Is there a quotient of a symmetric algebra which is in bijection with the simple tensors?Henselian rings with...

How to get directions in deep space?

What is the English pronunciation of "pain au chocolat"?

Why do Radio Buttons not fill the entire outer circle?

Are Captain Marvel's powers affected by Thanos breaking the Tesseract and claiming the stone?

Is there a nicer/politer/more positive alternative for "negates"?

How can I, as DM, avoid the Conga Line of Death occurring when implementing some form of flanking rule?

Why is the "ls" command showing permissions of files in a FAT32 partition?

C++ check if statement can be evaluated constexpr

It grows, but water kills it

I found an audio circuit and I built it just fine, but I find it a bit too quiet. How do I amplify the output so that it is a bit louder?

"It doesn't matter" or "it won't matter"?

Is my low blitz game drawing rate at www.chess.com an indicator that I am weak in chess?

Why does Carol not get rid of the Kree symbol on her suit when she changes its colours?

Does an advisor owe his/her student anything? Will an advisor keep a PhD student only out of pity?

Why does this expression simplify as such?

How to make money from a browser who sees 5 seconds into the future of any web page?

Does the Linux kernel need a file system to run?

Why Shazam when there is already Superman?

Why does AES have exactly 10 rounds for a 128-bit key, 12 for 192 bits and 14 for a 256-bit key size?

What kind of floor tile is this?

The Digit Triangles

PTIJ: Why is Haman obsessed with Bose?

Can I turn my anal-retentiveness into a career?

Is there a RAID 0 Equivalent for RAM?



Is there a quotient of a symmetric algebra which is in bijection with the simple tensors?


Henselian rings with the same quotient fieldCohesive picture of groups, rings, fields, modules and vector spaces.Two corollaries in Lang's Algebraic Number Theory.Defining an ideal in the tensor algebraDoes any (noetherian) integral domain have a “UFD closure”?Different approaches of defining tensorsHow to show simply that a field is a vector space over any of its subfields?Pure tensor $aotimes b=0$, then is $aotimes b=0otimes b'$?Lie algebra generated by elements of the symmetric group $S_N$













1












$begingroup$


Does there exist a nonzero vector space $V$ over a field $F$ and a quotient $overline{S(V)}$ of the symmetric algebra on $V$ such that the quotient map $mathfrak{S} to overline{S(V)}$, where $mathfrak{S} subseteq S(V)$ denotes the set of simple tensors, is a bijection?



In other words, the elements of $overline{S(V)}$ would be represented, and uniquely so, by simple tensors. This makes $overline{S(V)}$ into a UFD with primes $V - {0}$ and units $F^times$. Conversely, given a UFD $R$ with nonempty set of primes $P$ such that $P ~ cup ~ {0}$ is a group under addition, we find that $V := P ~ cup ~ {0}$ is in fact a vector space over the field $F := R^times ~ cup ~ {0}$, and $R$ gives rise to such a quotient $overline{S(V)}$ as above. So the question can be rephrased: "Does there exist a non-field UFD whose set of primes together with $0$ form an additive group?"



Beyond this equivalence, there's not much that's useful that I can say about this problem. Does such a ring/algebra quotient exist?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    In your converse situation, why is $R^timescup{0}$ closed under addition?
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Mar 13 at 6:25










  • $begingroup$
    Oh, I see: you multiply any sum of elements of $R^timescup{0}$ by an element of $P$, and the result must be in $Pcup {0}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Mar 13 at 6:29










  • $begingroup$
    So, here's a strategy to build an example. Start with $A_0=S(V_0)$ for some $V_0$, and then construct an algebra $A_1$ by adjoining, for each non-simple irreducible element of $A_0$ (up to units) a pair of new generators whose product is that element. Then do the same thing to construct $A_2$ from $A_1$, and so on, and finally consider the direct limit after doing this infinitely many times. I don't know whether this actually works, though: maybe all those new elements we are adjoining somehow mess up the uniqueness.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Mar 13 at 7:09
















1












$begingroup$


Does there exist a nonzero vector space $V$ over a field $F$ and a quotient $overline{S(V)}$ of the symmetric algebra on $V$ such that the quotient map $mathfrak{S} to overline{S(V)}$, where $mathfrak{S} subseteq S(V)$ denotes the set of simple tensors, is a bijection?



In other words, the elements of $overline{S(V)}$ would be represented, and uniquely so, by simple tensors. This makes $overline{S(V)}$ into a UFD with primes $V - {0}$ and units $F^times$. Conversely, given a UFD $R$ with nonempty set of primes $P$ such that $P ~ cup ~ {0}$ is a group under addition, we find that $V := P ~ cup ~ {0}$ is in fact a vector space over the field $F := R^times ~ cup ~ {0}$, and $R$ gives rise to such a quotient $overline{S(V)}$ as above. So the question can be rephrased: "Does there exist a non-field UFD whose set of primes together with $0$ form an additive group?"



Beyond this equivalence, there's not much that's useful that I can say about this problem. Does such a ring/algebra quotient exist?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    In your converse situation, why is $R^timescup{0}$ closed under addition?
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Mar 13 at 6:25










  • $begingroup$
    Oh, I see: you multiply any sum of elements of $R^timescup{0}$ by an element of $P$, and the result must be in $Pcup {0}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Mar 13 at 6:29










  • $begingroup$
    So, here's a strategy to build an example. Start with $A_0=S(V_0)$ for some $V_0$, and then construct an algebra $A_1$ by adjoining, for each non-simple irreducible element of $A_0$ (up to units) a pair of new generators whose product is that element. Then do the same thing to construct $A_2$ from $A_1$, and so on, and finally consider the direct limit after doing this infinitely many times. I don't know whether this actually works, though: maybe all those new elements we are adjoining somehow mess up the uniqueness.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Mar 13 at 7:09














1












1








1





$begingroup$


Does there exist a nonzero vector space $V$ over a field $F$ and a quotient $overline{S(V)}$ of the symmetric algebra on $V$ such that the quotient map $mathfrak{S} to overline{S(V)}$, where $mathfrak{S} subseteq S(V)$ denotes the set of simple tensors, is a bijection?



In other words, the elements of $overline{S(V)}$ would be represented, and uniquely so, by simple tensors. This makes $overline{S(V)}$ into a UFD with primes $V - {0}$ and units $F^times$. Conversely, given a UFD $R$ with nonempty set of primes $P$ such that $P ~ cup ~ {0}$ is a group under addition, we find that $V := P ~ cup ~ {0}$ is in fact a vector space over the field $F := R^times ~ cup ~ {0}$, and $R$ gives rise to such a quotient $overline{S(V)}$ as above. So the question can be rephrased: "Does there exist a non-field UFD whose set of primes together with $0$ form an additive group?"



Beyond this equivalence, there's not much that's useful that I can say about this problem. Does such a ring/algebra quotient exist?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Does there exist a nonzero vector space $V$ over a field $F$ and a quotient $overline{S(V)}$ of the symmetric algebra on $V$ such that the quotient map $mathfrak{S} to overline{S(V)}$, where $mathfrak{S} subseteq S(V)$ denotes the set of simple tensors, is a bijection?



In other words, the elements of $overline{S(V)}$ would be represented, and uniquely so, by simple tensors. This makes $overline{S(V)}$ into a UFD with primes $V - {0}$ and units $F^times$. Conversely, given a UFD $R$ with nonempty set of primes $P$ such that $P ~ cup ~ {0}$ is a group under addition, we find that $V := P ~ cup ~ {0}$ is in fact a vector space over the field $F := R^times ~ cup ~ {0}$, and $R$ gives rise to such a quotient $overline{S(V)}$ as above. So the question can be rephrased: "Does there exist a non-field UFD whose set of primes together with $0$ form an additive group?"



