Generation of summand absorbing submodules
Zur Izhakian, Manfred Knebusch, Louis Rowen

TL;DR
This paper studies summand absorbing submodules in modules over semirings, providing explicit methods to generate these submodules, which are relevant in tropical algebra and modules lacking zero sums.
Contribution
It offers an explicit description and generation method for summand absorbing submodules in LZS modules over semirings, extending previous lattice-theoretic analyses.
Findings
Explicit generation of summand absorbing submodules
Connection to tropical algebra and idempotent semirings
Extension of lattice-theoretic analysis
Abstract
An -module over a semiring lacks zero sums (LZS) if . More generally, asubmodule of is "summand absorbing", if These relate to tropical algebra and modules over idempotent semirings, as well as modules over semirings of sums of squares. In previous work, we have explored the lattice of summand absorbing submodules of a given LZS module, especially those that are finitely generated, in terms of the lattice-theoretic Krull dimension. In this note we describe their explicit generation.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Generation of summand absorbing submodules
Zur Izhakian
Institute of Mathematics, University of Aberdeen, AB24 3UE, Aberdeen, UK.
,
Manfred Knebusch
Department of Mathematics, NWF-I Mathematik, Universität Regensburg 93040 Regensburg, Germany
and
Louis Rowen
Department of Mathematics, Bar-Ilan University, 52900 Ramat-Gan, Israel
Abstract.
An -module over a semiring lacks zero sums (LZS) if . More generally, a submodule of is “summand absorbing”, if These relate to tropical algebra and modules over idempotent semirings, as well as modules over semirings of sums of squares. In previous work, we have explored the lattice of summand absorbing submodules of a given LZS module, especially those that are finitely generated, in terms of the lattice-theoretic Krull dimension. In this note we describe their explicit generation.
Key words and phrases:
Semiring, lacking zero sums, direct sum decomposition, free (semi)module, summand absorbing submodule, halo, additive spine.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary 14T05, 16D70, 16Y60 ; Secondary 06F05, 06F25, 13C10, 14N05
File name: 1705.10089
Contents
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Generating SA-submodules by use of additive spines
- 3 Halos and additive spines in -modules
- 4 The posets , and in good cases
1. Introduction
Semirings, initiated by Costa [1] and exposed by Golan [2], have played an increasing role recently due to increased interest to tropical algebra which involves the max-plus algebra and related constructions. Another important example is the set of positive elements in an ordered ring. Both of these examples lack zero sums (termed “zero sum free” in [2]) in the following sense: An -module over a semiring lacks zero sums (abbreviated LZS), if
[TABLE]
As noted in [4, Proposition 1.8], any module over an idempotent semiring is LZS, yielding a large assortment of examples. Furthermore, by [4, Examples 1.6] being LZS is closed under submodules, direct products, and modules of functions from a set to a module . Thus, examples include the max-plus algebra, function semirings, polynomial semirings and Laurent polynomial semirings over idempotent semirings, and the “boolean semifield” (and thus subalgebras of algebras that are free modules over ). This shows that our results pertain to “-geometry.”
Continuing the theory from [4], we called a submodule of summand absorbing (abbreviated SA) in , if
[TABLE]
we then call an SA-submodule of . An SA-left ideal of a semiring is an SA-submodule of .
SA-submodules were the main subject of investigation in [5], largely because of their nice lattice-theoretic properties. The objective of [5] was to continue to develop the theory of SA-modules over semirings, along the lattice-theoretic lines of classical module theory (especially the Noetherian theory), with the goal of paralleling the Wedderburn-Miller-Remak-Krull-Schmidt and Jordan-Hlder theorems.
Given an -module and a set of generators of , we detect a new set of generators of , which is “small” in some sense if is “small”, and gives us sets of generators of all SA-submodules of in a coherent way. Here is an instance.
Definition 1.1**.**
A set of generators of is SA-adapted, if every SA-submodule of is generated by the set .
