Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry beauty bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration finite foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry goodwillie-calculus graph graphs gravity group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory history homological homological-algebra homology homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory internal-categories k-theory kan lie lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology newpage noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics planar pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJan 24th 2016

    Now I’m looking at the article radical. This comment might be mostly for Zoran (especially for the noncommutative case), but anyone may reply obviously.

    The condition of idempotence σσ=σ\sigma \sigma = \sigma bothers me a little; I don’t think it’s a coherent notion as given (what is this equality between functors). It’s fine though if σ\sigma is given as a subfunctor of the identity functor, which I guess is the main intention of this area, so is there any objection if I move the phrases around to make it come out like that?

    What I’d really want to get to in this article is some discussion of radicals as closure operators on ideal lattices. There’s a two-sorted notion of module (a ring R together with an RR-module MM), and maybe somewhere in the literature, although I don’t know where, there would be a notion of radical functor σ\sigma on ModMod which would send a pair (R,M)(R, M) to (R,σ(M)M)(R, \sigma(M) \subseteq M). (In other words, we don’t work in just one fiber Mod RMod_R at a time, but over all fibers simultaneously.) If II is a two-sided ideal of RR, then we could consider σ(R/I,R/I)=(R/I,σ(R/I))\sigma(R/I, R/I) = (R/I, \sigma(R/I)) and then pull back the ideal σ(R/I)\sigma(R/I) along the quotient map RR/IR \to R/I to get an ideal containing II. This could be considered the σ\sigma-closure of an ideal. For example, the Jacobson radical of an ideal should fit nicely in some such context (the intersection of all maximal deals containing II).

    I am just learning now of some really nice properties of some of these radicals. For example, according to some work of Banaschewski and Harting, the Moore closure operators kk on ideal lattices defined by the Jacobson, Levitski, and Brown-McCoy radicals have the following properties (in addition to being finitary = preserving directed joins):

    • k(IJ)=k(IJ)=k(I)k(J)k(I \cap J) = k(I J) = k(I) \cap k(J),

    • k(J)=1k(J) = 1 implies J=1J = 1 (the top element).

    These properties imply that the radical ideals (= fixed points of kk) form a compact frame (i.e., the top element 11 is compact), and from there one can do some nice things, for example, deduce the existence of a point, or a prime ideal. I’ve been writing this up at prime ideal theorem.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJan 25th 2016
    • (edited Jan 25th 2016)

    I found this post rather late in the day. I will be happy to help to improve that page and to communicate to you about the closure operation aspect as I did recently revisit this topic (much after the page is written). For the discussion, insights in the following article may be useful:

    • Harold Simmons, The semiring of topologizing filters of a ring, doi
    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJan 25th 2016

    Thanks, Zoran! Unfortunately I can see only two pages of the article for free.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJan 26th 2016

    OK, I will send you the file

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMar 2nd 2018

    I looked again at radical and moved some phrases around to make some things clearer. However, nowhere on the page is the general notion of radical functor defined, and I’m not sure what Zoran intended. Would be nice to clear this up.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMar 2nd 2018

    We do have something at Jacobson radical, so I added cross-links. But of course currently these entries do not talk to each other.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMar 2nd 2018

    Thanks, Urs. I’m working on radical now, and will report back later (I think I know what Zoran was saying).

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMar 2nd 2018

    I’ve attempted to clarify to myself the literature mess that Zoran was pointing to, but without having my hands on much of the literature myself. I’ll have to look at it further (and I hope Zoran will see this and check what I’ve done), but I’m done for the time being.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2018
    • (edited Mar 5th 2018)

    It looks OK (we can not rectify the chaos in the literature far from recording the range of possibilities, it seems). I changed the section title “Properties” into “Radical functors” as it seems more appropriate. I added the missing Goldman’s reference under the literature section.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeMar 5th 2018

    Thanks, Zoran! I want to do more with this article (especially: drawing the connection between notions of radical in the definition section and radical functors, and giving more examples).

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)