Beyond this equivalence, there's not much that's useful that I can say about this problem. Does such a ring/algebra quotient exist?







abstract-algebra commutative-algebra tensor-products unique-factorization-domains






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Mar 13 at 17:55









Eric Wofsey

190k14216348




190k14216348










asked Mar 13 at 6:19









FeryllFeryll

554212




554212












  • $begingroup$
    In your converse situation, why is $R^timescup{0}$ closed under addition?
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Mar 13 at 6:25










  • $begingroup$
    Oh, I see: you multiply any sum of elements of $R^timescup{0}$ by an element of $P$, and the result must be in $Pcup {0}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Mar 13 at 6:29










  • $begingroup$
    So, here's a strategy to build an example. Start with $A_0=S(V_0)$ for some $V_0$, and then construct an algebra $A_1$ by adjoining, for each non-simple irreducible element of $A_0$ (up to units) a pair of new generators whose product is that element. Then do the same thing to construct $A_2$ from $A_1$, and so on, and finally consider the direct limit after doing this infinitely many times. I don't know whether this actually works, though: maybe all those new elements we are adjoining somehow mess up the uniqueness.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Mar 13 at 7:09


















  • $begingroup$
    In your converse situation, why is $R^timescup{0}$ closed under addition?
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Mar 13 at 6:25










  • $begingroup$
    Oh, I see: you multiply any sum of elements of $R^timescup{0}$ by an element of $P$, and the result must be in $Pcup {0}$.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Mar 13 at 6:29










  • $begingroup$
    So, here's a strategy to build an example. Start with $A_0=S(V_0)$ for some $V_0$, and then construct an algebra $A_1$ by adjoining, for each non-simple irreducible element of $A_0$ (up to units) a pair of new generators whose product is that element. Then do the same thing to construct $A_2$ from $A_1$, and so on, and finally consider the direct limit after doing this infinitely many times. I don't know whether this actually works, though: maybe all those new elements we are adjoining somehow mess up the uniqueness.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Mar 13 at 7:09
















$begingroup$
In your converse situation, why is $R^timescup{0}$ closed under addition?
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Mar 13 at 6:25




$begingroup$
In your converse situation, why is $R^timescup{0}$ closed under addition?
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Mar 13 at 6:25












$begingroup$
Oh, I see: you multiply any sum of elements of $R^timescup{0}$ by an element of $P$, and the result must be in $Pcup {0}$.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Mar 13 at 6:29




$begingroup$
Oh, I see: you multiply any sum of elements of $R^timescup{0}$ by an element of $P$, and the result must be in $Pcup {0}$.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Mar 13 at 6:29












$begingroup$
So, here's a strategy to build an example. Start with $A_0=S(V_0)$ for some $V_0$, and then construct an algebra $A_1$ by adjoining, for each non-simple irreducible element of $A_0$ (up to units) a pair of new generators whose product is that element. Then do the same thing to construct $A_2$ from $A_1$, and so on, and finally consider the direct limit after doing this infinitely many times. I don't know whether this actually works, though: maybe all those new elements we are adjoining somehow mess up the uniqueness.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Mar 13 at 7:09




$begingroup$
So, here's a strategy to build an example. Start with $A_0=S(V_0)$ for some $V_0$, and then construct an algebra $A_1$ by adjoining, for each non-simple irreducible element of $A_0$ (up to units) a pair of new generators whose product is that element. Then do the same thing to construct $A_2$ from $A_1$, and so on, and finally consider the direct limit after doing this infinitely many times. I don't know whether this actually works, though: maybe all those new elements we are adjoining somehow mess up the uniqueness.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Mar 13 at 7:09










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

Yes, such a quotient does exist. Let me start with a lemma.




Lemma: Let $A$ be a UFD, let $ain A$ be a prime, and let $B=A[x,y,z]/(xyz-a)$. Then:




  1. $B$ is a UFD.


  2. $B^times=A^times$ (i.e., every unit of $B$ was already a unit of $A$).


  3. Let $bin B$ be a nonzero element of the form $ux+vy+wz+c$ where $u,v,win A^timescup{0}$ and $cin A$ is either $0$ or prime and not associate to $a$. Then $b$ is prime in $B$.





Proof: Since $A[x,y,z]$ is a UFD and $xyz-a$ is irreducible in $A[x,y,z]$, $B$ is a domain. Note also that $B/(x)cong A[y,z]/(a)cong (A/a)[y,z]$ is a domain, so $x$ is prime in $B$, and by symmetry so are $y$ and $z$.



Note that $B$ is free as an $A$-module with basis consisting of all monomials in $x,y,$ and $z$ which do not contain $xyz$. We can consider $B$ as a $mathbb{Z}^2$-graded ring by taking $A$ to have degree $(0,0)$, $x$ to have degree $(1,0)$, $y$ to have degree $(0,1)$, and $z$ to have degree $(-1,-1)$. Each of our monomial basis elements then has a distinct degree, so a homogeneous element is a constant multiple of a monomial (where "constant" means element of $A$). Given an element $bin B$, we define the support $operatorname{supp}(b)$ as the convex hull in $mathbb{R}^2$ of the set of degrees in which $b$ has a nonzero homogenous part. The support is a (possibly degenerate) convex polygon whose vertices have integer coordinates. Note that if $b,cin B$ then $$operatorname{supp}(bc)=operatorname{supp}(b)+operatorname{supp}(c)$$ (here the sum on the right is the operation $S+T={s+t:sin S,tin T}$ on subsets of $mathbb{R}^2$). Indeed, note that $operatorname{supp}(b)+operatorname{supp}(c)$ is a convex polygon, and each of its vertices is an extreme point and thus is a degree that can only be obtained in one way by multiplying terms of $b$ and terms of $c$. This means there can be no cancellation, so every vertex of $operatorname{supp}(b)+operatorname{supp}(c)$ really is in the support of $bc$.



Using this property of supports, we can immediately conclude that $B^times=A^times$ (since a unit of $B$ must have singleton support). We can also see that any element $b$ as in statement (3) is irreducible, since its support cannot be written nontrivially as a sum of two convex polygons with integer vertices. This means we need only consider factorizations where one factor is homogeneous, and it is easy to check that no nontrivial such factorization can exist.



[You may be wondering why this Lemma defines $B=A[x,y,z]/(xyz-a)$, instead of something like $B=A[x,y]/(xy-a)$ or more generally $B=A[x_1,dots,x_n]/(x_1dots x_n-a)$ for some other $n$. The reason is the step above: if we used only two variables, then statement (3) might fail, since the shapes of the supports of such elements $b$ would be different and would allow them to be factored. For instance, if $a+1$ happens to be prime, then $x+y+(a+1)$ could be factored as $(x+1)(y+1)$. The argument would still work if you used more than $3$ variables, though.]



We can also use supports to see that $B$ satisfies the ascending chain condition on principal ideals (proof sketch: in a chain of principal ideals, the support can only shrink finitely many times, and so eventually we are just factoring out homogeneous elements each time, so we can reduce to the fact that $A$ satisfies the ascending chain condition on principal ideals).



To complete the proof of the Lemma, all that remains is to show that every irreducible element of $B$ is prime. We have already shown this for $x,y,$ and $z$, so suppose $bin B$ is an irreducible element that is not associate to $x,y,$ or $z$. Then in particular, $b$ is not divisible by $a$, so one of its homogeneous parts is not divisible by $a$. We assume without loss of generality that $z$ does not appear in this homogeneous part.



