Ringel duality for certain strongly quasihereditary algebras
 58 Downloads
Abstract
We study quasihereditary endomorphism algebras defined over a new class of finite dimensional monomial algebras with a special ideal structure. The main result is a uniform formula describing the Ringel duals of these quasihereditary algebras. As special cases, we obtain a Ringel duality formula for a family of strongly quasihereditary algebras arising from a type A configuration of projective lines in a rational, projective surface as recently introduced by Hille and Ploog, for certain Auslander–Dlab–Ringel algebras, and for Eiriksson and Sauter’s nilpotent quiver algebras when the quiver has no sinks and no sources. We also recover Tan’s result that the Auslander algebras of selfinjective Nakayama algebras are Ringel selfdual.
Keywords
Quasihereditary algebras Ringel duality Monomial algebras Knörrer invariant algebrasMathematics Subject Classification
16S50 16G101 Introduction
Quasihereditary algebras form an important class of finite dimensional algebras with relations to Lie theory (this was the original motivation [10]) and exceptional sequences in algebraic geometry (see e.g. [9, 23]). Examples of quasihereditary algebras include blocks of category Open image in new window and Schur algebras.
Let us make this more precise. Let k be an algebraically closed field, and R be a finite dimensional monomial kalgebra, i.e. \(R=kQ/I\), where I is a twosided ideal generated by paths in Q. For example Open image in new window , where I is a twosided ideal generated by monomials in Open image in new window .
Definition 1.1
We call R ideally ordered, if for every primitive idempotent \(e \in R\) and every pair of monomials \(m, n \in eR\) there exists an epimorphism \(Rm \rightarrow Rn\) or an epimorphism \(Rn \rightarrow Rm\).
The following is the main result of this paper and calculates the Ringel dual for algebras of the form Open image in new window . See Theorem 5.1 for a more detailed version.
Theorem 1.2
Remark 1.3
As we were preparing to post this paper on the arXiv we became aware of the very recent paper [14] of Coulembier that had just appeared. This paper introduces a more general version of the Auslander–Dlab–Ringel construction and proves a Ringel duality formula in this setting. In particular, this generalises the Ringel duality formula of Conde and Erdmann [13] that we discuss below.
Our construction appears to be a special case that fits into this more general framework which, in particular, implies the Ringel duality formula of Theorem 1.2. However, the approach and proof in Coulembier’s work is different to the one in this paper. The work of Coulembier also seems to answer the questions we raise in Remark 5.3 (1) and at the end of Sect. 6.3 regarding the possibility of finding a more general framework in which a Ringel duality formula holds.
In light of this, the results of this paper can be thought of as providing a very explicit example of Coulembier’s Ringel duality formula, linking to several geometrically inspired examples such as Knörrer invariant algebras, and proving further properties that hold in our special case of the algebras Open image in new window such as being simultaneous left and right strongly quasihereditary for the same quasihereditary order and being left ultra strongly quasihereditary.
The class of ideally ordered monomial algebras includes many well known examples, and in many of these examples the endomorphism algebras \(E_{R}\) are also well understood.
Example 1.4
 (0)
Hereditary algebras.
 (1)
The algebras Open image in new window for positive integers l, m.
 (2)
More generally, for Q a finite quiver, \(J \subseteq kQ\) the twosided ideal generated by all arrows in Q, and \(m \geqslant 0\) the algebra Open image in new window is ideally ordered.
To prove this, consider a monomial \(p \in eR\). There is a surjection \(Re \rightarrow Rp\) given by \(g \mapsto gp\) with kernel where i is minimal such that \(p \in J^i\). Hence for any monomial \(p \in eR\) there is an isomorphism \(Rp \cong Re/J^le\) for some Open image in new window . As a result, for any pair of monomials \(p,q \in eR\) the monomial ideals Rp, Rq are isomorphic to some pair of quotient modules occurring in the chain of surjectionsHence there is a surjection \(Rp \rightarrow Rq\) or \(Rq \rightarrow Rp\).$$\begin{aligned} Re \cong Re/J^{m}e \rightarrow Re/J^{m1}e \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow Re/J^{1}e. \end{aligned}$$  (3)
For every pair \(0<a<r\) of coprime integers the finite dimensional monomial Knörrer invariant algebra \(K_{r,a}\) is defined in [27, Definition 4.6], and the results of [27, Section 6.4] describe its monomial ideals and imply that it is ideally ordered. The definition of these algebras is recapped in Sect. 6.1.
 (4)
Nakayama algebras, introduced in [31], are ideally ordered.
 (5)Let R and K be ideally ordered monomial algebras and let \(_R M_K\) be an RKbimodule which is projective as Rmodule and as Kmodule. Then is an ideally ordered monomial algebra. Example 2.8 (a) shows that T need not be ideally ordered if we weaken the assumptions on \(_R M_K\).
 (6)
If R is ideally ordered and \(e \in R\) is an arbitrary idempotent, then eRe is ideally ordered.
Suppose that \(f \in eRe\) is a primitive idempotent and \(p,q \in feRe=fRe\) are monomials. Then f is a primitive idempotent in R, \(p,q \in fR\) are monomials, and as R is ideally ordered there is a surjection between Rp and Rq. Applying to this surjection of Rmodules will produce the required surjection of eRemodules between eRp and eRq since Open image in new window is exact. This shows eRe is ideally ordered.
 (7)
The algebra Open image in new window is not ideally ordered. To see this consider the ideals Rx and Ry.
We briefly discuss how these examples of ideally ordered monomial algebras R, and the algebras Open image in new window they define, relate to algebras and results in the literature.
1.1 Hille and Ploog’s algebras
The Ringel duality formula of Theorem 1.2, the definition of ideally ordered monomial algebras, and the construction of the algebras Open image in new window in this paper are all geometrically inspired. They were first observed in our previous work [27] for a class of quasihereditary algebras \(\Lambda _\alpha \) constructed by Hille and Ploog [24].
It is natural to ask how the algebras \(\Lambda _{\varvec{\alpha }}\) and \(\Lambda _{\varvec{\alpha }^{\vee }}\) are related from a representation theoretic perspective. Our answer below is phrased in terms of Ringel duality.
Preposition 1.5
We remark that in this setting the Ringel duality formula (1) also has an alternative proof, which is more geometric, see Proposition 1.5.
The aim of this paper was to find a more general representation theoretic framework extending the Ringel duality formula (1) to a larger class of (ultra) strongly quasihereditary algebras. In particular, the Knörrer invariant algebras are the original motivation for the ideally ordered condition.
Remark 1.6
The algebras \(\Lambda _{\varvec{\alpha }} \cong E_{K_{r, a}}\) and \(K_{r, a}\) were used to show a noncommutative version of Knörrer periodicity for cyclic quotient surface singularities in [27]. More precisely, it was proved there that the singularity category of a cyclic quotient surface singularity is equivalent to the singularity category of a corresponding Knörrer invariant algebra, generalising classical Knörrer’s periodicity for the polynomials \(x^n\) and \(x^n + y^2 +z^2\). The proof uses noncommutative resolutions and \(\Lambda _{\varvec{\alpha }}\cong E_{K_{r,a}}\) plays the role of a noncommutative resolution for \(K_{r,a}\).
1.2 Auslander–Dlab–Ringel and nilpotent quiver algebras
From a more representation theoretic viewpoint, a Ringel duality formula that looks similar to that of Theorem 1.2 was proved for Auslander–Dlab–Ringel algebras Open image in new window by Conde and Erdmann [13, Theorem A]. We define these algebras, recall Conde and Erdmann’s Ringel duality formula, and discuss the relationship between this result and the results of this paper in Sect. 6.3.
In particular, for the class of algebras Open image in new window in Example 1.4 (2) the corresponding algebras Open image in new window and Open image in new window coincide if Q has no sources.
Preposition 6.12
If Open image in new window for Q a finite quiver without sources and J the twosided ideal generated by all arrows in Q, then there is an isomorphism of quasihereditary algebras Open image in new window .
We also prove that when Q has no sinks the ADR algebra coincides with the quiver nilpotent algebra \(N_m(Q)\) introduced by Eiriksson and Sauter [20], which is motivated via a quiver graded version of Richardson orbits and is recapped in Sect. 6.4.
