When is \(\Lambda_1\otimes\Lambda_2\) hereditary? (Q1268670)

For orders \(\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2\) over a complete discrete valuation domain \(R\), the question when \(\Lambda_1\otimes_R\Lambda_2\) is hereditary or maximal, is investigated. The special case where the residue field \(\overline R\) of \(R\) is finite, was treated before by \textit{G. J. Janusz} [J. Lond. Math. Soc., II. Ser. 20, 186-192 (1979; Zbl 0433.16007)]. For an \(R\)-order \(\Lambda\), consider the \(\overline R\)-algebra \(\overline\Lambda:=\overline R\otimes_R\Lambda\). The authors call \(\Lambda\) unramified (over \(R\)) if \(\overline\Lambda\) is semisimple, and residually separable if \(\overline\Lambda\) is separable. (By a lemma of \textit{G. Azumaya} [Nagoya Math. J. 2, 119-150 (1951; Zbl 0045.01103)], the isomorphism class of such an order is uniquely determined by \(\overline\Lambda\).) Now let \(\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2\) be connected hereditary orders with \(\Lambda_1\otimes\Lambda_2\) hereditary and \(\overline\Lambda_1\otimes\overline\Lambda_2\) semisimple. Then it is proved that either \(\Lambda_1\) or \(\Lambda_2\) is unramified. As a consequence, the authors obtain a characterization of orders \(\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2\) with \(\Lambda_1\otimes\Lambda_2\) hereditary (or maximal) under the assumption that \(\overline\Lambda_1\otimes\overline\Lambda_2\) is semisimple. Namely, \(\Lambda_1\otimes\Lambda_2\) is hereditary if and only if \(\Lambda_1,\Lambda_2\) are hereditary with one of them unramified. In this case, \(\Lambda_1\otimes\Lambda_2\) is maximal if and only if the additional assumption \(s(Z(\overline\Lambda_1)\otimes Z(\overline\Lambda_2))=s(\overline{Z(\Lambda_1)}\otimes\overline{Z(\Lambda_2)})\) is satisfied, where \(Z(\;)\) denotes the center, and \(s(\;)\) the number of indecomposable projectives. Some related criteria are given when \(\Lambda_1\) is unramified, especially in case \(\Lambda_1\) and \(\Lambda_2\) are residually separable.