Now consider $B$ as a subring of the UFD $C=A[x,y,x^{-1},y^{-1}]$ by mapping $z$ to $frac{a}{xy}$. For any $cin C$, we have $a^ncin B$ for some $ninmathbb{N}$. Also, $b$ is still not divisible by $a$ in $C$, since $z$ does not appear in its term which is not divisible by $a$. I now claim $b$ is irreducible in $C$. Indeed, suppose $b=cd$ for $c,din C$ which are not units. We can then write $a^{n+m}b=(a^nc)(a^md)$ where $a^nc,a^mdin B$. But $a^{n+m}=(xyz)^{n+m}$ is a product of prime elements of $B$, so $a^nc$ and $a^md$ must collectively have $n+m$ factors of each of $x,y,$ and $z$ in $B$. We can thus divide out these factors and get a factorization of $b$ in $B$, which must be trivial since $b$ is irreducible in $B$. This means that either $a^nc$ or $a^md$ is just a product of copies of $x,y,$ and $z$ (up to units), which means it is just a power of $a$ times a unit of $C$. But $b$ is not divisible by $a$ in $C$, so this means $c$ or $d$ must be just a unit of $C$, which is a contradiction.



So, $b$ is irreducible (and thus prime) in $C$. Now suppose $b$ divides $cd$ for some $c,din B$. Since $b$ is prime in $C$, it divides either $c$ or $d$ in $C$; let us say it divides $c$. We then can write $c=be$ for some $ein C$ and so $a^nc=b(a^ne)$ where $a^nein B$. But now $a^n=(xyz)^n$ is a product of primes of $B$ that do not divide $b$, so it must divide $a^ne$ in $B$. We conclude that actually $ein B$ and so $b$ divides $c$ in $B$. This completes the proof that $b$ is prime in $B$, which completes the proof of the Lemma.





Now we construct an example of an algebra with your property. The idea is to iterate the construction of the Lemma in order to eliminate all primes that are not simple tensors, while using part (3) of the Lemma to guarantee that all the degree $1$ simple tensors remain prime. Let $F$ be a field and $X_0$ be a nonempty set. Let $V_0$ be a vector space with $X_0$ as a basis and $A_0=S(X_0)$. Let $P_0$ be a set which contains one representative of each associate class of prime element of $A_0$ which is not a simple tensor. We now define $$A_1=A_0[x_p,y_p,z_p]/(x_py_pz_p-p)$$ where $p$ ranges over all elements of $P_0$ (so we're adjoining separate elements $x_p,y_p,$ and $z_p$ for each $pin P_0$). We consider $A_1$ as a quotient of $S(V_1)$, where $V_1$ has as a basis $X_0cup{x_p,y_p,z_p:pin P_0}$.



For any finite subset $Qsubseteq P$, let $A_0(Q)$ be the $A_0$-subalgebra of $A_1$ generated by the $x_p,y_p,$ and $z_p$ for $pin Q$. Note that such a ring $A_0(Q)$ can be built from $A_0$ by iterating the construction of the Lemma finitely many times, once for each element of $Q$. It follows that $A_0(Q)$ is a UFD and its units are just $F^times$. Part (3) of the Lemma also tells us that every element of $V_1$ which is contained in $A_0(Q)$ is prime in $Q$. Moreover, note that if $Q'supseteq Q$, then every prime of $A_0(Q)$ remains a prime of $A_0(Q')$ except for the elements of $Q'setminus Q$ which each become a product of three new primes. It follows that any prime of $A_0$ which is a simple tensor remains irreducible in $A_1$, as does any prime of $A_0(Q)$ which was not in $A_0$. We can now see that any element $bin A_1$ has a factorization into irreducible elements: there exists $Q$ such that $bin A_0(Q)$, and we can factor $b$ in $A_0(Q)$. Some of its factors may be non-simple tensors of $A_0$, but we can pass to a $Q'supset Q$ such that all of them factor in $A_0(Q')$, and then all the irreducible factors of $b$ in $A_0(Q')$ remain irreducible in $A_1$. Moreover, this factorization is unique, since if we had two different such factorizations, we could find a $Q''$ such that both of them are contained in $A_0(Q'')$, contradicting the fact that $A_0(Q'')$ is a UFD.



The upshot is that $A_1$ is a UFD, its group of units is just $F^times$, and every element of $V_1$ is prime in $A_1$. Moreover, all the irreducible elements of $A_0$ which were not simple tensors now factor into simple tensors in $A_1$.



We can now repeat this construction starting with $A_1$ instead of $A_0$, to get an extension $A_2$ of $A_1$ with the same properties. Namely, $A_2$ which is a UFD with unit group $F^times$. It is a quotient of a symmetric algebra $S(V_2)$ for some $V_2supseteq V_1$ such that every element of $V_2$ is prime in $A_2$, and all the irreducible elements of $A_1$ which were not simple tensors now factor into simple tensors in $A_2$.



We repeat this construction to recursively build a chain of UFDs $$A_0subseteq A_1subseteq A_2subseteq A_3subseteqdots$$ in the same way. Now let $A$ be the direct limit of this chain. Then $A^times=F^times$, and $A$ is a UFD, since the prime factorization of any element of $A_n$ stabiliizes after $A_{n+1}$ (since its factorization in $A_{n+1}$ uses only simple tensors, which will remain prime in each later stage of the construction). We can consider it as a quotient of a symmetric algebra $S(V)$ where $V$ is the direct limt of the vector spaces $V_n$ corresponding to each $A_n$. The prime elements of $A$ are exactly $V$, since any prime element in $A_n$ that was not a simple tensor gained a factorization in $A_{n+1}$, but any element of $V_n$ is prime in $A_n$ and remains prime in $A_m$ for all $m>n$. Thus, every element of $A$ can be written uniquely as a simple tensor.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    What a thorough answer! I'll have to take some time to digest it, as many of these methods are unfamiliar to me, but once I can confirm it checks out I'll be sure to accept it.
    $endgroup$
    – Feryll
    Mar 14 at 0:14











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3146167%2fis-there-a-quotient-of-a-symmetric-algebra-which-is-in-bijection-with-the-simple%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









2












$begingroup$

Yes, such a quotient does exist. Let me start with a lemma.




Lemma: Let $A$ be a UFD, let $ain A$ be a prime, and let $B=A[x,y,z]/(xyz-a)$. Then:




  1. $B$ is a UFD.


  2. $B^times=A^times$ (i.e., every unit of $B$ was already a unit of $A$).


  3. Let $bin B$ be a nonzero element of the form $ux+vy+wz+c$ where $u,v,win A^timescup{0}$ and $cin A$ is either $0$ or prime and not associate to $a$. Then $b$ is prime in $B$.





Proof: Since $A[x,y,z]$ is a UFD and $xyz-a$ is irreducible in $A[x,y,z]$, $B$ is a domain. Note also that $B/(x)cong A[y,z]/(a)cong (A/a)[y,z]$ is a domain, so $x$ is prime in $B$, and by symmetry so are $y$ and $z$.



Note that $B$ is free as an $A$-module with basis consisting of all monomials in $x,y,$ and $z$ which do not contain $xyz$. We can consider $B$ as a $mathbb{Z}^2$-graded ring by taking $A$ to have degree $(0,0)$, $x$ to have degree $(1,0)$, $y$ to have degree $(0,1)$, and $z$ to have degree $(-1,-1)$. Each of our monomial basis elements then has a distinct degree, so a homogeneous element is a constant multiple of a monomial (where "constant" means element of $A$). Given an element $bin B$, we define the support $operatorname{supp}(b)$ as the convex hull in $mathbb{R}^2$ of the set of degrees in which $b$ has a nonzero homogenous part. The support is a (possibly degenerate) convex polygon whose vertices have integer coordinates. Note that if $b,cin B$ then $$operatorname{supp}(bc)=operatorname{supp}(b)+operatorname{supp}(c)$$ (here the sum on the right is the operation $S+T={s+t:sin S,tin T}$ on subsets of $mathbb{R}^2$). Indeed, note that $operatorname{supp}(b)+operatorname{supp}(c)$ is a convex polygon, and each of its vertices is an extreme point and thus is a degree that can only be obtained in one way by multiplying terms of $b$ and terms of $c$. This means there can be no cancellation, so every vertex of $operatorname{supp}(b)+operatorname{supp}(c)$ really is in the support of $bc$.



