 B -
Let us now investigate the uniqueness properties of the factorization of an is a prime ideal of A l which annihilates BIBM. Therefore annA l BIBM =
integral ideal into a proper product of maximal integral ideals. As we have q> 2 1 ( � 2 ), and the corollary is established.
already seen in Exercises 19.1 and 1 9.2, the factors need not commute' and
there may be more than one possible factorization. To some extent the diffi­ Let q>1 2 : l(A l ) � 1(A2 ) be the isomorphism described in (22.2 1). For
culty arises from the fact that we must consider not just one maxi�al order XE l(A ), we call the ideals X and q>1 2 (X) similar. Thus, by (22.22), each
but the sequence of maximal orders associated with the successive factors. Le� maxim;l integral ideal determines a pair of similar prime ideals. We may
us prove some results on change of orders. caution that the converse need not hold, that is, given a pair of similar prime
ideals � 1 and �2 ' it is not necessarily true (even in the complete local case)
(22.21) THEOREM . Let AI ' A2 be a pair of maximal R-orders in the separable that there exists a maximal integral ideal M 1 2 belonging to both � 1 and � 2
K-algebra A. Then there exists a normal ideal M = M 1 2' If l(A . ) denotes the (see Exercise 22.1). . ' .
group of two-sided A { ideals in A (j 1 , 2), there is an isomorphism We are now ready to deal with the uniqueness propertIes of factorIZatIOns
into proper products of maximal integral ideals, still assuming that A is any
=

q> 1 2 : 1(A l ) � 1(A2 )' where 't' I


{(J 1 2 (X) = M - XM, X E l(A )
1 .
separable K-algebra.
The map q> 1 2 is independ ent of the choice of M 1 2

(22.24) THEOREM. In anyfactorization of an integral ideal L into a proper product
Proof The product M A l . A2 is a normal ideal with left order A l and
=
of maximal integral ideals, the number offactors is uni�uely determi� ed by L,
right or? er A2 . It is clear th at q> 1 2 carries l(A l ) into 1(A2 ), taking A l ont o A2 . and the prime ideals to which these factors belong are unzquely determmed up to
. 1
If N 1 2 IS another normal Ideal, then M N- E l(A ). Since l(A l ) is abelian similarity and order of occurrence.
it !�llows that MN- commutes with each X E leA ), and hence M - l XM
l : ='

N X N. Therefore q> 1 2 does not depend on the choice of the normal ideal Proof Let L = L l r be an integral ideal, and suppose that
200 M AXIMAL ORDERS OVER DEDEKIND D OMAINS (22.25) (22.28 ) IDEAL THEORY 201
n

(22.25) 'll = ann"T. Then 'll is a two-sided ideal of A, and so we may write 'll = TI
1
�t ;
where each M i , i + 1 is a maximal integral ideal, and Mk, k + 1 is interpreted to where the {'l3J are distinct prime ideals of A. Then T is a left (A/'ll)-module.
be Mkr . By (22.23), the chain of left A 1 -modules But
n

(22.26) A1 � M12 � M 1 2 M2 3 � . . , � M 1 2 M 2 3 · · · Mkr = L 1 r AI'll � I " A/ �ti ,


1
n
is strictly decreasing, and is unrefinable. The factor modules
whence there is a decomposition T I " T; , with
1
=

(22.27)
are therefore the composition factors of the left A 1 -module A 1 /L . By the � = {x E T : ��i x = O} = {x E T : �� x = o for some m} .
Jordan-Holder Theorem, these c.omposition factors are uniquely determined
by L, up to A 1 -isomorphism and order of occurrence. (Call T. the � .-primary component of T.)
There are k such factor modules, so L determines k uniquely. Furthermore, It s�ffices t� show that the left A-module � has a composition series in
let �i denote the prime ideal of Ai to which M i, i + 1 belongs, 1 :::; i :::; k. which the factors occur in a preassigned order. Each composition factor
Then by (22.23) we have X of � is a simple left A-module, hence as in (22. 1 5), ann" X is a prime ideal of
A. But then ann" X � i ' since we already know that �ti X = O. Hence X
=

is a simple left (A/ � · )-module. Since A/ � i is a simple artinian ring, there is


only one isomorphi;m class of such modules X. Thus all of the composition
Thus L uniquely determines the set of prime ideals of A 1
factors of T; are mutually isomorphic. This proves that � has a composition
{ � 1 ' ({J 2 1 ( � 2 ) " . . , ({Jk1 ( � k ) } ' series with preassigned order of composition factors (indeed, any composition
series of T; will do), and thus the same holds true for AIL. The theorem is
This completes the proof of the theorem.
thus established.
As already remarked in Exercises 19.1 and 19.2, the individual factors
To conclude this section, we observe that the collection of normal ideals
Mi, i + 1 occurring in (22.25) are not uniquely determined (except in special
in a separable K-algebra forms a groupoid, according to the following
cases). Indeed, even the set of maximal orders { A ' . . . , Ak } is not an invariant
2 definition. A groupoid G is a collection of elements, certain of whose products
of L. We now prove, however, that the order of occurrence of the composition
are defined and lie in G, such that
factors of A 1 IL in (22.27) may be specified in advance.
(i) For each aij E G, there exist unique elements ei ' ej E G such that
e.a
t I)
= aI). . = a I). .e). , where all indicated products are defined. Further, e;ei
• = ei ,
(22.28) THEOR EM. Let L be a left ideal of the maximal R -order A in a separable
. .

e ).e . = e . . Call ei the left unit of aij , and ej the right unit of aij
K-algebra A, and let {S 1 " ' " Sk } be the composition factors of the A-module

6i) ai bkl is defined if and only if j = k, that is, if and only if the right unit
/
AIL, arranged in any preassigned order. Then there is afactorization (22.25) of
of aij equals the left unit of bkl •
L into a product of maximal integral ideals, such that the factor modules in
(iii) If ab and bc are defined, so are (ab)c and a(bc), and these are equal.
(22.27) are precisely S 1 , . . . , Sk ' in that order. 1
(iv) For each aij E G, there exists an aD E G with left unit ej , right unit ei ,
such that
Proof Any composition series for the left A-module AIL lifts to an unrefinable
chain of left ideals of A, and this chain can be expressed in the form (22.26)
'
for some choice of M s (by (22. 19» . Hence it suffices to prove that AIL has a (v) Given any pair of units e, e' E G, there is an element aij E G with left unit
composition series in which the composition factors occur in the preassigned e, right unit e'.
order S 1 , . . . , Sk ' Furthermore, a decomposition of A into simple components The collection of all normal ideals in A, relative to proper multiplication, is
yields corresponding decompositions of A and L, and hence of AIL. It is the Brandt groupoid associated with A. The units are the maximal orders in A ;
1
therefore sufficient to deal with the case where A is a central simple K-algebra. the inverse ofa normal ideal M is the normal ideaI M - . IfA and A' are maximal
Let us set T AIL, an R-torsion finitely generated left A-module, and let
=
.
Qrders, the normal ideal A A' has left unit A, right unit A'.
202 MAXIMAL ORDERS OVER DEDEKIND DOMAINS
EXERCISES 203
EXERCISES 5. Any simple left A-module is of the form AIM, where M is a maximal left ideal
Unless otherwise stated, A denotes a maximal R-order in a separable K-algebra A. of A. Let P R n M. Show that P is a prime ideal of R, and that P
= annR AI M. =

[Hint : Use (22 .3).]