Preposition 6.15
If Open image in new window for Q a finite quiver without sinks and J the twosided ideal generated by all arrows in Q, then there is an isomorphism of quasihereditary algebras Open image in new window .
In particular, if \(R=kQ/J^m\) (as in Example 1.4 (2)) for a quiver with no sinks or sources, then Open image in new window and so Theorem 1.2 provides a Ringel duality formula for such nilpotent quiver algebras; see Corollary 6.17.
1.3 Nakayama and Auslander algebras
Several of the examples of ideally ordered monomial algebras above can be thought of as geometrically inspired by resolutions of singularities. Indeed, Examples 1.4 (1)–(4) can be thought of as different generalisations of the algebra Open image in new window .
Work of Dlab and Ringel [17] shows that every finite dimensional algebra admits a noncommutative ‘resolution’ by a quasihereditary algebra, and a generalisation of this result led to Iyama’s proof of the finiteness of Auslander’s representation dimension [25].
Such a resolution for finite dimensional algebras of finite representation type is provided by the Auslander algebra. This also occurs in more geometric contexts; the categorical resolutions considered by Kuznetsov and Lunts [30] use a construction motivated by Auslander algebras to resolve nonreduced schemes.
For R a finite dimensional algebra of finite representation type let Open image in new window denote the Auslander algebra of R, which we recall in Sect. 6.5.
Preposition 6.18
If R is an ideally ordered monomial algebra, then Open image in new window if and only if R is selfinjective.
A particular example of a class of ideally ordered, monomial algebras of finite representation type are the Nakayama algebras (listed as Example 1.4 (4)).
Corollary 6.19
If R is selfinjective Nakayama algebra, then Open image in new window .
In this setting Theorem 1.2 also generalises several known results in the literature, e.g. that the Auslander algebras of selfinjective Nakayama algebras are Ringel selfdual, see [37].
Corollary 6.20
If R is a selfinjective Nakayama algebra then Open image in new window .
For other related results see work by Baur et al. [6], CrawleyBoevey and Sauter [16] and Nguyen et al. [32].
1.4 Left and right strongly quasihereditary structure
A further special property of the quasihereditary algebras Open image in new window is that the ideal layer function simultaneously realises both a left and right strongly quasihereditary structure on the algebras.
Since Open image in new window is closed under kernels Open image in new window has global dimension 2, and it was recently shown by Tsukamoto [38] that this implies Open image in new window admits both a left strongly quasihereditary structure and a right strongly quasihereditary structure (for a possibly different order), building on earlier work of Dlab and Ringel, and Iyama.
In general the left and right strongly quasihereditary structures cannot be realised using the same order. Indeed, Tsukamoto shows that for Auslander algebras of representationfinite algebras (which all have global dimension 2) this is possible precisely if the underlying algebra is a Nakayama algebra.
As seen in the examples above, the class of quasihereditary algebras Open image in new window constructed from ideally ordered monomial algebras provides a larger class of such algebras.
1.5 Conventions
Throughout this paper k will denote an algebraically closed field. For paths \(p,q \in kQ\) in the path algebra of a quiver Q the composition pq will denote the path q followed by the path p. For R a Noetherian ring R\(\mathrm{mod}\) will denote the category of finitely generated left Rmodules, and for \(S \subset R\)\(\mathrm{mod}\) we will define Open image in new window to be the additive subcategory generated by S: i.e. the smallest full subcategory of R\(\mathrm{mod}\) containing S and closed under isomorphism, direct sums, and direct summands. In particular, the category of finitely generated projective R modules \(\text {proj}\)R is equivalent to Open image in new window .
2 Strongly quasihereditary algebras
In this section, we will give necessary and sufficient conditions for certain endomorphism algebras over ideally ordered monomial algebras to be left or right strongly quasihereditary.
We first recall the definition of a quasihereditary algebra. This needs some preparation. For a finite dimensional kalgebra A choose a labelling \(i \in I\) of the simple Amodules \(S_i\) up to isomorphism. A partial order \(\leqslant \) on the set I is called adapted if for each \(M \in A\)\(\mathrm{mod}\) with top \(S_i\) and socle Open image in new window incomparable there exists some \(k>i\) or \(k>j\) such that \(S_k\) is a composition factor of M. In particular, total orderings are adapted. We denote the projective cover and injective envelope of the simple \(S_i\) by \(P_i\) and \(Q_i\) respectively.
Definition 2.1
Given a partial ordering \( \leqslant \) on the index set I, for \(i \in I\) the standard module \(\Delta _i\) is the maximal factor module of \(P_i\) whose composition series consists only of simple modules Open image in new window such that \(j \leqslant i\). Similarly, the costandard module \(\nabla _i\) is the maximal submodule of \(Q_i\) whose composition series consists only of simple modules Open image in new window such that \(j \leqslant i\).
 (1)
\(\text {End}_A(\Delta _i) \cong k\) for each \(i \in I\) and
 (2)
A can be filtered by the standard modules under this ordering; i.e. there exists a series of Amodules Open image in new window such that each quotient \(M_{i1}/M_i\) is isomorphic to a direct sum of standard modules.
The following terminology is due to Ringel [35]. We refer to the references and discussions in [35] for earlier work.
Definition 2.2
A quasihereditary algebra A is called left strongly quasihereditary if all standard modules have projective dimension at most 1. It is called right strongly quasihereditary if all costandard Amodules have injective dimension at most 1.
This is an equivalent characterisation of left/right strongly quasihereditary condition given in [35, Appendix A1]. The original definition, introduced in [35, Section 4], is in terms of a layer function.
Definition 2.3
 (a)
The module R(s) is the direct sum of projective covers \(P(s')\) of simple modules \(s'\) such that \(L(s')>L(s)\).
 (b)
All simple factors \(s'\) of \(\mathsf {rad}\, \Delta (s)\) satisfy \(L(s')<L(s)\).
The assumption on Open image in new window is satisfied for ideally ordered monomial algebras R due to Lemma 7.3 but does not hold for all finite dimensional algebras; e.g. if Open image in new window , then the ideals Open image in new window for \(\lambda \in \mathbb {C}\) give a \(\mathbb {C}\)indexed set of ideals that are pairwise nonisomorphic as left modules.
Definition 2.4
Let R be a finite dimensional algebra. For principal left Rideals \(\Lambda \), we define Open image in new window and we call l the ideal layer function. It induces a partial ordering on the principal left Rideals, which we call the ideal ordering.
We will now determine when the ideal layer function induces a left or right strongly quasihereditary structure on Open image in new window by considering left and right minimal approximations with respect to the ideal ordering.
The notion of minimal approximation is common in representation theory; see [29] for a survey. A morphism \(\alpha :\Gamma \rightarrow \Lambda \) is a left approximation for a class of modules Open image in new window if Open image in new window and the induced morphism \({\mathrm{Hom}}_R(\Lambda ,C) \rightarrow {\mathrm{Hom}}_R(\Gamma ,C)\) is surjective for all Open image in new window . A morphism \(\Gamma \xrightarrow {\scriptscriptstyle \alpha \ } \Lambda \) is left minimal if any endomorphism \(\phi \) of \(\Lambda \) satisfying Open image in new window is an isomorphism. In particular, left minimal approximations are unique up to isomorphism.
Denote by Open image in new window the full subcategory of direct sums of principal left Rideals \(\Lambda \) with \(l(\Lambda )>i\).
Lemma 2.5
Let \(\Gamma \) be a principal left ideal of layer \(\gamma \). There is a minimal left Open image in new window approximation Open image in new window of \(\mathrm{\Gamma }\).
Proof
The existence of a left approximation with a finite length target implies the existence of a minimal left approximation by, for example [4, Theorem I.2.4], which shows such a minimal approximation can be constructed from an approximation by projection onto a summand. Hence the existence of the approximation \(\Phi :\Gamma \rightarrow \Lambda \) ensures that a minimal left Open image in new window approximation \(\alpha _{\Gamma }:\Gamma \rightarrow \Gamma _{>\gamma }\) exists.\(\square \)
Definition 2.6
Lemma 2.7
If R is an ideally ordered monomial algebra, then for a principal ideal \(\Gamma \) of layer \(\gamma \) the minimal left Open image in new window approximation is surjective. Hence when R is ideally ordered Open image in new window has good left approximations.