Using this property of supports, we can immediately conclude that $B^times=A^times$ (since a unit of $B$ must have singleton support). We can also see that any element $b$ as in statement (3) is irreducible, since its support cannot be written nontrivially as a sum of two convex polygons with integer vertices. This means we need only consider factorizations where one factor is homogeneous, and it is easy to check that no nontrivial such factorization can exist.



[You may be wondering why this Lemma defines $B=A[x,y,z]/(xyz-a)$, instead of something like $B=A[x,y]/(xy-a)$ or more generally $B=A[x_1,dots,x_n]/(x_1dots x_n-a)$ for some other $n$. The reason is the step above: if we used only two variables, then statement (3) might fail, since the shapes of the supports of such elements $b$ would be different and would allow them to be factored. For instance, if $a+1$ happens to be prime, then $x+y+(a+1)$ could be factored as $(x+1)(y+1)$. The argument would still work if you used more than $3$ variables, though.]



We can also use supports to see that $B$ satisfies the ascending chain condition on principal ideals (proof sketch: in a chain of principal ideals, the support can only shrink finitely many times, and so eventually we are just factoring out homogeneous elements each time, so we can reduce to the fact that $A$ satisfies the ascending chain condition on principal ideals).



To complete the proof of the Lemma, all that remains is to show that every irreducible element of $B$ is prime. We have already shown this for $x,y,$ and $z$, so suppose $bin B$ is an irreducible element that is not associate to $x,y,$ or $z$. Then in particular, $b$ is not divisible by $a$, so one of its homogeneous parts is not divisible by $a$. We assume without loss of generality that $z$ does not appear in this homogeneous part.



Now consider $B$ as a subring of the UFD $C=A[x,y,x^{-1},y^{-1}]$ by mapping $z$ to $frac{a}{xy}$. For any $cin C$, we have $a^ncin B$ for some $ninmathbb{N}$. Also, $b$ is still not divisible by $a$ in $C$, since $z$ does not appear in its term which is not divisible by $a$. I now claim $b$ is irreducible in $C$. Indeed, suppose $b=cd$ for $c,din C$ which are not units. We can then write $a^{n+m}b=(a^nc)(a^md)$ where $a^nc,a^mdin B$. But $a^{n+m}=(xyz)^{n+m}$ is a product of prime elements of $B$, so $a^nc$ and $a^md$ must collectively have $n+m$ factors of each of $x,y,$ and $z$ in $B$. We can thus divide out these factors and get a factorization of $b$ in $B$, which must be trivial since $b$ is irreducible in $B$. This means that either $a^nc$ or $a^md$ is just a product of copies of $x,y,$ and $z$ (up to units), which means it is just a power of $a$ times a unit of $C$. But $b$ is not divisible by $a$ in $C$, so this means $c$ or $d$ must be just a unit of $C$, which is a contradiction.



So, $b$ is irreducible (and thus prime) in $C$. Now suppose $b$ divides $cd$ for some $c,din B$. Since $b$ is prime in $C$, it divides either $c$ or $d$ in $C$; let us say it divides $c$. We then can write $c=be$ for some $ein C$ and so $a^nc=b(a^ne)$ where $a^nein B$. But now $a^n=(xyz)^n$ is a product of primes of $B$ that do not divide $b$, so it must divide $a^ne$ in $B$. We conclude that actually $ein B$ and so $b$ divides $c$ in $B$. This completes the proof that $b$ is prime in $B$, which completes the proof of the Lemma.





Now we construct an example of an algebra with your property. The idea is to iterate the construction of the Lemma in order to eliminate all primes that are not simple tensors, while using part (3) of the Lemma to guarantee that all the degree $1$ simple tensors remain prime. Let $F$ be a field and $X_0$ be a nonempty set. Let $V_0$ be a vector space with $X_0$ as a basis and $A_0=S(X_0)$. Let $P_0$ be a set which contains one representative of each associate class of prime element of $A_0$ which is not a simple tensor. We now define $$A_1=A_0[x_p,y_p,z_p]/(x_py_pz_p-p)$$ where $p$ ranges over all elements of $P_0$ (so we're adjoining separate elements $x_p,y_p,$ and $z_p$ for each $pin P_0$). We consider $A_1$ as a quotient of $S(V_1)$, where $V_1$ has as a basis $X_0cup{x_p,y_p,z_p:pin P_0}$.



For any finite subset $Qsubseteq P$, let $A_0(Q)$ be the $A_0$-subalgebra of $A_1$ generated by the $x_p,y_p,$ and $z_p$ for $pin Q$. Note that such a ring $A_0(Q)$ can be built from $A_0$ by iterating the construction of the Lemma finitely many times, once for each element of $Q$. It follows that $A_0(Q)$ is a UFD and its units are just $F^times$. Part (3) of the Lemma also tells us that every element of $V_1$ which is contained in $A_0(Q)$ is prime in $Q$. Moreover, note that if $Q'supseteq Q$, then every prime of $A_0(Q)$ remains a prime of $A_0(Q')$ except for the elements of $Q'setminus Q$ which each become a product of three new primes. It follows that any prime of $A_0$ which is a simple tensor remains irreducible in $A_1$, as does any prime of $A_0(Q)$ which was not in $A_0$. We can now see that any element $bin A_1$ has a factorization into irreducible elements: there exists $Q$ such that $bin A_0(Q)$, and we can factor $b$ in $A_0(Q)$. Some of its factors may be non-simple tensors of $A_0$, but we can pass to a $Q'supset Q$ such that all of them factor in $A_0(Q')$, and then all the irreducible factors of $b$ in $A_0(Q')$ remain irreducible in $A_1$. Moreover, this factorization is unique, since if we had two different such factorizations, we could find a $Q''$ such that both of them are contained in $A_0(Q'')$, contradicting the fact that $A_0(Q'')$ is a UFD.



The upshot is that $A_1$ is a UFD, its group of units is just $F^times$, and every element of $V_1$ is prime in $A_1$. Moreover, all the irreducible elements of $A_0$ which were not simple tensors now factor into simple tensors in $A_1$.



We can now repeat this construction starting with $A_1$ instead of $A_0$, to get an extension $A_2$ of $A_1$ with the same properties. Namely, $A_2$ which is a UFD with unit group $F^times$. It is a quotient of a symmetric algebra $S(V_2)$ for some $V_2supseteq V_1$ such that every element of $V_2$ is prime in $A_2$, and all the irreducible elements of $A_1$ which were not simple tensors now factor into simple tensors in $A_2$.



We repeat this construction to recursively build a chain of UFDs $$A_0subseteq A_1subseteq A_2subseteq A_3subseteqdots$$ in the same way. Now let $A$ be the direct limit of this chain. Then $A^times=F^times$, and $A$ is a UFD, since the prime factorization of any element of $A_n$ stabiliizes after $A_{n+1}$ (since its factorization in $A_{n+1}$ uses only simple tensors, which will remain prime in each later stage of the construction). We can consider it as a quotient of a symmetric algebra $S(V)$ where $V$ is the direct limt of the vector spaces $V_n$ corresponding to each $A_n$. The prime elements of $A$ are exactly $V$, since any prime element in $A_n$ that was not a simple tensor gained a factorization in $A_{n+1}$, but any element of $V_n$ is prime in $A_n$ and remains prime in $A_m$ for all $m>n$. Thus, every element of $A$ can be written uniquely as a simple tensor.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    What a thorough answer! I'll have to take some time to digest it, as many of these methods are unfamiliar to me, but once I can confirm it checks out I'll be sure to accept it.
    $endgroup$
    – Feryll
    Mar 14 at 0:14
















2












$begingroup$

Yes, such a quotient does exist. Let me start with a lemma.