1. Let R be a complete discrete valuation ring with prime element n, and let
l 6. Let MZ 3 be a maximal integral ideal, and B 12 any normal ideal. Prove that
Al =
M3 (R), Az =
yA I y - , where y diag ( 1 , 1 , n) E A I ' =

ann R Az 1 M Z 3 = annR B 1 2 I B 1 2 MZ 3 '


Show that no maximal left ideal of Al can be a maximal right ideal of Az . Deduce
from this that the prime ideals nA I ' nAz are similar, but that there is no maximal [Hint: If P = ann R Az /M, then PB - I B = PAz C MZ3 ' whence PB c BM.]
integral ideal M l Z which belongs to both nA I and nAz . [Hint : Let Alx be a maximal 7. Keeping the notation of (22.28), let �i annA Si ' Pi �i n R
= ann R Si ' = =

left ideal of A I ' and suppose that OreAl x) Az . Then Az = I


X - A l x, so =
l � i� k. Let PI " ' " Pn be the distinct prime ideals of R among {PI " ' " Pk } . Show
l that we can express L as a proper product
(xy) · A I ' (xy) - AI ' =

Therefore (see Exercise 38.5) xy =


nku for some k � 1 and some U E u(Al ). But then L = N( I) · N(Z) . . 'N (nl ,
k
x has elementary divisors {nk - \ n\ n } , }Vhich contradicts ( 1 7.8).] i
where each N( ) is an integral ideal such that
. .

2. Let M, be normal ideals in A. Prove that M · N is a proper product if and only i
(N( »)p = maximal order (P =1= PJ,
If replacmg eIther factor by a larger R-Iattice (in A) increases the product. [Hint :
Let M = M12 ' N N 34 ' in the notation introd uced j ust before (22. 1 9). Suppose that
= for 1 � i � n.

increasing either factor increases the product MN. Then 8. Let L, M be left ideals in A such that
MN = MAz ' N = M ' A zN ==:;;> N = AzN ==> Az = A3 . ann R AIL + ann R AIM = R.
Conversely, let Az = A3 and let M'N = MN, where M' is an R-Iattice properl y Show that there exists a left ideal N such that
containing M. Then
M' c M'Az =
M" N N - I M ' NN - I = = M, AI N � AIL -i- AIM.
a contradiction .] [Hin t : Define a left A-h omomorphism
3. Let � l ' . . . , � be distinc t prime ideals of A.
n Let I:A � AIL -i- AIM
n n

W= n
1
� ti, � = nI �/i, by I(),,) = ( )" + L, )" + M), }" E A For each prime ideal P of R, either (A/L)p = 0 or
(AI M)p = O. Thus Ip is epic for each P, whence also I is epic. Now choose N = ker I.]
Prove
9. Prove (22.9) directly. [Hint : M c O/(M) � M·M c M � M c Or(M).]
(i) 2I => � if and only if ai � hi ' 1 � i � n.
1 0. V�rify that the definition of inverses in (1 9.3) agrees with the definition in (22 .6).
n

(ii) 2I + � = n �rin (ai. bi).


1
1 1 . Show that any two maximal orders A I ' Az in A are Morita equivalent. [Hint :
( 1 ) Reduce to central simple case, then use (2 1.7) and transitivity of Morita equivalence ;
n or (2) Let M Ml Z be a normal ideal, and i dentify HomA I (M, A I ) with the module of
=

(iii) 2I n � =
n �ra,, (a" bi l .
1
l
right multiplications by elements of M - . The formula M · M -
I
Al is then equival­ =

ent to the assertion that


(iv) If each ai � 0, then there is a ring isomorp hism
f1: M ®A2 HomA I (M, A I ) � Al
n

