Alphabeta Math
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

✓ 23 results · all verified · 13 also independently AI-judged
Every result on this page is machine-checked by a proof checker and read in full and owner-audited; the judge is an additional, independent cross-model AI review of the proofs. The 10 not AI-judged were verified by owner audit (typically over a confirmed judge false positive), not failures.

Modular Representations and Projective Covers

1 · Prerequisites

2 · Summary

This page fixes a splitting p-modular system, records reduction of OG-lattices, replaces the semisimple Maschke picture with radicals and Nakayama, develops projective covers and indecomposable projectives for kG, and ends with relative projectivity together with the vertex/source package that stays below full block theory.

3 · Logical flowchart

4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs

DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

A p-modular system is a characteristic-zero fraction field over a complete discrete valuation ring with residue field of characteristic p

Definition

Fix a prime p. A p-modular system is a triple (K,O,k) such that:

O⊆K is a complete discrete valuation ring,K=Frac⁡(O),k=O/m,

where m is the maximal ideal of O, the fraction field K has characteristic 0, and the residue field k has characteristic p.

The completeness is with respect to the m-adic topology from The I-adic topology on a module and Separated and complete filtered modules, and the valuation-ring condition is the one recorded in Discrete valuation rings.

DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

A splitting p-modular system for a finite group is a p-modular system whose fraction and residue fields split the needed group algebras

Definition

Let G be a finite group. A splitting p-modular system for G is a p-modular system (K,O,k) such that both K and k are splitting fields for every subgroup H≤G.

Thus the characteristic-0 fraction field and the characteristic-p residue field satisfy the splitting-field condition of A splitting field for a finite group: every irreducible representation has scalar endomorphism ring simultaneously for the determinate family of subgroups of G.

DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

An OG-lattice is a finite free module over the valuation ring with G-action, and reduction modulo the maximal ideal produces a kG-module

Definition

Let (K,O,k) be a splitting p-modular system for a finite group G. An OG-lattice is a left OG-module L that is finite free as an O-module.

Its reduction modulo the maximal ideal m of O is

L‾:=k⊗OL≅L/mL.

Because the G-action on L is O-linear, it descends to a G-action on L‾, so L‾ is a kG-module in the sense of An R-linear action of G on a left R-module, and a G-module over R.

LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

Reducing an OG-lattice modulo the maximal ideal gives a finite-dimensional kG-module

Statement

If L is an OG-lattice, then L‾=L/mL is a finite-dimensional kG-module.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A splitting p-modular system (K,O,k) for a finite group G and an OG-lattice L.

[F1]

An OG-lattice is finite free over O, and its reduction modulo m is L/mL≅k⊗OL with induced G-action (An OG-lattice is a finite free module over the valuation ring with G-action, and reduction modulo the maximal ideal produces a kG-module).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1F1givenchoosealgebra

By [F1], choose an O-basis of L of size r<∞. Tensoring with k=O/m sends that basis to a k-basis of k⊗OL≅L/mL, so dim⁡kL‾=r.

2.1F1step 1.1algebra∎

The G-action on L is O-linear, so mL is G-stable and the quotient action on L/mL is well defined. Thus L‾ is a finite-dimensional kG-module.

RemarkRemark: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

When the characteristic divides the group order, Maschke can fail and kG need not be semisimple

Remark

Maschke's theorem is not the ambient mechanism on this page. When char⁡k divides ∣G∣, the group algebra k[G] can fail to be semisimple, as recorded in If char⁡k∣∣G∣, then k[G] is not semisimple. The replacement structure here is the radical/projective-cover package rather than ordinary complete reducibility.

DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicableverified 2026-09-26 (gpt-6-sol)Open item page →

The Jacobson radical of a finite-dimensional algebra is the intersection of its maximal left ideals

Definition

Let A be a finite-dimensional algebra over a field. Its Jacobson radical is

J(A):=⋂{L<A:L is a maximal left ideal of A}.

When A≠0, maximal proper left ideals exist without a choice principle: the proper left ideal 0 exists, and among dimensions of proper left ideals choose the largest integer. An ideal of that dimension is maximal because strict containment strictly increases vector-space dimension. On finite-dimensional algebras J(A) is two-sided: for each simple left A-module S and each 0≠s∈S, the kernel of the surjection A→S, a↦as, is a maximal left ideal. Hence an element in every maximal left ideal annihilates every simple left module. Conversely, an element annihilating every simple left module lies in each maximal left ideal by applying it to A/L and 1+L. Thus J(A) is the intersection of the two-sided annihilators of all simple left modules, so A/J(A) is an algebra. This radical agrees with the usual right-sided definition.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedverified 2026-09-26 (gpt-6-sol)Open item page →

For a finite-dimensional algebra, the Jacobson radical is nilpotent and the quotient by it is semisimple

Statement

Let A be a finite-dimensional algebra over a field and let J=J(A). Then J is nilpotent, and the quotient algebra A/J is semisimple.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite-dimensional algebra A and its Jacobson radical J=J(A).

[F1]

The Jacobson radical is the intersection of the maximal left ideals (The Jacobson radical of a finite-dimensional algebra is the intersection of its maximal left ideals).

[L1]

A strict chain of submodules of a finite-dimensional module strictly changes vector-space dimension, so ascending and descending chains are finite. A composition series can be built by repeatedly choosing a nonzero submodule of least positive dimension in a quotient; each choice is from a finite set of possible dimensions. [algebra]

[L2]

Every nonzero finite-dimensional module has a maximal proper submodule: among proper submodules choose one with largest vector-space dimension; 0 ensures the candidate dimensions are nonempty, and strict containment would increase dimension. [algebra]

[L3]

A simple module is a nonzero module with no proper nonzero submodule (Simple module: a nonzero module with no proper nonzero submodule).

[L4]

A unital ring is semisimple when its left regular module is semisimple (A semisimple ring as a ring whose left regular module is semisimple).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1F1L1L2L3givenalgebra

The left regular module AA is finite-dimensional, so [L1] makes the descending chain A⊇J⊇J2⊇⋯ stabilize: choose n with Jn=Jn+1. If Jn≠0, [L2] gives a maximal submodule N of the finite-dimensional left A-module Jn, so S=Jn/N is simple by [L3]. For every nonzero s∈S, the map A→S, a↦as, is onto; its kernel is a maximal left ideal, hence contains J by [F1]. Thus Js=0 for every s, so JS=0 and Jn+1=JJn⊆N, contradicting Jn+1=Jn. Therefore Jn=0, so J is nilpotent.

