On global cohomological width of Artin algebras (Q2833652)

From MaRDI portal





scientific article; zbMATH DE number 6654809
Language Label Description Also known as
default for all languages
No label defined
    English
    On global cohomological width of Artin algebras
    scientific article; zbMATH DE number 6654809

      Statements

      0 references
      18 November 2016
      0 references
      piecewise hereditary algebras
      0 references
      strong global dimension
      0 references
      global cohomological width
      0 references
      indecomposable, triangulated category
      0 references
      derived category
      0 references
      On global cohomological width of Artin algebras (English)
      0 references
      In this paper, the author analyzes older or more recent homological invariants of connected associative Artin \(R\)-algebras with identity, where \(R\) is a commutative Artin ring. Such invariants are: the global dimension, which is the supremum over the projective dimensions of all modules; the strong global dimension, which is defined by taking the supremum over the lengths of all indecomposable objects in the bounded homotopy category of finitely generated projective modules; and the global cohomological width, which is the supremum over the cohomological widths of indecomposable objects in the bounded derived category of finitely generated modules. The main result of this paper extends to Artin algebras a recent result obtained by the author and \textit{Y. Han} [Algebr. Represent. Theory 19, No. 6, 1369--1386 (2016; Zbl 1369.16008)] and for finite dimensional algebras. This result says that the global cohomological width of an Artin \(R\)-algebra coincides with its strong global dimension. The proof relies on the construction of indecomposables in a triangulated category, via taking cones, due to \textit{D. Happel} and \textit{D. Zacharia} [Math. Z. 260, No. 1, 177--185 (2008; Zbl 1193.16005); J. Algebra 323, No. 4, 1139--1154 (2010; Zbl 1233.16010)]. As a consequence, it seems that, even though these two invariants are the same, in practice it is more convenient to deal with indecomposables in terms of homology rather than length.
      0 references

      Identifiers

      0 references
      0 references
      0 references
      0 references
      0 references