A/2I � L" A/�iai. is a n epimorphism. Likewise,


i= 1

'1: : HomA I (M, A I ) ®Al M � Az


4. Show that each finitely generated R-torsion left A-module X is expressible as
a finite direct sum L"AIJi ' where each Ji is a left ideal of A of the same R-rank as A. is epic. Hence A l and Az are Morita equivalent by § 1 6.]
[Hint : As in the proof of (22.28), the problem reduces to the case where R is a complete 12. Let r be an arbitrary R-order in a central simple K-algebra A. Show that r is
discrete valuation ring, and where A =
Mk(�) for some maximal R-order � in a a maximal order if and only if r is hereditary, and for each prime ideal P of R there
skewfield. By means of the Morita correspondence, the problem further reduces to is a unique prime ideal of r containing P. [Hint : To prove r maximal, it suffices to
that of finding R -torsion �-modules. Now use (1 7.7).] prove rp maxi mal for each P. There is a one-to-one correspondence between the
(23 . 3) ALTERNATE APPROACH TO GLOBAL IDEAL THEORY
205
204 MAXIMAL ORDERS OVER DEDEKIND DOMAINS (23.1)
prime ideals of r P, and the prime ideals of r p. Now use ( 1 8.4).]
containing Proof Let M ij cAi; then
13. Let � be a prime ideal of R, and let PA n �t, where the �i are prime ideals
= M ij ' M ij C A i M ij ' = Mij => Mij C 0r( Mi) = Aj '
of the maxImal order A. Let fi (A/�i : R/P). Prove that
=
This completes the proof.
L ei fi ( A : K).
=

[Hint : Consider the R-algebra A/PA, where R R/P, and imitate the proof of (4.30).]
=
For any full R-Iattice L = Lij in A, define L- 1 as in (22.5). Then for x E L- 1 ,
Lx c A t. ===> L' xA !. c A.! ===> xA t· c L- 1 ,

23. ALTERNATE APPROACH TO GLOBAL IDEAL THEORY whence L- 1 is a right A(mo dule. Thus we obtain
In §§21-22, we derived results on ideals and orders in the global case by (23.3) Or(L� 1 ) ::J Ai ' Oz(L� 1 ) ::J Aj '
.
makmg use of the local theorems from Chapter V. In this section we shall and we now
give a� alternate approach to some of the global theorems obtained in §§21-22. Our next step is to develop the theory of two-sided ideals,
The dIrect global approach given below generalizes some of the standard prove
arguments of algebraic number theory. We shall not use any of those results
from the preceding sections, whose proofs were based on localization tech­ (23.4) LEMMA. Let M be a two-sided ideal in the maximal order A. If M < A,

niques. This section may be skipped if desired without affecting the con­ then M - 1 > A.
tinuity of the exposition. sly
As usual, let A be a separable K-algebra, where K is the quotient field of the Proof It is clear from (23.3) that M - 1 is a two-sided A-ideal in A, and obviou
that 1 A, and obtain a contra diction . Since
Dedekind domain R. In §22, we defined prime ideals of an R-order A in A, and M - 1 ::J A. Let us assume M - =

Let rx be a
showed that these coincide with the maximal two-sided ideals of A. We now M < A, we can choos e a prime ideal � of A with M c � c A.
in A). Then by
recall some other definitions from §22. All ideals M considered below are nonzero element of R (\ � (such exist, since � is a full R-Iattice
assumed to be full R-Iattices in A. Call M a normal ideal if 0z( M) is a maximal (23.1)rxA contains a product of prime ideals, and so we may write
R-order. An integral ideal is a norPlal ideal M such that M c ° (M). A maximal � ::J rx A ::J � � 2 ' " �r '
1
integral ideal is an integral ideal M which is a maximal left ide�l in ° ( M). (We �r
where the �i are prime ideals, and where r is minimal. Since
� ::J � • . •

shall eventually remedy this asymmetry in the definitions (see (23.2), (2 3 .10), and 1
and then
and � is a prime ideal, it follow s that � contains some factor
�j '
(23. 1 1).) Let us write M M ij to indicate that M is an ideal with
=

of course � = � j ' Thus we may write


0 z( Mi) = Ai ' 0r( Mij ) Aj= '

� ::J rxA ::J B� C,


Our aim is to derive the