Proof
Since R is ideally ordered, we can use Lemma 7.3 to replace any principal Rideal by an isomorphic monomial ideal wherever needed. In particular, without loss of generality let \(\Gamma =Rg\) (with \(g \in eR\) a monomial) be a principal left Rideal of layer \(\gamma \).
A surjection from \(\Gamma \) to a principal ideal exists, \(\Gamma \rightarrow 0\) as 0 is a principal ideal. Using that R is finite dimensional there is a surjection to a principal ideal \(\Gamma _{>\gamma }\) which has maximal dimension among all principal ideals that admit surjections from \(\Gamma \). The existence of the surjection implies that \(\Gamma \) and \(\Gamma _{>\gamma }\) have the same head. In particular, we can assume that Open image in new window for a monomial \(n \in eR\). Using Lemma 7.1, the assignment \(g \mapsto n\) defines an Rlinear surjection Open image in new window .
We now claim that \(\alpha _{\Gamma }\) is an approximation. To prove this we consider a principal ideal \(\Lambda \) and will show that the induced map \({\mathrm{Hom}}_R(\Gamma _{>\gamma }, \Lambda ) \rightarrow {\mathrm{Hom}}_R(\Gamma ,\Lambda )\) is a surjection. Take a morphism \(\beta \in {\mathrm{Hom}}_R(\Gamma ,\Lambda )\). We aim to show that \(\beta \) factors through \(\alpha _{\Gamma }\) and hence is the image of some morphism in \({\mathrm{Hom}}_R(\Gamma _{>\gamma }, \Lambda )\).
To see this, take the induced surjection \(\beta :\Gamma \rightarrow \mathsf {im}\,\beta \) and, as the image of a principal ideal in a principal ideal, \(\mathsf {im}\,\beta \cong Rm\) (with a monomial \(m \in eR\)) is a principal left Rideal. Using the ideally ordered condition on R there is a surjection in at least one direction between \(\mathsf {im}\,\beta \) and \(\Gamma _{> \gamma }\). As \(\Gamma _{>\gamma }\) is a principal ideal of maximal dimension with a surjection from \(\Gamma \), it follows that Open image in new window and hence there is a surjection Open image in new window . Using Lemma 7.1, we can assume that \(\sigma \) is given by \(n \mapsto m\). Hence, the composition Open image in new window is a surjection defined by \(g \mapsto m\). Now Lemma 7.2 shows that the surjection \(\beta :\Gamma \rightarrow \mathsf {im}\,\beta \) factors over \(\pi \). In particular, \(\beta \) factors over Open image in new window . So Open image in new window is an approximation.
Finally, we claim that this approximation is minimal. To see this consider an endomorphism Open image in new window such that Open image in new window . Then as \(\alpha _{\Gamma }\) is a surjection it follows that \(\phi \) is a surjection, and hence an isomorphism.
By construction, Open image in new window for all \(\Gamma \) so Open image in new window has good left approximations. \(\square \)
We give examples showing that our results above apply beyond the class of ideally ordered monomial algebras.
Example 2.8
 (a)Consider the monomial algebra \(R=kQ/I\), where This is not ideally ordered since there are no surjections between Rb and Rc, however Open image in new window still has good left approximations. It is a short exercise to find the five isomorphism classes of indecomposable principal ideals and calculate their minimal left approximations. All but one of these minimal approximations are surjective, and the one which is not surjective has cokernel \(S_1\), the simple at vertex 1. There are no morphisms from \(S_1\) to any principal ideal, and hence Open image in new window has good left approximations.
 (b)Let \(n>0\) be an integer. Consider the nonmonomial algebras \(R_n=kQ/I_n\) where Again, Open image in new window has good left approximations; it is a short exercise to find the \(n+3\) principal ideals and calculate that the minimal left approximation for each one is surjective.
Proposition 2.9
The algebra Open image in new window is left strongly quasihereditary with respect to the ideal layer function l if and only if Open image in new window has good left approximations with respect to l.
Proof
Remark 2.10
Assume that Open image in new window is quasihereditary with respect to the ideal layer function. One can show that as a set the standard module \(\Delta (\Gamma )\) is given by all (residue classes of) monomorphisms starting in \(\Gamma \). Indeed if \(\nu :\Gamma \rightarrow \Lambda \) is not a monomorphism then an argument along the lines of the proof of the proposition shows that \(\nu \) factors over Open image in new window and therefore corresponds to the zero element in \(\Delta (\Gamma )\).
Proposition 2.9 is related to [35, Theorem 5] by Ringel. He shows that for an Rmodule M there exists an Rmodule N such that Open image in new window is left strongly quasihereditary and all the indecomposable summands N are submodules of M. In particular, if M is an Rmodule such that all submodules are isomorphic to direct summands of M, then \(\text {End}_R(M)\) is left strongly quasihereditary. We will see in Theorem 5.1 that Open image in new window has this property if R is ideally ordered monomial. However, our proof of Theorem 5.1 uses Proposition 2.9, so we cannot apply Ringel’s result in our approach.
Now we look at the ‘dual’ side. First we ‘dualise’ Definition 2.6 using the same notation.
Definition 2.11
Example 2.12
 (a)
Let R be a finite dimensional monomial algebra. Then Open image in new window has good right approximations. Indeed, let \(\Gamma \) be a principal left R ideal. Since R is monomial, \(\mathsf {rad}\,\Gamma \) is a direct sum of principal left ideals in Open image in new window and the natural inclusion \(\mathsf {rad}\,\Gamma \rightarrow \Gamma \) gives the desired minimal right approximation Open image in new window .
 (b)
The algebra in Example 2.8 (b) does not have good right approximations: the minimal right approximation of the projective module \(P_1\) is Open image in new window and this has kernel \(S_4\).
The following result is proved dually to Proposition 2.9
Proposition 2.13
Open image in new window is right strongly quasihereditary with respect to the ideal layer function l if and only if Open image in new window has good right approximations. For example, this holds if R is finite dimensional monomial.
Combining Propositions 2.9 and 2.13 with Lemma 2.7 and Example 2.12 (a) yields the following theorem.
Theorem 2.14
If R is an ideally ordered monomial algebra, then Open image in new window is both left and right strongly quasihereditary with respect to the ordering induced by the ideal layer function.
We let Open image in new window and Open image in new window denote the full subcategories of Open image in new window \(\text {mod}\) of objects filtered by standard and costandard modules respectively.
Remark 2.15
Assume that Open image in new window is quasihereditary with respect to the ideal layer function. Similarly to the case above, one can show that as a set a costandard module \(\nabla (\Lambda )\) is given by all surjections ending in \(\Lambda \). In particular, each costandard module has head \(S(\Pi )\) for some indecomposable projective Rmodule \(\Pi \) and Open image in new window .
Corollary 2.16
If Open image in new window has good right and left approximations, then Open image in new window is closed under submodules and Open image in new window is closed under quotients.
Proof
If Open image in new window has good left approximations, then Open image in new window is left strongly quasihereditary by Proposition 2.9, and hence all standard objects have projective dimension 1. By [35, Proposition A.1], all standard modules having projective dimension 1 is equivalent to Open image in new window being closed under quotients.
The analogous dual statement, using Proposition 2.13, shows that when Open image in new window has good right approximations then Open image in new window is closed under submodules.\(\square \)
3 The characteristic tilting module and Ringel duality
In the following section we first recall the characteristic tilting module T associated to a quasihereditary algebra. Then we show that our algebras Open image in new window are ultra strongly quasihereditary in the sense of Conde [12] and use this to determine a subcategory of the additive hull Open image in new window of T (Corollary 3.6). In the proof of our main Theorem 5.1 we show that these categories coincide for ideally ordered monomial algebras R and as a consequence establish our Ringel duality formula in this setup.
The following proposition can be found in Ringel [34], which is based on work of Auslander and Reiten [3] and Auslander and Buchweitz [2].
Proposition 3.1
Definition 3.2
The notion of an ultra strongly quasihereditary algebras was introduced by Conde, see [12, Section 2.2.2].
Definition 3.3
A quasihereditary algebra A is left ultra strongly quasihereditary if a projective module \(P_i\) is filtered by costandard modules whenever the corresponding costandard module \(\nabla _i\) is simple.
