Acyclic modular lattices and their representations

acyclic lattices directly indecomposable representations finite 2-distributive modular lattices finite representation type finitely generated modular lattice linear representation second Brauer-Thrall conjecture

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Combinatorial aspects of matroids and geometric lattices (05B35) Modular lattices, Desarguesian lattices (06C05) Representations of quivers and partially ordered sets (16G20) Representations of orders, lattices, algebras over commutative rings (16G30) Representation type (finite, tame, wild, etc.) of associative algebras (16G60)

Review text

A linear representation of a lattice is a homomorphism into the lattice of all linear subspaces of a vector space. The lattice is of finite representation type, if for any fixed division ring there are (up to isomorphism) only finitely many directly indecomposable representations. In the present paper, within finite 2-distributive modular lattices (i.e. those not having a projective plane as a sublattice) the ones of finite representation type are internally characterized as ``acyclic lattices and the ``second Brauer-Thrall conjecture is verified: for those not of finite type there are infinitely many dimensions with infinitely many indecomposables. For acyclic lattices there is a bijective correspondence between indecomposables and simple factors, moreover in a representation of a finitely generated modular lattice any simple acyclic factor gives rise to a ``splitting direct decomposition. This is based on the fact that these lattices are bounded homomorphic images, whence splitting in the variety of modular lattices. The proofs are based on a view of modular lattices as ``projective geometries on the ordered point set of join irreducibles. So, the acyclicity of the lattice M refers to the existence of a ``cycle free base of lines - a minimal set of collinearity relations which, together with the order on points, determines the lattice M. Alternatively, there are no sublattices \(M_ 4\) nor ``circles of \(M_ 3's\) in M or, on the other hand, M has the minimum possible number of points: \(2\cdot length(M)-number\) of simple factors. Proposition 2.4 is correct only in the context of modular lattices.

Recommendations

Cites work

Cited in

(24)

This page was built for publication: Acyclic modular lattices and their representations

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q2277553)