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.
Modular Representations and Projective Covers - Examples
1 · Prerequisites
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Chain Conditions, Semisimple Modules and the Wedderburn–Artin Theorem
- Congruences, the Integers Modulo n and the Chinese Remainder Theorem
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Cosets, Index and Lagrange's Theorem
- Countability and Uncountability
- Divisibility, Greatest Common Divisors and Bézout's Identity
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Free Modules, Exact Sequences, Projective and Injective Modules
- Group Actions, Orbits, Stabilisers and Cayley's Theorem
- Group Homomorphisms and the Isomorphism Theorems
- Ideals, Quotient Rings and the Isomorphism Theorems for Rings
- Induced Representations, Frobenius Reciprocity and Applications
- Inverse Limits and Noetherian Completion
- Linear Independence, Bases and Dimension
- Linear Transformations, Rank-Nullity and Quotient Spaces
- Maschke's Theorem, Complete Reducibility and the Structure of k[G]
- Matrices, the Matrix of a Linear Map, and Change of Basis
- Modular Representations and Projective Covers
- Modules, Submodules, Quotient Modules and the Isomorphism Theorems
- Normal Subgroups and Quotient Groups
- Order, Zorn's Lemma, and the Axiom of Choice
- Primes, Euclid's Lemma and the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Tensor Products of Modules
- The Group Algebra and Representations of Finite Groups
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Valuation Rings and Discrete Valuation Rings
- Vector Spaces, Linear Subspaces, Span and Direct Sums
2 · Summary
These examples keep the page concrete: one cyclic -group algebra, one explicit projective cover, one lattice reduction for , one Higman witness, and one ordinary irreducible whose modular reduction splits.
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
None yet.
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
The regular module of Cp in characteristic p is indecomposable with a unique simple quotient
Example
Let and let have characteristic . Then the regular -module is indecomposable, and its unique simple quotient is the trivial module .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The cyclic group and a field of characteristic .
Over every field of characteristic , the group algebra of a finite -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).
Verification
By [L1], the algebra is local. A nontrivial decomposition of the left regular module would give a nontrivial idempotent projection in , but a local algebra has no nontrivial idempotents. Hence the regular module is indecomposable.
The augmentation ideal is maximal because its quotient is , and it is the unique maximal left ideal because is local. Every simple quotient of the regular module has a maximal left ideal as its kernel, so it is the augmentation quotient , with the trivial -action. Thus the regular module has the asserted unique simple quotient.
The augmentation ideal and Loewy series of kCp can be written explicitly
Example
For over a field of characteristic , write . Then
the augmentation ideal is , and the Loewy series of the regular module is
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The cyclic group and a field of characteristic .
The head and Loewy series are the quotient by the radical and its iterated powers (The radical, socle, head, and Loewy series of a finite-dimensional module).
Over every field of characteristic , the group algebra 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).
Verification
In characteristic , one has , so the relation becomes . Every element of is a polynomial in , hence in , and the basis becomes the basis . Therefore .
Under that identification, the augmentation map kills and sends to , so its kernel is . Since [L1] makes the ring local, is its radical. Therefore [F1] gives the displayed Loewy series by successive powers of .
For a finite p-group, the augmentation map from kP to the trivial module is its projective cover
Example
Let be a finite -group and let have characteristic . Then the augmentation map
is the projective cover of the trivial module.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finite -group , a field of characteristic , and the augmentation map .
Over every characteristic- field, the algebra 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).
Projective covers exist and are unique up to isomorphism over the target (Every finite-dimensional module has a projective cover, unique up to isomorphism over the target).
Verification
The regular module is projective, and is surjective onto the trivial module. Its kernel is the augmentation ideal, which is the unique maximal ideal because [L2] makes local. Hence the kernel is superfluous.
By step 1.1, is a projective cover of the trivial module. The uniqueness theorem [L3] says every projective cover of that target is isomorphic to this one over the target.
Reducing a standard integral lattice for S3 modulo 3 produces a reducible kS3-module
Example
Let be a primitive cube root of unity, let
and let
with the natural permutation action of . This is a splitting -modular system for , the module is an -lattice, and its reduction modulo the maximal ideal is reducible.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A primitive cube root , the local cyclotomic field with valuation ring , and the standard permutation lattice above.
Reduction modulo the maximal ideal sends an -lattice to a -module (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).
That reduced module is finite-dimensional over the residue field (Reducing an OG-lattice modulo the maximal ideal gives a finite-dimensional kG-module).
Verification
The extension is totally ramified of degree , with uniformizer , valuation ring , and residue field . The field splits the subgroups of : it contains the values needed for the cyclic subgroups, and the trivial, sign, and standard representations split . If is a simple -module and generates the normal subgroup , then , so ; normality and simplicity give . Thus factors through and is trivial or sign. The same calculation handles the subgroups, so also splits all of them. Hence is a splitting -modular system for .
The lattice is free of rank over , with basis , so [F1] and [L1] give the two-dimensional -module . The vector lies in because it is the reduction of , and it is fixed by every permutation in .
The nonzero line is therefore an -stable proper submodule of the two-dimensional module . Hence is reducible.
A permutation-induced summand is detected as relatively projective by Higman's criterion
Example
Let be finite groups and consider the permutation module
where is the trivial -module. Then Higman's criterion detects as relatively -projective.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A subgroup of a finite group and the permutation module .
Higman's criterion says that a module is relatively -projective exactly when the identity is a relative trace from an -endomorphism (Higman's criterion characterizes relative projectivity through the relative trace idempotent test).
Verification
The module is itself induced from the trivial -module, so it is relatively -projective by definition.
Applying [L1] to the relatively -projective module of step 1.1 produces an -endomorphism with . Thus Higman's criterion detects this permutation-induced module exactly as expected.
An ordinary irreducible representation can have reducible reduction modulo p
Statement refuted
Reducing an ordinary irreducible lattice modulo always preserves irreducibility.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The standard -lattice with .
Reduction modulo the maximal ideal produces a -module (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).
The defining-characteristic page route allows reducibility after reduction (When the characteristic divides the group order, Maschke can fail and kG need not be semisimple).
The reduced lattice for this example is reducible (Reducing a standard integral lattice for S3 modulo 3 produces a reducible kS3-module).
Counterexample
Over characteristic , the lattice affords the standard -dimensional irreducible representation of .
By [F1], reducing modulo gives a -module . The example [L2] shows that is reducible, and [L1] explains why this does not contradict the modular route of the page.
Therefore an ordinary irreducible representation can have reducible reduction modulo , refuting the statement.