Let Open image in new window be the idempotent corresponding to the direct summand R of Open image in new window . Note that \(e_0\) is primitive if and only if R is local. We have the following.
Proposition 3.4
 (a)
Open image in new window is filtered by costandard objects.
 (b)
\(\alpha _{\Gamma }:\Gamma \rightarrow \Gamma _{>\gamma }\) is surjective for all principal Rideals \(\Gamma \).
 (c)
Open image in new window is left ultra strongly quasihereditary.
 (d)
R is ideally ordered.
Proof
Conversely, if Open image in new window is not surjective for some principal ideal \(\Gamma \) then there exists Open image in new window . Since R is free there is an Rlinear map \(R \rightarrow \Gamma _{>\gamma }\), \(1 \mapsto x\), which by construction does not factor over Open image in new window . In combination with the antiequivalence and projective resolution above this shows Open image in new window and [34, Theorem 4] completes the proof that (a) implies (b).
That (a) is equivalent to (c) follows from the fact that \(\nabla (\Lambda )\) is simple if and only if \(\Lambda \) is projective, see Remark 2.15, and hence \(\nabla (\Lambda )\) simple implies \(P(\Lambda )\) is a direct summand of Open image in new window .
Let R be monomial. The implication (d) \(\Rightarrow \) (b) follows from Lemma 2.7. We now assume (b) and prove the converse.
Firstly, for any indecomposable principal ideal \(\Gamma \) the minimal left approximation Open image in new window is surjective by assumption (b), and we claim that \(\Gamma _{>\gamma }\) is indecomposable.
To show this take \(p \in eR\) for e a primitive idempotent and consider the principal ideal \(\Gamma \cong Rp\). Now suppose that there is a decomposition Open image in new window for some principal ideals \(Rq_i\). As \(\alpha _{\Gamma }\) is surjective, after relabelling we can assume that the image of p is Open image in new window and \(q_1 \ne 0\). As the morphism Open image in new window is surjective there must exist some \(r \in Re\) such that Open image in new window ; i.e. \(rq_1 =q_1\) and Open image in new window for \(j \geqslant 2\). As R is monomial, by considering the monomial of lowest degree occurring in \(q_1\) and \(rq_1 =q_1\) we can see that the degree 0 primitive idempotent e must occur in r. Then we can rewrite \(r=e+r'\) where all monomials occurring in \(r'\) have degree greater than 0. As a result, Open image in new window must be zero as Open image in new window so there can be no nonzero monomial of lowest degree occurring in Open image in new window . Hence Open image in new window for \(j\geqslant 2\), the decomposition is a trivial decomposition Open image in new window , and \(\Gamma _{> \gamma }\) is indecomposable.
We claim that any indecomposable principal ideal Rx with \(x \in eR\) is isomorphic to one of these successive approximations. To see this choose k to be maximal such that \(l(Rx) > i_k\). Then there is a surjection \(\pi :Re \rightarrow Rx\), and as Open image in new window this must factor through the left approximation \(\alpha _k:Re \rightarrow Re_{>i_k}\) by a surjection \(\phi :Re_{>i_k}\! \rightarrow Rx\). In particular, \(\dim Re_{>i_k} \!\geqslant \dim Rx\) so \(l(Re_{>i_k}) \leqslant l(Rx)\). But, by the definition of k, it is true that Open image in new window , hence it must be the case that \(l(Re_{>i_k}) = l(Rx)\) so \(\dim Re_{>i_k} \!=\dim Rx\) and hence the surjective morphism \(\phi \) is an isomorphism \(Re_{>i_k} \! \cong Rx\).
Finally, any pair Rx and Ry of principal ideals with \(x, y \in eR\) occur (up to isomorphism) in the successive approximation sequence, in which every morphism is surjective by assumption (b), and hence there is a surjection between them. This proves that the ideally ordered condition holds.\(\square \)
Example 3.5
The nonmonomial algebra in Example 2.8 (b) satisfies the equivalent conditions (a), (b) and (c) of the theorem.
Corollary 3.6
Suppose that Open image in new window has both good left and right approximations. Then Open image in new window .
Proof
By the definition of a quasihereditary algebra every projective module is filtered by standard modules. Therefore, Open image in new window and by Proposition 3.4 (a), we also have Open image in new window . Now Corollary 2.16 yields Open image in new window and Open image in new window . This implies the claim.\(\square \)
Remark 3.7
In combination with Remark 2.15, we see that when Open image in new window has both good left and right approximations Open image in new window . For ideally ordered monomial algebras R, Theorem 5.1 (e) shows that Open image in new window holds as well.
Remark 3.8
Let \(R=R_2\) be the nonmonomial algebra from Example 2.8 (b). The algebra Open image in new window is left ultra strongly quasihereditary with respect to the ideal layer function (in particular, Open image in new window is filtered by costandard modules) but not right strongly quasihereditary, so Open image in new window is not closed under subobjects. It turns out that there is precisely one indecomposable subobject of Open image in new window which is not filtered by standard modules. This module is also a quotient of Open image in new window and therefore Open image in new window . Restricting to the local submodules of Open image in new window yields the desired inclusion into Open image in new window in this case and can be used to show a version of the Ringel duality formula (10) in this example. Unfortunately, we do not know how to fit this example into a larger framework.
4 An equivalence from idempotents
To show this we recall several wellknown lemmas.
Lemma 4.1
Proof
This follows from the description of homomorphism spaces in the quotient category as colimits. Indeed for Open image in new window the colimit describing Open image in new window is taken over the single pair of subobjects (X, 0) and the quotient functor sends a morphism \(f:X \rightarrow Y\) to f.\(\square \)
The following lemma can be found in [21, Proposition 5.3 (b)]
Lemma 4.2
Corollary 4.3
In the notation of Lemma 4.2, we have Open image in new window .
Proof
Consider Open image in new window and \(M \in B/BeB\)\(\mathrm{mod}\). Applying the right exact functor \({\mathrm{Hom}}_B(,M)\) to the surjection \(Be \rightarrow N \rightarrow 0\) yields the injection \(0 \rightarrow {\mathrm{Hom}}_B(N,M) \rightarrow {\mathrm{Hom}}_B(Be,M)\). As B / BeB\(\mathrm{mod}\) is the kernel of \({\mathrm{Hom}}_B(Be,)\) and \(M \in B/BeB\)\(\mathrm{mod}\) it follows that \({\mathrm{Hom}}_B(Be,M)=0\) and hence \({\mathrm{Hom}}_B(N,M)=0\).\(\square \)
From now on let Open image in new window for some finite dimensional algebra R, such that Open image in new window is finitely generated.
Lemma 4.4
In the notation of Sect. 3, we have \(\mathsf {soc} \, Ae_0 \subseteq S_0^{\oplus n}\) for some natural number n. Here Open image in new window is the semisimple head of \(Ae_0\).
Proof
Indeed \(Ae_0\) consists of all Rhomomorphisms Open image in new window . Let \(\Lambda \) be a principal left Rideal. If \(R \rightarrow \Lambda \) is nonzero, then the composition with the canonical inclusion \(R \rightarrow \Lambda \rightarrow R\) is nonzero. Therefore every maximal sequence of nonzero morphisms starting in R ends in R, proving the claim.\(\square \)
Corollary 4.5
Proof
Assume that \(f :X \rightarrow U\) is a nonzero map, where U in Open image in new window and X in \(A/Ae_0A \text {} \mathrm{mod}\). Lemma 4.4 implies that \(\mathsf {im}\,f\) contains a nonzero direct summand of \(S_0\). But \(\mathsf {im}\,f \in A/Ae_0A \text {} \mathrm{mod}\) since X is contained in \(A/Ae_0A\text {} \mathrm{mod}\). It follows that \(\mathsf {im}\,f\) has no submodule which is a direct summand of \(S_0\). A contradiction. So there is no nonzero morphism \(f:X \rightarrow U\).\(\square \)
The following statement is the main result of this section.
Proposition 4.6
Proof
The equality on the right follows from the fact that Open image in new window . Since F is exact and maps an Amodule M to \(e_0M\), the restriction is welldefined. We can apply Lemma 4.1 to \(q=F\) to deduce that F is fully faithful. Indeed, by Lemma 4.2, F is a quotient functor corresponding to the Serre subcategory \(A/Ae_0A\text {}\mathrm{mod}\) and Corollaries 4.3 and 4.5 show that the required orthogonality conditions are satisfied.
