Simplicity and chain conditions for ultragraph Leavitt path algebras via partial skew group ring theory
Abstract
We realize Leavitt ultragraph path algebras as partial skew group rings. Using this realization we characterize artinian ultragraph path algebras and give simplicity criteria for these algebras.
Daniel Gonçalves111This author is partially supported by CNPq. and Danilo Royer
MSC[2010]: 16S35, 16S99, 16P20.
Keywords: Ultragraph Leavit path algebras, partial skew group ring, simplicity, artinian ring, noetherian ring
1 Introduction
The study of algebras associated to combinatorial objects has attracted a great deal of attention in the past years. Part of the interest in these algebras arise from the fact that many properties of the combinatorial object translate into algebraic properties of the associated algebras and, furthermore, there are deep connections between these algebras and symbolic dynamics. As examples of algebras associated to combinatorial objects we cite graph C*-algebras, Leavitt path algebras, higher rank graph algebras, Kumjian-Pask algebras, ultragraph C*-algebras, among others (see [1, 2] for a comprehensive list).
Notice that in the list of algebras we presented above the C*-algebraic version of the algebras was immediately followed by the algebraic analogue, except for the ultragraph case. Ultragraphs (a generalization of graphs, where the range map takes values on the power set of the vertices) were defined by Mark Tomforde in [11] as an unifying approach to Exel-Laca and graph C*-algebras. They have proved to be a key ingredient in the study of Morita equivalence of Exel-Laca and graph C*-algebras (see [9]). Very recently, ultragraph C*-algebras were connected with the symbolic dynamics of shift spaces over infinite alphabets (see [7]) and ultragraphs were the key object behind a new proposal for the generalization of a shift of finite type to the infinite alphabet case (see [8]).
Due to the exposed above it is natural to study the algebraic analogue of an ultragraph C*-algebra. The formalization of the definition of the algebra was given in [3], along with a study of the algebra ideals and a proof of a Cuntz-Krieger uniqueness type theorem. Furthermore, it was show in [3] that the class of ultragraph path algebras is strictly larger than the class of Leavitt path algebras. This raises the question of which results about Leavitt path algebras can be generalized to ultragraph path algebras, and whether results from the C*-algebraic setting can be proved in the algebraic level. Our work is a first step in this direction. Building from ideas in [6], where Leavitt path algebras are realized as partial skew group rings, we realize ultragraph path algebras as partial skew group rings. This is also the algebraic version of the characterization of ultragraph C*-algebras as partial crossed products given in [8] (notice that the algebraic version we present is more general than the C*-algebraic version, since the later is valid for ultragraphs with no sinks that satisfy Condition (RFUM)).
The theory of partial skew group rings has been in constant development recently, see for example [4, 5] where simplicity criteria are described, and [10] where chain conditions are studied. In our case we use partial skew ring theory to characterize artinian ultragraph path algebras and give simplicity criteria for these algebras.
Given an ultragraph G, we realize the associated path algebra as a partial skew group ring in Section 3. For this we consider the free group on the edges of G. In the graph case (see [6]), the free group of edges acts on a subspace of the functions in a set X, where X is the set of infinite paths union with finite paths ending in a sink (a vertex that emits no edges). In the ultragraph setting, a finite path is a pair (α,A), where α=e1…en is a sequence of edges such that s(ei+1)∈r(ei), and A is a subset of r(en). To find the correct set X is a key step in our construction. For ultragraphs the set X is formed by the infinite sequences, finite sequences (α,A) such that A contains a sink, and sequences of length zero of the form (v,v) where v is a sink. After defining the set X we proceed with the definition of the partial action and set up the ground to prove Theorem 3.10, which gives the isomorphism between the partial skew group ring and the ultragraph path algebra.
In light of Theorem 3.10 we use the results in [5] to characterize simplicity of ultragraph path algebras in Section 4. As it is the case with Leavitt and graph C*-algebras, the criteria for simplicity we obtain coincides with the one for ultragraph C*-algebras (the later is given in [12]). More precisely, we show that (when R is a field) the ultragraph Leavitt path algebra is simple if, and only if, G satisfies Condition (L) and the unique saturated and hereditary subcollections of G0 are ∅ and G0 (this is Theorem 4.7). We remark that, using the tools developed in this section, we provide a new proof of the Cuntz-Krieger Uniqueness Theorem for Leavitt path algebras of ultragraphs (Corollary 4.3). We end the paper in Section 5, where we apply the results of [10] to characterize artinian ultragraph path algebras.
2 Ultragraphs and partial skew group rings
Ultragraph C*-algebras were introduced by Tomforde in [3]. Here we recall the main definitions and relevant results.
Definition 2.1
An ultragraph is a quadruple G=(G0,G1,r,s) consisting of two countable sets G0,G1, a map s:G1→G0, and a map r:G1→P(G0)∖{∅}, where P(G0) stands for the power set of G0.
Definition 2.2
Let G be an ultragraph. Define G0 to be the smallest subset of P(G0) that contains {v} for all v∈G0, contains r(e) for all e∈G1, and is closed under finite unions and non-empty finite intersections.
Definition 2.3
Let G be an ultragraph and R be a unital commutative ring. The Leavitt path algebra of G, denoted by LR(G) is the universal R with generators {se,se∗:e∈G1}∪{pA:A∈G0} and relations
-
p∅=0,pApB=pA∩B,pA∪B=pA+pB−pA∩B, for all A,B∈G0;
2. 2.
ps(e)se=sepr(e)=se* and pr(e)se∗=se∗ps(e)=se∗ for each e∈G1*
3. 3.
se∗sf=δe,fpr(e)* for all e,f∈G*
4. 4.
pv=s(e)=v∑sese∗* whenever 0<∣s−1(v)∣<∞.*
Before we proceed we quickly remind the reader the definition of a partial action: A partial action of a group G on a set Ω is a pair α=({Dt}t∈G, {αt}t∈G), where for each t∈G, Dt is a subset of Ω and αt:Dt−1→Δt is a bijection such that De=Ω, αe is the identity in Ω, αt(Dt−1∩Ds)=Dt∩Dts and αt(αs(x))=αts(x), for all x∈Ds−1∩Ds−1t−1. In case Ω is an algebra or a ring then the subsets Dt should also be ideals and the maps αt should be isomorphisms.
Associated to a partial action of a group G in a ring A the partial skew group ring, denoted by A⋊αG, is defined as the set of all finite formal sums ∑t∈Gatδt, where for all t∈G, at∈Dt and δt is a symbol. Addition is defined component-wise and multiplication is determined by (atδt)(bsδs)=αt(α−t(at)bs)δts
3 Ultragraph path algebra as a partial skew group ring
Let G be an ultragraph. A finite path is either an element of G0 or a sequence of edges e1...en, with length ∣e1...en∣=n, and such that s(ei+1)∈r(ei) for each i∈{0,...,n−1}. An infinite path is a sequence e1e2e3..., with length ∣e1e2...∣=∞, such that s(ei+1)∈r(ei) for each i≥0. The set of finite paths in G is denoted by G∗, and the set of infinite paths in G is denoted by p∞. We extend the source and range maps as follows: r(α)=r(α∣α∣), s(α)=s(α1) for α∈G∗ with 0<∣α∣<∞, s(α)=s(α1) for each α∈p∞, and r(A)=A=s(A) for each A∈G0. An element v∈G0 is a sink if s−1(v)=∅, and we denote the set of sinks in G0 by Gs0. We say that A∈G0 is a sink if each vertex in A is a sink.
Define the set
[TABLE]
Remark 3.1
Notice that given a vertex v, the element (v,v)∈X if, and only if, v is a sink.
Definition 3.2
For an element (α,v)∈X we define the range and source maps by r(α,v)=v and s(α,v)=s(α). In particular, for a sink v, s(v,v)=v=r(v,v). We also extend the length map to the elements (α,v) by defining ∣(α,v)∣:=∣α∣.
Next we setup some notation necessary to define the desired partial action.
Let F be the free group generated by G1, and denote by [math] the neutral element of F. Let W⊆F be the set
[TABLE]
Remark 3.3
The set W is the same as the set of elements of G∗ with positive length.
Notation 3.4
Given an element a∈W, with length ∣a∣, and an element x∈X, we use the notation x1...x∣a∣=a to mean that α1...α∣a∣=a1...a∣a∣, if x=(α,v)∈X with ∣x∣<∞, and α1...α∣a∣=a1...a∣a∣ if x=α1α2… with ∣x∣=∞.
Now we define the following sets:
for a∈W, let Xa={x∈X:x1..x∣a∣=a};
for b∈W, let Xb−1={x∈X:s(x)∈r(b)};
for a,b∈W with r(a)∩r(b)=∅, let
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
for the neutral element [math] of F, let X0=X;
for all the other elements c of F, let Xc=∅.
Define, for each A∈G0 and b∈W, the sets
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Remark 3.5
Notice that for each a,b∈W, it holds that Xab−1=Xa(r(b))=Xa(r(a)∩r(b)) and Xr(b)=Xb−1. Moreover, for an element b∈W and u∈r(b) a sink, it holds that Xb{u}={(b,u)}.
The following lemma follows from the definitions of the sets Xc and XA, for c∈F and A∈G, and its proof is left to the reader.
Lemma 3.6
Let a,b,c,d∈W and A,B∈G0. Then:
-
X_{a}\cap X_{b}=\left\{\begin{array}[]{lll}X_{a}&\text{ if }a=b\xi\text{ for some }\xi\in W\cup\{0\},\\
\emptyset&\text{ if }a_{i}\neq b_{i}\text{ for some }i,\\
X_{b}&\text{ if }b=a\xi\text{ for some }\xi\in W.\end{array}\right.**
2. 2.
X_{a}\cap X_{c^{-1}}=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}X_{a}&\text{ if }s(a)\in r(c),\\
\emptyset&\text{otherwise}.\end{array}\right.**
3. 3.
X_{a}\cap X_{bc^{-1}}=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}X_{a}&\text{ if }a=b\xi\text{ for some }\xi\in W\text{ and }s(\xi)\in r(c),\\
X_{bc^{-1}}&\text{ if }b=a\xi\text{ for some }\xi\in W\cup\{0\},\\
\emptyset&\text{otherwise}.\par\end{array}\right.**
4. 4.
X_{ab^{-1}}\cap X_{cd^{-1}}=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}X_{ab^{-1}}&\text{ if }a=c\xi\text{ for some }\xi\in W\text{ and }s(\xi)\in r(d),\\
X_{cd^{-1}}&\text{ if }c=a\xi\text{ for some }\xi\in W\text{ and }s(\xi)\in r(b),\\
X_{a(r(b)\cap r(d))}&\text{ if }a=c,\\
\emptyset&\text{otherwise}.\end{array}\right.**
5. 5.
X_{A}\cap X_{a}=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}X_{a}&\text{ if }s(a)\in A,\\
\emptyset&\text{otherwise}.\end{array}\right.**
6. 6.
X_{A}\cap X_{ab^{-1}}=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}X_{ab^{-1}}&\text{ if }s(a)\in A,\\
\emptyset&\text{otherwise}.\end{array}\right.**
7. 7.
XA∩XB=XA∩B* and XA∪XB=XA∪B.*
8. 8.
X_{bA}\cap X_{c}=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}X_{bA}&\text{ if }b=c\xi\text{ for some }\xi\in W\cup\{0\},\\
X_{c}&\text{ if }c=b\xi\text{ for some }\xi\in W\text{
and }s(\xi)\in A,\\
\emptyset&\text{ otherwise. }\end{array}\right.**
9. 9.
X_{bA}\cap X_{cd^{-1}}=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}X_{bA}&\text{ if }b=c\xi\text{ for some }\xi\in W\text{ and }s(\xi)\in r(d),\\
X_{cd^{-1}}&\text{ if }c=b\xi\text{ for some }\xi\in W\text{ and }s(\xi)\in A,\\
X_{b(A\cap r(d))}&\text{ if }b=c,\\
\emptyset&\text{ otherwise. }\end{array}\right.**
10. 10.
X_{bA}\cap X_{cB}=\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}X_{bA}&\text{ if }b=c\xi\text{ for some }\xi\in W\text{ and }s(\xi)\in B,\\
X_{cB}&\text{ if }c=b\xi\text{ for some }\xi\in W\text{ and }s(\xi)\in A,\\
X_{b(A\cap B)}&\text{ if }b=c,\\
\emptyset&\text{ otherwise. }\par\par\end{array}\right.**
Our aim is to get a partial action from F on X. With this in mind, define the following bijective maps:
for a∈W define θa:Xa−1→Xa by
[TABLE]
for a∈W define θa−1:Xa→Xa−1 as being the inverse of θa;
for a,b∈W define θab−1:Xba−1→Xab−1 by
[TABLE]
for the neutral element 0∈F define θ0:X0→X0 as the identity map;
for all the other elements c of F define θc:Xc−1→Xc as the empty map.
Remark 3.7
Notice that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
that is, XbA=θb(XA∩Xb−1).
It is straightforward to check that ({θt}t∈F,{Xt}t∈F) is a partial action of F on X, that is, Xe=X, θe=Idx, θc(Xc−1∩Xt)=Xct∩Xc and θc∘θt=θct in Xt−1∩Xt−1c−1. Define for each c∈F the set F(Xc) of all the functions from Xc to the commutative unital ring R. Notice that each F(Xc) is an R-algebra, with pointwise sum and product. For the neutral element 0∈F we denote the set F(X0) simply by F(X). Each F(Xc) is an ideal of the R-algebra F(X). Now, for each c∈F define the R-isomorphism
[TABLE]
by βc(f)=f∘θc−1, whose inverse is the isomorphism βc−1. So, we get a partial action ({βc}c∈F,{F(Xc)}c∈F) from F to the R-algebra F(X).
To get the desired partial action we need to restrict the partial action β to the R-subalgebra D of F(X) generated by all the finite sums of all the finite products of the characteristic maps {1XA}A∈G0, {1bA}b∈W,A∈G0 and {1Xc}c∈F. We also define, for each t∈F the ideals Dt of D, as being all the finite sums of finite products of the characteristic maps {1Xt1XA}A∈G0, {1Xt1bA}b∈W,A∈G0 and {1Xt1Xc}c∈F.
Remark 3.8
From now on we will use the notation 1A, 1bA and 1t instead of 1XA, 1XbA and 1Xt, for A∈G0, b∈W and t∈F. It follows directly from Lemma 3.6 that
[TABLE]
and that for each t∈F,
[TABLE]
where “span” means linear span.
Our aim is to restrict the partial action β to the ideals {Dt}t∈F of D. The next proposition tells us that βt(Dt−1)=Dt for each t∈F.
Proposition 3.9
-
For t,c∈F it holds that βc(1c−11t)=1c1ct.
2. 2.
For b∈W and A∈G0 we get βb(1b−11A)=1b1bA.
3. 3.
For t=ab−1 with b∈W and a∈W∪{0}, and A∈G0, we get
[TABLE]
4. 4.
For b,c∈W and A∈G0 it holds that
[TABLE]
5. 5.
For b,c,d∈W, and A∈G0, we get
[TABLE]
6. 6.
For a,b,c∈W and A∈G0, we get
[TABLE]
**Proof. **The first item follows from the fact that θc(Xc−1∩Xt)=Xc∩Xct, since βc(1c−11t)(x)=[θc−1(x)∈Xc−1∩Xt]=[x∈θc(Xc−1∩Xt)]=[x∈(Xc∩Xct)]=1c(x)1tc(x).
To see that the second item holds, note that βb(1b−11A)(x)=[θb−1(x)∈(Xb−1∩XA)]=[x∈θb(Xb−1∩XA)]=[x∈XbA]=1bA(x), where the second to last equality follows from Remark 3.7.
The third item follows from Item 6 of Lemma 3.6.
To see that Item 4. holds note that, for x∈Xc,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and for x∈/Xc, βc(1bA1c−1)(x)=0=1c(x)1cbA(x).
Item 5 follows from Item 9 of
Lemma 3.6, and the last item follows from Item 8 of the same Lemma.
□
By the previous proposition we get that, for each t∈F, βt(Dt−1)⊆Dt and, consequently, βt(Dt−1)=Dt for each t∈F. So we may consider the restriction of the partial action β to the subsetes {Dt}t∈F of D. We denote this restriction also by β, and so we get a partial action ({βt}t∈F,{Dt}t∈F) of F in D.
Now we are ready to prove the following theorem.
Theorem 3.10
Let G be an ultragraph, R be an unital commutative ring, and let LR(G) be the Leavitt path algebra of G. Then there exists an R-isomorphism ϕ:LR(G)→D⋊βF such that ϕ(pA)=1Aδ0, ϕ(se∗)=1e−1δe−1 and ϕ(se)=1eδe for each A∈G0 and e∈G1.
**Proof. **First we show that the sets {1Aδ0}A∈G0 and {1eδe,1e−1δe−1}e∈G1 satisfies the relations which define the algebra LR(G).
The first relation of Definition
2.3 follows from Item 7 of Lemma 3.6. To verify the second relation, let e∈G1, and note that
1s(e)δ01eδe=1s(e)1eδe=1eδe and 1eδe1r(e)δ0=βe(βe−1(1e)1r(e))δe=βe(1e−11r(e))δe=1e1er(e)δe=1eδe, where the second to last equality follows from Item 2 of Proposition 3.9.
Moreover, 1r(e)δ01e−1δe−1=1e−1δe−1 and 1e−1δe−11s(e)δe=βe−1(βe(1e−1)1s(e))δe−1=βe−1(1e1s(e))δe−1=βe−1(1e)δe−1=1e−1δe−1. Next we verify the third relation. Let e,f∈G1. Then
[TABLE]
If e=f then 1e1f=0 and if e=f then βe−1(1e1f)δe−1f=βe−1(1e)δ0=1e−1δ0=1r(e)δ0. To verify the last relation of Definition 2.3, note first that 1eδe1e−1δe−1=1eδ0, for each edge e. Now, let v be an vertex such that 0<∣s−1(v)∣<∞. Then Xv=e∈s−1(v)⋃Xe, from where 1v=e∈s−1(v)∑1e, and so
[TABLE]
So, by the universality of LR(G), there exists an R-homomorphism ϕ:LR(G)→D⋊βF such that ϕ(pA)=1Aδ0, ϕ(se)=1eδe and ϕ(se∗)=1e−1δe−1 for each A∈G0 and each edge e.
Now we prove that ϕ is surjective.
For each a=a1...a∣a∣∈W and d=d1...d∣d∣∈W we use the notations ϕ(sa), ϕ(sd∗) and ϕ(sasd∗) to denote the elements ϕ(sa1)...ϕ(sa∣a∣), ϕ(sd∣d∣∗)...ϕ(sd1∗) and ϕ(sa1)...ϕ(sa∣a∣)ϕ(sd∣d∣∗)...ϕ(sd1∗) respectively.
Claim 1: For each a,d∈W it holds that ϕ(sa)ϕ(sa∗)=1aδ0, ϕ(sd∗)ϕ(sd)=1d−1δ0 and ϕ(sasd∗)ϕ(sdsa∗)=1ad−1δ0.
The equalities ϕ(sa)ϕ(sa∗)=1aδ0 and ϕ(sd∗)ϕ(sd)=1d−1δ0 follow by induction on the length of a and d and from the first item of Proposition 3.9. To prove the other equality write a=eg, where ∣e∣=1 and ∣g∣=∣a∣−1, and suppose by inductive arguments that ϕ(sg)ϕ(sd∗)ϕ(sd)ϕ(sg)∗=1gd−1δ0. Then
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where the second to last equality follows from the first item of Proposition 3.9. So, Claim 1 is proved.
Claim 2: For each b∈W, and A∈G0, it holds that ϕ(sb)ϕ(pA)ϕ(sb∗)=1bAδ0.
For ∣b∣=1 note that ϕ(sb)ϕ(pA)ϕ(sb∗)=βb(1b−11A)δ0=1b1bAδ0=1bAδ0, where the second to last equality follows from Item 2 of Proposition 3.9. Now, for ∣b∣>1, write b=ed with ∣e∣=1 and ∣d∣=∣b∣−1. By inductive arguments we get that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where the second to last equality follows by similar arguments to the ones used in the proof of Item 2 of Proposition 3.9. So, Claim 2 is proved.
By Remark 3.8, to prove that ϕ is surjective, it is enough to prove that
[TABLE]
and, for each t∈F,
[TABLE]
Claim 3: {1Aδ0,1cδ0,1bAδ0:A∈G0,c∈F∖{0},b∈W}⊆Im(ϕ).
Recall that for each A∈G0, ϕ(pA)=1Aδ0. Moreover, for c∈F∖{0} with c=ad−1, where a,d∈W∪{0}, we get by Claim 1 that 1cδ0∈Im(ϕ) (for all the other c∈F∖{0} we also have 1cδ0∈Im(ϕ), since 1c=0). To finish notice that, by Claim 2, we get that 1bAδ0∈Im(ϕ), for each b∈W and A∈G0. So, Claim 3 is proved.
Claim 4: For each t∈F∖{0},
[TABLE]
First, for e∈W, with ∣e∣=1, recall that 1eδe=ϕ(e). Now, let c∈W with ∣c∣>1, write c=ed with ∣e∣=1, and suppose (by inductive arguments on ∣c∣) that ϕ(d)=1dδd. Then
[TABLE]
where the second to last equality follows from Item 1 of Proposition 3.9. Analogously we get that ϕ(sd∗)=1d−1δd−1 for each d∈W. Now, for c,d∈W,
[TABLE]
where, again, the second to last equality follows from Item 1 of Proposition 3.9. So we get 1tδt∈Im(ϕ) for each t∈F∖{0}.
Now, for t,c∈F∖{0}, b∈W and A∈G0, note that 1t1bAδt=1bAδ01tδt∈Im(ϕ), and similarly one shows that 1t1Aδt,1t1cδt∈Im(ϕ). So, we get that ϕ is surjective.
It remains to show that ϕ is injective. To prove this we will use the graded uniqueness theorem, see [3, Theorem 3.2]. For each integer number n define
[TABLE]
Note that D⋊βF is Z-graded by the gradation {Fn}n∈Z. Moreover, LR(G) is a Z-graded ring with the grading LR(G)n=span{sapAsb∗:a,b∈G∗,A∈G0} introduced in
[3]. It is easy to see that ϕ is a graded ring homomorphism. Since XA=∅ then ϕ(τpA)=τ1A=0, for each A∈G0 and τ∈R∖{0}. It follows from [3, Theorem 3.2] that ϕ is injective and hence an isomorphism.
□
4 Simplicity and maximal commutativity
In this section we use the realization of ultragraph Leavitt path algebras as partial skew group rings to describe simplicity criteria for these algebras. Recall that from [5, Theorem 2.3], the algebra D⋊βF is simple if, and only if, D is F-simple and Dδ0 is maximal commutative in D⋊βF. Aiming at the simplicity criteria given for ultragraph C*-algebras in [12] we will characterize maximal commutativity in terms of Condition (L) and F simplicity in terms of hereditary and saturated subcollections G0.
Recall that a cycle in an ultragraph G is a path α=e1...e∣α∣, with ∣α∣≥1 and s(α)∈r(α), and an exit for α is an edge e with s(e)=s(ei), for some i∈{1,...,∣α∣} and e=ei. The ultragraph G satisfies Condition (L) if each cycle α=e1...e∣α∣ has an exit, or if r(ei) contains a sink for some i.
Before we state our next result we recall the notion of maximal commutativity: The centralizer of a nonempty subset S of a ring R, which we denote by CR(S), is the set of all elements of R that commute with each element of S. If CR(S)=S holds, then S is said to be a maximal commutative subring of R.
Theorem 4.1
Let G be an ultragraph. Then Dδ0 is maximal commutative in D⋊βF if, and only if, G satisfies condition (L).
**Proof. **First suppose that G satisfies condition (L). Suppose, by contradiction, that there exists x=∑atδt, with some t=0, that commutes with aδ0 for all a∈D. Then there exists t∈F∖{0}, and at∈Dt with at=0, such that atδta0δ0=a0δ0atδt for each a0∈D. From the last equality we get
[TABLE]
for each a0∈D0. Since at=0 then either t=a, t=b−1, or t=ab−1, with a,b∈W.
Notice that, since
[TABLE]
then, for each ξ∈Xt with ∣ξ∣=∞, there exists an m∈N such that, if η∈Xt and η1η2...ηm=ξ1ξ2...ξm then at(η)=at(ξ).
We now divide the proof in three cases.
Case 1: Suppose t∈W.
If we take a0=1t−1 in Equation (1) we get that at=at1t−1. Hence the support of at is contained in Xt∩Xt−1, and therefore t is a closed path. If we take a0=1t1t−1 then, from Equation (1), we have that βt(βt−1(at)1t)=at1t1t−1=at, and from Remark 3.8 and Proposition 3.9, we get βt(βt−1(at)1t)=at1tt. Therefore at1tt=at. With the same arguments, if we take a0=1t2 we get at1t3=at, and inductively we get at1tn=at for each n∈N.
Let ξ∈Xt be such that at(ξ)=0. Then at(ξ)1tn(ξ)=0, for each n∈N, and so ∣ξ∣=∞. Let m∈N be such that if η∈Xt, and η1...ηm=ξ1...ξm, then at(η)=at(ξ).