1.2F1L1L2L3giveninduction

Maximal left ideals of A/J are exactly the quotients L/J with L a maximal left ideal of A containing J, so their intersection is 0 by [F1]. Let M=A/J(A/J) be the left regular module. It is finite-dimensional. We prove by induction on vector-space dimension that any finite-dimensional module whose maximal submodules intersect trivially is semisimple. If M=0 there is nothing to prove. Otherwise choose a nonzero submodule S≤M of least positive dimension, so S is simple. Since the intersection of maximal submodules is 0, some maximal submodule N does not contain S. Then S∩N=0, and maximality makes (S+N)/N a nonzero submodule of the simple quotient M/N, so M=S⊕N. For any nonzero x∈N, choose a maximal submodule L of M avoiding x. The image of N in the simple module M/L is nonzero and hence all of M/L, so N∩L is a maximal submodule of N avoiding x. Thus the maximal submodules of N also intersect trivially. Its dimension is smaller than that of M, so induction makes N semisimple, hence so is M.

2.1L4step 1.1step 1.2∎

By step 1.2, the left regular module of A/J is semisimple. Thus [L4] makes the quotient algebra A/J semisimple. Together with step 1.1, this proves the theorem.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-04Open item page →

For a finite-dimensional algebra, the module radical is exactly the action of the Jacobson radical

Statement

Let A be a finite-dimensional algebra with Jacobson radical J(A), and let M be a finite-dimensional left A-module. If

rad⁡(M):=⋂{N<M:N maximal submodule of M},

then

rad⁡(M)=J(A)M.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite-dimensional algebra A, its Jacobson radical J=J(A), and a finite-dimensional left A-module M.

[F1]

The Jacobson radical is the intersection of maximal left ideals (The Jacobson radical of a finite-dimensional algebra is the intersection of its maximal left ideals).

[L2]

A simple module is a nonzero module with no proper nonzero submodule (Simple module: a nonzero module with no proper nonzero submodule).

[L3]

Over a semisimple ring every module is semisimple (Equivalent module-theoretic characterizations of semisimple rings).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1F1L2givenalgebra

If M=0, then J(A)M=0 and rad⁡(M)=0, so the claim is immediate. Assume from now on that M≠0. Let N be a maximal submodule of M. Then M/N has no proper nonzero submodule, so it is simple by [L2]. Fix m∈M. If m∈N, then every j∈J already satisfies jm∈N. If m∉N, then the nonzero coset m+N generates the simple module M/N, so the A-linear map θm:A→M/N,a↦am+N is surjective. Its kernel Im:={a∈A:am∈N} is therefore a maximal left ideal of A. By [F1], J is contained in every maximal left ideal, so J⊆Im and hence jm∈N for every j∈J. Thus JM⊆N. Since N was arbitrary, JM⊆rad⁡(M).

2.1L1L3step 1.1algebra

Consider the quotient module M/JM. Because J acts trivially on it, M/JM is naturally a module over the semisimple ring A/J from [L1]. Therefore [L3] makes M/JM semisimple, so the intersection of its maximal submodules is 0. Maximal submodules of M/JM correspond exactly to maximal submodules of M containing JM, and their intersection is rad⁡(M)/JM. Hence rad⁡(M)/JM=0.

3.1step 1.1step 2.1∎

Step 1.1 gives JM⊆rad⁡(M) and step 2.1 gives the reverse inclusion. Therefore rad⁡(M)=J(A)M.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

Over a finite-dimensional algebra, a module annihilated modulo its radical is zero, and generators lift from the head

Statement

Let A be a finite-dimensional algebra with Jacobson radical J, and let M be a finite-dimensional left A-module.

  1. If M=JM, then M=0.
  2. If elements m1,…,mr∈M span M/JM, then they generate M.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite-dimensional algebra A with Jacobson radical J and a finite-dimensional left A-module M.

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L2givenalgebra

If M=JM, then iterating the equality gives M=JnM for every n≥1. Choose n with Jn=0 from [L2]. Then M=JnM=0.

2.1L1step 1.1givenalgebra

Let N:=Am1+⋯+Amr. By hypothesis, the images of the mi span M/JM, so M=N+JM. Hence M/N=J(M/N). Applying part 1 to the module M/N and using [L1], we obtain M/N=0. Therefore M=N, so m1,…,mr generate M.

3.1step 1.1step 2.1∎

Steps 1.1 and 2.1 are exactly the two asserted conclusions.

LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-04Open item page →

For a finite p-group in characteristic p, the augmentation ideal of the group algebra is nilpotent

Statement

Let P be a finite p-group and let k be a field of characteristic p. Then the augmentation ideal IP⊆k[P] is nilpotent.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite p-group P, a field k of characteristic p, and the augmentation ideal IP⊆k[P].

[F1]

The augmentation ideal is the kernel of the augmentation map (The augmentation map ε:R[G]→R and the augmentation ideal IG=ker⁡ε).

[L1]

The basis elements [g] multiply as [g][h]=[gh] in k[P] (The group ring R[G] is a unital R-algebra with basis G, and each g∈G is a unit of R[G]).

[L2]

The algebra k[P] has dimension ∣P∣ (If G is finite then dim⁡kk[G]=∣G∣).

[L3]

Every nontrivial finite p-group has a nontrivial central element of order p (Every nontrivial finite p-group has nontrivial center, in fact p divides ∣Z(P)∣).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1F1L1L3givenchooseinductionalgebra

We argue by induction on ∣P∣. If P=1, then IP=0 by [F1], so the claim is trivial. Assume P≠1. By [L3], choose a central element z∈Z(P) of order p. Then ([z]−1)p=[zp]−1=0 in characteristic p, using [L1] and the binomial theorem with vanishing intermediate coefficients. Hence the principal ideal generated by [z]−1 is nilpotent.