We obtain a reasonable SA-adapted set of generators from a given set of generators by employing the so-called additive spine of a module:
Definition 1.2**.**
Assume that is a subset of .
- a)
The halo of in is the set of all such that there exist with and .
- b)
* is called an additive spine of the -module , if is additively generated by , which we denote as .*
Thus the additive spines of are of considered as a left -module.
In the special case that both and are finite it will turn out that also is finite, and so all SA-submodules of are generated by at most elements.
Example 1.3**.**
If has a finite SA-adapted set of generators, then is SA-artinian (as defined in [5, Definition 1.4]).
One main general result:
Theorem 3.2. Assume that is an additive spine of an -module . Then every SA-submodule of is generated by , and moreover is an additive spine of .
For semirings, this specializes in §2 to: Theorem 2.8. Assume that is a set of generators of an -module , and is an additive spine of . Then any SA-submodule of is generated by the set . Consequently, if is generated by elements, then every SA-submodule of is generated by elements, where is independent of . An application to matrices is given in Theorem 2.14, and more generally to monoid semirings in Theorem 2.17.
Section 4 focuses on finite generation in terms of finite additive spines.
2. Generating SA-submodules by use of additive spines
Throughout this paper, is a semiring (with ), and is a (left) module (sometimes called “semimodule”) over ; i.e., is a monoid satisfying the familiar module axioms as well as for all The zero submodule is usually written as
We first state basic facts about additive spines of , and give basic examples.
Definition 2.1**.**
(Special case of Definition 1.2). Given a subset of .
- a)
We define the set
[TABLE]
which we call the halo of in . 2. b)
If the halo additively generates , i.e., , we call an additive spine of .
We state some facts about halos which are immediate consequences of Definition 2.1.a.
Remarks 2.2**.**
**
- i)
* for any set .*
- ii)
If , then .
- iii)
If is a family of subsets of , then
[TABLE]
- iv)
* and *
Due to the last remark we may assume in any study of halos that or , whatever is more convenient.
Here are perhaps the most basic examples of halos deserving interest.
Example 2.3**.**
Let . Then is the set of left invertible elements of . Indeed, if , then there exists with . Conversely, if is left-invertible there exists with , and so , which proves that .
Example 2.4**.**
Let with an idempotent of . If , then there exist with , . It follows that , yielding the von Neumann condition , cf. [3]. Conversely, if and , then clearly . This proves that
[TABLE]
Let denote the set of all idempotents of . Starting from Example 2.4, we obtain the following fact.
Proposition 2.5**.**
If is any semiring, then
[TABLE]
Proof.
is the union of the sets with an idempotent of (cf. Remark 2.2.iii). Thus it is clear from Example 2.4 that for every there exists some with . Conversely, if , then , and so is an idempotent of . Moreover , and so . ∎
We state an immediate consequence of this proposition.
Corollary 2.6**.**
For any subset of we have
[TABLE]
and is the disjoint union of this set and .
The set may be regarded as the “easy part” of the halo .
Notation 2.7**.**
Given (nonempty) subsets of , we denote the set of all products with , by (or ). Similarly, if and , then denotes the set of products with , . Furthermore, and denote the set of all finite sums of elements of in and of in respectively. Admitting also the empty sum of elements of or , we always have , . If necessary, we write more precisely and instead of and .
In this notation, a set generates the -module , if .
We are ready for a central result in this note. denotes the poset consisting of all SA-submodules of .
Theorem 2.8**.**
Assume that is a set of generators of a (left) -module , and is an additive spine of . Then any SA-submodule of is generated by the set .
Proof.
Since and , we have .
Let , , be given. Then
[TABLE]
with , , . Since is in , it follows that
[TABLE]
Now choose such that and . Then
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
We conclude from (B) and (C) that generates . ∎
Corollary 2.9**.**
Assume that has a finite additive spine and has a finite set of generators . Then every SA-submodule of is finitely generated, more precisely, generated by at most elements (independent of the choice of !).