It remains to show that F is essentially surjective. Let \(U \subseteq (e_0Ae_0)^{\oplus n}\) be generated by \(u_1, \ldots , u_n \in (e_0Ae_0)^n\). The \(u_i\) are elements of \((Ae_0)^n\). Let \(V \subseteq (Ae_0)^{\oplus n}\) be the Asubmodule generated by the \(u_i\). One can check that \(F(V)=U\) and since \(e_0 u_i=u_i\) for all i V is a factor module of \((Ae_0)^{\oplus m}\) for some m. This shows that V is contained in Open image in new window and completes the proof. \(\square \)
5 Proof of Ringel duality formula
In this section we prove the following main result of this paper, which is an extended version of Theorem 1.2 stated in the introduction.
Theorem 5.1
 (a)
Every indecomposable submodule of \(R^n\) is isomorphic to a principal left ideal, every principal left ideal is isomorphic to a monomial ideal, and hence Open image in new window so Open image in new window .
 (b)
The algebra Open image in new window is left and right strongly quasihereditary with respect to the ideal layer function. In particular, Open image in new window has global dimension at most 2. Moreover, it is left ultra strongly quasihereditary in the sense of Conde [12].
 (c)
The ideal order is the unique order defining a quasihereditary structure on Open image in new window if R is local and satisfies the following condition: if there exists a surjection \(\Lambda \rightarrow \Gamma \) between principal left ideals, then there is an inclusion \(\Gamma \rightarrow \Lambda \).
 (d)
Let T be the characteristic tilting module of Open image in new window and Open image in new window be the idempotent corresponding to R. Then there is an equality of subcategories Open image in new window . In other words, the indecomposable direct summands \(T_i\) of T are precisely those indecomposable Open image in new window modules which are both quotients and submodules of the projective module Open image in new window .
 (e)We can describe the subcategories Open image in new window and Open image in new window of Open image in new window \(\mathrm{mod}\) as follows:
Proof
By definition, the Ringel dual of Open image in new window is Open image in new window . Using Open image in new window we obtain Open image in new window . Under the standard kduality the latter identifies with Open image in new window . This completes the proof of the main Ringel duality statement as given in formula (4). As a consequence we get the equivalence Open image in new window .
We now consider part (b). By part (a) we know Open image in new window , and as R is ideally ordered Theorem 2.14 implies that Open image in new window is both left and right strongly quasihereditary with respect to the ideal layer function. An algebra which is left and right strongly quasihereditary with respect to the same ideal layer function has global dimension at most two by [35, first Proposition in A.2]. Proposition 3.4 shows that Open image in new window is also left ultra strongly quasihereditary, and so completes the proof of statement (b).
We now prove (c). Let Open image in new window denote the number of simple Open image in new window modules S that occur in a Jordan Hölder filtration of an Open image in new window module M. If a partial ordering on I induces a quasihereditary structure, then \([\Delta _i,S_i]=1\) for all \(i \in I\); as k is algebraically closed this is equivalent to Open image in new window , see [18, Lemma 1.6].
Using the additional assumption in (c) that R is local, the ideally ordered condition produces a surjection between any two summands of Open image in new window (as all principal ideals are monomial by Lemma 7.3). Hence the ideal layer function induces an ordering on the summands of Open image in new window of the form \(\Lambda _0< \Lambda _1< \cdots < \Lambda _t\). Now consider another partial order that also produces a quasihereditary ordering.
We first prove that both orderings have the same maximal element. If \(\Lambda _i\) is maximal with respect to the new order, then the projective module Open image in new window is also a standard module in this order. If the new order gives rise to a quasihereditary structure then, as \(P_i\) is standard in this ordering, Open image in new window . As \(P_i\) is projective Open image in new window . Under the antiequivalence Open image in new window , described in formula (2), this implies \(\dim \text {End}_{R}(\Lambda _i) =1\). Hence the identity morphism must equal socle projection so \(\Lambda _i\) is the simple Rmodule, which is unique as R is assumed to be local. The simple Rmodule is the largest summand \(\Lambda _t\) of Open image in new window under the ideal layer function ordering, and hence \(i=t\).
Secondly, we assume that the orderings match for \(k, k+1, \dots , t\), let Open image in new window be an immediate predecessor of \(\Lambda _k\) under the new order, and aim to show that \(j=k1\). As R is ideally ordered there is a surjection between Open image in new window and Open image in new window (where Open image in new window exists as \(j<k\leqslant t\)). As they are labelled by the ideal layer function Open image in new window and there is a surjection Open image in new window . By the condition assumed in (c), the existence of this surjection implies an inclusion Open image in new window . Together these produce a nontrivial endomorphism Open image in new window which does not factor over \(\Lambda _i\) for \(i>j+1\). Using the anti equivalence Open image in new window again, this translates into a nontrivial endomorphism of Open image in new window that does not factor over \(P_i\) for \(i>j+1\). In particular, the standard object under the new order Open image in new window is the cokernel of a morphism Open image in new window where the summands of P are projective modules \(P_i\) such that \(i>j\) under the new ordering, see [18, Lemma 1.1\('\)]. If \(k \ne j+1\), then both the trivial endomorphism and the nontrivial endomorphism constructed above do not factor via P and hence Open image in new window . By considering the images of these morphisms we see Open image in new window . This would imply that the new ordering does not give a quasihereditary structure. Therefore \(j=k1\).
Finally, by proceeding in this way we recover the ideal order and conclude that there is only one quasihereditary structure.
Example 5.2
Remark 5.3
We give several further remarks on this result.
Knörrer invariant algebras [27, Section 6.4.], see Example 1.4 (3) and Sect. 6.1, and truncated free algebras Open image in new window satisfy the additional condition imposed in (c).
(2) The statement that Open image in new window is related to Ringel’s [36, Remark before Corollary 2.2]. It would be interesting to see in what generality this equivalence holds.
We observe that it holds for Open image in new window where p runs over all paths of length 3, which is not ideally ordered but in which every principal left ideal is isomorphic to a monomial ideal. Indeed, in this case the equivalence is given by a tilting module which is obtained by mutating the characteristic tilting module (for the quasihereditary algebra structure defined by the ideal layer function) once.
(3) Consider Open image in new window , which is an ideally ordered finite dimensional local monomial algebra. Then there is a surjection \(Rx \rightarrow Ry\) but Ry does not include into Rx. One can check that the order \(R< Ry< Rx < Rx^2\) on indecomposable submodules of R defines a (left but not right strongly) quasihereditary structure on Open image in new window . In particular, in this case the ideal order is not the unique quasihereditary order.
(5) It is true that R is ideally ordered iff \(R^{\mathrm{op}}\) is ideally ordered, and using this fact one can also prove the theorem without relying on Ringel’s result [36, Theorem 1.1].
6 Applications and examples
We discuss some relationships between Theorem 5.1 and several classes of algebras that have been studied in separate work.
6.1 Hille and Ploog’s algebras
The results of this paper were originally motivated by an investigation in [27] of a class of geometrically inspired quasihereditary algebras introduced by Hille and Ploog [24] for which the Ringel duality formula has a geometric interpretation, and we briefly recall this geometric setup and these algebras below.
Definition 6.1
We note that the algebra depends on the choice of consecutive ordering for the labelling of the curves and that there are two choices, \(C_1, \dots , C_n\) or \(C_n, \dots , C_1\), for the same geometric set up that produce two different algebras Open image in new window and Open image in new window . This phenomenon is explained by the following result.
Proposition 6.2
There is an isomorphism of algebras Open image in new window .
Remark 6.3
The algebra Open image in new window can in fact be realised in the form \(E_{R}\) where R is an ideally ordered monomial Knörrer invariant algebra, as we describe below. Then Proposition 6.2 is an consequence of Theorem 5.1. However, the following alternative, short, geometric proof was explained to us by Agnieszka Bodzenta; indeed it was the existence of a Ringel duality formula in this special case that inspired the representationtheoretic generalisation in this paper. Work of Bodzenta and Bondal also realises a Ringel duality associated to birational morphisms of smooth surfaces by gluing tstructures with reversed orderings, see [7].