2.1F1L2step 1.1inductionalgebra∎

Because z is central, the quotient map P→P/⟨z⟩ induces an algebra surjection k[P]→k[P/⟨z⟩] whose kernel is the ideal ([z]−1)k[P]. Under this map the augmentation ideal of k[P] maps onto the augmentation ideal of k[P/⟨z⟩]. By the induction hypothesis, some power of IP lands inside ([z]−1)k[P]. Since step 1.1 makes that ideal nilpotent, a further power of IP is 0. Therefore IP is nilpotent.

PropositionStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-04Open item page →

For a finite group and a field of characteristic p, the group algebra is a symmetric Frobenius algebra via the coefficient of the identity

Statement

Let G be a finite group and k a field. The bilinear form

⟨x,y⟩:=the coefficient of [e] in xy

on the group algebra k[G] is associative, symmetric, and nondegenerate. Hence k[G] is a symmetric Frobenius algebra.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite group G and a field k.

[L1]

Its dimension is ∣G∣, so this basis is finite (If G is finite then dim⁡kk[G]=∣G∣).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1F1L1givenalgebra

On basis elements one has ⟨[g],[h]⟩={1,h=g−1,0,h≠g−1. Thus the matrix of the form in the basis from [F1] is a permutation matrix, so the form is nondegenerate.

2.1F1step 1.1algebra

Associativity is immediate from the definition, because ⟨xy,z⟩ and ⟨x,yz⟩ are both the coefficient of [e] in xyz. Symmetry holds because the coefficient of [e] in [g][h] is 1 exactly when h=g−1, which is equivalent to g=h−1 and hence to the coefficient of [e] in [h][g] being 1. Bilinearity is clear from the coefficient functional. Therefore the form is associative, symmetric, and nondegenerate.

3.1L1step 2.1∎

A finite-dimensional algebra equipped with such a bilinear form is symmetric Frobenius. Hence k[G] has the stated structure.

CorollaryStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-04Open item page →

Over a finite group algebra in defining characteristic, finite-dimensional projective and injective modules coincide

Statement

Let A=k[G] with G finite. For finite-dimensional left A-modules, projective and injective are equivalent properties.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The finite-dimensional algebra A=k[G] and a finite-dimensional left A-module.

[F1]

Projective modules are characterized by lifting and by being direct summands of free modules (Projective modules and the lifting property, Equivalent characterizations of projective modules).

[F2]

Injective modules are characterized by extension and by splitting short exact sequences starting in the module (Injective modules and the extension property, Equivalent characterizations of injective modules).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1F2givenalgebra

Let A∨=Hom⁡k(A,k). The symmetric Frobenius form from [L1] identifies A with A∨ as left A-modules. An A-map U→A∨ is determined by the scalar function u↦f(u)(1), and any k-linear extension of that scalar function from a submodule U⊆V to V induces an A-linear extension V→A∨. Thus A∨, and hence A, is injective.

2.1F1F2step 1.1algebra

If P is projective, [F1] makes it a direct summand of a finite free module An. Step 1.1 makes An injective, and a direct summand of an injective module is injective by [F2]. So every finite-dimensional projective module is injective.

2.2L1F1F2step 1.1algebra

Conversely, let I be injective. Dualizing a split monomorphism into I turns the extension property of [F2] into the lifting property for the right A-module I∨, so I∨ is projective over Aop. By the projective characterization in [F1], I∨ is a direct summand of a finite free right A-module. Dualizing back and using the symmetric Frobenius identification (An)∨≅An, the bidual I∨∨≅I becomes a direct summand of a finite free left A-module. Hence [F1] makes I projective.

3.1step 2.1step 2.2∎

Steps 2.1 and 2.2 prove the equivalence.

DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

The radical, socle, head, and Loewy series of a finite-dimensional module

Definition

Let A be a finite-dimensional algebra and M a finite-dimensional left A-module.

The simple subquotients appearing in the Loewy layers are simple in the sense of Simple module: a nonzero module with no proper nonzero submodule.

LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-04Open item page →

For a finite-length module, the radical is a superfluous submodule

Statement

Let M be a finite-length module. If N≤M and N+rad⁡(M)=M, then N=M.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite-length module M and a submodule N≤M with N+rad⁡(M)=M.

[F1]

The module radical is the intersection of the maximal submodules, and the head is M/rad⁡(M) (The radical, socle, head, and Loewy series of a finite-dimensional module).

[L1]

Finite length means a composition series exists (Composition series and length of a module).

[L2]

Every nonzero finitely generated module has a maximal proper submodule (Under Choice, every finitely generated nonzero module has a maximal proper submodule).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1L2givenassume-contraalgebra

Assume for contradiction that N≠M. Since M has finite length by [L1], it is finitely generated. Therefore the nonzero quotient M/N has a maximal proper submodule by [L2], and its inverse image in M is a maximal submodule P containing N.

2.1F1step 1.1discharge-contradiction∎

By [F1], the radical lies in every maximal submodule, so rad⁡(M)⊆P. Hence M=N+rad⁡(M)⊆P<M, a contradiction. Therefore N=M, and the radical is superfluous.

DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

An essential epimorphism is a surjection with superfluous kernel, and a projective cover is a projective source with such a map

Definition

An essential epimorphism of modules is a surjective homomorphism π:P→M whose kernel is superfluous: whenever N≤P and N+ker⁡π=P, one already has N=P.

A projective cover of M is an essential epimorphism π:P→M with P projective in the sense of Projective modules and the lifting property and Equivalent characterizations of projective modules.

The superfluous-kernel language is the one used on this page, motivated by For a finite-length module, the radical is a superfluous submodule.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passOpen item page →

Every finite-dimensional module has a projective cover, unique up to isomorphism over the target

Statement

Let A be a finite-dimensional algebra and M a finite-dimensional left A-module. Then M has a projective cover. If π:P→M and ρ:Q→M are projective covers, then there is an isomorphism f:P→Q with ρ∘f=π.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite-dimensional algebra A and a finite-dimensional left A-module M.

[F2]

Projectivity is the lifting property against surjective module homomorphisms (Projective modules and the lifting property).