Theorem 2.10**.**
Assume that is a module over a semiring that is additively generated by the set of its left invertible elements. Then every set of generators of is SA-adapted.
Proof.
We read off from Example 2.3 that is an additive spine of . So by Theorem 2.8 every SA-submodule of is generated by . ∎
We take a look at additive spines of matrix semirings.
Example 2.11**.**
Assume that is a semiring that is additively generated by ,
[TABLE]
In other terms, the unique homomorphism with is surjective. Then the semiring
[TABLE]
of -matrices with entries in , and the usual matrix units, has the additive spine
[TABLE]
Indeed, for every
[TABLE]
since , , and so contains the set of all matrix units, which by the nature of generates additively.
This example can be amplified to a theorem about additive spines in arbitrary matrix rings by use of a general principle to “multiply” additive spines, which runs as follows:
Proposition 2.12**.**
Assume that and are subsemirings of a semiring , such that is additively generated by , i.e., . Assume moreover that the elements of commute with those of . Assume finally that is an additive spine of . Let denote the halo of in . Then is contained in the halo of in , and is an additive spine of .
Proof.
Let be given. We have elements of with and . Now
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
This proves that . It follows that
[TABLE]
and then that
[TABLE]
∎
Theorem 2.13**.**
Assume that is the semiring of -matrices over a semiring , so
[TABLE]
with the usual matrix units . Let be an additive spine of . Then the set , consisting of the diagonal matrices with entries in , is an additive spine of .
Proof.
Let denote the smallest subsemiring of , . We have seen that has the additive spine (Example 2.11). Let . This is the subsemiring of consisting of all matrices with , where is the identity matrix. It has the additive spine . Now , and the elements of commute with those of . Thus, by Proposition 2.12, has the additive spine . ∎
Recalling Theorem 2.8 we obtain
Theorem 2.14**.**
Assume that is an -module, any semiring, and a system of generators of . Assume furthermore that is an additive spine of . Then any SA-submodule of is generated by the set
[TABLE]
If is finite, then can be generated by at most elements.
The proof of Theorem 2.13 can be seen in a much wider context, as we explain now.
Definition 2.15**.**
Let be a multiplicative monoid. We call a subset of a monoid spine of , if for any there exist such that and .
Given any semiring and monoid , we denote, as usual, the monoid-semiring of over by , which is the free -module with base
In the case that the monoid is without zero, i.e., does not contain an absorbing element 0, ( for all ), the elements of are the formal sums
[TABLE]
with coefficients uniquely determined by , only finitely many non-zero. The multiplication is determined by the rule for , . Identifying , , we regard as a subsemiring of and as a submonoid of .
If the monoid has a zero , i.e., is pointed, we take for the free -module with base and multiplication rule if , otherwise. Now the nonzero elements of are formal sums . We identify again , for , and now also . Then again becomes a subsemiring of and a submonoid of . We have in both cases.
Example 2.16**.**
The matrix semiring coincides with , where is the monoid with multiplication rule . Note that has the monoid spine .
Theorem 2.17**.**
Assume that is a multiplicative monoid (with or without zero) and is a monoid spine of . Assume furthermore that is a semiring and is an additive spine of . Then is an additive spine of .
Proof.
Let and , with the image of the (unique) homomorphism . It is obvious that and that is contained in the halo of in . Thus is a monoid spine of . (In fact it can be verified that .) Let . Then and the elements of commute with those of . The assertion follows from Proposition 2.12. ∎
3. Halos and additive spines in -modules
In the following is again an -module.
Example 3.1**.**
If is a set of generators of the -module and is an additive spine of , then we know by Theorem 2.8 that MS is an additive spine of .
Theorem 2.8 generalizes as follows:
Theorem 3.2**.**
Assume that is an additive spine of an -module . Then every SA-submodule of is generated by , and moreover is an additive spine of .
