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.
Krull-Schmidt holds for finite-rank OH-lattices
Statement
Let be a splitting -modular system and let be a finite group. Every finite-rank -lattice is a finite direct sum of indecomposable -lattices, and the multiset of isomorphism classes of the summands is unique. Moreover, the endomorphism ring of every nonzero indecomposable -lattice is local.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The modular system, finite group, and finite-rank lattices in the Statement.
An -lattice is finite free over the complete DVR (Relative projectivity and vertices for integral group lattices).
Proof
Let be such a lattice and put . As an -submodule of the finite free module , the module is finite free and -adically complete. Also : for and , the geometric series converges and inverts .
The algebra is finite-dimensional over , so its Jacobson radical is nilpotent and is semisimple Artinian. Because by step 1.1, the standard quotient identity gives For completeness, if lies in the radical of the quotient, then for every the element is a unit modulo ; lifting a two-sided inverse leaves errors in , and multiplying by the inverses of minus those errors gives a two-sided inverse in . Thus by the Jacobson-radical test. The reverse inclusion follows by passing units to the quotient. Consequently is semisimple Artinian.
Idempotents lift from to . First lift through the nilpotent ideal : successively through its powers, the polynomial Newton correction to turns an error in into one in , so the finite nilpotence filtration terminates. Then lift the resulting idempotent of by the same corrections in ; completeness makes the corrections converge. Therefore is semiperfect.
A nontrivial idempotent of is exactly a nontrivial direct-sum decomposition of . Repeatedly splitting such an idempotent terminates, because the positive -ranks of both summands are smaller; direct summands remain finite free over the DVR. This proves existence of a finite indecomposable decomposition. If is indecomposable, has no nontrivial idempotent. By step 3.1, every idempotent of the semisimple Artinian ring lifts, so that quotient also has no nontrivial idempotent. It must therefore be a division ring. Hence the nonunits of are exactly , and is local.
Suppose are two indecomposable decompositions. Restrict the identity of to through the second decomposition. It becomes a finite sum of composites . In the local ring , a sum of nonunits cannot be ; therefore one composite is a unit. Write that composite as , where is the second-decomposition projection restricted to and is the first-decomposition projection restricted to . Replacing by gives . Hence ; indecomposability and force , so is an isomorphism. Relative to with , the summand is therefore the graph of a map . Subtracting that graph map is an automorphism of which fixes and carries to . Thus , and quotienting by identifies with the sum of the remaining -summands. Induction on the rank matches all summands and their multiplicities. The zero lattice has the empty decomposition, while the local ring assertion was stated only for nonzero indecomposables. Every selection is from a finite decomposition, so no choice principle is used.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
2 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Aschbacher–Kessar–Oliver, Fusion Systems in Algebra and Topology, Part IV, Propositions 1.2–1.9 and 4.9, pp. 228–230 and 267 (standard reference, not scraped)
- Craven, The Brauer Correspondence, sections 2.1–2.2, pp. 18–22 (standard reference, not scraped)