0
$\begingroup$

Let $R$ be a commutative ring, and $G$ a finite group. Now suppose $M,N$ are finitely generated $R[G]$-modules such that $M\cong_R N$ (let's say they have $R$-rank$=n$). To show $M\cong_{R[G]}N$, is it sufficient to show the regular representations of $M,\,N$ are similar (as matrices)?. In other words, if I show $\rho_M(g)A=A\rho_N(g)$ for all $g\in G$, where $A\in M_n(R)$? If so, why?

Intuitively, this should be clear but I am unsure (algebraically) why this should be true. Perhaps I am massively overthinking this.

1 Answers 1

0

An isomorphism of $RG$-modules is an $R$-linear bijection $\phi:M\to N$ which is $G$-equivariant. That is, $$\phi(g.m)=g.\phi(m).$$ If I choose a basis $\{m_1,\ldots,m_r\}$ for $M$ and $\{n_1,\ldots,n_r\}$ for $N$, I can write $$\phi(m_j)=\sum_{i=1}^r a_{ij}n_i\;\;(1\leq j\leq n)$$ for some $a_{ij}\in R$ ($1\leq i,j\leq n$). This determines a matrix $A$.

Similarly, we can obtain matrices for left multiplication by an element $g\in G$, $\rho_M(g):M\to M$ and $\rho_N(g):N\to N$. Then, $G$-equivariance is just the statement that $A\rho_M(g)=\rho_N(g)A$.

EDIT Okay, let's spell out the last paragraph:For each $1\leq k\leq n$, $$g.m_k=\sum_{j=1}^nb_{jk}m_j$$ which determines a matrix $\rho_M(g)=B$, and $$g.n_k=\sum_{j=1}^nc_{jk}n_j$$ which determines a matrix $\rho_N(g)=C$.

You want to know why equivariance implies $AB=CA$. Well \begin{align} \phi(g.m_k)&=\phi\left(\sum_{j=1}^kb_{jk}m_j\right)\\ &=\sum_{j=1}^nb_{jk}\phi(m_j)\\ &=\sum_{j,i=1}^nb_{jk}a_{ij}n_i\\ &=\sum_{i=1}^n\left(\sum_{j=1}^na_{ij}b_{jk}\right)n_i \end{align} and, similarly, \begin{align} g.\phi(m_k)=\sum_{i=1}^n\left(\sum_{j=1}^nc_{ij}a_{jk}\right)n_i. \end{align} The equality $\phi(g.m_k)=g.\phi(m_k)$ for all $k$ says that for all $i$ $$ \sum_{j=1}^na_{ij}b_{jk}=\sum_{j=1}^nc_{ij}a_{jk}. $$ Of course, the left hand side of the equality above is the $(i,k)$-entry in $AB$ and the right hand side is the $(i,k)$-entry of $CA$. Hence $AB=CA$ as required.

  • 0
    Thank you for your answer. Perhaps I am being a bit slow (I'm sure I am overthinking this), but why is $G$-equivariance equivalent to the statement $A\rho_M(g)=\rho_N(g)A$?2017-02-09
  • 0
    Thanks for clearing that up2017-02-09