Proof
Remark 6.4
We note that there is a change in conventions for compositions of morphisms between this paper and [27]. This corresponds to exchanging algebras with their opposite algebras, or left modules with right modules. The effect this has on the quasihereditary structure and Ringel duality is as follows: if A is a quasihereditary algebra with defining layer function L and characteristic tilting module T, then \(T^{\dagger }\) is the characteristic tilting module for \(A^\mathrm{op}\) where \(\dagger :A\text {}\mathrm{mod}\rightarrow A^{\mathrm{op}}\text {}\mathrm{mod}\) denotes the standard kduality and the layer function on \(A^{\mathrm{op}}\) on is \(L^{\dagger }\) defined by Open image in new window . In particular, \(\mathfrak {R}(A^{\mathrm{op}}) \cong \mathfrak {R}(A)^{\mathrm{op}}\).
We briefly recap how the algebras \(\Lambda \) defined by Hille and Ploog fit into the general setup of Theorem 5.1. To do so we recall the definition of the Hirzebruch–Jung continued fraction expansion, the Knörrer invariant algebras \(K_{r,a}\), and a description of the form \(\Lambda _{\varvec{\alpha }} \cong E_{K_{r,a}}\).
Definition 6.5
Definition 6.6
We recall that the results of [27, Section 6.4] describe the monomial ideal structure on \(K_{r,a}\), and in particular combining [27, Theorem 6.26] and [27, Propositions 6.22 and 6.24] yields the following result.
Proposition 6.7
The Knörrer invariant algebra \(K_{r,a}\) is an ideally order monomial algebra and there is an isomorphism of quasihereditary algebras Open image in new window where Open image in new window is defined by the Hirzebruch–Jung continued fraction expansion of r / a.
Suppose that Open image in new window mod r. If Open image in new window , then Open image in new window . Similarly, if Open image in new window , then Open image in new window . Using this result it can be seen from the explicit definition of \(K_{r,a}\) that Open image in new window . As a result Open image in new window by Proposition 6.7, and hence Theorem 5.1 is a generalisation of Proposition 6.2.
6.2 Example of an application of the Ringel duality formula
In this section we consider as an example the pair of algebras \(\Lambda _{[3,2]}\) and \(\Lambda _{[2,3]}\). After giving explicit presentations, we discuss their relationship via Ringel duality, their construction from related Knörrer invariant algebras, and explicitly list the distinguished modules in their quasihereditary structures in order to verify the Ringel duality formula.
Remark 6.8
 (1)

If \(i \leqslant j\) in the partial order, then there is an inclusion Open image in new window (and a projection Open image in new window ). This holds for all left (respectively right) strongly quasihereditary algebras. In other words, in this situation it is a consequence of Theorem 2.14.
 (2)

Every submodule of a standard module \(\Delta _i\) or a projective module \(P_i\) is filtered by standard modules. This is a consequence of Corollary 2.16. Dually, quotients of costandard modules \(\nabla _i\) or injective modules \(I_i\) are filtered by costandard modules, again by Corollary 2.16.
 (3)

For both algebras the only simple costandard module is \(\nabla _0\). One can check that the corresponding projective modules \(P_0\) are filtered by costandard modules. This illustrates Proposition 3.4 in these cases.
 \((3^\mathrm{op})\)

For both algebras the only simple standard module is \(\Delta _0\). The corresponding injective hulls \(I_0\) are not filtered by standard modules. In other words, the algebras \(\Lambda _{[3,2]}\) and \(\Lambda _{[2,3]}\) are not right ultra strongly quasihereditary.
 (4)

The summands \(T_i\) of the characteristic tilting module are precisely those indecomposable modules which are both quotients and submodules of the projective module \(P_0\), see Theorem 5.1 (d). In particular, they have head \(S_0\) and a socle in Open image in new window .
6.3 Auslander–Dlab–Ringel algebras
Recent results of Conde–Erdmann [13], and work in Conde’s thesis, produce a Ringel duality formula similar to that of Theorem 5.1 for the class of Auslander–Dlab–Ringel (ADR) algebras.
Definition 6.9
Remark 6.10
We remark that the ADR algebra defined here is the opposite algebra of the ADR algebra defined by Conde and Erdmann in [13], however the effect on the quasihereditary structure is straightforward as is explained in Remark 6.4.
Theorem 6.11
This formula looks very similar to the formula in Theorem 5.1 of this paper. However, in general Open image in new window and there does not appear to be any reason to think the overlap is large.
For example, ADR algebras are not left and right strongly hereditary in general and so not all ADR algebras are in the Open image in new window algebra class. Moreover, it can be seen that Hille and Ploog’s algebras are not always ADR algebras. Indeed, in the example of Sect. 6.2 the modules Open image in new window are straightforward to calculate from the monomial diagrams, and the additive category generated by such objects can be seen to coincide with the additive category Open image in new window for \(R=K_{[3,2]}\) so Open image in new window but not for Open image in new window where Open image in new window .
Whilst these classes of algebras may not be related in general, there are cases which fall into both classes of algebras. Recall the monomial algebras Open image in new window of Example 1.4 (2) which are ideally ordered and for which Open image in new window . In particular, in this case Open image in new window is a corner algebra of Open image in new window : i.e. there is an idempotent Open image in new window such that Open image in new window .
Proposition 6.12
Let Q be a finite quiver without sources and J be the twosided ideal generated by all arrows in Q. Then Open image in new window is an ideally ordered monomial algebra and there is an isomorphism of quasihereditary algebras Open image in new window .
Proof
The algebra R has Loewy length m and, as noted in Example 1.4 (2), any monomial ideal is isomorphic to Open image in new window for some \(l=1, \dots , m\) and some primitive idempotent \(e \in R\), hence R is ideally ordered and Open image in new window . As R is ideally ordered Open image in new window by Theorem 5.1 (a), and hence to show that Open image in new window it is sufficient to show that Open image in new window .
To show this consider an indecomposable object of Open image in new window . This is necessarily of the form Open image in new window for some primitive idempotent \(e_i\) corresponding to a vertex \(i \in Q\) and integer \(l=1, \dots , m\). As Q has no sources it follows that there exists a series of arrows \(j_{ml} \xrightarrow {a_{ml}\,} \cdots \xrightarrow {a_3\,} j_2 \xrightarrow {a_2\,} j_{1} \xrightarrow {a_1\,} i\) such that the path Open image in new window induces a homomorphism Open image in new window of indecomposable projective Rmodules. By construction this has kernel Open image in new window , and hence there is an inclusion Open image in new window . In particular Open image in new window , and hence Open image in new window . Hence Open image in new window .
It is a natural question whether it is possible to find an expanded class of algebras with a more general Ringel duality formula that encompasses both Theorems 5.1 and 6.11.
6.4 Nilpotent quiver algebras
The nilpotent quiver algebras introduced by Eiriksson and Sauter [20, Section 3] are a class of quasihereditary algebras.
Definition 6.13
Remark 6.14
We remark again that the nilpotent quiver algebra defined here is the opposite algebra of the nilpotent quiver algebra defined by Eiriksson and Sauter in [20], however the effect on the quasihereditary structure is straightforward as is explained in Remark 6.4.
It follows from [20, Proposition 3.15] that all nilpotent quiver algebras \(N_s(Q)\) are right strongly quasihereditary and left ultra strongly quasihereditary for the quasihereditary structure determined by the layer function Open image in new window .
In particular, for \(R=kQ/J^m\) the ADR and nilpotent quiver algebras are related as follows.
Proposition 6.15
Proof
Let \(R=kQ/J^m\), and let \(e_i \in R\) for \(i \in Q_0\) denote the primitive idempotents corresponding to vertices of Q. Up to isomorphism, the indecomposable modules in Open image in new window are exactly Open image in new window for \(1 \leqslant l \leqslant L(Re_i)\) and \(i \in Q_0\), where \(L(Re_i)\) is the Loewy length of the projective \(Re_i\).
In particular, the maximal Loewy length of a projective module in Open image in new window is m and so the maximum possible number of nonisomorphic indecomposables in Open image in new window is \(mQ_0\). But \(Q^{(m)}_0=mQ_0\), so for Open image in new window to be isomorphic to \(N_{m}(Q)\) it is necessary that all projective Rmodules have Loewy length m.