Lemma: Let $A$ be a UFD, let $ain A$ be a prime, and let $B=A[x,y,z]/(xyz-a)$. Then:




  1. $B$ is a UFD.


  2. $B^times=A^times$ (i.e., every unit of $B$ was already a unit of $A$).


  3. Let $bin B$ be a nonzero element of the form $ux+vy+wz+c$ where $u,v,win A^timescup{0}$ and $cin A$ is either $0$ or prime and not associate to $a$. Then $b$ is prime in $B$.





Proof: Since $A[x,y,z]$ is a UFD and $xyz-a$ is irreducible in $A[x,y,z]$, $B$ is a domain. Note also that $B/(x)cong A[y,z]/(a)cong (A/a)[y,z]$ is a domain, so $x$ is prime in $B$, and by symmetry so are $y$ and $z$.



Note that $B$ is free as an $A$-module with basis consisting of all monomials in $x,y,$ and $z$ which do not contain $xyz$. We can consider $B$ as a $mathbb{Z}^2$-graded ring by taking $A$ to have degree $(0,0)$, $x$ to have degree $(1,0)$, $y$ to have degree $(0,1)$, and $z$ to have degree $(-1,-1)$. Each of our monomial basis elements then has a distinct degree, so a homogeneous element is a constant multiple of a monomial (where "constant" means element of $A$). Given an element $bin B$, we define the support $operatorname{supp}(b)$ as the convex hull in $mathbb{R}^2$ of the set of degrees in which $b$ has a nonzero homogenous part. The support is a (possibly degenerate) convex polygon whose vertices have integer coordinates. Note that if $b,cin B$ then $$operatorname{supp}(bc)=operatorname{supp}(b)+operatorname{supp}(c)$$ (here the sum on the right is the operation $S+T={s+t:sin S,tin T}$ on subsets of $mathbb{R}^2$). Indeed, note that $operatorname{supp}(b)+operatorname{supp}(c)$ is a convex polygon, and each of its vertices is an extreme point and thus is a degree that can only be obtained in one way by multiplying terms of $b$ and terms of $c$. This means there can be no cancellation, so every vertex of $operatorname{supp}(b)+operatorname{supp}(c)$ really is in the support of $bc$.



Using this property of supports, we can immediately conclude that $B^times=A^times$ (since a unit of $B$ must have singleton support). We can also see that any element $b$ as in statement (3) is irreducible, since its support cannot be written nontrivially as a sum of two convex polygons with integer vertices. This means we need only consider factorizations where one factor is homogeneous, and it is easy to check that no nontrivial such factorization can exist.



[You may be wondering why this Lemma defines $B=A[x,y,z]/(xyz-a)$, instead of something like $B=A[x,y]/(xy-a)$ or more generally $B=A[x_1,dots,x_n]/(x_1dots x_n-a)$ for some other $n$. The reason is the step above: if we used only two variables, then statement (3) might fail, since the shapes of the supports of such elements $b$ would be different and would allow them to be factored. For instance, if $a+1$ happens to be prime, then $x+y+(a+1)$ could be factored as $(x+1)(y+1)$. The argument would still work if you used more than $3$ variables, though.]



We can also use supports to see that $B$ satisfies the ascending chain condition on principal ideals (proof sketch: in a chain of principal ideals, the support can only shrink finitely many times, and so eventually we are just factoring out homogeneous elements each time, so we can reduce to the fact that $A$ satisfies the ascending chain condition on principal ideals).



To complete the proof of the Lemma, all that remains is to show that every irreducible element of $B$ is prime. We have already shown this for $x,y,$ and $z$, so suppose $bin B$ is an irreducible element that is not associate to $x,y,$ or $z$. Then in particular, $b$ is not divisible by $a$, so one of its homogeneous parts is not divisible by $a$. We assume without loss of generality that $z$ does not appear in this homogeneous part.



Now consider $B$ as a subring of the UFD $C=A[x,y,x^{-1},y^{-1}]$ by mapping $z$ to $frac{a}{xy}$. For any $cin C$, we have $a^ncin B$ for some $ninmathbb{N}$. Also, $b$ is still not divisible by $a$ in $C$, since $z$ does not appear in its term which is not divisible by $a$. I now claim $b$ is irreducible in $C$. Indeed, suppose $b=cd$ for $c,din C$ which are not units. We can then write $a^{n+m}b=(a^nc)(a^md)$ where $a^nc,a^mdin B$. But $a^{n+m}=(xyz)^{n+m}$ is a product of prime elements of $B$, so $a^nc$ and $a^md$ must collectively have $n+m$ factors of each of $x,y,$ and $z$ in $B$. We can thus divide out these factors and get a factorization of $b$ in $B$, which must be trivial since $b$ is irreducible in $B$. This means that either $a^nc$ or $a^md$ is just a product of copies of $x,y,$ and $z$ (up to units), which means it is just a power of $a$ times a unit of $C$. But $b$ is not divisible by $a$ in $C$, so this means $c$ or $d$ must be just a unit of $C$, which is a contradiction.



So, $b$ is irreducible (and thus prime) in $C$. Now suppose $b$ divides $cd$ for some $c,din B$. Since $b$ is prime in $C$, it divides either $c$ or $d$ in $C$; let us say it divides $c$. We then can write $c=be$ for some $ein C$ and so $a^nc=b(a^ne)$ where $a^nein B$. But now $a^n=(xyz)^n$ is a product of primes of $B$ that do not divide $b$, so it must divide $a^ne$ in $B$. We conclude that actually $ein B$ and so $b$ divides $c$ in $B$. This completes the proof that $b$ is prime in $B$, which completes the proof of the Lemma.





Now we construct an example of an algebra with your property. The idea is to iterate the construction of the Lemma in order to eliminate all primes that are not simple tensors, while using part (3) of the Lemma to guarantee that all the degree $1$ simple tensors remain prime. Let $F$ be a field and $X_0$ be a nonempty set. Let $V_0$ be a vector space with $X_0$ as a basis and $A_0=S(X_0)$. Let $P_0$ be a set which contains one representative of each associate class of prime element of $A_0$ which is not a simple tensor. We now define $$A_1=A_0[x_p,y_p,z_p]/(x_py_pz_p-p)$$ where $p$ ranges over all elements of $P_0$ (so we're adjoining separate elements $x_p,y_p,$ and $z_p$ for each $pin P_0$). We consider $A_1$ as a quotient of $S(V_1)$, where $V_1$ has as a basis $X_0cup{x_p,y_p,z_p:pin P_0}$.



For any finite subset $Qsubseteq P$, let $A_0(Q)$ be the $A_0$-subalgebra of $A_1$ generated by the $x_p,y_p,$ and $z_p$ for $pin Q$. Note that such a ring $A_0(Q)$ can be built from $A_0$ by iterating the construction of the Lemma finitely many times, once for each element of $Q$. It follows that $A_0(Q)$ is a UFD and its units are just $F^times$. Part (3) of the Lemma also tells us that every element of $V_1$ which is contained in $A_0(Q)$ is prime in $Q$. Moreover, note that if $Q'supseteq Q$, then every prime of $A_0(Q)$ remains a prime of $A_0(Q')$ except for the elements of $Q'setminus Q$ which each become a product of three new primes. It follows that any prime of $A_0$ which is a simple tensor remains irreducible in $A_1$, as does any prime of $A_0(Q)$ which was not in $A_0$. We can now see that any element $bin A_1$ has a factorization into irreducible elements: there exists $Q$ such that $bin A_0(Q)$, and we can factor $b$ in $A_0(Q)$. Some of its factors may be non-simple tensors of $A_0$, but we can pass to a $Q'supset Q$ such that all of them factor in $A_0(Q')$, and then all the irreducible factors of $b$ in $A_0(Q')$ remain irreducible in $A_1$. Moreover, this factorization is unique, since if we had two different such factorizations, we could find a $Q''$ such that both of them are contained in $A_0(Q'')$, contradicting the fact that $A_0(Q'')$ is a UFD.