Since G satisfies condition (L) the closed path t=t1...t∣t∣ either has an exit or some r(ti) contains a sink.
Suppose first that t has an exit, that is, there exists an edge e such that s(e)∈r(ti), for some i and e=ti+1. Let k∈N be such that k∣t∣≥m and let η be such that η=tkt1t2...tiey (for some y). Then we get that 0=at(ξ)=at(η)=(at1tk+1)(η)=0, a contradiction.
Now suppose that r(ti) contains a sink v for some i. Then, again, let k∈N be such that k∣t∣≥m, and let η=(tkt1t2...ti,v), which is an element of Xt. Then we have that 0=at(ξ)=(at1tk+1)(ξ)=(at1tk+1)(η)=0, which is also a contradiction.
So we conclude that t∈/W.
Case 2: t=d−1, with d∈W.
From Equation (1) we get that βd−1(βd(ad−1)a0)=ad−1a0 and so βd(ad−1)a0=βd(ad−1a0). Let cd=βd(ad−1). Then βd−1(cd)=ad−1 and so we get the equality
[TABLE]
for each a0∈D0. Now, by Case 1, we get a contradiction and hence it is not possible that t=d−1 with d∈W.
Case 3: t=cd−1 with c,d∈W.
As in Case 1 we get that at=at1tn for each n∈N. Hence, since at=0, we have that Xtn=∅ for each n. Therefore
either c=db or d=cb with b∈W.
If c=db then tn=dbnd−1 and so b is a closed path. Let ξ∈Xt with ∣ξ∣=∞ and at(ξ)=0. Proceeding from this point as Case 1 we get a contradiction.
If d=cb for some b∈W then we also get a similar contradiction, by considering the equality βt−1(βt(ut−1)a0)=ut−1a0 obtained from Equation (1), where ut−1=βt−1(at).
So, we proved that if G satisfies condition (L) then D is maximal commutative in D⋊βF. Next we prove the converse.
Suppose that G does not satisfy condition (L). Then there exist a closed path t=t1...t∣t∣ in G such that t has no exit and r(ti) contains exactly one vertex, for each ti. We show that 1tδt commutes with D0δ0. By Remark 3.8 it is enough to show that 1tδt commutes with 1cδ0 for each c∈F∖{0}, and with 1Aδ0 and 1bAδ0 for each A∈G0 and b∈W.
Let A∈G0. If r(t)=s(t)∈A then 1Aδ01tδt=1tδt=βt(1t−1)δt=βt(1t−11A)δt=βt(βt−1(1t)1A)δt=1tδt1Aδ0,
and if s(t)=r(t)∈/A then 1Aδ01tδt=0=1tδt1Aδ0.
Now let A∈G0 and b∈W. Note that 1tδt1bAδ0=βt(1t−11bA)δt and 1bAδ01tδt=1bA1tδt. If s(b)∈/r(t) then 1t−11bA=0=1t1bA and we are done. Suppose that s(b)∈r(t). Then, by Proposition 3.9, βt(1t−11bA)=1t1tbA. So, it remains to show that 1t1tbA=1t1bA. Notice that Xt={ξ}, where ξ is the infinite path ξ=tt.... Then to verify the desired equality it is enough to show that ξ∈XtbA if, and only if, ξ∈XbA.
Suppose that ξ∈XtbA. Then ξ=tby, where y is a path such that s(y)∈A. Therefore there exists an n∈N such that b=tnt1...ti for some i and note that s(y)=r(ti). Hence,
[TABLE]
Now note that bti+1...t∣t∣t1...tiy∈XbA, since s(ti+1)=r(ti)=s(y)∈A.
Similarly one shows that if ξ∈XbA then ξ∈XtbA. So, 1t1tbA=1t1bA.
Finally, we show that 1tδt1cδ0=1cδ01tδt, for each c∈F∖{0}. To prove this it is sufficient to show that βt(1t−11c)=1t1c, for each c∈F∖{0}. By Proposition 3.9 we have that βt(1t−11c)=1t1tc, and hence we have to show that 1t1tc=1t1c. Notice that to prove this last equality it is enough to show that ξ=tt... is an element of Xtc if, and only if, ξ∈Xc. This follows by arguments similar to the previous case, splitting the proof in cases depending whether c=a, c=b or c=ab−1 with a,b∈W.
□
The next proposition will be useful in the characterization of F simplicity of D.
Proposition 4.2
Let x0δ0 be a non-zero element of Dδ0 and let I be the ideal generated by x0δ0 in D⋊βF. Then there there exists a vertex v∈G0, and a non-zero element h∈R, such that (h1v)δ0∈I.
**Proof. **First note that by Remark 3.8
[TABLE]
with ai,bi,ej∈W and aibi−1=0, Aj,Bk∈G0, and αi,βj,γk∈R. Let A={s(ai):1≤i≤m}∪{s(ej):1≤j≤n}k=1⋃pBk, which is an element of G0, and note that 1Ax0=x0. Let ξ∈X be such that x0(ξ)=0, and let v=s(ξ). Then v∈A and so 1v(ξ)x0(ξ)=1A(ξ)x0(ξ)=x0(ξ)=0. Therefore 1vx0=0.
If v is a sink then 1vx0=k=1∑pγk1v1Bk=k∈{1...p}:v∈Bk∑γk1v=h1v. So, (h1v)δ0∈I.
Now suppose that v is not a sink. Let M=max{∣ai∣,∣ej∣:1≤i≤m,1≤j≤n}. Note that since v is not a sink then
[TABLE]
where c and d are all the elements of W such that s(c)=v, ∣c∣<M and u∈r(c) is a sink, and s(d)=v and ∣d∣=M+1.
Since 1vx0=0 then 1c{u}x0=0, for some c∈J and some sink u∈r(c), or 1dx0=0 for some d∈L.
Suppose that 1c{u}x0=0. Note that for each i∈{1,...,m}, j∈{1,...,n} and k∈{1,...,p}, we have that 1c{u}1aibi−1=0 or 1c{u}1aibi−1=1c{u}, 1c{u}1ejAj=0 or 1c{u}1ejAj=1c{u}, and 1c{u}1Bk=0 or 1c{u}1Bk=1c{u}. Then
[TABLE]
Therefore (h1c{u})δ0∈I. Since I is an ideal then 1c−1δc−1h1c{u}δ01cδc=hβc−1(1c1c{u})δ0=(h1u)δ0 belongs to I.