[L1]

For a free module with a finite enumerated basis, choosing lifts of its finitely many basis values and extending linearly proves projectivity in ZF, without AC (Free modules are projective, with the exact choice boundary, finite-basis clause).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1F2L1givenchooseconstruct

Choose a finite k-basis m1,…,mr of M. It also generates M as an A-module, so sending the standard generators to the mi gives a surjection ε:Ar→M. Among the direct summands P of the finite-dimensional module Ar for which ε∣P:P→M is surjective, choose one of minimal k-dimension; the family is nonempty because it contains Ar. Put π:=ε∣P, and write j:P→Ar and s:Ar→P for the inclusion and projection, with sj=1P. For any surjection q:E→X and map u:P→X, choose yi∈E with q(yi)=u(s(ei)) for the finitely many standard basis vectors ei. These finite choices need no AC by [L1]. The formula v(∑iaiei)=∑iaiyi defines an A-linear map v:Ar→E with qv=us, so q(vj)=usj=u. Thus P is projective by [F2], including when r=0.

2.1F2step 1.1construct

Put K=ker⁡π, and suppose N≤P satisfies N+K=P. Then π∣N:N→M is surjective. Projectivity of P supplies a map h:P→N with (π∣N)h=π; write f:P→P for h followed by the inclusion. Thus πf=π, and hence πfn=π for every n≥1.

3.1F1step 1.1step 2.1algebra

Since P is finite-dimensional, the kernels and images of the powers of f stabilize. For a sufficiently large n, P=ker⁡(fn)⊕im⁡(fn): the intersection is zero because fn(x)=0 for x=fn(y) implies f2n(y)=0 and stabilization gives fn(y)=0, while rank-nullity gives that the two dimensions sum to dim⁡kP. The restriction of π to im⁡(fn) is surjective because πfn=π. Minimality of P in step 1.1 therefore forces ker⁡(fn)=0. Hence f is injective and thus bijective, so P=f(P)⊆N. Therefore N=P, K is superfluous, and π is a projective cover.

4.1F1step 3.1algebra

Now let π:P→M and ρ:Q→M be projective covers. Both sources are finite-dimensional: lift a finite k-basis of M to P, let P0 be the submodule generated by those lifts, and observe that P=P0+ker⁡π; superfluity gives P=P0, which is finite-dimensional because A is. The same argument applies to Q. Projectivity yields maps f:P→Q and g:Q→P with ρf=π and πg=ρ. Then π(1P−gf)=0, so (1P−gf)(P)⊆ker⁡π. Hence P=gf(P)+ker⁡π, and the superfluity of ker⁡π gives gf(P)=P. Thus gf is surjective, hence bijective on the finite-dimensional module P. The same argument shows that fg is bijective on Q. Since gf is bijective, f is injective; since fg is surjective, f is surjective. Therefore f is an isomorphism, and it still satisfies ρ∘f=π.

5.1step 1.1step 2.1step 3.1step 4.1∎

Steps 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, and 4.1 prove existence and uniqueness up to isomorphism over the target.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

Indecomposable projective kG-modules correspond to simple modules through taking the head

Statement

For a finite-dimensional algebra A, sending an indecomposable finite-dimensional projective module P to its head P/rad⁡(P) induces a bijection between isomorphism classes of indecomposable finite-dimensional projective modules and isomorphism classes of simple finite-dimensional modules. The inverse sends a simple module S to its projective cover.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite-dimensional algebra A.

[L1]

Every finite-dimensional module has a projective cover, unique up to isomorphism over the target (Every finite-dimensional module has a projective cover, unique up to isomorphism over the target).

[F1]

The head of a module is the quotient by its radical (The radical, socle, head, and Loewy series of a finite-dimensional module).

[L2]

The radical of a finite-length module is superfluous (For a finite-length module, the radical is a superfluous submodule).

[L3]

For a finite-dimensional algebra A, the quotient A/J(A) is semisimple (For a finite-dimensional algebra, the Jacobson radical is nilpotent and the quotient by it is semisimple).

[F2]

A semisimple module is a direct sum of simple submodules (Semisimple modules as direct sums of simple modules).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1givenalgebra

Let π:P→S be the projective cover of a simple module S. If P=P1⊕P2, then S=π(P1)+π(P2), so simplicity forces one summand, say π(P1), to equal S. Then P=P1+ker⁡π, and because ker⁡π is superfluous in a projective cover, P=P1. Hence P2=0, so the projective cover of a simple module is indecomposable.

1.2F1F2L2L3givenalgebra

Now let P be an indecomposable finite-dimensional projective module, and put J=J(A). The quotient map P→hd⁡(P)=P/JP is a projective cover: its kernel is rad⁡(P)=JP by [F1], and that kernel is superfluous by [L2]. The head is nonzero, since otherwise the superfluity condition applied with the zero submodule would force P=0. It is a finite-dimensional module over the semisimple algebra B=A/J by [L3]. Choose finitely many vector-space generators to make it a quotient of a finite sum of copies of BB. By [L3] and [F2], that sum is a finite direct sum of simple modules. Its quotient is likewise a finite direct sum of simples: process the summands in order; the image of each is zero or simple, and either lies in the sum of earlier images or meets that sum trivially, so retain exactly the latter images. Thus hd⁡(P)≅S1⊕⋯⊕Sr for some r≥1.

2.1L1L2F1step 1.2algebra

For each Si, let πi:Qi→Si be its finite-dimensional projective cover from [L1], with kernel Ki. The finite direct sum Q=⨁iQi is projective by lifting one component at a time, and π=⨁iπi:Q→⨁iSi is surjective with kernel K=⨁iKi. Each Ki is superfluous. If a maximal submodule of Qi omitted Ki, their sum would equal Qi, a contradiction; hence Ki⊆rad⁡(Qi)=JQi by [F1]. Therefore K⊆⨁iJQi=JQ=rad⁡(Q), and [L2] makes K superfluous because Q is finite-dimensional. Thus π is a projective cover of the head. Uniqueness in [L1] gives P≅Q. Each Qi≠0 because it surjects onto Si≠0; indecomposability of P therefore forces r=1. Thus the head is simple.

3.1L1step 1.1step 1.2step 2.1∎

Step 1.1 constructs an indecomposable projective from each simple module, and steps 1.2–2.1 show that taking the head of an indecomposable projective returns a simple module. The two constructions are inverse up to isomorphism by uniqueness of projective covers.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passverified 2026-09-23 (gpt-6-sol)Open item page →

Finite-dimensional kG-modules decompose as finite direct sums of indecomposables uniquely up to order and isomorphism

Statement

Every finite-dimensional module over a finite-dimensional algebra is a finite direct sum of indecomposable modules, and the multiset of indecomposable summands is unique up to isomorphism and permutation.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite-dimensional left module M over a finite-dimensional algebra.