Now suppose that all projective Rmodules do have Loewy length m and consider the algebra Open image in new window . We start by labelling the indecomposable module in Open image in new window corresponding to Open image in new window by \(i_l\) and hence label the corresponding primitive idempotent by \(e_{i_l}\). There are indecomposable modules \(i_{l}\) for \(i \in Q_0\) and Open image in new window , matching the definition of the vertices in the staircase quiver \(Q^{(m)}\).
We now want to produce a morphism Open image in new window , and to do this we consider the morphisms between the indecomposable modules in Open image in new window . Firstly, there are surjections Open image in new window which we label by arrows Open image in new window for \(i \in Q_0\) and Open image in new window .
Further, under this isomorphism the layer functions defining the quasihereditary structures on \(N_m(Q)\) and Open image in new window are identified and hence this is an isomorphism of quasihereditary algebras.\(\square \)
Example 6.16
Combining Proposition 6.15 with Proposition 6.12 and Theorem 5.1 (or Theorem 6.11) instantly gives the following corollary.
Corollary 6.17
We note that if Q is a finite quiver with no sinks but with sources then \(E_{kQ/J^m}^{\mathsf {ADR}} \cong N_m(Q)\) but Open image in new window (if \(m>1\)) as \(kQ^{\mathrm{op}}\) contains sinks. In particular, Proposition 6.15 and Theorem 6.11 cannot be used to strengthen the Ringel duality formula of Corollary 6.17 to all quivers with no sources.
6.5 Auslander and Nakayama algebras
Proposition 6.18
If R is an ideally ordered monomial algebra, then Open image in new window if and only if R is selfinjective.
Proof
If Open image in new window , hence every injective Rmodule I embeds into \(R^n\). Therefore, I is a direct summand of \(R^n\), hence projective, and hence R is selfinjective.
Conversely, if R is selfinjective, then every injective Rmodule embeds into \(R^n\) for some n and hence every injective module is also a projective module. Then every object in \(R\text {}\mathrm{mod}\) is a submodule of an injective Rmodule, hence of a projective Rmodule, hence Open image in new window and Open image in new window .\(\square \)
The Nakayama algebras, introduced in [31], are a well known class of finite dimensional algebras with finite representation type; see e.g. [4, Theorem VI.2.1]. Recall that a selfinjective Nakayama algebra is of the form \(kC_n/J^m\) where \(C_n\) is an oriented cycle with n vertices and J is the ideal generated by all arrows, see e.g. [1, Theorem 32.4] for the a description of the underlying quiver of a general Nakayama algebra. In particular, the selfinjective Nakayama algebras are ideally ordered monomial algebras.
Corollary 6.19
If R is a selfinjective Nakayama algebra, then Open image in new window .
It follows from the explicit description \(R=kC_n/J^m\) that Open image in new window by Corollary 6.17 and so this corollary recovers the well known explicit description of the Auslander algebras of selfinjective Nakayama algebra Open image in new window in terms of quivers with relations. As Open image in new window and \(N_m(C_n) \cong N_m(C_n^{\mathrm{op}})^{\mathrm{op}}\) the Ringel duality formula recovers the result of [37] that the Auslander algebras of selfinjective Nakayama algebras are Ringel selfdual for the ideal layer function.
Corollary 6.20
For a selfinjective Nakayama algebra R, Open image in new window .
Remark 6.21
In order to give another perspective on Proposition 6.18, and Corollaries 6.19 and 6.20, we recall that selfinjective finite dimensional monomial algebras R are Nakayama algebras. To see this, we have to show that the quiver Q underlying R is a union of oriented lines and oriented cycles. In other words, at every vertex of Q there is at most one incoming and at most one outgoing arrow. Assume that there is a vertex i with more than one outgoing arrow. Then, as R is monomial, the corresponding indecomposable projective Rmodule \(P_i\) does not have a simple socle  in particular, \(P_i\) is not injective contradicting our assumption that R is selfinjective. A dual argument shows that Q does not have vertices with more than one incoming arrow.
7 Appendix: Results on finite dimensional monomial algebras
In this section we collect some technical results on finite dimensional monomial algebras \(R=kQ/I\) (where I is generated by a collection of paths in Q). We will use the term ‘monomial’ to mean a monomial expression in the generators (i.e. arrows and lazy paths) of such an algebra.
Lemma 7.1
Let R be a monomial algebra and \(n, m \in R\) monomials. If there exists a surjection \(\phi :Rm \rightarrow Rn\), then the map \(Rm \rightarrow Rn\) defined by \(m \mapsto n\) is Rlinear.
Proof
It suffices to show that \(\mathrm {ann}_R(m)\) is contained in \(\mathrm {ann}_R(n)\). Take \(r \in R\) with \(rm=0\), and we aim to show that \(rn=0\). We write \(r = \sum \lambda _i r_i\) with monomials \(r_i\) and nonzero scalars \(\lambda _i\). Since R is monomial, it follows that Open image in new window for all i. The existence of a surjection \(\phi :Rm \rightarrow Rn\) implies \(m, n \in eR\) for some primitive idempotent \(e \in R\) and that there exist \(s,t \in R\) such that Open image in new window and \(\phi (m)=sn\). In particular, \(tsn=n\) and so Open image in new window for some nonzero scalars \(\mu _i\) and distinct monomials \(s_i \ne e\). Therefore Open image in new window , and so as R is monomial it follows that all monomials that make up \(r_i s n\) are 0. In particular, \(r_i \mu _0 e n=\mu _0 r_i n =0\). This implies that \(r_in=0\) for all i, and hence \(rn=0\) so \(\mathrm {ann}_R(m) \subset \mathrm {ann}_R(n)\) finishing the proof.\(\square \)
Lemma 7.2
Let \(m, n \in R\) be monomials. If R is ideally ordered, then every surjection \(Rm \rightarrow Rn\) factors over \(\pi :Rm \rightarrow Rn\), \(m \mapsto n\).
Proof
Let \(\psi :Rm \rightarrow Rn\) be an surjection. In particular, \(m, n \in eR\) for some primitive idempotent \(e \in R\) and there exist \(s,t \in R\) such that \(\psi (m)=sn\) and Open image in new window . It follows that \(tsn=n\), so \(s=\lambda _0 e + \sum \lambda _i s_i \in eRe\) for nonzero scalars \(\lambda _i\) and distinct monomials \(s_i \ne e\). Hence \(sn=\lambda _0 n + \sum \lambda _i s_i n\). In particular, \(R s_i n \subsetneq Rn\), and since R is ideally ordered there exists surjections \(Rn \rightarrow R s_i n\) which, using Lemma 7.1, we can assume are defined by \(n \mapsto s_i n\). Denote the composition of such a surjection with the inclusion \(R s_i n \subseteq Rn\) by \(\varphi _i\) and define \(\varphi :Rn \rightarrow Rn\) as \(\varphi = \lambda _0 \mathrm {id} + \sum \lambda _i \varphi _i\). Then \(\varphi (n)=sn\) and therefore \(\psi = \varphi \pi \) factors as claimed.\(\square \)
Lemma 7.3
Let \(p \in eR\) for a primitive idempotent \(e \in R\). If R is ideally ordered, then the principal left ideal Rp is isomorphic to a principal ideal Rm, for a monomial \(m \in eR\).
Proof
Since R is monomial, we may write p as linear combination of monomials Open image in new window with \(\lambda _i\) nonzero scalars and \(p_i \in eR\) monomials. Since R is ideally ordered we may assume that the \(p_i\) are labelled in such a way that \(Rp_1 \rightarrow Rp_2 \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow Rp_t\) are surjections.
We now wish to rewrite p so that none of the \(p_i\) can be expressed in the form \(np_1\) for a monomial n. To do this, let I index the \(p_i\) such that there is a monomial \(r_{i}\) with \(p_{i}=r_{i}p_1\) for \(i \in I\). Then we define Open image in new window and Open image in new window . As Open image in new window it follows that \(s= \lambda _1 e+r\) is a unit in eRe and there exists \(t \in eRe\) such that \(st=e\). In particular, \(Rtp =Rp\). Then we rewrite Open image in new window for some nonzero scalars Open image in new window and monomials Open image in new window . For each Open image in new window there is some \(p_i\) such that Open image in new window by their definition, and hence there are surjections Open image in new window for all j. As \(Rtp \cong Rp\) we now work with tp rather than p and tp has the property that there are no Open image in new window with Open image in new window for a monomial n.