Now assume that 1dx0=0 for some d∈L. Since ∣d∣>∣ai∣ then 1d1aibi−1=1d or 1d1aibi−1=0, for each i∈{1,...,m}, and similarly 1d1ejAj=1d or 1d1ejAj=0 for each j∈{1,...,n}. Moreover 1d1Bk=1d if s(d)∈Bk, and 1d1Bk=0 if s(b)∈/Bk, for each k∈{1,...,p}. Then we get that
[TABLE]
and so (h1d)δ0∈I. Hence (h1r(d))δ0=1d−1δd−1h1dδ01dδd belongs to I. Then, for each vertex w∈r(d), we get that (h1w)δ0=1wδ0(h1r(d))δ0 belongs to I.
□
As a consequence of the above proposition we can provide a new proof of the Cuntz-Krieger Uniqueness Theorem for Leavitt path algebras of ultragraphs.
Corollary 4.3
Let G be an ultragraph that satisfies Condition (L), let R be commutative ring with a unit, and let π:LR(G)→S be a homomorphism such that π(rpA)=0 for each A∈G0 and non-zero r∈R. Then π is injective.
Proof.
Let I=ker(π) and suppose that I=0. Since G satisfies Condition (L) then, by Theorem 4.1, Dδ0 is maximal commutative. Therefore, by [5, Theorem 2.1], I∩Dδ0=0. Let 0=x0δ0∈I∩D0δ0. By Proposition 4.2 there exist a non-zero h∈R, and an vertex v, such that (h1v)δ0∈I, a contradiction. Therefore ker(π)=0.
□
As in the C* setting, the characterization of simplicity of ultragraph Leavitt path algebras rely on the notion of hereditary and saturated collections. For the reader’s convenience we recall these below.
Definition 4.4
Let G be an ultragraph. A subcollection H⊆G0 is called hereditary if:
-
s(e)∈H* implies r(e)∈H, for each e∈G1;*
2. 2.
A∪B∈H, for all A,B∈H;
3. 3.
A∈H,B∈G0* and B⊆A imply B∈H.*
Moreover, H is called saturated if for any v∈G0 with 0<∣s−1(v)∣<∞, it holds that
[TABLE]
The next Lemma is key in the characterization of F-simplicity in terms of existence of hereditary and saturated subcollections of G0.
Lemma 4.5
Let R be a unital commutative domain and let I be an F-invariant ideal of D0. Then the collection
[TABLE]
is hereditary and saturated.
**Proof. **First we show that H is hereditary. Let e∈G1 be such that s(e)∈H, and let h∈R be a non-zero element such that h1s(e)∈I. Then h1e=h1e1s(e)∈I∩De and, since I is F-invariant, we have that h1r(e)=hβe−1(1e)∈I, and so r(e)∈H. Let A,B∈H, and let h,k be non-zero elements in R such that h1A∈I and k1B∈I. Then hk=0 since R is a domain. Moreover, hk1A∪B=hk1A+hk1B−hk1A1B∈I since I is an ideal. Finally, let A∈H, and B∈G0 with B⊆A. Take a non-zero element h∈R such that h1A∈I. Note that h1B=h1B1A∈I. Hence B∈H and H is hereditary.
Now we show that H is saturated. Let v∈G0 be such that 0<∣s−1(v)∣<∞. Suppose that for each e∈s−1(v), it holds that r(e)∈H. Then for each e∈s−1(v) there is a non-zero he∈R such that he1r(e)∈I. Since I is F-invariant then he1e=heβe(1e−1)=βe(he1r(e))∈I. Define h=e∈s−1(v)∏he, which is non-zero since R is a domain. Then h1e∈I for each e∈s−1(v) and so h1v=e∈s−1(v)∑h1e∈I, from where we get that v∈H and H is saturated.
□
We can now describe the relation between F-simplicity of D and hereditary and saturated subcollections of G0.
Theorem 4.6
Let R be a field. Then, the algebra D is F-simple if, and only if, the only hereditary and saturated subcollections of G0 are ∅ and G0.
Proof.
Suppose first that the only saturated and hereditary subcollections of G0 are ∅ and G0. Let I⊆D be a non-zero, F-invariant ideal. We show that I=D. Let J be the set of all finite sums ∑atδt, with at∈Dt∩I. Notice that J is is non-zero and is an ideal of D⋊βF, since I is F-invariant. Then, by Proposition 4.2, there exists a v∈G0, and a non-zero h∈R such that h1vδ0∈J. Since J∩D0δ0=Iδ0 then h1v∈I. Let H={A∈G0:h1A∈I for some non-zero h∈R}. By Lemma 4.5 H is hereditary and saturated (and H=∅ since v∈H), and hence H=G0. Then, for each A∈G0, there exists a non-zero element h∈R such that h1A∈I and. Since R is a field we have that 1A∈I, and it follows that I=D0.
Now suppose that D0 is F-simple. Let H⊆G0 be nonempty, hereditary and saturated. We need to show that H=G0.
Let I be the ideal in D⋊βF generated by the set {1Aδ0:A∈H}, that is, I is the linear span of all the elements of the form arδr1Aδ0asδs, with r,s∈F, ar∈Dr and as∈Ds. Let J={a:aδ0∈Dδ0∩I}, which is a non-zero ideal of D. Moreover, J is F invariant, since if at∈J∩Dt then atδ0∈I and βt−1(at)δ0=1t−1δt−1atδ01tδt∈I. Since D is F-simple then J=D.
Our next step is to show that {u}∈H, for each vertex u∈G0.
Let u∈G0. Then we can write
[TABLE]
with At∈H. Multiplying the above equation by 1uδ0 we get that
[TABLE]
where T={t:1uβt(βt−1(xt)1Atyt−1)=0}.
In particular, for each t∈T we have that 1u1t=0 and 1At1t−1=0.
If u∈r(b), for some b∈W with {s(b)}∈H, then {u}∈H since H is hereditary. If 0<∣s−1(u)∣<∞, and r(e)∈H for each e∈s−1(u), then {u}∈H since H is saturated. So we are left with the cases when there is no path b with {s(b)}∈H and u∈r(b) and either s−1(u)=∅, ∣s−1(u)∣=∞, or 0<∣s−1(u)∣<∞ but r(e)∈/H for some e∈s−1(u). Since there is no path b∈W such that {s(b)}∈H and u∈r(b) then, for each b∈W, we get that
[TABLE]
(notice that if b∈W is such that u∈r(b) then, since H is hereditary, s(b)∈/A and hence 1A1s(b)yb=0). So each non zero element t∈T is of the form t=ab−1, with a∈W and b∈W∪{0}.