Proof.
a) We first verify that itself is generated by . Since is additively generated by , for given nonzero we have
[TABLE]
with , . There exist such that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and so by (A)
[TABLE]
and we are done.
b) If now is an SA-submodule of , and the above element lies in , then in Equation (A) all summands are in , and so the from (B) are in . We conclude from (B) and (C) that all are in the halo of in , and we infer from (A) that is additively generated by , i.e., is an additive spine of . As proved in a) the set generates the -module . ∎
We write down a chain of propositions which turn out to be useful in working with halos and additive spines. For clarity we sometimes denote the halo of a set in more elaborately by instead of .
Proposition 3.3**.**
If is a subset of an -module and a submodule of , then
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let be given. We choose with and . If now then , and so . This proves that
[TABLE]
Trivially
[TABLE]
If , then there exist with and . It follows that . This proves
[TABLE]
(A)–(C) together imply the assertion of the proposition. ∎
In case the proposition reads as follows:
Corollary 3.4**.**
Let . Then the halo of in any submodule of coincides with the halo of in .
Thus in practice the notation instead of is rarely needed.
Proposition 3.5**.**
Let be a family of submodules of the -module and assume that for every there is given a set .
- a)
Then
[TABLE] 2. b)
If and each is an additive spine of , then is an additive spine of .
Proof.
Let .
a): We have in complete analogy to Remark 2.2.iii. Furthermore by Corollary 3.4.
b): Let . Then , , and so
[TABLE]
∎
We now have a good hold on all additive spines of a free -module as follows:
Proposition 3.6**.**
Assume that is a free -module with base . Then every additive spine of has the form
[TABLE]
where every is an additive spine of , as defined in §2.
Proof.
We have with . The claim follows from Proposition 3.5. ∎
Proposition 3.7** (Functoriality of halos and additive spines).**
Let be an -linear map between -modules.
- a)
If is a subset of , then
[TABLE]
- b)
If is an additive spine of , then the -module is additively generated by , and so is an additive spine of .
Proof.
a): Let . We have with , . It follows that , , whence .
b): By Corollary 3.4 we may replace by , and so assume that is surjective. We have . Applying , we obtain
[TABLE]
It follows by a) that . ∎
Corollary 3.8**.**
Assume that and are semirings and is an -bimodule, i.e., is a left -module, a right -module, and
[TABLE]
Let be a subset of . As before let denote the halo of in (which means as a left -module). Then, for any
[TABLE]
If is an additive spine of , then generates the left -module additively, and so is an additive spine of .
Proof.
Apply Proposition 3.7 to the endomorphism of . ∎
Corollary 3.9**.**
If again is an -bimodule and is a unit of , then , and is an additive spine of iff is an additive spine of .
Proof.
Let . Then by Corollary 3.8 . Multiplying by , we obtain , whence , and then
[TABLE]
∎
Example 3.10**.**
* is an -bimodule in the obvious way. Thus, if is an additive spine of and if is a unit of , then is again an additive spine of .*
Example 3.11**.**
Assume that is a semiring that is a homomorphic image of , and . We have seen in Example 2.12 that is an additive spine of . Let . Then is a unit of , namely is the permutation matrix of . We have , and conclude that is an additive spine of .
We can generalize Proposition 2.12 as follows:
Proposition 3.12**.**
Assume that are commuting subsemirings of a semiring with , and that are left modules over and respectively. Assume furthermore that there is given a composition such that
[TABLE]
for any , . Assume finally that . Then, given subsets with halos in the -module , the following holds.
- a)
* is contained in the halo of in .* 2. b)
If is an additive spine of , then
[TABLE]
and is an additive spine of .
Proof.
Let . We have with , . Now
[TABLE]
and . This proves that . If now , then
[TABLE]
and so , whence . A fortiori . ∎
Note that Proposition 2.12 is indeed a special case of this proposition: Given an -module , take , , and the scalar product .