[F2]

Finite direct sums have coordinate inclusions and projections; the endomorphisms of a module form a ring (The direct sum of an indexed family of modules, The endomorphism ring End⁡R(M) under addition and composition).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1F1giveninduction

Prove existence by induction on d=dim⁡kM. If M=0 or M is indecomposable there is nothing to split. Otherwise M=M1⊕M2 with both summands nonzero. By dimension additivity, 0<dim⁡kMi<d for each i, so the induction hypothesis decomposes each Mi into finitely many indecomposables. Their combined list decomposes M.

1.2F1F2givenalgebra

Let X be a nonzero indecomposable finite-dimensional module and f∈End⁡(X). The dimensions of ker⁡fn increase and are bounded by dim⁡kX, so for some n≥1, ker⁡fn=ker⁡f2n. If y=fn(x) lies in ker⁡fn, then x∈ker⁡f2n=ker⁡fn and y=0. Rank-nullity therefore gives X=ker⁡fn⊕im⁡fn. Both are submodules. Indecomposability makes one summand zero: in the first case f is injective and hence invertible in finite dimension; in the second fn=0. Thus every endomorphism of X is invertible or nilpotent.

2.1F2step 1.2algebra

A nilpotent f has inverse 1+f+⋯+fn−1 for 1−f. If nonunits a,b of End⁡(X) had unit sum u=a+b, then u−1a and u−1b would still be nonunits and would sum to 1; the first is nilpotent by step 1.2, so the second 1−u−1a would be a unit, a contradiction. Thus the nonunits are closed under finite sums. This is the only endomorphism-ring property needed below; no commutativity is assumed.

3.1F2step 2.1algebra

For uniqueness induct on dim⁡kM. Suppose M=X⊕A=Y1⊕⋯⊕Ys, with X and all Yj nonzero indecomposable. The identity of X is the sum of composites ej:X↪M↠Yj↪M↠X. By step 2.1 at least one ej is a unit. Write its two factors as a:X→Yj and b:Yj→X, so ba is invertible. Then a(ba)−1 splits the surjection b, giving Yj=a(X)⊕ker⁡b. Indecomposability of Yj forces ker⁡b=0, hence X≅Yj and b is an isomorphism.

4.1F1F2step 3.1inductionalgebra∎

Put B=⨁i≠jYi. Since the projection M→X restricts to the isomorphism b:Yj→X, the projection M→B restricts to an isomorphism A→B: its kernel is A∩Yj=0, and for every z∈B subtract from z the unique y∈Yj with the same X-projection to obtain a preimage in A. Thus A≅B. Both have dimension smaller than M; induction matches their indecomposable decompositions. Adding X≅Yj proves uniqueness up to permutation and isomorphism.

CorollaryStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

The regular module is a direct sum of the projective covers of the simple modules, with the split-field multiplicities

Statement

Let A=k[G] with k a splitting field for the finite group G. Then the left regular module decomposes as

AA≅⨁S∈Irr⁡(A)P(S)⊕dim⁡kS,

where P(S) is the projective cover of the simple module S.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The finite group algebra A=k[G] over a splitting field k.

[L2]
[F1]

A splitting field is one over which the simple endomorphism rings are scalars (A splitting field for a finite group: every irreducible representation has scalar endomorphism ring).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1L2givenalgebra

By [L1], the regular module decomposes as a finite direct sum of indecomposable projective modules. By [L2], each summand is the projective cover P(S) of a unique simple module S, so AA≅⨁SP(S)⊕mS for uniquely determined multiplicities mS≥0.

2.1L3F1step 1.1algebra

Modding out by the radical preserves direct sums and sends each P(S) to its simple head S. Hence A/J(A)≅⨁SS⊕mS. By [L3], the quotient is semisimple. Since k is a splitting field by [F1], Wedderburn-Artin writes the semisimple algebra as a product of matrix algebras MnS(k), and the left regular module of MnS(k) is the simple column module repeated nS times. That simple module has k-dimension nS, so mS=dim⁡kS.

3.1step 2.1∎

Substituting the multiplicities from step 2.1 gives the displayed decomposition.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

For a finite group and a field of characteristic p, the group algebra is local exactly when the group is a p-group

Statement

Let G be a finite group and k a field of characteristic p. Then the group algebra k[G] is local if and only if G is a p-group.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite group G and a field k of characteristic p.

[F1]

The augmentation ideal IG is the kernel of the augmentation map (The augmentation map ε:R[G]→R and the augmentation ideal IG=ker⁡ε).

[L1]
[L2]

The Jacobson radical is nilpotent and the quotient by it is semisimple (For a finite-dimensional algebra, the Jacobson radical is nilpotent and the quotient by it is semisimple).

[L3]

Cauchy's theorem supplies a subgroup of order q whenever a prime q divides ∣G∣ (Cauchy's theorem: if a prime p divides ∣G∣, then G has an element of order p).

[L4]

Proof

technique · direct
1.1F1L1L2givenalgebra

Suppose first that G=P is a finite p-group. The quotient k[P]/IP is the field k, so IP is a maximal ideal by [F1]. By [L1], IP is nilpotent. Every maximal left ideal of k[P] therefore contains IP, so the Jacobson radical from The Jacobson radical of a finite-dimensional algebra is the intersection of its maximal left ideals is exactly IP. Hence k[P]/J(k[P])≅k is simple, so k[P] is local.

1.2L3L4givenalgebra

Conversely, assume k[G] is local and suppose that G is not a p-group. Choose a prime q≠p dividing ∣G∣. By [L3], G contains a subgroup C of order q. Since q is invertible in k, the element eC:=q−1∑c∈C[c]∈k[G] satisfies eC2=eC by [L4]. It is neither 0 nor 1: its coefficient at every c∈C is the nonzero scalar q−1, and either C≠G or the coefficients at the nonidentity elements still differ from those of 1=[1G].