Case 1: s−1(u)=∅, and there is no path b with s(b)∈H and u∈r(b).
For each t=ab−1∈F with a∈W and b∈W∪{0}, we have that 1u1t=0, since u is a sink, and so t=ab−1∈/T. So T={0} and then 1u=1ux01A0y0, with A0∈H. Therefore u∈A0 and so {u}∈H.
Case 2: ∣s−1(u)∣=∞, and there is no path b with {s(b)}∈H and u∈r(b).
Suppose that 0∈/T. Then each t∈T is of the form t=ab−1, with a∈W and b∈W∪{0}. Since ∣s−1(u)∣=∞ then there exists ξ∈X such that s(ξ)=s(a) for each ab−1∈T. So we get that 1=1u(ξ)=t∈T∑1uβt(βt−1(xt)1Atyt−1)(ξ)=0, a contradiction. Hence 0∈T, and so 1ux01A0y0=0. Therefore {u}⊆A0∈H and, since H is hereditary, we have that {u}∈H.
Note that it follows from Case 1, Case 2, and by the fact that H is hereditary, that if u is a vertex such that ∣s−1(u)∣=0 or ∣s−1(u)∣=∞ then {u}∈H.
Case 3: 0<∣s−1(u)∣<∞, there is an edge e∈s−1(u) with r(e)∈/H, and there is no path b with {s(b)}∈H and u∈r(b).
Let us first prove the following claim:
Claim: If e is an edge such that r(e)∈/H then there is a vertex v∈r(e) such that {v}∈/H.
Let w=s(e). Notice that {w}∈/H, since H is hereditary. Also note that there is no path d with s(d)∈{H} and w∈r(d). Therefore, since J=D, proceeding as we did for u, we have that
[TABLE]
where At∈H for each t∈S, each
1wβt(βt−1(xt′)1Atyt−1′) is non zero, 0∈/S because {w}∈/H, and each t is of the form t=ab−1, with a∈W and b∈W∪{0}.
For each t=ab−1∈T let ct=1wβt(βt−1(xt′)1Atyt−1′), so that
[TABLE]
Since 1w1t=0 then w=s(a) and, since 1At1t−1=0, we have that {s(b)}⊆At∈H. Since H is hereditary then {s(b)}∈H, and therefore r(b)∈H and also r(b)∩r(a)∈H. For t=a∈W we get At∩r(t)∈H.
By multiplying Equation (3) on the left side by 1e−1δe−1 and by 1eδe on the right side we get
[TABLE]
Notice that for t=a1...a∣a∣b−1∈S with a1=e it holds that βe−1(1ect)=0. Let M=max{∣a∣:ab−1∈S and a1=e}, and let Si={ab−1∈S:∣a∣=i and a1=e}, for 1≤i≤M. In particular note that each element of S1 is of the form t=eb−1 with b∈W∪{0}.
If e∈/S1 define
[TABLE]
and if e∈S1 define
[TABLE]
Notice that A1⊆r(e) and that A1∈H, since r(e)∩r(b)∈H for each eb−1∈S1 and r(e)∩Ae∈H.
From Equation (4) we get 1r(e)=i=1∑Mt∈Si∑βe−1(1ect).
Now we show that M>1. Seeking a contradiction suppose M=1. Then we have that
[TABLE]
Since A1⊆r(e), A1∈H, and r(e)∈/H, we have that A1 is a proper subset of r(e). So there is a vertex v such that v∈r(e)∖A1. Let ξ∈X be such that s(ξ)=v (notice that by the paragraph just above the statement of Case 3 v is not a sink). Then for each t=eb−1∈S1 we get
[TABLE]
since r(e)∩r(b)⊆A1.
Therefore
[TABLE]
a contradiction. Therefore M>1.
Recall now that for each ab−1∈S2∪...∪SM the element a is of the form a=a1a2...a∣a∣=ea2...a∣a∣. We want to show that {s(a2)}∈/H for some ab−1∈S2∪SM. Again seeking a contradiction, suppose that {s(a2)}∈H, for each ab−1∈S2∪...∪SM. Let A2 be the set of all those vertices (the vertices s(a2)). Notice that A2∈H (since we are supposing that each {s(a2)}∈H and H is hereditary), and that A2⊆r(e) (since s(a2)∈r(a1)=r(e)). So we get that A1∪A2⊆r(e) and, since A1∪A2∈H and r(e)∈/H, there exist a vertex v0∈r(e)∖(A1∪A2). Let ξ∈Xwith s(ξ)=v0.
For each eb−1∈S1 we get 1eb−1(eξ)=0, since s(ξ)∈/A1, and for each ea2...a∣a∣b−1∈S2∪...∪SM we get 1ea2...a∣a∣b−1(eξ)=0, since s(ξ)=s(a2) (because s(ξ)∈/A2). Therefore
[TABLE]
a contradiction.
So there is an element ab−1∈S2∪...∪SM (where a=ea2...a∣a∣) with {s(a2)}∈/H. Since s(a2)∈r(e), we proved the claim.
Now we prove Case 3.
Firs write 1u as in Equation (2), that is,
[TABLE]
where 1uβt(βt−1(xt)1Atyt−1)=0.
To show that {u}∈H it is enough to show that 0∈T, because in this case 0=1u1A0, what implies that u∈A0 and, since A0∈H, then {u}∈H.
Suppose, by contradiction, that 0∈/T. Then each t∈T is of the form t=ab−1 with a∈W and b∈W∪{0}. Recall that for each t=ab−1 it holds that r(a)∩r(b)∈H, and for t=a it holds that r(a)∩Aa∈H.
Let M=max{∣a∣:ab−1∈T,a∈W,b∈W∪{0}}.
By hypothesis there is an edge e0∈s−1(u) such that r(e0)∈/H. By the previous claim, there is an vertex v1∈r(e0) such that {v1}∈/H. It follows from the paragraph right after Case 2 that 0<∣s−1(v1)∣<∞. Since H is saturated there is an edge e1∈s−1(v1) such that {r(e1)}∈/H. By applying the previous argument repeatedly we get a path e0...eM such that s(ei)=vi, and {vi}∈/H, for each i∈{1,...,M}. Let ξ∈X be such that s(ξ)∈r(eM). Then e0e1...eMξ∈X and, for each t=ab−1∈T, we get
[TABLE]
since s(e∣a∣)∈/H and r(a)∩r(b)∈H. The same holds for t=a∈T. So 1t(e0...eMξ)=0 for each t∈T. Finally, we get that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
a contradiction. Therefore 0∈T and Case 3 is proved.
