Kevin Buzzard informs me, by e-mail and in the above comment, that what he cares about is the case where A is regular. In particular, it would be good to know whether every T is a matrix ring in this case. I thought about it but didn't solve this, so here is a record of my ideas. Let n be the dimension of A.
(1) A subring of a matrix is obviously a matrix ring. So, if we knew that T was a matrix ring whenever T was normal, this would establish that T was always a matrix ring.
(2) As explained in my previous answer, if T is free as an A-module, then T is a matrix ring. We have the following implications: if T is Cohen-Macaulay then T torsion-free and finite over A implies T flat over A; if A is a polynomial ring then T flat over A implies T free over A. So, if A is a polynomial ring and T is Cohen-Macaulay, then T is a matrix ring.
In particular, if n=1 or 2, then T normal implies T Cohen-Macaulay. So, in these cases, and with A a polynomial ring, T is a matrix ring.
(3) As explained above, if T∗ is free over A, we also get to conclude that T is a matrix ring. Unfortunately, this can fail when ngeq3.
(4) If there is some T-module M on which T acts without kernel, and T is free as an A-module, then T is a matrix algebra. Restated geometrically, if there is any coherent sheaf on mathrmSpec(T), with support on the whole of mathrmSpec(T), whose pushforward to mathrmSpec(A) is a trivial vector bundle, then T is a matrix algebra. If we restrict our attention to A a local ring, or a polynomial ring, then the adjective "trivial" comes for free.
So, if there were to be a counter-example, we would want ngeq3 and we would want T to be normal but not Cohen-Macaulay. Moreover, we would want that basically any T-module is not free as an A-module.
Any ideas?
No comments:
Post a Comment