2.1step 1.2algebra

A finite-dimensional local algebra has no nontrivial idempotent. Indeed, if e2=e with e≠0,1, then the nonzero proper left ideals Ae and A(1−e) are contained in maximal left ideals. Locality puts both inside the unique maximal left ideal, but e+(1−e)=1 then lies in that proper ideal, a contradiction. Applying this to eC contradicts step 1.2. Therefore every prime divisor of ∣G∣ is p, and G is a p-group.

3.1step 1.1step 1.2step 2.1∎

Steps 1.1, 1.2, and 2.1 prove the equivalence. The trivial group is included in the forward direction with I1=0.

CorollaryStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

A finite p-group has only the trivial simple module over a field of characteristic p

Statement

Let P be a finite p-group and k a splitting field of characteristic p. Then the only simple kP-module is the trivial module k.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite p-group P and a splitting field k of characteristic p.

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L1given

By [L1], the algebra kP has a unique simple module up to isomorphism.

2.1step 1.1givenalgebra∎

The augmentation map kP→k makes the ground field k into a simple kP-module on which every element of P acts trivially. Since step 1.1 says there is only one simple module, it must be this trivial module.

PropositionStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

A normal p-subgroup acts trivially on every simple module in characteristic p

Statement

Let N⊴G be a normal p-subgroup and let S be a simple kG-module, where k has characteristic p. Then every element of N acts trivially on S.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite group G, a normal p-subgroup N⊴G, and a simple kG-module S.

[L1]

For every characteristic-p field, the group algebra of a finite p-group is local (For a finite group and a field of characteristic p, the group algebra is local exactly when the group is a p-group).

[F1]

A simple module has no proper nonzero submodule (Simple module: a nonzero module with no proper nonzero submodule).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1F1L2givenchoosealgebra

Restrict S from G to the normal subgroup N. By [L2], the restricted module has finite length, so it contains a minimal nonzero N-submodule T. Then T is simple as an N-module by [F1].

2.1L1step 1.1givenalgebra

Since N is a finite p-group, [L1] makes kN local. Its augmentation quotient is the trivial simple module k, and every simple module over a local finite-dimensional algebra is its unique simple quotient. Hence T is the trivial kN-module. Therefore the fixed-point space SN:={s∈S:ns=s for every n∈N} contains T and is nonzero. Because N is normal in G, the subspace SN is G-stable: for g∈G, n∈N, and s∈SN, one has n(gs)=g(g−1ng)s=gs.

3.1F1step 2.1∎

The nonzero G-stable submodule SN must equal S by simplicity of S. Hence every element of N acts trivially on every vector of S.

PropositionStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-04Open item page →

Restriction and induction along a subgroup preserve projective modules

Statement

Let H≤G be finite groups and let k be a field. Then restriction Res⁡HG and induction Ind⁡HG both send projective modules to projective modules.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A subgroup H≤G and a field k.

[F1]

Projective modules are characterized by lifting and by being direct summands of free modules (Projective modules and the lifting property, Equivalent characterizations of projective modules).

[L2]

A left transversal identifies Ind⁡HGW with a finite direct sum of copies of W (A left transversal identifies Ind⁡HGW with a direct sum of [G:H] copies of W).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1F1L2givenalgebra

Let P be a projective kG-module. By [F1], it is a direct summand of a free module (kG)n. Restricting to H preserves direct sums and summands. By [L2] with W=kH, the restricted regular module Res⁡HG(kG) is a finite direct sum of copies of kH, hence is free as a kH-module. Therefore Res⁡HGP is a direct summand of a free kH-module and is projective by [F1].

2.1F1L1step 1.1algebra

Let Q be a projective kH-module. To prove that Ind⁡HGQ is projective, use the lifting characterization in [F1]. Given a surjection u:X→Y of kG-modules and a map ϕ:Ind⁡HGQ→Y, adjunction [L1] turns ϕ into a map ψ:Q→Res⁡HGY. The restriction of u is still surjective, so projectivity of Q lifts ψ to ψ~:Q→Res⁡HGX. Applying [L1] again yields a lift ϕ~:Ind⁡HGQ→X of ϕ. Thus Ind⁡HGQ is projective.

3.1step 1.1step 2.1∎

Steps 1.1 and 2.1 prove that both restriction and induction preserve projectives.

DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicableverified 2026-09-23 (gpt-6-sol)Open item page →

A module is relatively H-projective when it is a direct summand of one induced from H

Definition

Let G be a finite group, let H≤G, let k be a field, and let M be a kG-module. The module M is relatively H-projective if there exists a kH-module W such that M is a direct summand of Ind⁡HGW.

Assuming the Axiom of Choice (The Axiom of Choice), a basis B of W exists by Every vector space has a basis. When H=1 it gives Ind⁡1GW≅⨁BkG, which may have infinite rank. Thus a relatively 1-projective module is projective. Conversely, the free-summand characterization of Equivalent characterizations of projective modules realizes every projective kG-module as a summand of (kG)(I)≅Ind⁡1G(k(I)). Hence, under Choice, relative 1-projectivity recovers ordinary projectivity in the sense of Projective modules and the lifting property.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

Higman's criterion characterizes relative projectivity through the relative trace idempotent test

Statement

Let H≤G be finite groups and let M be a kG-module. Fix a left transversal T for G/H. For α∈End⁡kH(M), define its relative trace

Tr⁡HG(α)(m):=∑t∈Tt⋅α(t−1⋅m).

Then M is relatively H-projective if and only if id⁡M=Tr⁡HG(α) for some α∈End⁡kH(M).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A subgroup H≤G, a kG-module M, and a left transversal T for G/H.

[F1]

Relative H-projectivity means being a direct summand of an induced module (A module is relatively H-projective when it is a direct summand of one induced from H).

[L2]

Evaluation on a left transversal identifies an induced module with a finite direct sum of copies of the source module (A left transversal identifies Ind⁡HGW with a direct sum of [G:H] copies of W).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1F1L1L2givenalgebra

Let ε:Ind⁡HGRes⁡HGM→M be the adjunction counit, written on the transversal model as ε(f)=∑t∈Tt⋅f(t). By [L1] and [L2], a kG-module is relatively H-projective exactly when this counit splits.