The upshot is that $A_1$ is a UFD, its group of units is just $F^times$, and every element of $V_1$ is prime in $A_1$. Moreover, all the irreducible elements of $A_0$ which were not simple tensors now factor into simple tensors in $A_1$.



We can now repeat this construction starting with $A_1$ instead of $A_0$, to get an extension $A_2$ of $A_1$ with the same properties. Namely, $A_2$ which is a UFD with unit group $F^times$. It is a quotient of a symmetric algebra $S(V_2)$ for some $V_2supseteq V_1$ such that every element of $V_2$ is prime in $A_2$, and all the irreducible elements of $A_1$ which were not simple tensors now factor into simple tensors in $A_2$.



We repeat this construction to recursively build a chain of UFDs $$A_0subseteq A_1subseteq A_2subseteq A_3subseteqdots$$ in the same way. Now let $A$ be the direct limit of this chain. Then $A^times=F^times$, and $A$ is a UFD, since the prime factorization of any element of $A_n$ stabiliizes after $A_{n+1}$ (since its factorization in $A_{n+1}$ uses only simple tensors, which will remain prime in each later stage of the construction). We can consider it as a quotient of a symmetric algebra $S(V)$ where $V$ is the direct limt of the vector spaces $V_n$ corresponding to each $A_n$. The prime elements of $A$ are exactly $V$, since any prime element in $A_n$ that was not a simple tensor gained a factorization in $A_{n+1}$, but any element of $V_n$ is prime in $A_n$ and remains prime in $A_m$ for all $m>n$. Thus, every element of $A$ can be written uniquely as a simple tensor.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    What a thorough answer! I'll have to take some time to digest it, as many of these methods are unfamiliar to me, but once I can confirm it checks out I'll be sure to accept it.
    $endgroup$
    – Feryll
    Mar 14 at 0:14














2












2








2





$begingroup$

Yes, such a quotient does exist. Let me start with a lemma.




Lemma: Let $A$ be a UFD, let $ain A$ be a prime, and let $B=A[x,y,z]/(xyz-a)$. Then:




  1. $B$ is a UFD.


  2. $B^times=A^times$ (i.e., every unit of $B$ was already a unit of $A$).


  3. Let $bin B$ be a nonzero element of the form $ux+vy+wz+c$ where $u,v,win A^timescup{0}$ and $cin A$ is either $0$ or prime and not associate to $a$. Then $b$ is prime in $B$.





Proof: Since $A[x,y,z]$ is a UFD and $xyz-a$ is irreducible in $A[x,y,z]$, $B$ is a domain. Note also that $B/(x)cong A[y,z]/(a)cong (A/a)[y,z]$ is a domain, so $x$ is prime in $B$, and by symmetry so are $y$ and $z$.



Note that $B$ is free as an $A$-module with basis consisting of all monomials in $x,y,$ and $z$ which do not contain $xyz$. We can consider $B$ as a $mathbb{Z}^2$-graded ring by taking $A$ to have degree $(0,0)$, $x$ to have degree $(1,0)$, $y$ to have degree $(0,1)$, and $z$ to have degree $(-1,-1)$. Each of our monomial basis elements then has a distinct degree, so a homogeneous element is a constant multiple of a monomial (where "constant" means element of $A$). Given an element $bin B$, we define the support $operatorname{supp}(b)$ as the convex hull in $mathbb{R}^2$ of the set of degrees in which $b$ has a nonzero homogenous part. The support is a (possibly degenerate) convex polygon whose vertices have integer coordinates. Note that if $b,cin B$ then $$operatorname{supp}(bc)=operatorname{supp}(b)+operatorname{supp}(c)$$ (here the sum on the right is the operation $S+T={s+t:sin S,tin T}$ on subsets of $mathbb{R}^2$). Indeed, note that $operatorname{supp}(b)+operatorname{supp}(c)$ is a convex polygon, and each of its vertices is an extreme point and thus is a degree that can only be obtained in one way by multiplying terms of $b$ and terms of $c$. This means there can be no cancellation, so every vertex of $operatorname{supp}(b)+operatorname{supp}(c)$ really is in the support of $bc$.



Using this property of supports, we can immediately conclude that $B^times=A^times$ (since a unit of $B$ must have singleton support). We can also see that any element $b$ as in statement (3) is irreducible, since its support cannot be written nontrivially as a sum of two convex polygons with integer vertices. This means we need only consider factorizations where one factor is homogeneous, and it is easy to check that no nontrivial such factorization can exist.



[You may be wondering why this Lemma defines $B=A[x,y,z]/(xyz-a)$, instead of something like $B=A[x,y]/(xy-a)$ or more generally $B=A[x_1,dots,x_n]/(x_1dots x_n-a)$ for some other $n$. The reason is the step above: if we used only two variables, then statement (3) might fail, since the shapes of the supports of such elements $b$ would be different and would allow them to be factored. For instance, if $a+1$ happens to be prime, then $x+y+(a+1)$ could be factored as $(x+1)(y+1)$. The argument would still work if you used more than $3$ variables, though.]



We can also use supports to see that $B$ satisfies the ascending chain condition on principal ideals (proof sketch: in a chain of principal ideals, the support can only shrink finitely many times, and so eventually we are just factoring out homogeneous elements each time, so we can reduce to the fact that $A$ satisfies the ascending chain condition on principal ideals).



To complete the proof of the Lemma, all that remains is to show that every irreducible element of $B$ is prime. We have already shown this for $x,y,$ and $z$, so suppose $bin B$ is an irreducible element that is not associate to $x,y,$ or $z$. Then in particular, $b$ is not divisible by $a$, so one of its homogeneous parts is not divisible by $a$. We assume without loss of generality that $z$ does not appear in this homogeneous part.



Now consider $B$ as a subring of the UFD $C=A[x,y,x^{-1},y^{-1}]$ by mapping $z$ to $frac{a}{xy}$. For any $cin C$, we have $a^ncin B$ for some $ninmathbb{N}$. Also, $b$ is still not divisible by $a$ in $C$, since $z$ does not appear in its term which is not divisible by $a$. I now claim $b$ is irreducible in $C$. Indeed, suppose $b=cd$ for $c,din C$ which are not units. We can then write $a^{n+m}b=(a^nc)(a^md)$ where $a^nc,a^mdin B$. But $a^{n+m}=(xyz)^{n+m}$ is a product of prime elements of $B$, so $a^nc$ and $a^md$ must collectively have $n+m$ factors of each of $x,y,$ and $z$ in $B$. We can thus divide out these factors and get a factorization of $b$ in $B$, which must be trivial since $b$ is irreducible in $B$. This means that either $a^nc$ or $a^md$ is just a product of copies of $x,y,$ and $z$ (up to units), which means it is just a power of $a$ times a unit of $C$. But $b$ is not divisible by $a$ in $C$, so this means $c$ or $d$ must be just a unit of $C$, which is a contradiction.



So, $b$ is irreducible (and thus prime) in $C$. Now suppose $b$ divides $cd$ for some $c,din B$. Since $b$ is prime in $C$, it divides either $c$ or $d$ in $C$; let us say it divides $c$. We then can write $c=be$ for some $ein C$ and so $a^nc=b(a^ne)$ where $a^nein B$. But now $a^n=(xyz)^n$ is a product of primes of $B$ that do not divide $b$, so it must divide $a^ne$ in $B$. We conclude that actually $ein B$ and so $b$ divides $c$ in $B$. This completes the proof that $b$ is prime in $B$, which completes the proof of the Lemma.





