Let us
begin with a simple enough question : what are the points of a
non-commutative variety? Anyone? Probably you\’d say something like :
standard algebra-geometry yoga tells us that we should associate to a
non-commutative algebra
variety is then build from \’gluing\’ such things together. Ok, but what
is
[prime spectrum][1] of
ideals
_maximal_ twosided ideals. The good news is that in this set-up, the
point-set comes equipped with a natural topology, the [Zariski
topology][2]. The bad news is that the prime spectrum is rarely
functorial in the noncommutative world. That is, if
algebra so
Failing this, let us take for
functorial and worry about topologies later. Take
the set of all finite dimensional representations of
for any algebra morphism
map
morphisms
morphisms). Moreover, it is an _additive_ category, that is if
representation
hand let us declare a _non-commutative variety_
additive_
for some non-commutative algebra
momemt what we mean by locally as we do not have defined a topology,
yet). Let is call objects of teh category
variety and
points (that is, those objects that cannot be written as a direct sum of
non-zero objects). By the local description of
point corresponds to an indecomposable representation of a
non-commutative algebra and as such has a local endomorphism algebra
(that is, all non-invertible endomorphisms form a twosided ideal). But
if we have this property for all indecomposable points,our category
will be a Krull-Schmidt category so it is natural to impose also the
condition (2) : every point of
finite direct sum of indecomposable points. Further, as the space of
left
clearly finite dimensional we have also the following strong finiteness
condition (3) : For all points
[Representations of finite-dimensional algebras][3], Peter Gabriel and
Andrei V. Roiter call an additive category such that all endomorphism
algebras of indecomposable objects are local algebras and such that all
morphism spaces are finite dimensional an _aggregate_. So, we have a
first tentative answer to our question **the points of a
non-commutative variety are the objects of an aggregate** Clearly, as
category_ (that is, morphisms allow kernels and cokernels) it might also
be natural to replace \’aggregate\’ by \’Abelian Krull-Schmidt category
with finite dimensional homs\’ but if Mr. Abelian Category himself finds
the generalization to aggregates useful I\’m not going to argue about
this. Are all aggregates of the form
other interesting examples? A motivating commutative example is : the
category of all coherent modules
form an aggegate giving us a mental picture of what we might expect of a
non-commutative variety. Clearly, the above tentative answer cannot be
the full story as we haven\’t included the topological condition of
being locally of the form
the next episode _B for Bricks_. [1]:
http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/PrimeSpectrum.html [2]:
http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/ZariskiTopology.html [3]:
1/ref=sr_1_8_1/026-3923724-4530018
A for aggregates
Published in featured
Comments