2.1F1L1L2step 1.1algebra

Suppose first that M is relatively H-projective. By step 1.1 choose a kG-map s:M→Ind⁡HGRes⁡HGM with εs=id⁡M. Define α(m):=s(m)(1). For h∈H, one has s(hm)(1)=h⋅s(m)(1) because s is G-equivariant, so α∈End⁡kH(M). Then Tr⁡HG(α)(m)=∑t∈Tt⋅s(t−1m)(1)=∑t∈Tt⋅s(m)(t)=ε(s(m))=m. Hence id⁡M=Tr⁡HG(α).

3.1L1L2step 1.1step 2.1algebra

Conversely, suppose id⁡M=Tr⁡HG(α) for some α∈End⁡kH(M). Define s(m)(g):=α(g−1m) for g∈G. Because α is H-linear, s(m)(gh)=h−1s(m)(g), so s(m) lies in the induced module. The rule m↦s(m) is G-equivariant. Applying the counit of step 1.1 gives ε(s(m))=∑t∈Tt⋅α(t−1m)=Tr⁡HG(α)(m)=m. So s splits the counit, and step 1.1 makes M relatively H-projective.

4.1step 2.1step 3.1∎

Steps 2.1 and 3.1 prove the equivalence. For H=G, the transversal is {1} and the trace condition reduces to α=id⁡M, as expected.

DefinitionDefinition: Literature-sourcedProof: Not applicablejudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

A vertex is a minimal p-subgroup for relative projectivity, and a source is an indecomposable inducing summand there

Definition

Let G be a finite group, let k be a field of characteristic p, and let M be an indecomposable finite-dimensional kG-module.

  • A vertex of M is a p-subgroup Q≤G that is minimal, under inclusion, among the subgroups for which M is relatively Q-projective.

  • A source of M relative to a vertex Q is an indecomposable direct summand S of Res⁡QGM such that M is a direct summand of Ind⁡QGS.

The relative-projectivity notion is the one from A module is relatively H-projective when it is a direct summand of one induced from H, and the Higman trace criterion from Higman's criterion characterizes relative projectivity through the relative trace idempotent test is the main detection tool.

TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-04Open item page →

Vertices exist for indecomposable modules, are conjugate in G, and sources are conjugate by the appropriate normalizer

Statement

Let G be a finite group, let k be a field of characteristic p, and let M be an indecomposable finite-dimensional kG-module. Then M has a vertex and a source. Any two vertices are conjugate in G. If Q is a fixed vertex, then any two sources attached to Q are conjugate by an element of NG(Q).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite group G, a field k of characteristic p, and an indecomposable finite-dimensional kG-module M.

[F1]

A vertex is a minimal p-subgroup for relative projectivity, and a source is an indecomposable inducing summand there (A vertex is a minimal p-subgroup for relative projectivity, and a source is an indecomposable inducing summand there).

[L1]

Relative projectivity is detected by the Higman trace criterion (Higman's criterion characterizes relative projectivity through the relative trace idempotent test).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1F1L1L2givenchoosealgebra

Choose a maximal p-subgroup P≤G. Then [G:P] is prime to p, so the scalar [G:P]−1 exists in k. Let T be a left transversal for G/P, and define α=[G:P]−1id⁡M∈End⁡kP(M). By the relative trace formula in [L1], Tr⁡PG(α)(m)=∑t∈Tt⋅α(t−1m)=[G:P] [G:P]−1m=m, so M is relatively P-projective. Among the p-subgroups of G for which M is relatively projective, choose one minimal under inclusion and call it Q. Again by [L1], the adjunction counit from Ind⁡QGRes⁡QGM to M splits. Decompose Res⁡QGM into indecomposable summands using [L2]; one of their inductions must contain M as a summand. That indecomposable summand is a source for M, so vertices and sources exist.

1.2L1givenalgebra

Let R be another vertex. By [L1], choose α∈End⁡kQ(M) and β∈End⁡kR(M) with id⁡M=Tr⁡QG(α)=Tr⁡RG(β). Expand the composite of these two trace expressions and group its terms by the double cosets QxR of Q\G/R. If Dx=Q∩xR, the terms in the QxR block are permuted transitively by left conjugation from G and their stabilizer is Dx; summing one set of stabilizer representatives gives a Dx-endomorphism γx. Thus direct regrouping of the finite double sum gives id⁡M=Tr⁡QG(α)Tr⁡RG(β)=∑x∈Q\G/RTr⁡DxG(γx). This is the needed Mackey trace calculation, with every summand now a G-endomorphism of M.

2.1F1L1L2step 1.2algebra

The endomorphism ring of the indecomposable finite-length kG-module M is local by the Fitting argument in [L2]. Since the sum in step 1.2 is the identity, one summand u=Tr⁡DxG(γx) is invertible. Because u−1 is G-linear, id⁡M=uu−1=Tr⁡DxG(γxu−1), so [L1] makes M relatively Dx-projective. Minimality of the vertex Q forces Dx=Q, hence Q≤xR. Interchanging Q and R gives ∣R∣≤∣Q∣, while this containment gives ∣Q∣≤∣R∣; consequently Q=xR. Thus vertices are conjugate in G.

2.2F1L2step 1.1algebra

Fix a vertex Q and let S,T be two sources attached to it. By [F1], S is an indecomposable summand of Res⁡QGM, and M is a summand of Ind⁡QGT. Hence S is a summand of Res⁡QGInd⁡QGT≅⨁x∈Q\G/QInd⁡Q∩xQQRes⁡Q∩xQxQ(xT), where the displayed decomposition follows by partitioning G into its Q-Q double cosets and grouping the corresponding induced-function summands. By Krull-Schmidt [L2], S is a summand of one displayed term and is therefore relatively Q∩xQ-projective for some x.

3.1F1L2step 2.2algebra

The source S, viewed as a kQ-module, cannot be relatively projective for a proper subgroup D<Q: otherwise induction transitivity would make M, a summand of Ind⁡QGS, relatively D-projective, contradicting minimality of the vertex Q. Applying this to step 2.2 forces Q∩xQ=Q. Equality of the finite subgroup orders then gives xQ=Q, so x∈NG(Q). The corresponding summand in step 2.2 is xT, which is indecomposable; since S is an indecomposable direct summand of it, S≅xT. Thus sources attached to the fixed vertex are conjugate by an element of NG(Q).