We claim that \(Rtp \cong Rp_1\), hence \(Rp \cong Rp_1\). As there are surjections Open image in new window there are surjections Open image in new window , Open image in new window by Lemma 7.1. Let Open image in new window be the composition of such a surjection with the canonical inclusion Open image in new window and let \(\iota :Rp_1 \rightarrow R\) be the canonical inclusion. Define \(\psi :Rp_1 \rightarrow R\) by Open image in new window . Then Open image in new window so \(\mathsf {im}\,\psi = Rtp\). Hence \(\psi \) defines a surjective morphism \(\phi :Rp_1 \rightarrow Rtp\).
We must now check that this morphism is also injective. If \(\psi (rp_1)=0\), then Open image in new window . As R is monomial if \(rp_1\) is nonzero there must exist monomials \(n,m \in R\) such that Open image in new window for some j, and if this occurs either Open image in new window or Open image in new window for submonomials \(m'\) and \(n'\) neither equal e. The first case cannot occur as this implies Open image in new window which contradicts the existence of a surjection Open image in new window . The second situation also cannot occur as the construction of the Open image in new window above ensured none were of this form. Hence \(rp_1=0\) so the morphism is also injective and \(Rp_1 \cong Rtp \cong Rp\).\(\square \)
Notes
Acknowledgements
We thank Teresa Conde for interesting discussions about this work and about relations to her thesis. We are grateful to Karin Erdmann for pointing us to Ringel’s paper which simplifies the proof of our main result and adds another perspective to this work. We also thank Agnieszka Bodzenta who, in particular, explained to us the proof of Proposition 6.2 and XiaoWu Chen who shared with us Example 5.2. We would also like to thank Ögmunder Eiriksson, Julian Külshammer, Daiva Pučinskaitė, Špela Špenko, and Michael Wemyss for interesting and helpful discussions and David Ploog for pointing out misprints in an earlier version. We would also particularly like to thank the anonymous referee, whose many useful comments have greatly improved the paper.
References
 1.Anderson, F.W., Fuller, K.R.: Rings and Categories of Modules. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 13, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (1992)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 2.Auslander, M., Buchweitz, R.O.: The homological theory of maximal Cohen–Macaulay approximations. Mém. Soc. Math. France (N.S.) 38, 5–37 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 3.Auslander, M., Reiten, I.: Applications of contravariantly finite subcategories. Adv. Math. 86(1), 111–152 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 4.Auslander, M., Reiten, I., Smalø, S.O.: Representation Theory of Artin Algebras. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 36. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997). Corrected reprint of the 1995 originalGoogle Scholar
 5.Auslander, M., Smalø, S.O.: Preprojective modules over Artin algebras. J. Algebra 66(1), 61–122 (1980)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 6.Baur, K., Erdmann, K., Parker, A.: \(\varDelta \)filtered modules and nilpotent orbits of a parabolic subgroup in \({{\rm O}}_N\). J. Pure Appl. Algebra 215(5), 885–901 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 7.Bodzenta, A., Bondal, A.: Derived categories of smooth surface contractions (in preparation)Google Scholar
 8.Bodzenta, A., Külshammer, J.: Ringel duality as an instance of Koszul duality (2017). arXiv:1701.06222
 9.Buchweitz, R.O., Leuschke, G.J., Van den Bergh, M.: On the derived category of Grassmannians in arbitrary characteristic. Compositio Math. 151(7), 1242–1264 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 10.Cline, E., Parshall, B., Scott, L.: Algebraic stratification in representation categories. J. Algebra 117(2), 504–521 (1988)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 11.Conde, T.: The quasihereditary structure of the Auslander–Dlab–Ringel algebra. J. Algebra 460, 181–202 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 12.Conde, T.: \(\varDelta \)filtrations and projective resolutions for the Auslander–Dlab–Ringel algebra. Algebr. Represent. Theory (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s104680179730z
 13.Conde, T., Erdmann, K.: The Ringel dual of the Auslander–Dlab–Ringel algebra (2017). arXiv:1708.05766
 14.Coulembier, K.: Ringel duality and Auslander–Dlab–Ringel algebras (2017). arXiv:1710.08019
 15.Coulembier, K., Mazorchuk, V.: Dualities and derived equivalences for category \({\mathscr {O}}\). Israel J. Math. 219(2), 661–706 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 16.CrawleyBoevey, W., Sauter, J.: On quiver Grassmannians and orbit closures for representationfinite algebras. Math. Z. 285(1–2), 367–395 (2017)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 17.Dlab, V., Ringel, C.M.: Every semiprimary ring is the endomorphism ring of a projective module over a quasihereditary ring. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 107(1), 1–5 (1989)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 18.Dlab, V., Ringel, C.M.: The module theoretical approach to quasihereditary algebras. In: Tachikawa, H., Brenner, S. (eds.) Representations of Algebras and Related Topics. London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, vol. 168, pp. 200–224. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 19.Erdmann, K., Parker, A.E.: On the global and \(\nabla \)filtration dimensions of quasihereditary algebras. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 194(1–2), 95–111 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 20.Eiriksson, Ö., Sauter, J.: Quivergraded Richardson orbits (2017). arXiv:1707.03244
 21.Geigle, W., Lenzing, H.: Perpendicular categories with applications to representations and sheaves. J. Algebra 144(2), 273–343 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 22.Ginzburg, V., Guay, N., Opdam, E., Rouquier, R.: On the category \({\mathscr {O}}\) for rational Cherednik algebras. Invent. Math. 154(3), 617–651 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 23.Hille, L., Perling, M.: Tilting bundles on rational surfaces and quasihereditary algebras. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 64(2), 625–644 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 24.Hille, L., Ploog, D.: Tilting chains of negative curves on rational surfaces. Nagoya Math. J. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1017/nmj.2017.40
 25.Iyama, O.: Finiteness of representation dimension. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 131(4), 1011–1014 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 26.Iyama, O., Reiten, I.: 2Auslander algebras associated with reduced words in Coxeter groups. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 2011(8), 1782–1803 (2011)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 27.Kalck, M., Karmazyn, J.: Noncommutative Knörrer type equivalences via noncommutative resolutions of singularities (2017). arXiv:1707.02836
 28.Krause, H.: Koszul, Ringel and Serre duality for strict polynomial functors. Compositio Math. 149(6), 996–1018 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 29.Krause, H., Saorín, M.: On minimal approximations of modules. In: Green, E.L., HuisgenZimmermann, B. (eds.) Trends in the Representation Theory of FiniteDimensional Algebras. Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 229, pp. 227–236. American Mathematical Society, Providence (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 30.Kuznetsov, A., Lunts, V.A.: Categorical resolutions of irrational singularities. Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 2015(13), 4536–4625 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 31.Nakayama, T.: Note on uniserial and generalized uniserial rings. Proc. Imp. Acad. Tokyo 16, 285–289 (1940)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 32.Nguyen, V.C., Reiten, I., Todorov, G., Zhu, S.: Dominant dimension and tilting modules (2017). arXiv:1706.00475
 33.Pučinskaitė, D.: Quasihereditary algebras via generatorcogenerators of local selfinjective algebras and transfer of Ringel duality. Math. Z. 279(3–4), 641–668 (2015)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 34.Ringel, C.M.: The category of modules with good filtrations over a quasihereditary algebra has almost split sequences. Math. Z. 208(2), 209–223 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 35.Ringel, C.M.: Iyama’s finiteness theorem via strongly quasihereditary algebras. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 214(9), 1687–1692 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 36.Ringel, C.M.: On the representation dimension of Artin algebras. Bull. Inst. Math. Acad. Sin. (N.S.) 7(1), 33–70 (2012)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 37.Tan, R.: Auslander algebras of selfinjective Nakayama algebras. Pure Mathematical Sciences 2(2), 89–108 (2013)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 38.Tsukamoto, M.: Strongly quasihereditary algebras and rejective subcategories. Nagoya Math. J. (2018). https://doi.org/10.1017/nmj.2018.9
Copyright information
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.