Now we construct an example of an algebra with your property. The idea is to iterate the construction of the Lemma in order to eliminate all primes that are not simple tensors, while using part (3) of the Lemma to guarantee that all the degree $1$ simple tensors remain prime. Let $F$ be a field and $X_0$ be a nonempty set. Let $V_0$ be a vector space with $X_0$ as a basis and $A_0=S(X_0)$. Let $P_0$ be a set which contains one representative of each associate class of prime element of $A_0$ which is not a simple tensor. We now define $$A_1=A_0[x_p,y_p,z_p]/(x_py_pz_p-p)$$ where $p$ ranges over all elements of $P_0$ (so we're adjoining separate elements $x_p,y_p,$ and $z_p$ for each $pin P_0$). We consider $A_1$ as a quotient of $S(V_1)$, where $V_1$ has as a basis $X_0cup{x_p,y_p,z_p:pin P_0}$.



For any finite subset $Qsubseteq P$, let $A_0(Q)$ be the $A_0$-subalgebra of $A_1$ generated by the $x_p,y_p,$ and $z_p$ for $pin Q$. Note that such a ring $A_0(Q)$ can be built from $A_0$ by iterating the construction of the Lemma finitely many times, once for each element of $Q$. It follows that $A_0(Q)$ is a UFD and its units are just $F^times$. Part (3) of the Lemma also tells us that every element of $V_1$ which is contained in $A_0(Q)$ is prime in $Q$. Moreover, note that if $Q'supseteq Q$, then every prime of $A_0(Q)$ remains a prime of $A_0(Q')$ except for the elements of $Q'setminus Q$ which each become a product of three new primes. It follows that any prime of $A_0$ which is a simple tensor remains irreducible in $A_1$, as does any prime of $A_0(Q)$ which was not in $A_0$. We can now see that any element $bin A_1$ has a factorization into irreducible elements: there exists $Q$ such that $bin A_0(Q)$, and we can factor $b$ in $A_0(Q)$. Some of its factors may be non-simple tensors of $A_0$, but we can pass to a $Q'supset Q$ such that all of them factor in $A_0(Q')$, and then all the irreducible factors of $b$ in $A_0(Q')$ remain irreducible in $A_1$. Moreover, this factorization is unique, since if we had two different such factorizations, we could find a $Q''$ such that both of them are contained in $A_0(Q'')$, contradicting the fact that $A_0(Q'')$ is a UFD.



The upshot is that $A_1$ is a UFD, its group of units is just $F^times$, and every element of $V_1$ is prime in $A_1$. Moreover, all the irreducible elements of $A_0$ which were not simple tensors now factor into simple tensors in $A_1$.



We can now repeat this construction starting with $A_1$ instead of $A_0$, to get an extension $A_2$ of $A_1$ with the same properties. Namely, $A_2$ which is a UFD with unit group $F^times$. It is a quotient of a symmetric algebra $S(V_2)$ for some $V_2supseteq V_1$ such that every element of $V_2$ is prime in $A_2$, and all the irreducible elements of $A_1$ which were not simple tensors now factor into simple tensors in $A_2$.



We repeat this construction to recursively build a chain of UFDs $$A_0subseteq A_1subseteq A_2subseteq A_3subseteqdots$$ in the same way. Now let $A$ be the direct limit of this chain. Then $A^times=F^times$, and $A$ is a UFD, since the prime factorization of any element of $A_n$ stabiliizes after $A_{n+1}$ (since its factorization in $A_{n+1}$ uses only simple tensors, which will remain prime in each later stage of the construction). We can consider it as a quotient of a symmetric algebra $S(V)$ where $V$ is the direct limt of the vector spaces $V_n$ corresponding to each $A_n$. The prime elements of $A$ are exactly $V$, since any prime element in $A_n$ that was not a simple tensor gained a factorization in $A_{n+1}$, but any element of $V_n$ is prime in $A_n$ and remains prime in $A_m$ for all $m>n$. Thus, every element of $A$ can be written uniquely as a simple tensor.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Yes, such a quotient does exist. Let me start with a lemma.




Lemma: Let $A$ be a UFD, let $ain A$ be a prime, and let $B=A[x,y,z]/(xyz-a)$. Then:




  1. $B$ is a UFD.


  2. $B^times=A^times$ (i.e., every unit of $B$ was already a unit of $A$).


  3. Let $bin B$ be a nonzero element of the form $ux+vy+wz+c$ where $u,v,win A^timescup{0}$ and $cin A$ is either $0$ or prime and not associate to $a$. Then $b$ is prime in $B$.





Proof: Since $A[x,y,z]$ is a UFD and $xyz-a$ is irreducible in $A[x,y,z]$, $B$ is a domain. Note also that $B/(x)cong A[y,z]/(a)cong (A/a)[y,z]$ is a domain, so $x$ is prime in $B$, and by symmetry so are $y$ and $z$.



Note that $B$ is free as an $A$-module with basis consisting of all monomials in $x,y,$ and $z$ which do not contain $xyz$. We can consider $B$ as a $mathbb{Z}^2$-graded ring by taking $A$ to have degree $(0,0)$, $x$ to have degree $(1,0)$, $y$ to have degree $(0,1)$, and $z$ to have degree $(-1,-1)$. Each of our monomial basis elements then has a distinct degree, so a homogeneous element is a constant multiple of a monomial (where "constant" means element of $A$). Given an element $bin B$, we define the support $operatorname{supp}(b)$ as the convex hull in $mathbb{R}^2$ of the set of degrees in which $b$ has a nonzero homogenous part. The support is a (possibly degenerate) convex polygon whose vertices have integer coordinates. Note that if $b,cin B$ then $$operatorname{supp}(bc)=operatorname{supp}(b)+operatorname{supp}(c)$$ (here the sum on the right is the operation $S+T={s+t:sin S,tin T}$ on subsets of $mathbb{R}^2$). Indeed, note that $operatorname{supp}(b)+operatorname{supp}(c)$ is a convex polygon, and each of its vertices is an extreme point and thus is a degree that can only be obtained in one way by multiplying terms of $b$ and terms of $c$. This means there can be no cancellation, so every vertex of $operatorname{supp}(b)+operatorname{supp}(c)$ really is in the support of $bc$.



Using this property of supports, we can immediately conclude that $B^times=A^times$ (since a unit of $B$ must have singleton support). We can also see that any element $b$ as in statement (3) is irreducible, since its support cannot be written nontrivially as a sum of two convex polygons with integer vertices. This means we need only consider factorizations where one factor is homogeneous, and it is easy to check that no nontrivial such factorization can exist.



[You may be wondering why this Lemma defines $B=A[x,y,z]/(xyz-a)$, instead of something like $B=A[x,y]/(xy-a)$ or more generally $B=A[x_1,dots,x_n]/(x_1dots x_n-a)$ for some other $n$. The reason is the step above: if we used only two variables, then statement (3) might fail, since the shapes of the supports of such elements $b$ would be different and would allow them to be factored. For instance, if $a+1$ happens to be prime, then $x+y+(a+1)$ could be factored as $(x+1)(y+1)$. The argument would still work if you used more than $3$ variables, though.]



We can also use supports to see that $B$ satisfies the ascending chain condition on principal ideals (proof sketch: in a chain of principal ideals, the support can only shrink finitely many times, and so eventually we are just factoring out homogeneous elements each time, so we can reduce to the fact that $A$ satisfies the ascending chain condition on principal ideals).