4.1step 1.1step 1.2step 2.1step 2.2step 3.1∎

Steps 1.1 through 3.1 prove the theorem, with no stronger uniqueness claim than the normalizer-conjugacy stated above.

CorollaryStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

A projective indecomposable module has trivial vertex

Statement

Let G be finite and let k have characteristic p. If P is an indecomposable finite-dimensional projective kG-module, then its vertex is the trivial subgroup 1.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite group G, a field k of characteristic p, and an indecomposable finite-dimensional projective kG-module P.

[L2]

Induction from the trivial subgroup preserves projectives, and projectives are direct summands of free modules (Restriction and induction along a subgroup preserve projective modules, Equivalent characterizations of projective modules).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1L2givenalgebra

Choose a finite k-basis of P. It gives a surjection from a finite free kG-module (kG)n onto P, and projectivity splits that surjection. Thus P is a direct summand of (kG)n. But (kG)n is induced from the trivial subgroup, namely from the n-dimensional k-module. Hence P is relatively 1-projective.

2.1F1L1step 1.1∎

By [L1], P has a vertex Q. Since vertices are minimal p-subgroups for relative projectivity by [F1], and step 1.1 shows that 1 already works, one must have Q=1.

False statementConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

If the field has characteristic p and p divides |G|, then Maschke's theorem still makes kG semisimple

Statement

If char⁡k=p and p∣∣G∣, then Maschke's theorem still implies that k[G] is semisimple.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite group G and a field k with char⁡k=p∣∣G∣.

[L1]

In defining characteristic, Maschke can fail and k[G] need not be semisimple (When the characteristic divides the group order, Maschke can fail and kG need not be semisimple).

Refutation

technique · direct
1.1L1given

The remark [L1] records precisely that the defining-characteristic situation is the failure regime for Maschke's theorem.

2.1step 1.1

Therefore the claimed semisimplicity conclusion does not hold in general when p divides ∣G∣.

3.1step 1.1step 2.1∎

So the statement is false.

False statementConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

Every reduction modulo p of an ordinary irreducible lattice stays irreducible

Statement

Every reduction modulo p of an ordinary irreducible OG-lattice remains irreducible over k.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A primitive cube root ζ3, the local cyclotomic triple (K,O,k)=(Q3(ζ3),Z3[ζ3],F3), and the standard OS3-lattice L={(a,b,c)∈O3:a+b+c=0}.

Refutation

technique · direct
1.1givenalgebra

The extension K/Q3 is totally ramified of degree 2, with uniformizer 1−ζ3, valuation ring O, and residue field k=F3. The field K splits the subgroups of S3: it contains the values needed for the cyclic subgroups, and the trivial, sign, and standard representations split S3. If V is a simple kS3-module and g generates the normal subgroup C3, then (g−1)3=g3−1=0, so VC3≠0; normality and simplicity give VC3=V. Thus V factors through S3/C3≅C2 and is trivial or sign. The same calculation handles the subgroups, so k also splits all of them. Thus the displayed triple is a splitting 3-modular system, and the free rank-two module L is an OS3-lattice.

2.1step 1.1algebra

The scalar extension K⊗OL is the standard two-dimensional S3-module. It has no invariant line: a trivial line would be spanned by a constant vector, whose coordinate sum is zero only for the zero vector in characteristic 0; and a sign line would have to be negated by both (12) and (23), which the coordinate equations again force to be zero. Thus this ordinary representation is irreducible.

2.2F1step 1.1algebra

By [F1], reduction modulo m=(1−ζ3) gives the two-dimensional kS3-module L‾=L/mL. The nonzero vector (1,1,1) belongs to L‾ because it is the reduction of (1,1,−2)∈L, and its line is fixed by S3. Hence L‾ is reducible.

3.1step 2.1step 2.2∎

This ordinary irreducible lattice has reducible reduction, so the universal statement is false.

False statementConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

A module has one literally canonical projective cover, not just a unique isomorphism class over the target

Statement

Every finite-dimensional module has one literally canonical projective cover, not merely a unique isomorphism class over the target.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A finite-dimensional module over a finite-dimensional algebra.

[L1]

Projective covers are unique up to isomorphism over the target (Every finite-dimensional module has a projective cover, unique up to isomorphism over the target).

Refutation

technique · direct
1.1L1given

The theorem [L1] proves uniqueness only in the sense of an isomorphism commuting with the maps to the target module.

2.1step 1.1algebra

Equality of source modules is stronger than existence of such an isomorphism. Different free modules with identified summands can realize the same cover up to isomorphism without being literally equal as sets or chosen objects. Hence the stronger claim fails.

3.1step 1.1step 2.1∎

Therefore the statement is false.

False statementConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-09-04Open item page →

The vertex of an indecomposable module is literally a graph vertex of a Cayley graph

Statement

The vertex of an indecomposable module is literally a graph vertex of a Cayley graph.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: An indecomposable kG-module.

Refutation

technique · direct
1.1F1given

By [F1], a module vertex is a subgroup of G, not a point in a graph.

2.1step 1.1

The shared word "vertex" is only terminology. A Cayley-graph vertex is a group element, whereas the representation-theoretic vertex is a p-subgroup defined by relative projectivity. Therefore the statement is false.

3.1step 1.1step 2.1∎

So the claimed literal identification fails.

False statementConstruction: AI-adaptedVerification: AI-generatedprecheck passaudited 2026-09-04Open item page →

Projective and injective modules coincide over every ring

Statement

Projective and injective modules coincide over every ring.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The finite group algebra setting of the preceding corollary.

[L1]

Projective and injective coincide here only for finite-dimensional modules over the symmetric group algebra k[G] (Over a finite group algebra in defining characteristic, finite-dimensional projective and injective modules coincide).

Refutation

technique · direct
1.1L1given

The corollary [L1] is explicitly a special finite-dimensional group-algebra statement.

2.1step 1.1algebra

Removing those hypotheses widens the claim far beyond what was proved. Standard counterexamples over rings such as Z show that injective and projective need not agree. Hence the universal statement is false.

3.1step 1.1step 2.1∎

Therefore projective and injective modules do not coincide over every ring.

5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements

None yet.

Sources