4. The posets , and in good cases
Assume that has a finite additive spine consisting of elements. We have seen in §2 that, when is a set of generators of , then every is generated by the set . Thus, if is finite, we see that the lattice is finite, consisting of at most elements. More generally we have the following fact.
Theorem 4.1**.**
Assume that is a submodule of an -module and is a subset of , such that is generated over by , i.e.,
[TABLE]
Assume that has a finite additive spine consisting of elements.
Let be given with , and consider the set
[TABLE]
Then, if is finite, this set consists of at most elements. Furthermore, any chain in has length .
Proof.
Let denote the submodule of generated by . We have . If , then by (1.1)
[TABLE]
and, of course, . Since , as stated above, we infer that Also, if is a chain in , we conclude from (4.3) for that
[TABLE]
Every is generated by the set and so
[TABLE]
This implies that . ∎
We return to an arbitrary semiring and permit infinite sums of SA-submodules, writing , called a -submodule of .
Theorem 4.2**.**
Assume that is an additive spine of the -module (cf. Definition 1.2).
- a)
Then any is generated by the set .
- b)
* is finite, then , and any chain*
[TABLE]
in has length .
Proof.
a): Write with . We know by Theorem 3.2 that every is generated by . Thus is generated by the set
[TABLE]
A fortiori is generated by . b): Every is generated by the set . We have at most possibilities for this set, and so . Furthermore, if is a chain in , then
[TABLE]
since each generated by , and so . ∎
We denote the set of all finitely generated SA-submodules of by , and the set of submodules of , which are sums of finitely many elements of , by . (Note that a module in is finitely generated, but perhaps not SA in .)
By a variation of our previous arguments we obtain
Theorem 4.3**.**
Assume that has a finite additive spine , and also that . Let be a finite set of generators of . Then every is generated by the finite set and every chain
[TABLE]
in , hence in , has length . A fortiori this holds if and all are in .
Proof.
Every is generated by the finite set , cf. Theorem 2.8. Furthermore, by the same theorem, every is generated by the subset of . It follows that
[TABLE]
and so . It is obvious that every SA-submodule of contained in is SA in . ∎
Our final result refers to modules with additive spines which are not necessarily finite.
Theorem 4.4**.**
Assume that is an additive spine of the -module , and .
- a)
Then is generated by the set .
- b)
If is an -sum in , and is a family of finitely generated -submodules of with , then every is generated by a finite subset of , and so is generated by the subset of . This subset is an additive spine of .
- c)
If then is generated by a finite subset of , and this is an additive spine of .
Proof.
We choose a family in with .
a): Done before (Theorem 4.2).b): We assume now that all are finitely generated. Every is generated by (Theorem 3.2). It follows that is generated by a finite subset of . Indeed, given generators of for fixed, write every as a linear combination of a finite subset of . Then does it. It follows by Theorem 3.2 that is an additive spine of . It now is clear that generates , and it follows by Proposition 3.5 that is an additive spine of . c): Now evident, since the index set can be assumed to be finite, and so is a finite additive spine of . ∎
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] A.A. Costa. Sur la thêorie générale des demi-anneaux, Publ. Math. Decebren 10:14–29, 1963.
- 2[2] J. Golan. Semirings and their Applications , Springer-Science + Business, Dordrecht, 1999. (Originally published by Kluwer Acad. Publ., 1999.)
- 3[3] Z. Izhakian, M. Johnson, and M. Kambites. Pure dimension and projectivity of tropical convex sets, Adv. in Math. , 303:1236–1263, 2016.
- 4[4] Z. Izhakian, M. Knebusch, and L. Rowen. Decompositions of modules lacking zero sums. Israel J. Math. , 225(2):503–524, 2018.
- 5[5] Z. Izhakian, M. Knebusch, and L. Rowen. Summand absorbing submodules, J. Pure and Appl. Alg. , to appear.