To complete the proof of the Lemma, all that remains is to show that every irreducible element of $B$ is prime. We have already shown this for $x,y,$ and $z$, so suppose $bin B$ is an irreducible element that is not associate to $x,y,$ or $z$. Then in particular, $b$ is not divisible by $a$, so one of its homogeneous parts is not divisible by $a$. We assume without loss of generality that $z$ does not appear in this homogeneous part.



Now consider $B$ as a subring of the UFD $C=A[x,y,x^{-1},y^{-1}]$ by mapping $z$ to $frac{a}{xy}$. For any $cin C$, we have $a^ncin B$ for some $ninmathbb{N}$. Also, $b$ is still not divisible by $a$ in $C$, since $z$ does not appear in its term which is not divisible by $a$. I now claim $b$ is irreducible in $C$. Indeed, suppose $b=cd$ for $c,din C$ which are not units. We can then write $a^{n+m}b=(a^nc)(a^md)$ where $a^nc,a^mdin B$. But $a^{n+m}=(xyz)^{n+m}$ is a product of prime elements of $B$, so $a^nc$ and $a^md$ must collectively have $n+m$ factors of each of $x,y,$ and $z$ in $B$. We can thus divide out these factors and get a factorization of $b$ in $B$, which must be trivial since $b$ is irreducible in $B$. This means that either $a^nc$ or $a^md$ is just a product of copies of $x,y,$ and $z$ (up to units), which means it is just a power of $a$ times a unit of $C$. But $b$ is not divisible by $a$ in $C$, so this means $c$ or $d$ must be just a unit of $C$, which is a contradiction.



So, $b$ is irreducible (and thus prime) in $C$. Now suppose $b$ divides $cd$ for some $c,din B$. Since $b$ is prime in $C$, it divides either $c$ or $d$ in $C$; let us say it divides $c$. We then can write $c=be$ for some $ein C$ and so $a^nc=b(a^ne)$ where $a^nein B$. But now $a^n=(xyz)^n$ is a product of primes of $B$ that do not divide $b$, so it must divide $a^ne$ in $B$. We conclude that actually $ein B$ and so $b$ divides $c$ in $B$. This completes the proof that $b$ is prime in $B$, which completes the proof of the Lemma.





Now we construct an example of an algebra with your property. The idea is to iterate the construction of the Lemma in order to eliminate all primes that are not simple tensors, while using part (3) of the Lemma to guarantee that all the degree $1$ simple tensors remain prime. Let $F$ be a field and $X_0$ be a nonempty set. Let $V_0$ be a vector space with $X_0$ as a basis and $A_0=S(X_0)$. Let $P_0$ be a set which contains one representative of each associate class of prime element of $A_0$ which is not a simple tensor. We now define $$A_1=A_0[x_p,y_p,z_p]/(x_py_pz_p-p)$$ where $p$ ranges over all elements of $P_0$ (so we're adjoining separate elements $x_p,y_p,$ and $z_p$ for each $pin P_0$). We consider $A_1$ as a quotient of $S(V_1)$, where $V_1$ has as a basis $X_0cup{x_p,y_p,z_p:pin P_0}$.



For any finite subset $Qsubseteq P$, let $A_0(Q)$ be the $A_0$-subalgebra of $A_1$ generated by the $x_p,y_p,$ and $z_p$ for $pin Q$. Note that such a ring $A_0(Q)$ can be built from $A_0$ by iterating the construction of the Lemma finitely many times, once for each element of $Q$. It follows that $A_0(Q)$ is a UFD and its units are just $F^times$. Part (3) of the Lemma also tells us that every element of $V_1$ which is contained in $A_0(Q)$ is prime in $Q$. Moreover, note that if $Q'supseteq Q$, then every prime of $A_0(Q)$ remains a prime of $A_0(Q')$ except for the elements of $Q'setminus Q$ which each become a product of three new primes. It follows that any prime of $A_0$ which is a simple tensor remains irreducible in $A_1$, as does any prime of $A_0(Q)$ which was not in $A_0$. We can now see that any element $bin A_1$ has a factorization into irreducible elements: there exists $Q$ such that $bin A_0(Q)$, and we can factor $b$ in $A_0(Q)$. Some of its factors may be non-simple tensors of $A_0$, but we can pass to a $Q'supset Q$ such that all of them factor in $A_0(Q')$, and then all the irreducible factors of $b$ in $A_0(Q')$ remain irreducible in $A_1$. Moreover, this factorization is unique, since if we had two different such factorizations, we could find a $Q''$ such that both of them are contained in $A_0(Q'')$, contradicting the fact that $A_0(Q'')$ is a UFD.



The upshot is that $A_1$ is a UFD, its group of units is just $F^times$, and every element of $V_1$ is prime in $A_1$. Moreover, all the irreducible elements of $A_0$ which were not simple tensors now factor into simple tensors in $A_1$.



We can now repeat this construction starting with $A_1$ instead of $A_0$, to get an extension $A_2$ of $A_1$ with the same properties. Namely, $A_2$ which is a UFD with unit group $F^times$. It is a quotient of a symmetric algebra $S(V_2)$ for some $V_2supseteq V_1$ such that every element of $V_2$ is prime in $A_2$, and all the irreducible elements of $A_1$ which were not simple tensors now factor into simple tensors in $A_2$.



We repeat this construction to recursively build a chain of UFDs $$A_0subseteq A_1subseteq A_2subseteq A_3subseteqdots$$ in the same way. Now let $A$ be the direct limit of this chain. Then $A^times=F^times$, and $A$ is a UFD, since the prime factorization of any element of $A_n$ stabiliizes after $A_{n+1}$ (since its factorization in $A_{n+1}$ uses only simple tensors, which will remain prime in each later stage of the construction). We can consider it as a quotient of a symmetric algebra $S(V)$ where $V$ is the direct limt of the vector spaces $V_n$ corresponding to each $A_n$. The prime elements of $A$ are exactly $V$, since any prime element in $A_n$ that was not a simple tensor gained a factorization in $A_{n+1}$, but any element of $V_n$ is prime in $A_n$ and remains prime in $A_m$ for all $m>n$. Thus, every element of $A$ can be written uniquely as a simple tensor.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Mar 13 at 17:53

























answered Mar 13 at 10:54









Eric WofseyEric Wofsey

190k14216348




190k14216348












  • $begingroup$
    What a thorough answer! I'll have to take some time to digest it, as many of these methods are unfamiliar to me, but once I can confirm it checks out I'll be sure to accept it.
    $endgroup$
    – Feryll
    Mar 14 at 0:14


















  • $begingroup$
    What a thorough answer! I'll have to take some time to digest it, as many of these methods are unfamiliar to me, but once I can confirm it checks out I'll be sure to accept it.
    $endgroup$
    – Feryll
    Mar 14 at 0:14
















$begingroup$
What a thorough answer! I'll have to take some time to digest it, as many of these methods are unfamiliar to me, but once I can confirm it checks out I'll be sure to accept it.
$endgroup$
– Feryll
Mar 14 at 0:14




$begingroup$
What a thorough answer! I'll have to take some time to digest it, as many of these methods are unfamiliar to me, but once I can confirm it checks out I'll be sure to accept it.
$endgroup$
– Feryll
Mar 14 at 0:14


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3146167%2fis-there-a-quotient-of-a-symmetric-algebra-which-is-in-bijection-with-the-simple%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

六本木駅

Integral that is continuous and looks like it converges to a geometric seriesTesting if a geometric series converges by taking limit to infinitySummation of arithmetic-geometric series of higher orderGeometric series with polynomial exponentHow to Recognize a Geometric SeriesShowing an integral equality with series over the integersDiscontinuity of a series of continuous functionsReasons why a Series ConvergesSum of infinite geometric series with two terms in summationUsing geometric series for computing IntegralsLimit of geometric series sum when $r = 1$

Joseph Lister