So, we get that {u}∈H for each u∈G0.
To end the proof notice that, by [11, Lemma 2.12], any A∈G0 can be written as
[TABLE]
where X1,…,Xn are finite subsets of G1, and F
is a finite subset of G0. Since H is hereditary and {s(e)}∈H, we have that r(e)∈H for each e∈G1. The result now follows from the fact that H is hereditary.
□
We can now prove the simplicity criteria for the Leavitt path algebra of an ultragraph G, LR(G), via partial skew group ring theory.
Theorem 4.7
Let G be an ultragraph and R be a field. Then LR(G) is simple if, and only if, G satisfies condition (L) and the unique saturated and hereditary subcollections of G0 are ∅ and G0.
Proof.
By Theorem 3.10, LR(G) and D⋊βF are isomorphic algebras. By [5, 2.3], the algebra D⋊βF is simple if, and only if, D is F-simple and Dδ0 is maximal commutative in D⋊βF. The result now follows from Theorems 4.1 and 4.6.
□
In [12, Teorem 3.11] Tomforde gives a complete combinatorial description of ulgragraphs such that the associated ultragraph C*-algebra is simple. Since this description is obtained based only on the description of simplicity via hereditary and saturated collections the theorem above implies that we have the same description for LR(G). For reader’s convenience we state the theorem below, but for this we need to recall a few definitions.
For an ultragraph G, and v,w∈G0, the notation w≥v means that there is a path α with s(α)=w and v∈r(α). Also, G0≥{v} means that w≥v for each w∈G0. The ultragraph G is said to be cofinal if for each infinite path α=e1e2..., and each vertex v∈G0, there is an i∈N such that v≥s(ei). Moreover, for v∈G0 and A⊆G0 we write v→A to mean that there are paths α1,...,αn such that s(αi)=v, for all 1≤i≤n, and A⊆i=1⋃nr(αi).
Theorem 4.8
Let G be an ultragraph and R be a field. Then LR(G) is simple if and only if:
-
G* satisfies condition (L)*
2. 2.
G* is cofinal*
3. 3.
G0≥{v}* for every singular vertex v∈G0*
4. 4.
If e∈G1 is an edge for which the set r(e) is infinite, then for every w∈G0 there exists a set Aw⊆r(e) for which r(e)∖Aw is finite and v→Aw.
Proof.
The proof of this theorem relies only on the fact that the only hereditary and saturaded subcollections of G0 are ∅ and G0. So the proof given in [12, Theorem 3.11] applies.
□
5 Chain conditions
In [10] chain conditions are described for partial skew groupoid rings. As an application a new proof of the criteria for a Leavitt path algebra to be artinian is given. Namely, a Leavitt path algebra associated to a graph E is artinian iff E is finite and acyclic (A graph (ultragraph) is called acyclic if there are no cycles in the graph (ultragraph)). Building from the ideas in [10] we show that this same criteria is true for ultragraph Leavitt path algebras. In our proof we will use that any ultragraph Leavitt path algebra of a finite acyclic ultragraph is isomorphic to a Leavitt path algebra of a finite acyclic graph, a result we state precisely below.
Let G=(G0,G1,r,s) be a finite ultragraph. Enumerate G0, say
[TABLE]
Define a map c:G1→{0,1}n by c(e)=(yi), where yi={10\mboxifvi∈r(e)\mboxifvi∈/r(e).
Consider the graph F=(G0,F1,r,s), where the set of edges F1 consists of all edges defined as follows: For each edge e∈G1 and i∈{1,…,n} such that c(e)i=1, let fei be the edge such that s(fei)=s(e) and r(fei)=vi. We can now state the following proposition, a proof of which is left to the reader.
Proposition 5.1
Let G be a finite ultragraph, that is, suppose that G0 and G1 are finite, and let F be the associated graph as defined above. Then LR(G) is isomorphic to LR(F). Furthermore, if G is acyclic then F is acyclic.
We end the paper with the characterization of artinian ultragraph Leavitt path algebras. Recall that a ring is left (right) artinian if it satisfies the descending chain condition on left (right) ideals, and artinian if it is both left and right artinian.
Theorem 5.2
Let R be a field and let G be an ultragraph.
Consider LR(G), the ultragraph Leavitt path algebra of G. Then the following five assertions are equivalent:
- (i)
G* is finite and acyclic;*
2. (ii)
LR(G)* is left artinian;*
3. (iii)
LR(G)* is right artinian;*
4. (iv)
LR(G)* is artinian;*
5. (v)
LR(G)* is unital and semisimple.*
Proof.
All we need to prove is that (ii)⇒(i). The other implications follow from Proposition 5.1 and [10, Theorem 5.2].
(ii)⇒(i): The proof of this implication will follow closely the proof of [10, Theorem 5.2] for Leavitt path algebras. We include it here for completeness.
Suppose that LR(G)≅D⋊βF is left artinian.
By [10, Theorem 1.3], we get that Dg={0} for all but finitely many g∈F, and D is left artinian.
Assume that there exists an infinite path p=e1e2e3… in G. Then the ideals De1, De1e2, De1e2e3, …are all non-zero, a contradiction. Therefore there is no infinite path in G, and hence G must be acyclic.
Next we prove that G is finite. Notice that if G0={v1,v2,v3,…} is infinite then
[TABLE]
is a descending chain of left ideals of LR(G) that never stabilizes (since every pair of vertices in G0 are orthogonal idempotents).
Hence, LR(G) is not left artinian, a contradiction. Therefore G0 is finite.
We finish the proof showing that G1 is finite. Since G0 is finite it is enough to prove that G0 contains no infinite emitter.
Seeking a contradiction, suppose that there is a vertex v∈G0 which is an infinite emitter.
Since G0 is finite, there must exist some u∈G0 such that
the set I={e∈E1∣s(e)=v and u∈r(e)} is infinite. If u is a sink then (u,u)∈Xe−1 for all e∈I, and hence De−1 is non-zero for infinitely many e∈I, a contradiction. Suppose u is not a sink. Then there exists a path η∈X such that s(η)=u. Hence Xe−1 contains η for each e∈I. Therefore De−1 is non-zero for infinitely many e∈I, a contradiction.
□