Archiv der Mathematik

, Volume 109, Issue 3, pp 231–243 | Cite as

Upper bounds for dominant dimensions of gendo-symmetric algebras

Article
First Online:
Received:
  • 33 Downloads

Abstract

The famous Nakayama conjecture states that the dominant dimension of a non-selfinjective finite dimensional algebra is finite. Yamagata (Frobenius algebras handbook of algebra, vol 1. Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 841–887, 1996) stated the stronger conjecture that the dominant dimension of a non-selfinjective finite dimensional algebra is bounded by a function depending on the number of simple modules of that algebra. With a view towards those conjectures, new bounds on dominant dimensions seem desirable. We give a new approach to bounds on the dominant dimension of gendo-symmetric algebras via counting non-isomorphic indecomposable summands of rigid modules in the module category of those algebras. On the other hand, by Mueller’s theorem, the calculation of dominant dimensions is directly related to the calculation of certain Ext-groups. Motivated by this connection we also give new results for showing the non-vanishing of \(Ext^{1}(M,M)\) for certain modules in local symmetric algebras, which specializes to show that blocks of category \(\mathcal {O}\) and 1-quasi-hereditary algebras with a special duality have dominant dimension exactly 2.

Keywords

Dominant dimension Gendo-symmetric algebras Nakayama conjecture 

Mathematics Subject Classiffication

Primary 16G10 16E10 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    F.W. Anderson and K.R. Fuller, Rings and Categories of Modules, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 13, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Auslander, I. Reiten, and S. Smalo, Representation Theory of Artin Algebras, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 36, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    I. Assem, D. Simson, and A. Skowronski, Elements of the Representation Theory of Associative Algebras, Volume 1: Representation-Infinite Tilted Algebras, London Mathematical Society Student Texts, 65, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Chan and R. Marczinzik, On representation-finite gendo-symmetric biserial algebras, arXiv:1607.05965.
  5. 5.
    H. Chen and S. Koenig, Ortho-symmetric modules, Gorenstein algebras and derived equivalences, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 2016, 6979-7037.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Fang and S. Koenig, Gendo-symmetric algebras, canonical comultiplication, bar cocomplex and dominant dimension, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 368 (2016), 5037-5055.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Fang and S. Koenig, Endomorphism algebras of generators over symmetric algebras, J. Algebra 332 (2011), 428-433.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Herschend, O. Iyama, and S. Oppermann, n-representation infinite algebras, Adv. Math. 252 (2014), 292-342.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    M. Hoshino, Modules without self-extensions and Nakayama’s conjecture, Arch. Math. (Basel) 43 (1984), 493-500.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Humphreys, Representations of Semisimple Lie Algebras in the BGG Category \({\cal{O}}\), Graduate Studies in Mathematics, 94, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2008.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. Igusa and G. Todorov, On the finitistic global dimension conjecture for Artin algebras, In: Representations of algebras and related topics, 201-204, Fields Inst. Commun., 45, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2005.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    O. Iyama, Higher-dimensional Auslander-Reiten theory on maximal orthogonal subcategories, Adv. Math. 210 (2007), 22-50.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    O. Iyama, Auslander correspondence, Adv. Math. 210 (2007), 51-82.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    O. Kerner and K. Yamagata, Morita algebras, J. Algebra 382 (2013), 185-202.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. Koenig, I. H. Slungård, and C. Xi, Double centralizer properties, dominant dimension, and tilting modules, J. Algebra 240 (2001), 393-412.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. Marczinzik, Upper bounds for the dominant dimension of Nakayama and related algebras, arXiv:1605.09634.
  17. 17.
    B. Mueller, The classification of algebras by dominant dimension, Canad. J. Math. 20 (1968), 398-409.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    T. Nakayama, On algebras with complete homology, Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg 22 (1958), 300-307.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Pucinskaite, Quasi-hereditary algebras via generator-cogenerators of local self-injective algebras and transfer of Ringel duality, Math. Z. 279 (2015), 641-668.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. Skowronski and K. Yamagata, Frobenius Algebras I: Basic Representation Theory, EMS Textbooks in Mathematics, European Mathematical Society (EMS), Zürich, 2011.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    H. Tachikawa, Quasi-Frobenius Rings and Generalizations: QF-3 and QF-1 Rings, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 351, Springer, Berlin-New York, 1973.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    K. Yamagata, Frobenius algebras, In: Handbook of algebra, Vol. 1, 841-887, Handb. Algebr., 1, Elsevier/North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1996.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Algebra and Number TheoryUniversity of StuttgartStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations