Model Theoretic Algebra

MODEL THEORETIC ALGEBRA
with
particular emphasis
on
FIELDS, RINGS, MODULES

ALGEBRA, LOGIC AND APPLICATIONS
A Series edited by
R. Gobel
Universitat Gesamthochschule, Essen, FRG
A. Macintyre
The Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, UK
Volume 1
Linear Algebra and Geometry
A. I. Kostrikin and Yu. I. Manin
Volume 2
Model Theoretic Algebra
with particular emphasis on Fields, Rings, Modules
Christian U. Jensen and Helmut Lenzing
This book is part of a series. The publisher will accept continuation orders which may
be cancelled at any time and which provide for automatic billing and shipping of each
title in the series upon publication. Please write for details.
MODEL THEORETIC ALGEBRA
with particular emphasis on FIELDS, RINGS,
MODULES
BY
Christian U. Jensen
University of Copenhagen
Denmark
and
Helmut Lenzing
University of Paderborn
FRG
GORDON AND BREACH SCIENCE PUBLISHERS

New York• London• Paris• Montreux •Tokyo• Melbourne
© (1989) by OPA (Amsterdam), B.V. All rights reserved.
Published under license by Gordon and Breach Science Publishers S .A.
Gordon and Breach Science Publishers

Post Office Box 786 3-14-9, Okubo
Cooper Station Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo
New York, New York 10276 Japan
United States of America
Private Bag 8
Post Office Box 197 Camberwell, Victoria 3124
London WC2E 9PX Australia
England
58, rue Lhomond

75005 Paris
France
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Jansen, Christian U.
Model theoretic algebra: with particular emphasis on fields,
rings, modules/by Christian U. Jensen and Helmut Lenzing.
p. cm.-{Algebra, logic and applications: v. 2)
Bibliography: p.
Includes indexes.
ISBN 2-88124-717-2
1. Model theory. 2. Algebra. I. Lenzing, Helmut.
II. Title. III. Series.
OA9.7.J46 1989
512-dc20 89-11634
CIP
No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or
mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Printed in Great
Britain by Bell & Bain Ltd., Glasgow.
Contents
Preface XI
1 Introduction. Ultraproducts. Definitions and examples 1

Ultrafilters . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Ultraproducts and Los's principle . . . . . . 2
The compactness theorem . . . . . . . . . . 3
Characterization of elementary equivalence . 3
Elementary substructures and Lowenheim- Skolem's theorem . 3
Algebraically closed fields and characteristic transfer 5
Noether-Ostrowski's irreducibility theorem 6
Hilbert's N ullstellensatz 7
Hilbert's 17th problem . . . 8
2 Elementary equivalence. Axiomatizable and finitely axiomatiz-

able classes. Examples and results in field theory 11
Keisler-Shelah 's ultrapower theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Cardinalities and saturation properties of ultraproducts . 12
Elementarily closed classes . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Axiomatizable and finitely axiomatizable classes 14
Mac Lane separability . . . . . . . 17
C;-fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Ordered fields and sums of squares 20
The Pythagoras number . . . . . . 24
Elementary equivalence (non-equivalence) of function fields and power
series fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
v
VI CONTENTS
3 Elementary definability. Applications to polynomial and power

series rings and their quotient fields 33
Elementarily definable subrings and subfields . . . . 33
Cancellation laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Elementary definability of fields in polynomial rings 35
Transcendency degree over the field Q of rational numbers 37
Elementary equivalence of polynomial rings . . . . . . . . 39
Elementary equivalence of polynomial and power series rings 43
Fields of rational functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Power series rings are elementarily definable in their quotient field 50
Cancellation for power series fields . . . . . . . . . 56
Power series fields in infinitely many indeterminates 59
4 Peano rings and Peano fields 61

Elementary definability in quotient field 61
Rigid fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Transcendency degree and Krull dimension . 64
Rings elementarily equivalent to rings of integers or polynomials 66
Fields elementarily equivalent to fields of rational functions 70
Cancellation for polynomial rings 71
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
5 Hilbertian fields and realizations of finite groups as Galois groups 75
Hilbertian fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Universally admissible fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Realization of classes of simple groups as Galois groups 78
Fields with bizarre Galois groups . . . . . . 82
Non-descent for universally admissible fields .. 87
6 The language of modules over a fixed ring 91

Positive primitive formulas . 91
Finitely definable subgroups . . . . . . . . . . 92
Pure-exact sequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Further results on finitely definable subgroups 96
The theorem of Baur and Monk and elementary equivalence of R-modules 99
A characterization of Priifer domains . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Localization and globalization of elementary equivalence . 112
Elementary equivalence of flat modules . . . 115
Elementary equivalence of injective modules . . . . . . . . . 119
CONTENTS vii
Elementary and axiomatizable classes . 122

Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
7 Algebraically compact modules 125

Characterizations of algebraically compact modules 125
Pure-injective envelopes . . . . . . 128
Comparison with injective functors 131
Proof of Theorem 7.1 132
~-Purity . . . . . . 136
~-Injective functors . 142
~-compact modules . 144
A splitting criterion for algebraic compactness 146
Injective resolutions . . . . 149
Injective ultraproducts . . . . . . . . 152
Pure-injective resolutions . . . . . . . 154
Algebraically compact ultraproducts 156
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
8 Decompositions and algebraic compactness 161

E-algebraically compact modules . . . . . . . 161
Pure-semisimple rings . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Examples of E-algebraically compact modules 169
Cardinality questions . . . . 171
The spectral category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
The pure spectral category . . . . . . . . . . . 1 78
Direct sum representations of algebraically compact modules 180
Small support of indecomposable modules 184
Non-algebraically compact ultrapowers . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Krull dimension for mod(R) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
Rings with sufficiently many algebraically compact indecomposable mo-
dules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Krull-dimension for a Dedekind domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
Indecomposable pure-injective modules over a Dedekind domain 205
Indecomposable pure-injective Kronecker modules 207
Reduction modulo the radical 211
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
viii CONTENTS
9 The two-sorted language of modules over unspecified rings 225

Modules of finite length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
Finitely generated and finitely presented modules . . . . . . . . . . 227
Flat modules, weak dimension and coherence . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
Projective modules, projective dimension and descending chain conditions234
Injective and fp-injective modules, Noetherian rings 237
Indecomposable modules 241
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
10 The first order theory of rings 247

Finitely axiomatizable classes of rings . 247
Rings with chain conditions . . . . . . 250
Coherent and uniformly coherent rings 253
Weak global dimension . . . . . . . . . 256
Global dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
Self-injective and fp-self-injective dimension 264
Embedding dimension . . . . . . . 265
Primitive rings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
Cancellation for power series rings . . . . . . 268
Stable range and rings of continuous functions 271
Polynomial identities; Krull and Gelfand-Kirillov dimension 273
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
11 Pure global dimension and algebraically compact rings 281

2;-algebraically compact rings . . . . . . . 281
Algebraic compactness of Noetherian rings 283
First-order properties and ultraproducts 285
Algebraic compactness of valuation rings 288
Pure-global dimension . . . . . . . . . . 291
Injective dimension of ultraproducts . . . 294
First-order properties of pure-global dimension . 296
Krull dimension and pure-global dimension . 297
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
12 Representation theory of finite dimensional algebras 305

Elimination of quantifiers for algebraically closed fields 305
Van den Dries's test . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
Affine varieties and affine schemes . . . . . . 310
Varieties and schemes of structure constants 315
Orders and lattices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
CONTENTS ix
Indecomposable modules . . . . . . . . . . 325

Tests for finite representation type . . . . 331
Finite representation type is finitely axiomatizable . 340
Finite global dimension is open 344
Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
13 Problems 351
Fields . . . 351
Rings . . . . . . . . . . . 352
Modules (one-sorted language) . 355
Modules (two-sorted language) 355
Finite dimensional algebras 356
Tables 358
First order properties of fields 359
First order properties of rings I . 360
First order properties of rings II . 361
First order properties of rings III 362
First order properties of rings IV 363
First order properties of modules (two-sorted language) I 364
First order properties of modules (two-sorted language) II 365
First order properties of modules (two-sorted language) III 366
A Basic notions and definitions from homological algebra 367

Projective, injective and flat modules . 367
Projective, injective and flat dimension 368
Global and weak global dimension . 369
The functors Ext:R and Tor~ . . . . . . 370
Pure-exactness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
Pure-projective and pure-injective dimension . 374
The functors Pext:R . . . . . . . . . . . 375
Fp-injective modules . . . . . . . . . . 376
Krull-dimension and regular local rings 377
B Functor categories on finitely presented modules 379

Additive categories and additive functors . . . . 379
Abelian categories and Grothendieck categories 381
Abelian group valued functors . . . . . . . . 384
Modules versus functors . . . . . . . . . . . 387
Flat functors on finitely presented modules . 388
x CONTENTS
Perfectness and pure-semisimplicity . . . . 392

Pp-injective functors on finitely presented modules 395
Noetherianness and pure-semisimplicity . . . . . . . 398
C Glossary of some basic notions in ring and module theory 401
Bibliography 411
Author Index 428
Subject Index 431

Preface
g)lein tbeum ireuub, id} rat~· euc~ brum

9uerft IIoll'eaium S!ogicum .
.©4 tvirb bee @ei(t eud) l\lo~l brtftlrt,
Sn fpci11ifd)e '5tlefeln eiu~efd?uurt,
Zlci~ er hbiid)ti11er fo fort an
.f,linfd?leldie bit" @ebcinrcnbabn,
Unb nfd)t etiu«, ble ~reu&' unb O.uer,
Srlid)ttlire bin unb ~er.
@ o e t r, r. 1 8 0 s.
It is the purpose of these notes to present some subjects from ring theory,
field theory and module theory from a model theoretic point of view, basically, by
making a semantic (first order) analysis of the corresponding algebraic concepts.
Many non-trivial questions hereby arise, which may be of independent interest.
Our treatment is more algebraic than model-theoretic; in fact, the model the-
oretic concepts we consider are the most basic ones, and the model theoretic tools
we use are quite modest: mainly ultrapowers (or equivalently the compactness
theorem), elementary equivalence, (finite) axiomatizability, elementary substruc-
tures, elementarily definable substructures, quantifier elimination for modules
and algebraically closed fields.
Our notes should by no means be regarded as a textbook, either in model
theory or in algebra; in particular, we do not pretend to any kind of completeness.
The topics we have treated are selected according to personal taste. A guiding
principle has been to omit subjects that have already been treated in textbooks
or (well-known) lecture notes. This for instance applies to the Ax-Kochen theory
of p-adic fields.
XI
xii PREFACE
With respect to fields we concentrate on the following topics:

- fields elementarily equivalent to the field of rational numbers,
- fields of rational functions over several types of fields,
- ordered fields,
- realizability of groups as Galois groups.
Concerning rings we mainly consider

- rings elementarily equivalent to the ring of integers,
- polynomial and power series rings, with particular emphasis given to ele-
mentary equivalence and cancellation properties,
- rings with various types of chain conditions.
The main tools here consist in a semantic analysis of several kinds of dimen-
sions such as
- Krull dimension,
- global dimension,
- weak global dimension.
In the case of modules we have to distinguish between the

- one-sorted language of modules over a fixed ring R,
and the
- two-sorted language of modules over unspecified rings.
In the one-sorted language of modules we concentrate on topics like

- elementary equivalence,
- finitely definable subgroups,
- algebraic (E-algebraic) compactness,
- injective and pure-injective dimension,
- localization and flat modules.
Our treatment of the two-sorted language of modules precedes and serves as a

preparation for our analysis of rings, specifically, for our discussion of dimen-
sion (Krull dimension and different types of homological dimension) and chain
conditions (Noetherianness, Artinianness, perfectness etc.).
We conclude with an account on the model theoretic aspects of the represen-
tation theory of finite dimensional algebras. Here, our treatment concentrates
on the following questions
- finite axiomatizability of finite representation type
- openness of finite global dimension (Schofield's theorem).
We include an exposition of the most basic facts of representation theory
(almost-split sequences, Auslander's test for finite representation type, etc.) also
PREFACE xiii
a review on the geometrical machinery (varieties and schemes).

Finally, we would like to thank several of our colleagues for very helpful discus-
sions and comments; in particular, we express our gratitude to Frarn;oise Delon,
Lou van den Dries, S111ren J111ndrup and Gabriel Sabbagh.
C. U. Jensen H. Lenzing
Chapter 1
Introduction. Ultraproducts.
Definitions and examples
The aim of this introductory chapter is to illustrate the power of the most basic
principles of model theory (ultraproducts, Los's principle, Lowenheim-Skolem's
theorem and Keisler-Shelah's ultrapower theorem) in applying them to classical
questions of algebra (Hilbert's Nullstellensatz, Hilbert's 17th problem, Noether-
Ostrowski's irreducibility theorem).
For a detailed treatment of the fundamental facts of model theory we refer the
reader to the the books of Bell-Slomson [21], Chang-Keisler [33] or the Handbook
of Mathematical Logic [12].
Ultrafilters
1.1 If I is an arbitrary set, we recall that a filter :F on I is a family of subsets

of I satisfying the following conditions:
(1) A E :F, A~ B ~I => BE :F,
(2) A E :F and B E :F => A n B E :F,
(3) 0 ~ :F.
The filters on I are partially ordered by set inclusion. Filters that are maximal
with respect to this ordering are called ultrafilters. It is easy to see that
ultrafilters can be characterized in the following way:
1.2 A filter :Fon I is an ultrafilter if and only if for each subset A of I either
A or the complement I - A belongs to :F.
For a fixed element a E I the family of all subsets of I containing a is an
2 CHAPTERl: INTRODUCTION. ULTRAPRODUCTS
ultrafilter on I, called the principal ultrafilter generated by a. By Zorn's lemma

any filter on I can be extended to an ultrafilter on I. This, in particular, implies
that there exist non-principal ultrafilters on any infinite set J.
Ultraproducts and Los 's principle
1.3 Let (Rex)exEI be a family of algebraic structures which may be groups, rings or
modules. To fix the attention on something specific let us assume that (Rex)exEI is
a family of rings. Further, let :F be an ultrafilter on I. In the direct (Cartesian)
product ITexEIRex we introduce an equivalence relation by setting (rex) ~ (r~) if
the set {a E I\rex = r~} belongs to :F. This is expressed by saying that
(ra) ~ (r~)
if and only if rex = r~ holds for :F-almost all a.
The equivalence class represented by an element (rex) is denoted by (rex]· By
obvious componentwise addition and multiplication these equivalence classes form
a ring, called the ultraproduct of (Rex)exeI with respect to :F, that is denoted
ITcveIRex/F. If Rex = R for all a E J, the ultraproduct is denoted by RI /:F and
is called the ultrapower of R with respect to :F. In the latter case there is a
canonical (diagonal) mapping b. : R ---t RI /:F defined by setting b.(r) = (rex],
where rex = r for all a E J.
1.4 It is easily verified that ITexeIRa/ :Fis a field if each Ra is a field. It even
suffices to assume that Ra is a field for all a 's belonging to a subset J of I
that belongs to :F. Conversely, if the ultraproduct ITexeIRa/:F is a field, the set
{a E !\Rex is a field} belongs to :F. In other words: the ultraproduct ITexerRa/:F
is a field if and only if Rex is a field for :F-almost every a E I.
The property R is a field can be expressed by saying
Vx#-0-::Jyxy = 1.
This is an example of a first order sentence in the language R of rings, that is,
a formula in the language of rings, in which every variable is in the scope of a
quantifier (V or -=J).
The above example is a special case of a metatheorem called Los's principle.
Theorem 1.5 (Los's principle) Let (Ra)aeI be a family of rings, (resp. fields,
modules, ... ) and :F an ultrafilter on I. A first order sentence u in the language
of rings {resp. fields, modules, ... } holds for the ultraproduct ITexerRex/ :F if and
only if u holds in Rex for almost all a in I. D
THE COMPACTNESS THEOREM 3
The compactness theorem

A useful result, easily obtained from Los's principle, is the following
Theorem 1.6 (Compactness theorem) Let E be a set of first order sentences

in the language of rings, {resp. fields, modules, ... ) such that for every finite
subset E' of E there exists a ring (field, module, ... ) satisfying the first order
sentences in E'. Then there exists a ring {field, module, ... ) satisfying the first
order sentences in E. D
Characterization of elementary equivalence
We notice that Theorem 1.5 in particular implies that an ultrapower RI/ :F of R

and R itself satisfy the same first order sentences.
Definition 1. 7 Two rings (resp. fields, modules, ... ) R and S are called ele-
mentarily equivalent (notation : R =
SJ if R and S satisfy the same first order
sentences in the corresponding language.
From Los's principle we conclude that two rings R and S are elementarily
equivalent if there exist sets / 1 and / 2 and ultrafilters :F1 on / 1 and :F2 on 12 such
that the ultrapowers RI1 / :F1 and RI2 / :F2 are isomorphic rings.
A famous result of Keisler-Shelah asserts a converse:
Theorem 1.8 (Keisler-Shelah) Two rings {resp. fields, modules, ... ) R and
S are elementarily equivalent if and only if there exists a set I and an ultrafilter
:F on I such that RI/ :F and SI/ :F are isomorphic rings (resp. fields, modules,
... ). D
Elementary substructures and Lowenheim- Sko-

lem 's theorem
1.9 On some occasions we shall need the notion of an elementary extension.

Let R be a subring ( resp. subfield, submodule, ... ) of S. We say that S is
an elementary extension of R (or R is an elementary subring ( resp. subfield,
submodule, ... ) of S) if for each first order formula 1/;(x, yi, ... , Yn) and elements
s E S, r 1 , ... , rn E R satisfying 'I/; there exists an element r E R such that

r, ri, ... , rn satisfy 'I/;.
If Sis an elementary extension of R we write R < S. It is not hard to prove
that R < S implies R = S. If f: R---+ Sis a monomorphism, we say that f is
an elementary embedding if f(R) < S. For instance, the diagonal mapping ~
of a ring R into an ultrapower R1 / :F is an elementary embedding.
The Keisler-Shelah theorem has an analogue for elementary embeddings: Let
f : R ---+ S be a monomorphism. Then f is elementary if and only if there exists
a set I and an ultrafilter :F on I and an isomorphism cp such that
R s
RI /:F "'
---+ 51 /:F
is a commutative diagram, where ~R and ~s are the canonical diagonal embed-
dings.
In order to illustrate the concept of elementary extension we first consider its
meaning for field theory. Given a field extension L /I< we say that I< is relatively
algebraically closed in L if each x E L satisfying a monic polynomial equation
f(x) = 0, f E I<(X], belongs already to I<.
Proposition 1.10 If I< < L is an elementary extension of fields, I< is relatively
algebraically closed in L.
We will see in Chapter 2 that L/ I< is additionally (Mac Lane) separable.
Proof. If x E L is algebraic over I<, let
f = Xn + an-1Xn-i + · · · + aiX + ao E J<(X]
denote its minimal polynomial over I<. The 'first order formula' f (x) = 0 with
constants in I< is satisfied in L, hence in I< and thus n = 1, so x E I< follows. D
An important tool in applications of model theory to algebraic questions is
Lowenheim-Skolem's theorem.
Theorem 1.11 (Lowenheim-Skolem) Let R be an infinite ring
(group, field, module, ... ) and N an infinite cardinal number.
(i) If N ~ card(R), there exists an elementary extension of R having cardinal-
ity N.
(ii) If N :S card(R), there exists an elementary subring (subgroup, subfield,
submodule, ... ) of R having cardinality N. D
ALGEBRAICALLY CLOSED FIELDS 5
Actually the going-down part of the theorem can be stated in a stronger form:
If N is an infinite cardinal ~ card(R), then each subset of R of cardinality N is
contained in an elementary subring (subgroup, subfield, submodule, ... ) of R
again having cardinality N.
Algebraically closed fields and characteristic

transfer
We shall now give some concrete examples illustrating the above concepts.
A field K is algebraically closed if any non-constant polynomial in I<[X] has
a root in I<. For each natural number n consider the following first order sentence
Obviously, I< is algebraically closed if and only if I< satisfies O"n for every n. By
Los's principle it follows that any ultraproduct of algebraically closed fields is
algebraically closed again. Moreover, if I< =L and I< is algebraically closed, L
is algebraically closed.
Example 1.12 Let P be an infinite set of prime numbers and :Fa non-principal
ultrafilter on P. For p E P let FP be the algebraic closure of the prime field F P
with p elements. Consider the ultraproduct L = ITpeP Fp/:F. For any p E P the
property of having characteristic p can be expressed by the first order sentence
'rlx px = 0.
Therefore, since :F is non-principal, L has characteristic 0 and by the above
remark Lis algebraically closed. It is easy to prove that card(L) = 2No (see for
instance [21] p. 130), where N0 denotes the cardinality of the integers. Invoking
the classical theorem of Steinitz that two uncountable algebraically closed fields
of the same characteristic and cardinality are isomorphic, we conclude that L is
isomorphic to the field C of complex numbers, i.e. IlpeP Fp/:F ~ C.
By the Lowenheim-Skolem theorem one gets an explicit criterion for elemen-

tary equivalence of algebraically closed fields:
Theorem 1.13 Two algebraically closed fields I< and L are elementarily equiv-
alent if and only if char( I<) = char( L).
Proof. If I< = L and char(J<) = p > O, I< and L will both satisfy the
first order sentence Vx px = O; therefore char(I<) = char(L). Conversely, assume
char(J<) = char(L). By the Lowenheim-Skolem theorem there exists a field J{'
such that I<' = I< and card(J<') = Ni, the first uncountable cardinal number.
Similarly there exists a field L' such that L' = L and card(L') = Ni. The fields
I<' and L' are algebraically closed, have the same characteristic and the same
uncountable cardinality, hence they are isomorphic by Steinitz' theorem. Conse-
quently, I< and L are elementarily equivalent. D
Thus, if a first order property holds in one algebraically closed field it holds
in each algebraically closed field of the same characteristic. The characteristic
transfer principle relates the first order properties of algebraically closed fields
of characteristic 0 to those of algebraically closed fields of characteristic p > 0:
Theorem 1.14 (Characteristic transfer principle) Forafirst order sentence
a the following assertions are equivalent
(i) a holds in some {hence every) algebraically closed field of characteristic 0.
(ii) There are infinitely many primes p such that a holds in some {hence
every) algebraically closed field of characteristic p.
(iii) There is a finite set E of prime numbers such that a holds in some {hence
every) algebraically closed field of characteristic p </. E.
Proof. As in the earlier example let P be an infinite set of primes - :F a

non-principal ultrafilter on P - and FP the algebraic closure of the prime field
FP. If a first order sentence a holds in Fp for all p E P it follows from Los's
principle and the isomorphism
c ~ ITFp/:F
that a holds in C. This proves '(ii) => (i)' and '(i) => (iii)'. The implication
'(iii)=> (ii)' is trivial. D
Noether-Ostrowski's irreducibility theorem

The following application of the characteristic transfer principle, or the isomor-
phism of example 1.12, giving a short proof of the Noether-Ostrowski irreducibility
theorem is due to W.-D. Geyer.
If I< is a field, a polynomial J(X1 , .•. ,Xn) E I<[Xi, ... ,Xn] is called abso-
lutely irreducible if /(Xi, ... , Xn) remains irreducible in R[Xi, ... , Xn] where R
denotes the algebraic closure of I<. In that case f(Xi, ... , Xn) is irreducible in
L[ X1, ... , Xn] for any field extension L of I<.
HILBERT'S NULLSTELLENSATZ 7
Theorem 1.15 (Noether-Ostrowski's irreducibility theorem) Consider a

polynomial f(X 1 , ••• , Xn) in Z[X1 , ... , Xn] and for a prime number p define
fp(X 1 , ••• , Xn) as the polynomial in F p[Xi, ... , Xn] obtained by replacing the co-
efficients of f(X 1 , ••• , Xn) by the corresponding residue classes in FP. Then:
f(X 1 , .•. , Xn) is absolutely irreducible if and only if there exists a finite set E
of primes such that fp(Xi, ... , Xn) is absolutely irreducible for all p tJ E.
Proof. f (Xi, ... , Xn) is absolutely irreducible if and only if the polyno-
mial f(X 1 , ••• , Xn) is irreducible in C[Xi, ... , Xn]· This irreducibility can be
expressed by the non-solvability in C of certain systems of equations of the form
a; = g(Q.i,0.) where the a;'s denote coefficients of f(Xi, ... , Xn) and g(Xj,Yk)
integral polynomials in Xi and L- Hence the statement easily follows from the
isomorphism of Example 1.12.
0
Hilbert's N ullstellensatz
We shall illustrate some of the preceding notions by giving a model theoretic

proof of the Hilbert Nullstellensatz.
We recall that for an algebraically closed field I< the Nullstellensatz can be
expressed by either of the following two equivalent statements:
HNS(i). If fv = L,, ... ,ina)~!... ,inXi' ···X~n, 1 ~ V ~ t, are t polynomials in
R = I<[Xi, ... , Xn] such that R -j. I:~=I Rfv, then fi, ... , ft have a common zero
in Kn.
HNS(ii). If a finitely generated ring extension S of I< is a field, then
s =I<.
Proof. We distinguish between the cases card(J<) = N0 and card(I<) > N0 ,
where N0 denotes the cardinality of the integers.
(1) card( I<)= N0 . We prove HNS(i). We consider the embedding j : I< --->
L, L = R/rn, where rn is a maximal ideal of R containing f 1 , ... , ft. The field
L is a finitely generated I<-algebra and Ji, ... , ft have a common zero in L.
Further let :F be a non-principal ultrafilter on the set N of natural numbers. The
ultrapower I<* = J<N /:Fis an algebraically closed field of cardinality 2No. Hence,
in the extension ~ : I< ---> I<* the transcendency degree of I<* over ~(I<) is
infinite. By classical field theory there is a field monomorphism j* such that
I< ..J.....+ L
/{*
is a commutative diagram.
Since fi, .. . , ft have a common zero in Ln they also have a common zero in
I<*n. Let this zero be ([a1.], •.. , [ans]), s E N, where the a 's are elements in I<.
We thus have
in /{*, hence by Los's principle there is a subset J ~ N, J E :F such that

( ai., ... , ans) is a common zero for Ji, ... , ft for any s in J.
(2) card(I<) > N0 • We might proceed in the same way as in (1), but here
it is less immediate that /{N / :F has infinite transcendency degree over ti.(I<).
However, by an observation of Kaplansky, HNS is almost trivial for uncountable
I<. Here, the formulation HNS(ii) is most convenient to consider. Since S is
a finitely generated ring extension of I<, the dimension of S as a vector space
over I< is at most countable. If S ~ /{ is a proper field extension, an arbitrary
s E S - /{ is transcendental over /{ since /{ is algebraically closed. The elements
{1/(s + k)lk E I<} form an uncountable family of elements linearly independent
over I<. Hence S =f. I< is impossible and S = /{ as required. D
Hilbert's 17th problem
Next, as another explicit application, we consider Hilbert's 11t1• problem from a

model theoretic point of view. We consider rational functions over the rational
number field Q and shall prove that any function in Q(Xi, ... , Xn) which is
~ 0 - whenever defined for (x 1 , ..• , xn) in Qn or Rn - is a sum of squares in
Q(Xi, ... , Xn)· It obviously suffices to show that any polynomial
f = L%,. . ,hnXf' ···X:n E Z(X1,. . .,XnJ,
which is~ 0 for all rational (or real) values of X 1 , •.• , Xn, is a sum of squares in
Q(X1, ... , Xn)·
We recall some elementary facts about ordered fields. Let I< be a field and <
a total ordering of I<. (I<,<) is called an ordered field if< is compatible with
HILBERT'S 17th PROBLEM 9
addition + and multiplication·, i.e. if x, y, z EI< and x ~ y then x + z ~ y + z

and if x, y, z EI< and z > 0, then x ~ y implies xz ~ yz.
It is a basic (and not deep) result that an element x EI<, char(I<) = 0, is a
sum of squares if and only if x ~ 0 by every ordering of I< such that (I<,<) is an
ordered field.
Thus for the above case of Hilbert 17th problem we have to show that if
J = L%, ... ,hnX~' • • ·X~n E Z[X1,. • • ,Xn]
satisfies
Jh, ... , rn) = L: ah,, .. .,hnr~' ... r~n ~ o
for all r 1, ... , r n E Rn, then f ~ 0 for every ordering < that makes I< =
Q(X1, ... , Xn) into an ordered field.
A field L is called real closed if L admits an ordering as an ordered field
and no proper algebraic extension of L has this property. We now show that the
assertion about rational functions is an immediate consequence of the following
result (proofs will be given in Theorem 2.28 and Corollary 3.18):
Theorem 1.16 (Tarski) Any two real closed fields are elementarily equivalent.
In fact, let < be an arbitrary ordering of I< = Q(X1, ... , Xn) as an ordered
field and let R(I<) be a real closure of (I<,<), i.e. R(I<) is a real closed field that is
an algebraic extension of I< such that an element x E ]{ is the square of an element
of R(I<) if and only if x ~ 0. For a fixed polynomial J = 2:: ah,, .. .,hnX~' · · · x:n
the condition that J(ri, ... , rn) ~ 0 for all (ri, ... , rn) E Rn can be expressed as
a first order sentence for the real number field R:
V T)p .. ,Tn :3 s """"
~ a hi,. .. ,hn rh'
1 · · · rhn - s
n -
2
•
By Tarski's theorem R(I<) = R; hence the above sentence holds true if we

replace R by R(I<). If we insert X1 for r1, ... , Xn for rn we conclude that
f -_ """"a
~
Xh' ... Xhn
h1, ... ,hn 1 n
is the square of an element in R(K), hence f ~ 0 by the ordering <. D

By a slight modification of the above (for instance using that L is an elemen-
tary extension of I< whenever L 2 I< and I< and L are real closed fields) one
obtains that a positive definite polynomial in R[Xi, ... , Xn] is a sum of squares
in R(Xi, ... , Xn)·
There exist many other examples of classical problems where model theory
( ultraproducts) yields short proofs. We hope that the above examples have illus-
trated that model theoretic notions in a natural way turn up in several purely
algebraic questions.
Chapter 2
Elementary equivalence.
Axiomatizable and finitely
axiomatizable classes. Examples
and results in field theory
Keisler-Shelah's ultrapower theorem
In the preceding chapter we introduced the notion of elementary equivalence. The

following theorem summarizes a basic characterization of elementary equivalence,
encountered already in Chapter 1:
Theorem 2.1 (Keisler-Shelah) Let R and S be two rings (resp. fields, modu-
les, ... ). The following conditions are equivalent:
(i) R and S satisfy the same first order sentences in the language of rings
(resp. fields, modules, ... ), i.e. R and S are elementarily equivalent, denoted
R:=S.
(ii) There exist sets I and J and ultrafilters :F and g on I and J such that
the ultrapowers RI/ :F and SJ /9 are isomorphic.
(iii) There exists a set I and an ultrafilter :F on I such that the ultrapowers
RI/ :F and SI/ :F are isomorphic. D
For a proof we refer to [12] or [33]. We here note that the implication (iii)=>
(ii) is trivial, (ii) => ( i) holds by Los's principle. By contrast (i) => (iii) is a deep
result, first proved 1964 by Keisler using saturation properties of ultrapowers and
11
12 CHAPTER 2. ELEMENTARY EQUIVALENCE
the generalized continuum hypothesis (GCH). A direct proof not using (GCH)
was given by Shelah in 1971 [182].
Let us note that for most purposes we shall not need this latter implication;
we have added it here to give a unified exposition.
Cardinalities and saturation properties of ultra-

products
For later reference we need some results on cardinality and saturation properties
of ultraproducts.
It is not too difficult to prove the next result on the cardinality of ultraprod-
ucts. For a proof we refer to [21].
Proposition 2.2 If I and M are infinite sets there exists an ultrafilter :F on I

such that IM 1 /:Fl= 1Mjl11.
D
Let M be a model of £. A set r of .C-formulas 1(X) in one free variable

X (with constants taken from M) is satisfiable in M if there exists an element
m E M such that 1(m) is satisfied in M for each / E f. f is called finitely
satisfiable in M if any finite subset of r is satisfiable in M. Finally M is said
to be N-saturated (some authors use N+-saturated) if any finitely satisfiable set
r, lfl ~ N, of .C-formulas 1(X) (with constants from M) in one free variable is
satisfiable in M.
For an N-saturated structure it can be shown that the above property also
holds if r is replaced by a set of at most N formulas in ~ N free variables.
A quite deep result is the next theorem on saturation properties of ultraprod-
ucts, which we cite without proof from [33]. Notice, however, that the countable
version has a quite straightforward proof.
Theorem 2.3 Let .C be a first-order language of cardinality ~ N and I be an

index set of cardinality N. Then there exists an ultrafilter :F on I such that for
any family (Ma)aEI of models for .C the ultraproduct Ila-El Ma/ :F is N-saturated.
D
ELEMENTARILY CLOSED CLASSES 13
Elementarily closed classes

Definition 2.4 A class C of rings {resp. fields, modules, ... ) is called elemen-
tarily closed if R=S and R E C implies S E C.
Since a field can be defined as a ring satisfying the first order sentence
it follows that the fields form an elementarily closed class.

Similarly, an algebraically closed field can be defined as a field K satisfying
the first order sentences CTn, for all n E N, stating that each nonconstant polyno-
mial of degree n has a root in K. Hence the algebraically closed fields form an
elementarily closed class.
If K and L are elementarily equivalent fields they obviously have the same
characteristic. As mentioned in Chapter 1 the converse holds if K and L are
algebraically closed.
To illustrate the concept of elementary equivalence we shall give some concrete
examples:
Proposition 2.5 Let K and L be algebraic number fields of finite degree over
the field of rational numbers Q. Then K and L are elementarily equivalent if and
only if K and L are isomorphic {i.e. are conjugate number fields).
Proof. If K = L, then each polynomial in Q(X] has as many roots in K

as in L. If [( = Q( a), the minimal polynomial of a has a root /3 in L. Hence
Q(/3) ~ L and [L: Q] 2: [I< : Q].
By symmetry we get [L : Q] = [K : Q]; hence [L : Q] = (Q(/3) : Q] and
L = Q(/3). Thus L and K are isomorphic. D
Exercise 2.6 Let K and L be arbitrary {not necessarily finite) algebraic exten-
sions of Q. Show that K and L are isomorphic if K L. =
(Hint: Use that an irreducible polynomial in Q (X] has as many roots in K
as in L. To obtain the desired isomorphism one may use Konig's theorem from
graph theory. For an alternative method of proof we refer to Exercise 2.47.]
Example 2.7 For any finite or infinite set P of primes let Q(P) be the algebraic
extension obtained by adjoining {y'P I p E P}. It follows from Exercise 2.6 (or
directly) that for two sets P 1 and P 2 one has Q(P 1 ) =
Q(P 2 ) if and only if
P 1 = P 2 . Hence there are at least 2No different elementarily closed classes of

fields. On the other hand there are only countably many first order sentences
ih the language of rings (or fields). Therefore (by the pigeonhole principle) it
follows that any family of mutually elementarily inequivalent fields has at most
2No members.
Exercise 2.8 Give an example of two fields K and L such that K is elementarily
equivalent to a subfield of L and L is elementarily equivalent to a subfield of K,
but K and L are not elementarily equivalent.
[Hint: Consider for instance C and C(X) ].
Proposition 2.9 For a field K and a set I let K(I) be the field of rational
functions K({X;};e1) in the indeterminates X; (i EI). Whenever I and J are
infinite sets - not necessarily of the same cardinality - the fields K(I) and
K( J) are elementarily equivalent.
Proof. We even show a stronger result: If I is an infinite subset of J, the

natural embedding K (I) ~ K ( J) is elementary.
To prove this, we consider a formula rp( v 1 , ••• , Vn) with free variables among
(v 1 , v2, ... , vn) and elements (i.e. rational functions) /2, ... , fn E K(I), g E K(J)
and assume rp(g, h, ... , fn) holds in K( J).
In the finite set of indeterminates appearing in g let X"''' ... , X°'n be those
for which Oi, ... 'On are in I and xjJ,, ... 'x/Jm be those for which /3i, ... 'f3m are
in J - I. Let f be the rational function in K(I) obtained from g by replacing
the indeterminates XfJ,, ... , X/Jm by indeterminates X.n, ... , X-rm' /1, ... , /m E I
such that any X-r is distinct from any X/3 and any indeterminate appearing
in f2, ... , fn, while the indeterminates X"'', ... , X°'n are left unchanged. Then
f E K(I) and rp(J,f2, ... ,fn) holds in K(J). D
An alternative proof of Proposition 2.9 will be given in the next chapter

(Proposition 3.14).
Later in this and the following chapter we shall give further explicit examples
and results about equivalence of fields.
Axiomatizable and finitely axiomatizable classes
We shall now consider classes of rings (fields) defined by families of first order
sentences.
AXIOMATIZABLE CLASSES 15
Definition 2.10 A class C of rings (resp. fields, modules, ... ) is called ax-
iomatizable if there exists a family of first order sentences in the corresponding
language such that C consists exactly of the rings (resp. fields, modules, ... )
satisfying these first order sentences.
Definition 2.11 A class C of rings (resp. fields, modules, ... ) is called finitely
axiomatizable if there exists a first order sentence r.p in the corresponding language
such that C consists exactly of those rings (resp. fields, modules, ... ) satisfying
'P·
The axiomatizable and finitely axiomatizable classes can be characterized as

follows (see [33,12]:
Theorem 2.12 A class C of rings (resp. fields, modules, ... ) is axiomatizable

if and only if C is closed under elementary equivalence and under formation of
ultra products.
Proof. If C is axiomatizable it is clearly closed with respect to elementary

equivalence and in view of Los's theorem also under formation of ultraproducts.
Assume conversely that Chas both properties and let A be a model for Th(C),
the set of all (first order) sentences true in all models in C. Let I = Th(A) be
the set of all sentences a true in A. For each a E I there exists some Ca in C
satisfying a, because otherwise •a would belong to Th(C) hence hold true in A.
Clearly, the sets
Jex = {,BE I I a holds true in C11}
are non-empty and in view of
all belong to some ultrafilter :Fon I. By assumption C = TiaeI Ca/:F belongs to

C, moreover we infer from Los's theorem that A= C, so A EC since C is closed
with respect to elementary equivalence. D
Theorem 2.13 A class C of rings (resp. fields, modules, ... ) is finitely axiom-
atizable if and only if C is axiomatizable and the class of rings (fields, modules,
... ) not in C is closed under formation of ultraproducts.
Proof. If C hence also C, the class of all models not in C, is finitely axioma-
tizable, both C and C are closed under the formation of ultraproducts.
Assume conversely that C and C have this property. By means of Keisler-

Shelah's ultrapower theorem it follows that both C and C are closed under ele-
mentary equivalence, so C is axiomatizable by the preceding theorem. We claim
that for some a in I= Th(C) the class M(a) of all models satisfying a coincides
with C. If not, we will find for each a E I some X 0 E M(a) n C. As in the
preceding proof the sets J 0 = {,8 E I I Xp satisfies a} belong to some ultrafilter
:Fon I. Invoking Los's theorem we see that X = fl 0 e1 X 0 /:F is a model for
Th(C), thus X belongs to C by the preceding theorem. Since C is closed under
the formation of ultraproducts X also belongs to C, a contradiction. 0
We now illustrate these concepts by some examples.
Example 2.14 The class of all fields is finitely axiomatizable (in the class of all
rings), in particular axiomatizable, since fields can be defined by the single first
order sentence V# 0 3y (xy = 1).
Example 2.15 For a fixed prime number p the class of all fields of characteristic
p is finitely axiomatizable, since it can be defined by the sentence
cpP: V:r: px = 0.
The fields of characteristic zero can be defined by the family of negations ''Pp
of the above sentences, p running through all primes, and consequently form
an axiomatizable class. On the other hand, the fields of characteristic =f. 0 are
not closed under formation of ultraproducts, since every non-trivial ultraproduct
ITpeP Fp over all prime fields Fp is a field of characteristic 0. Therefore, the fields
of characteristic zero form an axiomatizable, but not a finitely axiomatizable
class. Notice that we might as well derive this conclusion using the compactness
theorem.
Example 2.16 The class of algebraically closed fields can be defined by the
sequence of first order sentences Un, ·stating that each non-constant polynomial
of degree n has a root, and is therefore axiomatizable. However, there exists a
sequence of non-algebraically closed fields Fn, n E N, such that for every non-
principal ultrafilter :F on N the ultraproduct ITne~Fn/ :F is algebraically closed.
For this purpose let Fn denote the set of all elements x in the algebraic closure Q
of Q that can be reached by a sequence of subfields Q = ]{0 s;;; I<1 s;;; • • • s;;; I<1 of
subfields of Q, with all degrees [I<; : I<;_ 1 ] bounded by n (i = 1, ... , t). Clearly,
Fn is a subfield of Q satisfying the following properties (cf. [21], p. 100):
(1) Each Fn is an infinite algebraic extension of Q.
MAC LANE SEPARABILITY 17
(2) Each non-constant polynomial in Fn[X] of degree :Sn has a root in Fn.
(3) For each prime number p > n none of the elements in Fn has a degree over
Q that is divisible by p.
(4) For each non-principal ultrafilter :Fon N the ultraproduct F* = IlnENFn/ :F
[Here (4) is a consequence of (1), (2) and (3)].
Hence the algebraically closed fields form an axiomatizable, but not finitely
axiomatizable class.
Example 2.17 A field is called separably closed if it has no proper separable

algebraic extension. A field I< is easily seen to be separably closed if and only if
it satisfies the following family of first order sentences:
Every polynomial f (X) E J<[X], for which there exist polynomials

a(X), b(X) E I<[X] such that
a(X)f(X) + b(X)J'(X) = 1
and
max(deg(a),deg(b)) :S deg(/)
has a root in I<.
[Here, f'(X) denotes the derivative of f(X) with respect to X].

Hence the separably closed fields form an axiomatizable class. It follows from
Example 2.16 that this class is not finitely axiomatizable. While algebraically
closed fields of the same characteristic are elementarily equivalent, in general
separably closed fields of the same characteristic are not. However, it can be
shown [55] that two separably closed fields I< and L of the same characteristic
p # 0 are elementarily equivalent if and only if the indices [I< : J<P] and [L : LP]
are either both infinite or both finite and equal.
Mac Lane separability
For later applications we here mention the general notion of Mac Lane separa-
bility. A reference for this notion is N. Jacobson [93].If the characteristic of a
field I< is zero, every field extension L/ I< is separable in the sense of Mac Lane
("Mac Lane separable"). If the characteristic of I< is p > 0, an extension L/K
is Mac Lane separable if L and J{P- 1 are linearly disjoint over I<, where J{P- 1
denotes the subfield of an algebraic closure of L consisting of the elements x such
that xP E K. It is well known that an extension L / K is Mac Lane separable if

and only if L is a directed union U., L., of separably generated extensions L., of
K; one can even obtain that each L., is a finitely generated extension of K. By
Ksep we denote the separable closure of K i.e. the subfield in an algebraic closure
of K consisting of all elements that are algebraic and separable over K. Using
ultrapowers, Mac Lane separability can be interpreted in the following way [100]:
Proposition 2.18 An extension L/ K is Mac Lane separable if and only if there

exist a set I and an ultrafilter :F on I and an embedding j such that the diagram
is commutative. Here, ~ denotes the natural diagonal embedding of K into its

ultrapower (Ksep) 1 / :F.
Proof. We first consider the "only if" part. There exist a set I and an
ultrafilter :Fon I such that the cardinality of K* = (Ksep) 1 /:Fis strictly larger
than max(~o, ILi). This follows for instance from Proposition 2.2.
The transcendency degree of K* / K will then be strictly larger than the tran-
scendency degree of L/ K. From Example 2.17 we conclude that K* is separa-
bly algebraically closed. By standard transfinite induction (or applying Zorn's
lemma) one sees that the canonical embedding K <--> K* can be extended to an
embedding L <--> K*.
To prove the "if" part we assume that there is an embedding of L into K* =
(Ksep) 1 /:F so that we may consider Las an intermediate field between Kand K*.
Now, L/ K will be separable if K* / K is. Because of the transitivity of Mac Lane
separability, it therefore suffices to show that K* / Ksep is separable. This is a
consequence of the following
Proposition 2.19 Every elementary field extension L/ K is Mac Lane separable.
Proof. We may, of course, assume that char(K) = char(L) = p > 0. We

must show that Land KP-' are linearly disjoint over K. By passing to pth powers
this means that we have to prove that any finite set a;, 1 :::; i :::; n, of elements
C;-FIELDS 19
in ]{ is linearly dependent over the field f{'P whenever these elements are linearly
dependent over LP. But since the formula
(o) 3yi, ... , Yn (ta; yf = o)

i=l
holds in L and L is an elementary extension of I<, the formula ( o) also holds in

I<, i.e. the elements a;, 1 ~ i ~ n, are linearly dependent over J<P. D
Exercise 2.20 A subfield I< of the field L is called existentially closed in L, if

the following holds: If cp( x 1 , ... , Xm, y 1 , ... , Yn) is a quantifier-free formula in the
language of fields, then for any elements ki, . .. , km in I< the formula
holds in I< if it holds in L.

Prove that a field extension L/ I< is Mac Lane separable if I< is existentially
closed in L.
2.21 There is another generalization of algebraically closed fields that is of impor-

tance in several respects. If i ~ 0 one says that I< satisfies the Tsen-Lang con-
dition C; (or I< is a C;-field) if every homogeneous polynomial in J<[Xi, ... , Xn]
of degreed, n > d', has a non-trivial zero (x 1 , ... , xn) E I<n [125].
We are now going to review the main examples of C;-fields. For details we
refer to [156]:
Obviously, an algebraically closed field is a C;-field for any i ~ 0.
For an integer i typical examples of C;-fields are:
(1) any extension of an algebraically closed field of transcendency degree i.
(2) the power series field J<((X1 ))((X2 )) • • • ((X;)), where I< is algebraically
closed.
C 1-fields are often called quasi-algebraically closed fields. Examples of quasi-
algebraically closed fields are: finite fields, arbitrary ultraproducts of finite fields,
the fields obtained from (1) and (2) above by setting i = 1.
It is straightforward to check that for any fixed integer i the C;-fields form an
axiomatizable class. At the end of this chapter we shall see that for any fixed inte-
ger i the C;-fields do not form a finitely axiomatizable class (see Proposition 2.46).
As for C;-fields with arbitrary i it is not known whether
inf {i I I< is a C;-field }
is an integer for every field I<.

An important property of an quasi-algebraically closed field I< is that the
Brauer group of any finite extension L of I< is trivial. Equivalently, each finite
dimensional central skew field extension D / L is trivial. Let us recall that, by
definition, the Brauer group Br(J<) of a field I< consists of the similarity classes of
all central simple J<-algebras with the group operation induced by the formation
of tensor products. Hereby, two central simple K-algebras A and B are called
similar if there exists a (central) skew field extension D /I< such that A ~ Mn( D)
and B ~ Mm(D) for suitable integers m and n.
Proposition 2.22 The fields I< with trivial Brauer group Br(J<) form an ax-
iomatizable but not finitely axiomatizable class.
Proof. The fields with trivial Brauer group form an axiomatizable class: If
a field I< has an n-dimensional central skew field extension D /I<, this can be
expressed in the structure constants of D over I< on a first order level. This
leads to the existence of a first order statement 'Pn in the language of fields
satisfied exactly by the fields with a central n-dimensional skew field extension.
We conclude that the class of fields with trivial Brauer group is axiomatizable.
Moreover, this class is not finitely axiomatizable: By Example 2.16 (cf. also
[21], p. 100) there exists a family of fields Fn, n E N, with the following properties:
(1) Fn is an infinite algebraic extension of Q.
(2) Every non-constant polynomial in Fn[X] of degree :Sn has a root in Fn.
(3) For each prime number p > n none of the elements in Fn has a degree over
Q that is divisible by p.
(4) For each non-principal ultrafilter Fon N the ultraproduct F* = IlneNFn/F
For each n E N the Brauer group of Fn is non-trivial, since for every prime
number p > n the Brauer group of Q has an element of order p which because of
(3) is not split by Fn. Since F* is algebraically closed, the Brauer group of F* is
trivial. Theorem 2.13 now shows that the fields with trivial Brauer group do not
form a finitely axiomatizable class. D
Ordered fields and sums of squares
It is well known that a field I< can be ordered as an ordered field if and only
if I< is formally real, i.e. -1 is not a sum of squares of elements in I<. For
ORDERED FIELDS AND SUMS OF SQUARES 21
further details we refer to [93) or [156]. For a fixed positive integer n let Tn be
the sentence:
v,,,, ... ,Xn - 1 =PX~+ X~ + """ + X~.
Clearly K is formally real if and only if K satisfies each Tn, n E N. Hence the
formally real fields form an axiomatizable class.
Proposition 2.23 The formally real fields form an axiomatizable but not a finitely
Proof. To verify that the class of formally real fields is not finitely axioma-
tizable, we consider for a field K that is not formally real, the smallest number
n such that -1 is a sum of n squares of elements in K. This number n is called
the level of K (German: Stuf e). It can be shown [156] that the level of a
non-orderable field is a power of 2 and conversely that every power of 2 appears
as the level of a field. For each t E N let K 1 be a field of level 21 and let :F be a
non-principal ultrafilter on N. By Los's principle it follows that -1 is not a sum
of squares in the ultraproduct IlnENKtf :F; hence this ultraproduct is formally
real, which proves the assertion. D
We have already in Chapter 1 considered real closed fields, i.e. formally real
fields for which no proper algebraic extension is formally real. The following is a
classical characterization of real closed fields, cf. [123]:
Theorem 2.24 (Artin-Schreier) For a field K the following three conditions

are equivalent:
( 1) K is real closP.d.
(2) -1 is not a square in K, and K(.J=l) is algebraically closed.
(3) K satisfies:
(i) K is formally real
(ii) For each a in K either a or -a is a square in K.
(iii) Each polynomial in K[X] of odd degree has a root in K. D
It is readily checked that each of the conditions (i), (ii) and (iii) of (3) can be
expressed by a family of first order sentences. Hence the real closed fields form
an axiomatizable class.
To verify that the real closed fields do not form a finitely axiomatizable class
we need:
Lemma 2.25 For any natural numbern there is a subfield Kn of the real number
field R such that
( 1) Kn is not real closed.
(2) For each positive number a in Kn the square root Va belongs to Kn·
(3) Every polynomial in Kn[X] of odd degree n has a root in Kn·
Proof. Let F0 , F11 F2, ... be the sequence of number fields defined induc-
tively as follows: Let F0 be the rational number field Q. Let Ft+l be the field
obtained from Ft by adjoining all square roots of positive numbers in Fi and all
real algebraic numbers whose degree relative to Ft is an odd number ::; n. Clearly,
we have
Fo ~ Fi ~ F2 ~ ··· ~ Ft ~ ... ,
and we may define Kn= U~ 1 Ft.
Further it is obvious that Kn satisfies (2) and (3). We observe that the degree
over Q of any number in Kn can only be divisible by prime numbers::; n. Hence,
if pis a prime number> n the polynomial XP - 2 has no roots in Kn. Kn is thus
not real closed. D
We can now show
Proposition 2.26 The real closed fields form an axiomatizable but not finitely
Proof. In view of previous remarks it suffices to prove that the real closed
fields do not form a finitely axiomatizable class. Let :F be a non-principal ul-
trafilter on N and let K* be the ultraproduct IlnENKn/ :F of the above sequence
of fields with respect to a non-principal ultrafilter :Fon N. Since Kn ~ R, each
Kn is formally real and therefore K* is formally real. The property that for
every a either a or -a is a square holds in each Kn and therefore also in K*.
Finally, every polynomial of odd degrees in Kn[X] has a root in Kn for all n > s.
Consequently, each polynomial in K*[X] of degrees has a root in K*. By Artin-
Schreier's theorem K* is real closed. Theorem 2.13 shows that the real closed
fields do not form a finitely axiomatizable class. D
By a classical result of Steinitz (already quoted in Chapter 1) any two al-

gebraically closed fields of the same characteristic and of the same uncountable
cardinality are isomorphic. Nothing similar holds for real closed fields. Non-
isomorphic real closed fields of the same uncountable cardinality (and trivially of
same characteristic zero) can be obtained in the following way:
ORDERED FIELDS AND SUMS OF SQUARES 23
Example 2.27 We exhibit an explicit uncountable family of mutually non-iso-

morphic real closed fields of cardinality 2No:
For any field K let P(K) be the union
00
p = LJ K((T1fn))
n=l
of formal power series fields K((T 1 ln)). By a classical theorem of Puiseux, cf.
[197] or [35], P(K) is algebraically closed whenever K is algebraically closed of
characteristic zero. From the Artin-Schreier theorem it follows that P(K) is real
closed. Now, let F 1 = R, F 2 = P(F1 ), F3 = P(F2 ), etc. Hereby F; is defined for
every i E N. By transfinite induction Fi can be defined for any ordinal number i
by setting F; = P(Fi) if i = j + 1 and F; = Ui<i Fi (by the obvious inclusions)
if i is a limit ordinal. When i runs through all ordinal numbers < N2 we get a
family of N2 real closed fields of cardinality 2No. By considering the ranks of the
corresponding ordered groups it is not hard to see that the above real closed fields
are mutually non-isomorphic. If we assume the generalized continuum hypothesis
in the form 2No = N1 and 2N 1 = N2 we thus get 22 " 0 non-isomorphic real closed
fields of cardinality 2No. By less explicit constructions it can be shown without
assuming the generalized continuum hypothesis (GCH) that the number of non-
isomorphic real closed fields of cardinality 2No is 22 " 0 • This can also be expressed
by saying that the complex number field C contains 22" 0 non-isomorphic subfields
of codimension 2.
Nevertheless, while an analogue of Steinitz's theorem does not hold for real
closed fields, the corresponding theorem about elementary equivalence is true. In
fact, as mentioned in Chapter 1, by a theorem of Tarski any two real closed fields
are elementarily equivalent.
Theorem 2.28 (Tarski) Any two real closed fields are elementarily equivalent.
Proof. We sketch a proof of the theorem:

In this context the 11 1 -ordered fields play an important role. Generally, a
totally ordered set E is called an 111 -set if for any two at most countable subsets
A and B, where a < b for all a EA and all b EB, there exists an element x E E
satisfying a< x < b for all a E A and all b E B. In particular, by taking A= 0 or
B = 0 it follows that an 111-set has no countable subset that is coinitial or cofinal.
A real closed field has a unique ordering S (as an ordered field), defined by
letting the squares be the positive elements. A real closed field K is called an
111-field if the underlying set K by this ordering is an 111 -set. It can be shown
(see [77], thm. 13.13) that any two real closed 771 -fields of cardinality ~1 are
isomorphic.
If :F is a non-trivial ultrafilter on N, the ultrapower KN/ :F is a real closed
11i-field for an arbitrary real closed field K. This follows from Theorem Th:2.lb.
Therefore, assuming the continuum hypothesis 2No = ~i, it follows that KN/ :F =
LN / :F for any two real closed fields K and L of cardinality 2No.
By Lowenheim-Skolem's theorem and the axiomatizability of real closed fields,
every real closed field is elementarily equivalent to a real closed field of cardinality
2No. Therefore, any two real closed field are elementarily equivalent. (A proof not
using the continuum hypothesis (CH) will be given in Corollary 3.18, see also
[33]). 0
Exercise 2.29 Show - by modification of the proof of Lemma 2.25 - that there
exists a field L which is not real closed and satisfies:
(i) -1 is a not square in K,
(ii) for any a E K either a or -a is a square in K,
(iii) any polynomial in K[X] of odd degree has a root in K.
Exercise 2.30 Let :F be a non-trivial ultrafilter on N and R be the field of real

numbers. Show - using {CH) and the earlier quoted result for real closed 711 -
fields of cardinality ~ 1 - that RN/ :F and P(RN / :F) are non-isomo1 y' ;c real closed
fields each of which is isomorphic to a subfield of the other.
The Pythagoras number
In Chapter 1 we showed that Tarski's theorem implies that each positive definite
polynomial in K[X1 , ... ,Xn] is a sum of squares in K(X1 , ... ,Xn) where K = Q
or R. In general, little is known about the number of squares needed in such
representations.
Here it is natural to introduce the Pythagoras number ir(K) of a field K as
the smallest number d (if such a number exists) for which any sum of squares in
K is a sum of d squares in K. If no such d exists, we say that the Pythagoras
number ir(K) is infinite. For further information we refer to [156].
Example 2.31 If K is a finite field then ir(K) = 1 or 2 according as char(K) = 2

or char(K) #- 2. By Lagrange's theorem ir(Q) = 4. By a classical theorem of
Hasse and Siegel ir(K) :::; 4 for any algebraic number field K. An example of a
field with infinite Pythagoras number is R( {X;};eN)-
THE PYTHAGORAS NUMBER 25
Evidently the Pythagoras number is invariant under elementary equivalence,

i.e. K = L implies ir(K) = ir(L); moreover the fields K having fixed (finite)
Pythagoras number form a finitely axiomatizable class with defining axiom
d+l d
\:/Xl , ... ,:en 3Yt,.··1Yd ~ " -- ~
L....J x·2 LJ y·2
' .
i=l i=I
Proposition 2.32 If K = L, then ir(K(X)) = ir(L(X)).

Proof. Since the Pythagoras number is 1 for any field of characteristic 2 we
may assume char( K) = char( L) -:/- 2.
We distinguish between two cases:
(i) K is formally real
(ii) K is not formally real.
ad (i): By a result of Cassels (cf. [156] p. 192) a polynomial f(X) E K[X]
is a sum oft squares in K[X] if and only if it is a sum oft squares in K(X).
Assume d = ir(K(X)) < oo. Since K is formally real, the degree of a sum of
squares of polynomials is even. Further if f has degree 2n and f is a sum of t
squares in K[X]:
t
f = I:N
i=l
each term f; must have degree~ n. The assertion ir(K(X)) =dis equivalent to
the following family un(n EN) of first order sentences in K:
For any (d + 1) polynomials gi, ... ,gd+I E K[X] of degree~ n there exist d
polynomials f 1 , ... , f d in K[ X] of degree ~ n such that
d+l d
L9i
i=l
= I:N
2
i=l
Since K =L the corresponding statements hold true in L, and hence
ir(K(X)) = ir(L(K)).
ad (ii): Here -1 is a sum of squares in K. Let s be the level of K. By the
above quoted result of Cassels the fields K, K(X), Land L(X) have the same
level. From the identity
a= (l/2(a + 1)) 2 + (-l)(l/2(a - 1)) 2

it follows that the Pythagoras number for each of the fields K, L, K(X), L(X)
is either s ors+ 1. To complete the proof it suffices to show that s = ?r(K) =
?r(K(X)) implies ?r(L(X) = s.
If a polynomial f E K[X] of degree 2n has a representation
•
f = 2:g/, g; E K[X],
i=l
the degree of each g; is $ n, since a non-trivial sum of s squares in K cannot be

zero.
Therefore, just as in (i) the statement ?r(K(X)) = s can be expressed by a
family of first order sentences for K, and we conclude ?r(L(X)) = s. 0
Remark 2.33 We shall later get examples showing that, in general, K L does =
not imply K(X) =
L(X). If n :'.'.'. 2 we do not know whether K =
L implies
?r(K(X1, ... 'Xn)) = ?r(L(X1, ... 'Xn)·
Let K be a real closed field. It is well known (and easy to check) that every
positive definite polynomial in K[X] is a sum of two squares, hence ?r(K(X)) = 2.
For polynomials in more than one variable less information is available. It has
been proved by Pfister that
(2.1)
and
(2.2)
see [156] and [147].
Moreover, it follows from a result of Cassels that ?r(L(X)) :'.'.'. 1 + ?r(L) for any
formally real field L. Hence for n :'.'.'. 2 one gets the inequalities
(2.3)
for every real closed field K.
While a positive definite polynomial in K[X] for a real closed K is a sum of

(two) squares of polynomials in K[X], there exist positive definite polynomials
in R[X1, X2] which cannot be written as a sum of squares of polynomials in
R[Xi, X 2]. The simplest such example is the polynomial
1 + X1 2X2 2(X1 2 + X2 2 - 1). (2.4)
Any such polynomial is, as follows from the positive solution of Hilbert's 17th
problem, a sum of squares of rational functions. About the size of denominators
in such representations we show:
THE PYTHAGORAS NUMBER 27
Proposition 2.34 There exists a function g : N 2 --> N, (n, d) >-+ g(n, d)

such that for any real closed field K every positive definite polynomial f E
K[X1, ... , Xn] of degree d is representable as a sum of 2n squares of rational
functions in K(Xi, ... ,Xn) whose denominators have degrees S g(n,d).
Proof. Assume there were no such function g( n, d). There would then exist
integers n and d and a sequence of definite polynomials ft E K[Xi, ... , Xn], where
each ft has degree d and in any representation of ft as a sum of 2n squares of
rational functions in K(Xi, ... , Xn) at least one denominator has degree > t.
Let :F be a non-principal ultrafilter on N and let K* be the ultrapower KN/ :F.
Since the real closed fields form an axiomatizable class, K* is real closed. Let us
write
ft = I:at i xi, where degree xi d. s
Here i stands for (ii, i 2 , ••. , in), and xi stands for X 1;, · · · Xnin. Consider the
polynomial f* E K*[Xi, ... , Xn]
f* = "°'[a
L., t,i· ]Xi
which is definite in K*[Xi, ... , Xn]· Therefore f* is a sum of 2n squares of rational

functions in K*(Xi, ... , Xn):
By Los's principle we obtain
for all t in some subset of N belonging to :F. Since any such subset is infinite we
get a contradiction with the assumption about the representations of ft as sums
of 2n squares in K(X1, ... , Xn)· O
Remark 2.35 Less information is available about the Pythagoras number of the
function fields Q(Xi, ... , Xn)· By Lagrange's theorem
7r(Q) =4 (2.5)
and by a result of Y. Pourchet [150]
ir(Q(X)) = 5. (2.6)
Recently, it has been proved by K. Kato and J.-L. Colliot-Thelene [111] that
(2.7)
By an earlier quoted result of Cassels [156]
(2.8)
for any formally real field L. Hence we get the lower bound
(2.9)
for all n. For n > 2 it is not known whether ir(Q(Xi, ... , Xn)) is finite.
Elementary equivalence (non-equivalence) of func-

tion fields and power series fields
Since for a given t the fields F with ir(F) = t form a finitely axiomatizable
class, we get some information about elementary equivalence of fields from their
Pythagoras number. From the above result of Cassels it follows that L t= L(X)
if L is a formally real field with finite Pythagoras number. Therefore
Proposition 2.36 Fora real closed field I< the fields I<, I<(X1 ), I<(Xi,X2 ), ••• ,
I<(Xi, X 2 , ••• , Xn), ... are mutually elementarily inequivalent. D
Remark 2.37 For function fields over Q much less is known. From Pourchet's
theorem and the theorem by Kato and Colliot-Thelene we obtain that Q, Q(X),
Q(Xi, X 2 ) and, for any n 2: 3, Q(Xi, ... , Xn) are elementarily inequivalent. Since
Pourchet and Colliot-Thelene prove generally ir(L(X)) :S 5 and ir(L(Xi, X 2 )) :S 8
for any algebraic number field L, we conclude that for an arbitrary finite algebraic
number field L, which is formally real - this means that L has at least one
real conjugate number field - the fields L, L(X), L(Xi, X 2 ) and, for any n 2:
3, L(Xi, ... , Xn) are elementarily inequivalent. If L is totally imaginary it is
unknown whether L(X1 ) and L(Xi, X2 ) are elementarily equivalent. Here it is
true but not trivial that L t= L(X).
FUNCTION FIELDS AND POWER SERIES FIELDS 29
To that effect we insert a general result to give another example of the appli-
cability of quadratic forms to questions about elementary equivalence:
Theorem 2.38 An algebraic number field L of finite degree over Q is not ele-
mentarily equivalent to a pure transcendental extension F(T) of any field F.
Proof. It is no restriction to assume that L is totally imaginary. In fact, if L

were elementarily equivalent to F(T) for some field F, then L(i), i = yCI, would
be elementarily equivalent to F(i,T), and L(i) is of course totally imaginary.
The following short proof has been suggested by L. van den Dries: Let p be a
rational prime that splits totally in L and a and b rational integers such that the
Hilbert (quadratic) norm residue symbol (a;b)
= -1.
The quadratic form
is anisotropic over L (cf. [178], p. 70).

If c is an arbitrary element in L, the quadratic form
represents zero non-trivially in any p-adic completion Lp of L: If p is finite (non-

archimedian), any quadratic form in 5 variables represents zero non-trivially in Lp;
if p is infinite (archimedian) Lp = C, since Lis totally imaginary, and ij certainly
represents zero non-trivially. By the local-global Hasse principle ij represents zero
non-trivially in L. Hence the following first order sentence holds in L:
We finish the proof by showing that (*) cannot hold in F(T) for any field F.
Indeed, if
T = x1 2 - ax2 2 - bx3 2 + abxi
had a solution (x1,x2,X3,x4) E F(T) 4 there would be polynomials f, fi, f2, /3,
f 4 in F[T] not all zero such that
Tf 2 = f1 2 - af/- bf/+ abf4 2.
Here the terms of highest degree on the right side cannot cancel because q is
anisotropic over L, hence also over F(T) and F. By comparing terms of highest
degree on each side of the equation we obtain the desired contradiction. D
For several questions about elementary equivalence of fields the (Tsen-Lang)

conditions C; from (2.21) are useful. We shall need the following proposition (cf.
[156], chap. XI), which we include without proof:
Proposition 2.39 (a) The field I< satisfies C; if and only if I< (X) satisfies Ci+i ·
(b) The field I< satisfies C; if and only if I<((X)) satisfies C;+1· D
Since the fields satisfying C; form an axiomatizable class, we conclude that if

the field I< satisfies C; for some (finite) i, I< is not elementarily equivalent to any
pure transcendental extension of K.
Because an algebraically closed field satisfies C0 and a finite field satisfies C 1
we get
Theorem 2.40 If I< is a C;-field for some (finite) i, the field K and the func-
tion fields K(X1), K(Xi, X2), ... , K(Xi, ... , Xn), ... are mutually elementarily
inequivalent.
If K is algebraically closed, real closed or finite, the fields of the above sequence
are mutually elementarily inequivalent. D
Remark 2.41 For a real closed field I< one might either refer to Proposition 2.36
or consider the fields obtained by adjoining y'=l.
Using Proposition 2.39 and earlier results about elementary equivalence of

algebraically and real closed fields we get:
Theorem 2.42 Let the field I< be finite, real closed or algebraically closed. If L
is a field and m, n E N such that
then m =n and K = L. D
By the aid of Proposition 2.39 (b) one obtains analogous results for power
series fields J<((X1 ))((X2 )) • • • ((Xn)), n EN.
However, as we shall see in the next chapter, much stronger results hold for
power series fields, since one here has the cancellation law: K((X)) L(X)) =
implies K = L. Hence
Proposition 2.43 If K is a field such that K((X)) 't=. K, then the power series
fields
are mutually elementarily inequivalent. D

FUNCTION FIELDS AND POWER SERIES FIELDS 31
Remark 2.44 "Most" fields K satisfy the condition K((X)) I- K. This condi-
tion holds for algebraically closed fields, real closed fields, finite fields, the field
Q of rational numbers, any finite extension of Q, and every pure transcendental
extension of any such field.
A simple example of a field for which one actually has K((X)) ~ K is the
following. Let the group G = zCN) be lexicographically ordered, and consider for
any field K the power series field K ( ( G)) consisting of all formal power series
LgEG a9 X 9 for which the support {g E GI a9 "I- O} is a well ordered subset of G.
Then K((X)) ~ K. (This example was pointed out by P. Vamos and D. Leap).
For n > 1 there is another power series field that is of interest, namely
the quotient field K((Xi, ... , Xn)) of the integral domain of formal power se-
ries K[[Xi, ... , Xnll· As we shall see in the next chapter for any field K the
fields K((X 1 )), K((Xi, X 2 )), ••. , K((Xi, X 2 , ••• , Xn)) are mutually elementarily
inequivalent.
We conclude this chapter by showing - as already mentioned in (2.21) -
that for any integer i ;::: 0 the C;-fields do not form a finitely axiomatizable class.
We need a basic result on Henselian fields due to J. Ax and S. Kochen. For
a proof we refer to Chang and Keisler's exposition in [33].
Theorem 2.45 (Ax-Kochen) Let Li and L 2 be two fields with valuations vi
and v 2 and assume that L; is Henselian with respect to v; (i = 1,2). Further
assume that the residue field L; of L; with respect to v; has characteristic 0 ( i =
1, 2). Then Li =L2 if Li =
L2 and the ordered value groups of vi and v2 are
elementarily equivalent (as ordered groups). D
Moreover, it is straightforward to see that for any field I< and any integer i ;::: 1
the power series field K((Xi))((X2)) · · · ((X;)) admits a Henselian valuation with
residue field K and value group the lexicographically ordered group zi.
Now, consider the family of fields Fn, n E N, from Example 2.16 and a non-
principal ultrafilter :F on N. The ultraproduct
F* = fteNFn((Xi))((X2)) · · · ((X;))/:F
and the field
F'= (fteNFn/:F)((Xi))((X2)) · · · ((X;))
both admit Henselian valuations with zi as value groups such that the corre-
sponding residue fields are (isomorphic to) to TineNFn/ :F. Hence by Ax and
Kochen's theorem F* :::::; F'. Since TineNFn/:F is algebraically closed while Fn
is not algebraically closed for any n E N, Proposition 2.39 implies that F* is
a C;-field, but none of the fields Fn((Xi))((X2)) · · · ((X;)) are C;-fields. From
Theorem 2.13 we thus obtain:
Proposition 2.46 For any integer i ~ 0 the C;-fields form an axiomatizable, but
not finitely axiomatizable class. D
Exercise 2.47 Assume the fields L and M are elementarily equivalent. Let Lo
(resp. M 0 } be the algebraic closure of the prime subfield of L (resp. M) inside L
(resp. M). Deduce from I<eisler-Shelah 's ultrapower theorem that L 0 and M 0 are
isomorphic.
[Hint: Use Proposition 1.10].

Chapter 3
Elementary definability.
Applications to polynomial and
power series rings and their
quotient fields
Elementarily definable subrings and subfields
Let R be a ring and S a subset of R. We say that S is elementarily definable in

R if there exists a formula r.p (in the language of rings) with one free variable such
that an element r of R satisfies r.p if and only if r E S. This notion is important
in the study of elementary equivalence of rings and fields and for decidability
questions (that however, are beyond the limits of this book).
We start with a simple observation:
Proposition 3.1 Let S' be a subring of R' and S" a subring of R", and assume
there exists a formula r.p defining S' in R' and S" in R". Then R' :::::: R" implies
S':::::: S".
Proof. If O' is a first order sentence (in the language of rings), let u be the
first order sentence, obtained by replacing each variable u in O' by (ulr.p(u)holds).
Then O' holds in S' if and only if u holds in R', if and only if u holds in R", if
and only if O' holds in S".
D
33
34 CHAPTER 3: ELEMENTARY DEFINABILITY
Cancellation laws
We begin with an easy example, which illustrates the above notions.
Example 3.2 If I< is a field, I< is elementarily definable in the polynomial ring
R = I<[{X; }ieJ in any number of variables. In fact, for an element r in R we have
r E I< if and only if '( r = 0) or (::Jr E R such that ri' = 1) '. Hence two fields I<
=
and Lare elementarily equivalent if K[{X;}] L[{X;}]. This latter consequence
can be interpreted as a cancellation law for polynomial rings over fields.
It is an open question, whether the cancellation law from Example 3.2 carries
over to function fields, i.e. whether K(X) = L(X) implies I< = L. (If "=" is
replaced by isomorphism, this is known as Zariski's problem.)
We shall prove that a cancellation law for function fields holds, when I< and
L are Pythagorean fields, i.e. fields, whose Pythagoras numbers 7r(J{) and 7r( L)
are both one.
We first show
Proposition 3.3 A Pythagorean field I< of characteristic -:/:- 2 is elementarily

definable in the rational function field K(X).
Proof. For a rational function T/ E K(X) we claim that
Here, the implication "=>" is clear since I< is Pythagorean, while the implication
"-¢=" follows from the next lemma. D
Lemma 3.4 For an arbitrary function field K(X) of characteristic-:/:- 2, all so-
lutions to the equation e
= 1 + TJ 4 have to be constants (i.e. ~ and T/ must belong
to K).
Proof. It suffices to show that the equation
f2 = g4 + h4 (3.1)
has no solutions in J<[X] for which f, g and h are not in K and f, g and h
are pairwise relatively prime. Since greatest common divisors for polynomials
ELEMENTARY DEFINABILITY OF FIELDS IN POLYNOMIAL RINGS 35
are preserved by base field extension, it is no restriction to assume that K is

algebraically closed.
The proof is done by infinite descent with respect to
max( deg(g), deg( h)).
We thus assume that (!, g, h) is a solution of (3.1) satisfying the above conditions
and derive another solution (!1, g1, h 1) of (3.1) satisfying the additional conditions
and such that
max(deg(g1),deg(h 1)) < max(deg(g), deg(h)).
From (3.1) we conclude
(3.2)
Since f - g 2 and f + g 2 are relatively prime and any unit in K[X] is in K and
hence a 4th power, we infer from factoriality of K[X] that f - g 2 and f + g 2 are
4th powers of elements in K[X], i.e.
f - g2 = gt, f + g2 = h~· (3.3)

where gl, hl E K[X], glh1 = h, gl rf_ K, hl rf_ K.
Now 2g 2 =hi - gt can be written (!1) 2 = (t:gi) 4 +hi, where t: is a primitive
81h root of unity, and
deg(f1) = deg(g), max(deg(g1),deg(h 1)) < max(deg(g),deg(h)).
D
From Proposition 3.3 and Proposition 3.1 we get

Corollary 3.5 If K and L are Pythagorean fields of characteristic =f. 2, then
K(X) =: L(X) implies K =: L. D
Elementary definability of fields in polynomial

.
rings
Let us next consider polynomial rings over fields somewhat closer. As mentioned
=
above, K[{X;}] L[{X;}] implies K =L. The converse does not hold. We shall
give various classes of counter-examples.
First a general result due to R. Robinson [164].
Proposition 3.6 If K is a field of characteristic zero, the set of natural numbers

N is elementarily definable in the polynomial ring R = K({X;}] for any non-
empty set {X; }, i E I, of variables, by a formula independent of R and I.
Proof. [{ is elementarily definable in R, so when proving the elementary

definability of N in R, it is admissible to include statements as 'for all elements
r of K' or 'there exists an element r of K' in a defining formula.
Since char(K) = O, we certainly have N ~ [{ ~ R. In view of the above
remark the Proposition follows from:
An element a E [{ belongs to N if and only if
VuER-K :lveR-K (uJv) (V.eeK((u + ,B)Jv => ((u + ,B + l)Jv V (,B =a))] (3.4)
We first prove 'only if':
If a E N we take v = u(u + l)(u + 2) · · · (u +a). We have to verify that every
divisor of v, having the form u + ,B, ,B E K, must be one of the factors u + n,
n = 0, 1, ... , a. In fact, if ,B E [{, ,B </. { 0, 1, ... , a}, then u +,B would be relatively
prime to each element u, u + 1, ... , u +a, and since R is factorial, u + ,B could
not divide v.
Next we prove the 'if' part:
Assume o E K, a</. Nanda satisfies condition (3.4). Then u, u + 1, ... should
divide a non-zero element v in R. Since all u + n, n E N are pairwise relatively
prime and R is factorial, v should have infinitely many non-associated divisors.
This gives the desired contradiction. D
Since every rational number can be written ±a/b (or 0) with a, b E N, we
immediately get
Corollary 3. 7 If K is a field of characteristic 0, the rational number field Q is
elementarily definable in K[ {X;} ], i E I"# 0, by a formula independent of K and
I. D
Corollary 3.8 If L is a field such that L[X] = Q[X], then L = Q.
Proof. L[X] =Q[X] implies char(L) = 0, hence Q ~ L ~ L[X]. By Corol-

lary 3.7, there exists a formula r.p, defining Qin Q[X] and Qin L[X]. There also
exists (by Example 3.2) a formula i/J defining Q in Q(X] and L in L(X]. Hence
=
Q = L if Q(X] L[X]. D
It is now easy to give examples of elementarily equivalent fields [{ and L such
that K[X] tL[X]: Take [{ = Q and L a field elementarily equivalent but not
isomorphic to Q (for instance an ultrapower of Q).
TRANSCENDENCY DEGREE OVER Q 37
Transcendency degree over the field Q of ratio-

nal numbers
To obtain further results concerning elementary equivalence of polynomial rings

over a field/{ we need an analysis of subsets of/{ that are definable inside K[X].
We start with a technical result (basically due to J. Ax (unpublished)). The
authors have been informed of this result by P. Eklof:
Proposition 3.9 Let M be a field of characteristic 0, and let R = M[{X;};e1].

For each integer n 2: 0 there exists a formula ~n with n + 1 free variables
U1 , ... , Un, V such that for elements u1, ... , Un 1 v E M:
The proof is based on a number of observations:
Sublemma 3.9.1 Let I< ~ L be infinite fields. A polynomial f(X) E L[X] has
coefficients in I< if and only if for every k1 E I< there exists an element k2 in J{
such that X - k1 divides f(X) - k2 inside L[X].
Proof. The condition on the right hand side of "¢}" can be expressed:
f(k) EI< for all k EK.
" =>" is trivial, while "-{=" follows from Lagrange's interpolation formula ap-
plied to d + 1 distinct elements of/{ if f(X) has degree d. D
Sublemma 3.9.2 Let I< ~ L be infinite fields and R = L[{X;}], i E J. Let

X 1 be any given indeterminate, X 1 E {X;}; for a polynomial f E R we have:
f E K[X1 ] if and only if for every k1 E I< there exists an element k2 E I< such
that X 1 - k1 divides f - k2 in R.
Proof. "=>" is obvious.

"-{=":Let L be the field L({X;};EJ), J = J-1, and consider fas a polynomial
in L[X1 ]. An application of Sublemma 3.9.1 with L as L shows that f E K[X1 ].
D
Sublemma 3.9.3 Let/{ ~ L be fields and v and u elements in L. Then v E K[u]

if and only if there is some f(X) E K[X] such that X - u divides f(X) - v in
L[X].
Proof. Obvious. D
We are now able to prove Proposition 3.9. We proceed by induction with
respect to n.
n = 0: Follows from Corollary 3.7.
n =? n+l: It suffices to give a formula expressing that v E Q( ui, ... , un)[un+il·
For that purpose we notice that v E Q( u1, ... , un)[un+I] if and only if
(*) VgER-M 3JER vk1EQ(u1, ... ,un) 3k2EQ(ui, ... ,un)
(g - k1lf - k2) /\ (g - Un+1lf - v),

(where "I" denotes divisibility inside R).
To verify the "if"-part, we take g as one of the variables, say X 1 . From
Sublemma 3.9.2 we infer that f E Q( ui, ... , un)[Xi]. Sublemma 3.9.3 implies
that V = f(un+i) E Q(ui, ... , Un)[Un+i]·
To prove "only if" assume v = ho+ h1 Un+l + · · ·+ht Un+ It, where ho, . .. , ht E
Q(u 1, ... , un)· Then f =ho+ h 1g + · · · + h 1g1 will satisfy the conditions on the
right hand side of condition (*).
From the above we derive a formula 'Pn+l with n+2 free variables V, U1 , ... , Un+ I
such that v E Q(ui, ... ,un)[un+i] if and only if (v,u 1, ... ,un+1) satisfies 'Pn+i·
This concludes the proof of Proposition 3.9 since v E Q( u 1, ... , Un+ I) if and only
if v = v' /v'', (v', v'' E Q(u1, ... , un)[un+1]). D
We are now in a position to show
Theorem 3.10 Let M 2 Q be an arbitrary field of characteristic 0, and R =

M[{X;};EI] a polynomial ring in any number of indeterminates. For every inte-
ger n 2: 0 there is a first order sentence, which holds true for R if and only if
tr.degQ(M), the transcendency degree of M over Q, is :.:::; n.
Proof. By definition tr.degQ(M):.:::; n holds if there exist n elements u1, ... , Un

in M such that each element v E M is algebraic over Q( ui, ... , un)· This can be
expressed:
3(u,, .. .,un)EM VaEM VgER-M 3JER vk,EQ(u,, .. .,un) 3k2EQ(u,,. ..,un)

(g - k1lf - k2) /\ (g - al!)
(where I means divisibility in R.)
By Proposition 3.9 the statements k1 E Q( u 1, ... , un) and k2 E Q( u 1, ... , un)
can be expressed by elementary formulas in ki, resp. k2 , and u 1 , ... , Un. Hence
the assertion tr.degQ(M) :.:::; n can be stated in a first order sentence. D
ELEMENTARY EQUIVALENCE OF POLYNOMIAL RINGS 39
Corollary 3.11 Let K 2 Q and L 2 Q be fields of characteristic zero. If

=
K[ {X;};e1] L[ {X;};e1L then tr.degQ(K) and tr.degQ(L) are either both infinite
or both finite and equal. D
Example 3.12 If Q denotes the field of all algebraic numbers, then Q =C but
Q[X]¢ C[X].
Elementary equivalence of polynomial rings
In order to obtain more precise criteria for elementary equivalence of polynomial

rings over fields, we insert some general observations. (In Chapter 10 we shall
give a more detailed discussion.)
Proposition 3.13 Let R and S be elementarily equivalent commutative Noethe-

rian rings. If R has finite Krull dimension K-dim so has S, and
K-dimR = K-dimS.
Proof. If n ~ 0 is an integer, K-dimR = n means that there is a chain

Po ~ P1 ~ · · · ~ Pn ~ R of prime ideals of R of length n but no such chain
of length n + 1. Since each ideal a in R has a finite system of generators, the
statement r E a, (resp. r </. a) can be expressed elementarily in the generators.
Also a being a prime ideal can be expressed elementarily by its generators. For a
given number n it is now straightforward to check that if R has a chain of prime
ideals of length n, so has S. This implies the assertion of the proposition. D
The next sufficient condition for elementary equivalence holds for general
algebraic structures (see [12]), but here we only formulate it for rings:
Proposition 3.14 (Back-and-forth construction) Let R and S be two rings

and assume there exists a non-empty family iP of isomorphisms from subrings of
R onto subrings of S, satisfying the following two conditions:
(i) for each c.p E iP and each r E R there exists some c.p' E iP extending c.p such
that r belongs to the domain of c.p',
(ii) for any c.p E iP and any s E S there exists some c.p' E iP extending c.p such
thats belongs to the range (image) of c.p'.
Then R and S are elementarily equivalent.
Proof. We use the fact that every first order sentence a with variables
xi, . . . , Xn can be expressed in the form
where each Q; is a quantifier, either 3 or V, and t/; is a formula in xi, ... , Xn,
without quantifiers.
By allowing vacuous occurrences of quantifiers we may assume that a has the
form
where t/; is a formula in Xi, yi, . .. , Xn, Yn without quantifiers. Suppose a holds in
S. We must show that a also holds in R. For arbitrary a 1 ER choose a mapping
c.p 1 E cl> such that a 1 belongs to the domain of c.p 1. By assumption there exists an
element s 1 E S such that
holds true in S.
Choose a mapping <p~ in cl> such that s 1 belongs to the range of <p~, i.e. s 1 =
<p~ (bi) for some b1 E R. Repeating this argument by inserting an arbitrary
element a2 E R for x 2 and constructing an element b2 E R we eventually find
that
(Va1)(3b1)('v'a2)(3~) · · · (Van)(3bn) t/;(ai, bi, a2, ~' ... ,an, bn)
holds in R. D
Proposition 3.15 If K and L are algebraically closed fields of the same charac-
teristic and both of infinite transcendency degree over their prime fields, then K
and L satisfy the conditions of Proposition 3.1..f for a suitable family 4'? of partial
isomorphisms, hence are elementarily equivalent.
Proof. Let 4'? be the family of all isomorphic mappings from subfields K' of
K into L for which the transcendency degree of K' over its prime field is finite
(or zero). We have to verify the conditions (i) and (ii).
Let <p : K' - - t L' be such a mapping and a E K. If a E K' there is nothing
to prove. If a f/. K' and a is transcendent over K' we let b be an element in L
that is transcendent over L'.
(Such an element exists because the transcendency degree of Lover its prime
field is infinite.) Then <p extends to an isomorphism c.p': K'(a) - - t L'(b).
ELEMENTARY EQUIVALENCE OF POLYNOMIAL RINGS 41
If a E K' and a is algebraic over K' there exists an element b E L such that
a 's minimal polynomial over K' is mapped by 'f' on the minimal polynomial of b
over L'.
(Here one uses that L is algebraically closed.) Also in this case cp can be
extended to an isomorphism cp': K'(a) ---+ L'(b). This shows that condition (i)
is satisfied. Condition (ii) is verified by a dual argument. D
Example 3.16 The corresponding result does not hold for real closed fields.
For instance, if K is a real closed Archimedean field and L a real closed non-
Archimedean field, then Kand L do not satisfy the conditions of Proposition 3.14
(for any family P of partial isomorphisms). However:
Proposition 3.17 If K and L are real closed 11 1 -fields, they satisfy the condi-
tions of Proposition 3.14 (for a suitable family P of partial isomorphisms).
(For the definition of T/i-fields cf. Chapter 2).

Proof. Let P be the family of all isomorphisms of countable real closed
subfields of K onto countable real closed subfields of L. Let cp : K' ---+ L' be
an isomorphism cp E P and c an element in K. We want to extend cp to an
isomorphism in P containing c in its domain.
If c E K' there is nothing to prove. If c <f_ K' then c is transcendental over K'
since K' is real closed. Let A= {a E K'la < c} and B = {b E K'lc < b}. Because
cp is order preserving we get cpA < cpB. The sets cpA and cpB are countable and
Lis an 11 1 -field, hence there exists an element c EL such that
(D) cpA < c < cpB.
Here c <f_ L' and therefore c is transcendental over L'. cp extends to an isomorphism
<fl : K'(c) ---+ L'(c) defined by <f!(c) = c. We claim that <fl is order preserving.
For that purpose it suffices to show that an element
is positive in the ordering of K if and only if cp(ko) + cp(k1 )c + · · · + cp(kn)C" is

positive in the ordering of L. We may assume that kn > 0 (in the ordering of K).
Since K' is real closed we can write
T S
(*) f =kn Il(c - a'i) Il[(c- ,Bj) 2 +1Jl,

i=l j=l
where r + 2s = n and a;, .Bi E K'.

Here f is positive in the ordering of K if and only if the number of negative

factors on the right hand side of (*) is even. By applying t:p to (*) and using (D)
we see that f > 0 if and only if t:p(J) > 0.
Thus t:p is an order preserving isomorphism from K'(c) to L'(c) and therefore
extends to an isomorphism c.p' from the real closure of K'( c) (inside I<) onto the
real closure of L'(c) (inside L ). These real closures are countable, so condition
(i) is satisfied. By a dual argument condition (ii) is verified. D
From the above we get a proof of Tarski's theorem about elementary equiv-
alence of real closed fields, which in contrast to the proof of Theorem 2.28 does
not use (CH).
Corollary 3.18 Any two real closed fields are elementarily equivalent.
Proof. Let I< and L be two real closed fields. If Fis a non-trivial ultrafilter
on N, then J<N/F and LN/F are real closed 77 1 -fields. By the above Proposi-
tion 3.17 the ultrapowers KN/F and LN/F are elementary equivalent. Since
=
I<= J<N/F and L LN/F we conclude K =L. D
We now give a sufficient condition that elementary equivalence of fields carries

over to polynomial rings and hence also to rational function fields.
Proposition 3.19 Let K and L be fields satisfying the conditions of Proposi-

tion 3.14 (for a suitable family P of partial isomorphisms). Then for any set of
indeterminates {X;};e1 there are elementary equivalences
K[{X;};e1]:: L[{X;};e1].
K({X;}ie1) =L({X;};e1).
Proof. P denotes the family of isomorphisms from subfields of I< to subfields
of L occurring in Proposition 3.14.
For any c.p E P which is an isomorphism from a subfield I<' of I< to a subfield
L' of L, we define an isomorphism t:p: I<'[{X;}] ~ L'[{X;}] (resp. I<'( {X;}) ~
L'( {X;} )) in the obvious coefficentwise way.
These new isomorphisms rp, c.p E P, satisfy the conditions of Proposition 3.14
for the rings I<[{X;}] and L[{X;}], resp. the fields I<({X;}) and L({X;}). D
We sum up the preceding results in the following

POLYNOMIAL AND POWER SERIES RINGS 43
Theorem 3.20 Let K and L be algebraically closed fields of characteristic zero

and {X;};e1 and {l'ilieJ two non-empty {finite or infinite} families of indetermi-
nates. Then there is an elementary equivalence
if and only if the following two conditions are satisfied:

(i) tr.degQ(K) and tr.degq(L) are either both infinite or both finite and equal.
(ii) I and J are either both infinite or both finite and III = !JI.
Proof. Necessity of condition (i) and (ii) follows from Corollary 3.11 and
Proposition 3.13 and the classical result that for any positive integer n the poly-
nomial ring
has Krull dimension n.

To establish sufficiency we first remark that by means of Proposition 3.14 we
may generally assume that III = IJI. The assertion now follows from Proposi-
tions 3.15 and 3.19. D
Remark 3.21 The "if" part of the theorem remains true if the polynomial rings
are replaced by the corresponding rational function fields. It is an open question
whether the "only if" part remains true. For instance, it is unknown whether
=
Q(X) C(X), where Q is the field of all algebraic numbers.
Exercise 3.22 Let K and L be uncountable algebraically closed fields of the

same characteristic. Show that the power series rings
are elementarily equivalent for any n E N. The corresponding holds if K and L

are real closed 77 1 -fields.
Elementary equivalence of polynomial and power

series rings
In Corollary 3.11 we saw for fields K and L of characteristic zero that K[X] =
L[X] implies that tr.degQ(K) and tr.degQ(L) are either both infinite or both
finite and equal. For ordered fields we show that a well-known invariant behaves
in a similar way:
We recall some basic facts. Let K with an ordering < be an ordered field. For
a E K we denote
I a I= { a ~f a ~ 0
-a 1f a< 0
If Bis a subset, a< IBI means a < lbl for all b E B. It is immediately checked that
the elements r EK for which lrl < q for some positive integer q (dependent on r)
form a valuation ring V (possibly degenerated to a field) whose quotient field is K.
The maximal ideal of V consists of the elements r EK for which lrl <IQ- {O}I.
In particular, V = K if and only if the order on K is Archimedean.
By the rank of an ordered field K we mean the Krull dimension of the corre-
sponding valuation ring V.
- In order to describe the prime ideal chains in V we introduce the following
(ad hoc) notation for two elements a and b EK:
a~ b if lbl < IQ(a) - {O}I.
Proposition 3.23 For every chain
1~ 1rt ~ 'lrt-1 ~ · · · ~ 7r1 =f. 0, (t E N),
of elements in K (actually in VJ, the ideals
form a chain of prime ideals in V of length t, where rad( 7r;) denotes the prime
radical of V7r;, i.e.
rad(7r;) = {v E Vlvn E 7r;V for some n EN}.
Proof. Since V is a valuation ring rad( a) is a prime ideal for any a E V

that is not a unit in V. From 17r;_ 11 :::; 17r;I it is clear that rad(7r;_ 1) ~ rad(7r;),
1 :::; i :::; t.
Because l7ri-1I < lq7rfl for all q E Q - {O} and all n E N, (1 :::; i :::; t) it
follows that 7rf /7r;_ 1 ~ V, consequently 7r; E rad(7r;), 7r; ~ rad(7r;_ 1 ), and thus
rad( 7r;_i) ~ rad( 7r;). D
POLYNOMIAL AND POWER SERIES RINGS 45
On the other hand, if p =Pt is a prime ideal in V of height t there is a chain

of prime ideals
V ~Pt~ Pt-1 ~ · · · ~ P1 ~Po= 0
such that Pi = rad( 7ri) for any 7l"i E Pi - Pi-I (1 :::; i :::; t). This implies that
for every n E N and q E Q we obtain 17ri-i I < ql?ril, which again implies that
ITt;_1I < IQ(7r;)- {o}I, i.e. 7r;_1 ~'Ir;.
We sum up these results in
Proposition 3.24 The valuation ring V corresponding to the ordered field K

has a prime ideal of height t if and only if there exists a chain
of elements in K (and then actually in V ).

D
We now return to elementary equivalence of polynomial rings over fields. If

K is real closed, K has a unique ordering (a 2: 0 if and only if a E K 2 ). Since
K is elementarily definable in R = K[{Xi};e1], the ordering of K is elementarily
definable in R.
Theorem 3.25 Let K and L be real closed fields and assume
K[{Xi};EI] :=: L[{X;};e1]
for some (non-empty) set of indeterminates {X;}ieI· If the valuation ring VK

corresponding to the ordered field K has a prime ideal of height t, t E N, so has
the valuation ring VL corresponding to the ordered field L. In particular, if the
rank of K (i.e. K-dim(VK )) is finite, so is the rank of L, and the two ranks are
equal.
Proof. K as well as its ordering is elementarily definable in R = K {X;};eI·

Therefore, in view of Proposition 3.9 the relation ~ in K is elementarily definable
in R. It now follows from Proposition 3.24 that the statement 'V has a prime
ideal of height t', for a prescribed integer t, will hold true if and only if a certain
first order sentence holds in R.
D
Remark 3.26 A modification of the above proof shows that if /{ and L are real
closed fields and
then the prime ideals of VK form a dense totally ordered set if and only if the
prime ideals of VL form a dense totally ordered set.
Example 3.27 Consider the sequence of real closed fields from Example 2.27:
For n E N the rank of Fn (i.e. K-dim(VFn)) is n - 1, hence for any set of

indeterminates {X;} the polynomial rings
are pairwise elementarily inequivalent.
For Fa[{X;}], a: an ordinal, we only have fragmentary results concerning ele-

mentary equivalence. Generally, any ordinal a: can be written
It is well known (and easy to deduce from [33], p. 303) that two ordinals a: and
/3 are elementarily equivalent in the language of ordered sets if and only if in the
representations
/3 = ww/3' + i3, i3 < ww

we have either a:' f. 0, /3' f. 0 and a= i3 or a: = /3. In particular, every ordinal
is elementarily equivalent to a unique ordinal < ww + ww. By a slight refinement
of the above methods it can be proved that Fa[{X;};EJ] =F/i[{X;};e1] implies
=
a: /3. In particular, the polynomial rings Fa[ {X;};er], a: < ww +ww, are pairwise
elementarily inequivalent.
Example 3.28 Another case where Theorem 3.25 is applicable is the following:
Let G be a totally ordered divisible abelian group and let R( (G)) be the field of
formal power series in G with coefficients in R, i.e. a typical element in R( (G))
has the form
L
Tax", Ta ER,
<>EG
whose support {a: E Gira f. O} is a well ordered subset of G.

FIELDS OF RATIONAL FUNCTIONS 47
The field R( (G)) is a real closed field. (This for instance follows from the fact
that R[[G+]], the subring consisting of all series with support in the set G+, is
a maximally complete valuation ring and G is divisible, cf. [174].) For instance,
let G = qn, n E N, be lexicographically ordered; then the rank of R( ( G)) is n.
Thus if R((Qn)) = R((Qm]], n, m E N, then n = m.
Fields of rational functions
We now consider the corresponding questions for elementary equivalence of ra-

tional function fields, where much less complete results are available. We need
the following
Theorem 3.29 Let F be a real closed field and I< = F( {X;};eJ) a rational
function field in an arbitrary non-empty set of variables {X;};eJ· Then the set of
natural numbers N is elementary definable in I<.
Proof. Since F in particular is Pythagorean, by Proposition 3.3 F is elemen-

tarily definable in I<. In an elementary definition of N we may therefore include
the predicate x E F.
Inspired by the classical fact that a polynomial f of one real variable only
takes non-negative values if and only if f is a sum of two squares of polynomials,
we introduce the elementarily definable relation ~ 2 by
We consider one of the indeterminates, say X 1 , as a distinguished variable. We

first define N in I< using the symbol X 1 and then eliminate this symbol from the
definition.
Let ai, ... , a 1 be rational numbers. There exists a rational function f(X1 ) in
Q(X1 ) such that
f(X1) 2 ~2 (X1 - a;) 2 , i = 1, ... ,t,
and f(X1 ) has no other roots in F than ai, ... , a 1 •
Indeed, we may take
c(X1 - a1) · · · (X1 - a1)

f = -1-+""'"(_X_1___
a..:....1)-
2 -••""'".-(X-1---'a'-1)-
2
where c is a sufficiently small rational number.

Working in the real closure R(Q) of Q (contained in K) we have f(xi) 2 :S

(xi - a;) 2, 1 :S i :S t, for all Xi E R(Q), hence by classical results we get
J2 :S2 (Xi - a;) 2, 1 :Si :St.
The following formula is therefore true in /{:
The natural numbers can now be defined in/{ by the formula cp(n, Xi):
n E F /\ (3No f 2 :S2 Xi/\
"lcxeF [a f- n /\ f 2 :S2 (Xi - a) 2 :::? f 2 :S2 (Xi - a - 1) 2]

If n E N we can choose f as constructed above with ai = 0, a 2 = 1, a3 =
2, ... ,an+i = n.
Conversely, any n satisfying cp(n, Xi) must be a positive integer, since a non-
zero function in /{ cannot have infinitely many roots in the variable Xi.
N is thus defined in/{ using the symbol Xi by means of the formula cp(n, Xi).
Xi can be eliminated from this definition by observing:
n EN <=> "Ix [cp(O, x) /\ (VcxEF [cp( a, x) :::? cp( a+ 1, X)] :::? cp(n, x))].
The condition on the right is clearly necessary; the sufficiency is seen by setting
x =Xi. D
Theorem 3.30 Let Fi and F 2 be real closed fields such that
for some set of indeterminates {X;}. Then Fi and F 2 are either both A rchimedean
or both non-Archimedean in their unique orderings.
Proof. Assume Fi is Archimedean. This means:
Since Fi and N are elementarily definable subsets of Fi ( {Xi}) the above assertion
is a first order property for Fi ( {X;}). From the assumption Fi ( {X;}) F2 ( {X;}) =
we conclude that F 2 is Archimedean. D
Example 3.31 Let Fi = R and F2 = P(R) in the notation from Example 2.27.
Since F 2 is non-Archimedean we get Fi({X;}) '¢ F2({X;}).
FIELDS OF RATIONAL FUNCTIONS 49
Next we show that the condition in Theorem 3.29 is not sufficient to secure
elementary equivalence of function fields:
Theorem 3.32 Let R(Q) be the real closure ofQ, i.e. the field of all real algebraic
numbers. There exist infinitely many (actually 22 " 0 ) real closed subfields F of R,
including R itself, such that for any non-empty set {X;} of indeterminates:
F({X;};EI) t R(Q)({X;};EI)·
Proof. From classical number theory it is known that there are infinitely
many (actually uncountably many) transcendental numbers a such that the in-
equality
(•)
has infinitely many rational solutions p/ q, p, q E Z, (for instance the Liou ville
numbers).
On the other hand if a is an algebraic number, a ¢ Q, the inequality ( •) has
only finitely many rational solutions p/q, (Roth's theorem, cf. [175]).
Thus the following holds in R(Q):
p 1
'faeR(Q)-Q :l1eN 'fqeN 'fpeN (q > t) /\ (p > t) => la - -I
q
> 3·
q
Here R(Q), N and Qare elementarily definable subsets of R(Q)( {X;} ). Moreover,
for numbers r 1 and r 2 E R(Q) an inequality r 1 2: r 2 means:
:l,eR(Q) (r1 - r2 = s 2).

Hence the fact that no irrational numbers in R(Q) permit good rational approx-
imations can be expressed as a first order sentence for R(Q)( {X;} ). This first
order sentence will not hold if R(Q) is replaced by a real closed subfield F of
R containing a transcendental number a for which (3.32.l) has infinitely many
rational solutions, in particular R(Q)( {X;}) t F( {X;} ). D
Remark 3.33 From Proposition 3.15 and Proposition 3.19 it follows that if K
and L are algebraically closed fields of the same characteristic and both of infinite
transcendency degree over their prime fields, then K( {X;}) =L( {X;}) for any set
of variables {X;}. From Theorem 3.32 it follows that the corresponding statement
is in general not true for real closed fields.
Power series rings are elementarily definable in

their quotient field
For power series fields in several (but finitely many) variables over a field I< there
are two types:
and the quotient field
of the ring of formal power series K[[Xi, ... , Xnll· For n > 1 these two fields are
never isomorphic, not even elementarily equivalent as we shall see later.
The first type has already been considered in Chapter 2 while the second type
requires quite different methods.
The key result is that K[[X1 , ... , XnlJ is elementarily definable in its quo-
tient field K((Xi, ... , Xn)). We shall show more generally that any local regular
Henselian ring R is elementarily definable in its quotient field. For the notion
of Henselian ring see for instance [155]. 'Regular' is taken in the classical sense
of commutative algebra, it means that the maximal ideal can be generated by d
elements, where dis the Krull dimension of R. We shall need that a local regular
ring is a factorial domain (is UFD).
Let m be the maximal ideal of the local regular Henselian ring R. We first
consider the case when char(R/m) f= 2 and subsequently we sketch the modifica-
tions necessary for the case when char(R/m) = 2.
Theorem 3.34 Let R be a local regular Henselian ring with maximal ideal m. If
char(R/m) f= 2 then R is elementarily definable in its quotient field/{.
The proof is in several steps. We may assume that dimR > 1. [If dimR = 1
R is just a (discrete) valuation ring. Only Sublemma 3.34.4 requires an obvious
modification.]
Sublemma 3.34.1 Let R be a local regular Henselian ring with maximal ideal
m. Assume F = R/m has characteristic f= 2 and F is quadratically closed {i.e.
F 2 = F). Then the equation
a4 + b4 = c2
has no solution in elements a, b and c E m, which are pairwise relatively prime.
(Note that R is factorial).
POWER SERIES RINGS IN THEIR QUOTIENT FIELD 51
Proof. Let v be the total valuation of R defined by set ting v( r) = t if

r E mt and r ~ m l+1, (cf. [205], p. 302).
We proceed by infinite descent with respect to min(v(a),v(b)). Without re-
striction we may assume that v( a) ::::: v( b).
Since c + a 2 and c - a 2 are relatively prime, the equation
shows that c + a 2 and c - a 2 up to units of R are 4th powers of elements of R.

Since F = F 2 = F 4 and R is Henselian any unit of R is a 4th power of a unit in
R. Hence
c + a 2 = ai
c - a2 =bi,
where a 1 · b1 = b- (unit in R) and a 1 and b1 are relatively prime elements of m.
Further:
v(a 1 ) < v(b) and v(b 1 ) < v(b).
Consequently
ai + (pb 1 ) 4 = (v'2a) 2 ,
where p is a primitive 3th root of unity and
min(v(a 1 ), v(pb 1 ) < min(v(a), v(b)).
Sublemma 3.34.2 Let the notation and assumptions be as in Sublemma 3.34.1,

and let I< be the quotient field of R. If w E I< and 1 + w 4 E I< 2 , then w E R or
w- 1 ER.
Proof. Suppose w ~Rand w ~ R- 1 • Then w = (r/s), where rands are

relatively prime elements of m. Thus
1 + (r/s) 4 E I< 2 and r 4 + s4 E Rn /{ 2 .

Since R as a regular local ring is integrally closed in its quotient field, every
element in Rn J< 2 is a square of an element in R ; hence
r4 + s4 = t2 , t E m ,
contradicting Sublemma 3.34.1. D

Consider now an arbitrary local regular Henselian ring R with maximal ideal
m and char(R/m) i- 2. Adjoining all square roots of units (in R) to R we get
an extension ring which is local regular and Henselian. (Cf. [29], p. 127). The
residue class field of this ring is quadratically closed. Since R is integrally closed,
it follows that Sublemma 3.34.2 remains true for any local regular Henselian ring
R with char(R/m) i- 2.
By similar arguments for the equation a4 + b4 = 2c2 one gets
Sublemma 3.34.3 Let R be a local regular Henselian ring with maximal ideal
m and char(R/m) i- 2. If I< is the quotient field of R then
VweK [(1 +w 4 E I< 2 ) V (1+w 4 E2I< 2 )] => w E RU R- 1 •
From now on let R be a local regular Henselian ring with maximal ideal m,
char(R/m) i- 2 and quotient field K.
Let n be the following elementarily definable subset of I<:
D = {w E I<j(l + w 4 E K 2 ) V (1 + w 4 E 2/{ 2 )}.
By Sublemma 3.34.3 n ~ Ru R- 1 • Since R is Henselian m ~ n, and for any

element of the form 1 + m, m E m we have, again using R is Henselian, 1 + (1 +
m ) 4 = 2k2 for some k E R, hence:
m ~ n and 1 + m ~ n.
For an element w E n we consider the following condition (*):
v"l1mEK [(1+1iw E n2 ) /\ (1 +/~WE n2 ) => (1+1i1iw E n2 )].

Sublemma 3.34.4 If w is an element of m, w Ft I< 2 and w satisfies {*) then
w is square-free, i.e. w = p1 • • • p1 , where pi, ... ,p1 are pairwise non-associated
irreducible elements of R.
Proof. Indirectly. Suppose w = pn · r, n 2: 2, p not a divisor of r, p being an

irreducible element.
Let q be an irreducible element such that q does not divide w. Because R is
Henselian and 1 + m ~ n, we obtain
By condition (*) we get
for all tin N. If we choose 2t > n this is impossible since

l + rq2t/p2t-n (/. R
and the reciprocal
P2t-n . (p2t-n + rq2t)-1 ff_ R.
In the last case we use that any irreducible factor of the denominator does not
divide p.
D
Sublemma 3.34.5 Any irreducible element of R satisfies condition (*).
Proof. The assertion of Sublemma 3.34.5 is a consequence of: If w is irre-

ducible, then for any a E K: 1 + wa2 E !12 9 a E R.
Here "<=" holds because R is Henselian and 1 + m ~ n. To obtain "=>" we
assume a (/. R and prove that 1 + wa 2 E !1 2 leads to a contradiction.
We write a = r / s ; where r and s are relatively prime elements of R and
s E m. Since 1 + wa 2 is a square, the w-adic valuation of 1 + wa 2 = 1 + wr 2 / s 2
is an even integer; hence w is not a divisor of s.
This implies that 1 + wr 2 /s 2 ff_ R. Because n ~ Ru R- 1 we get that
(1 + wa 2 )- 1 = s 2 /(s 2 + wr 2 ) must belong to R. This, however, is impossible
since s 2 + wr 2 E m and no irreducible factor of s 2 + wr 2 divides s.
D
Now consider the following elementarily definable subset of K:
cl> = {,8 E J{l3wEfl, w f/_ /{ 2 , 1 + w E !{2, ,Bw E !1, 1 + ,82 w E !1 2 , w satisfies (*)}.
Sublemma 3.34.6 R ~ cl>.
Proof. By Sublemma 3.34.5 we can use any irreducible element of Ras w"D
Sublemma 3.34.7 Any element w E n for which w (/. /{ 2 and 1 +w E J{ 2

belongs to R.
Proof. Assume w is not in R and satisfies the conditions of the sublemma.

We shall then derive a contradiction.
We can write
w = c:(p~' ... p~')-1, (ai, ... ,at EN),
where Eis a unit in Rand p1 , ... ,pt are non-associated irreducible elements of R.
Since 1 +w is a square, the integers ai, ... , at are even. Hence w = E/ s 2 , where
s is an element of m and E rt J( 2 • Therefore 1 + w = 1 + c/ s 2 E J< 2 implies that
s 2 +EE Rn J< 2 = R2 • Since s EM, Eis a unit and R is Henselian, this implies
that € E R 2 and thus yields the desired contradiction. D
Sublemma 3.34.8 ~ R.
Proof. Let (J be an arbitrary element of and write (J = r / s, where r and

s are relatively prime elements of R. We have to show that s must be a unit in
R. This is done indirectly; so we assume s E m and shall derive a contradiction.
Let w be the element of fl corresponding to (J according to the definition of
.
From Sublemma 3.34.7 we know that w E R. There are two possibilities for
w:
(1) w is a unit.
(2) w belongs to M.
We first consider case (1). We know (Jw E fl~ RU R- 1 . Since (J rt Rand w
is a unit we conclude that ((Jw)- 1 E R. Thus s/rw E Rand r is a unit.
Further 1 + wr 2 I s 2 E fl 2 implies s 2 + wr 2 E R 2 •
Since R is Henselian, s E m and wr 2 is a unit, we conclude that wr 2 E R 2 and
hence w E R 2 • This gives the desired contradiction in case (1).
Next we consider case (2).
By Sub lemma 3.34.4 w = p 1 ···Pt, where pi, ... , Pt are non-associated irre-
ducible elements of R.
Now (Jw ~ fl ~ RU R-1, so (Jw E R or (fJwt 1 E R. We show that both
possibilities give rise to a contradiction.
First assume (Jw ER. Then (r/s)p 1 ···Pt ER, whence slp 1 .. ·Pt so
s = Ep1 · • • pµ,, 1 :::; µ :::; t, (after possible renumeration of the irreducible elements),
E being a unit.
By the definition of the element
1 + f3 2w = 1 + P1 ···Pt · r 2 ( EP1 • • • Pµ,t 2

should be a square. This, however, is impossible, since the p 1 -adic valuation of
(1 + (J 2 w) is 1.
Next assume (/3w)- 1 E R. Then s/rw = s/rp 1 ···Pt belongs to R. Each

of the irreducible elements pi, ... , Pt thus divides s. Again, by the definition of
 the element
1+/32w=1 + (r 2 /s 2 )P1 ···Pt
is a square. This, however, is impossible, because the p 1 -adic valuation of (1 +/3 2 w)
is an odd integer. So, in both cases we have arrived at a contradiction. D
Proof of Theorem 3.34. Sublemma 3.34.6 and 3.34.8 imply R =, and The-
orem 3.34 is proved. D
Next, let R be a local regular Henselian ring with maximal ideal m and assume
that char(R/m) = 2. We show that R also in this case is elementarily definable
in its quotient field I<.
The proof of Theorem 3.34 requires some modifications. We sketch the main
points of the proof and leave the details to the reader.
1. Let R be a local regular Henselian ring with maximal ideal m and assume
that char(R/m) = 2. Assume further that R/m is cubically closed, i.e. (R/m )3 =
(R/m ). Then there exist no elements a, b and c E m such that a, b and c are
pairwise relatively prime and
a3 + b3 = c3.
2. Let R be a local regular Henselian ring and char(R/m) = 2 and let I< be
the quotient field of R. If w E I< and 1 + w 3 E [{ 3 , then w E RU R- 1 .
3. To define n in the case when char(R/m) = 2 we distinguish between two
cases:
(i) R/m and hence R contains a primitive 3rd root of unity.
(ii) R/m and hence R does not contain a primitive 3rd root of unity.
In case (i) we define
!1 = {w E I<l(l + w 3 E I< 3 )V(Ve(l + ~ + e = 0), 1 + ~w 3 Ee I< 3 )}.
In case (ii) we define
Here, ~ denotes a primitive 3rd root of unity and I<[~] is the quadratic extension
of [{ obtained by adjoining a primitive 3rd root of unity to I<. In case (ii) one
easily checks that n really is an elementarily definable subset of I<.
In either case n is an elementarily definable subset of I< with the property
that n ~Ru R- 1 and m ~ n and 1 + m ~ n.
We say that an element w of n satisfies condition (*) if

'v'..,,,..,2eK({(l + 'Y:w E !13 ) /\ (1 + 'Yiw E !13 )} => (1 + 'Y:'Yiw E !13 )].
By minor modifications of the proof of Theorem 3.34 we get the following ele-
mentary definition of R inside K:
R = {,8 E I< l=ten-K3 1 + w E K 3 , ,Bw E !1, 1 + ,83 w E !13 , w satisfies (*)}.
Altogether we have proved
Theorem 3.35 Any local regular Henselian ring R is elementarily definable in
its quotient field. D
Remark 3.36 In Theorem 3.34 neither the assumption that R be regular nor
that R be Henselian can be omitted. In fact, let R be the ring of formal power
series F[[X]], where F is an uncountable field; for a fixed element c E F let Re
be the subring of R consisting of all power series Li?:O a;Xi, where a 1 = 0 and
a3 = ca 2 .
Each Re is a complete local one-dimensional domain. Since the language
of rings is countable there are at most countably many elementarily definable
subrings of F((X)). Hence the subring Re is not elementarily definable in its
quotient field F((X)) for infinitely many elements c of F.
Further, it is easy to easy to exhibit a discrete valuation ring that is not
elementarily definable in its quotient field. For instance, let R be the localization
of the polynomial ring Q[X] with respect to the maximal ideal generated by X.
Then R is not elementarily definable in its quotient field Q(X), since R is not
invariant under the automorphism of Q(X) defined by X ,_.. X + l.
Cancellation for power series fields
We now give some applications of Theorem 3.34, which may be viewed as cancel-
lation theorems for elementary equivalence:
Theorem 3.37 Let F and G be fields and n and m positive integers. If
F((X1,. . ., Xn)) = G((X1,. . ., Xm)),
then n = m and F G. =
In particular, for any field F the power series fields
F((X1)), F((Xi, X2)), ... , F((Xi, ... , Xn)),... (n E N)
are mutually elementarily inequivalent.
CANCELLATION FOR POWER SERIES FIELDS 57
Proof. If F((Xi, ... ,Xn)) = G((X1, ... ,Xm)) the fields F and G have the
same characteristic. If char( F) = char( G) = 2, then F contains a primitive 3rd
root of unity if and only if G does. The proof of Theorem 3.34 shows that in
each case there exists a formula which defines F[[Xi, ... , Xn]] elementarily in
F((Xi, ... , Xn)) and G[[Xi, ... , XmlJ elementarily in G((Xi, ... , Xm)).
By Proposition 3.1 we obtain
By Proposition 3.13 the two rings have the same Krull dimension, hence n = m
follows.
Moreover, the maximal ideal of a local ring consists just of the non-invertible
elements; consequently, if R and R' are local rings with maximal ideals m and
m', it follows that R =
R' implies R/m = R'/m'. Applying this to (t), we get
F=:G.
D
Corollary 3.38 For any field F and any integer n > 1 the power series fields
F((X1 )) • · · ((Xn)) and F((X1 , ... , Xn)) are not elementarily equivalent.
Remark 3.39 The converse of (the first part of) Theorem 3.37 does not hold in
general. J. Ax and S. Kochen showed (see [33], also Chapter 2) that F = G and
char(F) = char(G) = 0 imply F((X)) = G((X)). The corresponding result does
not hold for power series fields in n variables if n > 1. For instance, it follows
from [40] that
=
for all n > 1, although Q C (where Q as usual denotes the field of all algebraic
numbers). If F =G and char(F) = char(G) = p > 0 it is an open problem
=
whether F((X)) G((X)).
Next, we give another cancellation law where we do not use Theorem 3.34.
Theorem 3.40 Let K and K' be quotient fields of local Henselian domains R
and R'. For any sets of indeterminates {X;} and {}j} an elementary equivalence
implies K = K'.
Proof. Let m (resp. m') be the maximal ideal of R (resp. R'). Let q > 2 be
a prime number =f. char(R/m ); then q =f. char( I<).
By an easy modification of the proof of Lemma 3.4 it follows that any solution
(~, 17) E K( {X;} )2 of the equation
must consist of constants, i.e. ~, 17 E I<.

Therefore, the elementarily definable subset of I<( {X;} ):
is a subset of K.
Since R is Henselian and q =f. char(R/m) we have 1 + m E Rq for all m E m.
Every element in J{ can be written as mi/m 2 , mi, m 2 Em, hence
I<= { a/bla, b E .C(K( {X;} ))}.
This shows that J{ is elementarily definable in I<( { X;} ). If we let q be a prime

number which is > 2 and =f. char(R/m) and =f. char(R' /m ') we obtain a formula
defining J{ elementarily in J<({X;}) and I<' elementarily in K'({}j}). From
=
Proposition 3.1 we conclude that I<( {X;}) =I<'( {}j}) implies I< J('. D
Corollary 3.41 Let F and G be fields and n and m positive integers and ( {Y; }iEI),
( { }j Lo) two sets of indeterminates. Then
implies F =G and m = n. D
Exercise 3.42 For a field F let F((X) denote either F((X)) or F(X). Assume
F is algebraically closed, real closed or finite. Show that
implies n =m and for every i, 1 ~ i ~ n:
F((X;) 2:: F(X;) {:} F((Y;) 2:: F(Y;).
Exercise 3.43 Let R be a I<rull domain with quotient field I< and assume there
exists a field F such that I<= F((X)). Show that R is a valuation ring.
INFINITELY MANY INDETERMINATES 59
Power series fields in infinitely many indeterrni-

nates
Various sorts of power series fields can be formed in infinitely many indetermi-
nates. We consider some of them here.
Let {Xi}, i E I, be an infinite set of in determinates and F a field. The union
Fen= LJ F((X;., ... ,X;n))

ei1 ,... ,in)
where (ii, ... , in) runs through all finite subsets of I, is the quotient field of
F[!J = LJ F[[X;,, ... , X;nlJ·

(i1 1 ... 1 in)
A slight modification of the proof of Theorem 3.34 shows that F[I] is elemen-
tarily definable in Fen· The maximal ideal m of F is not finitely generated, so
F[I] t= F[[Xi, ... ,XnlJ and hence Fent= F((Xi, ... ,Xn)) for all n EN. (One
here has to observe that the formula defining F[(Xi, ... , Xn]] in F((Xi, ... , Xn))
can be used to define F[I] in Fu>-)
Moreover, it follows from Proposition 3.14 that for any two infinite sets I
and J we have elementary equivalences F[JJ :::::: F[J] and Fen :::::: F(J)- Further, if
F[I] denotes the m [I]-adic completion of F[I], then F[!] is elementarily definable
in its quotient field Fen· As before, one sees that Fen t= F((Xi, ... , Xn)) for all
n E N and for any two infinite sets I and J there is an elementary equivalence
F(n :::::: F(J>-
For power series fields obtained by successive adjoining of variables the sit-
uation is more complex. For a field F and a natural number n let Fn be
F((X1))((X2)) · · · ((Xn)). We have a natural inclusion Fn ~ Fn+l = Fn((Xn+1))
and can form the union F = UneN Fn. Proceeding this way we can define Fa for
any ordinal number a by:
if a is a limit ordinal
if a has the form a = /3 + 1.
Only scarce information is available concerning elementary equivalence or iso-
morphism of the fields Fa. If F is algebraically closed or real closed it can be
shown that the fields Fa are pairwise non-isomorphic. For an arbitrary field F'
we write an ordinal number in the form a=>.+ n, where>. is a limit ordinal and
0::; n < w. It can then be shown that F>.+n ~ F>.' + n' implies n = n'.
As mentioned in Remark 2.44 there exists a field F such that F ~ F((X))

and hence Fn ~ F for all n E N, but in this case the fields F and Fw are not
isomorphic as follows from the above remark.
There is another construction of power series fields in infinitely many variables
due to F. Delon [40]. Starting from a field F the fields Fn can be written
F((Xn))((Xn-1)) ... ((X1))
There then are inclusions Fn ~ Fn+I corresponding to the base field extension
F((Xn)) ... ((X1))-> [F((Xn+1))]((Xn)) ... (X1))
and with respect to these inclusions the union Fw is formed. The fields Fw and
Fw((X)) are Henselian with respect to the X 1-adic valuation, respectively the
X-adic valuation.
The corresponding residue class fields are isomorphic. If char(F) = 0, it now
follows from the Ax-Kochen theory (see Chapter 2) that Fw =Fw((X)).
After these notes were written, more complete results have been obtained by
F. Delon [41] about the periodicity of the elementary theory of iterated power
series fields.
Exercise 3.44 Each elementary subring of Z[X] (ofQ[X]) coincides with Z[X]
(with Q[X], respectively).
Chapter 4
Peano rings and Peano fields
Definition 4.1 A ring R is called a Peano ring if R is elementarily equivalent

to the ring of integers l.
A field I< is called a Peano field if I< is elementarily equivalent to the field of
rational numbers Q.
Remark 4.2 From the very definition it is clear that both the classes of Peano
rings and Peano fields, respectively, are axiomatizable. Neither class, however, is
finitely axiomatizable, see for instance [20].
Elementary definability in quotient field

A basic result - due to J. Robinson - for the further study of Peano rings and
Peano fields is the elementary definability of N in Q [161]: For rational numbers
a, b and c let cp( a, b, c) be the formula
cp(a,b,c): 3x,y,z(x 2 + ay 2 = bz2 + abc2 + 2).

Then a rational number q is a positive integer if and only if
Va,b{[cp(a, b, 0) I\ [Vncp(a, b, n) => cp(a, b, n + l)]J => cp(a, b, q)}

holds in Q.
Since q E Z if and only if q E N or q = 0 or -q E N, it follows that Z is
elementarily definable in Q. Let p denote the formula defining Z in Q. In [161]
this is used to show that Q is an undecidable field. We shall here give some other
applications.
61
62 CHAPTER 4: PEANO RINGS AND PEANO FIELDS
Proposition 4.3 Every Peano ring R is elementarily definable in its quotient

field.
Proof. By homogenizing the above formula p, we conclude that there exists

a formula with two free variables u and v, which is satisfied by a pair (u, v) E Z if
and only if u I v. It now follows that the formula p also defines R in its quotient
field.
0
From the definition of Peano rings it is clear that the quotient field of any
Peano ring is a Peano field. We now prove the converse
Theorem 4.4 Let [{ be a Peano field. Then [{ is the quotient field of a subring
R, which is a Peano ring. R is uniquely determined.
Proof. The formula p will define a subring R of I<. By Proposition 3.1 R

and Z are elementarily equivalent, and [{ must be the quotient field of R. If R'
is a Peano subring of [{ and [{is the quotient field of R', then p defines both R
and R' in I<. Hence R = R'.
0
The elementary definability of Z in Q is crucial for the proof of Theorem 4.4.

This is illustrated by the following
Example 4.5 Let

00
R= LJ C[[X1fn]]
n=l
and
00
I<= LJ C((X1fn)).
n=l
The field [{is algebraically closed by Puiseux's theorem [197] and is the quotient
field of R. Therefore [{ is elementarily equivalent to the field Q of all algebraic
numbers, but Q is not the quotient field of any ring elementarily equivalent to
R. In fact, the residue field of any non-trivial valuation ring in Q has positive
characteristic.
Exercise 4.6 Show that there exist subrings of Q that are not elementarily de-
finable in Q.
RIGID FIELDS 63
[Hint: Q has uncountably many subrings.]
By Lagrange's theorem Z and Q have the following first order properties (see
[156]:
which will thus hold in every Peano ring and every Peano field. In particular,
every Peano ring and every Peano field admits a unique ordering (as an ordered
ring, respectively as an ordered field).
Rigid fields
We next give an application concerning rigid fields. Generally, an algebraic system

is called rigid if it has no automorphisms except the identity.
Example 4. 7 (i) Every well ordered set is rigid (qua ordered set).
(ii) The groups of order 1 or 2 are the only rigid groups.
(iii) The rational number field, the real number field, the p-adic number fields
are rigid.
We are going to show that there exist arbitrarily large rigid fields. We need
an important result of H. Gaifman [72].
A semiring (S, +, ·), which is elementarily equivalent to (N, +, ·) is called a
model of Peano arithmetic. Any such semiring has a unique ordering that is
elementarily definable by + and ·, namely: a> b if and only if a= b + x, where
x is a sum of at most 4 squares. It is proved in Gaifman [72] that there exist
models S of Peano arithmetic of any prescribed infinite cardinality such that the
corresponding order type is rigid. Since any automorphism of Sas a semiring is
order preserving, it follows that Sis rigid. If R is the ring (constructed in the usual
way) corresponding to S, then R is a rigid Peano ring. From Proposition 4.3 we
conclude that the quotient field of R is a rigid Peano field. Thus we have obtained
Theorem 4.8 There exist rigid Peano fields of arbitrary infinite cardinality. D
Remark 4.9 It was recently proved by M. Dugas and R. Gobel [52] that each
field can be embedded into a rigid field of arbitrarily large cardinality. Actually
they construct arbitrarily large field extensions with prescribed automorphism
group.
Transcendency degree and Krull dimension
We now want to derive - in an elementary way - some information concerning

the Krull dimension (resp. the transcendency degree) of a Peano ring different
from Z (resp. a Peano field different from Q. As already pointed out, every Peano
ring has a unique elementarily definable ordering. Thus the predicate < can be
used in first order sentences for such rings.
Let R be a Peano ring such that Z ~ R. Clearly, in Z and hence in R we have
Va,b [a$ b :Sa+ 1 => (b =a V b =a+ l)].

Therefore if r E R - Z, we have either r > a for all a E Z or r < a for all a E Z.
Hence - by replacing r by - r if necessary - we may assume that there exists
an element r E R such that r > a for all a E Z. The unique ordering of R is thus
non-Archimedean.
In Z and hence in R we have the property
(If a E Z we take b = lowest common multiple of 1, 2, ... , 2n.)

Let f (a) denote some b satisfying the above statement. (It is not important
for our purpose, but in order to obtain a uniquely determined f (a) we might
notice that there exists a smallest element b = b0 - dependent on a - with the
above property and define f (a) = b0 .)
If fJ is chosen such that fJ > a for all a E Z, then each n E N divides f (fJ).
Since 1 and -1 are the only invertible elements in any Peano ring, distinct natural
numbers are non-associated in any Peano ring; consequently f (fJ) has infinitely
many non-associated divisors and R is not Noetherian.
Any finite set of elements in a Peano ring has a lowest common multiple.
By definition f(fJ) is divisible by the lowest conunon multiple of the elements
fJ + 1, fJ + 2, ... , fJ + n for every n EN.
Lemma 4.10 For every n E N, the lowest common multiple of fJ + 1, fJ +

2, ... ,fJ + n can be written d- 1 (fJ + l)(fJ + 2) · · · (fJ + n), where d = d(n) is a
natural number dependent on n.
Proof. We proceed by induction on n. Let c,, denote the lowest conunon

multiple of fJ+l, fJ+2, ... ,fJ+n. For n = 1 we have c1 = fJ+l and d = d(l) = 1.
Assume the assertion holds for c,,. Now Cn+l = o:- 1 c,,(fJ + n + 1 ), where o: is the
TRANSCENDENCY DEGREE AND KRULL DIMENSION 65
highest common divisor of Cn and ,8+n+1. (We here use that in a Peano ring the
highest common divisor exists and has the usual properties.) By the inductive
assumption a divides (,8 + 1)(,8 + 2) · · · (,8 + n).
Obviously there exists a polynomial b0 + b1 X + · · · + xn- 1 E Z[X] such that
(X + 1 )(X + 2) · · · (X + n) = (X + n + 1 )(b0 + b1 X + · · · + xn-i) + (-1 tn!.

By setting X = ,8 we conclude that a divides n!, and hence a E N. This implies
that Cn+i has the desired form. D
Proposition 4.11 f(,8) >,an for every n EN.

Proof. f (,8) is a multiple of Cn+i for each n E N. Since ,8 > a for every
a E Z, the above lemma implies
f(,8) ~ Cn+I ~ (,8 + 1)(,8 + 2) · · · (,8 + n) > ,Bn.

D
From the preceding one easily obtains
Theorem 4.12 Let R be a Peano ring different from Z and ,8 E R - Z. Then
,a, f(.B), fU(.B)), ... , r(.B), ...

are algebraically independent over Z. D
Combining this with Theorem 4.4 we get
Corollary 4.13 Each Peano field different from Q has infinite transcendency
degree over Q. D
By considering valuations on the subring Z[,B,f(,B), ... , r(,B), .. .] of a Peano

ring R with the lexicographically ordered direct sum of copies of Z as value groups
and extending these valuations to R we obtain infinite chains of prime ideals of
R.
Altogether we derive
Corollary 4.14 Each Peano ring R different from Z is a non-Noetherian ring

of infinite Krull dimension. D
For later purposes we need the following
Proposition 4.15 Each Peano ring R different from Z has a non-principal -

and, therefore, non-finitely generated - maximal ideal.
Proof. The notion irreducible element is obviously a first order concept. In

Z and hence in R the following holds: For every irreducible element 7r each non-
zero element a E R7r can be written a= 7r 1c,,.(a), where 7r does not divide c,,.(a)
and 7r is the only irreducible element (up to an invertible factor) that divides 7r 1 •
Let /3 E R- Z, and consider the ideal a = Rf(/])+ Lr. Rc,,.f (/]), where 7r runs
through the irreducible divisors of (3.
The ideal a is properly contained in R and is not contained in any proper
principal ideal of R. In fact, assume a ~ Ra for a non-invertible a. a is divisible
by an irreducible element (since R = Z) and since (3 E Ra, any such irreducible
element would be a divisor 7r of /3.
The inclusion Rc,,.f(/3) ~ Ra now gives the desired contradiction. Each max-
imal ideal of R containing a is therefore non-principal. Since R shares with Z
the property that all finitely generated ideals are principal, i. e. R is a Bezout
domain, the assertions are proved. o
Rings elementarily equivalent to rings of inte-

gers or polynomials
Since Q is elementarily definable in every finite algebraic number field f{ [162]

and Z is elementarily definable in the ring of algebraic integers in f{, we get
Theorem 4.16 Let f{ be a finite algebraic number field and R its ring of integers.
Every ring S, which is elementarily equivalent to R, but not isomorphic to R, is
non-Noetherian and has infinite Krull dimension. Further, every field L, which
is elementarily equivalent to but not isomorphic to I< has infinite transcendency
degree over Q.
Proof. Notice that I< (respectively R) is a free module over Q (respectively

Z) having finite rank n. Accordingly, L (respectively S) is a finitely generated
free module over a Peano field L' # Q (a Peano ring S' # Z, respectively). The
assertions now follow from Corollaries 4.13 and 4.14. 0
RINGS OF INTEGERS OR POLYNOMIALS 67
In general, of course nothing similar holds for principal ideal domains (PID's)
and finite extensions of PID's as the results of Chapter 3 (e.g. Proposition 3.19)
show; see also Remark 4.20. For polynomial rings, however, we have the following
Theorem 4.17 Let I< be an infinite field and R = J<[X] and let S be a ring
elementarily equivalent to R. Then either S is non-Noetherian of infinite Krull
dimension or S = L[X] for a suitable field (necessarily elementarily equivalent to
I<).
Proof. Generally, if eis an irreducible element in a domain A, the set

Pow(O = {17 EA I v(J [(/)I 11) =*" (/311 v eI/))]}
is definable in A with parameter e.
If A= R then
Pow(O = { kC I 0 =/: k E K, n E N}
and has the first order property
(4.1)
Similarly the set
Pr(O = {17 E Pow(O I (e -1) I (11 -1)}

is definable in A with parameter e.
If A= R, then
Pr(O ={CI n EN}
and has the first order property
(4.2)
Addition of the exponents in Pr(e) = {en In E N} is elementarily definable

in the obvious way. To define multiplication of the exponents elementarily it
suffices (in view of an observation of Tarski (cf. [164], p. 146) to define divisibility
elementarily. This is done by noticing that in R = K[X] we have for all m, n E N:
em - 1 I en - 1 ¢? m I n.
Since R =S and irreducibility is a first order notion, the sets Pow(e) and
Pr(e) have the properties (4.1) and (4.2) for each irreducible element in S. e
Moreover, se
is a maximal ideal m in S, and the localization Sm is a valuation
ring. The positive part of the value group of the corresponding valuation is the
multiplicative semi-group Pr(O. From the remarks above it follows that the value
group is the additive group of a Peano ring.
In R the subfield I< is the subset of R consisting of 0 and all invertible ele-
ments. Hence in S the subset consisting of 0 and all invertible elements forms a
subfield L of S.
In R there exists an irreducible element e (for instance X) such that I<+ Re =
R. Hence in S there exists an invertible element e such that L + se = S.
We now distinguish two cases:
(i) For every irreducible element e ins such that L+ se = s we have Pr(O =
{en In EN}.
(ii) There exists an irreducible element e E S such that L + se = S and the
value group for the valuation ring Sm, m = se, is the additive group of a Peano
ring different from Z.
ad (i): In this case we prove S S=' L[X]. Let e'
be an irreducible element in
S such that L + Se' = S. Since each irreducible element in R is transcendental
with respect to I<, we conclude that e' is transcendental with respect to L. Thus
the assertion follows if we show that S ~ L[e'].
We notice that R = I<[e] for every irreducible element e such that I< +Re= R.
For each n E N there is a formula (due to A. Bauval[19]) expressing that the
degree of a polynomial f (with respect toe) is :S n. In fact, the degree off is
:Sn if and only if en f(I/e) is a polynomial g(e) ER= I<[e]. Since I< is infinite,
this can be stated by the formula r.p(J,e, h), where h =en:
Moreover, R = I<[X] has the following first order properties ,. (n E N):
VfeR V{ (e irreducible I<+ Re= R)

[r.p(J,e, C) => :Jko, .. .,knEK (J = ko + k1e + · · · + knen)].
Finally we notice that R satisfies the following first order sentence
v{ (e irreducible I<+ Re= R) V1 :JhEPr({) r.p(J,e,h).

Since R = Sand Pr(e') = {e'n I n E N} we conclude that for each s E S there
is an n E N such that r.p(s,e', (e'r) holds, and hence by means of n we obtain
that s E L[e'].
ad (ii): In this case the localization of S with respect to a suitable maximal
ideal m is a valuation ring whose value group is the additive group of a Peano
ring different from Z.
RINGS OF INTEGERS OR POLYNOMIALS 69
The construction in Theorem 4.12 shows that the additive group of every
Peano ring of: Z contains an increasing sequence of convex subgroups; hence the
rank of the valuation ring Sm is infinite and S has infinite Krull dimension.
D
If J{ is a finite field, a slight modification (using the explicit bound for the
number of polynomials in J<[X] of given degree) of the above proof gives the
following
Theorem 4.18 Let S be a ring elementarily equivalent to R = I<[X], where I<

is a finite field. Then either S is isomorphic to R or S has infinite Krull dimen-
sion. D
From Corollary 3.11 and Example 2.7 we obtain
Corollary 4.19 Let J{ be a field, which is either finite or an algebraic (not nec-
essarily finite) extension of Q. Then every ring elementarily equivalent to I<[X]
is either isomorphic to K[X] or is non-Noetherian and has infinite Krull dimen-
sion. D
Remark 4.20 There exists a principal ideal domain R such that each natural
number n is the Krull dimension of some ring elementarily equivalent to R. In
fact, any complete discrete valuation ring R, whose residue field has characteristic
zero is an example: Let [( be the quotient field of R and form the Puiseux fields
(cf. Example 2.27) P(K), P 2 (K) = P(P(I<)), ... , pn(I<), .. .. The valuation of
[( corresponding to R can be extended to a Henselian valuation of pn(I<) such
that the residue field is unchanged, and the value group is the lexicographically
ordered product Z ffi qn. By Ax and Kochen's theorem on Henselian valuations
(see [12], [33], also Chapter 2) it follows that the corresponding valuation ring
of pn(I<) is elementarily equivalent to R. The Krull dimension of this valuation
ring is n + 1.
Exercise 4.21 Use Lowenheim-Skolem 's theorem and Theorem 4.17 to prove
that for every infinite field I< there exists a countable subfield L such that I<(X)
and L(X) are elementarily equivalent.
Remark 4.22 Some of the preceding results can be sharpened. For instance, in
Corollary 4.14 and Theorem 4.18 infinite can be replaced by uncountable.
Fields elementarily equivalent to fields of ratio-

nal functions
We now consider some questions concerning elementary equivalence of function

fields involving Peano fields and finite extensions of these.
Theorem 4.23 Let f{ be a field admitting a unique ordering. Then K(X) =

Q(X) implies I<~ Q. In particular, a Peano field I<, for which I<(X) Q(X) =
is necessarily isomorphic to Q.
Proof. Starting from the elliptic curve
y2 = z3 - 4, (4.3)
we define for an arbitrary field L the following elementarily definable subsets:
M(L) = {l EL I 31ieL (12 = li - 4)}
P(L) = {l EL I 31 ,1,,1,,i.eL (l = l~ + l~ + l~ + l;)}

1
S(L) = {s EL I V1eM(L)(s - l E P(L) V l - s E P(L))}.

Since the genus of the curve (4.3) is one, M(I<(X)) ~I< for every field I<.
As observed in R. M. Robinson [163],
Q = S(Q) = S(Q(X))
since M(Q) is dense in Q, and the Pythagoras number 7r(Q) is 4.
From 7r(Q(X)) = 5 and I<(X) = Q(X) we conclude
7r(J<) :::; 7r(J<(X)) - 1 = 7r(Q(X)) - 1 = 4.
Since I< admits a unique ordering we get
VkEK k E P(I<) V -k E P(I<).
Therefore I< ~ S(I<(X)) ~ I<(X). Since Q(X) =

I<(X) and S(Q(X) Q, =
it follows that S(I<(X)) is a field, which is elementarily equivalent to Q. It
now follows from Liiroth's theorem that S(I<(X)) equals I< or K(O for some~
transcendental over I<. The latter alternative would imply by Proposition 3.1
that S(Q(X)) = Q were elementarily equivalent to S(I<(X)) ~ I<(X), which is
CANCELLATION FOR POLYNOMIAL RINGS 71
impossible because these two fields have different Pythagoras numbers. Hence
S(I<(X)) =I<.
A modification of the proof in Theorem 3.29 shows that the set of natural
numbers N is elementarily definable in Q(X) and I<(X) by the same formula.
(The relation ':S 2 ' has to be replaced by ':Ss ', where a :Ss b means that b - a
is a sum of 5 squares.) Since any element in S(Q(X)) = Q can be written
±n/m, n, m E N, we conclude that each element in S(I<(X)) =I< can be writ-
ten ±n/m, n, m EN. Consequently I<= Q. D
Using that any finite algebraic number field has Pythagoras number at most
4, an immediate modification of the above yields
Theorem 4.23A Let F be a finite algebraic number field admitting a unique

ordering {i.e. exactly one of the conjugate number fields of F is real). If I< is any
field admitting a unique ordering, then F(X) = I<(X) implies F ~ I<. In par-
ticular, F = I< and F(X) = I<(X) implies that F and I< are conjugate number
~~- D
As for function fields of arbitrarily many variables one obtains by similar

methods as above the following result, whose proof we omit.
Theorem 4.23B Let F be a finite algebraic number field, admitting a unique

ordering, and let {X;};El and {1'] Lei be two arbitrary {non-empty) sets of inde-
terminates. For every field I< the elementary equivalences
F::I< and F({X;};EI)=:I<({Y;}JeJ)
imply that F and I< are isomorphic fields. D
Cancellation for polynomial rings
We conclude this chapter with an analogous result for polynomial rings. In the
proof we anticipate some results from Chapter 10.
Theorem 4.24 Let R be a ring for which R[X] =Z[X]. Then R and Z are
isomorphic.
Proof. Obviously R must be a commutative integral domain, whose only

invertible elements are ±1. Since Z[X] is uniformly coherent (cf. Appendix C
and Example 10.12 (iii)), we know that
w.gl.dimR[X] = w.gl.dimZ[X] = 2,
and hence
w.gl.dimR = w.gl.dimR[X] - 1=1,
i.e. R is a Priifer domain. [For the homological notions involved we refer to
Appendix A.] Now, since Z[X] is a unique factorization (= factorial) domain,
every invertible ideal in Z[X] is principal. Since invertible ideals are finitely
generated, the statement every invertible ideal is principal can be expressed by
a family of first order sentences; consequently every invertible ideal in R[X] 1s
principal, and R is actually a Bezout domain.
Next we observe that f E R[X] cannot belong to R if the ideal
JR[X] + 2R[X]
is not principal. The latter property can be stated by a first order formula.
We claim that the set N of natural numbers can be defined in R[X] and Z[X]
by the same formula. For brevity we use S as common notation for Z[X] and
R[X]. Further let P(S) be the elementarily definable subset of S consisting of all
elements that can be written as a sum of four squares. The formula 1/J( a) defining
a EN in Sis:
:lu,v (Su+ 52 non-principal),v # 0, (u 2 + 1) irreducible divisor in v,

(u 2 + 1 I v) V9 e'P(S) [u 2 + g + 1 irreducible divisor in v =?
(u 2 + g + 2 irreducible divisor in v V g =a)].
(a) Jf a EN, we take
u =X and v = (X 2 + l)(X 2 + 2) ... (X 2 +a+ 1).

The only irreducible divisors of v are ±(X 2 + k), k = 1, 2, ... , a+ 1. In S a
non-trivial sum of squares cannot vanish; hence if
X 2 + 1 + g, g E P(S)
is an irreducible divisor of v, we infer that g = 0, 1, ... , or a. Thus condition

1/J( a) is satisfied in S.
CANCELLATION FOR POLYNOMIAL RINGS 73
(b) Assume that condition if;( o:) is satisfied and for some o: E S we have
that o: </. N. Since N ~ P(S), this would imply that there exist polynomials
u and v, v =I 0, u of degree > 0, such that u 2 + n divides v for every n E N.
Since u 2 + 1, u 2 + 2, ... are non-associated irreducible divisors of v, each product
flk= 1 (u 2 + k) divides v. [Z[X] and hence R[X] has the property that an element,
which is divisible by finitely many non-associated irreducible elements, is divisible
by their product.] Since u and v are polynomials of positive degree, this gives the
desired contradiction.
From the above we conclude that Z =NU {O} U -N is elementarily definable
in Z[X] and R[X] by the same formula. Next we note that for a polynomial
f(X) E Z[X] - Z the ideal Z[X]f(X) + Z[X]p is not principal if p is a prime
number not dividing any of the coefficients of f(X). Hence for polynomials
f(X) E Z[X] we have:
f(X) E Z ~ Z[X]f(X) + Z[X]h is principal for all h E Z. On the other hand,
R[X]r + R[X]h is a principal ideal in R[X] for all r E R and all h E Z.
Consequently, if Z is properly contained in R, we obtain a first order sentence
distinguishing Z[X] and R[X]. O
Finally we mention the following corresponding results for power series rings
and power series fields where we restrict ourselves to giving an outline of the main
points of the proof.
Theorem 4.25 (i) A field J{ is a Peano field if and only if I<[[X]] =

Q[[X]], if
and only if I<((X)) = Q((X)).
(ii) Let n be an integer 2: 2 and J{ a field. Then J{ = Q if and only if
I<[[X1, ... , Xnll = Q[[X1, ... 'XnlJ,

if and only if
Proof. (Sketch) Under the given assumptions the proof of Theorem 3.34 shows
that for all n 2: 1 the ring I<[[Xi, ... , XnlJ is elementarily definable in its quotient
field I<((Xi, ... , Xn)) by a formula not depending on I<. Hence it suffices to prove
the assertions concerning power series rings.
The assertion for n = 1 is a special case of the general Ax-Kochen Theorem
(for valuation rings).
If n 2 2 and char(K) = 0, Delon [40] has proven that N and thereby Q are
definable in K [[X1 , ... , XnlJ by formulas not depending on K.
On the other hand the residue class field K of K[[X1i ... , XnlJ with respect to
the unique maximal ideal is also elementarily definable. This implies the state-
ment for n 2 2. D
Exercises
Exercise 4.26 Show - by analyzing the proofs of Theorems 4.17 and 4.24 - that a
Noetherian ring elementarily equivalent to Z[X] is actually isomorphic to Z(X].
Exercise 4.27 Show that if Risa Peano ring and R({X;}] =Z({X;}] for some family
{Xi} of indeterminates, then R is isomorphic to Z.
Exercise 4.28 Show that any Peano ring contains the ring Z of integers as an elemen-
tary subring.
Exercise 4.29 Let z· zN

= I :F be an ultrapower of the integers with respect to a
non-principal ultrafilter :F on N. Prove the following assertions:
(i) An element 7r = (7ro, 7r1 , ••• ] of z• is irreducible (prime) in z• if and only if 7r n is
prime in Z for :F-almost all n.
(ii) Let x = [xo, X1, •• •] be a non-zero and 7r = [7ro, 7r1, ••• ] be a prime element of z·.
Write Xn = 7r~nYn such that Yn is prime to 7rn (for almost all n) and let 7r 1 = (7r~0 , 7r~ 1 , ••• ],
c,.(x) = [yo, y 1 , •• •]. 7r 1(x) is either a unit or else 7r is (up to associated primes) the
unique prime element dividing 7r 1 (x). Moreover, 7r 1 does not divide c,.(x).
(iii) Let po < p 1 < p2 · · · denote a strictly increasing sequence of prime numbers.
Let w = [po, pop1, PoP1P2, .. .], then w admits infinitely many pairwise non-associated
prime divisors in z·.
(iv) The ideal
a = z·w + I: c,.(w),
irlwZ'
where 7r runs through the set of all primes dividing w, is properly contained in z·.
( v) a is not contained in any proper principal ideal of z•. In particular any maximal
ideal containing a fails to be finitely generated.
Chapter 5
Hilbertian fields and realizations

of finite groups as Galois groups
Hilbertian fields
First we consider Hilbertian fields. Hereby, a field I< is cal.led Hilbertian if

it satisfies the following condition: For every irreducible polynomial f(X, T) E
I<[X, T] there exist infinitely many elements t E I< such that f (X, t) is irreducible
(or possibly a constant) in I<[X].
In case the characteristic of I< is > 0 some authors require the polynomial
f(X, T) to be separable with respect to X.
For applications it is important that the irreducibility property in the defini-
tion of Hilbertian fields can be carried over to the case of several variables (see
for instance [124].
Example 5.1 The following are examples of Hilbertian fields
(i) the rational number field Q and any finite extension of Q (Hilbert's irre-
ducibility theorem [90]),
(ii) the maximal abelian extension of every Hilbertian field,
(iii) every pure transcendental extension of an arbitrary field,
(iv) the quotient field of a factorial domain of Krull dimension > l.
More examples can be found in [202] and [113]. For a model-theoretic treat-
ment of Hilbertian fields we refer to Roquette [166].
Proposition 5.2 The Hilberlian fields form an axiomatizable but not a finitely
75
76 CHAPTER 5: FINITE GROUPS AS GALOIS GROUPS
Proof. To see that the Hilbertian fields form an axiomatizable class we notice
that for any natural numbers n and m the statement
O"n,m: for each irreducible polynomial f (X, T) E K[X, T] of total de-

gree :S n there exist distinct elements tj, 1 :S j :S m, in K such that
f(X, ti) is irreducible in K[X] for 1 :S j :S m
defines a first order sentence in the language of fields. (By the total degree of a
polynomial f(X, T) we mean the maximum of the degrees with respect to X and
T.)
Since a field I< is Hilbertian if and only if it satisfies the sentences O"n,m
for all natural numbers n and m it follows that the Hilbertian fields form an
However, the Hilbertian fields do not form a finitely axiomatizable class:
For every n E N let Kn be an algebraic extension of Q, which is maximal with
respect to the property that the degree [Q(,B) : Q] contains only prime divisors
> n for every ,B E Kn - Q. We claim that Kn is not Hilbertian. In fact, let p be
a prime number > n. Obviously, the polynomial f(X, T) = XP -Tis irreducible
in Kn[X, T]. However, for every a E Kn the polynomial XP - a is reducible
in Kn[X]. Indeed, if XP - a were irreducible in I<n[X] for some a E Kn, the
dimension [Kn(Pfo) : Kn] would be p, and thus Kn(Pfo) would be a proper
extension of Kn such that the degree [Q(,B) : Q] for any ,B E Kn(Pfo) - Q
contains only prime divisors > n, contradicting the maximality of Kn.
Thus the field Kn is not Hilbertian, but Kn satisfies O"n,m for every m E N:
Let J(X, T) be an irreducible polynomial in Kn[X, T] of total degree :S n. The
coefficients of J(X, T) belong to some finite extension L of Q. Since L is Hilber-
tian, there exist infinitely many (in particular at least m) elements t in L such
that f(X,t) is irreducible in L[X]. Because the degree of J(X,t) is :Sn and
hence coprime to the dimension [M: L] for any finite extension M of Lin Kn, we
conclude that f(X, t) remains irreducible in Kn[X]. Consequently, for any non-
principal ultrafilter :F on N, the ultraproduct IlneNKn/ :F is Hilbertian, while
each field Kn is not Hilbertian. Hence, the Hilbertian fields do not form a finitely
axiomatizable class. D
Universally admissible fields
Hilbertian fields are important in the general inverse problem of Galois theory,
i.e. in the study of the finite groups that can appear as Galois groups over a given
UNIVERSALLY ADMISSIBLE FIELDS 77
field. To be precise, we say that a finite group G is a Galois group over a field ]{
if there exists a finite Galois extension L/ ]{ with Galois group Gal(L/ J<) ~ G.
Here the following notion is useful:
Definition 5.3 If A is a family of finite groups we call a field ]{ A-admissible

if every group in A is a Galois group over ]{. The field ]{ is called universally
admissible if [( is A-admissible, A being the family of all finite groups. If A =
{G} consists of a single group G, A-admissible fields are also called G-admissible.
It has been conjectured that any Hilbertian field is universally admissible. It

is well known that this is true for every pure transcendental extension of any
algebraically closed field of characteristic 0 [51], (see also [196,123] and [193]) and
for every pure transcendental extension of a real closed field.
Example 5.4 Let ]{ be the field of all meromorphic functions in one complex
variable and L = C(X) the subfield of all rational functions over C. By Picard's
theorem L is algebraically closed in I<; hence ]{ is universally admissible since
C(X) is. However, here it is not known whether [{ is a Hilbertian field. (Cf.
Problem 13.6).
It is a famous open problem whether Q is universally admissible. For more

information on the inverse problem in Galois theory we refer to the survey papers
of Neukirch [141] and Matzat [133],[132].
Some of the results in the present chapter concerning admissibility may al-
ternatively be derived using methods from the monograph of M. Fried and M.
Jarden [64), which appeared after this chapter was written.
Proposition 5.5 Let A be a family of finite groups. The class of A-admissible

fields is axiomatizable; it is finitely axiomatizable if A is finite.
Proof. We first consider the case where A consists of a single group G. There
exists a first order sentence in the language of fields defining the G-admissible
fields. This can be seen in the following way. Let f(X) E K[X] be a polynomial of
degree n having n distinct roots a 1 , •.• , an. We form the fundamental polynomial
n
F(X; Xi,···, Xn) = II [X - L Xs(i)Cl'i]
sESn i=l
wheres runs through then! permutations in Sn. The polynomial F(X; Xi, ... , Xn)
belongs to K[X; Xi, ... , Xn]· Let g be an irreducible factor of the polynomial
F in I<[X; Xi, ... , Xn]· The subgroup of Sn, consisting of those permutations
s E Sn, for which g(X; Xi, ... , Xn) equals g(X; Xs(r), ... , Xs(n)), is isomorphic to
the Galois group of the splitting field of f (x) over I<.
Using that G is a subgroup of Sn for some n, it is an easy exercise to construct
a first order sentence <7G defining the G-admissible fields. From the above it is
immediate to see that the A-admissible fields form an axiomatizable class for any
family A of finite groups. D
We give an application of this fact:
Proposition 5.6 Every field I< can be embedded into a universally admissible
field.
Proof. Let Gr, ... , Gt be arbitrary finite groups, we choose an integer n such
that Gr x G2 x · · · x Gt ~ Sn.
By the main theorem of symmetric polynomials, Sn is a Galois group over the
function field J<(Xr, ... , Xn)· Hence, by the main theorem of Galois theory, the
group Gr x · · · x Gt is a Galois group over some field extension Lt of I<.
Now, consider some enumeration Gi, i E N, of the family of all (isomorphism
classes) of finite groups. Let Mt be a field extension of [{such that Gr x · · · x Gt
and hence each Gi, 1 :S: i :S: t, is a Galois group over Mt.
If :F is a non-principal ultrafilter on N, the ultraproduct M* = IlteNMtf :F
will satisfy every first order sentence <7a,, i E N. Hence M* is universally admis-
sible and contains I< as a subfield. D
Realization of classes of simple groups as Galois

groups
Like the Hilbertian fields the universally admissible fields do not form a finitely
axiomatizable class. During the proof of this we obtain some results that may be
of independent interest:
Proposition 5.7 Let S be the family of all (isomorphism classes} of finite simple
groups and let S = A U B be a decomposition into two disjoint classes. Every
field can be embedded into a field M with the following properties
(i) every group for which a composition series has all its simple factors in A
appears as the Galois group of some normal separable extension of M.
(ii) no simple group in B appears as the Galois group of a normal separable
extension of M.
REALIZATION OF SIMPLE GROUPS AS GALOIS GROUPS 79
Proof. By the preceding proposition a given field can be embedded into a

universally admissible field I<. Within the algebraic closure I? of I< we choose for
every group G described in (i) a normal separable extension of ]{, whose Galois
group is G. Let T be the family of all these field extensions of I<. Let .:! be the
family of all algebraic extensions M' of I< (I< ~ M' ~!?),for which M' n L =I<
for every L E T . .:! can be ordered in the obvious way. By Zorn's lemma there
exists a field M which is maximal in .:J. It now follows from the translation
theorem of Galois theory that for any L E T the composite field ML is normal
over Mand Gal(ML/M) ~ Gal(L/I<). Hence every group in (i) appears as a
Galois group over M.
Assume N / M were a normal separable extension with Gal( N / M) ~ B for
some B E B. Then for each L E T, ( N n ML)/ M would be a normal separable
extension with Gal( ( N n ML)/ M) being both a quotient of B and a quotient
of some group described in (i). Consequently, Gal( ( N n ML)/ M) = { 1} and
N n ML = M. On the other hand, by the maximality of M we conclude that
N n L ~ I< for a suitable L E T. This gives the desired contradiction since
N n L ~ N n ML = M and M n L = I<. D
Theorem 5.8 The universally admissible fields do not form a finitely axiomati-
zable class.
Proof. Let S = {2:; Ii EN} be an enumeration of all (isomorphism classes)

of finite simple groups. Let An = {2:; I l ~ i ~ n }, and let Mn be a field satisfy-
ing the conditions (i) and (ii) of the preceding proposition with A= An. Then
Mn is not universally admissible for any n E N. However, for any non-principal
ultrafilter :Fon N the ultraproduct TineNMn/ :Fis universally admissible. D
The above argument also shows
Proposition 5.9 If S is the family of all (isomorphism classes) of finite simple

groups, the S-admissible fields do not form a finitely axiomatizable class. D
As a curiosity we give a variation of Proposition 5.7, which may be of some

independent interest.
First, some preliminaries. If G is a finite group and I< is a field, we de-
fine v( G, I<) as the number (cardinality) of non-I< -isomorphic normal separable
extensions of I< whose Galois group is G.
Proposition 5.10 If J{ is universally admissible, then v(G,I<) ~ N0 for any

finite group G.
Proof. If G is a finite group and n E N, then en

appears as a Galois group
over I< and hence v(G,I<) ~ n. Since n can be any natural number it follows
that v(G,I<) ~No. D
By the above proposition and the translation theorem we obtain:
Proposition 5.11 Any finite {not necessarily separable) extension of a univer-

sally admissible field is again universally admissible. D
Proposition 5.12 Let S be the family of all {isomorphism classes of) finite sim-
ple groups and let S = AU B be a decomposition into two disjoint classes. Every
field can be embedded into a field M with the following properties:
(i) every group for which a composition series has all its simple factors in A
appears as the Galois group of some normal separable extension of M,
(ii) v( B, M) = 1 for every simple group B in B.
Proof. We proceed as in Proposition 5.7. Let I< be a universally admissible

field containing the given field. For every group Gas in (i) we choose a Galois
extension of J{ with Galois group G. For every B E B we choose a Galois
extension LB of J{ for which Gal( LB/ I<) ~ B. Let T be the family of all these
field extensions of J{.
Let .:! be the family of all algebraic extensions M' of K for which M' n L = I<
for each L E T, and let M be a maximal element in .:!. By the translation
theorem it follows that any group in (i) as well as any simple group in B appears
as a Galois group over M.
It remains to be shown that v(B, M) = 1 for every BE B. Since Gal(M LB/ M)
= B we have to prove that M LB is the only normal separable extension of M
- inside a fixed algebraic closure of M- with B as its Galois group. Assume
Gal(N/M) =Band N f= MLB. By the maximality of Min .:J it follows that
Nn L ~I< for some LET. Because Gal(N/M) ~ Gal(MLB/M) is simple, and
( N n ML B) / M is a finite Galois extension, we conclude that N n ML B = M and
thus N n LB c:;:: Mn LB = I<. Hence L cannot be LB. On the other hand the
proof of Proposition 5.7 shows that LE T,L f= LB implies N n L =I<.
Consequently, in any case the assumption v(B, M) > 1 gives rise to a contra-
diction. D
REALIZATION OF SIMPLE GROUPS AS GALOIS GROUPS 81
By taking A as the family of all cyclic groups of prime order and the alter-
nating groups An, n 2: 5, we obtain:
Corollary 5.13 Every field can be embedded into a field M with the following
properties
(i) every finite solvable group is a Galois group over M.
(ii) every symmetric group Sn, n EN, is a Galois group over M.
(iii) every finite simple group is a Galois group over M.
(iv) not every finite group is a Galois group over M. O
Remark 5.14 The above corollary gives a large number of examples showing
that a group G may not be realizable as a Galois group over a field M even if all
its composition factors are realizable as Galois groups over M.
Conversely, if G is realizable as a Galois group over a field M, then its com-
position factors may not be realizable as Galois groups over M. For instance,
let L/Q be a normal extension with Gal(L/Q) = S 5 and let M be a maximal
algebraic extension of Q for which Mn L = Q. Then S 5 , but not A 5 is a Galois
group over M.
Remark 5.15 If G and H are finite groups, one may ask when the first order
sentence ua defining the G-admissible fields implies the first order sentence CTH
defining the H-admissible fields. It is obvious that 'ua => uH' if H is a homo-
morphic image of G. The converse does not hold. If Zn denotes the cyclic group
of order n, it can be proved that 'uz, => uz 2 , ' for all t and 'uzP => uzP,' for all
t when p is an odd prime [203]. Similarly, 'ua => CTH' when G is the quaternion
group of order 8 and H is either cyclic of order order 4 or the dihedral group of
order 8. This depends on a famous result of Witt [204] concerning the embed-
dability of a biquadratic field into an extension with Galois group isomorphic to
the quaternion group of order 8.
Proposition 5. 7 can be interpreted as saying that the sentences us, S running
through the finite simple groups, are completely independent.
Exercise 5.16 Using the fact that 'uz, => uz 2 , 'for all t, show that 'uz,xz, =>
uz,xz 8 ', while 'uz,xz, ~ CTZ 8 xZ 8 ' and 'uz,xZ 8 ~ Uz 6 xZ 8 '.
More generally, show that 'uz 2 , xz 2 u => Uz 2 ,+ 1 xZ 2 u 'if and only if u :::; t.
Remark 5.17 An easy modification of the proofs of Propositions 5.7 and 5.12
shows that if S is a finite simple non-abelian group, then for every n E N there
exists a field K such that v(S, K) = n. Similarly, if Sis a simple group of prime
order p, then an integer n appears as v(S, K) for some field K if and only if n
has the form n =(pm - l)/(p - 1) for some non-negative integer m.
Moreover, if µ(S), S E S, is any family of cardinal numbers subject to the
condition that µ(S) has the form (pm - l)/(p - 1) for some non-negative integer
m when µ(S) < oo and S is of prime order p, then there exists a field K such
that v(S, K) = µ(S), for every SES.
In general, it is complicated to find the finite values which v( G, K) can assume
for a fixed group G. As curiosities we mention the following:
If G is cyclic of order 4, then an integer n appears as v( G, K) for some field if
and only if n has the form (2m - 1)2', where m and s are non-negative integers
subject to the condition m s; s + 1. If G is the quaternion group of order 8, it
can be shown that v(G,K) can never be an odd number, except 1. If G is the
dihedral group of order 8, then v(G, K) can never be an odd number, except 1
and 3, which can actually occur.
Fields with bizarre Galois groups
For the last result in this section we need some group theoretic preliminaries. We
introduce some ad hoc definitions (which are not standard, but convenient for
our purposes).
If S is a finite simple non-abelian group, we call a finite group G an S-group
if each factor of a composition series of G is isomorphic to S. Further, a group is
called S-semisimple if it is a direct product of copies of S.
Lemma 5.18 Let S be a finite simple non-abelian group and G a finite group
which is the {inner) direct product of subgroups A;, 1 s; i s; n. If N is a normal
subgroup of G such that Ai/ A; n N is an S-group for each i, 1 s; i s; n, then N
is the (inner) direct product of the groups A; n N, 1 s; i s; n.
Proof. By an obvious induction it suffices to consider the case n = 2. Passing

to G/(A 1 n N)(A 2 n N) we may assume that A1 n N = {l} = A 2 n N. We then
have to show that N = {l}. Since A1 n N = {l} the composite group A 1 N is the
inner direct product of A1 and N. On the other hand A1 N is the direct product
of A1 and (A2 n A1 N). Since any S-group has trivial center it follows from ( [92],
p. 69) that complements are uniquely determined, hence N = A 2 n A 1 N. Since
A 2 n N = {l}, we conclude that N = {l}. D
FIELDS WITH BIZARRE GALOIS GROUPS 83
Lemma 5.19 Let Ni and N2 be normal subgroups of a finite group G such that
G/Ni and G/N2 are S-semisimple. Then G/Ni n N 2 is also S-semisimple.
Proof. It is no restriction to assume that Nin N2 = { 1}. Let G be the inner

direct product of the indecomposable subgroups Ai, ... , An. Since G is an S-
group it follows from the preceding lemma that Nin G = (Ai n Ni) · · · (Ann Ni),
j = 1, 2. By considering each component we may assume that G is indecompos-
able. In this case we have to prove that Ni or N 2 equals { 1}.
We show this indirectly. Suppose Ni # {1} and N2 # {1} and let H be
a minimal nontrivial subgroup of N 2 which is normal in G. Assume H has a
composition series of length t 2:: l.
Because G /Ni is S-semisimple there exists a normal subgroup B of G, contain-
ing Ni but not H such that a composition series of G / B has length t. Obviously,
B n H = {1} and G = EH. Thus G is the direct product of the nontrivial
subgroups B and H ; this gives the desired contradiction. 0
By taking the intersection of all normal subgroups in G whose factor groups

are S-semisimple we see that there exists a (unique) smallest normal subgroup
rs(G) for which the corresponding factor group is S-semisimple.
We call rs(G) the S-radical of G.
Lemma 5.20 Let G;, 1 S i S n, be finite groups for which the factor groups
G;/rs(G;), 1 Si Sn, are mutually isomorphic. The pull-back G" (in Ruppert's
terminology {92} 'Produkt mit vereinigter Faktorgruppe ') of the groups G; with
respect to a fixed choice of epimorphisms K; : G; ---+ G;/rs( G;) has the property
that G" /rs( G*) ~ G;/rs( G;) for all 1 S i S n.
Proof. Since the pull back products satisfy the associative law, an obvious
induction argument shows that we may assume that n = 2.
In this case G" is the subgroup of the direct product Gi x G2 consisting of all
pairs (gi,g 2 ) for which Kigi = K 2g2 • Obviously, N = rs(G*) ~ rs(Gi) x rs(G2).
Since rs( G;)/ N n rs( G;) is an S-group, (i = 1, 2), Lemma 5.18 implies that N is
the direct product of N n (rs( Gi) x {1}) = (Ni x {1}) and N n ({ 1} x rs( G2)) =
({1} x N2)· Since G*/(Ni x rs(G2)) ~ G/Ni and G*/(rs(Gi) x N2) ~ G/N2 are
S-semisimple, it follows that Ni= rs(Gi) and N2 = rs(G 2). This completes the
proof. O
We are now able to formulate and prove our last result in this section. By the
length of a finite group G we mean the length of a composition series of G.
Theorem 5.21 Let S be a fixed finite simple non-abelian group. For every t E N
and every field F there exists a field M, containing F, with the properties
(i) every finite group G for which G/rs(G) has length St is a Galois group
over M.
(ii) St+ 1 is not a Galois group over M.
Proof. By adding a suitable number of copies of Sas direct factors, property

(i) follows if it has been proved for every group G for which G/rs(G) has length
t.
Since realizability of a group as a Galois group can be expressed by a first
order sentence, standard arguments - either using the compactness theorem or
ultraproducts - show that it suffices to prove that for every finite family of
groups G°' for which G/rs(Ga) has length t, there exists a field M containing F
for which each G°' is a Galois group over M while St+ 1 is not.
Let G* be the pull back of the groups G°' with respect to fixed epimorphisms
G°'--+ st. By Lemma 5.20 we know that G* /rs(G*) ~st.
Just as in Proposition 5.7 there exists a field/{ containing Fas a subfield such
that G* is a Galois group for some extension L /I<. Let R be an algebraic closure
of /{ containing L and let M be a maximal algebraic extension (inside R) for
which M n L = I<. Because Gal( ML/ M) ~ G* and each G °' is a homomorphic
image of G*, we conclude that every G°' is a Galois group over AI.
Since Gal(L/K) ~ G* and G*/rs(G*) ~st (and Sis non-abelian) it follows
that L contains exactly t Galois extensions L 1 , ... , Lt of/{ having Galois group
S over I<. Obviously, Gal(ML;/M) ~ S, 1 Si St. We claim that the ML;,
1 Si St, are the only normal extensions of M with Galois group S. Assume N
were such an extension of M for which N f. ML;, 1 S i S t. Since there is no
other normal extension of M inside ML with Galois group S, and Sis simple, we
conclude that NnM L = M. Consequently, we get NnL ~ NnM L ~ MnL = I<.
On the other hand, by maximality of M we have N n L ~ K. This gives the
desired contradiction.
D
Corollary 5.22 For every t E N and every field F there exists a field M, con-
faining F, with the properties
(i) every finite solvable group is a Galois group over M,
(ii) every group of length S t is a Galois group over M,
(iii) not every group of length t + 1 is a Galois group over M. D
FIELDS WITH BIZARRE GALOIS GROUPS 85
Exercise 5.23 Give an example of a field M with the property that a finite group
G is a Galois group over M if and only if G is abelian.
[Hint: Consider iterated power series fields starting from C ).
Exercise 5.24 Show that for any prime number p there exists a field Mp (of
arbitrarily prescribed characteristic) with the property that a finite group G is a
Galois group over Mp if and only if the order of G is a power of p.
Let Mp be as above and let :F be a non-principal ultrafilter on the set P of all
prime numbers. Show that the ultraproduct TipeP Mp/ :F is an algebraically closed
field.
Exercise 5.25 Show that for every finite cyclic group G there exists a field I<
for which v(G, I<)= l.
Exercise 5.26 Show that for every finite group G and every positive integer n
there exists a field I< such thaten
but not cn+i appears as a Galois group over
I<.
For the following we need
Proposition 5.27 (J.B. Olsson) Let G;, 1 :::; i:::; n, be arbitrary groups and
U be a normal subgroup of Tii'= 1 G; such that fii'= 1 G;/U is indecomposable and
centerless. Then there exists an index j such that U 2 Tii~i~n,i;l'j G;. D
Proof. By an obvious induction argument it suffices to consider the case

where n = 2. Let Ube a normal subgroup of G 1 x G 2 and (g 1 ,g2 ) an element in
U. For every x E G 1 we have
Consequently for every ( x, y) E G 1 x G 2 we obtain
Hence (gi, 1) U belongs to the center of (G 1 x G 2) / U and therefore (gi, 1) E U.

Similarly, (1,g 2) EU.
Thus U = U1 x U2 , where U1 =Un (G 1 x 1) and U2 =Un (1 x G 2).
This implies that (G 1 x G2)/(U1 x U2 ) ~ (Gi/U1 ) x (G 2/U2), so that the
indecomposability of (G 1 x G2 )/U implies that U ~ (G1 x 1) or U ~ (1 x G 2)-o
Corollary 5.28 Let G be a finite indecomposable centerless group. For each

n E N the direct product en has exactly n normal subgroups for which the corre-
sponding factor groups are isomorphic to G. O
Next we consider groups G for which

(1) G is indecomposable,
(2) G is centerless,
(3) for every normal subgroup U of G, U # {1}, there exists a subgroup Hof
G, H ~ G, such that G =UH.
Theorem 5.29 Let (G"')"'e1, be a family of finite groups satisfying the above
conditions (1), (2), (3), and assume that G"' is not a homomorphic image of G{3
for o., /3 E /, o. # /3. Then for any field F and any family (µ"')"'el, of cardinal
numbers, (which may be O, finite or infinite), there exists a field M containing F
such that
for every o. E /.
Proof. By taking large ultrapowers of a universally admissible field contain-

ing F we obtain a field /{ such that for each o. E I there are at least µ"' indepen-
dent Galois extensions of/{ with G"' as Galois group. For each o. let Lf3,<>, /3 E J"',
I J"' I=µ"'' be such independent extensions of/{ for which Gal(L{3,<>/ K) ~ G"'.
Let L be the composite of all these fields Lf3,<>, /3 E J"', o. E /,and let M be a
maximal algebraic extension of/{ inside a. fixed algebraic closure of I< for which
LnM=K.
Obviously M Lf3,<>/ Mis a Galois extension and Gal(M L{3,<>/ M) ~ G"' for every
o. and /3.
The assertion of the proposition follows when we have proved that for each
o. E /,the extensions ML{3,<>/M, f3 E J"'' are the only Galois extensions of M
with G"' as Galois group.
Now, let N"'/M be Galois with Gal(N"'/M) ~ G"'. Every subfield of N"'
containing M strictly has an intersection with L which is different from K.
Since there are only finitely many fields between M and N"' there is a com-
posite L' of finitely many fields L(3, o. such that N~ n L' # /{for any N~ satisfying
M ~ N~. By the translation theorem it follows that N~ n ML' ;f M for every
such N~.
Assume N"' n ML'~ N"' ; then
NON-DESCENT FOR UNIVERSALLY ADMISSIBLE FIELDS 87
and Gal( Na/ Nan ML') is normal in Ga. By assumption there exists a subgroup
Ha ( =f. {l},=f. Ga) of Ga such that HaGal(Na/Na nML') =Ga.
Let N~ be the field between Mand Na for which Ha= Gal(Na/N~). Here,
Na~ N~nML' ~ M so Gal(Na/N~nML') ~Ga and Gal(Na/N~nML') ~Ha
and Gal(Na/N~ n ML')~ Gal(Na/Na n ML').
This gives a contradiction and we conclude that Na 5; ML' 5; ML. Since
Gal(ML'/M) is a finite direct product of groups each of which is isomorphic to
some Ga, Proposition 5.27 concludes the proof. O
Remark 5.30 An example of a family of groups satisfying the conditions (1 ), (2)

and (3) is the family consisting of all symmetric groups Sn, n > 2, all non-abelian
simple groups and all dihedral groups Dn, n an odd prime.
Non-descent for universally admissible fields
As we noticed in Proposition 5.11 any finite extension of a universally admissible

field is universally admissible. However, there do exist fields which are not uni-
versally admissible for which there exist finite extensions which are universally
admissible.
First some preliminary remarks.
Let S be a finite simple group. For any field F the finite Galois extensions of
F (in some fixed algebraic closure of F) whose Galois groups are S-groups form
a directed set of fields. The union Fs is an algebraic extension of F such that S
is not a Galois group over Fs. We say that Fs is S-closed.
For a fixed S the S-closed fields can be defined by a single first order sentence
in the language of fields.
Theorem 5.31 Let G be a finite group =f. {l}. Any field F can be embedded into
a field K with the properties
(i) K is not universally admissible,
(ii) there exists a Galois extension J{' / K with Gal(]{'/ K) ~ G such that J{'
is universally admissible.
Proof. By previous results we may assume that Fis universally admissible.

Let S be a finite simple group which is not a composition factor of G.
With the above notations we consider the S-closed field F 5 . Let G be rep-
resented as a regular permutation group of degree t. For an arbitrary finite
group H the group G will act in a natural way (by permutation of factors) on
the direct product Ht and we may form the corresponding semi-direct product
G* = Ht ><l G. It consists of all (t +1)-tuples (g, h1i ... , ht), h1i ... , ht E H, g E G,
with the product
(g, h1, ... 'ht)(g', h~, ... ' h;) = (gg', (h1i ... 'ht)(h~, ... 'h;) 9 ).
We note that any normal subgroup of G* containing the subgroup
H= {(l,l,h2, ... ,ht) I h2, ... ,ht EH}
necessarily contains Ht.
Let M be a Galois extension of F with Gal(M/F) ~ G*, and let J{ (resp. L)
be the fixed-point field corresponding to Ht (resp. if).
Then I</ Fis a Galois extension with Gal( I</ F) ~ G. Since we have FsnI< =
Fit follows that FsI</ Fs is a Galois extension with Gas Galois group.
If FsK n L ~ J{, then there would exist a Galois extension N / J{ such that
J{ ~ N ~ FsI< n Land Gal(N/ I<)~ S.
By the translation theorem there would be a Galois extension N' of F for
which Gal(N'/F) ~Sand N'J{ = N.
This would imply the existence of a normal subgroup N of G* containing fI
such that G* /N ~ S. This, however, is impossible, since - by a previous remark
- N would then contain Ht, and G* /Ht ~ G does not have S a• 'I. composition
factor.
Consequently FsI< n L = J{ and FsI< L/ FsI< is a Galois extension with
Gal(F8 KL/F8 I<) ~ Gal(L/K) ~ H.
The above situation is illustrated by the diagram
Fs
Hence for any finite group H there is a Galois extension FsK of Fs with
Galois group G such that His realizable as a Galois group over FsI<.
NON-DESCENT FOR UNIVERSALLY ADMISSIBLE FIELDS 89
Now, let H;, i E N, be an enumeration of the finite groups (up to isomor-

phism).
For any fin = H 1 x · · · x Hn we choose a Galois extension FsI<n of Fs with
=
Gal(FsI<n/ Fs) G such that fin is realizable as a Galois group over FsI<n.
The ultrapower FsN / :F with respect to some non-principal ultrafilter :F on
N gives a field !?. which is S-closed. The ultraproduct I<'= flneNFsI<n/:F is a
=
Galois extension of !?. with Gal(J(' / !?.) G and [(' is universally admissible.
Hence !?. is a field with the desired properties. D
Exercise 5.32 For a field F let Fab be the maximal abelian extension of F, i.
e. the directed union of all finite Galois extensions of F with an abelian Galois
group.
(i) Prove that Fab is universally admissible if F is universally admissible.
[Hint: For a finite group H let G be the semidirect product (H x H) >cl Z2
where Z2 operates on H x H by permutation of factors. Show that there exists a
surjective homomorphism G' -+ H where G' denotes the commutator subgroup
of G.J
(ii) Give an example of a field F which is not universally admissible while Fab
is universally admissible.
[Hint: Let [( be a universally admissible field and S a finite non-abelian simple
group. Prove that Ks is not universally admissible, but (I<s)ab is universally
admissible.]
Chapter 6
The language of modules over a

fixed ring
6.1 In this chapter we consider the one-sorted first order language of (left) R-
modules over a fixed associative ring R. The only non-logical constants of this
language are the equality symbol =, a constant 0 and the following function
symbols: a binary function (x, y) r-t x + y and for each r E R a unary function
r r-t rx. In the obvious way each left R-module becomes a structure for this
language, called the one-sorted language of left R-modules and denoted M (R).
By the Keisler-Shelah ultrapower theorem two R-modules M and N are ele-
mentarily equivalent for the language M(R) if and only if there is a set I and an
ultrafilter :Fon I such that the ultrapowers M 1 /:F and N 1 /:F become isomorphic
R-modules.
The theorems from Chapters 1 and 2 concerning elementarily closed classes,
axiomatizable classes, finitely axiomatizable classes etc. apply immediately to
the present situation of R-modules.
Positive primitive formulas
6.2 For a closer study of the elementary theory of R-modules we shall need a
reduction of the quantifier elimination type, due to Baur and Monk (cf. [15,208],
of formulas in M(R) to formulas of a simple type:
91
92 CHAPTER 6: MODULES OVER A FIXED RING
A positive primitive formula in M(R) is a formula of the form

m n
3r,, ... ,x~ L a;jXj =L b;kYk, 1 :Si :St
j=l k=l
where m, n, t E N, a;i, bik E R and Y1, ... , Yn are free variables.

Two formulas r.p(yi, ... , Yn) and tf;(y1, ... , Yn) in M(R) - with free variables
yi, . .. , Yn - are called equivalent with respect to a given R-module M if for
any m 1 , ••. , mn E M we have:
cp(mi, ... , m.n) holds true in M ¢? tf;(mi, ... , mn) holds true in M.
W. Baur and Monk [15,208] have proved the following:
Theorem. For any R-module M every formula in M(R) is equivalent to a

Boolean combination (depending on M) of positive primitive formulas, (i.e. a fi-
nite combination of such formulas with respect to /\ 1 V and•). D
Before giving a proof of this theorem we insert a section about finitely defin-
able subgroups.
Finitely definable subgroups
Let 'P be a positive primitive formula with just one free variable y:
n
3x,, ... ,xn L a;jXj = b;y, 1 :Si :S t,
j=l
where a;j, b; E R.
The subset <p(M) of M defined by
1.p(M) = {y E MJ<p(y) holds in M}
is an additive subgroup of M. If R is commutative r.p(M) is an R-submodule

of M. The group <p(M) is called a positive-primitive definable or a finitely
definable subgroup of M.
With a view to later applications we consider the finitely definable subgroups
somewhat closer. [These groups first appeared in [85] under the name 'sous-
groupes de definition finie' and were also introduced by W. Zimmermann [209]
FINITELY DEFINABLE SUBGROUPS 93
under the name 'matrizielle Untergruppen'. Their connections to model theory

of modules have more or less implicitly been observed by several people e.g.
Garavaglia [73,168,208] et al. We refer to the paper of Prest [152] for further
information.]
For several purposes an alternative description of finitely definable subgroups
is convenient.
Recall the that a left (right) R-module A is finitely presented if there exists
an exact sequence
where m and n are positive integers and Rm and R" are considered as left (resp.
right) R-modules. Here, (a;;) denotes an n x m-matrix with entries in R, repre-
senting the R-linear map Rm ---> R".
The following characterization is a consequence of [85].
Proposition 6.3 Let M be a left R-module. For an additive subgroup V of M

the following assertions are equivalent:
(i) V ist finitely definable in M.
(ii) For some pair (E,e) - where E is a finitely presented right R-module
and e is an element of E - the subgroup V is the kernel of the mapping
(iii) For some pair (F, J) - where F is a finitely presented left R-module and
f is an element of F - the subgroup V is the image of the mapping
HomR(F, M) ---> M, u 1-+ u(J).
Proof. By means of a presentation R" ~ Rt ---> E ---> 0 for E and

(bi, ... , ht) E Rt for e, it easily checked - with the above meaning for cp - that
cp(M) is the kernel of the mapping M---> E®RM, m 1-+ e®m. This proves that
'(i) {:> (ii)'.
The equivalence '(i) ¢> (iii)' is proved similarly by aid of a finite presentation
for (F, !).
D
Pure-exact sequences
In the sequel we shall consider the concept of purity for modules. We first establish
the following
Theorem 6.4 For an exact sequence of left R-modules
T/ : O ---+ M' ---+ M ---+ M" ---+ 0
the following conditions are equivalent:

(i) For each finitely presented left R-module E the induced sequence
Hom(E, T/) : 0---+ HomR(E, M') ---+ HomR(E, M) ---+ HomR(E, M") ---+ 0
is exact.
(ii) Every finite system of linear equations
m; = I:r;jXj, m; EM', r;i ER, i E J, j E J

jEJ
with finite index sets I and J, which has a solution (xi) E MJ also has a solution
in (M')J (when M' is regarded as a submodule of M).
(iii) T/ is a direct limit of split-exact sequences T/cx, a running through a directed
poset.
(iv) For each (respectively each finitely presented} right R-module F the in-
duced sequence
is exact.
(v) The induced sequence of right R-modules
Homz(ri,Q/Z):
0---> Homz(M", Q/Z) ---> Homz(M, Q/Z)---> Homz(M', Q/Z) ---> 0
is split-exact.
Proof. The equivalence of (i), (ii) and (iii) is a consequence of a general

result on purity (Proposition 7.16); one just sets ~ = ~ 0 • Hence it suffices to
prove '(iii)=? (iv)' and '(iv)=? (i)'. The implication '(iii)=? (iv)' follows from
the fact that direct limits (with respect to directed posets) are exact functors
which commute with tensor products.
PURE-EXACT SEQUENCES 95
(iv) =? (i): Suppose Rm ~ Rn --+ E --+ 0 is a finite presentation of E.

We define a right R-module F by means of the exact sequence
where utr is the transpose of u. We thus attach to every R-module M an exact

sequence
,,tr
0--+ Homn(E, M)--+ Ar--+ Mm--+ F@nM--+ 0,
depending functorially on M. Next, we apply this construction to each term of

the exact sequence 0 --+ M' --+ M --+ M" --+ 0, and obtain the commutative
diagram
0 0 0
! ! !
0 --+ Hom(E,M') --+ M'n --+ M'm --+ F@M' --+ 0
! ! ! !
0 --+ Hom(E,M) --+ Mn --+ Mm --+ F@M --+ 0
! ! ! !
0 --+ Hom(E,M") --+ M"n --+ M"m --+ F@M" --+ 0
! ! !
0 0 0
having exact rows and columns. The corresponding exact kernel-cokernel se-
quence
(o) 0--+ Homn(E, M') --+ Homn(E, M)--+ Homn(E, M")--+

--+ F@nM' --+ F@nM --+ F@nM" --+ 0.
shows that the exactness of (i) follows from the exactness of (iv).
(iv) <=> (v ): In view of the natural isomorphism
Homn(F, Homz(M, Q/Z)-=-+Homz(F@nM, Q/Z), u >-+ [! 0 m >-+ u(f)(m)]
which is functorial in M, the sequence Homz(77, Q/Z) of right R-modules is split-
exact if and only if for each right R-module F the sequence
Homn(F, Homz(77, Q/Z)) = Homz(F@nl], Q/Z)

is exact. Since Q/Z is an injective cogenerator in Mod (Z) this fact is equivalent
to the exactness of F@nTJ. D
Definition 6.5 An exact sequence of left R-modules
O ---> M' ---> M ---> M'' ---> 0
is called pure-exact if and only if the equivalent conditions in the above theorem
are satisfied. A submodule N of M is called pure if the corresponding canonical
exact sequence
0---> N---> M---> M/N---> o
is pure-exact.
Further results on finitely definable subgroups

From condition (iv) of Theorem 6.4 we get:
Proposition 6.6 Let M be a left R-module and N a pure submodule of M. Then

t.p(N) = N n t.p(M) for every positive primitive formula t.p with just one free vari-
dk. 0
The next result follows directly from the definitions:
Proposition 6. 7 Let M;, i E I, be any {finite or infinite} family of left R-

modules and t.p a positive primitive formula in one free variable. Then
(i) t.p(IT;e1 M;) = IlieI t.p(M;);
(ii) 1.P(©;EiM;) = EBieI'P(M;);
(iii) t.p(lim_ M;) =Jim_ t.p(M;) for each direct system (M;);
(iv) t.p(IT;El M;/ F) = Il;e/ t.p( M;) / F for each ultrafilter F on I. O
We next describe the finitely definable subgroups of a flat module:
Proposition 6.8 Let M be a fiat left R-module. An additive subgroup of M is

finitely definable in M if and only if it has the form aM, where a is a right ideal
of R that is a finitely definable subgroup of the left R-module R.
Proof. Let a be an element of a finitely presented right R-module A. The

kernel of the mapping t.p : R ---> A, r >-+ ar is a right ideal a of R that is
a finitely definable subgroup of R (qua left R-module). Moreover, any finitely
definable subgroup of R arises in this way.
FINITELY DEFINABLE SUBGROUPS 97
From the exact sequence
O --+ a --+ R ....:!_, A
and the flatness of M we get the exact sequence
Hence the kernel of the mapping M--+ A@nM, m ,__.a@ m, may be identi-
fied with aM. Proposition 6.3 now easily yields the assertion. D
Recall that R is left (right} coherent if each finitely generated left (right)
ideal of E is a finitely presented left (resp. right) R-module. (In particular,
any right Noetherian ring is right coherent.) We note that for any ring R every
finitely generated right ideal of R is finitely definable in the left R-module R ;
the converse will not hold in general.
However, if R is right coherent the finitely definable subgroups of the left
R-module R are exactly the finitely generated right ideals of R, because any
finitely generated submodule of a finitely presented right R-module will be finitely
presented. Hence
Proposition 6.9 Let R be right coherent and M a fiat left R-module. An addi-
tive subgroup of M is finitely definable in M if and only if it has the form aM
for some finitely generated right ideal a of R. D
If further conditions are imposed on R the finitely definable subgroups in any

R-module can be described explicitly:
Proposition 6.10 Let R be a commutative ring such that any finitely presented
R-module is a direct summand of a finite direct sum of cyclically presented R-
modules, i.e. modules of the form R/ Ra. Then the finitely definable subgroups in
an R-module M are just the finite intersections of submodules of M of the form
(Mb: c), where band care elements in Rand (Mb: c) = {m E Mlcm E Mb}.
Proof. A finitely definable submodule of M is the kernel of a mapping

M--+ M@nA defined by m ,__. m@ a, where A is a finitely presented R-module
and a is a fixed element in A.
If A is a direct summand of a finite direct sum A' of cyclically presented R-
modules the natural mapping M@nA--+ M@nA' is a monomorphism and the
finitely definable submodule of M is the kernel of the obvious mapping M --+
M0RA'. Let us assume A' == EBi Rf Rbi. If the element a E A~ A' defining the
above mapping is (ci + Rbi)i we see that
ker(M--+ M0RA') == {m E Mimci E Mbi for all i} = n(Mb;: c;).
Conversely, any finite intersection of modules of the above form is easily seen to
be a finitely definable subgroup of M. D
Remark 6.11 Since any Dedekind domain, any valuation ring and any ring with
the elementary divisor property satisfy the above condition, the finitely definable
subgroups of modules over such rings are of the form described in Proposition 6.10.
A left R-module M is called fp-injective if each short exact sequence
0--+M--+A--+B--+0
of left R-modules is pure-exact. Fp-injectivity is thus defined as a concept that

is dual - and in fact behaves dually - to flatness. For a further study of
fp-injective modules we refer to [188], also to Chapter 9. Here we only mention
that for left modules over any left Noetherian ring fp-injectivity agrees with
injectivity.
Proposition 6.12 Let M be an f p-injective left R-module. An additive subgroup

of M is finitely definable if and only if it has the form
where a is a left ideal of R being a finitely definable subgroup of R, considered as

a right R-module.
Proof. Let F be a finitely presented left R-module and f E F. The kernel

of the mapping
R --+ F, r ,_. r f
is a left ideal a of R that is a finitely definable subgroup of the right R-module
R; moreover each finitely definable subgroup of RR arises in this way.
Since M is fp-injective, each R-linear map u : Rf --+ M extends to an
R-linear map u: F--+ M. Hence the image of the mapping
HomR(F, M) --+ M, u ,_. u(f)

ELEMENTARY EQUIVALENCE OF R-MODULES 99
coincides with the image of the mapping
Homn(R/a,M) ~ M, u ,_. u([l])
that is with the annihilator annM(a) of a in M. The assertion now follows from
Proposition 6.3.
D
Corollary 6.13 Let R be left coherent and M be an fp-injective left R-module.

An additive subgroup of M is finitely definable if and only if it has the form
nn
i=l
annM(r;)
for elements ri, ... , rn of R. D
The theorem of Baur and Monk and elementary

equivalence of R-modules
After this digression on finitely definable subgroups we return to the model theory
of modules.
If <.p and 'I/; are two positive primitive formulas (= pp formulas) with one
free variable we say that <.p is contained in 'I/; (notation <.p ~ 'I/; ) if the linear
equations appearing in the definition of 'I/; form a subsystem of the linear equations
appearing in the definition of <.p.
We note that two abstract sets A and B are elementarily equivalent in the
language of sets if either A and B are both finite of the same cardinality or both
infinite. We write this IAI = IBI.
We shall now prove the theorem of Baur and Monk mentioned in Theorem 6
in a slightly sharpened form.
Theorem 6.14 (Baur, Monk [208]) For any R-module M every formula a in
M ( R) is equivalent to a Boolean combination of positive primitive formulas. This
Boolean combination can be chosen so that it depends only on a and the indices
['l/;(M) : c.p(M)], where <.p, 'I/; run through all pairs of positive primitive formulas
for which <.p ~ 'lj;.
Corollary 6.15 (Baur, Monk, Garavaglia [208]) Two R-modules M and N

are elementarily equivalent if and only if
[1/>(M) : cp(M)] =[1/>(N) : cp(N)]

holds for every pair of positive primitive formulas in one free variable where cp ~
1/,'.
Proof of the Corollary (modulo Theorem 6.14). The "only if" part is clear.
To show the "if" part consider a first order sentence u in M(R). By Theorem 6.14
there exists a Boolean combination of positive primitive sentences which is equiv-
alent to u in both M and N. Since positive primitive sentences are always true,
u holds in M if and only if it holds in N. D
Before the proof of Theorem 6.14 we insert two auxiliary results.
Lemma 6.16 (Sylvester's principle) Let A 0 , Ar, ... , Ak be subsets of a given

set and assume Ao is finite. Then Ao ~ U7= 1 A; if and only if
L(-1)1.ci.llAo n
Ll.
n Ad= 0
iELl.
where .6. runs through all subsets of { 1, 2, ... , k}.
Proof. The assertion can e.g. be proved by a straightforward induction on

k starting from the first non-trivial case k = 2, where
Proposition 6.17 (B.H. Neumann [142]) Let H 0 , H 1 , ••• , Hn be subgroups of

an abelian group G. If for some elements g0 ,gi, ... ,gn E G we have
n
go+ Ho~ LJ(g; + H;),
i=l
and IHo/(Ho n H;)I is infinite for i > k, then

k
go+ Ho~ LJ(g; + H;).
i=I
Proof. We insert two sublemmas
Sublemma 6.17.1 If (I<ih:'Oi:'Om is a finite family of subgroups (repetitions al-

lowed), each of infinite index in the abelian group G, then
m
LJ (bi + Ki) S G
j=I
for any elements bi E G, 1 S j Sm.
Proof of Sublemma 6.17.1. Let r be the number of distinct subgroups

among the ]{i· We proceed by induction on r.
If r = 1 the assertion is obvious.
Suppose next the statement has been proved when the number of distinct
subgroups is< r. If r > 1, assume G = Ui<j<m(bj +Ki)· Suppose]{= ]{i for
1 S j S s, [{-:/= [{i for s < j Sn. Since [G :-I{] = oo there must be a coset b+ [{
contained in G - U1 <i<s( bi + K). Hence b + ]{ <:";;; Us<j<m (bi + I<i) and therefore
+
I<<:";;; Us<i<m(bj - b l<j), and G = Ui<j<s(bj + K) U Os<j<m(bj + Kj) would be
a finite u~ion of cosets with respect to- the r - 1 distinct ~ubgroups among the
[{j, s < j Sn. By the induction hypothesis this gives the desired contradiction 0
Sublemma 6.17.2 Let H 1 , ... , H1, I<i, ... , I<m be subgroups of an abelian group
G such that [G : Hi] < oo for 1 S i S l, and [G : l<j] = oo for 1 S j S m. If
there are cosets a;+ H;, 1 Si S l, and bi+ [{j, 1 S j Sm such that
Proof of Sublemma 6.17.2. Since Hi, H 2 , ••• , H1 have finite index in

G so has H 1 n H2 n · · · n Hi, and Ui<i<l(a; + H;) is a finite union of cosets of
H 1 nH2n- · -nH1. Thus it suffices to pr;;ve the claim when H 1 = H 2 = · · · = H1. If
Ui<i<i(a;+H;) ~ G there would be a coset a+H1 contained in Ui<j<m(bi+Ki) and
hef;°ce (just as in Sublemma 6.17.1) G would be a finite union of c;;sets with respect
to subgroups of infinite index in G, which is impossible by Sublemma 6.17.l. D
We now return to the proof of Proposition 6.17. The inclusion 90 + Ho ~

Ui<i<n(9; + H;) is equivalent to the inclusion Ho ~ Ui<i<n(9; - 9o +(JI; n Ho)).
Fo~ ~ach i there is an element g; for which - -
g; + (H; n Ho) = (9; - 9o + H;) n Ho and Ho= LJ (g; + (H; n Ho)).

l:<;i:<;n
Since [Ho : (H; n !!0 )] is infinite for i > k, Sublemma 6.17.l implies Ho
Ui<k<k(g; + (H; n Ho)) and Ho ~ Ui<i<k(9; - 9o + H;), whence 9o + Ho ~
U1~i~k(9; + H;). - -
D
We are now in a position to give the

Proof of Theorem 6.14. We start with some preliminary observations.
Let cp(x, yi, ... , Ym, zi, ... , zp) be a positive primitive formula with free variables
x, y 1, . .. , Ym, z 1, ... , Zp. We write cp as a finite conjunction of formulas
:lzi, ... , Zp (r;x + t;=I

b;jyj + t
I=!
c;1z1) , 1 :::; i :::; s,
where the r's, b's and e's are elements in R.

For any m-tuple (ai, ... , am) of elements in the module M we define
Obviously, cp(M; 0, ... , 0) is a finitely definable subgroup of M and for any m-

tuple (ai, ... ,am) the set cp(M;ai, ... ,am) is either empty or a coset of M with
respect to cp(M; 0, ... , 0).
Now, let M be a fixed R-module and consider any formula cp in M(R) which
we may suppose to be in prenex normal form, i.e. cp has the form
where each Q; is the universal or the existential quantifier and 1/; is a formula
containing no quantifiers.
We shall prove the assertion of the theorem by induction on the number of
quantifiers:
A formula in M(R) with no quantifiers is clearly a Boolean combination of
pp formulas. For the induction step we have to prove:
Let t/;(x, yi, ... , Ym) be a formula with x, Y1, ... , Ym as free variables
(and some unspecified variables in the scope of quantifiers), and as-
sume that t/;(x, Yi, ... , Ym) is equivalent (relative to M) to a Boolean
combination of pp formulas; then ( Qx )t/;( x, y 1 , ... , Ym) is equivalent
to a Boolean combination of pp formulas, where Q denotes V or 3.
By passing to negations it suffices to consider the case where Q = V.

A conjunction of pp formulas is again a pp formula, hence it suffices to consider
the case where t/; = t/;( x, Yi, ... , Ym) has the form •<po or •<po V <p1 V · · · V 'Pn,
each cp; being a pp formula with x, yi, . .. , Ym as free variables (including the case
that cp 0 may be a tautology). Since (Vx)•cp 0 (x,yi, ... ,ym) is the negation of a
pp formula, we may assume that t/; has the form cp 0 --+ cp 1 V · · · V 'Pn· Hence it
remains to be shown that the formula
Vx ('Po(x,yi, ... ,ym)--+ i~ cp;(x,yi, ... ,ym))

is equivalent to a Boolean combination of pp formulas.
Let H; be the finitely definable subgroup cp;(M; 0, ... , 0), $ i $ n, and
choose a numbering such that [Ho : (Ho n H;)] is finite for 1 $ $ k and
[Ho: (Hon Hi)] is infinite fork< j $ n.
For a fixed m-tuple (ai, ... , am) of elements in M the formula
Vx ('Po(x,ai, ... ,am)--+ i~ cp;(x,a1, ... ,am))

holds in M exactly when the inclusion
n
'Po(M; ai, ... , am) ~ LJ cp;(M; ai, ... , am) ( <> )
i=l
holds.
For any i, 0 $ i $ n, the set cp;(M; ai, ... , am) is either empty or a coset with
respect to H;, so ( <>) expresses the inclusion of a coset in a union of cosets, some
of which may be empty. By virtue of B.H. Neumann's lemma (Proposition 6.17)
( <>) is equivalent to
k
<po(M; ai, ... , am) ~ LJ 1.p;(M; ai, ... , am)· (<><>)
i=l
Next, we apply Sylvester's principle (Lemma 6.16) to the sets
A;= cp(M; ai, ... ,am)/Ho n · · · n Hk, 1 $ i $ k,

which are either empty or cosets of M /Ho n · · · n Hk with respect to Hi/ H 0 n

···nHk.
The inclusion ( <> <>) can be rewritten
k
Ao~ LJ Ai. (<><><>)
i=l
For any subset .6. of { 1, ... , k} we write A 6 = niEti. Ai. By Sylvester's principle
the inclusion ( <> <> <>) is equivalent to the formula
L(-1)1 6 11Ao n Ai:i.I = o. (<><><><>)

6
Here Aon Ai:i. is empty or consists of Ni:i. cosets with respect to Hon··· n Hk,
where
N 6 =[(Hon H 6 ): (Hon··· n Hk)].
Therefore ( <> <> <> <>) can be written
where .6. runs through the family N(a 1 , ... ,am) consisting of those subsets of
{l, ... , k} for which Aon A 6 # 0.
Consequently the formula
\fx ('Po(x,yi, ... ,ym)--> i'!i 'Pi(x,yi,···,Ym)) (•)

is equivalent to
L (-1)16.INi:i. = 0,
l>EN(y1 , ... ,yn)
where N(y 1 , ••• , Yn) denotes those subsets .6. of {l, ... , k} for which
Ti:i.(yi, ... ,ym): ::3x ('Po(x,yi, ... ,ym) /\ _/\ 'Pi(x,yi, ... ,ym))
iEll.
holds in M.
We shall now exhibit a Boolean combination of pp formulas which is equivalent
(in M) to the formula ( • ).
For that purpose we consider the power set P of {l, ... , k} and the (finite)
system S of those subsets N of P for which
L (-l)lti.INi:i. = 0.
ti.EN
From the above discussion we see that the formula ( •) holds in M if and only if
the set
belongs to S.
To any subset N of P we associate the conjunction
TN(Yi. · · ·, Ym) = f\ ri:i.(Yi. · · ·, Ym) /\ /\. -,ri:i.(Yi. · · ·, Ym)

i:l.EN i:l.f_N
where ll runs through all subsets of {l, ... ,; }. The disjunction
r(y1,···,Ym) = v TN(Y1,···,Ym)
NES
is a Boolean combination of pp formulas. We claim that r(y 1 , ... , Ym) is equivalent

(in M) to the formula ( • ).
Indeed, for any n-tuple (y 1 , ••• , Ym) of elements in M the formula r(yi, ... , Ym)
holds in M if and only if TN(Yi, ... , Ym) holds in M for at least one N belonging
to S. This, however, is equivalent to the validity of TL>(y 1 , ... , Ym) for exactly
those sets t:. ~ {l, ... , k} that are contained in some N, which is then necessar-
ily equal to N(y 1 , ••• , Ym)· This shows that T and the formula ( •) are equivalent
in M. We note that r only depends on the indices NL>. This completes the proof
of Theorem 6.14. O
We now give some applications of the above Corollary.
Proposition 6.18 (Sabbagh (170]) Let A ~ B ~ C be left R-modules such

that A is pure in B and B is pure in C. Then A= C implies A= B.
Proof. Let cp, 'I/; be a pair of positive primitive formulas in one free variable such
that <p ~ 'lj;. By the purity of A in B and B in C there are injective mappings
'l/;(A)/cp(A)--+ 'l/;(B)/cp(B) and 'l/;(B)/cp(B)--+ l/;(C)/cp(C)
hence
ll/;(A)/cp(A)I:::; ll/;(B)/cp(B)I:::; ll/;(C)/cp(C)I.
Since A =C we have
ll/;(A)/cp(A)I = ll/;(C)/cp(C)I,
so ll/;(A)/cp(A)I = ll/;(B)/cp(B)I and Corollary 6.15 implies A= B. 0
Proposition 6.19 (Sabbagh[l 70]) Let M;, i E J, be any (finite or infinite)

family of left R-modules. Then EBieI M; =
TiieI M;.
Proof. Use Proposition 6.7 and Corollary 6.15. D
Proposition 6.20 Let M; and N;, i E J, be two (finite or infinite) families of

left R-modules such that M; =
N; for any i E J. Then $;eI M; =
EBieI N; and
=
TiieI M; TiieI N; ·
Proof. Immediate from Proposition 6.7 and Corollary 6.15. D
Proposition 6.21 If I is an infinite set, then

M(I) = M 1 = M 1I M(I)
for any left R-module M. Moreover, if R contains an infinite field, then M =
Mn =
M(I) for any n E N.
Proof. Let cp, 1/; be a pair of pp formulas in one free variable such that cp ~ 1/;.
We distinguish between two cases:
(1) cp(M) = 1/;(M) and (2) cp(M) ~ 1/;(M).
In case (1)
l1/J(M 1 )/cp(M 1 )1=11/J(MUl)/cp(MUl)I = l1/J(M 1 jMUl)jcp(M 1 /MUl)I=1
and in case (2)
=11/J(M(Il)/cp(M(I))I =l1/J(M jMUl)jcp(M /MUl)I = oo

l1/J(M 1 )/cp(M(Il)I 1 1
Therefore Corollary 6.15 implies that M =M(I) =M M(I).

1 1/
As for the last assertion it suffices to prove that M =

M 1 when R contains
an infinite field. In this case cp(M) ~ 1/;(M) implies 11/J(M)/cp(M)I = oo, and
consequently 11/J(M)/cp(M)I = l1/J(M 1 )/cp(M 1 )1. Thus M M 1 follows from
Corollary 6.15 since cp(M 1 ) = 1/;(M 1 ) when cp(M) = 1/;(M). D
Proposition 6.22 Let R be a right coherent ring and M and N two fiat left
R-modules. Then M =
N if and only if
IM/aMI = IN/aNI
for any finitely generated right ideal a of R.
Proof. In view of Proposition 6.9 the condition is obviously necessary. Con-

versely, let us assume that IM/aMI =
IN/aNI holds for every finitely generated
right ideal a of R. According to Proposition 6.9 and Corollary 6.15 elementary
equivalence of M and N will follow, once we show that
laM/oMI =laN/oNI
holds for any two finitely generated right ideals a and b of R, where b ~ a.
Clearly there is an ascending sequence
of finitely generated right ideals of R such that each a;/a;_ 1 (i = 1, ... , n) is

cyclic, hence - due to the right coherence of R - of the form R/c; for some
finitely generated right ideal c; of R.
Therefore, we get
and from the flatness of M we obtain a;M /a;_ 1M ~ M/c;M, similarly a;N/a;_1N
~ N/c;N (i =I, .. . ,n). Thus
n n
laM/oMI =II IM/c;MI =II IN/c;NI = laN/oNI.
i=l i=l
Similarly from Corollary 6.15 and Proposition 6.10 we conclude:
Proposition 6.23 Let R be a commutative ring for which any finitely presented
R-module is a direct summand of a finite direct sum of cyclically presented R-
modules. Then two R-modules M and N are elementarily equivalent if and only if
the following holds: For any finite set of elements b;, c;, 1 :Si :S s, bj, cj, 1 :S j :S t,
we have
I[n;[(Mb;:n;(Mb; : e;) 1-1 n;(Nb; : c;) I

c;)] n [ni(Mbj: cj)] = [n;[(Nb;: c;)] n [nj(Nbj: cj)] .
D
Proposition 6.24 Let R be left coherent and M and N be two fp-injective left
R-modules. Then M =
N if and only if for each finite set of elements r i , . . . , r n
of R we have
Proof. In view of Proposition 6.22 the condition is clearly necessary. Con-

versely, in order to establish that Mand N are elementarily equivalent, according
to Corollary 6.13 and Corollary 6.15 it suffices to prove that
annM(b) I= Iann N(b) I

IannM(a) - annN(a)
holds for every pair of finitely generated left ideals a and b of R, where b i:;;: a.
As in the proof of Proposition 6.22 we choose a sequence
of finitely generated left ideals of R, where by the left coherence of R we have

a;/a;_ 1 e;< R/c; for some finitely generated right ideal c; of R (i = 1, ... , n). Hence
annM(b) = annM(a 0 ) 2 annM(a 1 ) 2 ··· 2 annM(an) = annM(a).

Since M is fp-injective, we obtain from the exactness of
0 ---+ R/c; ---+ R/ai-1 :...___.Rf a; ---+ 0
that
ann M(a;_i) ~ ( )
= ann M c; ,
annM ( a; )
hence
lannM(b)I
annM ()
a
_
=
n
TilannM(c;)I,
i=l
which immediately implies the assertion. 0
A characterization of Priifer domains
Example 6.25 If R is an integral domain for which any finitely presented R-

module is a direct summand of a direct sum of cyclically presented R-modules,
A CHARACTERIZATION OF PRUFER DOMAINS 109
then the above criterion shows that for any two R-modules M and N it follows
that M = N implies Mr = Ny, where Mr (resp. Ny ) denotes the torsion
submodule of M (resp. N), i.e. Mr= {x EM I rx = 0 for some r E R - {O}}.
One just has to observe that for two arbitrary elements b and c in R we have
My n (Mb: c) = (Mrb: c). In particular it follows that the above holds for any
Dedekind domain and any valuation ring.
Concerning elementary equivalence of torsion modules we show more gener-

ally:
Proposition 6.26 (Sabbagh) Let R be a Priifer domain. For any two R-

modules M and N elementary equivalence of M and N implies elementary equiv-
alence of My and Ny.
Proof. Since M and N are elementarily equivalent there exists an index set I
and an ultrafilter Fon I such that M 1 /:F and N 1 /:Fare isomorphic R-modules.
We have the following natural inclusions
~ (Mr) 1 /:F c M 1 /:F

II II
Here, M 4 / M 2 is torsion-free, hence flat, since R is a Pri.ifer domain. Conse-

quently, M 2 is pure in M 4 , in particular M 2 is pure in M3 • Moreover, M 1 is pure
in M 3 , in particular M 1 is pure in M 2 •
=
Since 1'v11 M 3 we conclude from Proposition 6.18 that M 1 = My is elemen-
tarily equivalent to M 2 = (M 1 /:F)y. Because M 1 /:F and N 1 /:F are isomorphic,
so are their torsion submodules. This shows that Mr = Ny. D
Next we show that Proposition 6.26 actually gives a characterization of Pri.ifer

domains, that is, we have to prove the converse of Proposition 6.26. This has to
be done in several steps.
We formulate this in
Theorem 6.27 For a commutative integral domain R the following conditions

are equivalent:
(i) R is a Priifer domain.
(ii) If M and N are elementarily equivalent R-modules, then the torsion mo-
dules Mr and Nr are elementarily equivalent R-modules.
Proof. In view of the preceding it suffices to show (ii) => (i).

We start with some general considerations. Let R be an arbitrary commuta-
tive domain and x, y and z elements of R, x, y #- 0. We introduce the R-module
A( x, y, z) as F /I< where F is the free R-module with basis e1 and e2 , and I< is
the submodule generated by x 2y 2zei, x 2y2ze 2 and x 2e1 + xye 2. In other words
A(x, y, z) is the R-module generated by two elements e1 and e2 with the defining
relations
x 2y 2ze 1 = x 2y2ze2 = x 2e1 + xye2 = 0.
The following two sublemmas are immediate to check:
Sublemma 6.27.2 annA(x,y,z)(x) c::;: xA(x,y,z) + yA(x,y,z). D
The next sublemma is a little less obvious.
Sublemma 6.27.3 Let R be a commutative domain and m a maximal ideal in

R. Let x and y be elements in R such that x rf. R,,,JJ and y rf. R,,.x. Further, let z be
an element of R and a and b elements of A( x, y, z) such that xe 1 + ye2 = xa + yb.
Then annR(a) c::;: Rmz and annR(b) i:;:: Rmz.
Proof. Lets be an element of ann R(a). If we write
then
(x - xa1 - yb1)e1 + (y - xa2 - yb2)e2 E I<.
Hence for some elements f, g and h from R we have
(6.1)
(6.2)
(6.1) shows that yb 1 E Rx ; since x r/. R,,,JJ we conclude from yb 1 = x(ybif x)
that ybif x is a non-invertible element in Rm, consequently ybif x E m Rm
A CHARACTERIZATION OF PRUFER DOMAINS 111
Moreover, from (6.1) we obtain a 1 = 1 - ybif x - f xy 2z - hx and hence a 1 is

invertible in the local ring f4n.
Similarly, from (6.2) we conclude that xa 2 =yr', where r' is an element in R
which is not invertible in Rm, that is r' E Rn mf4n.
Since sa = sa 1 e1 + sa 2e2 = 0 = x 2 e1 + xye2, we get after multiplication with
x 2 that (sa 2x 2 - sa 1 xy)e2 = 0.
Sublemma 6.27.1 then implies sa 2x 2 - sa 1 xy E Rxyz. Because a 2x =yr' we
have s(r' - a 1 ) E Rz. Since r' E mf4n and a 1 r/. mf4n we concludes E f4nz.
The statement concerning ann R( b) is proved similarly. The proof of sublemma
6.23.3 is now complete.
D
Proof of Theorem 6.27 We are now able to prove (ii)=}- (i):

Assume R is not a Priifer domain. Then there exists a maximal ideal m of
R such that Rm is not a valuation ring. Let x and y be two elements of R such
x rf. f4ny and y rf. R,,;x.
Let M = EB,A(x,y,z) and N = ILA(x,y,z), where x and y are the above
(fixed) elements and z runs through the non invertible elements of R.
By Proposition 6.19 we have M =
N. The proof of (ii)=}- (i) will be complete
if we show that MT = M t NT.
By sublemma 6.23.2 the following first order sentence (in M(R)) holds for M:
\If.EM [x~ = 0 =}- 3a,bEM(~ = xa + yb)].

This statement does not hold in NT. In fact, the element T/ in N, whose z 1h
coordinate is xe 1 + ye 2 is annihilated by x, hence in particular TJ E l'h. Suppose
(*) TJ = xa + y(J, et, (J E NT.
Let r E R - {O} such that ret = r(J = 0 and let s be an element in R which
is not invertible in Rm.
Put z = rs and let (a, b) be the zth coordinate of a solution ( o:, (J) of(*). By
sublemma 6.23.3 we haver E zRm = rsRrn. This gives the desired contradiction
since s is non-invertible in Rm. The proof of Theorem 6.27 is now complete. D
Remark 6.28 We conclude from the above that an integral domain R is a Priifer
domain if the criterion in Proposition 6.23 is sufficient for two R-modules to be
elementarily equivalent.
Localization and globalization of elementary

equivalence
Next we study to which extent the classical localization principles carry over to
elementary equivalence. Let M be a module over the commutative ring R, m
a maximal ideal of R, Rm the localization of R at m, and Mm the localization
of M at m. Any Rm-module is in an obvious way also an R-module. It is easy
to check (either directly or by the Keisler-Shelah ultrapower theorem) that two
Rm-modules are elementarily equivalent as Rm-modules if and only if they are
elementarily equivalent as R-modules.
Of course, a corresponding result holds true for localizations 5- 1 M with
respect to a multiplicative set 5 in R, i.e. the module of all fractions m/ s
(mEM,sE5).
The following example shows that, in general, elementarily equivalent R-
modules do not have elementarily equivalent localizations.
Example 6.29 Let R = Z, m = Z2, M =EE),, Z/Zu and N = IL Z/Zu where u

runs through all odd natural numbers. By Proposition 6.19 we have M N =
however, Mm and Nm are not elementarily equivalent since Mm= 0 and Nm# 0.
However, for finitely presented modules we have
Proposition 6.30 1 Let R be a commutative Noetherian ring and 5 a multi-

plicatively closed subset of R. If M and N are elementarily equivalent finitely
generated R-modules, then the modules of fractions 5- 1 M and 5- 1 N are elemen-
tarily equivalent {viewed as R-modules or 5- 1 R-modules).
Before giving a proof we insert a lemma, also needed at a later occasion.
Lemma 6.31 Let M be a module over a commutative ring R, 'P a positive primi-
tive formula with one free variable in M(R) and 5 a multiplicatively closed subset
of R. Then 5- 1 t.p(M) viewed as a submodule of 5- 1 M equals cp(5- 1 M).
Proof. Note that an element m/1 E 5- 1 M belongs to ip(5- 1 M) if and only

if sm E cp(M) for a suitable element s E 5. 0
1The authors are grateful to K. Schmidt-Gottsch for having pointed out an error in the
original version of Proposition 6.30 and giving a correct proof.

LOCALIZATION OF ELEMENTARY EQUIVALENCE 113
Proof of Proposition 6.30: We assume that M and N are elementarily

equivalent finitely generated R-modules and shall show that s- 1 Af := s- 1 N. If
r.p and 'ljJ are positive primitive formulas, r.p ~ 'l/J, we have to show
l'l/J(S- 1 M)/r.p(s- 1 M)I = l'l/J(S- 1 N)/r.p(s- 1 N)I.
From Lemma 6.31 it follows that
'!jJ(s- 1 M)/r.p(s- 1 M) ~ s- 1 (1jJ(M)/r.p(M))

and a similar isomorphism for N.
Moreover, the elementary equivalence M ~ N implies the elementary equiva-
lence r.p(M)/r.p(N) = ,,P(N)/r.p(N). (This can seen either directly or by the Keisler-
Shelah ultrapower theorem: For an ultrapower M* of Mone has ,,P(M*)/r.p(M*) ~
('l/J(M)/r.p(M))*.)
Since 'l/J(M)/r.p(M) and ,,P(N)/r.p(N) are finitely generated modules, the propo-
sition will follow if we prove generally that 1s- 1 Al = 1s- 1 Bl for any two elemen-
tarily equivalent R-modules A and B. Assume 1s- 1 Al = l < oo. For any a EA
and any s E S there exist integers i < j such that a/ si = a/ si in s- 1 A and hence
we get a/ s = si-i- 1 a/l.
Consequently, the canonical mapping a : A --> s- 1 A is surjective. Let s- 1 A =
{a;/1 I 1 ::; i ::; l} whith a; E A. Since the kernel of a is finitely generated, it is
annihilated by some fixed element s E S. Hence for every a E A there exists i,
1 ::; i ::; l, for which s( a - a;) = 0. Thus the following sentence holds in A:
I
p: 3y,, ... ,y,lfxV(s(x-y;)=0).
i=l
The surjectivity of a implies that each of the sentences O't, t E S, holds in A:
O't: lfx=:ly(s(x - ty)) = 0.
Since A= B, the sentences p and O'i, t E S, also hold in B; therefore 1s- 1 Bl ::; l.
By a similar argument one gets that 1s- 1 Bl < oo implies 1s- 1 Al ::; 1s- 1 Bl.
Hence 1s- 1 Al= 1s- 1 Bl. D
From Proposition 6.30 and the Keisler-Shelah ultrapower theorem we get
Corollary 6.32 If M and N are elementarily equivalent finitely generated mo-

dules over a commutative Noetherian ring R, then
{as R-modules or R..-modules) for any maximal ideal m of R. D

We next show that the converse of the above is actually true for arbitrary
modules over any commutative ring. To see this we need an auxiliary result.
Lemma 6.33 Let R be a commutative ring and M an R-module. Then we have

an elementary equivalence of sets
where m runs through the maximal ideals of R.
Proof. If IMI = oo the monomorphism (cf. [28], p. 112)
M--+ II Mm X >-+ (x/l)m
shows that ( t) holds. If IMI < oo, M must be a module of finite length and hence
there is a filtration
where M;f M;+ 1 ~ R/m; for some maximal ideal m;. Since for maximal ideals m
and m / the localization ( R/ m )rr1 is R/ m if m = m / and is 0 if m of. m ', one easily
sees that ( t) holds in this case too. D
We are now able to show
Theorem 6.34 Let R be a commutative ring and M and N two R-modules. If

Mm= Nm (as R-modules or Rm-modules) for every maximal ideal m, then M = N.
Proof. By virtue of the Lemmas 6.31 and 6.33 we get for any pair of positive
primitive formulas in one free variable 1.p, 1/;, 1/; ~ 1.p, that
11.p(M)/1/J(M)I =:I II(1.p(M)/1/J(M))ml =:II \1.p(Mm)/1/J(Mm)I

m
and
where m runs through the maximal ideals of R. The theorem is now a conse-
quence of Corollary 6.15. D
ELEMENTARY EQUIVALENCE OF FLAT MODULES ll5
Remark 6.35 For R = Z it is easy to see that two finitely generated Z-modules
are isomorphic if they are elementarily equivalent. This is not true in general for
principal ideal domains or Dedekind domains.
For instance, from Theorem 6.30 it follows that any two non-zero ideals in a
Dedekind domain are elementarily equivalent, while they are isomorphic if and
only if they are in the same ideal class.
If R is a principal ideal domain containing an infinite field, two finitely gener-
ated R-modules M and N are elementarily equivalent if and only if they contain
the same indecomposable summands (up to isomorphism) independently of the
multiplicities with which they occur, thus M =
N if and only if there are integers
r and s such that AI is a direct summand of Ns and N is a direct summand of
Mr.
Exercise 6.36 Use the above remark to exhibit two finitely generated Z[X]-modu-
les which are elementarily equivalent but not isomorphic.
Elementary equivalence of flat modules
We now consider fl.at modules over commutative Noetherian rings where rather
explicit criteria for elementary equivalence are available.
Proposition 6.37 Let R be a commutative Noetherian ring. Two flat R-modules

M and N are elementarily equivalent if and only if
IM/pMI = IN/pNI
holds for every prime ideal p of R.
Proof. By Proposition 6.22 the 'only if' part is clear.

To obtain the 'if' part we must verify that the condition in the proposition
implies IM/bMI =IN/bNI for any ideal b of R.
It is well known (cf. [28], p. 136) that there exists a composition series
such that a;/a;+ 1 ~ R/p;, i = 0, 1, ... , n - 1, for suitable prime ideals Pi of R.

Hence
and by the flatness of M we have
Thus
n-I
IM/bMI =IT IM/p;MI.

i::::O
Similarly we get for N (with the same p;'s)

n-I
IN/bNI =IT IN/p;NI,

i=O
whence IM/bMI =IN/bNI. 0

The preceding can be sharpened a little.
Theorem 6.38 Let R be a commutative Noetherian ring. Two fiat R-modules

M and N are elementarily equivalent if and only if
IM/mMI = IN/mNI
holds for every maximal ideal m, and additionally for every prime ideal p of R
we have M = pM if and only if N = pN.
Proof. The 'only if' part is clear. To show the 'if' part it suffices to prove
that for a flat module M and a non-maximal prime ideal p we have
IM/pMI < 00 =} M = pM.

Indeed, M/pM is a flat (R/p)-module, so if IM/pMI < oo then M/pM is, in
particular, a finite torsion-free module over the integral domain R/p. Since R/p
is not a field, M/pM must be 0. In view of Proposition 6.37 the proof is now
complete. O
By means of the above theorem we get a "complete" localization principle for

flat modules:
Theorem 6.39 Let R be a commutative Noetherian ring. Two fiat R-modules

M and N are elementarily equivalent if and only if the localizations Mm and
Nm are elementarily equivalent (as R-modules or Rm-modules) for every maximal
ideal m of R.
ELEMENTARY EQUIVALENCE OF FLAT MODULES 117
Proof. In view of Theorem 6.34 it is enough to prove 'only if'. For any
maximal ideal m we have M /m M ~ M,Jm Mm- Further, if p is a prime ideal not
<i
contained in m, then ( M /p M)m ~ M,Jp Mm= 0. If p is a prime ideal p m, then
M /p M = 0 implies that M,Jp Mm= 0, and M /p M -:/= 0 implies by the flatness of
M that Mm/PMm# 0. [Notice that M/pM is torsion-free over R/p.]
By the corresponding statements for N it follows that the modules Mm and
Nm satisfy the conditions of Theorem 6.38 hence are elementarily equivalent for
every m. D
For commutative Noetherian rings of finite Krull dimension we show
Theorem 6.40 Let R be a commutative Noetherian ring of Krull dimension d <
oo. Two fiat R-modules M and N are elementarily equivalent if and only if for
any d+l elements ai, ... , ad, b of R
Proof. The 'only if' part is clear. For the 'if' part we need
Sublemma 6.40.1 For a prime ideal p of R of height t there exist t + 1 elements
ai, ... , at and b such that p = (Ra 1 +···+Rat) : b.
Proof. There exist t elements ai, ... , at in R such that p is an isolated prime
ideal of Ra 1 +···+Rat [if t = 0, p is an isolated prime ideal of (O)]. (cf. [143], p.
61 ). Hence the irredundant decomposition of Ra 1 + · · · + Rat into primary ideals
has the form
Ra 1 + · · · + Rat = q n q 1 n · · · n q.,
where q is p-primary and q; is p;-primary with p -:/= p;. If c is an element such that
c E q, c !/. q 1 n · · · n q., then (q : c) is a p-primary ideal. Therefore there is an
integer n such that pn ~ (q : c) but pn-I is not contained in (q : c). If d E pn-1,
d !/. (q : c) it is easily checked that p = ((Ra 1 +···+Rat) : b), where b =ed. D
From the sublemma we conclude that for any prime ideal p of R there is an
exact sequence of R-modules
0-+ p-+ R ~ b(R/(Ra 1 +···+Rad))-+ 0

where a 1 , ... , ad E R. (In the situation of the sublemma we have t :'.S d and we
may just let ai = 0 fort< j :'.S d when t < d.) By the flatness of M we get the
exact sequence
and we obtain an isomorphism
The corresponding isomorphism for N and Proposition 6.37 now yield the 'if'
part of Theorem 6.40. D
By Theorem 6.39 it basically suffices to consider flat modules over local rings.
We give some further results in this situation:
Proposition 6.41 Let R be a commutative local Noetherian ring with maximal

ideal m. If M is a fiat R-module, which is separated in its m-adic topology (i.e.
n~l mt M = 0 }, then M is elementarily equivalent to its m -adic completion K1.
Proof. By Theorem 6.38 we have to show IM/mMI = IM/mMI, moreover

M = pM if and only if M = p M for every prime ideal p of R.
The first statement follows from the isomorphism
M/mM~M/mM.
The second statement follows from the fact that M and its completion M are
separated in the m-adic topology, so that in particular M # pM and M # pM-o
Exercise 6.42 Let R be a commutative local Noetherian ring for which the residue
field R/m is infinite. Show that any two non-zero fiat R-modulcs are elementarily
equivalent if they are separated in the m -adic topology.
Proposition 6.43 Let R be a commutative local Noetherian ring of Krull dimen-

sion one. Two fiat R-modules M and N are elementarily equivalent if and only
if IM/ aMI =
IN/ aNI for every element a E R.
Proof. We only have to show 'only if'. Let m be the maximal ideal and
p1 , ... , p v the minimal prime ideals of R. Let a be an element such that a E m,
a ~ Pi, 1 S j S v. R/ Ra is then an R-module of finite length and has a
composition series
R=ao2a12···2a 1 =Ra, a;/a;+1~R/m, i=O,l, ... ,t-1.

We have a filtration of M
ELEMENTARY EQUIVALENCE OF INJECTIVE MODULES 119
M = aoM 2 a1M 2 · · · 2 a1M,

where the flatness of M implies a;M/a;+lM ~ M/mM, hence we get IM/aMJ =
JM/mMJ 1•
Using the corresponding filtration of N we conclude from the elementary
equivalence JM/aMI = JN/aNJ that JM/mMJ = JN/mNJ.
In view of Theorem 6.38 the proof will be finished when we show that M =
piM holds if and only if N = piN holds (1 ~ j ~ v ).
Consider one of the prime ideals pi and choose an element b E pi such that b
does not belong to any other minimal prime ideal of R.
There is a composition series of R/ Rb of the form
R = bo 2 b 1 2 · · · 2 bµ =Rb,
where each quotient b;/b;+l is isomorphic to R/m or to R/Pi· Assume R/m
occurs r times and R/p i occurs s times. We then get
IM/bMI := IM/mMlr · IM/piMI•.

Similarly we get IN/bNI = IN/mNlr · IN/piNI•. If M/mM and hence also N/mN
is finite, we conclude as before that IM/piMI=IN/piNI, in particular M = PiM
if and only if N = PiN. If M/mM and hence N/mN are infinite, it is obvious
that M # PiM and N # PiN. The proposition is now a consequence of Theo-
rem 6.38. D
The next result on elementary equivalence of flat modules is very easy and we
omit the proof.
Proposition 6.44 Let R be a Bezout domain or the ring of integers in a finite

algebraic number field. Two flat (= torsion-free} R-modules M and N are ele-
mentarily equivalent if and only if IM/ aMI = IN/ aNI for every a E R. D
Elementary equivalence of injective modules
We are going to specialize Proposition 6.24 - concerned with the elementary

equivalence of fp-injective modules - to modules over a commutative Noethe-
rian ring R, thus obtaining rather explicit criteria for elementary equivalence of
injective modules. The reader will notice the similarity to the preceding discus-
sion of elementary equivalence for flat modules.
Proposition 6.45 Let R be a commutative Noetherian ring. Two injective R-

modules M and N are elementarily equivalent if and only if
holds for every prime ideal p of R.
Proof. According to Proposition 6.24 we must verify that the condition on

prime ideals implies that
holds for each ideal a of R. Since R is commutative Noetherian there is a finite

filtration
where a;/a;-1 S:: R/p; for some prime ideal p;, i = 1, ... , n.
By injectivity of M, exactness of
0---+ R/p; ---+ R/a;_1 ---+Rf a; ---+ 0
leads to an exact sequence
0-> HomR(R/a;, M) -> HomR(R/a;_i, M) -> HomR(R/p;, M)-> 0.
Hence
lannM(a;-1)1-
annM ( )
a;
- IannM ( ·)Ip, .
Since
we obtain
n
lannM(a)I =IT lannM(P;)I,
i=l
which immediately implies the assertion.

D
As in Theorem 6.38 we have an even sharper result:

ELEMENTARY EQUIVALENCE OF INJECTIVE MODULES 121
Theorem 6.46 Let R be a commutative Noetherian ring. Two injective R-

modules M and N are elementarily equivalent if and only if
JannM(m)J =JannN(m)J
holds for each maximal ideal m of R, and additionally for each prime ideal p we
have ann M(P) = 0 if and only if ann N(P) = 0.
Proof. As follows from the preceding proposition it suffices to prove that for
each non-maximal prime ideal p of R we have
Jann M(P) J < oo => ann M(P) = 0.

Since M is injective over R, A = ann M(P) is an injective module over the inte-
gral domain R/p, hence A is R/p-divisible. Since R/p is not a field any finitely
generated divisible R/p-module must be zero. This proves our claim. D
We may now invoke a theorem of E. Matlis [131], see also [180], stating that
- over a commutative Noetherian ring R - each injective module has (an
essentially unique) decomposition EBP E(R/p )(c, l, where p runs through the set
of prime ideals and E(R/p) refers to the injective envelope of R/p, to deduce
explicit criteria for elementary equivalence of injective modules M and N from
Theorem 6.46, once the decompositions of M and N into indecomposable injective
modules are known. We leave the details as an exercise to the reader.
Without the knowledge of these decompositions it is better to rely on the
following characterization for elementary equivalence:
Theorem 6.47 Let R be a commutative Noetherian ring of finite Krull dimen-

sion d. Two injective R-modules M and N are elementarily equivalent if and
only if for any d + 1 elements ai, . . . , ad and b of R we have
Proof. The necessity of the condition is obvious. To prove sufficiency

amounts to prove that JannM(P)I = iannN(P)J holds for every prime ideal p of R
(Proposition 6.41). According to Sublemma 6.40.1 p has the form p = (Ra 1 +
· · ·+Rad) : bfor a suitable choice of a 1 , ... , ad and b. Putting a = Ra 1 + · · ·+Rad,
exactness of the sequence
0--+ p/a--+ R/a ~ R/a

together with the injectivity of M ( N, respectively) implies that
ann M(P)= b · annM(a),

annN(P) = b· annN(a),
hence lann M(P )I= lannN(P )I follows from our assumption. D
Elementary and axiomatizable classes
In analogy with Chapter 2 we may consider axiomatizable, finitely axiomatizable

and elementarily closed classes of modules over a fixed ring R. In the following,
without proofs, we briefly review the main results concerning such classes of flat,
projective and injective modules. The first two theorems may be derived from
characterizations of Noetherian (resp. left perfect and right coherent rings) due
to H. Bass [14] and S. Chase [34], while the proof of the last one affords some
familiarity with methods from commutative algebra. We will not use any of these
results in the sequel of our book.
Theorem 6.48 ( [53]) Let R be any ring. Then

(i) The fiat left R-modules form an elementarily closed class if and only if the
fiat left R-modules form an axiomatizable class if and only if R is right coherent.
(ii) The projective left R-modules form an elementarily closed class if and
only if the projective left R-modules form an axiomatizable class if and only if R
is left perfect and right coherent.
(iii) The injective left R-modules form an elementarily closed class if and only
if the injective left R-modules form an axiomatizable class if and only if R is left
Noetherian. D
Recall that a left R-module M is called E-injective if every direct sum of

copies of M is injective. It turns out that:
Theorem 6.49 For any ring R the E-injective left R-modules form an elemen-
tarily closed class. D
Concerning finitely axiomatizable classes less complete results are available.

For instance for commutative rings one has
EXERCISES 123
Theorem 6.50 ( [101]) For any commutative ring R the following conditions
are equivalent:
(i) R is Noetherian and semi-local of I<rull-dimension ~ 1 (i.e. R has only
finitely many prime ideals}.
(ii) The injective R-modules form a finitely axiomatizable class.
(iii) R is Noetherian and the fiat R-modules form a finitely axiomatizable
class. 0
Exercises
Exercise 6.51 (i) If M = N for any non-zero M,N E Mod(R) then R does not have
any two-sided ideal different from 0 and R. In particular R is left and right primitive.
(ii) If ( i) holds and R is commutative, R is an infinite field.
(iii) If (i) holds and R is left Noetherian, R is of the form Mn(D) for some infinite
skew field D.
(iv) Let R be a full matrix ring Mn(D) over an infinite skew field D. Show that
any two non-zero left R-modules are elementarily equivalent.
Exercise 6.52 [Sabbagh [172)] U is an elementary submodule of M if and only if U is

pure in M and elementarily equivalent to M.
[Hint: Use quantifier elimination (Theorem 6)].
The following two exercises are concerned with the injective dimension inj.dimR( M),
the projective dimension proj.dimR(M), respectively the weak dimension w.dimR(M)
of a left R-module M. We refer to [32], also Appendix A, for the definition of these
concepts and their basic properties.
Exercise 6.53 Let R be a left Noetherian ring, :Fan ultrafilter on a set J.

(i) If (Ma)aeI is a family of left R-modules of injective dimension :Sn, then also
holds.
(ii) Assume M is a left R-module and inj.dimR(MI / :F) :S n. Then inj.dimR(M) :S
n.
(iii) For each n E N the R-modules of injective dimension n form an axiomatizable
class .7( n ).
(iv) If N = max( No, IRI), each non-zero M E .7( n) has a pure submodule 0 "# M' E
.7( n) of cardinality :S N.
Exercise 6.54 Assume R is a right coherent ring. Replace each occurrence of 'injec-
tive dimension' in the preceding exercise by 'weak dimension' and prove the resulting
assertions. If R is additionally supposed to be left perfect, also the corresponding
assertions with respect to 'projective dimension' hold true.
Exercise 6.55 Let R be a commutative integral domain whose quotient field /( is a

countably generated R-module. Prove the following assertions:
( i) Each R-linear map f : R ---> D into a divisible R-module D admits an extension
to K.
(ii) Every divisible R-module is a homomorphic image of the injective R-module
J((I) for a suitable index set I.
(iii) If gl.dim ( R) :S 2, any ultraproduct of injective R-modules is an injective R-
module.
(iv) More generally, the R-injective dimension of any ultraproduct of injective R-
modules is bounded by max{O, gl.dim (R) - 2}.
Chapter 7
Algebraically compact modules
As we have seen in the last chapter, purity appears to be a natural concept in

the study of the first order theory of R-modules for any fixed ring R. This chap-
ter, therefore, is devoted to an analysis of the corresponding notion of (relative)
injectivity, called pure-injectivity or also algebraic compactness. Before stating
the basic characterization for this class of modules we fix some notations.
First, we need a generalization of the notion of a finitely definable subgroup:
Let M be an R-module. Any intersection noel M 0 of a family of finitely definable
subgroups M.,, of M will be called a definable subgroup of M.
Next, let I be an infinite index set, we denote by M[IJ the submodule of
the direct product M 1 consisting of all families (x 0 ) 0 e1 having a support set
{a EI I x 0 =/= O} of cardinality strictly less than the cardinality of I. Clearly, the
factor module M 1 / M[IJ may be viewed as the reduced power of M with respect
to the filter :F on I consisting of all subsets F with II - Fl < IJI. Accordingly
the mapping
.6.: M--+ M 1 /M[IJ, x >-+ [x 0 ], where x 0 =x for all a EI
is called the diagonal mapping of Minto M 1 / M[IJ_ .6. is always a monomorphism.
Characterizations of algebraically compact mo-

dules
Theorem 7.1 (cf. [85,84]) For a left R-module A the following conditions are
equivalent:
125
126 CHAPTER 7: ALGEBRAICALLY COMPACT MODULES
(i) For any pure exact sequence T/ : 0 --+ X __.::_.. Y ~ Z --+ 0 the induced
sequence
HomR(17,A): 0---+ HomR(Z,A) ~ HomR(Y,A) ~ HomR(X,A)---+ 0
is exact.
(ii) Each pure-exact sequence 0 --+ A --+ B --+ C --+ 0 splits.
(iii) For any index sets I and J and any system of linear equations
(*) l:>iixi=a; (iEI),

ieJ
where the r;i belong to R, for every fixed i almost all r;i are zero and a; E A, there
is a solution (xi)ieJ E AJ to (*),provided the system obtained by restricting I to
an arbitrary finite subset I' has a solution in AJ.
(iv) Any decreasing directed family of Z-linear varieties in A, whose direc-
tions are definable (resp. finitely definable) subgroups in A, has a non-empty
intersection.
( v) The functor -0RA is injective in the category of all additive functors from
the category of all finitely presented right R-modules to the category Ab of abelian
groups.
(vi) For any index set I the summation map~ : A(l) --+A, (x"') >--+ L"'el x"'
extends to an R-linear mapping f; : A 1 --+ A.
(vii) For each infinite index set the diagonal embedding M --+ M 1 / Af[lJ splits.
In order to present the necessary arguments in their proper context, we post-

pone the proof of Theorem 7.1 to the next sections.
Definition 7 .2 An R-module A is called pure-injective or algebraically compact

if it satisfies the equivalent conditions of the preceding theorem.
We shall use both notions interchangeably. Properly speaking, pure-injectivity

refers to properties (i) and (ii) while algebraic compactness refers to properties
(iii) and (iv). In the section on N-purity the reason for using two different nom-
inations for the same notion will become more transparent. We now give a few
comments and point out some consequences.
Obviously, each injective module is pure-injective. Moreover, condition (v)
basically reduces the investigation of pure-injectivity to the study of injectivity.
In comparison with injectivity pure-injectivity has the advantage to be preserved
under various types of 'forgetful functors', see for instance [11]. As a sample
we mention the following result, whose proof is an immediate consequence of
property (vi):
CHARACTERIZATIONS OF ALGEBRAICALLY COMPACT MODULES 127
Corollary 7.3 Let <.p: R--+ S be a ring homomorphism. If A is an algebraically

compact left S-moduie, A is also algebraically compact as a left R-module.
D
We are now going to express algebraic compactness for M in terms of inverse

limits. Such a reformulation, for instance, is useful in connection with questions
related to completeness. For further information on applications of inverse limits
(and their derived functors) to ring and module theory especially to questions
related to algebraic compactness, we refer to [84] and [96]. Let I be an (increasing)
directed partially ordered set and assume that for each a E I we are given a
subgroup Ma of M such that Mf3 ~Ma whenever a::; (3 in I. Then with respect
to the induced maps 'Paf3 : M / Mf3 -+ M /Ma we obtain an inverse system of
abelian groups. We recall that the inverse limit fu!!.M/ Ma is defined as the
subgroup of the direct product ITaeI M /Ma consisting of all I-families (xa) with
the property Xa = 'Paf3(xf3) for each pair a ::; (3 in I. The following condition is
an obvious reformulation of condition (iv) of Theorem 7.1.
Corollary 7.4 An R-module M is algebraically compact if and only if for each

(decreasing) directed family (Ma) of definable (resp. finitely definable) subgroups
of M the natural map
M--+ fu!!.M/Ma, m >-+ (m + Ma)a

of Minto the inverse limit of (M/Ma) is an epimorphism.
D
We recall that a ring R is said to be F-semiperfect if R = R/rad(R) is von

Neumann regular and idempotents may be lifted from R to R. Every local ring
R is F-semiperfect, the converse being true in case R has no idempotents # 0, l.
It is well known that each injective module, just as each injective object in a
Grothendieck category, has an endomorphism ring that is F-semiperfect [122].
Hence we obtain:
Corollary 7 .5 The endomorphism ring of any algebraically compact module is

F-semiperfect. In particular, every indecomposable algebraically compact module
has a local endomorphism ring.
D
Pure-injective envelopes
As an application of Theorem 7.1 we prove the existence of pure-injective en-
velopes, a result due to Warfield [200]:
Proposition 7.6 Each R-module M has a pure-injective envelope
M <--> A(M),
i.e. M embeds as a pure submodule into a pure-injective module R-module A(M)
such that - for each R-module X - an R-linear map f: A(M)-+ X is a pure
monomorphism if and only if its restriction JIM : M -+ X to M is a pure
monomorphism. A(M) is the smallest pure submodule of A(M) which is pure-
injective and contains M.
Proof. Let -@RA be an injective envelope of -@RM in the functor cat-

egory Add(mod(R P),Ab) (see Corollary B.9). By means of the identifications
0
M = R@RM and A = R@RA, we see that the inclusion l : -@RM ~ -@RA is

induced by the R-linear mapping lR : M -+ A. Because lR stays injective under
tensoring with finitely presented modules it is a pure monomorphism. Thus M
may be viewed as a pure submodule of A, and due to the equivalence ( i) <=> (v) of
Theorem 7.1 A is a pure-injective module. The remaining assertions now follow
easily from the definition of an injective envelope. D
In order to illustrate the notion of the pure-injective envelope we next give
some examples.
Example 7.7 (i) If Risa von Neumann regular ring, the pure-injective envelope
A(M) of an R-module M coincides with its injective envelope E(M). More
generally, if R denotes an arbitrary ring, we have A(M) = E(M) exactly for the
fp-injective R-modules (see Exercise 7.53).
(ii) If Risa commutative local Noetherian ring with maximal ideal m then the
m-adic completion R.. of R, viewed as an R-module, serves as the pure-injective
envelope of R with respect to the natural embedding R -+ R.., r >--> r /1.
(iii) The pure-injective envelope A(Z) of the Z-module Z can be obtained as
the direct product
A(Z) = II JP,
pEP
(with respect to the diagonal embedding of Z into IlpeP JP, x >--> (x/1)). Here P
is the set of prime numbers and, for each prime number p, JP = Z(p) is the ring
of p-adic integers viewed as a Z-module.
PURE-INJECTIVE ENVELOPES 129
Alternatively, A(Z) may be viewed as the inverse limit
fu!!_Z/n Z,
(with respect to the diagonal mapping x >---> (x + nl) ), where the nl are running
through all non-zero ideals of Z ordered by reverse inclusion.
[Assertions (ii) and (iii) both follow from Theorem 11.3.]
We are now going to show how pure embeddings arrive in many situations
just from functoriality.
Let T : Ab -+ Ab be an additive functor for the category of abelian groups
and assume, moreover, for each abelian group X the existence of a monomorphism
ux : X -+ T(X), depending functorially on X, i.e. we assume that u = ( ux)
defines a monomorphism of the identity functor lAb into T. Let M be a (left)
R-module. The action of Ron M by left multiplication rM: M-+ M, m >--->rm,
r ER, induces an R-action T(rM) : M-+ M, (r E R), on T(M). In this way
T defines a functor (denoted by the same symbol) T : Mod ( R) -+ Mod ( R) such
that T(rM) = TT(M) holds for each r E R. Note that for each R-module M the
embedding uM : M-+ T(M) is R-linear and defines a monomorphism of functors
(also denoted u) from lMod(R) to T, where T now is viewed as a functor from
Mod (R) to Mod (R).
Proposition 7.8 Assume that the functor T : Mod (R) -+ Mod (R) as well as
the functorial embeddings uM : M-+ T(M) are induced (in the above sense) from
an additive functorT: Ab-+ Ab and a monomorphism of functors u: lAb-+ T.
Then the fallowing assertions hold:
(i) For each M E Mod (R) the R-linear mapping UM : M -+ T(M) is a pure
monomorphism in Mod (R).
(ii) IfT(M) is R-injective for every R-module M then Risa von Neumann-
regular ring.
Proof. To prove (i), in view of Theorem 6.4 it suffices to show that for each
right R-module E the mapping lE 0 UM : E@RM -+ E@RT(M) is a monomor-
phism. For that purpose we define a Z-linear map 7/; which makes the diagram
commutative. Fore E E and x E T(M) we define the Z-linear map

and set
,,P(e@ x) = T(e)(x).
It is easy to verify that 'lj; is properly defined. Moreover, commutativity follows
from
With regard to assertion (ii) we note that any pure submodule of an injective
module is fp-injective. Thus in view of (i) the injectivity of all T(M)'s implies
that every (left) R-module is fp-injective, hence R is a von Neumann regular ring
(see Chapter 10). D
For the next Corollary we mention that for any abelian group Q and left (resp.
right) R-module M the Q-dual is the right (resp. left) R-module Homz(M,Q)
equipped with the R-action given by (u.r)(x) = u(r.x) (resp. (r.u)(x) = u(x.r)),
where r ER and u E Homz(M, Q).
Corollary 7.9 Let R be any ring, M an R-module and I be an infinite set. Then
any of the following mappings is a pure monomorphism of R-modules:
(i) the diagonal embedding M --+ M 1 / Af(I),
(ii) the diagonal embedding M--+ M 1 /MflJ,
(iii) the diagonal embedding M--+ M 1 /:F for any ultrafilter (more generally
for any filter) :F on I,
(iv) the canonical embedding
M----+ Homz(Homz(M, Q), Q), u >-> [x >-> u(x)]
of M into its Q-bidual in case Q is one of the abelian groups Q/l, R/Z or more
generally an injective cogenerator in the category Ab. D
As the preceding proposition shows it is usually not possible to construct

injective envelopes - likewise embeddings into injective modules - in a functorial
manner, thereby preserving additivity. By contrast, (additive) functorial pure
embeddings into algebraically compact modules do exist:
Exercise 7 .10 Let R be a ]{-algebra, where ]{ denotes a commutative ring, and

let Q be an injective cogenerator in the category of]{ -modules. {If I< = Z (resp.
I< is a field) we may take Q = Q/Z, respectively Q = I<.] Show that
(i) For each left (right) R-module M the right (resp. left) R-module M =
HomK(M, Q) is algebraically compact.
COMPARISON WITH INJECTIVE FUNCTORS 131
(ii) For each R-module M the natural map
PM: M ----->M, m >--+ [u >--+ u(m)J
is a pure monomorphism, depending functorially on M.

(iii) M is algebraically compact if and only if PM : M -----> M splits.
Now assume that R is an algebra over a field I<. Then
(iv) Each finite dimensional R-module is algebraically compact.
(v) If, moreover, R is finite dimensional, an R-module A is algebraically com-
pact if and only if A is a direct factor of some direct product I1 M 0 of finite-
dimensional R-modules M 0 •
Exercise 7.11 Let R be a von Neumann regular ring. Show that the category of
R-modules does admit (additive) functorial embeddings into injective modules.
Comparison with injective functors

We now are going to prove the equivalence '(i) ¢?(iv)' for Theorem 7.1. We will
therefore deal with the comparison of (left) R-modules M with additive covariant
functors F : mod(R 0 P) ----+ Ab defined on the category of finitely presented right
R-modules with values in the category Ab of abelian groups. For the definition
and the basic properties of the arising functor category Add(mod(R0 P), Ab) =
(mod(R 0 P), Ab) as well as for the concepts and notations used in the sequel, we
refer to Appendix B.
Theorem 7.12 (cf. (85,84]) Let R be any ring. The functor
ii>: Mod(R)-----> Add(mod(R 0 P),Ab), A>--+ -@RA
induces an equivalence between the category of all algebraically compact left R-

modules and the category of all functors, which are injective in the category
Add(mod(R0 P), Ab).
Moreover, an additive functor T E Add(mod(R0 P), Ab) is injective if and only
if for each subfunctor U of the forgetful functor
V = Hom(R, -) : mod(R P)----+ Ab,

0 X >--+ X,
we have Ext 1 (V/U,T) = 0.

Proof. The first assertion is covered by Theorem B.16.

With regard to the remaining assertions the condition Ext 1 (V/U,T) = 0 is
clearly necessary for the injectivity of T. In order to prove sufficiency we assume
that Ext 1 ( - , T) vanishes on each V / U, U being a su bfunctor of the forgetful
functor V. Due to Corollary B.9 we may embed Tinto an injective functor Q,
which in view of Theorem B.15 is right exact on finitely presented modules. It
will be sufficient to prove that the identity morphism lr : T ---+ T extends to a
morphism of functors cp : Q ---+ T. By virtue of Zorn's lemma we may choose
a subfunctor Q' of Q together with an extension cp' : Q' ---+ T of lr which is
maximal with respect to extension. Assume that Q' "f:. Q. By right exactness of
Q the functor Q/Q' preserves epimorphisms so we conclude that (Q/Q')(R) "f:. 0,
hence Hom(V, Q/Q') "f:. 0 due to Yoneda's lemma (cf. Proposition B.5). There-
fore Q/ Q' contains a non-zero subfunctor Q" / Q' of the form V/ U. Since by
assumption Ext 1 (Q"/Q',T) = Ext 1 (V/U,T) = 0, the morphism cp' extends to
a morphism cp" : Q" ---+ T, contradicting to the maximality of cp'. Hence the
inclusion T <--+ Q splits, which proves the injectivity of T. D
Proof of Theorem 7.1

We first fix some notation. If M is a left R-module and m is an element of M,
the morphism m: V ---+ -@RM corresponding to m by means of the natural iso-
morphism Hom(HomR(R, -), -@RM) = M given by Yoneda's lemma is defined
for each EE mod(R 0 P) by the formula
mE : E ---+ E@RM, x >--+ x 0 m.
If U is a subfunctor of V = HomR(R, -), the subgroup Mu of M consisting of
all elements m in M such that U is annihilated by m is called the annihilator
of U in M. The next lemma gives a functorial interpretation of definable (resp.
finitely definable) subgroups of an R-module M.
Lemma 7.13 A subgroup M' of the R-module M is a definable (resp. finitely
definable) subgroup if and only if there exists a sub functor (resp. a finitely gener-
ated subfunctor) U of V = HomR(R, -) : mod(R 0 P) ---+ Ab such that M' = Mu
is the annihilator of U in M.
Proof. Any subfunctor U of HomR(R, -) is completely determined by an

exact sequence
( o) EB HomR(Ea, -) ~ HomR(R, -) ---+ V/U---+ 0,
<>El
PROOF OF THEOREM 7.1 133
where each Ea is a finitely presented left R-module. The restriction
of the morphism e to HomR(Ea, -), a E J, is induced by an R-linear map ea :

R---+ E. We now apply the functor Hom(-, -@RM) to the sequence ( o ), which
in view of Yoneda's lemma leads to the exact sequence
0 ____.. Hom(V/U, -@RM) _!__.. M _'!_..,, IT Ea0RM,

a El
where c.p is given by the formula c.p(m) =(ea 0 m) for each min M. Since 'I/; in-
duces an isomorphism between Hom(V/U, -@RM) and the annihilator Mu of U
in M, the claim concerning arbitrary subfunctors and definable subgroups follows
from the characterization of finitely definable subgroups given in Proposition 6.3.
For the assertion concerning finitely generated subfunctors and finitely definable
subgroups the argument is similar with an one-element index set I. D
Conversely, any subset N of A1 defines a subfunctor VN = UmeN ker(m) of V,

called the annihilator of N in V. It is clear that for each definable subgroup N
of M the annihilator of VN in Mis just N, i.e. MvN = N.
We are now in a position to prove the equivalence of assertions (i), (ii), (iii),
(iv), (v) of Theorem 7.1. The proof of the remaining equivalences will be given
in Corollary 7.34.
Proof of Theorem 7.1 (i) =:}(ii): It is clear that the pure-injectivity of A
implies the splitting of any pure-exact sequence with left-hand term A. (ii) =:} (i):
Conversely, assume condition (ii) to be satisfied and let T/ : 0 ---+ X ___;:_, Y ~
Z ---+ 0 be a pure-exact sequence; we have to show that every morphism f : X ---+ A
extends to a morphism f: Y ---+ A with f o u = f. Forming the push-out leads
to a commutative diagram
T/= 0 ____.. x ____..

v
z ____.. 0
f ! II
f.T/ : 0 ____.. A ____..
v•
z ____.. 0
having exact rows. [We may define B as the factor module of A EB Y by the
submodule consisting of all pairs (f(x), -u(x)) with x E X. Notation [a,y]
for the class of (a,y) in B. Further we set u 0 (a) = [a,O], g(y) = [O,y], and
v0 ([a,y]) = v(y).] Since T/ is pure-exact any morphism h : F ---+ Z, where F
is a finitely presented module, lifts to a homomorphism 7i : F ---+ Y hence to
a morphism g o 7i : F ---+ B thus showing that the sequence f.T/ is pure-exact.
Consequently f .TJ splits by assumption, equivalently f extends to Y (see homotopy

lemma, Appendix B).
(iv) =? ( v ): We suppose that M satisfies condition (iv) and claim that -0RM
is an injective functor. According to Theorem 7.12 we have to show that for any
subfunctor U of V = HomR(R, -) any morphism f : U --+ -0RM admits an
extension f: V--+ -0RM. We write U as a directed union U = UU0 of finitely
generated subfunctors U0 of V. By the fp-injectivity of -®RM any morphism
flu 0 U" --+ -0RM extends to a morphism V --+ -0RM, hence for some
:
m" E M the morphism f agrees on U" with ~ : V --+ -0RM. For U0 ~ Uf3
this implies that m(3 - m" belongs to the annihilator of U" in M, which by
the preceding lemma is a finitely definable subgroup Ma of M. Since moreover
M(3 ~ M" we have m(3+M(3 ~ m 0 +Ma, and the family (m 0 +M")" is (decreasing)
directed.
By hypothesis we may choose some m E n(m"+Ma)· The morphism m:
V--+
-0RM is an extension of f, which proves that -0RM is an injective functor.
( v) =? (iv): Conversely, assume that the functor -®RM is injective and
(m" + Mex) is a (decreasing) directed family of Z-linear varieties with definable
subgroups M". Let U" be the annihilator of Mo. in V. Since mc:x+M" ~ m(3+M(3
implies M" ~ Mf3 and therefore Uf3 ~ Ua, the family (U") is increasingly directed,
and U = U U" is a subfunctor of V. Moreover, by directedness there is a morphism
f: U--+ -0RM which on each U" agrees with m": V--+ -0RM. By injectivity
of -0RM the morphism f extends to V, hence there exists an element m in M
such that m agrees on U" with m". This obviously implies that m - m" lies in
the annihilator of U" therefore in M". Summarizing, we see that m E m" + M"
holds for each o., which proves the claim.
(iii) ::::} (iv): Let (ma+ Mc:x)<>El be a (decreasing) directed family, where the
M" are finitely definable subgroups. We have to solve the system of congruences
x - m" E M", o. E I. By the definition of finitely definable subgroups (see 6.3)
each congruence x - m" E M" amounts to a finite system of linear equations as
occuring in (iii). Since (m" + M") is directed, any finite conjunction of these
systems admits a solution, hence by (iii) we arrive at a common solution x of all
these systems, hence at a solution of the given system of congruences.
(v) =? (iii): For any r in R let f: V --+ V, V = HomR(R, -), denote the
morphism corresponding to r by means of the natural isomorphisms Hom(V, V) =
HomR(R, R) = R. The Ix J-matrix (F;j) thus shares with (r;j) the property to
be row-finite, i.e. for a fixed i in I there are only finitely many j's in J with
F;j # O; hence (r;j) defines a morphism u = (r;j) : VU) --+ V(J). Similarly, by
Yoneda's lemma each min M defines a morphism m : V --+ -0RM. Since for
PROOF OF THEOREM 7.1 135
any finite subset I' of I the corresponding system of equations

'L...J"°'
jEJ
Tij Xj = ffli, ; E J'
~
admits a solution, we obtain a commutative diagram

(;:;j)
VU') --+
(;;;-;) ! ,/ (Xj)
of functors. This proves the existence of a morphism cp': Im(u)-> -@RM which
makes the diagram
v<n u
--+ Im(u)
-@RM
commutative. By the injectivity of -@RM we can extend cp' to a morphism
cp : V(J) -> -@RM. Clearly cp is determined by a family (xi)iEJ, which is a
solution of equation (*). D
Remark 7.14 We briefly discuss an alternative interpretation of definable (resp.
finitely definable) subgroups of an R-module M. As before, let V: mod(R) -> Ab
be the restriction of the forgetful functor V: Mod (R) -> Ab to the category of
finitely presented R-modules.
Let U be any subfunctor of V. Forming the annihilator Mu of U for each
R-module M defines a subfunctor M-> Mu of V, called the annihilator of U in
V and denoted Vu. Any such subfunctor Vu is said to be a definable subfunctor
of V. If, moreover, U is a finitely generated (equivalently a finitely presented)
subfunctor of V the arising subfunctor Vu is called a finitely definable subfunctor
ofV.
As follows from Lemma 7.13 the definable (resp. finitely definable) subgroups
of an R-module Mare exactly those having the form U(M), where Vis a definable
(resp. finitely definable) subfunctor of the forgetful functor V.
Given an infinite cardinality N is is further possible to define in a similar
fashion the notion of an N-definable sub functor ofV as the annihilator Vu of an N-
generated subfunctor of U. Correspondingly we have the notion of an N-definable
subgroup Vu(M) of M. The N-definable subgroups of M may be alternatively
obtained as the intersections of families of finitely definable subgroups indexed
by sets of cardinality :S N.
~-Purity
Let N denote an infinite cardinal number. We say that an R-module M is N-

generated (resp. N<-generated) if it is generated by a subset of cardinality N
(resp. < N). (Many logicians use the notation N-generated where we use the
notation N<-generated.)
In the above notation a module is finitely generated when it is N~-generated,
and it is countably generated when it is N0 -generated (= N~-generated).
Correspondingly, an R-module M is called N-presented (resp. N<-presented),
if there exists an exact sequence
0 --+ I< --+ F --+ M --+ 0,
where F is a free module and /{ and F are N-generated (rexp. N<-generated)

R-modules.
A partially ordered set ( "poset") I is called N-directed (resp. N<-directed) if
for every subset J of I, \JI :5 N (resp. \JI < N) there exists an element f3 of I
such that a :5 f3 for all a E J.
We shall need the following
Proposition 7.15 Let N be an arbitrary fixed infinite cardinality. Every R-

module M can be written as a direct limit .limMa of N-presented (resp. N<-
presented} R-modules with respect to an N-directed {resp. N<-directed) poset I.
Proof. It suffices to prove the assertion concerning an N<-presented module

and an N<-directed poset.
Let M be an R-module and (m;);eA, a family of generators. There is an exact
sequence
0--+I<--+F~M--+0
where Fis a free R-module with basis (e;);EA and 11::(e;) = m; for all i E J. For
any subset B of A let FB be the submodule of F generated by the elements e;,
i EB.
Let I be the set of all pairs (B, S) where Bis a subset of A, \Bl < N, and San
N<-generated submodule of [{ n F8 . We order I by inclusion: (B, S) ~ (B', S')
if and only if B ~ B' and S ~ S'. In this way we obtain an N<-directed poset.
For each (B, S) EI we set M(B,S) = FB/S. If (B, S) ~ (B', S') the inclusion
FB ~ FB' induces an R-linear mapping 'P(B',S')(B,S): FB/S-+ FB·/S'. It is now
straightforward to verify that the modules M(B,S) together with the homomor-
phisms 'P(B',S')(B,S) form an I-direct system.
N-PURITY 137
Moreover, for each (B, S) the mapping K : F--> M induces a homomorphism

'P(B,S) : M(B,S) --> M satisfying 'P(B',S')o'P(B',S')(B,S) = 'P(B,S) for each pair (B, S) :::S
(B',S') in/. It is easy to verify the following two properties of the mappings
'P(B,S): M(B,S)--> M:
(a) If x is in the kernel of 'P(B,S) : M(B,S) --> M, then there exists (B, S) :::S
(B', S') in I such that 'P(B',S')(B,s)(x) = 0.
(b) For any m in M there exist an ( B, S) in I and x in M(B,S) such that
'P(B,s)(x) = m.
This proves that Mis the direct limit of (M(B,S)> 'P(B,S)(B',5')) with respect to
the family 'P(B,S) : M(B,S) --> M. D
Proposition 7.16 Let N be an infinite cardinal number and let
T/ : o --+ M' ~ M __::_.. M" --+ o

be an exact sequence of R-modules. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
(i) For every N-presented (resp. N<-presented) R-module F the induced se-
quence
0--+ HomR(F,M') ~ HomR(F,M) ~ HomR(F,M")--+ 0
is exact.
(ii) Let J be a set of cardinality:::; N (resp. < NJ. For any row-finite matrix
(r;i), i,j E J, r;i E R, and any elements m;
EM', i E J, the system of linear
equations
L r;i Xi = u'(m'.), i E J,
iEJ
has a solution (xi) in (u'(M'))J, whenever it has a solution in MJ.
(ii)' For every commutative diagram of R-modules and R-homomorphisms
u'
M' --+ M
1 i
1
i I
L' L
where L and L' are N-generated (resp. N<-generated) free R-modules, there is an
R-homomorphism w : L--> M' such that 1' = p' ow.
(iii) TJ is a direct limit of a directed system (T/a), a E I, of split-exact sequences,
where the index set I is an N-directed (resp. N<-directed) poset.
Proof. It suffices to prove the statements concerning "N<-presented", "N<.

generated" etc.
The equivalence (ii) ¢> (ii)' is quite straightforward and left to the reader.
(ii)' ~ (i). Let F be an N<-presented R-module and 7 11 : F ___. M" an
R-homomorphism. There exist N<-generated free R-modules L and L' and ho-
momorphisms, v, v' and 7, 7' such that the diagram
0 ---+ M' ~ M ~ M" ---+ 0

7' T T7 T7 11
L' ~ L ~ F ---+0
is commutative and has exact rows.

By (ii)' there exists a homomorphism w : L ___. M' such that 7' = w o v'.
By the homotopy lemma (see Appendix B) 7 11 : F ___. M" therefore lifts to a
homomorphism h : F ___. M with u oh= 7 11 • Hence the mapping HomR(F, M) ___.
HomR(F, M"), h ,_. u oh is surjective. Since HomR(F, -) is a left-exact functor
the assertion ( i) is proved.
(i) ~ (iii). By Proposition 7.15 M" is the direct limit of an I-direct system
of N<-presented R-modules M~, a E I, I an N<-directed poset. Let la be the
canonical homomorphism M~ ___. !im,M~ = M". Let
Ma= {(m, m~) EM X M; I u(m) = la(m~)}.

Further, let Ua, Va, 9a be the homomorphims Ua : Ma ___. M~, Va : M' ___. Mc,,
9a: Ma___. M defined by ua(m, m~) = m~, va(m') = (m', 0), 9a(m, na)) = m.
It is easily verified that for each a the sequence
1/a :
(which is called the pull-back of 1J along la) is exact. Moreover for each a E I
the diagram
Va Ua
1/a : ---+ M' ---+ Ma ---+ M"a ---+ 0
l 9a l la
u' u
1/ : ---+ M' ---+ M ---+ M" ---+ 0
is commutative and the 1/a form an I-direct system.

By passage to the direct limit we get the commutative diagram
~Va ~Ua
1/a : ---+ .lim,M' ---+ lim,Ma ---+ .lim,M~ ---+ 0
II l ~9a l ~fa
u' u
1/ : ---+ M' ---+ M ---+ M" ---+ 0,
N-PURITY 139
having exact rows. Since funf., is an isomorphism, a diagram chasing shows

that also fung., is an isomorphism. Hence 1/ is the direct limit of the short exact
sequences 1J.,.
We shall now prove that each sequence 1J., splits. By the assumption ( i) there
exists an R-homomorphism h., : M~ --+ M such that u o h., = f.,. By the
homotopy lemma (see Appendix B) there exists a homomorphism i., : M., --+ M'
with i., o v., = lM', so that 1J., is a split-exact sequence for each a E I.
(iii)=> (ii). We know that 1/ = funTJ., where I is an N<-directed poset and
is split-exact for each a E I.

Since I is N<-directed, a system of linear equations as in (ii) can be reduced to
a linear system of equations in TJ., for a suitable a. Since TJ., splits such a system
of equations is solvable in (v.,(M~))J and hence in (u'(M'))J. D
Definition 7 .17 Let N be an infinite cardinal number. A short exact sequence
0 ---> M' ~ M ~ M" ---> 0
of R-modules is called N-pure (resp. N<-pure) if it satisfies the equivalent condi-

tions of Proposition 7.16.
Let A be a submodule of the R-module B. We say that A is an N-pure (resp.
~<-pure) submodule of B if the corresponding exact sequence
0 ---> A ---> B ---> BI A ---> 0

is N-pure {resp. N<-pure}.
We illustrate the above concepts by some examples. If N = N0 then "N<-pure"
is "pure" in the usual sense (cf. Chapter 6).
Example 7.18 Consider an exact sequence
1/ :
where F1 and F2 are free Z-modules. Because every N0 -generated subgroup of zN

is free, while zN is not free (cf. [65],19.2) the sequence 1/ is Na-pure-exact, but not
split-exact.
Assuming certain set theoretic axioms (which are consistent with the Zermelo-
Fraenkel axioms and the axiom of choice) it can be shown [78] that there are ar-
bitrarily large cardinal numbers N for which there exist non-free Z-modules where
every N-generated submodule is free, hence there exist N-pure-exact sequences of
Z-modules which do not split.
Example 7.19 Let R be an arbitrary ring and M an R-module. With the

obvious mappings
( <>)
is pure-exact. Here ( <>) will be N0 -exact if and only if ( <>) splits. A similar result
holds true if N is replaced by an arbitrary index set of infinite cardinality. The
proof will be given in the next chapter (see Theorem 8.1).
Example 7.20 Let R be a commutative local Noetherian ring with maximal

ideal m. The m-adic completion R contains R as a pure R-submodule. Here R
will be an N0 -pure submodule if and only if R = R (See Chapter 10).
Further examples of N-pure-exact sequences arise in connection with ultra-

products (or reduced products). A filter F is called N-complete (resp. !{<_
complete) if with respect to reverse inclusion F is an N-directed (resp. !{<_
directed) poset, equivalently for each subset F' of F of cardinality ::::; N (resp.
< N) the intersection nFe.P Fis again a member of F.
Example 7.21 For any filter F on the set I and any family (M,,)aeI of R-
modules we denote by IT~ 1 M,, (M[FJ if M,, = M for all a EI) the F-product
of the modules M,, with respect to the filter F, i.e. the submodule of ITaeI M,,
consisting of all (x,,) whose support set {a E I I x,, E I} is a member of F. Thus
the F-product IT~ 1 M,, is the kernel of the natural morphism (x,,) f-7 [x,,] of the
direct product flaeI M,, into the reduced product ITaeI M,,/F.
The short exact sequence
TJ : 0----+ II [FJM,,-+ II M,,-+ II M,,/F-+ 0

a El a El a El
has a natural interpretation as the direct limit (with index set F) of the split-exact
sequences
T/F : 0 -+ II M,, -+ II M,, - + II M,, - + 0, F E F.

aEl-F aEI aeF
Hence TJ is N-pure (resp. N<-pure) if the filter F is N-complete (resp. !{<_
complete).
The notion of N-purity leads to the definition of three classes of R-modules:

N-PURITY 141
Definition 7.22 Let N be an infinite cardinal number and M be an R-module.

(i) M is called N-injective {resp. N<-injective} if each exact sequence
0---+M--+X--+Y--+0
of R-modules is N-pure {resp. N<-pure}.

(ii) Mis called N-compact {resp. N<-compact} if each each pure-exact sequence
0---+M--+X--+Y--+O
is N-pure (resp. N<-pure).

(iii) M is called N-pure-injective if each N-pure (resp. N<-pure) sequence
0---+M--+X--+Y--+0
splits.
Hence a module M is Ni-injective if and only if M is fp-injective; M is Ni-

pure-injective if and only if M is pure-injective, while any module M is Ni-
compact. Therefore N-compactness and N-pure-injectivity are different notions.
The assertions of the next proposition are obvious consequences from the
definition:
Proposition 7.23 For any fixed infinite cardinality N the following holds:
Ifp-injective + N-compact = N-injective I

N-injective + N-pure-injective = injective
IN-compact + N-pure-injective = algebraically compact I
The corresponding assertions hold true if in the above statements N is replaced
by N<. D
Each module M is N-presented for every sufficiently large infinite cardinal

number N. Accordingly an exact sequence TJ : 0 --. A --. B --. C --. 0 splits if and
only if T) is N-pure for each infinite cardinality N. We hence obtain:
Corollary 7.24 Let M be an R-module.

(i) M is injective if and only if M is N-injective for each infinite cardinal
number N.
(ii) M is algebraically compact if and only if M is N-compact for each infinite
cardinal number N. D
~-Injective functors
A ring R is said to be (left) N-coherent (resp. N<-coherent) if every finitely
generated left ideal of R is N-generated (resp. N<-generated). The N-coherence
(resp. N<-coherence) of R implies that every N-generated (resp. N<-generated)
submodule of a free left R-module is N-presented (resp. N<-presented). Notice
that a ring R is N~-coherent if and only if R is (left) coherent. A left coherent
ring R is left N-coherent for any infinite cardinal N. Further any ring R is left
and right N-coherent for any cardinal N ~ max('N. 0 , !RI).
According to the philosophy sketched in Appendix B a.II these notions, es-
pecially N-purity, N-coherence and N-injectivity also make sense in the broader
framework of functor categories.
Proposition 7.25 Let N be an infinite cardinal number and A a small additive

category. For an additive functor M : A -+ Ab the following assertions are
equivalent:
(i) Mis N-injective (resp. N<-injective).
(i)' M is an N-pure {resp. N<-pure} sub functor of an injective functor.
(ii) For every exact sequence 0-+ X ~ Y ~ Z-+ 0 which is N-pure (resp.
N< -pure} the induced sequence
0----+ Hom(Z, M) ~ Hom(Y, M) .:=.':"; Hom(X, M) ----+ 0
is exact.
(iii) Ext 1 (F, M) = 0 for each N-presented {resp. N<-presented} functor F E
Add(A,Ab).
(iv) Exti(F,M) = 0 for all i ~ 1 and each N-presented (resp. N<-presented}
functor Fin Add(A,Ab).
If moreover A is left N-coherent {resp. N<-coherent) any of the above condi-
tions is equivalent to
(v) Ext 1 (Hom(A,-)/U,M) = 0 for each A in A and each N-generated {resp.
N<-generated) subfunctor U of Hom(A,-).
Proof. The proof of the equivalence of assertions (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) is
straightforward and similar to the characterization of injective or fp-injective
modules. We leave the details to the reader.
To see that ( v) => (iii) let I denote the least ordinal of cardinality N. We use
that any N-presented functor F can be written as a smooth well-ordered union
F = Ua<'i' F,,, indexed by the ordinals a < /, such that every quotient Fa+if Fa
N-INJECTIVE FUNCTORS 143
has the form Hom( A, -)/U0 for an N-generated subfunctor U0 • The claim now
follows by transfinite induction.
D
Corollary 7.26 Let R be an arbitrary ring. An additive functor M: mod(R)-+

Ab is N-injective (resp. N<-injective) if and only if for any N-generated (resp.
N< -generated} subfunctor U of V = HomR( R, - ) every morphism f : U -+ M
extends to a morphism J : V -+ M.
Proof. Since A = mod(R) has cokernels, A - viewed as an additive cat-

egory - is left coherent, hence is N<-coherent for each infinite cardinal N. By
means of an epimorphism Rn -+ A any representable functor HomR(A, -), A in
A, becomes a subfunctor of vn = HomR( Rn, - ) for some integer n. It therefore
suffices to prove that any morphism f : U -+ Af, where U is an N<-generated
subfunctor of vn, extends to a morphism f : vn -+ M. Invoking the left N<-
coherence of A by induction on this condition easily reduces to the case n = i. 0
Lemma 7.27 Let A be a small additive category of cardinality :::; N, where N

is an infinite cardinal number. Then any N-injective functor F in the category
Add( A, Ab) is injective.
Proof. Since A by assumption has at most N morphisms, any subfunctor

U of a representable functor F = A(A, -), A E A, is N-generated. Vl/e now
embed M into an injective functor I and claim that any morphism f : U -+ M
admits an extension to a morphism F-+ M. By the injectivity of I we obtain a
commutative diagram
0-+U-+F-+ F/U -+ O
f l gl hl
0-+M-+ I-+ I/M -+ 0
which has exact rows.

By construction, F/U is N-presented, hence h lifts to a morphism h: F/U-+
I. Equivalently f admits an extension to F, which by Baer's test for injectivity
proves that M is injective.
D
~-compact modules
This section is concerned with saturation properties of modules. The results will
mostly be derived from a functorial version of ~-injectivity.
The next proposition characterizes the N-compact modules:
Proposition 7.28 Let N be an infinite cardinal number and I denote a set of

cardinality N (resp. < N}. For an R-module M the following assertions are
equivalent:
(i) M is N-compact {resp. N<-compact).
(ii) For any row-finite J x J-matrix hi), where the index set J has cardinality
N {resp. < N} the system of linear equations
2:= r;i Xj = a;, i E J, a; E A

iEJ
is solvable in A if it is finitely solvable.

(iii) For any {decreasing) N-directed (resp. N<-directed} system (W,,),,eI of
definable subgroups of M the natural mapping
is surjective.
(iv) The functor -@RM is N-injective (resp. N<-injective) in the category
(mod(R 0 P), Ab).
(v) For any N-generated {resp. N <-generated} subfunctor U of V, V =
HomR(R, -), we have Ext 1 (V/U, -@RM) = 0.
Proof. The proof of the first four equivalences is similar to the proof of The-
orem 7.1. Hence it remains to be shown that (v) =>(iv). Here, it follows from
Proposition 7.25 that it suffices to prove that Ext 1 (HomR(A, -)/U, -@RM)= 0
for each N (resp. N<-generated) subfunctor U of a functor HomR(A, -), repre-
sentable by some A in mod(R0P). Since HomR(A, - ) is a subfunctor of vn for
some positive integer n, the claim follows from condition (v ).
D
Proposition 7.29 Let N be an infinite cardinal number and R a ring of cardi-

nality~ N. Then any N-compact R-module M is algebraically compact.
N-COMPACT MODULES 145
Proof. Since M is N-compact the functor -0RM is N-injective in the functor

category (mod(R P), Ab). Thus Lemma 7.27 implies that -0RM is an injective
0
functor, hence Mis an algebraically compact module.

For various applications an alternative argument is useful:
In view of Corollary 7.4 and Proposition 7.28 it suffices to show that every
R-module has at most N finitely definable subgroups. But this follows from the
description of finitely definable subgroups given in Proposition 6.3. D
Exercise 7.30 Let R be right coherent and assume R has at most H different
finitely generated right ideals. Show - using Proposition 6.9 - that every H-
compact fiat left R-module is algebraically compact.
Theorem 7.31 Let N be an infinite cardinal number and R a commutative prin-

cipal ideal domain. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
(i) R has at most N ideals;
(ii) R has at most N maximal ideals;
(iii) Every N-compact R-module is algebraically compact.
Proof. The equivalence ( i) {:} (ii) is trivial. The implication ( i) * (ii)

follows from the above proposition.
To prove implication (iii) *( i) we assume that R has more thatn N different
ideals and construct an H-compact R-module which is not algebraically compact.
For each maximal ideal m of R let Rm be the corresponding localization and R,.
its m-adic completion. Rm and R,. are discrete valuation rings.
Here Rm 1- R,. for every m. In fact, assume Rm ~ R,. for some m. Let m 1
be a maximal ideal different from m and m = R7r, m 1 = R7r 1 . Since Rm= R,.
is a complete discrete valuation ring Hensel's lemma implies that the polynomial
J(X) = X 2 + 7r1 X + 7r7r 1 has a root in Rm. On the other hand J(X) has no root
in the quotient field J( of R, because them 1 -adic valuation on J( is discrete.
As is shown in Theorem 11.3 the infinite direct product R = IlmRm, m running
through the maximal ideals of R, is the pure-injective envelope of R. Let A be
the R-submodule of R consisting of the elements (rm), rm E R,., and rm E R,. - Rm
for at most N m's. By the remark above A is not a pure-injective R-module. We
claim that A is N-compact: Every finitely definable subgroup of A has the form
rA for some r ER. If (r;A) is a (decreasing) directed family consisting of at most
N finitely definable subgroups of A, there exists a set J of at most N maximal
ideals such that each Rr; is a product of maximal ideals in J. Noticing that r;
is invertible in Rm for any m not belonging to J, we conclude that the canonical
mapping A -> fu!!_A/r;A is surjective; consequently by Proposition 7.28 1s an
N-compact R-module. D
A splitting criterion for algebraic compactness

For any index set I, the direct sum M(l) is a pure submodule of the direct
product MI. Hence, if Mis an algebraically compact R-module, the summation
map :E : MU) --+ AI, (mer) >-+ I:er mer admits an extension to an R-linear
map !:I : MI --> M. We may think of !:r(mer) as the "limit of the infinite
series" I: er EI mer - depending of course on the selection of a fixed mapping ~ 1.
Conversely, if M admits the formation of limits of infinite series for every index
set I in an R-linear fashion, the R-module M is algebraically compact:
Proposition 7 .32 Let I denote a set of infinite cardinality N. We assume that
the summation map
:E: M(l) --+ M, (mer) >-+ L mer
admits an extension to an R-linear mapping~ : MI --> M. Then M is an

N-compact module.
Proof. According to Proposition 7.28 it suffices to prove that any morphism

f: U--> -@RM in (mod(R 0 P),Ab), where U is an N-generated subfunctor of
V = Hom(R, -), admits an extension to V.
Assume the assertion is false and choose a minimal cardinal N' such that
U s;; V is N'-generated and some morphism f : U --> -@RM does not extend to
a morphism V --> @RM. Since -@RM is an fp-injective functor (Appendix B)
W is infinite, we may therefore assume that W = N.
Write U as the union U = Uer<-r Uer of a smooth well-ordered chain (Uer)
of subfunctors of V, indexed by the ordinals a < /, such that each U" has a
generating set of cardinality < N. [Smooth means that u!3 = Uer<!J Uer holds
for every limit ordinal fJ < 1.] We put I = {ala < / }. By assumption any
flu 0Uer --> -@RM, a E J, admits an extension to V, hence agrees on Uer with
:
mer for some element mer in M. Defining Ter(M), a E J, as the annihilator M(Uo)
of Uer in M the subfunctors Ter of the forgetful functor V : Mod (R) --> Ab form
a decreasing sequence of definable functors satisfying T!3 = ner<!J T" for each limit
ordinal fJ E J. Moreover, for a :::; {J, the fact that flu~ extends flu implies that
0
m!3 + T!3(M) s;; mer+ Ter(M).

We claim the existence of an element m E M such that
m - mer E Ter(M), for any a E J.
To show this, we first establish the the following Sublemma. Notice that for any
family (Xer) indexed by a subset J s;; I, we use series notation I:erEJ Xer to denote
A SPLITTING CRITERION FOR ALGEBRAIC COMPACTNESS 147
the element E(x), where x E M 1 coincides with x on J and is zero on I - J.

Hence clearly the assumption on M amounts to allow the formation of infinite
series La Xa indexed by I or a subset thereof, such that the mapping ( Xa) >--> I: Xa
is R-linear.
Sublemma 7.32.1 With the above notations there exists a family (xa) E M 1
such that for each /3 E I we have:
(i) mf3 = La<(J Xa ·
(ii) (a) If f3,;:;, a+ 1 then Xf3 E Ta(M);
(b) If f3 is a limit ordinal then Xf3 E Tf3(M).
Proof. The Xf3 are recursively defined as follows: x 0 = m 0 , if f3 = a + 1 we

put Xf3 = ma+l -ma. Further, if f3 is a limit ordinal- with the above conventions
on infinite summation in mind - we set Xf3 = mf3 - La<f3Xa. Assertion (i) is
immediate from this construction.
With regard to assertion (ii) we proceed by transfinite induction: If f3 = o: + 1
we derive from ma+ Ta(j\J) 2 ma+l + Ta+1(M) that Xf3 = ma+1 - ma belongs
to Ta(M). If f3 is a limit ordinal we assume by recursion that Xa+1 E Ta(M) for
all o: < (3, hence
Clearly, we have mf3 - ma E Ta(M). Since each coordinate of (x"+i)"<f3 belongs

to Ta(M), it follows from Ta(M 1 ) = Ta(M) 1 and the R-linearity of E, that also
La<<T<-Y X<T+I belongs to Ta(M). Therefore Xf3 E na<f3 Ta(M) = T(J(M) which
concludes the proof of the sublemma. 0
We now continue with the proof of Proposition 7.32. We choose a family

( Xa) E M 1 as in the Sublemma, fix some f3 in I and write x in the form x = x' +x",
where x~ = x" for u :S f3 and x~ = 0 for u > (3. We put m = LaEl Xa. Notice
that x" E Tf3(M) 1 = T13(M 1 ), hence
m = 2::: x" + ~(x") = m13 + ~(x"),

<75'/3
where by the R-linearity ofE we have E(x") E T13 (M). This proves that m-mf3 E
T13 (M) holds for each f3 E I, consequently m: V--+ -@RM is an extension off
to V which concludes the proof of Proposition 7.32 0
Recall that for an infinite set I we use the notation M[IJ for the submodule
of the direct product MI consisting of all families (xa)aEI having a support set
{a EI Ix"-/= O} of cardinality strictly less than IJI.
The following proposition expresses that it is equivalent to have "limits of
infinite series" indexed by I or "limits of infinite sequences" indexed by J. Such
a "limit function" L: MI-+ M, (xa) f-> limaEIXa, is defined to be an R-linear
map, which is zero on all families (xa), whose support set {a E I [ x"} has
cardinality strictly less than I and further reproduces the value of any constant
family, i.e. L(xa) = x if x" = x for each a E J. Obviously it amounts to the
same to have an R-linear mapping L : MI/ M[IJ --+ M being a left in verse to the
diagonal mapping .6. : M -+ MI/ MllJ.
Proposition 7.33 For an R-module M and an infinite index set I the following
two assertions are equivalent:
(i) The summation map E : M(I) -+ M extends to an R-linear map E : M 1 -+
M.
(ii) The diagonal mapping .6. : M -+ MI/ M[IJ splits.
Proof. Let / denote the least ordinal of cardinality III and identify I with
the set of all ordinals strictly less than /.
(i) =} (ii): As in the proof of the preceding proposition, by means of an
extension E of E, we can define infinite sums L:aEJ x 0 for any family of elements x"
in M indexed by a subset J of I. For each (xa)aEI and a EI we set Ya = L:.a<a Xp.
This defines an R-linear mapping CT: M 1 -+ M 1 /MllJ, (xa) f-> [Ya]· -
In a similar way we attach to each (xa) E MI and a E I the element z,,, =
Xa+I - L:.a<a xp. This defines an R-linear mapping 8 : MI/ M[IJ -+ MI/ M[IJ,
[xa] f-> [za]· It is now straightforward to verify that the diagram
'
--+ --+ 0
(o) lE
6
0 --+ M --+ --+ 0
is commutative and has exact rows. (Here, i is the inclusion, 7r denotes the
natural quotient map.)
Since by assumption the summation map E admits an extension to an R-
linear map E: MI -+ M, the homotopy lemma (cf. Appendix B) implies that
the lower sequence splits.
INJECTIVE RESOLUTIONS 149
(ii)=} (i): Conversely assume that the diagonal mapping 6: M-+ M 1 /M[lJ
splits. Let L : M 1 /M[lJ -+ M denote a left inverse for 6, and denote by
L : M 1 -+ M, (x") >-> L([x"']) the arising "limit function". Using transfinite
induction and the properties of L it is now straightforward to define for any
(x"') E M 1 infinite sums L0<<i3 x"', /3 < '"'(, in a coherent fashion. As in the proof
of (i) =}(ii) this allows to define R-linear mappings 8 and a, such that the aris-
ing diagram ( o) is commutative and has exact rows. Since by assumption the
lower sequence of ( o) splits, the homotopy lemma shows that, as claimed, the
summation map :E admits an extension to M 1 . 0
Propositions 7.32and 7.33 imply the equivalence of assertions (i), (vi) and
(vii) of Theorem 7.1:
Corollary 7 .34 For a left R-module M the following assertions are equivalent
( i) M satisfies condition ( i) of Theorem 7.1.
(ii) The summation map :E : M(I) -+ M extends to an R-linear mapping
~: M 1 -+ M for any infinite set I.
(iii) The diagonal mapping 6 : M -+ M 1 / M(I) splits for any infinite set I ·D
Corollary 7.35 Any functor <P : Mod (R) --+ Mod (S) commuting with (infi-
nite} direct sums and products preserves algebraic compactness. O
Injective resolutions
In this section we collect properties of N-injective modules (and functors), relevant
for the calculation of injective resolutions. Later, the results of this section will
allow to derive corresponding results for pure-injective resolutions.
The next Proposition serves as the key tool for the study of injective res-
olutions (and later for the study of pure-injective resolutions); in appropriate
situations it allows to increase the degree of N-injectivity by one unit:
Proposition 7.36 Let A be a small additive category and N denote an infinite

cardinal number. Let further
0--+A__:_.B~C--+0
be an exact sequence in Add(A,Ab), which is N<-pure and assume that B is

N<-injective. Then
(i) A is '!~.<-injective.
Assuming additionally that R is left N<-coherent, then also
(ii) C is N<-injective.
(iii) Any morphism J : U --+ C, where U is an N-generated subfunctor of an
N-generated projective functor F, lifts to a morphism 9: U--+ B.
(iv) If moreover, for each N-generated sub functor U of a representable functor
A( A, - ) the mapping
Hom(U, A) EB Hom(R, B) ---+ Hom(U, B), (u, v) >-+ lo u + vlu
is surjective, for instance if C is N-injective, then C is an N-injective functor.
Proof. ( i) Let E denote an N<-presented functor, then the induced Hom-

Ext-sequence
Hom(E, B) __.:... Hom(E, C)---+ Ext 1 (E, A)__:_. Ext 1 (E, B) = 0
is exact, and the last Ext-term vanishes by the N<-injectivity of B. Due to

N<-purity 7r" is an epimorphism, which proves that Ext 1 (E, A) = 0, hence A is
N<-injective.
(ii) If U is an N<-generated subfunctor of an N<-presented functor F, U is
N<-presented by N<-coherence of A, therefore any morphism J : U --+ C lifts
to a morphism U --+ B by N<-purity, which by N<-injectivity of B extends to a
morphism 9 : F--+ B. Hence 7r o g: F--+ C is the wanted extension.
(iii) Let U be an N-generated subfunctor of a projective functor F and f :
F --+ C be a morphism.
Let µ denote the least ordinal of cardinality N and write U = U>.<µ U>. as the
union of a well-ordered chain
of N<-generated subfunctors. Due to the N<-coherence of R each U>. is N<-

presented, hence - for each >. < µ - the morphism Jiu, : --+ u,\
lifts toc
a morphism U>. --+ B, which by the N<-injectivity of B extends to a morphism
9>. : F --+ B. The morphisms 9>. thus have the property 7r o 9>.iu, = Jiu, for all
>. < µ.
A more careful inductive argument shows that we may additionally assume
that for each a< /3 < µthe morphisms 9<> and 913 agree on Ua: For this we may
suppose that for some/ < µ the morphisms 9ai a < /, are already constructed
in such a way that 9a and 9B agree on U<> for a < /3 < 1; we have to construct
9-y: F--+ C.
INJECTIVE RESOLUTIONS 151
If; is a limit ordinal, the Yeo a<; define a morphism h : U--> B, which for
a<; agrees with g"' on U"'. Since U is N<-generated the morphism h admits an
extension to F, which we call g"I.
If; = f3 + 1, we observe that by the above we may assume the existence
of morphisms Yf3 : F --> C and 9~+ 1 : F --> C satisfying 7r o Yf31U13 = fiu 13 and
7r o g~+ilU!3+i = f1u 13 +, · This leads to a morphism h : Uf3 --> A such that to h =
g~+i1u13 -gf3PIUf3, which by N<-injectivity of A extends to a morphism 8(3: F--> A.

By construction, 9f3+I = g~+l - i o 8(3 : F--> B agrees with 9(3 on Uf3.
We thus obtain a morphism g : U --> B, U = Uc.<µ U"'' which on each U"',
a < µ coincides with Ye.·
(iv) Let U be an N-generated subfunctor of F = A(A, -). We claim that
any morphism f: U--> C extends to F. By assertion (iii) f lifts to a morphism
g: U--> B, thus- by assumption - may be written in the form iou+vlu for suit-
ably chosen u: U--> A and v: F--> B. Thus 7rOV: F--> C is an extension off O
For N = N0 we obtain as a special case:
Corollary 7.37 Assume R is a countable and left coherent ring, and M is an

injective left R-module. Then any pure factor module of M is injective. Also,
for any index set J and filter :Fon J, the module M 1 /MU) - more general any
reduced power M 1 /:F - is an injective R-module. D
The next theorem expresses in a precise quantitative fashion how the cok-
ernel terms of injective resolutions of fp-injective functors (more generally of
Nn-injective functors) tend to get more and more injective.
Theorem 7 .38 Assume A is a small additive category which is left coherent.

Assume the additive functor M : A --> Ab is Nf-injective for some integer t, i.e.
M is fp-injective in case t = 0 resp. N1_ 1 -injective if t > 0, and assume further
that
0 ---> M ---> Jo ---> JI ---> ... ---> Ji ---> Ji+l ---> ...
zs an exact sequence with the Ji injective. Then Mi = ker(Ji --> Ji+ 1) is Nt+i-
injective.
Proof. The proof is by induction on j. For j = 0 the assertion on M 0 is

just the assumption on M. For the induction step we consider the exact sequence
0 --> Mi --> Ji --> Mi+I --> 0, which is Nt+i-pure, since by the inductive hypoth-
esis Mi is N1+i-injective. Now Proposition 7.36 applies and proves that Mi+I is
Nt+i+1-injective. . D
As a special case of the above theorem we obtain a result of Goblot [79], which
originally was proved by means of the spectral sequence attached to the derived
functors of the inverse limit functor.
A small additive category A is said to be N-Noetherian (resp. N<-Noetherian)
if every subfunctor of a representable functor A(A, -) is N-generated (resp. N<-
generated).
Corollary 7.39 (Goblot) Assume A is a left coherent ring and M is an fp-

injective functor in Add( A, Ab).
(i) If 0 --> M --> ! 0 --> · · · --> Jk --> Q --> 0 is exact and the functors 1°, ... , Jk
are injective, then Q is an Nk-injective functor.
(ii) If additionally A is Nk noetherian, then inj.dim R( Q) :S k + 1. D
Remark 7.40 The dual phenomenon is also known: If R is any ring (not neces-
sarily coherent) and M is a fiat left R-module and
O --> I< --> Pk --> · · · --> Po --> M --> O
is an exact sequence with P0 , .•• , Pn being R-projective, then I< is an Nk-projective

module, i.e. Extk(F,I<) = 0 for every Nk-presented module F, equivalently any
Nk-pure sequence with right hand term I< splits. For a proof we rete, 'o D. Simson
[183].
Injective ultraproducts
Proposition 7.41 Let R be a left N<-coherent ring and :Fan N<-completefilter
on an index set I , where N is an infinite cardinal number. We assume moreover
that :F contains a family of cardinality N having empty intersection.
Then, for any family M"' of N<-injective R-modules, the reduced product
TI<>El M"'/ :F is an N-injective R-module.
Proof. Since :Fis N<-complete, the sequence

[F]
0--> II M"'--> II M"'--> II M"'/:F--> 0
<>El <>El <>El
is N<-pure (cf. Example 7.21). Further, N<-injectivity of the M"' implies that
TI<>El M"' is N<-injective.
INJECTIVE ULTRAPRODUCTS 153
In order to prove N-injectivity of TI Ma/:F, according to Proposition 7.36 it

suffices to show that the mapping
ael ael
is surjective.
Let µ be the least ordinal of cardinality N, then - by the assumption on :F
- there exists a decreasing sequence
of members of :F having empty intersection. For a E I let therefore cp( a) denote

the smaJlest >. with a;/. F>,. Hence we have
a E F>. if and only if>.< cp(a).
Further, since o is an N-generated ideal of R, we may write o as the union
o = U>.<µ O>. of a well-ordered ascending sequence of N<-generated ideals O>..
Let g E HomR(o, TiaeI M 0 ), then - for each >. < µ - by the N<-injectivity
of TiaeI M 0 each glq. extends to some morphism 9>. : R --+ floe! M 0 , r >-+ r · m<>.),
where m(>.) = (m~>.)). Since for "' ~ >. the morphisms g" and 9>. agree on O>., we
find that
r · m~>.) = r · m~") forall a E I, r E O>. and "' ~ >..
We now apply diagonalisation and put m = (m~<P(o))). Let h : R--+ TiaeI M 0 be
the morphism r >-+ r · m defined by m. Let r E o, i.e. r E o.x for some>., then for
each a E F>. we have
r · m~ - r · m~<P(o)) = 0
because cp(a) < >..

This proves that actuaily (g- h)l 0 defines a morphism v from o to M[:FJ satis-
fying g = hl + v and thus proves our claim.
0
D
Corollary 7.42 Under the above assumptions on :F, the reduced product i\1 =
floe! Ma/ :F of any family of fp-injective left R-modules M0 over a left coherent
ring R is N0 -injective.
D
In particular for any fp-injective module M over a left coherent ring R the
reduced product MN/ M(N) is N0 -injective.
Pure-injective resolutions
Proposition 7.43 Let R be an arbitrary ring and N denote an infinite cardinal
number. Let
0 --+ A __.:._. B __::__. C --+ O
be an exact sequence of left R-modules, which is N<-pure.
If B is N<-compact then A is N<-compact. If, moreover, B is N-compact {for
instance algebraically compact) then C is also N-compact.
Proof. The embedding~: Mod (R)--+ Add(mod(R 0 P), Ab), M,...... -@RM
preserves N-purity:
By means of the identification R@RM = M the mapping
Hom(-@RM, F)--+ HomR(M, F(R)), u,...... tLR
becomes an isomorphism, which is functorial in M. This proves that any N-

presented (resp. N<-presented) R-module M leads to a N-presented (resp. N<-
presented) functor -@RM. Another application of the formula Hom(-@RM, F) =
HomR(M, F(R)) shows that~ preserves N-purity (resp. N<-purity).
This shows that the induced sequence
is N<-pure exact in (mod(R 0 P), Ab). Since for an arbitrary ring R the category
mod(R) of finitely presented left R-modules has cokernels, mod(R) - viewed
as an additive category - is left coherent. Therefore the functorial version of
Proposition 7.36 applies to the present situation, thus showing that -@RC is an
~-injective functor, equivalently C is a N-compact module. D
For N = ~o we obtain as a special case:
Corollary 7.44 Assume Risa countable ring and Mis an algebraically compact
left R-module. Then any pure factor module of M is algebraically compact.
Also the module M 1 /MU) - more generally any reduced power M 1 / :F - is
an algebraically compact R-module for any index set I and any filter :F on I. D
The next theorem expresses in a precise quantitative fashion how the cokernel
terms of pure-injective resolutions of arbitrary R-modules tend to get more and
more pure-injective.
PURE-INJECTIVE RESOLUTIONS 155
Theorem 7.45 Assume R is an arbitrary ring, the left R-module M is Nf-

compact for some integer t E N (i.e. we have no restriction for M if t = 0,
while fort> 0 we assume that M is Nt-l - compact) and assume further that
0---+ M ---+ A0 ---+ A 1 ---+ · · · ---+Ai ---+ Ai+i ---+ · · ·
is a pure-exact sequence with the Ai algebraically compact. Then Mi = ker(Ai --+

Ai+ 1 ) is Nt+i-compact.
Proof. By the assumption on purity each sequence 0 --+ Mi --+ Ai --+ lvli+l --+
0 is pure exact, hence the induced sequences
and 0 --+ -@RMi --+ -@RAi --+ -@RMi+l --+ 0 are exact in the functor cate-
gory (mod(R0 P), Ab). Hence of Theorem 7.38 applies and proves that -@RMi is
Nt+i-injective, correspondingly Mi is Nt+i-compact. o
Corollary 7.46 Let R be a ring and max(N 0 , IRI) = Nt, t < oo. If M is a
NJ-compact R-module, i ::; t, then there exists a pure exact sequence
0--+ M--+ A 0 --+ A 1 --+ · · · --+ At-i --+ 0,
where A 0 , ... , At-i are algebraically compact R-modules, i.e. M has pure-injective
dimension p.inj.dim M ::; t + 1 - i.
Proof. Use that any Nt-compact R-module is algebraically compact. o

We recall that the pure-global dimension p.gl.dim (R) of a ring R may be
defined as the supremum of the pure-injective dimensions p.inj.dimR(M) (or
equivalently as the supremum of the pure-projective dimensions p.proj.dim R(M))
for all left R-modules M (see Appendix A).
The preceding corollary thus implies:
Theorem 7.47 (Gruson-Jensen) {85} If Risa ring of cardinality::; Nt, t E N,

then R has pure-global dimension at most t + 1. O
For an alternative proof - dealing with pure-projective resolutions - we refer

to Theorem 11.21, also to [112].
Theorem 7.48 For every ring R and every R-module M we have the following
inequality
inj.dimRM :S p.inj.dimR(M) + w.gl.dimR.
Proof. We first consider the case where the p.inj.dimR(M) = 0. If n =

w.gl.dim R < oo we have to show that Ext}i+ 1 (A, M) = 0 for any R-module A.
Since w .gl.dim R = n there is an exact sequence
0-+ Pn -+ Fn-1 -+ ... -+ Fl -+ Fo -+A-+ 0
where F0 , Fi,···, Fn-l are free R-modules and Pn is a flat R-module. By the
(iterated) connecting homomorphism for the Ext-functors we get an isomorphism
Ext}i+ 1 (A, M) ~ Extk(Pn, M). We therefore have to prove that Extk(Pn, M) = 0.
But this follows from the fact that any short exact sequence
0 -+ M -+ X -+ Pn -+ o
is pure, since Pn is flat, and consequently splits because M is pure-injective.
Next consider the general case where p.inj.dim M = t. By assumption there
is an exact sequence
0 -+ M -+ Bo -+ · · · -+ Et -+ 0
where each B;, 0 :S i :S t, is pure-injective. Hence, as shown above, we have

Ext}i+ 1 (A, B;) = 0 for every R-module A and each B;. By dimension shifting or
by the iterated connecting homomorphisms for the Ext-functors we conclude that
Ext}i+t+ 1 (A, M) = 0 for every R-module A and thus inj.dimR(M) :Sn+ t. D
Algebraically compact ultraproducts

For model theoretic applications we are interested in pure embeddings into al-
gebraically compact modules performed by ultraproducts. We need some pre-
liminaries about ultrafilters. We recall that an ultrafilter :F on a set I is called
N0 -complete - some authors say w-complete, others w1 -complete - if the in-
tersection of an arbitrary countable family of subsets of I belonging to :F is also
in :F. :F is N0 -incomplete if it is not N0 -complete. It is easily checked that all
non-principal ultrafilters on countable sets are N0 -incomplete. Moreover, on any
infinite set I there exists an No-incomplete ultrafilter ( (12], p. 129).
ALGEBRAICALLY COMPACT ULTRAPRODUCTS 157
The question whether there exist ~ 0 -complete non-principal ultrafilters on

uncountable sets is a famous problem in set theory. It can be shown that if
there exist ~ 0 -complete non-principal ultrafilters on a set I, then card(!) must
be "extremely large".
Moreover, it can be shown that the axiom of constructibility, that is V = L
in the sense of Godel, implies that every non-principal ultrafilter on any infinite
set is ~ 0 -incomplete.
The following is a special case of a general saturation property of ultraproducts
- actually of reduced products ([12), p. 129). For the convenience of the reader
we include an algebraic proof based on the investigation of fp-injective modules
in the preceding section.
Theorem 7.49 Let :F be a filter on an index set J having a countable family

of members Fn with empty intersection, for instance an ~ 0 -incomplete ultrafilter.
Assume further that M;, i E J is a family of left modules over a ring R. Then
the reduced product Ito M;f :Fis an R-module which is ~ 0 -compact.
If additionally R is countable then M* = ITieJMi/ :F is an algebraically com-
pact R-module.
Proof. The second assertion follows from the first invoking Proposition 7.29.
With regard to the first assertion we note that in the category (mod(R 0 P), Ab)
we have -0RM* = IT;ei -&JRMif :F. Hence the functorial version of Proposi-
tion 7.41 implies that as a reduced product of fp-injective functors with respect
to an ~o-incomplete filter the functor -&JRM* is ~o-injective, hence M* is a ~o
compact R-module.
0
As for higher cardinalities of the base ring the situation becomes more com-
plicated.
Passing to the theory of modules over a ring R we obtain as a special case of
Theorem 2.3:
Theorem 7.50 Let R be a ring and I be a set of cardinality III ~ max(~ 0 , IRI).
Then there exists an ultrafilter :F on I such that the ultrapower M* = M 1 / :F is
algebraically compact for every left R-module M.
Moreover, the diagonal embedding 'PM : M --+ M* defines an embedding of
Minto a pure-injective(= algebraically compact) R-module M*, and 'PM behaves
functorially with respect to M.
Proof. The preceding theorem implies the existence of an ultrafilter :F on

I such that each ultraproduct M* with respect to :F is ~-saturated, hence ~
compact in view of PropositionPr:7.7d. Proposition 7.29 now implies that M* is
an algebraically compact R-module. The last assertion is an obvious consequence
of the first one. D
Theorem 7.51 (Sabbagh [170]) For any ring R, each R-module M is elemen-
tarily equivalent to its pure-injective envelope A(M).
Proof. According to Theorem 7.50 we consider the diagonal embedding

M M* of M into some ultrapower M* of M that is algebraically compact.
~
By the definition of a pure-injective envelope (see Proposition 7.6) we may as-
sume that M ~ A(M) ~ M*, where both inclusions are pure. Since M =M* we
conclude from Proposition 6.18 that Mand A(M) are elementarily equivalent.o
The elementary theory of R-modules is thus reduced to the study of first order
properties of algebraically compact modules.
This, in particular, explains the interest, model theory has in the purely al-
gebraic problem of a classification of all (indecomposable) algebraically compact
modules. Here, we only mention that the proof of the classical result of Szmielew
[191], stating that the theory of abelian groups is decidable, strongly depends on
a successful classification of all algebraically compact abelian groups. The situa-
tion is similar with respect to recent results of W. Baur [16] and M. Prest [151]
stating that for a finite dimensional tame hereditary algebra R over a decidable
field the theory of R-modules is decidable.
Exercises
An R-module Mis called compact if Mis equipped with a compact Hausdorff-topology

on M such that addition + : M x M --> M and multiplication R x M --> M, where R
is equipped with the discrete topology, are continuous mappings.
Exercise 7.52 Let T = R/Z.

( i) For each right R-module N, the left R-module Homz( N, T) admits the structure
of a compact module.
(ii) An R-module M is algebraically compact if and only if M is a direct factor of
an R-module K, which admits the structure of a compact R-module.
EXERCISES 159
Exercise 7.53 Let M be an fp-injective R-module. Prove that its pure-injective hull
A(M) is an injective R-module and coincides with the injective hull E(M) of M.
Exercise 7.54 Let Q be an fp-injective left module over a left coherent ring R. Then
( i) Each injective resolution
0 --+ Q ---+ J0 · • • --+ In --+ r+ 1 --+ ...

of Q is also a pure-injective resolution of Q.
(ii) For each left R-module X and integer i 2'. 0 we have
Extk(X, Q) = Pextk(X, Q).

Exercise 7.55 State and prove a dual proposition for flat R-modules (without assum-
ing R to be coherent).
Exercise 7.56 Let P be a flat and M be an algebraically compact R-module. Show

that
Exercise 7.57 Let R be a ring of cardinality N = max(N 0 , !RI).

( i) Up to isomorphism there are at most 2N cyclic functors, i.e. functors of the form
HomR(E,-)/U with E in mod(R), in the functor category (mod(R),Ab).
(ii) Up to isomorphism there are at most 2N indecomposable injective functors in
(mod(R),Ab).
(iii) Up to isomorphism R has at most 2N algebraically compact indecomposable
left (resp. right) modules.
(iv) Show that the bound given in (iii) is the best possible by exhibiting for the
ring R = F~- where I is an infinite set - a family of 2IRI mutually non-isomorphic
algebraically compact indecomposable modules.
[Hint: To prove (iv) use the fact that on a set of infinite cardinality N there exist
22 " ultrafilters [21].J
Exercise 7.58 Suppose Risa countable ring with only a finite number of simple left
modules (up to isomorphism). Then exactly one of the following incidents happens:
( i) R is left Noetherian.
(ii) There is a simple left R-module S whose injective envelope E(R) has cardinality
2'. 2No.
[Hint: If every direct sum of injective envelopes of simple left R-modules is injective,
R is left Noetherian [180]].
Exercise 7 .59 Let R be a commutative von Neumann regular ring which is not a finite
product of fields. Prove the existence of a sequence (Sn) of simple, hence I:- algebraically
compact, R-modules such that EBneN Sn is not algebraically compact.
Exercise 7 .60 Let R be a countable ring. Then

( i) Any left R-module M has a pure-injective resolution
which is functorial in M.
(ii) M is algebraically compact if and only if the sequence T/M splits.
(iii) The pure-global dimension of R is at most one.
Chapter 8
Decompositions and algebraic

compactness
'E-algebraically compact modules

An R-module M is called "£,-algebraically compact or "£,-pure-injective if for
every index set I the direct sum M(l) is an algebraically compact R-module. In
view of Theorem 7.12 it is equivalent to to require that the functor Q = -@RM
is "£,-injective in the category Add(mod(R 0 P), Ab), i.e. Q(l) is injective for each I.
The next theorem summarizes the basic characterization of "£,-algebraic com-
pactness:
Theorem 8.1 For a left R-module M the following conditions are equivalent:
(i) M is "£,-algebraically compact, i.e. the direct sum M(I) is algebraically
compact for every index set I.
(i') M(N) is ~a-compact.
(ii) The exact sequence ry 1 : 0 -> M(I) __!'.__, M 1 ~ M 1 /M(I) -> 0 splits for
each index set I.
(ii') The exact sequence T/N: 0 -> M(N) __!:___, MN ~ MN/ M(N) -> 0 is
~a-pure.
(iii) M satisfies the descending chain condition for definable subgroups.
(iii') M satisfies the descending chain condition for finitely definable sub-
groups.
(iv) Each power M 1 decomposes into a direct sum of indecomposable modules
having local endomorphism rings.
( v) There exists a cardinal number~ such that each power 1'11 1 is a direct sum
of R-modules of cardinality:::; ~-
161
162 CHAPTER 8: DECOMPOSITIONS ·AND ALGEBRAIC COMPACTNESS
Proof. The implications (i) => (i') => (ii') and (i) => (ii), (iii) =>(iii') are
obvious. For (ii) => (ii') we observe that 1/N is isomorphic to a direct factor of
111, if I is an infinite set.
(ii)=> (iii): Assume (Mn), n EN, is a strictly decreasing sequence of defin-
able subgroups of M. We may hence write each Mn in the form Mn = Un(M)
for some definable subfunctor Un of the forgetful functor V: Mod (R) --+ Ab and
further may assume that the Un form a decreasing sequence U0 2 Ui 2 U2 2 · · ·.
For each n EN we choose some Xn E Un(M) - Un+ 1(M) and define x E MN as
x = (x 0 , xi, x 2 , ... ).
Writing x in the form
x = (mo, ... ,mn,0,0, ... ) + (0, ... ,0,mn+i,···)

we observe that the second summand Yn from the above formula lies in (Un+I(M))N =
Un+i(MN), since every Uk commutes with direct products. By assumption the
sequence 1/N splits, hence there exists an R-linear map r.: : MN --+ M(N), which
induces the identity map on M(N)_ Since, moreover, 7r sends Un+i(MN) to
Un+I(M(Nl), we get
r.:(x)=(mo, ... ,mn,O, ... )+r.:(yn), where r.:(yn)EUn+1(M)N.
Since by construction mn does not belong to Un+i(M), the n-th coordinate of

r.:(x) is non-zero for each n EN, contradicting to r.:(x) E M(N).
(ii') => (iii'): Notice first that for any positive primitive formula <p and element
m' E M(N) the congruence
x - m' E <p(MN)
amounts to a finite system of linear equations with coefficients in R and constants
in M(N) (cf. 6.3). Assume (Mn), n EN, is a strictly decreasing sequence of finitely
definable subgroups of M. There is a decreasing sequence <po 2 'P1 2 <p2 2 · · · of
positive primitive formulas such that Mn = 'Pn(M) for all n. For each n E N we
choose some Xn E 'Pn(M) - 'Pn+i(M) and define x E MN as x = (xo, Xi, x2, ... ).
Clearly, x is a solution of the system
(o)
of congruences, which in view of the preceding remarks is equivalent to a countable

system of linear equations with coefficients in R and constants in M(N).
By N0 -purity ( o) therefore also has a solution y = (y 0 , yi, .. .) in M(N)_ Since
Yn E Xn + 'Pn+1(M) because 'Pn+ 1 (MN) = ('Pn+I(M))N we conclude that Yn -:f. 0
for each n, thus contradicting y E M(N).
:E-ALGEBRAICALLY COMPACT MODULES 163
(iii') => (i): In view of Proposition 6. 7 each finitely definable subgroup of M(I)
has the form N(I), where N is a finitely definable subgroup of M. Thus condition
(iii') implies that any (decreasing) directed family (m" + M"), where m" E M
and each M" is a finitely definable subgroup of M(I), has a smallest member.
Hence M(I) trivially satisfies condition (ii) of Theorem 7.1, which proves that
M(I) is algebraically compact.
So far we have shown the equivalence of assertions (i), (i'), (ii), (ii'), (iii)
and (iii'). These are the only assertions used in order to establish the following
corollary, whose results we will presuppose for proving the implications (i) =>
(iv), (v):
It suffices to show that every :E-algebraically compact module M admits a
decomposition into indecomposable modules M" of cardinality N :<::; max(N 0 , IRI).
Notice that by algebraic compactness then each M" will have a local endomor-
phism ring (see Corollary 7.5). If M f. 0 and xis a non-zero element in M, by
Zorn's lemma we may choose a pure submodule N of M which is maximal with
respect to x ¢'. N. In view of Corollary 8.2 M = NEB U, where U f. 0 is easily
seen to be indecomposable.
Again using Zorn's lemma we choose a maximal system U of indecomposable
submodules U of M such that the sum M' = L.uEu U is direct and, moreover,
a pure submodule of M. Therefore M = M' EB M" which shows that M" =
0, because otherwise M" would contain an indecomposable direct factor, thus
contradicting to the maximality of U. Hence M = $uEu U is a direct sum of
modules of cardinality :<::; N, all having local endomorphism rings.
For the implications (iv) => (iii) and (v) => (iii) which are variations of an
argument going back to Chase [34] we refer to [213]. 0
Basically Theorem 8.1 first appears in [83] and also [209]; the implication
"(iv) => (i)" is due to [213]. For a model theoretic treatment we refer to [73] and
[168]. For a further discussion of these developments we refer to the paper [152] of
M. Prest. For an alternative approach deriving the properties of :E-algebraically
compact modules - by means of Proposition 7.12 - from the properties of :E-
injective modules (see for instance [59]) we refer to [8].
Corollary 8.2 For any ring R the following assertions hold true
(i) If M is :E-algebraically compact, so are M(I) and M 1 .
(ii) Any pure submodule of a :E-algebraically compact module M is a direct
factor of M.
(iii) Each indecomposable :E-algebraically compact R-module has cardinality
:<::;max( IRI, No).
164 CHAPTER 8: DECOMPOSITIONS AND ALGEBRAIC COMPACTNESS
Proof. ( i) is an immediate consequence of Proposition 6. 7 and condition

(iii') of the theorem.
To prove (ii) let M' be a pure submodule of M. According to Proposition 6.6
we have
c.p(M') = M' n c.p(M)
for any positive primitive formula c.p in one free variable. Hence A' shares with
M the property to satisfy the descending chain condition for finitely definable
subgroups. [Note for that purpose that for any two such formulas c.p and 1/; we
have
(c.p /\ 1/;)(M) = cp(M) n 1/;(M)
for every R-module M.] Hence M' is ~-algebraically compact, m particular
algebraically compact and a direct factor of M.
(iii) follows from (ii) using Lowenheim-Skolem's theorem. D
For later applications we give that argument a separate treatment:
Proposition 8.3 Let R be ring, N = max([R[, N0 ), and M be an R-module.

Every submodule of cardinality ~ N is contained in a pure submodule M' of M
having cardinality~ N.
Proof. The language M(R) has cardinality N, so Lowenheim-Skolem's the-

orem in this context implies that any submodule of cardinality ~ N is contained
in an elementary submodule M' of M, where [M'[ ~ N. Now observe that M' is
a pure submodule of M. D
Pure-semisimple rings
Many characterizations of pure-semisimple rings, basically are consequences of
Theorem 8.1. For an alternative approach including the aspects of pure-projectivity
we refer to Appendix B, in particular to Theorems B.14 and B.18. Here, we men-
tion those properties related to algebraic compactness:
Theorem 8.4 ([83]) For any ring R the following assertions are equivalent:
(i) R is left pure-semisimple, i.e. each left R-module is a direct sum of finitely
presented modules.
(ii) Each left R-module is algebraically compact (resp. ~-algebraically com-
pact}.
PURE-SEMISIMPLE RINGS 165
(iii) Every (resp. every countable} direct sum of algebraically compact left R-
modules is algebraically compact.
(iv) Each (resp. each algebraically compact) left R-module is a direct sum of
indecomposable modules.
(v) There exists a cardinal number!{ such that each (resp. each algebraically
compact) module is a direct sum of modules of cardinality S !{.
Proof. See Theorem B.18. 0
Corollary 8.5 Each left pure-semisimple ring R is left Artinian.
Proof. Since R viewed as a left R-module is I:-algebraically compact, R

satisfies the descending chain condition on finitely definable subgroups, hence
on finitely generated right ideals. Due to Bass's theorem (see Chapter 10), R
therefore is a left perfect ring, in particular each element of its Jacobson radical
J is nilpotent and Rf J is semisimple Artinian. Further, Theorem B.17 shows
that R is left Noetherian. Therefore, due to Levitzki's theorem J is a nilpotent
ideal. The factors f- 1 f Ji, i = 1, ... , n, of the sequence
R = J 0 2 J1 2 J 2 2 ... 2 r- 1 2 r = o
being finitely generated modules over Rf J therefore have finite length, conse-
quently R has finite length viewed as a left R-module. O
A left Artinian ring R is said to be representation-finite, if R has - up to
isomorphism- only a finite number of (finitely generated) indecomposable left R-
modules. Further (still assuming that R is left Artinian), R is said to be of bounded
representation type if there is an integer n which bounds the length of every
indecomposable finitely generated left R-module. We will need a generalization
of Fitting's lemma:
Lemma 8.6 (Harada-Sai) Let A be a set of indecomposable R-modules of length

S (3. Then any sequence of non-isomorphisms
with the A; from A has zero composition for n ;::: 2/3.
Proof. Using the indecomposability of the A;, it is easy to prove by induction

on k that the image of the composition u 2.o· · ·ou 2 ou 1 has length S max(O, (3-k)O
The next theorem, due to M. Auslander [4] and H. Tachikawa [192] shows
that the above definition of representation-finiteness is in accordance with the
definition given in Appendix B.
Theorem 8.7 (Auslander, Tachikawa) Let R be representation-finite, more

generally assume that R is of bounded representation type. Then any R-module
is a direct sum of indecomposable R-modules of finite length. In particular, R is
pure-semisimple.
Proof. Let A denote a representative system of finitely generated indecom-

posable left R-modules. Notice first that by restriction of functors the categories
Add(mod(R)°P,Ab) and Add(A 0 P,Ab) are equivalent. Notice further that the
radical rad (A) of the additive category A consists of the non-isomorphisms in
A, since each A in A has a local endomorphism ring. The assumption that
R has bounded representation type now implies in view of Harada-Sai's lemma
that rad (A) is a two-sided nilpotent ideal in the category A. Moreover each
representable functor on A/rad (A), which may be covariant or contravariant,
is actually simple, thus of finite length. Therefore A/rad (A) is left and right
Artinian semisimple. It now follows from Bass's theorem (Theorem B.12) that
the additive category mod(R) is left and right perfect, and the assertion follows
from Theorem B.14. D
Actually each ring of bounded representation type is representation-finite.

For finite dimensional algebras this assertion (the so-called first Brauer-Thrall
conjecture) was proved by Roiter [165], for Artinian rings the result is due to
Auslander [4].
Theorem 8.8 (Roiter, Auslander) Each ring of bounded representation type

is representation-finite. Moreover R is representation-finite if and only if R is
left and right pure-semisimple.
Proof. Suppose that R has bounded representation type. As in the proof

of the preceding theorem the category A of finitely generated indecomposable
left R-modules is left and right perfect and the factor category A/rad (A) is
Artinian semisimple on both sides. By the right perfectness of mod(R) each
covariant functor F : mod(R) -+Ab satisfies the descending chain condition on
cyclic subfunctors, therefore each non-zero F E Add(mod(R), Ab) has a simple
subfunctor.
PURE-SEMISIMPLE RINGS 167
In particular, for each indecomposable non-projective A in A the functor

Extk(A, -) has a simple subfunctor S. S is generated by an element T/ E
Extk(A, C) which represents a non-split exact sequence 0 --+ C --+ B --+ A --+ 0 in
mod(R). [Tf is an almost-split sequence, see Chapter 11]. The induced sequence
0-+ (-,C)-+ (-,B)-+ (-,A)-+ (-,A)/rad(-,A)-+ 0
is easily seen to be exact. If A is indecomposable projective the sequence 0 --+

rad (A) --+A--+ A/rad (A)--+ 0 also induces a projective resolution
0--+ (-,rad A) --+ (-,A) --+ (-,A/rad A) --+ (-, A)/rad (-,A)--+ 0,
which in combination with the preceding argument proves that each simple func-
tor in Add(mod(R) 0 P, Ab) is finitely presented.
By the left perfectness of mod(R), each non-zero functor in the category
Add(mod(R) 0 P, Ab) has a simple subfunctor, which thus is finitely presented. We
claim that as a consequence each finitely generated functor Min (mod(R) 0 P, Ab)
already has finite length: Let M' denote the (directed) union of all finite length
subfunctors M-y of M. If M / M' -:/= 0 there exists a simple subfunctor S of M / M'.
Accordingly there is a finitely generated subfunctor U of M such that the sequence
0 --+ U n M' ---+ U ~ S --+ 0 is exact, where K. 1 is the restriction of the natural
epimorphism K : M --+ MI M'. Since s is finitely presented, u n M' is finitely
generated and therefore contained in some M-y, therefore UnM' has finite length.
Hence U has finite length, thus U ~ M' and S = 0, a contradiction.
Let E 1 , • •• , En be a complete system of simple left R-modules. We claim that
the number of isomorphism classes of modules from A is bounded by
n
L lgHomR(-, E;),
i=l
where lg refers to the length. In fact, we show that the modules A represent-
ing the projective hulls HomR(-, A) of the simple composition factors of the
HomR(-, E;), i = 1, ... , n, exhaust the isomorphism classes of objects in A: Let
A E A and choose an i = 1, ... , n such that HomR( A, Ei) -:/= 0. By Yoneda's
lemma there exists a non-zero homomorphism HomR(-, A) --+ HomR(-, E;),
hence we obtain an epimorphism 7r : HomR(-, A) --+ S to one of the simple com-
position factors of HomR(-, E;). Since rad HomR(-, A) is the unique maximal
subfunctor of HomR(-, A) [A has a local endomorphism ring and HomR(-, A) is
finitely generated], HomR(-, A) is the projective hull of S. This proves the first
assertion. The last assertion is contained in Theorem B.19. D
Moreover - using a duality induced by the transpose M 1-+ Tr(M) between

the factor categories mod(R)/[proj(R)] and mod(R 0 P)/[proj(R 0 P)] of finitely gen-
erated left resp. right modules modulo maps which factor through projectives
(see Chapter 11) - it is not difficult to show that if R is left representation-
finite it is also right representation-finite and the numbers of indecomposable
left (resp. right) R-modules coincide. It is an open question whether 'pure-
semisimple' is a left-right symmetric notion, equivalently whether it coincides
with 'representation-finite'. We refer to [184] for a discussion on recent results
related to that question.
Here, we only mention that each proper factor ring of a Dedekind domain is
representation-finite. This remark applies for instance to the rings Z/Zn, n # 0,
and to the truncated polynomial algebras K[X]/(Xn) over a field K.
As for non-commutative examples of representation-finite, in particular pure-
semisimple rings, we mention the algebras of lower triangular n x n- matrices
over a field J{, also the matrix algebra
These and further example of representation-finite algebras arise most natu-

rally in the context of K-linear representations of quivers (possibly with relations),
see Appendix C for the formal definition of quivers and linear representations of
quivers. A star-shaped graph of type (p, q, r)
0
I
0
p vertices
I
0-0···0-
• -0···0-0
'-....-' '-....-'
q vertices r vertices
EXAMPLES 169
is said to be a Dynkin diagram if 1/ p + 1/q+1 / r > 1; more specifically the graphs

of type (l,p,q), (2,2,n) where n 2: 2, (2,3,3), (2,3,4), and (2,3,5) are said to
be of Dynkin type Ap+q, Dn+ 2 , E6 , E 7 and E8 , respectively. Any quiver, whose
underlying non-oriented graph is a Dynkin graph is called a Dynkin quiver.
For instance the mentioned examples of matrix algebras describe the I<-linear
representation theory of Dynkin quivers of type An and 0 4 , respectively. It is
known that each Dynkin quiver is representation-finite (69], (66], see also (23].
For additional information on the representation theory of quivers and finite
dimensional algebras we refer the reader to (46], (44], (45], (6], (5], (47], [48].
Examples of L::-algebraically compact modules

Proposition 8.9 Let R be a von Neumann regular ring. For an R-module A the
following assertions are equivalent:
(i) A is E-algebraically compact.
(ii) A is E-injective.
(iii) A satisfies the descending chain condition, for subgroups eA ( e E R, e2 =
e).
(iv) A = s~ci) Ell · · · Ell Sf,<n), where each S; is a simple E-injective module.
Proof. (i) ¢?(ii) holds since over a von Neumann regular ring R submodules
are always pure. (i) ¢? (iii) follows from Proposition 6.9. (iv) :;. (i) is obvious.
(i) :;. (iv): We infer from Corollary 8.2 that any submodule of A is a direct
factor, hence A is semisimple. Moreover, since A is faithful and E-algebraically
compact as a module over R = R/annR(A), R satisfies the maximum condition
for right annihilators of subsets of R, so is semisimple Artinian, which proves the
assertion. D
Assume additionally that each right ideal of R is two-sided, equivalently that

all idempotents of R are central. Then each Artinian R-module is E-injective.
This in particular contains an old result of Kaplansky [167], stating that any
simple module over a commutative von Neumann regular ring is injective.
Theorem 8.10 The class of E-algebraically compact R-modules is elementarily

closed, but - in general - not axiomatizable.
Proof. Let M" be an ultrapower of the R-module M. We infer from Corol-

lary 8.2 that M is E-algebraically compact if and only if M" is E-algebraically
compact. This proves the first assertion. With regard to the second assertion
we notice that each finite abelian group is I:-algebraically compact, whereas any
ultraproduct
- with respect to a non-principal ultrafilter :F on N - admits the strictly de-

creasing sequence
M ~ 2M ~ · · · ~ 2k M ~ ...
of finitely definable subgroups. D
Notice, however, that in virtue of Theorem 7.49 M is algebraically compact

over Z.
Example 8.11 An abelian group A is I:-algebraically compact if and only if it

has the form
A= D €JJ H,
where Dis divisible(= injective), and H has bounded order: In fact, if D = nA
is minimal among all subgroups of the form nA with n E Z - {O}, D is clearly
divisible. Hence A = D €JJ H, which in turn implies nH = 0. Conversely, being
I:-injective, divisible groups are I:-algebraically compact. Also groups of bounded
order n, being modules over the pure-semisimple ring Z/Zn, have this property.
(More generally the corresponding result -- having a basically unchanged proof
- holds true for I:-algebraically compact modules over a Dedekind domain.)
Thus the indecomposable I:-algebraically compact groups are the cyclic groups
Z/Zpn of prime power order, the Prufer groups Z(p 00 ) (p a prime number) and
the group Q of rational numbers. Moreover, any I:-algebraically compact group
is a direct sum of those groups. Notice however that I:-algebraic compactness is
neither preserved under the formation of direct sums nor of direct products.
Remark 8.12 Usually there are algebraically compact modules that are not I:-
algebraically compact:
Assume there is an R-module M that is not I:-algebraically compact. (For this
we just have to assume that R is not left pure-semisimple.) The pure-injective en-
velope A = A(M) is algebraically compact, however not I:-algebraically compact,
because in this case as a pure submodule of a I:-algebraically compact module
M itself would be I:-algebraically compact.
So - if we leave the pure-semisimple situation - the I:-algebraically compact
modules will form a rather small subclass of all algebraically compact modules.
CARDINALITY QUESTIONS 171
Note further that - as a result of Theorem 8.4 - generally an algebraically

compact module A does not decompose into a direct sum of indecomposable
modules. As a particular example we mention the pure-injective envelope A of
the Z-module EBneN Zn.
Cardinality questions
Theorem 8.13 (Zimmermann [210]) Let R be an arbitrary ring and M be
an algebraically compact (left) R-module. If N is a cardinal number such that
IMI < 2N, then any strictly decreasing chain of definable subgroups of M has a
cofinal subchain of cardinality strictly less than N.
Proof. Suppose there existed a strictly decreasing chain (V"') of definable

subgroups of M such that every cofinal subchain has cardinality at least N. We
shall derive a contradiction by showing that this implies IMI 2 2N.
Since any totally ordered set contains a well-ordered cofinal subset we may
assume that (V"') is indexed by all ordinals a < /, where I is an ordinal of
cardinality N. Since any intersection of definable subfunctors of the forgetful
functor V : Mod (R) --+ Ab is again a definable functor (cf. Remark 7.14)
we may moreover assume the existence of a decreasing chain (U"'), a < / of
definable subfunctors of V such that V"' = U"'(M). Let I = {ala < I}. Since
M is algebraically compact and M(J) is pure in M 1 , we see that the mapping
I:: M(J)--+ M, (x"') >-+I:"' x"' extends to an R-linear map E: M 1 --+ M.
For any a</ we choose some m"' EV"' - V"'+I· Then the mapping
{0,1}1--+ M, (x"') >-+ L:x"'m"'

"'
is injective. Let z = (x"'m"'), where x"' E {-1,0, 1}; we only need to check that
z =f- 0 implies E( z) =f- 0. Assume a is minimal with respect to z"' =f- 0. We write z
as a sum z = z' + z", where z~ = x"'m"' is the only non-zero coordinate of z' and
notice that z" belongs to U"'+I(M) 1 = U"'+I(M 1 ). Then
E(z) = x"'m"' + E(z").

Since x"'m"' <:j. V"'+I and E( z") E V"'+ 1 this proves that E( z) =f- 0. D
By setting N = N0 we obtain
Corollary 8.14 (Garavaglia [7 4]) Let M be an algebraically compact R-module

of cardinality < zNo. Then M is L:-algebraically compact. 0
Next we bring some further consequences of Theorem 8.13.
Corollary 8.15 Let R be a commutative integral domain with quotient field I<.
Assume that IRI < 2N 1 and R has a strictly decreasing chain of principal ideals
with no countable cofinal subchain. Then neither R nor I</ R are algebraically
compact R-modules and inj.dimn(R) ~ 2.
Proof. Let ( R7r"') be such a strictly decreasing chain with no countable cofinal
subchain. Then the R-submodules (R7ra) of Rand the R-submodules annn(7ra)
of J{ / R form strictly decreasing chains of finitely definable subgroups of R and
I</ R with no countable cofinal subchains. The above Theorem 8.13 can now be
applied with t{ = t{ 1 thus showing that Rand I</ Rare not algebraically compact.
In particular, I</ R is not an injective R-module, hence inj.dimn(R) ~ 2. (For
the notion of injective dimension we refer to Appendix A.) O
When applying the above corollary in explicit cases it seems natural to con-
sider rings of cardinality ~ 2No and assume the continuum hypothesis.
Example 8.16 Let R be the ring of all complex entire functions in one complex
variable. The quotient field J{ is the field of all meromorphic functions. In view of
WeierstraB's theorem on entire functions with prescribed zeros the above corollary
implies that - assuming the continuum hypothesis - the R-module I</ R is not
algebraically compact and inj.dim n( R) ~ 2. Instead of assuming the continuum
hypothesis it actually suffices to assume Martin's axiom. (To see this one uses
arguments from [54] and [98]). For information on Martin's axiom we refer the
reader to [12].
Another application of Corollary 8.15 is
Corollary 8.17 Let R be a commutative integral domain with quotient field I<.
Suppose R f- I< and IRI ~ 2No. If we assume the continuum hypothesis 2No =
t{l! then for any non-principal ultrafilter :F on N the R* -module I<*/ R* is not
algebraically compact, where R* = RN/ :F and J{* = J{N / :F is the quotient field
of R*. Moreover, inj.dimn.(R*) ~ 2.
Proof. Let 7r be a non-invertible element of R. The principal ideals
Rr. ~ R1r 2 ~ · .. ~ R1rn ~ ...
form a strictly decreasing sequence. For any element (a;) E NN we consider the
element [7ra;] E R*. Then R*[7ra;] ~ R*[7rb;] if and only if [a;] < [bi] holds in
CARDINALITY QUESTIONS 173
N* = NN / :F with the natural ordering of N*. By the saturation property of N*

as ordered structure (N* is an 11 1-set) it follows that N* has no cofinal countable
subset. This implies that the principal ideals R[1t"a.], [a;] E N* form a strictly
decreasing chain with no countable cofinal subset. Corollary 8.15 now gives the
assertion. D
Theorem 8.13 can alternatively be derived from the next theorem dealing with
the cardinality of a projective limit.
Theorem 8.18 Let M be an abelian group and (Va) be a strictly decreasing well-
ordered chain of subgroups of M, indexed by the ordinals a < 'Y. We assume that
for each (3 :::; 'Y the canonical mapping
M---+ limM/Va, m >-+ (m +Va)

a<~
is surjective. Then
Proof. Here the first inequality is obvious; to verify the last inequality we
notice that IVa/Va+il 2: 2 since (Va) is strictly decreasing. Consider the inverse
system
Z2 +-- z~ +-- ... +-- z~ +--... (a< 'Y),
where Z~ stands for Z~" 1 "<a} and for a :::; (3 the mapping 7l" afJ : zg --> Z~ is the
natural projection associated to the inclusion {o-lu < a} ~ {ulu < (3}. We claim
that there exist set theoretical injective mappings 'Pa : Z~ --> M /Va for all a < 'Y
such that for all a 1 :::; a 2 ( < 'Y) the diagram
commutes, where the lower horizontal arrow denotes the canonical homomor-
phism from M /Va 2 to M /Va,.
The existence of the 'Pa is established by transfinite induction: First, for each
a < 'Y we choose some ma E Va - Va+i· We define r.p 0 : Z~ --> M/Vo to be the
zero map; in order to define 'Pa+! : Z~ x 1 2 --> M /Va+i we lift 'Pa to a mapping
l/Ja: Z~--> M/Va+1 and define 'Pa+1 by the formula
( ') {l/Ja(x) if x' = 0,

'Pa+i x,x = l/Ja(x)+[ma] if x' -:f. 0.
(Here, bracket notation refers to the coset in M/Va+d It is easily checked that
<p.,+ 1 shares with <pa the property to be a monomorphism. Further, if /3 denotes
a limit ordinal, the mappings <pa for a < /3 induce - by the left exactness of
inverse limits - a monomorphism
zg = Jim Z~ --+ Jim M/Va.

o.<fJ o<fJ
Since, by assumption the mapping
M/V13--+ M/ n V13=+lj_!pM/Va
a</3 o<f3
is an epimorphism, the above mapping lifts to a necessarily injective (set theo-

retical) mapping <p13: zg--+ M/V13.
This implies that there is an injective (set theoretical) mapping
z; =Jim Z~--+ Jim M/Va.

Q<"Y o:<"Y
Since 1z;1 = 2hl, this yields the above desired inequality. D
Next we give an illustration of the applicability of the preceding theorem.

We recall that a module M over an arbitrary ring R is called linearly compact
(with respect to the discrete topology) if every (decreasing) directed family of
linear varieties Xa +Ma, a E I (Ma an R-submodule of M) has a non-empty
intersection.
If R is a commutative ring any finitely definable subgroup of M is an R-
submodule of M, therefore, according to Theorem 7.1, any linearly compact mo-
dule over a commutative ring is algebraically compact.
Theorem 8.19 Let N be an infinite cardinal number and let M be a linearly

compact left R-module of cardinality< 2N (with respect to the discrete topology).
Then any {decreasing) chain (Ma) of submodules of M contains a cofinal subchain
of cardinality< N.
Proof. Suppose there existed a strictly decreasing chain (M"') of submodules

of M such that every cofinal subchain has cardinality at least N. Since any totally
ordered set contains a well-ordered cofinal subset we may assume that (Ma) is
indexed by all ordinals a</, where/ is an ordinal of cardinality N. In view of
Theorem 8.18 this implies IMI ~ 2N, a contradiction. D
THE SPECTRAL CATEGORY 175
Lemma 8.20 (Tarski) There exists an almost disjoint family A of 2No subsets
of N, i.e. A has the property that An B is finite for any two distinct A, BE A.
Proof. Consider the set R of real numbers with its usual topology. For any
irrational number 'Y we choose a sequence s( 'Y) of rational numbers converging to
/. For any such / let S'Y be the subset formed by the members of the sequence
s('Y). Clearly the S'Y with 1 irrational form an almost disjoint family of subsets
clQ. D
Exercise 8.21 Let R be the Boolean ring Z~. For any subset A of N we denote
by eA the characteristic function of A viewed as an element in R. Prove the
following assertions:
(i) R is algebraically compact viewed as an R-module.
(ii) Let A be an almost disjoint family of 2No subsets of N. Consider the
elements eA, A in A, and construct a decreasing family of ideals of R satisfying
the chain condition of the previous theorem with ~ = ~ 1 .
(iii) Use (ii) to prove that R is not linearly compact in the discrete topology
as an R-module provided 2N 1 > 2No.
The spectral category

For a Grothendieck category C we are now going to deal with the decomposition
properties of the injective objects. Such questions are most naturally treated
in the spectral category of C whose (isomorphism classes) of simple objects are
in one-to-one correspondence with the isomorphism classes of indecomposable
injective C-objects. Mainly we are interested in those cases where C is a module
category or a category Add(mod(R) 0 P, Ab) of additive functors on a category of
finitely presented modules. Viewing algebraically compact R-modules as injective
functors in that latter category allows to deal with the decomposition properties of
algebraically compact modules in a similar fashion. For the categorical concepts
entering in the following discussion we refer to Appendix B.
If Q and T are injective objects from C two morphisms ui, u 2 : Q ---> T are
said to be congruent, if there exists an essential subobject Q' of Q such that the
restrictions of u 1 and u2 to Q' coincide.
We define the spectral category Spec(C) of c· as the additive category given
by the following data
• the objects of Spec(C) are the injective objects of C.

• the morphism group Spec(C)(Q, T), for Q, T injective in C, consists of the

congruence classes of C-morphisms from Q to T.
• the composition is induced by the composition in C.
Notice that two injective objects of C are isomorphic in C if and only if they are
isomorphic in Spec(C).
For each object C in C we select an injective envelope le : C--+ E(C). Each
morphism u : C1 --+ C 2 in C extends to a commutative diagram
C1 ..'.:S.. E(C1)
ul lv
C2 ~ E(C2)
where v is determined by u up to congruence, hence defines a unique morphism

in Spec(C), denoted v = E(u). This process allows to view the attachment of the
injective envelope
E: C--+ Spec(C), C >-> E(C).
as a functor from C to the spectral category E(C). This simple fact already
expresses· the main function of the spectral category.
An object Sin an abelian category is said to be semisimple if it is isomorphic to
a direct sum of simple objects. In a Grothendieck category C every object which is
a sum of simple subobjects is actually semisimple (the usual transfinite argument
works). As a consequence any object Chas a largest semisimple subobject formed
by the sum of all simple subobjects and called the socle of C.
The next theorem due to Gabriel-Oberst [70] lists the main properties of of
the spectral category, correspondingly of the functor 'injective envelope'.
Theorem 8.22 The spectral category Spec(C) of a Grothendieck category C is

again a Grothendieck category. All objects in Spec(C) are injective and also
projective. The following properties hold for any object EE Spec(C):
(i) E is indecomposable in C if and only if it is simple in Spec(C).
(ii) An injective C-object E' is isomorphic to a subobject of E in Spec(C) if
and only if E' is isomorphic to a direct factor of E in C.
(iii) E does not admit any indecomposable direct factor in C if and only if E
has zero socle in Spec( C).
(iv) E admits a decomposition E = Ed(£) Ee in Spec( C), where Ed is semisim-
ple and Ee does not have any indecomposable subobject in Spec(C).
Moreover, the functor 'injective envelope'E: C--+ Spec(C) is representative
and satisfies the following properties:
THE SPECTRAL CATEGORY 177
(a) E is left exact.

(b) E commutes with directed unions, in particular with arbitrary direct sums.
Proof. For a family (Qcr) of injective C-objects the C-injective envelope

E (EBcreI Q") serves as the direct sum EBcreI Q" in the spectral category Spec(C).
Let I< -':...+ Q denote the kernel of a C-morphism u : Q--+ T, between objects
from Spec(C). Any C-morphism £: E(I<) --+ Q extending l serves as a kernel for
u in Spec(C). Moreover, the natural morphism T--+ E(!i!nT/u(Q')), where Q'
runs through the directed set of essential subobjects Q' of Q ordered by reverse
inclusion, serves as the cokernel for u in Spec(C). Further, it is not difficult to
check that in this way the spectral category becomes an abelian category.
Let Q = Ucr Q" be a directed union in C. Then the injective hulls E(Qcr)
may be viewed as a directed system of subobjects of E( Q). Since trivially E( Q)
becomes the injective envelope of Ucr E(Qcr) this shows that E commutes with
directed unions.
If G is a set of generators for C the injective envelopes E( G /U), with G from
G and U running through a representative set of subobjects from G, serve as a
set of generators for Spec(C).
Exactness of the direct limit functor for Spec(C) finally may be derived from
the left-exactness of E and from property (b). This finishes the proof that the
spectral category is a Grothendieck category.
Due to the above description of kernels, any monomorphism u : Q --+ T in
Spec(C) is a monomorphism in C, hence, by the injectivity of Q splits in C,
therefore in Spec(C). Thus subobjects in the spectral category are always direct
summands. This trivially implies that all objects in Spec(C) are injective and
projective.
Further, as is easily verified, Q' is a subobject of Qin Spec(C), that is, Q' is
a direct factor of Qin Spec(C) if and only if Q' is isomorphic to a C-direct factor
of Q. This proves assertions (i), (ii) and (iii). For assertion (iv) we define the
'discrete part' Ed of E as the sum of all simple subobject of E in Spec(C). Hence
Ed is uniquely determined by E and further is semisimple. Since Ee ~ E /Ed the
'continuous part' Ee of Eis determined up to isomorphism. D
Corollary 8.23 For each injective object Q in a Grothendieck category C the fac-
tor ring Endc(Q)/radEndc(Q) is von Neumann regular and right self-injective.
Moreover, idempotents can be lifted modulo rad Ende (Q).
Proof. An endomorphism u : Q --+ Q of an injective object belongs to the

Jacobson radical of Ende( Q) if and only if the kernel of u is an essential subobject
of Q. Therefore Endc(Q)/radEndc(Q) is the endomorphism ring of Q viewed

as an object in Spec(C). Since in Spec(C) any subobject is a direct factor of Q,
this easily implies the assertions on the radical factor ring.
The assertion concerning idempotents follows from the fact that a pair u' :
Q' --+ Q, u" : Q" --+ Q induces an isomorphism (u', u") : Q' ffi Q" --+ Q in the
spectral category if and only if (u', u") is an isomorphism in C. D
Corollary 8.24 Each injective object Q in a Grothendieck category C admits a

decomposition
Q = Qd ffi Qc, Qd = E (EBQ<>)

<>El
where each Q" is an indecomposable direct factor ofQ and Qc does not have any
indecomposable direct factor. Moreover, Qd is uniquely determined by Q, while
Qc and the Q" are uniquely determined up to isomorphism (and ordering).
Proof. Replacing C by the spectral category Spec(C), we define the discrete

part Qd of Q as the largest semisimple subobject of Q. Clearly, Qd is uniquely
determined by Q. This also determines Qc, which is isomorphic to Q/Qd, up to
isomorphism. Further Qd = EBaeJ Q~ 0 > where each Q" is simple in Spec(C) and
the Q" are pairwise non-isomorphic. Since the multiplicity µ" of Q" in Qd is
given by the dimension of Spec(C)(Q", Qd) = Spec(C)(Qa, Q), viewed as a right
module over the division ring Endspec(C)( Q") this proves the claimed uniquenessO
The pure spectral category

For any ring R we define the pure spectral category p.Spec(R) of Ras the spec-
tral category of the functor category Add(mod(R 0 P),Ab). Identifying injective
functors with pure-injective modules (see Theorem 7.12) allows to give a more
concrete description of p.Spec(R). For that purpose we say that two morphisms
ui, u 2 : Qi --+ Q 2 between pure-injective modules Qi and Q 2 are purely congru-
ent if the kernel of the morphism -0n(ui - u 2 ) : -0nQi --+ Q2 is an essential
subfunctor of -0nQi.
• the objects of p.Spec(R) a.re the pure-injective R-modules.
• the morphism group p.Spec(Q, T), for Q, T pure-injective R-modules, is the

factor group of Homn( Q, T) consisting of the equivalence classes modulo
pure congruence.
THE PURE SPECTRAL CATEGORY 179
• the composition is induced by the composition in Mod (R).
In view of Proposition 7.6 the composition of the comparison functor qi :

Mod(R) --> Add(mod(R) 0 P,Ab) from Theorem 7.12 with the functor 'injec-
tive envelope' E : Add(mod(R) 0 P, Ab) --> p.Spec(R) leads to the functor 'pure-
injective envelope' A : Mod (R) --> p.Spec(R), whose properties are now an
obvious consequence of Theorem 8.22.
Theorem 8.25 For any ring R the pure spectral category p.Spec(R) of R is a
Grothendieck category. All objects in p.Spec(R) are injective and also projective.
The following properties hold for any pure-injective R-module M:
( i) M is indecomposable in Mod ( R) if and only if it is simple in p.Spec( R).
(ii) A pure-injective R-module M' is isomorphic to a subobject of M in the
pure spectras category p.Spec(R) if and only if, when viewed as an R-module, M'
is isomorphic to a direct summand of M.
(iii) As an R-module M does not admit any indecomposable direct factor if
and only if M has zero socle in p.Spec(R).
(iv) M admits a decomposition M = Md ffi Mc in p.Spec(R), where Md is
semisimple in p.Spec(R) and Mc does not have any indecomposable subobject in
p.Spec(R).
Moreover, the functor 'pure-injective envelope' A: Mod (R) ---+ p.Spec(R) is
representative and satisfies the following properties:
(a) A is left exact on pure-exact sequences.
( b) A commutes with directed unions of pure submodules, in particular with
arbitrary direct sums. D
Remark 8.26 For each subfunctor U of the forgetful functor V : mod(R 0 P) -->
Ab we denote by Qu the pure-injective R-module uniquely determined (up to
isomorphism) by the property
-0nQu ~ E(V/U).
It is easy to see that the modules Qu, where U runs through a representative
set of subfunctors of V, form a set of generators for p.Spec(R). In particular,
each indecomposable pure-injective R-module is a direct factor of Qu for some
subfunctor U of V.
Consequently every pure-injective R-module Q is the pure-injective envelope
of a direct sum of indecomposable pure-injective modules, i.e. any such Q is
semisimple in p.Spec(R), if and only if every Qu is semisimple in p.Spec(R),
equivalently each Qu is the pure-injective envelope of a direct sum of indecom-

posable pure-injective R-modules.
Notice moreover that every subfunctor U of V may be written as a directed
union U = U"' U"' of finitely generated subfunctors U"', where according to Propo-
sition 6.3 each of the U"' is determined by a positive primitive formula cp"'. By
means of this correspondence between subfunctors and sets of pp formulas we may
alternatively describe the modules Qu as the pure-injective modules determined
by a set of pp formulas.
The next Corollary which is a slight improvement of Corollary 7.5 is a direct

consequence of Corollary 8.23.
Corollary 8.27 For each pure-injective R-module M the factor ring
EndR(M)/rad EndR(M)
is von Neumann regular and right self-injective. Moreover, idempotents can be

lifted modulo rad EndR(M). In particular EndR(M) is F-semiperfect. D
Corollary 8.28 Each pure-injective R-module M admits a decomposition
M =Md EB Mc, Md= A (ffiM"')

0<El
where each M"' is an indecomposable direct factor of M and Mc does not have
any indecomposable direct factor. Moreover, Md is uniquely determined by M,
while Mc and the M"' are uniquely determined up to isomorphism (and ordering).
Proof. This follows from Corollary 8.24. D
Direct sum representations of algebraically com-

pact modules
According to Sabbagh's theorem (7.51) every R-module is elementarily equivalent

to an algebraically compact R-module, actually to its pure-injective envelope.
This raises the interest in the structure of algebraically compact modules.
DIRECT SUM REPRESENTATIONS 181
The plain attempt to build up all algebraically compact modules as direct

sums of indecomposable ones will - in virtue of Theorem 8.4 - immediately re-
strict us to deal solely with pure-semisimple rings, so we may choose the slightly
different approach requiring the existence of such decompositions up to elemen-
tary equivalence, only. According to a theorem of Ziegler, which we quote without
proof, this works:
Theorem 8.29 (Ziegler [208]) Let R be any ring. Each left R-module M is
elementarily equivalent to a direct sum of algebraically compact indecomposable
modules. D
Usually it is very difficult - often even impossible - to determine the com-

plete list of algebraically compact indecomposable modules. One particular in-
stance where we have sufficient information on these modules are commutative
von Neumann regular rings.
Proposition 8.30 Let R be a commutative von Neumann regular ring or -

more generally - a von Neumann regular ring whose idempotents are all central.
Then the following assertions on an R-module M are equivalent:
(i) M is simple.
(ii) M is L.-injective indecomposable.
(iii) M is algebraically compact indecomposable.
(iv) M is indecomposable.
Proof. To prove (i) =} (ii) we only need to observe that each finitely de-
finable subgroup U of M has the form eM for some central idempotent e of R,
so U is a submodule of M. Hence M satisfies the descending chain condition for
finitely definable subgroups. (ii) =} (iii) and (iii) =} (iv) are clear. (iv) =} (i):
For each, necessarily central, idempotent e of R we have M = eM EB (1- e)M, so
either e or 1 - e annihilates M. Therefore the annihilator m of Mis a maximal
(left) ideal of R, thus M may be viewed as an indecomposable module over the
skew field R/m so M ~ R/m follows. D
Corollary 8.31 If R is a von Neumann regular ring, whose idempotents are all
central, then each R-module M is elementarily equivalent to a semisimple R-
module, i.e. a direct sum of simple R-modules. D
The preceding discussion in particular applies to the von Neumann regular ring
R = J<I, where]{ is a field and I denotes an arbitrary set. Since isomorphism
classes of simple R-modules, in this case, correspond bijectively to ultrafilters
:Fon I, viewing the ultrapower J<l /:Fas a simple R-module by means of the
natural surjection ]{I - > ]{I/ :F, the classification of all algebraically compact
R-modules is equivalent to the determination of all ultrafilters on I. Thus we
cannot expect that Proposition 8.30 always gives an explicit list of algebraically
compact indecomposable modules.
If I is an infinite set, the cyclic R-module M = J<I / J<U) has zero socle.
Hence the injective envelope E(M) is algebraically compact but does not contain
an algebraically compact indecomposable direct factor.
\Ve are now going to deal with rings where each algebraically compact module
is the pure-injective envelope of a direct sum of algebraically compact indecom-
posable modules.
Definition 8.32 We will say that a ring R has sufficiently many algebraically
compact indecomposable modules or that R has a sufficient supply of alge-
braically compact indecomposable modules if every non-zero algebraically com-
pact left R-module M contains an indecomposable direct factor.
As follows from Corollary 7.3 this property is preserved by passing to factor

rings.
For the purpose of later reference we state the following consequence of Corol-
lary 8.28.
Proposition 8.33 Assume R is a ring with sufficiently many algebraically com-

pact indecomposable modules. Then the following assertions hold true:
(i) For each algebraically compact left R-module M there exists a family
(M")"El of algebraically compact indecomposable left R-modules such that M
equals the pure-injective envelope A( EB<>El M") of the direct sum EB<>El M". In
particular M = EB<>El M".
(ii) If (M~)fJEJ is a family of indecomposable algebraically compact modules
and
A(EfjM") ~ A(EfjM~)
<>El /JEJ
there exists a bijection 'P : I - > J with M" ~ M~(<>) for each a E I. 0
Every pure-semisimple ring has sufficiently many algebraically compact inde-

composable modules but also the ring Z of integers and any Dedekind domain
DIRECT SUM REPRESENTATIONS 183
[106,65]. As we shall see later for any field ]{ the matrix ring
2] X I<[X 2] )
R =
( XI<[X
I<[X2] I<[X2] '
which we consider as a subring of the full matrix ring M 2 (I<[X]) has this property
too. As is easily verified, R is isomorphic to the path algebra I<[~] (see Appendix
C) of the quiver
~:o~o.
Accordingly left R-modules may be viewed as I<-linear representations of ~'
U2
equivalently as a system of two J<-linear maps M 1 ~ M 2 •
U1
Next we present a non-Noetherian sample, see [104], compare also [57] p. 130,
[135] Remark 4.5, and [80] p. 68).
Example 8.34 There exists a von Neumann regular ring R which is not Ar-
tinian and has the following properties:
{i) Each right R-module M =f. 0 contains an indecomposable direct factor.
(ii} Up to isomorphism R has exactly two indecomposable right modules Si, S 2
which are both simple injective.
(iii) Every non-zero right R-module M is elementarily equivalent either to S 1
or to S2. Moreover S 1 'I- S2.
Proof. Let V be an infinite dimensional vector space over the field I<. Denote
by Ethe two-sided ideal of EndK(V) consisting of all endomorphisms of V having
finite rank. The von Neumann regular subalgebra R = I< Ell E of EndK(V) has
two simple right R-modules namely
J( = Rf E and V= HomK(V, I<).
I< is clearly L:-injective, Vis injective since I<-duals are algebraically compact
by means of Exercise 7.10.
We are now going to prove that each non-zero right R-module M has a non-
zero socle: If ME = 0, then M is a module over the field I< = R/ E, so M is a
direct sum of copies of I<. If ME =f. 0, there exists a non-zero homomorphism
cp : E ---> M. Since ER is semisimple - actually ER ~ \f(dimV) - M has a
submodule isomorphic to V. This proves that I< and V are a complete system of
indecomposable right R-modules, moreover that each right R-module M contains
an indecomposable direct factor.
This implies that each algebraically compact = injective R-module has the
form
A~ J<Ul ffi E(\/CJl)
for a suitable choice of the sets I and J. [Here, it does not matter if we use the
injective or pure-injective envelope]. This proves in particular that each right
R-module Mis elementarily equivalent to J<(I) ffi \/(J) for some I, J.
Assuming for simplicity that I< is an infinite field, we infer from Theorem 6.14
that each R-module is elementarily equivalent to 0, I<, V or I< ffi V. Since I< =j. V
but - as we may additionally derive from Theorem 6.14 - V = I< ffi V the
modules
O,I<, V
are mutually elementarily inequivalent and constitute a complete system of right
R-modules with respect elementary equivalence. O
With respect to left modules it is well k~own that R has indecomposable
modules which are not simple, for instanc: V = HomK(V,I<) which - with
respect to the canonical embedding V --+ V- serves as the injective envelope
of the simple left R-module V.
Exercise 8.35 With the notations of Example 8.34 prove that there exists a non-
principal ultrafilter :F on the set V containing all ker(f) for f in E. Show that
E(Vv / :F) ~ J<Ul ffi E(VCJl) for certain non-empty sets I and J.
Small support of indecomposable modules

We are now going to present a series of rings not having a sufficient supply of
algebraically compact indecomposable modules. ·
Let us first recall that any indecomposable injective module M shares with
its non-zero submodules the property to be uniform, i.e. M # 0 and any two
non-zero submodules of M have a non-zero intersection.
Proposition 8.36 The free algebra R = I< <X, Y> in two indeterminates over
a field I< does not have a sufficient supply of algebraically compact indecomposable
modules.
Proof. Let A = E(R) be the injective envelope of R. Notice that R is a

domain [38], moreover that
SMALL SUPPORT OF INDECOMPOSABLE MODULES 185
holds for every 0 -:f. r E R. Thus R does not have a uniform submodule, hence
A does not have any indecomposable direct factor. Moreover, as an injective
module A is algebraically compact. D
Example 8.37 For a Noetherian ring the same instance cannot oocur for injec-
tive modules but it might occur for algebraically compact modules as we shall
see now:
Consider the finite dimensional K-algebra
S=(J:31),
where again I< denotes a field. Each system
of three K-linear maps determines a module M = M1 EB M 2 over S, where S acts

on M by means of
Moreover, since S is easily seen to be the path algebra K[~] of the quiver
--+
~: 0 =:::t o,
Mod ( S) is equivalent to the category of all K-linear representations of the quiver

~- We will therefore identify S-modules and systems consisting of three K-linear
maps.
With these conventions in mind, the functor
1
--+
~:Mod (K <X, Y>)--+ Mod (S), M >-+ M ~ M,
y
--+
where X, Y : M --+ M refer to multiplication by X and Y respectively, defines

a full embedding. Moreover, it follows from Corollary 7.35 that ~ preserves
algebraic compactness. Therefore, with the notations of the preceding proposition
the S-module ~(A) is algebraically compact without having any indecomposable

direct factor.
Even quite well behaved commutative Noetherian rings will not possess a
sufficient supply of algebraically compact indecomposable modules:
Theorem 8.38 If [{ =f. 0 is any commutative ring and n ~ 2, neither the polyno-
mial ring K[X1 , ••• , Xn] nor the power series ring K[[Xi, ... , Xn]] has sufficiently
many algebraically compact indecomposable modules.
The proof is effected in several steps by reduction to the case of modules over
the free algebra [{ <X, Y>.
Sublemma 8.38.1 Let R denote the free algebra [{ <X, Y> over a field [{ and
let A be the injective envelope E(RR). The [{-linear representation
(~)
---+
(~ ~)
---+
A ---+ A EBA ---+ AEBA
( ~) (~ ~)
of the quiver
a1 a2
---+ ---+
r: 0 ---+ 0 ---+ 0 with relation a2a1 = /32/31
/31 /32
is algebraically compact. A# does not have an indecomposable direct factor.
Proof. We denote by Mod (I<[f]) the category of all I<-linear representa-

tions of r preserving the relation a 2 a 1 = /3 2/31. [Actually it can be shown that
Mod (K[f]) is equivalent to the category of left modules over a finite dimensional
algebra K[f], obtained as the quotient of the path algebra of r, which has a
I<-basis consisting of all paths of r with multiplication of paths given by their
composition or 0 if composition is not possible, by the two-sided ideal generated
by the relation a2a 1 - /32/]i, but we will not need this fact, here.]
The functor
~ : Mod (R) ---+Mod (K[f]),
SMALL SUPPORT OF INDECOMPOSABLE MODULES 187
(~)
-->
M >--+ (M --> M Efl M),
( ~)
with action u >--+ ( u, u Ef) u, u Ef) u) on morphisms, clearly defines a full embedding.
Notice moreover that - as follows from an obvious variant of Exercise 7.10 (iii)
- ~ preserves algebraic compactness. In conclusion, A# =~(A) is algebraically
compact and does not possess an indecomposable direct factor.
0
Sublemma 8.38.2 Let I< be a field and S denote the local I< -algebra
S = I<[X, Y]/(X, Y)3.
There exists an algebraically compact S-module not having an indecomposable

direct factor.
Proof. S = I<[x,y] is local with maximal ideal J = Sx +Sy. For each

S-module M defines a I<-linear representation
x y
iv(M) = (Mf JM=::
y
JM/J 2 M =::x J2M)
of the one-relation quiver r encountered in the previous sublemma. This attach-
ment extends to morphisms in an obvious way and thus defines a functor
iv : Mod (S) -->Mod (J<[f]), M >--+ iv(M),
called the reduction modulo the radical. Obviously iv commutes with direct
limits, direct products, and preserves finite dimensionality. So iv preserves pure-
exactness, in view of Exercise 7.10 (v) also algebraic compactness and commutes
with the formation of ultraproducts.
As we will discuss now, iv behaves especially nice on the subclass of high
S-modules. Here, an S-module M is called high if it admits a presentation
M = F/U with F being a projective(= free) S-module and U ~ J2F. Notice
that the pair (F, U) is uniquely determined by M up to isomorphism, since F
serves as the projective envelope for M with kernel U.
It is elementary to check that M E Mod (S) is high if and only if
has the property that

(i) the map (a1i ,81 ) : V1 EB Vi ----> Vi is an isomorphism and
(ii) the map (a 2 , ,82 ) : V2 EB V2 ----> V3 is an epimorphism.
Conversely each V E Mod (J<[f]) satisfying (i) and (ii) is easily seen to have
the form V = w(M) for a suitably chosen S-module M.
Clearly the high S-modules form a finitely axiomatizable class (subcategory)
High(S) of Mod (S). Similarly the representations V of r satisfying conditions
(i) and (ii) - also called high from now on - form a finitely axiomatizable class
(subcategory) High(J<[f]) of Mod (J<[f]). [Since we did not specify the algebra
I<[r] in this latter case, finite axiomatizability of High(K[r]) is best established
with an ultraproduct argument.]
Now assume that both i\1, M' are high S-modules. By means of presentations
M = F/U and M' = F'/U' with free S-modules F,F' and submodules U ~ J2F,
U' ~ J 2 F', respectively, we deduce that the natural map
Homs(M,M')----> HomK[rJ(ll!(M), ll!(M')), u,..... w(u)
is an epimorphism with kernel Hom(M,JM').
Notice that the representation A# of the preceding sublemma is high, so
A# = w(H) for some high S-module H. We first prove that H is algebraically
compact. According to Proposition 7.50 we consider the diagonal (hence pure)
embedding .6. : H ----> H of H into an algebraically compact ultrapower. Note
0
that ll!(.6.) : ll!(H) ----> w(H*) is a pure embedding in Mod(J<[f]), hence ll!(.6.)
splits since w(H) = A# is algebraically compact. Since also H* is high we obtain
an S-linear map 7r: H*----> H such that W(7r · .6.) = 1"1(H), thus u = 7r · .6. - lH
satisfies u( H) ~ J H, and u 3 = 0 follows. Hence 7r · .6. is an isomorphism and .6.
splits. This proves that H is algebraically compact.
Assume now that H has an indecomposable direct factor U. U shares with
H the property to be high, so EndK[rj(ll!(U)) is local as a homomorphic image
of the local ring Ends(U) (use Corollary 7.5). This implies that w(U) is an in-
decomposable direct factor of A#, a contradiction. D
Proof of Theorem 8.38. Let F = I</m for some maximal ideal m in I<.
Each polynomial ring I<[X1 , .•• , Xn] or power series ring I<[[X1 , ... , XnlJ, n :'.'.: 2,
admits
S = F[X, Y]/(X, Y) 3
NON-ALGEBRAICALLY COMPACT ULTRAPOWERS 189
as a factor ring. Sublemma 8.38.2 now allows to derive the assertion. D
Remark 8.39 As follows from the proof of Sublemma 8.38.2 reduction modulo
the radical establishes a functor
Ill: High(S)--+ High(K[f]), M ...... (M/JM =! JM/J 2 M =! J2M)
which preserves and reflects elementary equivalence, i.e. M =
N (resp. M ~ N)
holds for high S-modules if and only if W(M) :: W(N) (resp. w(M) 9! W(N))
holds for the corresponding K[f]-modules. Moreover, since Wis dense, it induces
bijections between the classes of high S-modules and high K[f]-modules with
regard to elementary equivalence and isomorphism, respectively. We recall that
the respective classes of high modules over Sand K[f] are finitely axiomatizable.
As the reader might have observed the functor W essentially deals with the
passage from S to the associated graded algebra
00
s = EB sk, sk = Jk 1Jk+ 1
k=O
and the associated graduation functor
00
grad: Mod(S)--+ Modz(s), M ...... EBJkM/Jk+ 1 M.

k=O
Here Modz(S) refers to the category of Z-graded S-modules

H = EB Hk, SkHk ~ Hk+l
kEZ
with morphisms u : EB H k --+ EB H' k the homogeneous S-linear maps of degree

zero, i. e. u(Hk) ~ H'k holds for each k E Z. Note that - under the present
assumptions on S - Mod (K[f]) is equivalent to the full subcategory of Mod z(S),
consisting of all graded S-modules H = E!hez Hk with Hk = 0 for k <f_ {O, 1, 2}.
Non-algebraically compact ultrapowers
If R is a countable ring, according to Theorem 7.49 any ultraproduct Ite1 Mi/ F

with respect to an w-incomplete ultrafi.lter is algebraically compact. Therefore
any countable ultraproduct Ilie/ Mi/ F with respect to a non-principal ultrafi.lter
is an algebraically compact R-module.
This, in particular, applies to the ring Z of integers but not to an arbitrary
principal ideal domain:
Proposition 8.40 Let R = C[X]. There does not exist any ultrafilter :F on the
integers N such that RN/ :F is an algebraically compact R-module.
Proof. Anticipating a result of Chapter 11 the pure-injective envelope of R

is given as
A(R) = ITR..
where m runs through the maximal ideals of Rand Rm denotes the m-adic com-
pletion of the localization Rm with respect to m. Thus A(R) has cardinality
(2No ) 2 " 0 = 22 " 0 • If R* = RN/ :F would be algebraically compact this would imply
A(R) <:::: R*. But R* has cardinality 2No only. D
Algebraic compactness will be preserved by the formation of ultraproducts for

the rings of pure-global dimension p.gl.dimR ~ l. These rings are characterized
by the fact that pure submodules of pure-projective modules are always pure-
projective, equivalently that pure quotients of algebraically compact modules are
algebraically compact too. We refer to Chapter 11 for further information on
pure-global dimension.
Here we only note that each countable ring, each Dedekind domain and - if
I< denotes a field - the subring
of the full matrix ring M 2 (I<[X]) all have pure-global dimension ~ l.
Proposition 8.41 If R has pure-global dimension ~ 1, every ultraproduct
of algebraically compact R-modules is algebraically compact too.
Proof. M* is a pure quotient of the direct product flaeI M 0 , which is alge-

braically compact.
D
In general, however, algebraic compactness is not preserved even under the

passage to ultrapowers.
Theorem 8.42 Let I< be field and R = K[[X, Y]] be the power series algebra
in two indeterminates. For each filter :F containing the cofinite subsets of N the
reduced power R* = RN/ :F is not algebraically compact as an R-module (R* -
module, respectively). In particular neither the reduced power RN/ R(N) nor any
ultrapower RN/ :F with respect to a non-principal ultrafilter on N are algebraically
compact as R-modules.
Proof. We consider the system (*) of congruences in RN/ :F:
(1) ( = [Y,Y 2 ,Y3 , ••• ] modulo R*X

(2.,) ( = [O, 0, 0, ...] modulo R*(X + aY),
where a runs through the uncountable set of non-zero formal power series in
I<[[Y]].
Step 1: Each finite subsystem of (*) admits a solution.
Let ai, ... , an be a system of pairwise distinct non-zero elements from K[[Y]].
As a non-zero element in I<[[Y]] we may write a 1 · · ·an in the form
where l is a unit in I<[[Y]]. Put
77 = E- 1 (X + a 1 Y) · · · (X + anY)
and notice that
1J =yn+s modulo (X)
holds true in R. Consequently
( = [0, ... ,0,17,17Y,17Y 2 , ••• ] ER*

with 77 yk serving as the (n + s + k )-th coordinate of 77,
1s a solution of the
congruences (1 ), (2.,;) (1 ::::; i ::::; n ).
Step 2: The system (*) has no solution in R*.
We first note that each X + aY, a E K[[Y]] is irreducible in R ; moreover
where ai, a 2 E I<[[Y]] holds if and only if a 1 = a 2 •

Assume there were a solution ( = [(a, 6, 6, ... ] of the system (*). So for each
non-zero a E I<[Y] there exists (at least) one number n = n(a) such that
(n E yn +RX and (n E R(X + aY).

Since K[[Y]] is uncountable there exist infinitely many a's of K[[Y]], all having
the same n(a), call it n. Hence the non-zero element en
would be divisible
in R by infinitely many non-associated irreducible elements, thus contradicting
factoriality of R = I<[[X, Y]].
Therefore R* is not algebraically compact as a module over R, hence in virtue
of Corollary 7.3 not algebraically compact over R*. D
Actually a much stronger result holds true which basically has a proof quite
similar to the preceding one. We quote it without proof from [99]:
Theorem 8.43 For a complete local commutative Noetherian ring R the follow-
ing conditions are equivalent.
(i) For some filter :F on N containing the cofinite subsets, the reduced power
RN/ :F is algebraically compact as an R-module.
{ii) For every filter :F on N containing the cofinite subsets and any sequence
(Mn) of fiat R-modules the reduced product ITneN Mn/ :F is an algebraically com-
pact fiat R-module.
{iii) R has Krull dimension at most one. D
As is well known, a commutative Noetherian ring is algebraically compact if

and only if it is a direct product of finitely many complete local rings. This yields
Corollary 8.44 Let R be a commutative Noetherian ring which is algebraically

compact and let :F be a filter on N containing the cofinite subsets.
Then RN/ :F is an algebraically compact R-module if and only if R has J(rull
dimension :S 1. D
In the same order of ideas we have
Theorem 8.45 Let I< be an uncountable field and R = I<[X, Y] be the poly-
nomial algebra in the indeterminates X, Y. For each filter :F on N containing
the cofinite subsets the reduced power RN/ :F is not algebraically compact over R
(respectively RN/ :F).
Proof. Using that Risa factorial domain whose elements
(X + aY), a E K,
form an uncountable set of pairwise non-associated irreducible elements, it is

easy to prove along the lines of the proof of Theorem 8.42 that the system (*) of
congruences
(=: [Y,Y 2 ,Y3 , ••• J moduloXRN/F
( =: [O, 0, 0, ... ] modulo (X + aY)RN/F
where a runs through the non-zero elements of I< is finitely solvable but not
solvable, which proves the claim. D
We know already - in virtue of Theorem 8.10 - that an ultraproduct M* =
IlneN Mn/F of ~>algebraically compact modules may fail to be E-algebraically
compact. It is much more difficult to exhibit a situation where M* even fails to
be algebraically compact.
For that purpose we review some basic facts on modules over the so-called
Kronecker algebra
6=(/{~/{ ~)
over a field I<. 6 is isomorphic to the path algebra of the quiver
U1
o ==! o, so left 6-modules M may be viewed as systems M = (M1 =::::: M2)
U2
consisting of two K-linear maps, called Kronecker modules. The representation
theory of 6 is intimately linked to the graded module theory of the Z+-graded
polynomial algebra
J<[X, Y] = EB Hn.
n=O
Here, Hn refers to the (n + 1)-dimensional I<-space of homogeneous polynomials
in X and Y of total degree n.
Viewing 6 as the subring
6 =( z~ ~o)
of the full matrix ring M 2 (I<[X, Y]) it is clear how, for each integer n ~ 0, 6 acts
on Pn = Hn-1 EB Hn by matrix multiplication, thus turning Pn into a Kronecker
module.
Lemma 8.46 For each n ~ 0 and r E Z the mapping
rp: Hr----> Homt,(Pn,Pn+r), h ...+ h= [( ~) ...+ ( ~~ )J

is an isomorphism.
Proof. r.p is a monomorphism, since K[X, Y] is a domain. Conversely -

as is easily checked - any .6.-linear mapping f : Pn --+ Pn+r is induced by
multiplication with some rational function h E K(X, Y), necessarily subject to
hHn ~ Hn+r· Due to factoriality, K[X, Y] is integrally closed in K(X, Y), so h
belongs to Hr and f = h follows. D
So in particular Hom.:l(Pn, Pn) = K which proves that each Pn is an inde-

composable .6.-module. Po and P1 form a complete system of indecomposable
projective .6.-modules. Customarily the modules Pn( n :'.': 0) are called the pre-
projective indecomposable Kronecker modules. Notice that Hom(Pn, Pm) # 0
is equivalent to n :S m. As a finite dimensional .6.-module each Pn is clearly
~-algebraically compact.
The following theorem is basically due to Okoh [144], see also [99], and is
in fact one of the main tools to determine the pure-global dimension of .6. and
related algebras (see Chapter 11 ).
Theorem 8.47 Let .6. be the Kronecker algebra over a field I< and let :F be any
filter on N containing the cofinite subsets. The reduced product
of the sequence of preprojective indecomposable .6.-modules is algebraically com-

pact over .6. if and only if J(, hence .6., is countable.
Proof. If J( is countable .6. has pure-global dimension one, so P* as a pure

quotient of the algebraically compact .6.-module ITneN Pn is algebraically compact
too.
In case, I< is uncountable, we consider the system ( •) of congruences
e= [( ~ ) ,( { ~:
2 ) , ( modulo ( ~ ~ ) P*
) , ..• ]
x:
e= [( ~ ) ,( ~ ) ,( ~ ) ,··.] modulo ( AY ~ ) P*
for P*, where A runs through the uncountable set of non-zero elements in J(.
Using that K[X, Y] is a (graded) factorial domain, we conclude that ( •) is
finitely solvable but not solvable with the same type of arguments used previ-
ously in order to establish Theorems 8.42 and 8.45. Thus in the present situation
P* is not algebraically compact over .6.. D
For an alternative proof of Theorem 8.4 7 in the setting of linear algebra we

refer the reader to [99].
The same instance will also occur for commutative algebras. Let A denote
the 3-dimensional local I<-algebra I<[X, Y]/(X, Y) 2 = I<[x,y]. We may consider
A as a subalgebra of the Kronecker algebra ~ by means of the identification
x =( 1 ~ ) and Y = ( 1 ~ )
With the previous notations in mind we may thus view each module Pn as an
A-module. Observe further that ( •) is already defined over A. So for uncountable
I< the A-module IlneN Pn/ :F is not algebraically compact. This allows to prove
Corollary 8.48 Let I< be an uncountable field and R denote either the poly-
nomial algebra I<[Xi, ... , Xn] in n 2: 2 indeterminates or a commutative local
I<-algebra with dimKm /m 2 2: 2, where m = rad(R). Then there exists a sequence
(Mn) of finite dimensional, hence "'£,-algebraically compact R-modules such that
the reduced product IlneN Mn/ :F is not algebraically compact over R for each filter
:F on N containing the cofinite subsets.
Proof. In either case I<[X, Y]/(X, Y) 2 is isomorphic to a factor ring of R.o
In the same order of ideas we are now going to present an injective R-module
having an ultrapower that fails to be algebraically compact, hence will not be an
injective R-module. By virtue of Theorem 6.48 this instance cannot happen if R
is a Noetherian ring.
Theorem 8.49 Let R be the Boolean algebra F~. R is self-injective, i. e. in-

jective as an R-module. If :F is any filter on N containing all cofinite subsets the
reduced power R* = RN/ :Fis not an algebraically compact (= injective) R-module
(R* -module, respectively).
Proof. Because R is von Neumann regular, injectivity and algebraic com-

pactness coincide for R-modules. As a direct product of simple, hence injective
(see Proposition 8.9) R-modules, R is clearly an injective R-module, too.
We are now going to disprove injectivity for R* = RN/ :F. For any subset A
of N let eA E R be its characteristic function, written also ea if A consists of a
single element a only. We will need the well-known fact (see Lemma 8.20) that
there exists an almost disjoint family A of 2No infinite subsets of N, i.e. A has
the property that A n B is finite for any two distinct A, B E A.
Let I be the ideal of R generated by all idempotents eA for A in A. If R*

were injective over R the restriction map
R* = HomR(R, R*) ____. HomR(I, R*)
would be an epimorphism, so HomR(I, R*) would have cardinality at most 2No.
But HomR(I, R*) has cardinality 2 2< 2 " 0 >, as we shall prove now, thus contradict-
ing injectivity of R*.
Let H be an arbitrary subset of A. For A EA define an element uA of R* by
means of the formula
if A<tH
if AEH,
where the sequence a 0 , ai, a 2 , ... represents the elements of A in strictly increasing
order. Since
annR( eA) i; annR( uA)
this defines - for each A in A - an R-linear map
f A : ReA ____. R*, reA ,..... ruA
sending eA to uA. Notice that !A vanishes on ReA n F~N)_
If A 1 , ... , An are mutually distinct elements of A we prove by recursion with
respect to n that f Ai, ... , fAn combine to an R-linear map
n
fA1, ... ,An: L ReA; ____. R*
i=l
sending eA; to UA; (1 :S i :S n) and vanishing on elements x from F~N), whenever

f A1,. ..,An (x) is defined.
For that purpose we note that by our assumption on A the set Ann (A1 U
· · · U An- I) is finite so
ReAn n (ReA1 + ... +Re An-I) i; F~N)'

hence f A, ,... ,An-i and f An agree on this intersection and thus allow to define
fA,, ...,An· .
This proves the existence of an R-linear map f = fH E HomR(J, R*) uniquely
determined by the condition
f(eA) = uA for each A in A.
Since f(eA) # 0 if and only if A EH, the correspondence H,..... f1i from subsets
of A to elements from HomR(I, R*) is one-to-one, so HomR(I, R*) has cardinality
2 2<2"0J. D
KRULL DIMENSION FOR mod(R) 197
Corollary 8.50 The class of self-injective rings is not closed under ultrapowers.
D
Krull dimension for mod( R)

A full subcategory S of an abelian category A is said to be a Serre subcategory
of A, if it is closed under the formation of subobjects, quotients and extensions.
For any exact sequence 0 -+ A' -+ A -+ A" -+ 0 in A therefore A is in S if and
only if A' and A" are in S. In particular Sis closed under isomorphisms from A.
In the following R is a ring and
G = Add(mod(R P),Ab)
0
denotes the Grothendieck category of all additive functors from mod(R 0 P) to Ab,
the category of abelian groups, while
F = add(mod(R P),Ab)
0
denotes the full subcategory of all finitely presented functors, i. e. all functors
admitting an exact sequence
HomR(B, -) -----+ HomR(A, -) -----+ F-----+ 0
with A, B E mod(R 0 P).

Since mod(R 0 P) has cokernels, F is an abelian category, moreover it follows
from Theorem B.15 that the tensor functors H = -@RM with M in Mod (R)
are up to isomorphism just the fp-injective functors, i. e. those functors H in G
satisfying the condition
Extn(F, H) = 0, n ~ 1
for each finitely presented functor F.
Definition 8.51 Let A' be a Serre subcategory of an abelian category A. An

object S is said to be A/ A' -simple if S ~ A' and moreover for any subobject S'
of S either S' or S/ S' belongs to A'.
Moreover we say that an object A from A has finite length in A/ A' if A admits
a finite filtration
O =Ao<;;; Ai<;;;···<;;; Ai= A,
in A, where each factor A;/A;_ 1 is A/ A' -simple.
[These notions have the correct interpretation as simplicity (resp. length) in

the quotient category A/ A', which is again an abelian category, see [67], [190] or
[149], but we do not want to introduce this concept explicitly.]
Accordingly we have the notion of an F /F'-simple functor S in F, respec-
tively G/G'-simple functor T in G if F' ~ F, respectively G' ~ G, is a Serre
subcategory.
We are now going to introduce the concept of Krull dimension for mod(R0 P),
introduced - in this form - by W. Geigle [76], which is a (finitely presented)
variant of the Krull dimension, introduced by Gabriel [67], see also [149], [81].
The [(rull filtration for F
0 = F -1 ~ Fo ~ ... ~ F >. ~ •••
is the ascending chain of Serre subcategories F >. of F, indexed by the ordinals .\,
and recursively defined as follows:
(i) F _1 = 0,
(ii) F >. = Uµ<>- F µ if .\ is a limit ordinal,
(iii) if,\=µ+ 1, F>. consists of all finitely presented functors F having finite
length in F /F w
If the Krull filtration exhausts F, we say that mod(R 0 P) has Krull dimension;
moreover the Krull dimension of mod(R 0 P) is defined in this case as the least
ordinal~ with the property F = Fs.
We further need the notion of a localizing subcategory G' of G. In the
present context this is a Serre subcategory of G, which is closed with respect to
the formation of (infinite) direct sums, hence also closed under direct limits.
[This definition is in accordance with the general practice to call a Serre
subcategory A' of an abelian category A localizing if the quotient functor T :
A --+ A/ A' admits a right adjoint.]
If F' is a Serre subcategory of F, the localizing subcategory G' of G generated
by F', i.e. the smallest localizing subcategory of G containing G', consists of all
functors M of G admitting a representation
as a smooth well-ordered union of subfunctors Mu (indexed by the ordinals) such

that every Mu+if Mu is a homomorphic image of some Fu in F'. [Smooth means
that Mu = UT<u MT for any limit ordinal a-.] We leave the verification of this
assertion to the reader, and only note that - as a consequence - we have
KRULL DIMENSION FOR mod(R) 199
for each ordinal A.

By definition, a functor Sin G is called A-simple (for some non-limit ordinal
A = µ + 1) if S satisfies the following conditions
(i)SEG,1.,
(ii) Sis G/Gµ-simple.
(iii) No non-zero subobject S' of S belongs to Gw

If S is A-simple, then clearly A is uniquely determined by S. We notice that
the 0-simple functors are exactly the simple functors. Moreover, as is immediate
from the definition, any A-simple functor T is uniform, i.e. T is non-zero and
does not admit non-zero subfunctors T1 , T2 with T1 n T2 = 0. Consequently, every
A-simple functor T has an indecomposable injective envelope E(T).
Two A-simple functors 5 1 and 5 2 are called equivalent if 5 1 and 5 2 get
isomorphic in G/Gw This amounts to the existence of a non-zero functor T,
necessarily A-simple, which is isomorphic both to a subfunctor of 5 1 and 5 2 •
Thus 5 1 and 5 2 are equivalent if and only if their injective envelopes E( 5 1 ) and
E(S2 ) in G are isomorphic.
Note in this connection that any non-zero subfunctor S' of a A-simple functor
Sis A-simple again and determines the same simple object in G/Gw
Proposition 8.52 Assume that mod(R0P) has Krull dimension and A1 is a non-
zero functor in
G = Add(mod(R 0 P), Ab).
Then - for some non-limit ordinal A = µ + 1 - M has a A-simple, hence
uniform, sub functor N.
Moreover, N may be chosen in such a way that there exists an exact sequence
0 ----+ G ----+ F ----+ N ----+ 0,
where G belongs to Gµ and F is a finitely presented functor which is F /F µ-simple.
Proof. Let A be minimal such that M admits a non-zero morphism u : E ----+

M, where E E F ,1.. Clearly, A = µ + 1 for some ordinal µ. Since E has finite
length in F /F '"'' there exists a finite filtration
by finitely presented subfunctors such that each E;/ E;_ 1 is F /F µ-simple. Let t
(1 :'.S t :'.S n) be such that u(E1 ) # 0 but u(E1_ 1 ) = 0. The induced morphism
v : F -+ M, where F = Et/ E 1_i, is non-zero, moreover F is F /F µ-simple.
If F' is any finitely generated, hence finitely presented, subfunctor of G =

ker( v) the F /F µ-simplicity of F implies that F' E F "' because otherwise there
would exist a non-zero morphism v : F / F' --+ M with F / F' E F "' contradicting
to our selection of u. Hence GE Gµ, which - setting N = im(v) - proves the
last assertion.
From F >. = F n G >. it easily follows that N is ..\-simple, hence uniform. This
also proves the first assertion. D
Rings with sufficiently many algebraically com-

pact indecomposable modules
Theorem 8.53 We assume that mod(R 0 P) has I<rull dimension (possibly an in-
finite ordinal). Then Mod(R) has sufficiently many algebraically compact inde-
composable left R-modules.
Moreover, there is a natural bijection, induced by the correspondence M >-+
- 0R M = E(S), between the set of isomorphism classes of algebraically compact
indecomposable left R-modules M and the set of equivalence classes of ..\-simple
functors S, where..\ runs through the ordinals.
Proof. According to Theorem 7.12 the first assertion amounts to prove

that any non-zero injective functor H in G has an indecomposable direct factor.
It follows from the preceding proposition that for some ordinal ..\, depending
on H, there is a ..\-simple, hence uniform, subfunctor S of H. The injective
envelope E(S) is thus an indecomposable direct factor of H, which proves the
first assertion.
According to Exercise 7.57 the isomorphism classes of algebraically compact
indecomposable R-modules form a set. Moreover, according to Theorem 7.12,
the correspondence M >-+ - 0R M induces a bijection between this set and the
set of isomorphism classes of indecomposable injective funcors. As follows from
the first part of the proof - under the present assumption on Krull dimension -
each indecomposable injective functor is the injective envelope of some ..\-simple
subfunctor S, uniquely determined up to equivalence. D
Remark 8.54 The preceding theorem suggests the following strategy for a clas-
sification of all algebraically compact indecomposable left R-modules over a ring
R, where mod(R P) has Krull dimension.
0
KRULL-DIMENSION FOR A DEDEKIND DOMAIN 201
(i) Determine the set of isomorphism classes of simple objects in F µ+i/F µ

(hence according to Proposition 8.52 in Gµ+i/Gµ) for eachµ.
(ii) Determine for each .A-simple functor S some algebraically compact inde-
composable R-module M, such that S embeds into - 0R M.
The collection of (isomorphism classes) of all R-modules M, arising in this
way, is then a complete system of algebraically compact indecomposable left R-
modules. As a byproduct this procedure leads - in many cases - to a natural
parametrization of all all algebraically compact indecomposable modules.
Krull-dimension for a Dedekind domain

We illustrate the above strategy in the case of modules over a Dedekind domain
R. First, we fix some notations. Recall that an R-module M has finite length
if and only it is a finitely generated torsion module; we will denote the category
of these modules by mod 0 (R). For any R-module E let ET denote the torsion
submodule of M.
For every ME Mod(R) we consider the functor
M: mod(R)----+ Ab, E >-+ (E/ET)0RM.
Thus M vanishes on finite length R-modules and further satisfies M(R) = M.

Up to isomorphism Mis uniquely determined by these two properties. Moreover,
the attachment M >-+ M induces an equivalence between Mod (R) and the full
subcategory of
G = Add(mod(R),Ab)
consisting of all additive functors vanishing on mod 0 (R).
Further let
p: mod(R) --+ mod(R), E >-+ E/ ET
denote the functor 'reduction modulo torsion'. For every F E G the natural
splitting epimorphisms "-E : E --+ E/ET, with E in mod(R), induce an exact
sequence
(o) O --+ Fp <--> F -'=-. F o p --+ O
of functors, where UE is given as F("-E), and FP is defined as the kernel of

u. By construction, Fp(R) = O, hence FP may be viewed as an object in
Add(mod0 (R),Ab) while Fop vanishes on mod 0 (R), hence by the preceding
remarks Fop~ F(R).
Finally, !1( R) denotes the set of all maximal ideals of R.
Theorem 8.55 Let R be Dedekind domain with quotient field I< #- R. Then the
category mod(R) has Krull dimension one.
1\1oreover:
(i) The functors
(a) Hom(R/mn,-)/radHom(R/mn,-), with min f!(R) and n ~ 1, and
(b) R/m, with m E f!(R)
are - up to isomorphism - a complete system of 0-simple, i.e. simple functors.
(ii) The functors
{a) HomR(R/m, -), with m in f!(R) and the functor
(b) R
form - up to equivalence - a complete system of 1-simple functors.
Proof. First we determine all simple functors in G:

In view of the exact sequence ( o) a simple functor F : mod(R) --+Ab either
has the form Fp or Fis isomorphic to a functor M with M E Mod (R).
In the first case we view Fas a functor F : mod 0 (R) --+ Ab. Since F #- 0 there
exists an indecomposable module U = R/m n, m En, n ~ 1, such that F(U) #- 0.
From Yoneda's lemma we obtain an epimorphism cp : HomR(U, -) --> F which
annihilates the unique maximal subfunctor rad HomR(U, -) of HomR(U, -). [No-
tice for that purpose that HomR( U, - ) is a finitely generated projective object in
G, which has a local endomorphism ring.] This proves that Fis isomorphic to
one of the simple functors
with m E f!(R), n ~ 1.
In the second case F ~ M for some R-module M. Since any subfunctor of .M
has the form YJ for some submodule U of M, Fis a simple functor if and only if
M is a simple R-module. Hence, in this case, F ~ R/m for some m E f!(R).
In order to determine the 1-simple functors we insert two sublemmas on prop-
erties of finitely generated R-modules:
Sublemma 8.55.1 Let U (resp. Un) denote the category consisting of all finite
direct sums of R-modules having finite length (resp. length ::; n}.
(i) Each indecomposable R-module U of finite length is uniserial, i.e. the sub-
modules of U form a finite set, linearly ordered with respect to inclusion.
(ii) Let S be simple and U indecomposable in U. If
T/ : 0--+U-!:....+V~S--+0
KRULL-DIMENSION FOR A DEDEKIND DOMAIN 203
is a non-split exact sequence, then V is indecomposable.

(iii) Each indecomposable R-module U of length n is injective in the category
Un.
Proof. ( i) An indecomposable R-module U in U has the form R/m k for

some m E n and some integer k ~ 1. The unique factorization into prime ideals
implies that the chain
displays the set of all submodules of R/m n, which proves assertion (i). Notice
moreover that each indecomposable U E U is uniquely determined by its socle S
and its length k. We write U = S(k), k ~ 0, in this case.
(ii) Assume that V has a decomposition V = V' EEl V" into non-zero summands.
Let 7r 1 (resp. 7r 11 ) denote the restriction of 7r to V' (resp. to V"). Because S is
simple we may assume that 7r 1 is an epimorphism. Since T/ does not split, 7r 1
cannot be an isomorphism, thus the kernel of 7r 1 is a non-zero submodule of U,
hence is essential in U. Therefore 7r 11 is a monomorphism, hence V" is either zero
or of length l. The first case implies V" = 0, the second possibility implies the
splitting of TJ, both cases are impossible.
(iii) Since any object in Un has a finite filtration with simple factors, it suffices
to show that Extl;n (S, U) = 0 when Sis simple. This, however, is an immediate
consequence of assertion (ii). D
Sublemma 8.55.2 (i) For each U in mod 0 (R) the functor Extl;(U, -), viewed
as an object in Add(U, Ab), is locally finite, i.e. each finitely generated subfunctor
of Extl;(U, -) has finite length.
(ii) For each simple R-module S the functor HomR( S, - ) is 1-simple in G.
Proof. (i): By induction on the length of U it suffices to prove that the

assertion holds for the functor Extl;( S, - ), where S is a simple R-module. Let
17 : Homu(V, -) ---+ Extl;(S, -) be a morphism of functors and assume that V
is indecomposable in U. By Yoneda's lemma T/ corresponds to an element in
Extl;(S, V), hence to an exact sequence
T/ : 0 -----+ v ___:_., w -2.... s -----+ 0.

Consequently the induced sequence
Homu(W,-) 2'+ Homu(V, -) 2-. Extl;(S, -)

is exact, thus assertion (iii) of Sublemma 8.55.2 shows that the image F of 1)
vanishes on indecomposable modules of length > length(V), which implies that
F is a functor of finite length.
(ii): Since F = HomR(S, -) has an infinite support on U, i.e. Fis non-zero on
an infinite number of pairwise non-isomorphic indecomposable modules (take the
modules S(n)], F does not have finite length and as a finitely presented functor
hence is not locally finite. In order to prove that Fis 1-simple it therefore suffices
to show that each proper factor of F has finite length, which in turn implies that
F does not have any simple subfunctor:
Since F(R) = 0 we may view Fas a functor on U. Let Ube indecomposable
in U and <.p: Homu(U, -) --+ Homu(S, -) be a non-zero homomorphism. Notice
that <.p is induced by a monomorphism u : S --+ U, thus leading to an exact
sequence
jt : o __. s ~ u __. uIs __. o.

From the exactness of µ we obtain an exact sequence
Homu(U,-) ~ Homu(S,-) ~ Exth(U/S,-),
which in view of (i) implies that the co kernel of <.p is a functor of finite length.o
We now continue with the proof of Theorem 8.55.

From the preceding discussion it follows that the functors listed in (i)(a) and
(i)(b) (resp. (ii)(a)) are 0-simple (resp. 1-simple). Further R is clearly 1-simple
in Mod (R), hence R is 1-simple in G.
It therefore remains to be shown that any non-zero functor F contains a non-
zero subfunctor, which is isomorphic to a subfunctor of one of the 0-simple or
1-simple functors listed in the Theorem. Further, in view of the exact sequence
( o) it suffices to deal with the two cases F = Fp and F = M, respectively.
First assume F = M. If the module M -:f. 0 has torsion (resp. is torsion-
free) M contains a simple submodule S (resp. a submodule isomorphic to R).
Accordingly M contains the 0-simple functor S (resp. the 1-simple functor R.)
In case F = FP we view F as an additive functor on U. If F contains a
simple subfunctor, we are done. We therefore assume that F is non-zero but
does not contain any simple subfunctor. Choose an indecomposable module U
in U of minimal length with the property F(U) -:f. 0, and let S denote the socle
of U. From the exactness of 0 --+ S --+ U --+ U/ S --+ 0 we obtain an exact
sequence 0--+ Homu(U/S,-)--+ Homu(U,-)--+ Homu(S,-), and by assump-
tion there exists a non-zero homomorphism <.p : Homu (U, - ) --+ F vanishing on
INDECOMPOSABLE MODULES OVER A DEDEKIND DOMAIN 205
Homu(U / 5, -) thus inducing a non-zero homomorphism 1/; from a subfunctor H

of Homu(5, -) into F. Since His I-simple and F has zero socle, 1/; is a monomor-
phism, which proves our claim. This finishes the proof of Theorem 8.55. D
Indecomposable pure-injective modules over a

Dedekind domain
Again, R denotes a Dedekind domain with quotient field I< "I- R. In order to
determine the indecomposable algebraically compact R-modules we are now going
to calculate the injective envelopes of the 0-simple and I-simple functors listed
in Theorem 8.55. For the classical approach towards this classification problem,
based on a careful analysis of the infinite module theory for R, we refer to the
accounts given by Kaplansky (106) and Fuchs (65).
For each maximal ideal m the Priifer module R(m 00 ) can be defined as the
injective envelope E(R/m) of the simple R-module R/m. Since
K/ R = EB R(m 00 ),
nEO(R)
R(m 00 ) can alternatively be obtained as the m-torsion part of K/ R. Moreover,

setting 5 = R/m, the Priifer module R( m 00 ) can be obtained as the union (direct
limit) 5(oo) of the chain of natural embeddings
0 = 5(o) ~ 5(l) ~ 5< 2 l ~ ... ~ 5(n) ~ 5(n+l) ~ ....
Notice that the above chain displays the complete set of proper submodules of
5(00)_
Since the submodules 5(n) are stable under endomorphisms of 5(oo), the en-
domorphism ring of R(m 00 ) is given as
End(R(m 00 )) = Ji..m.R/m n =Rm,

i.e. coincides with the m-adic completion of R. Viewed as R-modules, these
completions R;,, are called the m -adic R-modules.
Theorem 8.56 Let R be a Dedekind domain, not a field, with quotient field ]{.
Then any algebraically compact R-module M is isomorphic to the pure-injective
envelope of a direct sum of indecomposable algebraically compact modules.
Moreover the indecomposable algebraically compact modules are given by the
following list:
(i){a} the modules R/mn, m E n(R), n 2: 1.

(b) the Prufer modules R(m 00 ) , m E n(R).
(ii) (a) the m -a die modules It,
(b) the quotient field I< of R.
Proof. ad (i)(a): Setting S = R/m we have injections ln: S(n)--+ 5(n+ll,

induced by the multiplication with some fixed element 7r E m - m 2 , and, by
factoring through the socle, also epimorphisms 7r n : S(n+l) --+ S(n), n 2: 1. The
selection of the ln 's and the 7r'n is made in such a way that commutativity 7rnOln =
ln-l o 7rn-l holds for each n 2: 1. Accordingly
n 2: 1, is an exact sequence. It is straightforward to show that any non-

isomorphism f : S(n) --+ U into an indecomposable module U in U admits an
extension to S(n-l) EB S(n+I), accordingly the sequence of functors
(2) Hom(S(n-I) EB 5(n+l), -) --> Hom(S(n), -) --> TR/nf' --> 0
is exact. [Actually this property states that (1) is an almost-split sequence, cf.
Chapter 11.J
Passing to the Hom-Ext sequence attached to (1), the exactness of (2) implies
that TR/nf' is isomorphic to a subfunctor of H = Ext 1 (R/mn,-). As a right exact
functor, H is isomorphic to the functor -®RH(R), cf. Theorem B.15. Since
H(R) = Ext 1 (R/mn,R) ~ R/mn is algebraically compact and indecomposable,
H is an indecomposable injective functor, therefore agrees with the injective hull
of TR/nf'· To summarize, we have shown that
(3)
ad (i)(b): Multiplication by an element 7r Em - m 2 on R(m 00 ) induces an
exact sequence
(4) 0--> R/m--> R(m 00 )--> R(m 00 )--> 0,
which induces an exact sequence of functors
(5)
Since tensoring with the divisible module R(m 00 ) annihilates all torsion modules,
we obtain R(m 00 ) = -®RR(m 00 ), hence
(6)
INDECOMPOSABLE PURE-INJECTIVE KRONECKER MODULES 207
ad (ii)(a): The Hom-Ext sequence attached to (4) induces an inclusion
HomR(R/m, -) '--+ Extk(R(m 00 ) , - ) .
As a right exact functor H = Extk(R(m 00 ) , - ) is isomorphic to the functor

-0RH(R). In order to calculate H(R) = Extk(R(m 00 ) , R) we apply the functor
HomR(R(m 00 ) , - ) to an injective resolution
(7) 0 ---+ R ---+ I< ---+ EB R( m 00 ) ---+ 0

rrEn
of R, and obtain~= EndR(R(m 00 )) ~ Extk(R(m 00 ),R). Since R,,, is pure-

injective indecomposable, the functor H = -0R~ is injective indecomposable,
hence by the preceding argument an injective envelope of HomR(R/m, -). Thus
(8)
ad (ii)(b): Finally we have to calculate the injective envelope ofR. Here we

notice that the injective resolution (7) induces an exact sequence
of functors. Therefore
(9)
In view of Theorem 8.53 this concludes the proof of Theorem 8.56. D
Indecomposable pure-injective Kronecker modu-

les
A quite similar strategy works in the case of Kronecker modules. We first de-
scribe the classification of finite dimensional indecomposable Kronecker modules,
which dates back to 1890 (L. Kronecker [119]). The reader may consult [2] or [43]
for a proof and might also use simplifications provided by the methods from [23].
For the definition of the preprojective Kronecker modules Pn we refer to
page 194. We note that R ~ R 0 P, therefore the F-dual of a (left) R-module
M may again be viewed as a (left) R-module. Further recall that in view of
Lemma 8.46 a homogeneous polynomial h E F[X, Y] of degree d may be viewed
as a homomorphism h : Pn -+ Pn+d·
Theorem 8.57 (Kronecker) Assume R = R(F) is the Kronecker algebra over

a field F. The complete list of finite dimensional indecomposable R-modules con-
sists of the following modules:
(i) the preprojective indecomposable modules P0 , P1 , ... , Pni ... ,
(ii) the corresponding F-duals DPo, DPi, ... , DPn, ... , called the preinjective
indecomposable modules,
(iii) the regular indecomposable modules s;n), defined by means of the exact
sequences
0 --+ Po ~ Pnd --+ s;n) --+ 0,
where p E F[X, Y] is a homogeneous irreducible polynomial (of degreed}, p is the
homogeneous prime ideal generated by p, and n ~ 1 is an integer. D
As is easily checked the indecomposable regular modules allow - up to isomor-

phism - the following more suggestive description as:
(a) the Kronecker modules V =::x

1
V, where V represents a finite dimensional
indecomposable F[X]-module.
--+
1
(b) the Kronecker modules V --+ V, where again V is a finite dimensional
x
indecomposable F[X]-module, but X acts nilpotently on V.
There are natural inclusions
5(1) C 5(2) C ... C 5(n) C ...
p;Cp;C ;Cp;C'
whose union - which is uniquely determined up to isomorphism - is called the

s;
Pru/er module 00 l corresponding to the prime p.
The F-duals of the Priifer modules, which in view of Exercise 7.10 are al-
gebraically compact, are called the p-adic Kronecker modules, denoted JP. The
module JP has an interpretation as the inverse limit of the sequence
... --+ s;+i --+ s; --+ ... --+ s; --+ sp.

For further information on these classes of infinite dimensional modules we refer
to [2] and [158].
Introducing the rank of a finite dimensional indecomposable Kronecker mo-
dule M = Mo :::::! M1 as the number rk(M) = dimF(M1) - dimF(Mo), the
modules in (i), (ii) and (iii) have rank 1, -1 and 0, respectively.
The finite direct sums of the modules in (iii) form an exact, hence abelian,
subcategory reg(R) of mod(R), called the category of (finite dimensional) regular
INDECOMPOSABLE PURE-INJECTIVE KRONECKER MODULES 209
Kronecker modules. The category reg(R) is uniserial, i.e. each object has finite
length, hence decomposes into a finite number of indecomposable objects; more-
over any indecomposable object has a uniquely determined composition series
where each UJU;_ 1 • i = 1, ... ,n, is simple in reg(R).

s;
Clearly, the modules Sp= 1 l, where p runs through the homogeneous prime
ideals of P[X, Y] that are properly contained in the 'irrelevant' ideal (X, Y), are
a complete system of simple objects for reg(R).
We notice further that there are no non-zero morphisms from preinjective
to regular, from regular to preprojective or from preinjective to preprojective
modules.
Very much along the guiding lines of Theorem 8.55 these properties allow to
deduce the following theorem, which is a ·particular case of a theorem proved by
W. Geigle for tame hereditary Artin algebras [76], see also [75], [10]. This more
general version relies on the classification of finite dimensional representations
over tame hereditary Artin algebras by V. Diab and C.M. Ringel [49].
Let G = Add(mod(R),Ab). For any Pin G we denote by Po (resp. P 1 )
the uniquely defined subfunctor of P, which agrees with P on all preinjective
(resp. all preinjective and all regular) modules and vanishes on the regular and
preprojective (resp. the preprojective) modules. Accordingly P 0 = P / P0 (resp.
P 1 = F/P1 ) agrees with P for preprojective modules and regular modules (resp.
preprojective modules) and vanishes on preinjective (resp. preprojective and reg-
ular) modules.
Theorem 8.58 (Geigle) Let R denote the Kronecker algebra. Then mod(R)
has Krull dimension two. In particular, R has sufficiently many algebraically
compact indecomposable modules.
Moreover, a complete system of >.-simple functors (>. = 0, 1, 2} is given as
follows:
(i) The functors TE= Hom(E,-)/radHom(E,-), for E indecomposable in
mod(R) form, up to isomorphism, a complete system of simple functors.
(ii) The functors
(a) HomR( Sp, - )0 and
(b) Extk(Sp, -) 1
form, up to equivalence, a complete system of 1-simple functors.
(iii) The functor HomR( P0 , - ) 1 is, up to equivalence, the unique 2-simple
functor.
Sketch of the proof. Let F be a non-zero functor from G, we are going

to show that the functors from the above list are >.-simple (>. = 0, 1, 2) and that
F contains a non-zero subfunctor of one of these functors. In view of the exact
sequence 0-+ F0 -+ F-+ F 0 -+ 0 we may assume that F = F0 or F = F 0 • First
assume that F = F0 • For any preinjective module Q the representable functor
HomR( Q, - ) has finite length, therefore F is locally finite and contains a simple
functor, necessarily of the form
TE= HomR(E,-)/radHomR(E,-)
for some preinjective indecomposable R-module E.
In the sequel we therefore assume that F is non-zero and vanishes on prein-
jective modules. In view of the exact sequence 0 -+ F 1 -+ F -+ F 1 -+ 0 we only
have to deal with the cases F = F 1 or F = F 1 .
If F = F 1 we may view F as an object in the category Add(U, Ab), where
U denotes the uniserial category of regular R-modules. As in the proof of Theo-
rem 8.55 the uniseriality of U implies that F is either contains a simple functor,
necessarily of type TE, whith E indecomposable regular, or F contains a I-simple
functor of the form Homu(S, -) for some simple object S =Sp in U.
It therefore remains to deal with an additive functor F E G which vanishes
on regular and on preinjective modules. We may view F as an additive functor
on the category P consisting of the indecomposable preprojective Kronecker mo-
dules Pn. Let F denote the base field of R. In view of Lemma 8.46 the category
Add(P, Ab) is equivalent to the category Mod Z+(F[X, Y]) of positively Z-graded
modules over the polynomial algebra F[X, Y], which is Z+-graded by total degree
of polynomials. Using this fact, it is not difficult to prove that F either contains
a simple functor of type TE with E indecomposable preprojective, or a non-zero
subfunctor of the 1-simple functor Extk(S, -)IP, with S = Sp simple in U, or a
non-zero subfunctor of the representable functor HomR(P0 , -)IP· O
By means of a reasoning similar to the proof of Theorem 8.56 we obtain.
Corollary 8.59 The complete list of algebraically compact indecomposable Kro-

necker modules {over a base field F) is the following:
(i) the finite dimensional indecomposable modules,
(ii) the p-adic modules Jp,
(iii) the indecomposable divisible modules:
x
(1) the rational function field F(X) =:::
1
F(X),
(2) the Prufer modules S';°. 0

REDUCTION MODULO THE RADICAL 211
Here, a Kronecker module M is called divisible if HomR( M, S~) = 0 for all p,

equivalently if M does not admit a non-zero morphism into a (finite dimensional)
regular Kronecker module.
We remark that none of the p-adic modules is ~-algebraically compact, while
this holds true for the modules in (i) and also for the divisible Kronecker modules.
By reduction modulo radical (see the next Section) the preceding results im-
ply:
Corollary 8.60 For any field F the three-dimensional algebra
F[X, Y]/(X, Y) 2
has sufficiently many algebraically compact modules. D
Moreover Proposition 8.61 allows to deduce an explicit list of algebraically

compact indecomposable modules for F[X, Yl/(X, Y) 2 from the corresponding
classification for Kronecker modules.
Reduction modulo the radical
If we want to transfer information on elementary equivalence or algebraic com-

pactness from Mod (R) to Mod (5) this is best done by means of functors pre-
serving and reflecting elementary equivalence and/or algebraic compactness. We
have already met such instances in the preceding discussion. The next proposi-
tion isolates one of the main transfer arguments. Notice the similarity for the
assumptions needed to transfer assertions on elementary equivalence and alge-
braic compactness, respectively.
Proposition 8.61 Let : Mod (R) --> Mod(S) be an additive functor which
satisfies the following conditions:
(a) commutes with direct limits.
(b) commutes with direct products.
(c) is full.
(d) For each left R-module M, the kernel of the mapping
EndR(M)--> Ends(<l>(M)), u,..... <l>(u)
belongs to the Jacobson radical of EndR( M).

Then the following assertions hold true:

{i} preserves pure-exactness.
(ii) preserves and reflects elementary equivalence, i.e.
M =RN if and only if (M) =s (N).
(iii) preserves and reflects algebraic compactness, i.e. M is algebraically

compact if and only if this holds for (M).
(iv) Assume A E Mod (R), hence (A) E Mod (S) is algebraically compact.
Then A has an indecomposable direct factor if and only if this holds for (A).
(v) If S has sufficiently many algebraically compact indecomposable modules
so has R.
Proof. Since any pure-exact sequence is the direct limit of split-exact se-
quences assertion (i) follows from (a). Also note that - because of (c) and (d)
- a morphism u : M ---+ N of R-modules is a split monomorphism (split epi-
morphism, isomorphism, respectively) if and only if the same attribute holds for
(u) : (M) ---+ (N). [Assume for instance that (u) is a split monomor-
phism, whence there exists an R-linear map v : N ----> M such that vu - lM is
annihilated by and thus belongs to rad(EndR(M)). Hence vu is an isomorphism
and u splits.]
From (a) and ( b) we further conclude that commutes with ultraproducts.
Assertion (ii) is now an immediate consequence of Keisler-Shelah's ultrapower
theorem, while (iii) follows from Proposition 7.50. [Note that for each ultrafilter
(I, :F) the functor sends the diagonal map M ---+ M 1 / :F to the diagonal map
(M) ----> (M)I I :F.]
With regard to (iv) assume first that A has an indecomposable direct factor
U. Then (U) is a direct factor of (A), moreover in view of Corollary 7.5 the
endomorphism ring Ends((U)) is local as a factor ring of EndR(U), hence (U)
is indecomposable.
Conversely assume that (A) has an indecomposable direct factor V, repre-
sented by an idempotent e E Ends((A)). Any f E EndR(A) with the property
(!) = e fulfills j2 - f E rad(EndR(A)). So in view of F-semiperfectness of
EndR(A) (Corollary 7.5) there exists an idempotent f 1 E EndR(A) such that
f 1 - f E rad(EndR(A)). We deduce that e 1 = (f1 ) is an idempotent in
Ends((A)), moreover that e1 -e belongs to rad Ends((A)). Because (A) is al-
gebraically compact this allows to conclude that the direct summand e1 (A) = V1
of (A) is isomorphic to e(A) = V, hence indecomposable. Setting U1 = f 1 A
we therefore know that U1 is a direct factor of A with (U1 ) = Vi.. In view of
assumptions (c), (d) the local ring Ends(4>(U1 )) is isomorphic to a factor ring of
the F-semiperfect ring EndR(U1 ) by an ideal contained in the Jacobson radical.
We infer that EndR(U1 ) has no non-trivial idempotents, so U1 is indecomposable.
This establishes (iv).
Finally notice that (v) is a trivial consequence of (iv). O
Recall that a ring homomorphism cp : R --+ S is called an epimorphism (in
the category of rings) if for any pair t/;1, t/J2 : S --+ S' of ring homomorphisms
t/J1 ocp = t/J2ocp implies t/J1 = t/; 2. It is an equivalent assertion that the corresponding
pull-back functor for modules
cp*: Mod (S)--+ Mod(R), M >-+ M

is a full embedding. Trivially cp* satisfies all the conditions of the preceding
proposition, so we obtain:
Corollary 8.62 If cp : R --+ S is an epimorphism in the category of rings, the

corresponding full embedding
cp*: Mod (S)--+ Mod(R), M >-+ M

preserves and reflects elementary equivalence and algebraic compactness. More-
over if R has sufficiently many algebraically compact modules so has S. 0
As particular examples of ring epimorphisms we mention the canonical sur-

jections R --+ R/a and - if R is commutative and T denotes a multiplicative
subset of R- the localization map
R--+ r- 1 R, r >-+ r/1.
Further examples are given by the embeddings
K 0 ) ( K[X 2] XK[X 2] )
( K K s;; M2(K) and XK[X2] K[X2] ~ M2(K[X]),
and many others arise in various settings of (non-commutative) localization.

Our main application of Proposition 8.61 will be the reduction modulo a
squared-zero Jacobson radical. Assume R is semiprimary - i.e. R/rad(R) is
semisimple Artinian and rad(R) is nilpotent - and assume moreover that the
square of J = rad(R) is zero. This allows to form the matrix-type ring
- ( R/J O )
R= J R/J
whose Jacobson radical is

1-(0 0)
- J 0
hence also has square zero. As is easily seen, fl is (left and right) hereditary.
Notice further that for each left R-module M the ring fl acts on M = M/ JMEB
JM by obvious matrix multiplication, thus turning M into a left fl-module. We
shall refer to the functor
cl>= Mod (R)--+ Mod (R), M >-+ M = (M/JM EB JM)

as the reduction modulo the radical. We refer in this connection to the comments
of Remark 8.39.
Proposition 8.63 Let R hence R = ( R~ J R~ J ) be a right Artinian ring

with squared-zero Jacobson radical. fl is left and right hereditary. The functor
reduction modulo the radical
cl>= Mod(R)--+ Mod(fl), M >-+ M = (M/JM EB JM)

satisfies all assumptions of Proposition 8.61, in particular preserves and reflects
elementary equivalence and algebraic compactness. Moreover R has sufficiently
many algebraically compact indecomposable modules if and only if this property
holds for fl.
Proof. Property (a) of Proposition 8.61 is clearly satisfied, while (b) holds
since JR is finitely generated. For (c) it is sufficient to prove that
HomR(P, M)--+ Homn(P, M), u >-+ 4>(u)

is a surjective map while P is a projective R-module: If v : P --+ M is R-
linear, it defines an R-linear map vi : Pf JM--+ M/JM. Every R-linear map
u: P--+ M covering Vi has the property cl>(u) = v.
To prove (d) observe that for u E HomR(M, N) we have cl>(u) = 0 if and only
if u(M) ~JN.
Observe finally that a left fl-module N may be identified with a pair (Ni, N 2 )
of left R/J-modules supplied with an R/J-linear map
hN : J 0R/J Ni --+ Nz.

Moreover - as is easy to prove using projective covers - N is of the form cl>(M)
for some left R-module M if and only if hN is an epimorphism.
Hence each .R-module can be written in the form cI>(M) EB T where T is a

semisimple projective left R-module. In conjunction with assertion (iv) of Propo-
sition 8.61 this proves that R has a sufficient supply of algebraically compact
indecomposable modules if and only if this holds for R. D
As the preceding proposition shows, the problems

o to classify modules up to elementary equivalence
o to classify algebraically compact (indecomposable) modules
are basically identical for R and R.
For instance - if I< denotes any field - the rings
will lead - for each positive integer n - to essentially equivalent classification

problems. More precisely, the effect of the passage from Mod (R) to Mod (R)
is to add exactly one additional indecomposable .R-module which is the unique
simple projective left R-module.
Since R is additionally hereditary, it is usually more convenient to deal with
R:
Proposition 8.64 Let R be a not necessarily commutative local ring with max-
imal ideal J which has a commutative residue field I< = R/ J and assume that
dimKJ/ J2 ~ 3. Then R does not have a sufficient supply of algebraically compact
modules.
Proof. Passing to an appropriate factor ring we may assume that J2 =0

and dimKJ/J2 = 3. Thus R is the algebra
-
R =( I<
J<3 1)
encountered in Example 8.37, where it is proved that R does not have a sufficient
supply of algebraically compact indecomposable modules. D
Corollary 8.65 Let R be a commutative ring with maximal ideal m, I< = R/m,
such that dimKm /m 2 ~ 3. Then R fails to have a sufficient supply of algebraically
compact indecomposable modules. D
Proposition 8.66 Let R be a commutative Noetherian ring of finite global di-

mension. R has a sufficient supply of algebraically compact indecomposable mo-
dules if and only if R is a finite direct product of Dedekind domains {possibly
degenerated to fields).
Proof. Assume R has sufficiently many algebraically compact indecompos-

able modules. Then every localization R.,.of R with respect to a maximal ideal m
shares this property with R (Corollary 8.62). Notice that each R.,.is regular local.
Hence invoking Exercise 8.81 that has a proof quite similar to Sublemma 8.38.2
we conclude that each Rm is a discrete valuation ring thus R is a finite direct
product of Dedekind domains. D
Exercise 8.67 Let R be a (not necessarily right Artinian) semiprimary ring with
squared-zero Jacobson radical. With the preceding notations still in force prove
that reduction modulo the radical
<1>: Mod (R)-+ Mod (R), M ...... M/JM EB JM

preserves and reflects algebraic compactness. Deduce from this fact that projective
{left or right) R-modules are "£-algebraically compact.
Remark 8.68 As Proposition 8.63 shows, reduction modulo the radical is quite
an efficient tool once we deal with Artinian rings R with squared-zero radical J.
As for higher degrees n of nilpotency for J we have to consider the reduction
n-1
<1>: Mod(R)-+ Mod(.R), M ...... M =EB JiMjf+IM,
i=O
where now R is the matrix-type ring
R/J 0 0
Jf J2 R/J
.R = J2/J3 J/J2
R/J 0
r-1 J2jJ3 J/J2 Rf J
and the (left) action of Ron Mis given by obvious matrix multiplication. (Com-
pare Remark 8.39 for an alternative setting, substituting the use of matrix rings
by an appropriate use of gradings.)
Notice, however that for n ~ 3 ~ has good preservation and reflection prop-
erties with respect to elementary equivalence and algebraic compactness only,
while restricted to the finitely axiomatizable subclass (subcategory) High(R) of
high R-modules, defined as quotients P/U where Pis projective and Uc:;:: r- 1 P.
We leave the details to the reader and refer moreover to the case n = 3 dealt with
explicitly in Sublemma 8.38.2.
We recall that a left Noetherian, left self-injective ring is Artinian and self-
injective on both sides.
Proposition 8.69 Suppose R is self-injective Artinian. Each left R-module M
has the form Q ffi N, where Q is injective and N is annihilated by the (left) socle
soc(R) of R.
Proof. We may write M = Q ffi N, where Q is injective and N has no

non-zero injective submodule. Assume S c:;:: R is simple and Sx # 0 for some
x E N. By means of the mapping r.p : R--+ N, r,..... rx we see that the injective
envelope E(S) of S is a direct factor of N, contrary to our assumption. Thus
soc(R)N = 0. 0
Actually N consists of all elements of M annihilated by soc(R), so is uniquely
determined by M, while Q is unique only up to isomorphism.
As the proposition shows, R and R/soc(R) have basically identical classifica-
tion problems with respect to algebraic compactness and elementary equivalence.
In particular, R has a sufficient supply of algebraically compact modules if and
only if R/soc(R) has this property.
Corollary 8. 70 Each local self-injective algebra R of dimension :::; 4 over a field
I< with R/rad(R) = I< has a sufficient supply of algebraically compact indecom-
posable modules.
Proof. By reduction modulo socle we may pass to a local I<-algebra S,

S/ J = I< ( J = rad( S)) having I<-dimension at most 3. Thus R is either
representation-finite or satisfies J 2 = 0 and dimKJ/ J2 = 2. The assertion now
follows from Corollary 8.60. 0
The corollary applies for instance for each of the following algebras
R = I<[X, Y]/(X 2 , Y2 ),
R>. = I<<X,Y>/(X 2 ,XY- .\YX,Y 2 ),
where.\ EI< - {O}.
Summary 8. 71 We are now going to summarize the relevant information on

sufficient supply with algebraically compact indecomposable modules. (K always
denotes a field.)
The following rings have sufficiently many algebraically compact indecompos-

able modules:
• each pure-semisimple ring,
• each Dedekind domain,
•each algebra IIn, describing the K-linear representations of the quiver
-2-+···-+n-1-+
fn: 1 <-----n,
• each tame hereditary algebra [76], for instance, the Kronecker algebra,
• each finite dimensional tame radical-squared zero algebra, in particular
•each local ring R, J = rad(R), with Rf J = K, J2 = 0 and dimKJf J2 = 2,
for instance K[X, Y]f(X, Y) 2 ,
•each self-injective local K-algebra of dimension~ 4, for instance the algebra
K[X, Y]f(X 2 , Y 2 ).
By contrast, R does not have sufficiently many algebraically compact inde-

composable modules if it admits an epimorphism (in the category of rings) to one
of the following rings
• R local, Rf J a field, dimJf J2 = 3 for instance
• R commutative local, K = Rf J a field, J 3 = 0 dimKJ f J2 = 2, dimKJ2 = 3.

This applies for instance to
• each free K-algebra K <Xi, ... , Xn>, n 2'. 2,
• each commutative Noetherian ring of finite global dimension n > 2, m
particular
•each polynomial ring K[Xi, ... ,Xn], n 2'. 2,
• each regular local ring of dimension n 2'. 2,
• each power series ring K[[Xi, ... , Xn]], n 2'. 2.
It is not difficult to see that for each ring R from the first list, any elementary
subring S of R shares with R the property to have a sufficient supply of alge-
braically compact indecomposable modules (Proposition 11.20 and Corollary 10. 7
turn out to be helpful).
Invoking Corollary 10.30 it is also easy to verify that each elementary subring
S of a ring R of the second list does not have sufficiently many algebraically
compact indecomposable modules. See also Exercise 8.85.
EXERCISES 219
These observations lead to the following question, where the authors ignore
the answer: Is the class of rings with/without a sufficient supply of algebraically
compact modules closed under elementary descent (elementary equivalence, re-
spectively)? We expect positive answers to both questions under the additional
assumption that we restrict to Artin algebras.
On the other hand it seems unlikely that any Peano ring different from Z will
dispose of sufficiently many algebraically compact indecomposable modules, so
- for the class of Noetherian rings - it seems reasonable only to ask whether
having a sufficient supply of algebraically compact indecomposable modules is
preserved under elementary descent.
Remark 8.72 As the preceding discussion shows our present knowledge on rings
with/without a sufficient supply of algebraically compact indecomposable still
lacks completeness. For instance it. is not known whether any of the I< -algebras
I<[X, Y]/(XY), I<[X, Y]/(X 2 , XY, Y3 )
has sufficiently many algebraically compact indecomposable modules.

The problem is clearly linked to the division of algebras into tame and wild
representation type, which is customary in the representation theory of (finite
dimensional) algebras; for relevant information we refer to [160]. Moreover, the
preceding list of examples makes it reasonable to ask whether - for finite dimen-
sional algebras - there is coincidence between the properties 'tame' and 'having
a sufficient supply of algebraically compact modules' and consequently between
'wild' and 'not having a sufficient supply of algebraically compact modules'?
There seems to be a connection between the property to have a sufficient sup-
ply of algebraically compact indecomposable modules and decidability questions,
which we have not further discussed in our presentation. As the work of W.
Baur [16] and M. Prest [151] indicates, it is natural to ask - for a finite dimen-
sional algebra R over a decidable field - whether there is coincidence between
the properties 'R is decidable' and 'R has sufficiently many algebraically compact
indecomposable modules'?
Exercises
Exercise 8.73 Let R be a ring. Let M be a left R-module such that the module
MN/ M(N) is projective. Then M is L:-algebraically compact, and MN is a projective
R-module.
Exercise 8.74 [J0ndrup] For a commutative ring R the following assertions are equiv-
alent:
(i) R is von Neumann regular.
(ii) Each simple R-module is injective.
(iii) Each indecomposable R-module is simple.
(iv) Each R-module with local endomorphism ring is simple.
Exercise 8.75 Let P be a finite field, R = P 1. Each ring homomorphism cp :

P 1 --> F turns F into a simple R-module, called S"'. Prove that the various S"',
cp E Hom( R, F), are a complete system of algebraically compact ( = injective) indecom·
posable R-modules.
Exercise 8.76 Let R = J(N, where]( is a field. Let A be the injective hull of the
R-module /(N / J((N). Show that A has no indecomposable direct factor.
Exercise 8.77 [Sabbagh] [170]. Assume the left R-modules Mand N are elementarily
equivalent. Then E(M) = E(N), where E refers to the injective envelope.
Exercise 8.78 Let A be an algebraically compact indecomposable left R-module and

M a non-zero pure submodule of A. Show that M is indecomposable and is elementary
in A.
Exercise 8.79 Let R be a Dedekind domain with quotient field](# R. Let G denote
the category Add(mod(R), Ab).
(i) Let M be an injective R-module. Show that the functor Ext.k(M, - ) is injective
and has the form Extk{M, -) ~ -®nQ with Q isomorphic to a direct product of
indecomposable pure-injective R-modules.
(ii) Calculate the minimal injective resolution for the functor 'reduction modulo
torsion' R: mod(R)--> Ab, E--> E/ Er, where Er denotes the torsion module of E.
Exercise 8.80 Let R be a Dedekind domain with quotient field ]( # R. Let G denote
the category Add(mod(R),Ab).
( i) Establish a minimal injective resolution for each simple functor in G.
(ii) Prove in particular that a simple functor Fin G with F(R) # 0 (resp. F(R) = 0)
has injective dimension one (resp. two).
(iii) For each maximal ideal m from R and integer n ~ 0 prove that the functor
Homn( R/m n, - ) has a minimal injective resolution of the form
0--> Homn(R/mn,-)--> -®nRm_::_. -@nli;.-> -®nR/mn--> 0,
where u is induced by the multiplication on Ji;. with an element x E m n - m n+I.

(iv) Prove that Homn( R, - ) has a minimal injective resolution
0-> Homn(R,-)-> Extk(K/R,-)-> Extk{K,-)-> 0.

EXERCISES 221
(v) Deduce from (iv) that R has a minimal pure-injective resolution
0-+ R--+ Extk(K/R,R)-+ Extk(K,R)--+ 0.
Exercise 8.81 Let S be a commutative local ring with maximal ideal J and residue
class field K = S/J. Assume that J 3 = 0, dimKJ/1 2 = 2 and dimKJ 2 = 3.
Let f be the one-relation quiver
ct1 ct2
---+ ---+
r: 0 ---+ 0 ---+ 0 with relation ct2ct1 = /32/31
/31 /32
If J = Sx +Sy prove that the functor reduction modulo radical
x y
lli(M) = (M/JM ~ JM/J 2 M ~ J 2 M)
y x
enjoys all the properties encountered in Sublemma 8.38.2 and Remark 8.39. Prove in
this way
( i) There exists an algebraically compact S-module A not having an indecomposable
direct factor.
(ii) Let R be either Z[X], or Z/(p3)[X], with pa prime number, or a regular local
ring of dimension d ~ 2. Then R does not have sufficiently many algebraically compact
indecomposable modules.
Exercise 8.82 Let R denote the free algebra K <X, Y> over a field K. Prove that
the functor
~: Mod(R)---+ Mod(K[f]),
(~)
---+
M,_.(M ---+ ME!)M),
( ~)
where r denotes the one-relation quiver of the preceding exercise, preserves and reflects
elementary equivalence and algebraic compactness.
Exercise 8.83 Let R denote the free algebra K <X, Y> over a field K and let S =
K[Xi.X2,X3]/(Xi.X2,X3) 2. For each R-module M the K-algebra S acts on M El) M
by means of
This clearly defines a functor
CI>: Mod(R)----> Mod(S), M >--+ M Ell M,

which is faithful but not full.
( i) M 3:' N in Mod ( R) if and only if CJ.i(M) 3:' CJ.i(N) in Mod ( S).
(ii) M = N with respect to M(R) if and only if CJ.i(M) = CJ.i(N) with respect to
M(S).
(iii) A monomorphism f : M ----> N in Mod (R) splits if and only if CI>(/) splits.
(iv) CI> preserves and reflects algebraic compactness.
(v) Each idempotent f E Ends(Cli(M)) has the form f = u'li(e)u, where u is an
automorphism of Cli(M) and e E EndR(M) is an idempotent.
(vi) S does not have a sufficient supply of algebraically compact indecomposable
modules.
Exercise 8.84 Show by modification of the proof of Theorem 8.38 that for each com-
mutative ring J( f:. 0 the algebra
S = J( <X, Y> /(X 2 - Y 2)

does not have a sufficient supply of algebraically compact indecomposable modules.
Exercise 8.85 Let R be a ring elementarily equivalent either to
or to
K[Xr. ... ,Xn],
where J( is a field and n 2: 2. Prove that R fails to have a sufficient supply of alge-
braically compact indecomposable modules.
[Hint: Prove that R admits L[X, Y]/(X, Y) 3 as a factor ring for a suitable field L.]
Exercise 8.86 Let J( be an algebraically closed field and Ra finite dimensional com-
mutative K-algebra. Prove the following assertions:
(i) Either R is a finite direct product of truncated polynomial algebras R;
K[X]/(XF') (1 ::; i ::; t) or else R admits the algebra S = K[Xr.X2]/(Xr,X2) 2 as
a factor algebra.
(ii) R is representation-finite ( = pure-semisimple) if and only if R has the form
f1l= 1 K[X]/(Xn•).
(iii) If R is not representation-finite and J( has uncountable cardinality there is a
sequence (Mn) of finite length R-modules such that every ultraproduct IlneN Mn/ F -
with respect to a non-principal ultrafilter F on N - fails to be algebraically compact.
(iv) Extend assertion (iii) to the case of a commutative Artinian ring.
EXERCISES 223
Exercise 8.87 Let R = K[X,Y] be the polynomial algebra in X and Y over a field
K of uncountable cardinality. Prove the existence of an algebraically compact inde-
composable R-module M whose ultrapowers MN/ F with respect to a non-principal
ultrafilter are not algebraically compact as R-modules.
Chapter 9
The two-sorted language of

modules over unspecified rings
An ultraproduct M* = ITaEIMa/F of left Ra-modules Ma is clearly a left module

over the ring R* = ITaEIRa/F, where the operation of R* on M* is given by
[ra] · [ma] = [rama]· To cover this example, it will be necessary to consider
modules over unspecified rings. In this context, we usually will use the expression
'( R, M) is a module' instead of 'M is a left R-module '.
The appropriate language to describe the properties of modules (R, M) is
the two-sorted first order language M of modules (over unspecified rings). It
disposes of two distinct sorts of variables. One sort of variables, say r,s, t, ... is
for the scalars, while the other sort, say x, y, z, ... is intended for the elements of
the modules.
In contrast to the one-sorted language of R-modules, the two-sorted language
of modules is more rich and allows quantification over both sorts of variables 1 .
We will use the general notions and theorems of first order logic, as exemplified
in Chapters 1 and 2 also for the language M without further comment.
1 As usual, M disposes of the logical connectives /\, V, ~. ~ (also written -+), further of four
function symbols (to express ring-addition + : Rx R --+ R, ring-multiplication · : Rx R --+ R,

module-addition + : M x M --+ M and multiplication with scalars · : R x M --+ M) and
three constants (to express 0, 1 E R, 0 E M). Clearly, M contains the first order language n of
rings.
225
226 CHAPTER 9: MODULES OVER UNSPECIFIED RINGS
Modules of finite length
For example, the first order sentence Vx,y(x =f. 0 =? :lr(Y = rx)) of M is satisfied
exactly by the simple modules (R,M). In order to indicate the range of the
variables we will sometimes write instead
V~Y (x =f. 0 =? :J~(y = rx)).

Hence, the class of simple modules is finitely axiomatizable in M.
This example is covered by the more general
Proposition 9.1 (i) For any natural numbert, the class of modules (R, M) of
length t is finitely axiomatizable in M.
(ii) An ultraproduct ITaeIMa/F of Ra-modules Ma has length t as a module
over ITaeIRa-/F if and only if F-almost all Ma have Ra-length t.
(iii) For any natural number d the class of left Artinian rings of length d is
finitely axiomatizable in the language R of rings.
Proof. Given elements x 1 , ... , Xn, yi, ... , Yn of an R-module M, the relation
(9.1)
holds if and only if (R, M; x 1 , ... , Xn, yi, ... , Ym) satisfies the first order formula
if;
(9.2)
In a similar way equality
can be expressed by a first order formula.

At the possible risk of confusion, we will say that (9.1) defines a first order
formula in M. With this convention in mind,
V~ .... ,x, ((0 = Rx1) v (Rx1 Rx1 + Rx2) V ···

· · · V (Rx1 + · · · + Rxt Rx1 + · · · + Rxt+1)]
defines a first order sentence r.p in M, satisfied exactly by the modules of length
~ t. D
FINITELY GENERATED AND FINITELY PRESENTED MODULES 227
We note, that a converse of the first assertion of Proposition 9.1 will not hold
true:
Example 9.2 For any non-principal ultrafilter :F on N, there is a simple module

s over the ultrapower z· = zN I :F, which is not an ultraproduct IlneNMn/ :F of
{simple} Z-modules Mn.
Proof. In fact if S = IlneNMn/F, by Los's principle we may assume the

modules Mn to be simple over Z. Passing to the ultraproduct with the corre-
sponding exact sequences 0 ---> Z ---> Z ---> Mn ---> 0, we conclude that S
is finitely presented over z·. But z· has maximal ideals which are not finitely
generated by Proposition 4.15, see also [114] and Exercise 4.29. D
Finitely generated and finitely presented modu-

les
To get more familiarity with first order situations we next discuss a series of
simple examples:
Example 9.3 (i) For any natural number n, '(R, M) is n-generated' defines a
first order sentence 'f'n in M.
It suffices to state that there exist elements xi, .. . , Xn in M such that every x
in M is an R-linear combination of xi, ... , Xn· If J( is a field, J(n is n-generated
but not (n - 1)-generated.
Hence IlneNI<n /:Fis not finitely generated as a J<N / F-module by Los's prin-
ciple. As a result, the class of finitely generated modules is not axiomatizable.
But the class of non-finitely generated modules is characterized by the set of
axioms {--,'f'nln E N}.
(ii) For each natural number n, '(R, M) is n-generated free' also defines a
first order sentence 1/Jn in M. Here it suffices to state that there exist elements
xi, . . . , Xn in M, which are linearly independent and form a system of generators
of the R-module M.
As was proved already in (i), the class of finitely generated free modules is
not closed under ultraproducts, hence not axiomatizable.
The corresponding results hold true if free is replaced by projective. Here
we use that (R, M) is n-generated projective if and only if there is an exact
sequence
Rn ~ Rn (r1~n) M ---> 0,
where (r;k) is an idempotent n x n-matrix over R.

(iii) A module (R,M) is called (m,n)-presented for natural numbers m and
n if there exists an exact sequence
The class of (m, n)-presented modules is finitely axiomatizable in M: We

state that there exist elements Xk in M and r;k in R (I S i S m, 1 S k S n)
satisfying
n
L r;kXk = 0 (1 Si Sm) (9.3)
k=l
in such a way that the relation
(9.4)
implies the existence of elements (y;) satisfying sk = L:~ 1 r;kYi for each 1 S k S n.
As was proved already in (i), the class of all finitely presented modules is not
closed under ultraproducts.
Proposition 9.4 The class of ( m, n )-presented modules is finitely axiomatizable

in M. Moreover, if R* = IT<>eIR"'/F is an ultraproduct of rings R"' the following
holds:
(i) An R*-module Mis (m, n)-presented if and only if M ~ IT"'e 1 M"'/F, where
M"' is an (m, n)-presented R"'-module for F-almost every a of I.
(ii) If M is R*-finitely presented, hence M = IT"'e 1 M"'/F, and X is an ultra-
product IT<>eIX<>/F of arbitrary R"'-modules X"', the natural map
is an isomorphism.
(iii) Two finitely presented R* -modules M and N, necessarily of the form
M = IT<>eIM<>/F and N = IT<>eIN"'/F, are isomorphic if and only if M"' and N"'
are isomorphic R"'-modules for F-almost every a E J.
Proof. (i) If M is (m, n )-presented over R*, there is an exact sequence

FLAT MODULES, WEAK DIMENSION AND COHERENCE 229
with r;k = [rik] E R* for 1 :'.S i :'.S n, 1 :'.S k :'.S m.

For each a, then x m-matrix (r;k) defines an exact sequence
Rm (rfk)
---+
R ex n -4
M ex -4
Q
of R 0 -modules. Since the passage to ultraproducts is exact, we c~clude that

Mis isomorphic to f1 0 e 1 M 0 /F. Assertion (ii) is evident for M = R*, also for
M = R*n and finally for M = coker(R*m --> R*n). (iii) follows from (ii) by
functoriality. D
Flat modules, weak dimension and coherence
We are now going to investigate the first order properties of fiat modules. By
definition, a left R-module M is fiat if the functor X --> X@RM from right
R-modules to abelian groups is exact. More suitable for a first order analysis of
fiat modules is the following characterization of R-fiatness of M due to Lazard
[127]: Every R-linear map f: E--> M, where Eis finitely presented, admits an
R-linear factorization f = (E--> Rn--> M) for some n EN.
We also recall that a ring R is right coherent [34] [28] if every finitely generated
right ideal of R is finitely presented. These rings are also characterized by the
property that each direct product of fiat modules is again fiat.
Thus right coherence of R means that each R-linear map u : Rn --> R of
right R-modules extends to an exact sequence Rm ~ Rn _::.__. R. If for each n
it is possible to choose m = 4'(n) only dependent on n (and not on u) R is said
to be uniformly right coherent [186].
In this case the function 4': N--> N,n 1-+ 4'(n) will be called a (uniform)
bound for coherence for R. We refer to Chapter 10 for further information on
uniformly coherent rings.
The preceding discussion shows in combination with the following proposition
that, in general, the class of flat modules (R, M) is not elementarily closed. But
it is closed under elementary descent, which means that flatness is preserved
under the passage to elementary submodules (R', M') of (R, M):
Theorem 9.5 Flatness of (R, M) is preserved under elementary descent.
Moreover, if R is right coherent the following conditions are equivalent:
(i) R is uniformly right coherent.
(ii) The property '( R, M) is fiat' is preserved under elementary equivalence.
(iii) The property '( R, M) is fiat' is preserved under the passage to countable
ultrapowers.
Proof. Suppose ( S, N) is elementary in ( R, M) and ( R, M) is a flat module.

Let a : 5n --+ 5m and b: 5m --+ N be S-linear maps satisfying ba = 0. Viewing
a and b as matrices with entries in S and N, respectively, we may consider a
and b also as R-linear maps a : Rn --+ Rm and b : Rm --+ 11/, again satisfying
ba = 0.
There exists a factorization b = (Rm ___:_. RP _..!!.__, M) with xa = 0, since by
R-flatness of M every R-linear map from coker(a) to M factors through some
RP [127].
Thus, given a and b, the formula 'b = yx /\ xa = O' is satisfied for some
x E Rpm, y E A-f P, hence also for some x E 5pm, fj E NP by elementary descent.
If E denotes the cokernel of 5n __::__. 5m, this proves that every S-linear map
u : E--+ N admits a factorization through some SP. Hence N is S-flat.
We now turn to the second assertion.
(ii) => (iii) is clear. (iii) => (i): Assume that R is right coherent, but not not
uniformly right coherent. Hence for some integer n there is a sequence of R-linear
maps ak: Rn --+ R (k EN) between right R-modules such that ker(ak) is finitely
generated, but not k-generated. Defining the family (Ek) of left R-modules by
exactness of
a''
R ~ Rm --+ Ek --+ 0
( a 1r denotes the transpose of the matrix a), we obtain that
is finitely generated but not k-generated as a right R-module.

Choosing an R-linear map fk : Ek --+ RN = M whose components constitute
a system of generators for HomR(Ek, R), the map fk will not factorize through
Rk.
Consequently, for any non-principal ultrafilter Fon N, the R* -linear map
IlkeNA/ F : IlkeNEk/ F --+ MN/ F

will not factorize through any finite power of R* = RN/ F, as follows from Propo-
sition 9.4. This proves that MN/ F is not flat over R*. But M is R-flat by
coherence, a contradiction.
(i) => (ii): First notice that it is not difficult to establish a function f3 :
N x N --+ N such that every linear map u : Rm --+ Rn of right R-modules
extends to an exact sequence R 1 --+ Rm ~ Rn, where t = /3( m, n) depends
only on (m, n) but not on u. We are going to prove that the property
R is uniformly right coherent admitting a bound f3 as above, and M
is a flat R-module
can be expressed by a family of first order sentences in the language M.

In fact, for every R-linear map w : Rn ---> Rm of left R-modules with cokernel
E, HomR(E,R) is generated as a right R-module by t = f3(m,n) elements, say
.
u 1 , ... , Ut. Hence every v : E ---> Rfactonzes t h rough t h e map E (u,,--->
... ,.. ,) Rt
.
As a result, by flatness of M every map f : E ---> M factorizes through
Rf3(m,n). Now, consider the 'sentence' 'f'm,n:
For every w : Rn ---> Rm, every x : Rm ---> M with xw = 0 admits

a factorization x =(Rm~ Rf3(m,n) -1!....+ M) with sw = 0.
D
If M ~ a fiat resolution of length n, i. e. if there is an exact sequence
with fiat modules Po, ... , Pn, the smallest integer n with this property is called
the weak dimension w.dimRM of the R-module M. Ifno such sequence exists,
w.dimRM = oo. Of course, w.dimRM = 0 if and only if Mis R-fiat. For further
information on weak dimension, especially its relation to the functor Tor, we
refer to [32] and [27].
Corollary 9.6 Suppose R is uniformly right coherent. If (R, M) and (S, N)

are elementarily equivalent in the language M, then
w.dimRM = w.dimsN.
Proof. By exactness of the ultrapower functor, the assertion follows by means

of fiat resolutions for M and N from Keisler-Shelah's characterization of elemen-
tary equivalence. D
Exercise 9. 7 (i) For a given module ( R, M) the following assertions are equiv-
alent:
(a) every module ( S, N) elementarily equivalent to ( R, M) is fiat.
( b) There is a function f3 : N x N ---> N such that each R-linear map f
E---> M, where Eis (m,n)-presented, factors through Rf3(m,n)_
(ii) Suppose R is right coherent, but not uniformly right coherent. For every
non-principal ultrafilter :F on N the ultraproduct TikeNRk / :F is not RN/ :F-flat,
hence not RN/ :F-projective.
Ford a fixed integer, following I. S. Cohen [36] a ring R has right finite width
d ('rank' in the terminology of Cohen) if every (d +!)-generated, hence every
finitely generated right ideal of R is already d-generated. Clearly, the class of
these rings is finitely axiomatizable in the language of rings.
It contains all Artinian rings of right length d. We further note that a right
perfect ring, see [14], see Theorem 10.8, of right finite width is already right
Artinian. Further examples are von Neumann regular rings (ford= 1), Dedekind
domains (for d = 2) and also commutative hereditary Noetherian rings (for
d = 2), since they are finite direct products of Dedekind domains. Moreover,
the ring of all algebraic integers is of finite width 1. These examples are all
right coherent, consequently uniformly right coherent, admitting o:( n) = dn as a
uniform bound for coherence.
If R is the endomorphism ring of a free module F of infinite rank, we clearly
obtain isomorphisms R = Hom(F,F) ~ Hom(F,F EB F) ~ R EB R of right R-
modules. Hence every finitely generated right ideal of R is principal. It may
happen that R is neither right nor left coherent [130], [128].
Proposition 9.8 Suppose every finitely generated right ideal of R is d-generated.

A left R-module M is fiat if and only if every R-linear map f : E ---> M, where
E is (1, d)-presented, admits a factorization f = (E---> Rd2 ---> M).
Proof. Suppose R ~ Rd ---> E ---> 0 is a (1, d)-presentation of E. We

define a right R-module F by means of an exact sequence
where utr is the transpose of u.

As in the proof of Theorem 6.4 we obtain an exact sequence
( o) 0---> HomR(E, I<) ---> HomR(E, P)---> HomR(E, M)--->

__... F@RI< __... F@RP __... F@RM __... 0.
From this we conclude that Tor~( F, M) = 0 if and only if the induced map
HomR(E, P) ---> HomR(E, M) is an epimorphism. Therefore M is fiat if and
only if every R-linear f: E---> M, with a (1,d)-presented R-module E, admits
a factorization through Rn for some positive integer n.
For any R-linear map g = (g1, ... , gn) : E ---> Rn the submodule L,7= 1 g;R
of HomR(E, R) is finitely generated hence d 2 -generated by the assumption on R.
Consequently, it is an equivalent assertion that g factors through Rd2 • D
Proposition 9.9 For a fixed pair (d, n) of natural numbers the property 'R has
right finite width d, and the R-module M has weak dimension n' is expressible
by a single first order sentence in the language M.
Proof. For n = 0, the assertion easily follows from Proposition 9.8. For the
general case we consider an ultra product R = Il,,EIR,,/ F, which is supposed to
be of right finite width d ; further for each a an R,,-module M,,. Using Rc,-flat
resolutions for each M 0 and passing to the ultraproduct, we easily obtain from the
case already settled that w.dimRilcre1M0 /F = n if and only if w.dimR.,Mcr = n
for F-almost every a E J. This proves the assertion.
D
Corollary 9.10 Suppose each R 0 , hence the ring R = IlcreIR,,/F has rightfinite
width d. For every family of right R 0 -modules M,, (a E I) we have
Here, the essential supremum
s = ess.sup{n 0 [a EI}
of a family of natural numbers relative to an ultrafilter F on I is defined to be

the integer n if n,, = n for F-almost every a E J. If no such n exists, s = oo.
As follows from Proposition 9.9, the class of modules ( R, M) where R has
right finite width d and w.dimRM = oo is axiomatizable in M. However this
class is not finitely axiomatizable:
Example 9.11 We denote by Fn the free module of countably infinite rank over
Sn = Q[Xi, ... , Xn] and define Rn as EndsJFn)· As a module over Sn, Q (with
the trivial action X;Q = 0) has projective dimension n.
Application of the functor Homsn(Fn, -) to a resolution of Q by finitely gen-
erated free Sn-modules establishes that Mn= Homsn(Fn, Q) has weak dimension
n as a module over Rn· Clearly, every Rn has finite width 1 (on both sides).
We infer from Corollary 9.10 that IlneNMn/F has infinite weak dimension over
IlneNRn/F, for any non-principal ultrafilter F on N.
Projective modules, projective dimension and

descending chain conditions
We now turn to a first order investigation of projective modules. We recall that

the projective dimension proj.dimRM of an R-module Mis the shortest length
n of a projective resolution of M, i. e. an exact sequence
0 ---+ Pn ---+ Pn-1 ---+ ... ---+ P1 --+ Po ---+ M ---+ 0,

where each P; is projective. If no such finite resolution exists, we set pro j.dimRM =
oo, thus proj.dimRM E NU {oo} [32]. Of course proj.dimRM = 0 if and only if
M is R-projective.
We will also need the notion of a pure-projective module. We first recall that
a short exact sequence 0 ---+ M' ---+ M ---+ M'' ---+ 0 is called pure-exact if
also
0---+ HomR(F,M')---+ HomR(F,M)---+ HomR(F,M' 1 )---+ 0
is exact for every finitely presented R-module F (127], see also Chapter 6.
It easily follows that an R-module P is pure-projective, i.e. every pure-exact
sequence 0 ---+ N ---+ M ---+ P ---+ 0 splits, if and only if P is a direct factor of
some direct sum EBaeI Fa of finitely presented R-modules Fa.
Since flatness of P may be characterized by the fact that every short exact
sequence with right term P is pure-exact, it is immediate that
j projective = fiat + pure-projective j.
If R is left Artinian, the pure-projective modules are exactly the direct sums of
finitely presented ones, as follows from a theorem of Crawley-Johnsson-Warfield
[l ][thm.26.5].
Since every fiat module over a (left or right) Artinian ring is already projective
- this is one of the basic characterizations of left perfect rings [14] (cf. also
Section 9.8) - the following is immediate from Propositions 8.1 and 8.9:
Proposition 9.12 For a fixed pair (d, n) of natural numbers the property 'R is
right Artinian of right length d, and the left R-module M has projective dimension
n' is expressible by a single first order sentence in M.
Moreover, if the ultraproduct R =Dae/Ra/Fis right Artinian, then for every
family of right Ra-modules Ma one has
proj.dimR(ILe 1 Ma/F) = ess.supa{proj.dimRaMa}·

D
PROJECTIVE DIMENSION AND DESCENDING CHAIN CONDITIONS 235
Remark 9.13 As follows from Proposition 9.12 the modules (R, M) where R
is right Artinian of length d and M has infinite projective dimension form an
axiomatizable class in M. It is an open, and apparently difficult, question
whether this class is also finitely axiomatizable, equivalently if all modules (R, M)
where R has length d and M has finite projective dimension form an axiomatizable
class; cf. Chapter 11 for the related question of finite dimensional modules over a
finite dimensional algebra. We refer to the next two chapters for a discussion of
related problems on the global, resp. finitistic global dimension of Artinian rings
and finite dimensional algebras.
We do not know if the classes of free, projective, pure-projective modules
(R, P), respectively, are closed under elementary descent in M. They are not
closed, however, under elementary equivalence:
Example 9.14 Let R be a countable discrete valuation domain, not a field,

say R = Z(p) for some prime number p, and let P be a free R-module of infinite
rank. If :F denotes any non-principal ultrafilter on N, we find that P* = pN / :F
is a torsion-free, hence flat module over the valuation domain R* = RN/ :F. Let
us assume that P* is R* -pure-projective. Being additionally flat, P* is already
projective, hence free by Kaplansky's theorem [109], since R* is a local ring.
By Example 9.3 (ii) we obtain that P* = R•(N) for some infinite cardinal
number N. Since R is countable, the ultrapower P* is algebraically compact over
R (cf. Theorem 7.49). We now infer from Theorem 8.1 and Corollary 8.2 that
the module R*, therefore R, is I:-algebraically compact over R.
According to Theorem 8.1 this implies tha.t R satisfies the descending chain
condition on principal ideals and R is Artinian, a contradiction. Hence P* is not
R* -pure-projective.
We are now going to prove that Proposition 9.12 is the best possible first order
result about projective modules:
Proposition 9.15 Suppose Risa local ring and Fis a R-free module of infinite
rank. The following assertions are equivalent:
(i) R is right Artinian.
=
(ii) (R,F) (S,P) implies that Pis S-projective.
Proof. While (i) => (ii) is covered by Proposition 9.12, (ii) => (i) follows
from the more general assertion of the following lemma using Lowenheim-Skolem's
theorem and the fact that a projective module over a local rings is free [109].D
We recall that a ring R is called semiprimary if its Jacobson-radical rad (R)

is nilpotent and R/rad (R) is semisimple Artinian. We note that this notion is
left-right symmetric and defines a finitely axiomatizable class in the language
of rings (cf. Chapter 10). Commutative semiprimary rings are representable as
finite direct products of local rings.
Proposition 9.16 Suppose R is a countable ring and F a free R-module of infi-

nite rank. If the ultrapower FN/ :F is RN/ :F-free for some non-principal ultrafilter
:F on N, R is semiprimary and uniformly right coherent. In particular R is right
Artinian, in case R is additionally local or commutative.
Proof. Since F• = pN / :F is a free module of infinite rank over R* = RN/ :F

and also algebraically compact over R, the argument already used in Example 9.14
proves that R as an R-module is ~-algebraically compact. This fact implies that
R is semiprimary (see Proposition 11.1).
By Proposition 9.5 it only remains to prove that R is right coherent. Since
the right R-module ker(Rn ___::_. R) is isomorphic to the R-dual HomR(E, R) of
atr
coker(R---> Rn) = E, we just have to prove that the R-dual of any (1,n)-
presented R-module E is finitely generated. We first prove the existence of a
natural number t = t(n) with the property that every finitely generated sub-
module of HomR(E, R), where Eis (1, n)-presented, is contained in a I-generated
submodule:
Otherwise, for any positive integer k there would be a (l,n)-presented R-
module Ek together with an R-linear map fk : En ---> F, admitting no factoriza-
tion through Rk. Hence the R*-linear map
would not factorize through any finite power of R*, contradicting R• -freeness of
P-.
We therefore may assume that every finitely generated submodule of the right
R-module H = HomR(E, R) is contained in at-generated submodule, for some
fixed t EN. If J = rad(R), H/JH is finitely generated, since R/J is Artinian
semisimple. Hence H = U + JH, equivalently J(H/U) = H/U for some finitely
generated submodule U of H. Now H = U follows from the nilpotency of J. This
proves that R is also right coherent.
To prove the last assertion of the lemma we assume that R is a semiprimary
ring, which is local and right coherent. From the filtration R 2 J 2 J2 2 · · · 2
r = 0 we infer that the unique simple right R-module R/ J is a submodule of
INJECTIVE AND FP-INJECTIVE MODULES, NOETHERIAN RINGS 237
R. By coherence of R, S is finitely presented, hence J is finitely generated, and

J / J2, being finitely generated semisimple, is finitely presented. Therefore J2 is
finitely generated, too. Continuing, every Jk / Jk+I has finite length as a right
module, consequently R is right Artinian. D
Injective and fp-injective modules, Noetherian

rings
For a first order analysis of injectivity we will need some preliminaries:
Lemma 9.17 Suppose (S,N) is an elementary submodule of (R,M) and U is

an S-submodule of N. Then the following holds:
(i)U=NnRU.
(ii) There is an R-submodule V of M with the property that (S,U) zs an
elementary submodule of (R, V).
Proof. (i) Suppose n = I:7= 1 a;u; with n EN, a; ER, u; EU. This means
that the first order formula n = I:7=i r;u; (with constants from N) is satisfyable
in (R, M), hence in (S, N). This proves that n E I;;;,, 1 Su; ~ U.
Assertion (ii) follows from Li:iwenheim-Skolem's theorem. D
We call an R-module M locally coherent if any finitely generated submodule
of M is finitely presented. M is called coherent if additionally M is a :finitely
generated, thus :finitely presented R-module.
Proposition 9.18 The classes of Noetherian, Artinian or locally coherent mo-

dules, respectively, are closed under elementary descent in M. They are not
closed, however, under the formation of ultrapowers.
In particular, every elementary subring S of a left Noetherian {Artinian,
coherent) ring is again left Noetherian {Artinian, coherent}, respectively.
Proof. The assertions on elementary descent are an immediate consequence

of Lemma 9.17. For the remaining assertions we observe that for any non-principal
ultrafilter :Fon N, zN / :F is not Noetherian and Z(p 00 )N / :F is not Artinian as a
module over zN I :F.
Finally, if R is left coherent but not uniformly left coherent, R* = RN/ :F is
not coherent. D
Here, Z(p 00 ) denotes the p-primary Priifer group, i.e. the p-torsion part
{x E Q/Z I pnx = 0 for some n EN} of Q/Z. Z(p 00 ) is Artinian over Z.
By definition, an R-module M "I 0 is uniform if any two non-zero submodules
U ,V have a non-zero intersection. Uniform modules are always indecomposable.
A uniform module M is also characterized by the fact that its injective envelope
E( M) is indecomposable.
We also recall that a module M has (finite) Goldie dimension n if and only
if E(M) decomposes into a direct sum of n indecomposable modules. Clearly, M
is uniform if and only if M has Goldie dimension one.
Proposition 9.19 For a fixed natural number n, the class of modules (R, M)
of Goldie dimension n is finitely axiomatizable. The class of modules of finite
Goldie dimension is not axiomatizable.
Proof. It suffices to state that there exist elements m 1 , ... , mn E M such

that I:;'= 1 r;m; = 0 implies r;m; = 0 for all i, and further that for all (n + 1)-
tuples mi, ... , mn+I E M there is a linear relation 2::;'~11 r;m; = 0 with r;m; "I 0
for some i = 1, ... , n.
Since the full matrix ring Mn(I<), for I< a field, has Goldie dimension n as a
module over itself, the class of modules of finite Goldie dimension is not axioma-
tizable as follows, for instance, from the compactness theorem. O
Corollary 9.20 If R "I 0 is a left Noetherian ring, the full matrix rings
Proof. By Noetherianness, the left R-module R has finite Goldie dimension

d. The Morita-equivalence
T: Mod (R)--+ Mod (Mn(R)), X .,_, xn,
preserves Goldie dimension. Hence Mn(R) = T(Rn) has Goldie dimension nd as

a module over itself. O
Dual to the notion of a uniform module is the notion of a local module. By

definition an R-module M is local if it is finitely generated, and Ui, U2 S: M
implies U1 + U2 S: M. Equivalently, M is finitely generated (respectively cyclic)
and has a unique maximal submodule. For later reference we state:
INJECTIVE AND FP-INJECTIVE MODULES, NOETHERIAN RINGS 239
Lemma 9.21 Being a local module is expressible by a single first order sentence
inM.
In particular, the class of local rings is finitely axiomatizable in R.
Proof. We have to state that (R,M) is cyclic, and if Rx~ Mand Ry~ M
then also Rx+ Ry~ M. O
By definition (cf. Chapter 6) an R-module M is fp-injective [188] if every

short exact sequence with left hand term M is pure-exact. It is an equivalent
assertion that every R-linear map f: U--+ M, where U is a finitely generated
submodule of a finitely generated free module F, admits an extension to F. Since
algebraically compactness is defined as pure-injectivity, we clearly have
injective = fp-injective + algebraically compact .
Also, for a left Noetherian ring, fp-injectivity coincides with injectivity (even
E-injectivity) by R. Baer's test for injectivity. We further recall that a module
M is E-injective if and only if Af(N) is an injective module.
Proposition 9.22 ( i) The class of fp-injective modules ( R, M) is axiomatizable.

(ii) The class of all injective (algebraically compact) modules, respectively,
is neither closed under elementary descent nor closed under the formation of
ultrapowers.
(iii) The class of all E-injective {L,-algebraically compact) modules, respec-
tively, is closed under elementary descent but not under the formation of ultra-
powers.
Proof. (i) Consider the family of first order sentences defined by 'Pm,n ( R, M):
'For every a: Rm --+Rn and every x: Rm --+ M, satisfying xy = 0 for every
y : R --+ Rm with ay = 0, there exists z : R --+ M with za = x'.
(ii) Let I< be a field. Since I< is self-injective, the same holds true for R =
I<N. Moreover R, hence every countable elementary subring S of R, is von
Neumann regular. We prove that Sis not algebraically compact as an S-module.
Otherwise, S would be E-algebraically compact (see Corollary 11.1) over S, hence
semiprimary and thus semisimple Artinian as a ring, a contradiction.
This proves the assertions on elementary descent. The remaining assertions
on ultra.powers follow from Theorem 8.49.
(iii) As a Z-module, the Priifer group Z(p00 ) is E-injective. For any non-
principal ultra.filter :F on N, the ultra.power Z(p00 )N / :F is not E-algebraically
compact over z· zN= I :F:
If 7rn [1, ... , 1,p,p2 ,p3 , •• •] E Z* (with pin position n), the sequence of
ideals of z· given by the annihilators of the sequence 'lrn, n E N, in Z(p00 )N I :Fis
strictly decreasing. The assertions on ultrapowers are an immediate consequence.
Concerning elementary descent, let us suppose that (R, M) is E-algebraically
compact and (R', M') is elementary in (R, M). Since M is also E-algebraically
compact over R', and M' is R'-pure in M, E-algebraic compactness of (R', M')
follows. If moreover ( R, M) is E-injective, we know from (i) that ( R', M') is fp-
injective, hence (R', M') is E-injective. D
We recall that the injective dimension inj.dimM {fp-injective dimension

fp-inj.dimM) of an R-module Mis the shortest length n of a resolution
0 --+ M --+ QO --+ QI --+ ... --+ Qn --+ 0
of M by injective (respectively fp-injective) R-modules Q;. If no such integer n

exists, the corresponding dimension is infinite.
Corollary 9.23 If (R, M) and (S, N) are elementarily equivalent modules, then
fp-inj.dimRM = fp-inj.dim 8 N.
Moreover, for every family of modules (Ra, Ma), a E I, and each ultrafilter :F
on I we have
fp-inj.dimw(ILe 1 Ma/F) = ess.supaefifp - inj.dim~Ma},
where R* = ITaeIRa/:F. D
Corollary 9.24 Assume that R is left Noetherian and the modules (R, M) and
(S, N) are elementarily equivalent. Then
If moreover ( S, N) is an elementary submodule of ( R, M) then
inj.dimRM = inj.dim8 N.
In particular the property 'R is Noetherian and M is injective' is preserved under

elementary descent. D
INDECOMPOSABLE MODULES 241
Indecomposable modules
While it is easy to see that - with respect to the one-sorted language of R-
modules - indecomposability is usually not transferred to ultrapowers, the study
of the corresponding question with regard to the two-sorted language of modules
turns out to be more complex.
First we collect some positive results:
(i) The class of local modules is finitely axiomatizable (Lemma 9.21 ). In
particular, for any ultrafilter :Fon N the ultraproduct
is indecomposable over zN / :F. Also any ultra product Ila El Pa/ :F of indecompos-
able projective Ra-modules Pa is indecomposable over ITaEl Ra/:F, if we assume
the rings Ra to be Artinian (more generally semiperfect).
(ii) The class of uniform modules is finitely axiomatizable (Proposition 9.19).
Therefore each ultraproduct rr<>El Qa/:F of injective indecomposable Ra-modules
Q"'- or submodules thereof - is an indecomposable IlaEI R"'/:F-module. This
in particular implies that each ultraproduct
II Z(poo)/(}
pEP
of Prufer groups is an indecomposable module over zP /<},where<} denotes any

ultrafilter on the set P of prime numbers.
(iii) For a fixed pair (d, t) of positive integers the property 'R is left Artinian
of length d and M is an indecomposable left R-module of length t' is given by
a first order sentence in M. (Use Propositions 8.1, 8.4 and Lemma 9.21 to
express that Endn(M) is a local ring.) In particular, if R is left Artinian, any
ultraproduct M. = Il<>El M,,/ :F of indecomposable left R-modules M"' of fixed
length t is an indecomposable module over R• = R 1 / :F. Note moreover that here
Endn·(M•) = Il<>El Endn(M"')/:F is a local ring.
For the following sequence of examples we assume that :F is any non-principal

ultrafilter on the natural numbers N.
Example 9.25 There exists an indecomposable R-module M with local endomor-

phism ring with the property that M• = MN/ :F is decomposable as a module over
R• = RN/:F.
Proof. Consider a finite ring R having an algebraically compact indecom-

posable R-module M of infinite cardinality. Observe that in view of Corollary 7.5
EndR(M) is a local ring.
In order to deal with a specific example, let R be the K-algebra
K[X, Y]/(X, Y) 2 = K[x,y],

where J{ denotes a finite field. Let K[[T]] be the power series algebra in T and
M = I<[[T]]EBI<[[T]] as a K-space with action of x, yon M given by multiplication
with the matrices
x =( ~ ~) and y =( ~ ~) .
Since K[[T]] is an algebraically compact ring, it is easy to derive from Exer-
cise 7.10 (iii) that Mis an algebraically compact R-module.
Notice that R = RN/ :F, since R is finite. Since M is infinite, M is a proper
submodule of M* = MN/ :F by means of the diagonal embedding. The embedding
M SM* splits as an R-linear map since M is R-pure in M* and algebraically
compact. Thus ]\,f* decomposes non-trivially as a module over R = R*.
0
Example 9.26 There exists a finite dimensional algebra R over a field J{ and a
sequence (Pn)neN of finite dimensional indecomposable R-modules, necessarily L:-
algebraically compact with local endomorphism rings, such that P* = TineN Pn/ :F
is decomposable over R* = RN/ :F.
Proof. Let J{ be a finite field, R = R(I<) be the K-Kronecker algebra

and P0 , Pi, P2 , ••• be the sequence of preprojective indecomposable Kronecker
modules over R (see Theorem 8.47). Since R is finite we know that R* = R,
moreover P* = EBneN Pn/ :Fis algebraically compact over R (Theorem 7.49) and
has cardinality 2~0 •
Assume that P* is indecomposable over R* = R. From the classification of al-
gebraically compact indecomposable Kronecker modules it follows by cardinality
reasons that P* is one of the p-adic modules JP, where p refers to a geomet-
ric point of the homogeneous prime spectrum of K[X, Y], i.e. to an irreducible
homogeneous polynomial p E K[X, Y], see Corollary 8.59.
We first assume that p has degree d > 1. In this case there is a finite field-
extension L/ f{ such that pis reducible in L[X, Y]. This implies that L®KJp splits
as a module over the Kronecker algebra L®K R = R(L). Note that (L®KPn)neN
EXERCISES 243
is the sequence of preprojective indecomposable modules over R(L), so - under

the present assumption d > 1 - we obtain
is a decomposable R(L)-module, which proves the claim in this case.

We will now use that the full linear group G = GL(2, I<) acts on Ras a group
of algebra automorphisms by means of the formula
Let M be an R-module and g E G. We denote by g• M the R-module with

underlying I<-space M but with new R-action given by
r ·g•M m = g(r) 'Mm for r ER, m EM.
We now assume that d = 1, i.e. that p is given by a point with coordinates in I<,
equivalently that p has the form a.X + {3Y with a, f3 E I<. Since g*(Pn) ~ Pn for
each n EN and g E G, but clearly g*(Jp) ';fi. Jp for some g in G, our assumption
leads to a contradiction. 0
We close this section with a sequence of exercises of varying degree of difficulty.
Exercises
Exercise 9.27 (i) There is a first order formula ip(x) in M stating that x belongs to
the Jacobson radical rad M of M, provided (R, M) is finitely generated.
(ii) If (R, M) is finitely generated and (R, M) and (S, N) are elementarily equivalent
then also the assertions
(a) (R,radM) = (S,radN),
(b) (R,M/radM):: (S,N/radN),
(c) (R/rad R, M/rad M):: (S/rad S,N /radN)
hold true in M.
Exercise 9.28 Specify a first order sentence in M satisfied exactly by the modules
(R, M) with zero socle, i. e. not having any simple submodule.
By definition an R-module Mis semisimple if it is a (possibly infinite) direct sum

of simple R-modules. It suffices to know that Af is a sum of simple R-modules.
Exercise 9.29 For every t E N, the class of semisimple modules (R, M) of length
is finitely axiomatizable.
Call an R-module M locally finite if every finitely generated R-submodule of M

has finite length.
Exercise 9.30 ( i) The class of semisimple (respectively locally finite) modules is stable
under elementary descent. (Use 8.17].
(ii) Let M = EDP l/pl where p runs through all prime numbers. Then MN/Fis
not locally finite over zN / F for any non-principal ultrafilter F on N.
[Hint: every locally finite module admits a length function l : M --+ N,

x ,_. lengthR(Rx )] .
By definition a flat R-module M has rank n (for some n E N) if M is a direct

limit of n-generated free R-modules.
According to [179] it is an equivalent assertion that M is flat and each finitely
generated submodule of Mis contained in an n-generated one.
Exercise 9.31 For any positive integer n E N, the class of all n-generated flat R-
modules, also the class of all R-modules of rank ~ n is axiomatizable.
Exercise 9.32 Suppose (R', M') is an elementary submodule of the module (R, M).
Then
(i) As an R'-module, M' is a pure submodule of M.
(ii) For every right ideal a' of R' and every R'-submodule N' of M' we have a' N' =
N'na'RN'.
For any left perfect ring R, every R-module M satisfies the maximum condition on
n-generated submodules (n EN), see (102].
Exercise 9.33 For any fixed integer n E N, the ascending (respectively the descend-
ing) chain condition on n-generated submodules of (R, M) is preserved under elemen-
tary descent.
EXERCISES 24.5
Exercise 9.34 ( i) For each d E N the class of modules ( R, M) of finite width d is

finitely a.xiomatizable.
(ii) If ( R, M)I /Fis Noetherian for some non-principal ultrafilter Fon I, the module
(R, M) is Noetherian of finite width.
Exercise 9.35 Let M = R(N). If every ultrapower ( R, M)I / F is a free module, then
R is right Artinian.
Exercise 9.36 ( i) For any d E N the class of all injective modules (R, M) where R is
left Artinian of length d, is finitely axiomatizable.
(ii) If the ultraproduct R = ITaEIRa/F is a left Noetherian ring, we have
inj.dim(fLE/Ra,Ma)/F) = ess.sup"inj.dimRQM".
Exercise 9.37 [D. Baer [8)] Let M be a left fp-injective R-module. Prove that M is
left I:-injective if and only if M satisfies the descending chain condition for annihilators
of subsets of R.
Exercise 9.38 Give an example of a I:-algebraically compact indecomposable module

(R, M) such that any ultrapower MI/ F with respect to a non-principal ultrafilter (J, F)
is decomposable as a module over RI/ F.
[Hint: Follow the argument given in Example 9.25. Notice that - for any field ](
- the Priifer modules over the Kronecker algebra R(K) are I:-algebraically compact
and indecomposable.]
Chapter 10
The first order theory of rings
Throughout this chapter we deal with the first order language R of associative
rings R with unit element 1 .
In order to cover as many of the important notions of ring theory as possible,
part of this Chapter is written as a review. For further information on these
topics, the reader will be referred to the original publications, while for general
information on rings (and modules) we refer to the monographs of Anderson-
Fuller [1], Faith [56], Jacobson [94], Herstein [89] and Kasch [110].
Finitely axiomatizable classes of rings
We first discuss a series of simple examples:
Proposition IO.I The following properties for a ring R can be expressed by a

single first order sentence:
(i) R is commutative;
(ii) R is a field {a division ring, resp.};
(iii) R is von Neumann regular;
(iv) R is F-semiperfect;
(v) R is Jacobson-semisimple, i.e. R has zero Jacobson radical;
(vi) R is an integral domain {commutative or not);
1n disposes of the logical connectives/\, v, ~, ::} (also written --+ ); further of two function
symbols to express addition+ : Rx R---+ Rand multiplication · : Rx R---+ R. Moreover,

there are two constants in n to express 0, 1 E R. n allows quantification 'V, 3 with respect to
elements of R.
247
248 CHAPTER 10: THE FIRST ORDER THEORY OF RINGS
(vii) R is a prime ring;

(viii) R is a left (or right) Ore domain, respectively satisfies the corresponding
Ore condition.
Proof. (i), (ii) and (vi) are obvious. With regard to (iii) we notice that
R by definition is von Neumann regular if and only if for each x E R we have
x E xRx.
(iv) A ring R is called F-semiperfect if its factor ring R/radR modulo the
Jacobson radical is von Neumann regular and idempotents may be lifted modulo
radR. Since y E radR is expressible by the first order formula
\fr3x[x(I - ry) = l],

the first part of the definition of F-semiperfectness is given by the first order
statement
\fx(x E xRx + radR).
For the second part of the definition we observe that
\fx(x 2 Ex+ radR) 3e(e2 =e /\ x Ee+ radR)
defines a first order sentence, expressing that idempotents of R/radR lift to idem-
potents of R.
( v) follows easily from the fact that x E radR if and only if 1 - rx has a left
inverse for each r E R.
For (vii) we note that R is prime if and only if xRy = 0 implies x = 0 or
y = 0.
Recall that a domain R is a left Ore domain if Rx n Ry -:/= 0 for all non-zero
x, y E R. From this it is clear that the notion of an Ore-domain is a first order
concept. More generally, a ring R satisfies the left Ore condition if its multi-
plicative subset S of non-zero divisors satisfies Rx n Ss -:/= 0 for all x E R and
s E S. Again, this defines a first order property for R. D
Remark 10.2 (i) Whereas the class of all fields is finitely axiomatizable in R., the
class of all algebraically closed fields (algebraically closed fields of characteristic
p, real closed fields, respectively) is not finitely axiomatizable, as was shown in
Example 2.16 and Proposition 2.26.
(ii) Assertion (iii) of the preceding proposition shows that the rings of weak
global dimension zero form a finitely axiomatizable class. Nothing similar holds
true for the rings of global dimension zero, i.e. the semisimple Artinian rings.
FINITELY AXIOMATIZABLE CLASSES 249
While semisimplicity is preserved under the passage to ultraproducts, Artini-

anness is lost as shows already the ultraproduct R* = TineNKn / :F - here K
denotes a field and :Fa non-trivial ultrafilter on N ; cf. Proposition 9.1.
(iii) We note that local rings and semiperfect rings R (i.e. R/radR is semi-
simple Artinian and idempotents lift modulo radR) are F-semiperfect. If M is
an injective (more generally a pure-injective S-module) it is known (see Corol-
lary 7.5) [122] that R = End 5 (M) is always F-semiperfect. If we assume moreover
M to be indecomposable, R is already a local ring. Notice that any ultraproduct
of Artinian rings is also F-semiperfect.
Proposition 10.3 The following properties for a ring R can be expressed by a
single first order sentence:
{i) R is local;
{ii) R is a valuation domain;
{iii} R is a Bezout domain;
(iv) R is a Pru/er domain.
Proof. (i) has already been shown in Lemma 9.21. For (ii) it suffices to
state that R is a commutative integral domain such that for all x, y E R we have
x E Ry or y E Rx. To prove (iii) we recall that a Bezout domain is a commutative
integral domain R such that every finitely generated ideal is principal. It actually
suffices to state that R is a commutative domain and every 2-generated ideal is
principal. Clearly this defines a first order sentence.
In order to prove that the notion of a Priifer ring is a first order concept we
consider the first order sentence defined by the statement
R is a commutative domain, and every 2-generated ideal is projective.
We notice that the preceding sentence characterizes Priifer rings, as follows from
a more general analysis of 'weak global dimension one' given later in this chap-
ter. Here we prefer to present an elementary argument, actually going back to
Dedekind (cf. [95J[p. 27]):
Since for a commutative domain the two notions 'projective ideal' and 'invert-
ible ideal' coincide, it suffices to prove that every finitely generated ideal a of R
is invertible. Let a = (ab ... , an+i) ; we assume by recursion that all n-generated
ideals are invertible, and n ;::: 2. By hypothesis it is possible to find ideals~' IJ,J
ind K, the quotient field of R, satisfying
(ab···,an)~ R (10.1)
(a2, ... , an+1)1J R (10.2)
(ab an+1)3 R (10.3)
If b = a1~3 + an+ilJ3, we get
ab= [a1(ai, ... ,anh3] + [a1an+m]

+ [a1an+11JJ] + [an+1(a2, ... , an+1)1J3].
By means of (9.1) and (9.2) this yields:
ab (a13) + (a1an+1~J) + (a1an+11J3) + (an+13)

a13(R + an+IIJ) + an+IJ(R + a1~).
Since (9.1) and (9.2) show that a 1 ~ i:;; Rand an+IIJ i:;; R, we conclude from (9.3)
that
ab = a13 + an+13 = R,
which proves our claim.

D
Remark 10.4 (i) Neither the notion 'R is a discrete valuation domain' nor the
notion 'R is a principal ideal domain' is preserved under elementary equivalence,
as we have seen in Chapter 4 (see also Proposition 10.6).
(ii) Similarly, if R = S and R is a Dedekind domain, it is only possible to
conclude that S is a Priifer domain. But not every Priifer domain is elementarily
equivalent to a Dedekind domain:
Let R be the ring of all algebraic integers. Since for any a E R there exists
some x E R with x 2 = a, and this is a property preserved by elementary equiv-
alence, there is no Noetherian ring nor a factorial domain, which is elementarily
equivalent to R.
Further examples arise from a result of Schiilting: [177] there exists a Priifer
ring R having a finitely generated but not 2-generated ideal. Therefore, R cannot
be elementarily equivalent to any Dedekind domain.
Rings with chain conditions
Proposition 10.5 For each positive integer d the class of left Artinian rings
(resp. semisimple Artinian rings) of length d is finitely axiomatizable. The class
of all left Artinian (resp. semisimple Artinian) rings, however, is not axiomatiz-
able.
RINGS WITH CHAIN CONDITIONS 251
Proof. The first assertion is covered by Propositions 8.1 and 9.1. For the
second assertion we refer to Remark 10.2. D
Proposition 10.6 The class of left Noetherian rings is closed under elementary
descent.
Moreover, the following assertions are equivalent for any ring R:
{i} Every ring S = R is left Noetherian.
{ii} R* = RN/ :F is left Noetherian for some non-trivial ultrafilter :F on N.
(iii) R is left Artinian.
Proof. The first assertion is covered by Proposition 9.18. Regarding the sec-
ond assertion, the implication (iii) =} (ii) follows from the preceding proposition,
while (i) =} (ii) is obvious.
(ii) =} (iii): Assume R has infinite length. This means that for each n it is
possible to find a chain
On,O ~ On,l ~ .. 0
~ On,n = On,n+l = 0 0
•
of left ideals in R. With

Ok= IIneNan,k/:F
we arrive at a strictly ascending chain (ak) of left ideals of R*, contradicting
Noetherianness. D
Corollary 10.7 Every elementary subring of a principal ideal domain (a Dede-

kind domain, a discrete valuation domain} is again a principal ideal domain {a
Dedekind domain, a discrete valuation domain, respectively). D
According to H. Bass (14] a ring R is called left perfect if it satisfies one,

hence all, of the equivalent conditions of the next theorem:
Theorem 10.8 (Bass's theorem [14] [24]) For a ring R the following asser-
tions are equivalent:
(i) each left R-module has a projective cover(= projective envelope},
(ii) each fiat left R-module is projective,
(iii) R satisfies the descending chain condition on principal {resp. finitely
generated} right ideals,
(iv) R/radR is semisimple Artinian, and radR is left-T-nilpotent, i.e. for any
sequence ro, ri, r2, ... of elements of R there is an integer n with ror1 · · · rn = 0.
Notice that every semiprimary ring R, i.e. a ring with nilpotent Jacobson rad-
ical and semisimple Artinian radical factor ring, hence each (one-sided) Artinian
ring is both left and right perfect.
Proposition I0.9 For any pair (t, d) of natural numbers the class of all semipri-
mary rings of nilpotency degree t for radR and length d for R/radR is finitely
axiomatizable. The class of all semiprimary rings, however, is not axiomatizable
{even if we fix t or d}.
Proof. Notice first that x E radR means that 1 - rx is invertible in R

for every r E R. Hence x E radR is definable by a first order formula. Since
(radR) 1 = 0 means that x 1 x 2 • • • x 1 = 0 for all x 11 ... , x 1 E radR, this also defines
a first order property.
Now observe that in R = R/radR the formula
(10.4)
is equivalent to the first order formula
(10.5)
in R. To express that R has length :S d, we only have to state that for all
x1i ... , xd+l in R formula (9.5) is satisfied for some 1 :S k :S d. This proves the
first assertion.
For the second assertion, fixing t = 1, the ultraproduct TineNJ{n / F ( J{ a field)
is not semisimple, hence not semiprimary. If we fix d = 1, the rings Rn = Z/pnz,
p being a fixed prime number, are all local and semiprimary, but TineNRn is not
semi primary. 0
In the same order of ideas we also consider semiperfect rings. By definition R

is semiperfect if R/radR is semisimple Artinian and idempotents may be lifted
modulo radR. An equivalent assertion states that every finitely generated (left
or right) R-module has a projective cover [14]. Any semiprimary ring, also each
local ring is semiperfect. Notice that every semiperfect ring is F-semiperfect (cf.
Proposition 10.1 ).
Proposition IO.IO For any positive integer d the class of semiperfect rings with
R/radR of length d is finitely axiomatizable. The class of all semiperfect rings is
not axiomatizable.
COHERENT AND UNIFORMLY COHERENT RINGS 253
Proof. Use Proposition 10.1 (iv) together with the proof of the preceding
~~~- 0
Proposition 10.11 The class of left perfect rings is closed under elementary
descent.
Moreover for a ring R the following assertions are equivalent:
(i) Every ring S, elementarily equivalent to R, is left perfect.
{ii) R* = RN/ :F is a left perfect ring for any non-trivial ultrafilter :F on N.
{iii) R is a semiprimary ring.
Proof. Let S be an elementary subring of R. For every right ideal a in S,

we know a = Sn aR from Lemma 9.17. Hence S satisfies the descending chain
condition for right ideals if R does. This proves the first assertion.
Concerning the remaining claims, (iii) =? (i) follows from Proposition 10.9,
while (i) =?(ii) is obvious. (ii)=? (iii): From R =
R* we deduce that R/radR =
R* /radR*, hence R/radR is semisimple Artinian by Proposition 10.5. We now
assume that radR is not nilpotent. This means that for any natural number n
there is a non-zero product
of elements a;j E radR, i 2:: j. Clearly, this allows to define elements
for any k E N with the property that a(iai · · · aj; f. 0 for all k E N, thus contra-
dicting left T-nilpotency of radR*. o
Coherent and uniformly coherent rings
For the definition of coherent and uniformly coherent rings we refer to Chap-
ter 9. Here, in order to illustrate these concepts we will discuss various types of
examples. While each left Noetherian ring is also left coherent, it is generally not
uniformly coherent, even in the commutative case.
Example 10.12 (i) A ring R is left semihereditary if every finitely generated

left ideal is projective, equivalently R has weak global dimension :S 1 and is left
coherent.
The class of left semihereditary rings contains all left hereditary rings (here,
we require that every left ideal is projective), all Priifer rings and all von Neumann
regular rings. Any left semihereditary ring R is left uniformly coherent with
tp( n) = n serving as a uniform bound for coherence.
(ii) Let R be a commutative ring and suppose either that R has global dimen-
sion~ 2 and any projective R-module is free or else suppose that R is coherent of
of weak global dimension ~ 2 and every finitely generated projective R-module
is free. Then every R-linear map f : Rn --+ R has a free kernel of rank ~ n, and
tp( n) = n serves as a bound for coherence of R.
In particular, every commutative local ring R of global dimension ~ 2, also
the polynomial algebras J<[Xi, X 2 ] - where I< is a field - and R[X] - where
R is a principal ideal domain - are uniformly coherent.
(iii) Let R be commutative Noetherian of global dimension ~ 2. As follows
from the discussion in (ii) every localization Pm of P = ker[.R" _!_,, R] with respect
to a maximal ideal m of R is n-generated as a module over Rm. It now follows
from [62] that P is generated by d + n elements, where d is the Krull dimension
of R. Therefore, R is uniformly coherent and tp(n) = n + 2 serves as a uniform
bound for coherence [186].
(iv) Assume now that R is commutative Noetherian. As was proved by Goto
[82], (see also [121]) R has Krull dimension at most two if R is uniformly coherent.
In particular, the polynomial algebra J<[X1 , X 2 , X 3 ] over a field I< is not uniformly
coherent. Conversely, if R is local of Krull dimension ~ 2, R is uniformly coherent
[173][chap. III, thm. 2.2],
(v) Each left coherent ring of finite width d (cf. Chapter 7) is uniformly
coherent and admits tp(n) = nd as a uniform bound for coherence. This in
particular applies to any left Artinian ring of (left) length d.
(vi) If F is a free 5-module of infinite rank, R = Ends(F) 0 P has (left and
right) width one. If ranks(F) > card(S), R is left coherent, hence uniformly left
coherent [130], and tp(n) = n serves as a uniform bound for coherence.
Proposition 10.13 For any function tp : N --+ N the class of all rings R,
admitting tp as a uniform bound for coherence, is axiomatizable.
In particular, the class of uniformly coherent rings is closed under elementary
equivalence.
Proof. For any positive integer n, we consider the statement:

For each R-linear map x : Rn --+ R there exists a map y : R'P(n) --+
Rn such that R"'(n) ~ Rn --=-. R is an exact sequence of left R-
mod ules.
COHERENT AND UNIFORMLY COHERENT RINGS 255
Writing x and y as 1 x n- and n x cp( n )-matrices over R, it immediately follows

that this defines a first order sentence an in the language of rings. We now notice
that R is uniformly coherent with cp as a bound for coherence if and only if R
satisfies all these statements an, n E N. D
Corollary 10.14 Suppose each Rex {a E I) is elementarily equivalent to some

commutative Noetherian ring of global dimension ~ 2. Then every ultraproduct
CTcxeI Rex/ :F is uniformly coherent.
Proof. Each Rex admits cp(n) = n + 2 as a uniform bound for coherence (cf.
Example 10.12). D
Proposition 10.15 The class of left coherent rings is closed under elementary
descent.
Moreover, for a ring R the following assertions are equivalent:
{i) Every ring S, elementarily equivalent to R, is left coherent.
{ii) R* = RN/ :F is left coherent for some non-trivial ultrafilter :F on N.
{iii) R is uniformly left coherent.
Proof. Let S < R be an elementary subring. Givens E sn, by left coher-

ence of R there exists an exact sequence Rm ---=--. Rn ~ R of left R-modules.
Equivalently, there exists x : Rm ---+ Rn satisfying the first order formula
cp(x,s): Rm---=--. Rn~ Sis exact.
Since S is elementary in R, this formula has a solution y : sm ---+ 5n in S.

We thus get exactness sm 2-. sn --=--. S of left S-modules, which proves that S
is coherent.
Concerning the second assertion notice that (iii) ::::> ( i) follows from the pre-
ceding proposition, while ( i) ::::> (ii) is obvious.
(ii) ::::> (iii): Assume R is not uniformly left coherent. Thus for some k we
will get a sequence Un : Rk ---+ R, n E N, of R-linear maps, where the kernel
of Un is not n-generated. Passing to the ultraproduct we obtain an R* -linear
map u• = DneNun/:F: R*k---+ R* that by coherence of R* extends to an exact
sequence
of left R* -modules. Obviously, also v* has the form CTneNvn/ :F, hence for :F-
almost every n E N the sequence Rm ~ Rk ~ R is exact, contrary to our
assumption. D
Weak global dimension
We are now going to start with a syntactic and semantic analysis of weak global
dimension. Let us first recall [32] that weak global dimension is left-right symmet-
ric, i.e. agrees for Rand R 0 P. We have already seen that weak global dimension
zero is given by a single first order statement in R (Proposition 10.1). It is less
obvious that also weak global dimension one is axiomatizable.
Proposition 10.16 The class of all rings (all commutative rings} R of weak
global dimension one is axiomatizable (respectively finitely axiomatizable). The
class of all semihereditary rings (all semihereditary commutative rings) is axiom-
atizable (respectively finitely axiomatizable).
Proof. To prove axiomatizability of weak global dimension one, it suffices to

prove that for each integer n the statement
Every n-generated left ideal of R is flat.
is given by a first order sentence l.Pn·

For that purpose it suffices to state that the kernel of each R-linear map
f : Rn - > Risa pure submodule of Rn. So we may take for l.Pn the first order
statement defined by
For all R-linear maps u: Rn-> R,x: R-> Rn with ux = 0, there

exists an R-linear map 7r: Rn ->Rn with U7r = 0 and 7rX = x.
In conclusion, w.gl.dimR ~ 1 holds if and only if R satisfies all '-Pn (n EN).

If, moreover, R is commutative we claim that already w.gl.dimR ~ 1 if R
satisfies r.p 2 • Assume, in fact, that every 2-generated ideal of R is flat. Passing
to the localization R,,.. with respect to any maximal ideal, it follows that each
2-generated ideal of Rm is flat, hence free, hence a principal ideal. We conclude
that each R,,.. is a valuation domain, so w.gl.dimR ~ 1.
For the remaining assertions we use that a ring R is left semihereditary if
and only if w.gl.dimR ~ 1 and R is uniformly left coherent, admitting cI>(n) = n
as a bound for coherence. This proves axiomatizability of the class of left semi-
hereditary rings. The stronger assertion for the commutative case uses a result
of J¢ndrup [103] stating that a commutative ring R is semihereditary if and only
if every 2-generated ideal of R is projective.
WEAK GLOBAL DIMENSION 257
D
Note that the preceding proposition offers another proof that the class of
Priifer domains is finitely axiomatizable.
Following P. M. Cohn [37] a ring R is called a (left) semifir if all its finitely
generated left ideals are free. Clearly these rings form an axiomatizable class.
Proposition 10.17 The class of all rings of weak global dimension one (of all
left semihereditary rings, of all left semifirs, respectively) is axiomatizable but not
finitely axiomatizable.
Proof. Let F be a field. For any integer n 2 1 let Rn denote the F-algebra
on n 2 generators Xij, 1 :S i, j :S n, with relations
n
L X;jXjk = Xik· (10.6)
j=l
It was proved by P. M. Cohn [37][p. 278] that Rn is an (n - 1)-fir, i.e. each

( n - 1)-generated left ideal of Rn is free.
The authors are indebted to S. J¢ndrup for showing us that Rn has an n-
generated left ideal that is not flat:
If R denotes the (commutative) F-algebra F[y,z] with relations yz = 0, there
is a surjective ring homomorphism c.p : Rn ---+ R satisfying
c.p(xu) = 1, c.p(X1n) = y, c.p(Xn1) = z, (10.7)
cp(x;i) = 0 for all (i,j) =J (1, 1), (1, n), (n, 1).
From (9.6) we obtain
Xu (Xu - 1) + X12X21 + ... + X1nXn1 = 0. (10.8)
It now follows that the left ideal
J = R(xu - 1) + · · · + Rxn1
is not flat. Otherwise it would be possible to "trivialize" relation (9.8) using a
familiar characterization of flatness [28], Cor.l, p. 43:
Xu - 1 (10.9)
with all A;j E Rn, all m. E J and
( X11 - 1)A1s + X12A2s + ··· + X1nAns = 0 (10.10)
for all s = 1, · · ·, n.
Applying cp we obtain
Z = L'P(Ans)cp(m,), cp(m,) E Rz, ycp(Ans) = 0 (10.11)
for alls. Since annn(Y) = Rz, this would imply z E z2 R, which is impossible.
It follows that any nontrivial ultraproduct ITneNRn/ F has all its finitely gen-
erated left ideals free, i.e. is a semifir while each Rn has w.gl.dimRn > l. In
particular:
None of the classes of semifirs, semihereditary rings and rings of weak global
dimension one is finitely axiomatizable. D
With respect to w.gl.dimR > 1 our information is less complete:
Theorem 10.18 For each positive integer t there is a set WQ'(t) of first order
sentences in the language of rings, which are all satisfied by every ring of weak
global dimension t and moreover have the property that a left coherent ring R
satisfies all w E WQ'(t) if and only if w.gl.dimR = t.
Proof. For n = (ni, ... , n 1) E N1 we consider the statement:

For every exact sequence Rn, ~ Rn,_, --> • · • --> Rn 1 ~ R, the kernel
of Ut is a pure submodule of Rn'.
As in the proof of Proposition 10.16 one checks that this defines a first order
sentence Wn· Clearly, each ring R of global dimension at most t satisfies all
wn(n E Nt).
Conversely, if R is left coherent and satisfies all sentences Wn, any finitely
generated left ideal has weak dimension ~ t - 1, so w .gl.dimR ~ t follows. D
Corollary 10.19 ([194]) Assume Rand Sare elementarily equivalent rings and
R is left coherent. Then
w.gl.dimR ~ w.gl.dimS.
In particular, if R =S and R, S are both (one-sided) coherent,

w.gl.dimR = w.gl.dimS
follows. D
WEAK GLOBAL DIMENSION 259
Corollary 10.20 The property 'R is left (or right} coherent of weak global di-
mension t' (t E N U { oo}) is preserved under elementary descent. D
Proof. By Proposition 10.15 coherence is preserved under elementary de-

scent, hence the assertion follows from the preceding corollary. D
Corollary 10.21 Assume R is a ring, which is either left Noetherian of finite

global dimension or is commutative semihereditary or is commutative of global
dimension at most two. Then the polynomial rings
Proof. Either assumption implies that each Rn= R[X1 , ••• , Xn], hence also
R00 = R[X1 , ••• , Xn, .. .] is coherent (cf. [171,198]). Now
w .gl.dimR,, = w .gl.dimR + n, (n E N U {oo})
serves as an 'invariant under elementary equivalence' that allows to separate the

various Rn. D
There is an obstruction to extend Corollary 10.21 to arbitrary coherent rings
of finite weak global dimension: A polynomial ring R[X] of a coherent ring R
may fail to be coherent, even if R is uniformly coherent. For an explicit example
one may take R = Q[X, YjN [186], see also Exercise 10.63.
Corollary Hl.22 The property 'R is left or right uniformly coherent of weak
global dimension t' is preserved under elementary equivalence.
Proof. Combine ( 10.13) with ( 10.19). D
Actually a more precise result holds true:
Exercise 10.23 (i) For every function c.p : N ----; N the rings of weak global
dimension t and admitting c.p as a uniform bound for coherence form an axioma-
tizable class.
(ii) For a given pair (d,t) of positive integers the coherent rings of width d
and weak global dimension t form a finitely axiomatizable class.
Chase [34] characterized the rings, for which each direct product of projective
left modules is projective, as the left perfect and right coherent rings. Actually
these rings are semiprimary as is shown in [128], see also [129,211]. We further
recall that for each left perfect ring gl.dimR = w .gl.dimR.
Corollary 10.24 The property 'R is left perfect and right coherent of (left) global
dimension t' is preserved under elementary descent.
Proof. Use Propositions 10.11 and 10.15.

D
Remark 10.25 Our semantic analysis of weak global dimension leaves various
questions without answer:
(i) Let S = K[Xr, X 2 ], with K a field. By uniform coherence of S every
ultrapower S 1 / F has weak global dimension two. By contrast, we do not know
the weak global dimension of any non-trivial ultrapower of R = I<[Xr, X 2 , X 3 ].
To establish for instance an upper bound for w.gl.dimR*, R* = RN/ :F, basi-
cally reduces to calculate the weak dimension of M = IlnENRn / F as a module
over R*. With respect to that question we only know that w.dimR·M 2: 1 (Ex-
ercise 9.7).
(ii) Our information with respect to the global dimensions of ultrapowers
R~/ F of polynomial algebras Rn = I<[Xi, ... , Xn] over a field I< is more com-
plete: We may consider Rn as a subring of R~ by means of the diagonal embed-
ding. The elements X2, ... , Xn form a regular sequence of R* with corresponding
factor ring R~/(X2, ... ,Xn) ~RUF. As can be deduced from [97] every large
integer t can occur as the global dimension of RUF by a suitable choice of (I,:F)
and I<, if we assume the generalized continuum hypothesis. Therefore by well-
known dimension shifting [105] we see that every large integer occurs as the global
dimension of a suitable ultrapower of Q[Xr, ... , Xn]·
(iii) We do not have any example of elementarily equivalent rings of different
weak global dimension (see (i)).
Global dimension
While global dimension zero is preserved under elementary equivalence this is

far from being true for global dimension n if n is non-zero.
GLOBAL DIMENSION 261
Example 10.26 (i) Global dimension one is not preserved under the passage to
ultrapowers. As is shown in [97], by suitable choice of the ultrafilter (I,:F) any
natural number n 2: 3, also n = oo, will occur as the global dimension of the
Peano ring Z1 / :F.
(ii) In the same order of ideas we may start with the free Boolean algebra En
on an infinite set of cardinality ~n-l, if n ;::: 1 is finite, and of cardinality ~w, if
n = oo. En has global dimension n [148].
By Lowenheim-Skolem's theorem En has a countable elementary subring A.
By Propositions 9.1 and 9.5 A is von Neumann regular and gl.dimA :/= 0. Since
A is countable, every left ideal a of A is the union of an ascending sequence
of finitely generated ideals. Since A is von Neumann regular, ak+l = ak ffi ck for
each k, and a = EBk:, 1 ck is projective, thus gl.dimA = 1.
Theorem 10.27 For each natural number t there is a family 9(t) of first order
sentences / in the language of rings, which are satisfied by every ring of global
dimension tand, moreover, have the property that a left Noetherian ring R satisfies
all 1 E 9(t) if and only if gl.dimR = t.
Proof. It would be possible to use the set W9(t) of first order sentences
of Theorem 10.18. It seems however more natural to express gl.dimR :-:; t (for
left Noetherian rings) by means of the following elementary statements /n, n =
(ni, ... , nt) E Nt, stating
For every exact sequence Rn, ~ Rn,_, ---+ • • • ---+ Rn' ~ R, there
exists an R-linear v : Rn, ----+ Rn,, v 2 = v, which makes Rn' ~
Rn, ~ Rn,_, exact.
0
Corollary 10.28 ([194]) Assume Rand Sare elementarily equivalent rings and
R is left Noetherian. Then
gl.dimR :-:; gl.dimS.
In particular, elementary equivalence of left Noetherian rings R and S implies
gl.dimR = gl.dimS. 0
Corollary 10.29 For any left Artinian ring R the polynomial rings
Proof. If Sis any left Noetherian ring it is well known (see [89][p. 153]) that
rad(S[X]) = (nil(S))(X] = nil(S(X]),

where rad(5),nil(5) refer to the Jacobson radical, respectively the nil radical of
s.
By an obvious induction argument this proves that
rad(S[Xi, ... ,Xn]) = (nil(5))[X1 , ... ,Xn]

holds for each integer n 2: 1.
Since R is left Artinian we know that nil(R) = rad(R), moreover R
R/rad(R) is Artinian semisimple. Let Rn= R[Xi, ... , Xn] and assume Rn =R,,,.
=
This implies Rn/rad(Rn) Rm/rad(Rm) hence
Passing to global dimension now proves n = m. D
Corollary 10.30 The property 'R is left Noetherian of global dimension t, t E

N U oo' is preserved under elementary descent.
In particular any elementary subring of a regular local ring is again regular
~ D
Another consequence of Theorem 10.27 ist that the property
R is left Artinian of length d and has global dimension t
is preserved under elementary equivalence. We have, however, more precise in-

formation with respect to that question:
Proposition 10.31 Given positive integers d and t, the class of all left Artinian
rings of length d and global dimension t (infinite global dimension) is finitely
axiomatizable (respectively axiomatizable).
GLOBAL DIMENSION 263
Proof. With the notations of Theorem 10.27 and n = ( d, d?, ... , d!-) in Nt, a
left Artinian ring R of length d has gl.dimR :S t if and only if it satisfies the first
order sentence In· Together with Proposition 10.5 this settles the question if t is
finite. The assertion for infinite t is an immediate consequence. O
Remark 10.32 It is an open and difficult question, whether the left Artinian
rings having fixed length d and finite global dimension form a (finitely) axioma-
tizable class. By means of the compactness theorem this amounts to establish a
finite bound a( d) for all finite global dimensions of left Artinian rings of length
d.
The corresponding question for algebras of fixed dimension d over an alge-

braically closed field k has recently been answered in the affirmative by Schofield
[176]. For a model theoretic account we refer to Chapter 11.
We mention the obvious link to the still unsettled finitistic global dimension
conjectures, raised by Bass [14][p. 487], who himself refers to Rosenberg and
Zelinski: Let
fPD(R) = sup {proj.dimRMIM E mod(R),proj.dimRM < oo },
FPD(R) = sup {proj.dimRMIM E Mod(R),proj.dimRM < oo}.

There are two questions:
(i) Is always fPD(R) = FPD(R) ?
(ii) Are fPD(R) and/or FPD(R) always finite?
As was shown by Small (cf. [100]), even for finite dimensional algebras these
dimensions are usually not left-right symmetric (see Exercise 11.39).
Proposition 10.33 For each pair (d, t) of positive integers the class of all left
Artinian rings of length d and fPD(R) = t is axiomatizable.
Proof. We know already that the left Artinian rings of length d form a finitely
axiomatizable class. Since over any such ring R every n-generated R-module M
has a projective resolution
for each n E N the statement
Every n-generated left R-module of projective dimension :S t + 1 has

projective dimension :S t.
clearly defines a first order sentence 'Pn in the language of rings.

D
Proposition 10.34 For each pair (d, t) of integers the class of all left Artinian
rings of length d and FPD(R 0 P) 2: t is closed under the formation of ultraproducts.
Proof. If FPD(Ra op) 2: t, there is a right Ra-module Ma with proj.dimMa =

t. From Corollary 9.10 we deduce that IlaeIMa/F has projective dimension t as
a module over IlaeIRa/F.
D
Self-injective and fp-self-injective dimension
The fp-injective dimension of a left R-module M is defined analogously to the

injective dimension by means of fp-injective resolutions. If we assume R to be left
coherent, then fp - inj.dim.M:::; n if and only if Ext~+ 1 (F,M) = 0 for all finitely
presented R-modules F. Moreover, in this case,
w.gl.dimR = sup {fp - inj.dimRMIM E Mod(R)}.
Also if R is left coherent and w.gl.dimR is finite, this dimension coincides with
the left self-fp-injective dimension fp - inj.dimRR of R [188].
An R-module E is of finite n-presentation if there exists an exact sequence
Fn --> Fn-1 --> · · · --> Fo --> E --> 0,
where F0 , . . . , Fn are finitely generated free over R. If R is left coherent, every

finitely presented left R-module is of finite n-presentation for each natural number
n.
Lemma 10.35 For any fixed integer t, the rings R with the property
Ext~t1(E, R) = 0,
for every left R-module E of finite (t + 2)-presentation, form an axiomatizable

class C(t).
EMBEDDING DIMENSION 265
Proof. Let R* = ITaeIRa/F be an ultraproduct of rings Ra, and assume

E* is a left R*-module of finite (t + 2)-presentation. By Proposition 9.4 E* has
the form ITaeIEa/F, where for some fixed sequence (n 0 , ..• , nt+ 2 ) of integers and
almost every a E I there is an exact sequence
From Proposition 9.4 it easily follows by the exactness of the formation of ultra-
products that
ExtW(E*, R*) = ILeIExtZ,1 (Ea, Ra)/F.
Hence C(t) is closed under ultraproducts.
Specializing to ultra powers R* = RI/ F, E* = EI/ F we conclude from
Ext~ 1 (E*,R*) = Exti: 1 (E,R)I/F
that R* E C(t) implies RE C(t). D
The following is an immediate consequence:
Proposition 10.36 Let R and S be elementarily equivalent rings. If R, S are
left coherent (resp. left Noetherian) they have the same self-fp-injective (resp.
self-injective) dimension. D
Embedding dimension
We define the embedding dimension e. dim(R) of a (not necessarily commuta-

tive) ring R as the largest integer d such that R has a local factor ring R with
dimtt;JJ/ J2 = d, where J = rad(R). If no such integer d exists, e. dim(R) = oo.
Clearly, in the definition of e. dim(R) we may restrict to those local factor rings
R of R having squared-zero Jacobson radical.
Any von Neumann regular ring has embedding dimension zero, any Dedekind
domain that is not a field has embedding dimension one, any regular local ring
of dimension n - for instance the power series algebra I<[[Xi, ... , Xn]] over a
field I< - has embedding dimension n. If R is commutative, it is straightforward
from the definition that
e. dim(R) = sup me. dim( Rm),
where m runs through the set of maximal ideals of R. So if R is a commutative
Noetherian ring of finite global dimension n - for instance the polynomial algebra
I<[Xi, ... , Xn] over a field I< - we find that e. dim(R) = n.
Proposition 10.37 Suppose R and S are elementarily equivalent rings and R

is left Noetherian. Then e.dim(R) s; e.dim(S). If also S is left Noetherian
e.dim(R) = e.dim(S).
Moreover, for left Noetherian rings the embedding dimension is preserved un-
der elementary descent.
Proof. Suppose R has a local factor ring fl with dimRpJ / J2 = d, J =

rad(R). Then there exists a two-sided ideal L:f= 1 Rsi of R such that Rf L:f= 1 Rsi
is a division ring. Moreover there exist elements bi, ... , bd E L:f= 1 Rsi satisfying
the following two conditions:
( 1) For each r E L:f= 1 Rsi there exist ri, ... , rd E R such that
d p
r =I:; rkbk modulo
k=l
I:; Rs;sj,
i,j=l
r1, ... ,rd EI:; Rsi.

i==l
Clearly this amounts to a first order sentence true in R hence true in S. This
proves e. dim(S) 2:: e. dim(R).
The second assertion follows by symmetry. The last assertion is then a con-
sequence of Proposition 10.6. D
In dealing with K-algebras R over a field [( it is sometimes more convenient

to deal with a relative version e. dimK(R) of embedding dimension defined as the
maximal integer d (if it exists) such that K[Xi, ... , Xd]/(X1 , ... , Xd) 2 arises as
a factor algebra of R. We leave it to the reader to formulate a variant of the
preceding proposition in the context of algebras.
Theorem 10.38 Suppose that the free algebras
where [( and L are fields, are elementarily equivalent as rings. Then [( =L and
n=m.
Proof. The field [( of constants of R = [( <X1 , ... , Xn> is elementarily

definable in R since it consists of 0 and the units in R. Thus the elementary
EMBEDDING DIMENSION 267
equivalence of the rings I< <X1 , ... , Xn> and L<X1, . .. , Xm > implies elementary
equivalence of I< and L; moreover we are allowed to include quantification with
respect to elements of the field of constants into our statements.
Notice that I = L:i'.i=I RX;Xi is a two-sided ideal of R with factor algebra
Hence R satisfies the following 'first order sentence' in the language of rings:
There exist x 1 , ••• , Xn E R satisfying the following three conditions:
(1) L:i'.i=I Rx;Xj is a two-sided ideal of R,
(2) For each r E R there exist a 0 , ai, ... , an E I< such that
n n
r =a 0 + L:a;x;
i=l
modulo L
i,j=l
Rx;Xj,
(3) If ao, a 1 , ... , an E ]{ such that

n n
0 =a0 + L a;x; modulo L Rx;xi
then ai = · · · = an = 0.
=
Since R S, where S = L<Xi, ... , Xm>, the corresponding statement holds
true for S, thus stating that S admits S = L[X1, ... , Xn]/(Xi, ... , Xn) 2 as a
factor ring. Since S is commutative it is actually a factor ring of L[Xi, ... , Xm],
which has embedding dimension m, so m :'.'.'. n follows. Invoking symmetry we
arrive at m = n, which proves our claim. D
We note that the same proof applies to the case of polynomial algebras
I<[Xr, ... , Xn] and power series algebras K[[Xi, ... , Xn]] as well. The case
of polynomial algebras is already covered by Corollary 10.21; in the case of power
series algebras the result will be proved in Proposition 10.45.
Concerning Theorem 10.38 additional information is supplied by the follow-
ing:
Theorem 10.39 For any two fields ]{ and L the following conditions are equiv-
alent:
=
(i) K[X1, ... , Xn] L[X1, ... , Xn] for some n :'.'.'. 1.
=
(ii) K<X1, ... ,Xn> L<X1, ... ,Xn> for some n :'.'.'. 1.
(iii) K[X1, ... ,Xn] = L[X1, ... ,Xn] for everyn :'.'.'. 1.
(iv)]{ <Xi, ... ,Xn> =
L<Xi, ... ,Xn> for every n :'.'.'. 1.
Proof. We only sketch the proof: By Bergman's result [22] on centralizers in

free associative algebras the centralizer of any f E I< <X1 , .•. , Xn > - I< is isomor-
phic to I<[X]. Hence (ii) implies that I<[X] and L[X] are elementarily equivalent
rings. According to a theorem of Bauval [19] the equivalence I<[X] = L[X] im-
plies (iii) and (iv). We refer to the same paper for a proof that ( i) implies (iii)
and (iv). Since trivially (iii)=> (i) and (iv)=> (ii), this finishes the proof. 0
Primitive rings
While prime rings form a finitely axiomatizable class, primitive rings do not. We
recall that a ring R is left primitive if R has a simple left R-module with zero
annihilator.
Proposition 10.40 The class of left primitive rings is closed under ultraproducts
but not under elementary descent.
Proof. If for each a E I, S"' is a simple faithful left R"'-module, and :F is

an ultrafilter on I, the ultraproduct s• = Il"'eI S,,,/:F is a simple faithful module
over R* = IT"'eIR"'/:F, hence R* is left primitive.
As was proved by Domanov [50] there exists a prime von Neumann regular
ring R, which is not primitive. Let S be a countable elementary subring of R.
Necessarily S is prime and von Neumann regular. Therefore, S is also primitive
as was proved by Fisher and Snider [61]. This proves our claim. O
An alternative proof for the non-axiomatizability of primitive rings was given

by Lawrence [126].
Cancellation for power series rings
We are now going to ask whether the rings of the power series rings sequence

One line of attack to establish this property is by means of global dimension
(cf. Exercise 10 .65). Here, we prefer an alternative approach that works for any
CANCELLATION FOR POWER SERIES RINGS 269
commutative Noetherian ring R, based on the minimal embedding dimensions of

the localizations R,. at maximal ideals m.
We notice first that X belongs to the Jacobson radical of R[[X]], in fact we
have
rad(R[[X]J) = R[[XJ]radR + R[[X]]X.
In particular, each maximal ideal M of R[[XJJ contains X.
Lemma 10.41 Let M be a maximal ideal of R[[X]], then m = M n R[[X]] is a

maximal ideal of R.
Moreover,
(i) M = mR[[XJ] + XR[[X]],
(ii) dimR[[X]]/MM/M 2 = 1 + dimR;illl/m 2 •
Conversely, for every maximal ideal m in R M = mR[[X]] + X R[[X]] is a
maximal ideal of R[[X]].
Proof. Since X E M, the restriction of the natural homomorphism R[[X]] --+

R[[X]]/ M to R is an epimorphism, hence m = Mn R[[X]] is a maximal ideal of
R. Clearly, mR[[X]] + XR[[X]] is maximal in R[[X]], therefore M = mR[[X]] +
XR[[X]], and R/m ~ R[[X]]/M. To prove (ii) we note that the natural map
M ---+ M/M 2 induces an epimorphism m EB RX ---+ M/M 2 with kernel
m 2 EB mX, hence an isomorphism m/m 2 ~ M/M 2 of R/m-modules. D
Proposition 10.42 For any commutative Noetherian ring R the rings of the
power series rings sequence
Proof. For any commutative Noetherian ring R, define 8(R) as the smallest
integer d such that R has a maximal ideal m with the property that m /m 2 is of
dimension dover R/m. The statement
R has an n-generated maximal ideal m such that m /m 2 has dimension
dover R/m.
is clearly expressible in first order language. Thus if R and S are elementarily
equivalent and both Rand Sare Noetherian, 8(R) and 8(5) coincide.
We now infer from the preceding lemma that 8(R[[X1 , ... ,Xn]]) = n + 8(R),
so the assertion follows immediately. D
An easy variation of the proof of Lemma 10.41 yields:
Lemma 10.43 For any ring R, the Jacobson radical
is given by
R = t[[Xi, ... 'Xn]] + (X11 ... 'Xn),
where t = radR. Inclusion R --+ R[[X 11 ... , Xn]] induces an isomorphism R/t ~
R[[X1 , ... , Xn]]/R of rings. Moreover, there exists an isomorphism R/R2 ,...,
t/t 2 E!7 (R/tr of R/t-modules. D
Remark 10.44 The authors have been informed by P. Eakin that there exists a
commutative Noetherian ring R such that rad(R) and rad(R[[X]]) need the same
(minimal) number of generators for their respective Jacobson radicals. Hence this
number - which has a first order interpretation - does not separate the various
power series rings R[[X 1 , ... , X nll with respect to elementary equivalence.
That device, however, works if we assume radR = 0:
Proposition 10.45 Let R be a commutative ring with zero Jacobson radical.

The rings
Proof. The preceding lemma shows that n is the minimal number of elements
needed to generate the Jacobson radical (X11 ... , Xn) of Rn = R[[X 11 ... , Xn]] as
a module over Rn. Clearly the statement
The Jacobson radical of R is generated by n elements.
can be expressed in first order language. The assertion is now an easy conse-
quence. D
Corollary 10.46 Let R be a von Neumann regular ring. The rings
Proof. Passage to the center allows to apply the preceding proposition. D

STABLE RANGE AND RINGS OF CONTINUOUS FUNCTIONS 271
Stable range and rings of continuous functions
In order to discuss the question of elementary equivalence for rings of continuous

functions, we first are going to review the stable range conditions introduced by
H. Bass (see [13]).
A row (a 1 , ... , an) E Rn is called unimodular if ai, ... , an generate the unit
left ideal, i.e. I: Ra; = R. We say that R satisfies the stable range condition
SRn if for each m > n and each unimodular row (a 1 , ... , am) E Rm there exist
elements bi, ... , bm-I ER such that also
is a unimodular row. Actually it suffices to require the above condition for m =

n + 1 [199].
Since SRn implies SRn+I we are interested in the smallest integer n - called
the stable rank st.rk(R) of R - such that R satisfies SRn. (If no such n exists
R, by definition, has infinite stable rank: st.rk( R) = oo.)
Example 10.47 Each finite-dimensional algebra Rover a field I< has stable rank
one. Since generally
st.rk(R) = st.rk(R/radR),
also every local ring has stable range one. If R is commutative Noetherian of
Krull dimension d we have st.rk(R) :::; d + 1 (see [13], p. 239). This in particular
implies that each polynomial algebra R = I<[X 1 , ••• , Xd] - where I< is a field
- has stable rank :::; d + 1. As was shown by Suslin and Vasershtein [189], this
inequality may be strict.
However, as we quote without proof from Vasershtein [199]:
Proposition 10.48 If I< is a subfield of the real numbers R, the polynomial

algebra
has stable rank d. 0
Proposition 10.49 The class of rings of stable rank d is finitely axiomatizable.

The class of rings having finite stable rank, however, is not axiomatizable.
Proof. The first assertion uses that SRn is obviously given by a first order
sentence. By means of the compactness theorem the second assertion follows from
the previous proposition.
0
The stable rank serves as a first order invariant that separates the various
rings
C(W), n EN
of continuous real-valued functions on real n-space Rn, as we now shall review
from Vasershtein (199]:
Let X be a topological space. A continuous map f : X --+ sn from X into
then-dimensional sphere sn = {x E Rn+ 1 JJlxll = 1} is called non-essential if
there exists a continuous map g: X--+ sn-l (sn-l = {x E Snlxn+ 1 = O}) such
that f and g agree on 1- 1 (sn- 1 ). Otherwise f is called essential.
The dimension dim(X) of X may be defined as the greatest integer n for
which there exists an essential mapping f : X --+ sn. If no such n exists we
define dim(X) = oo. This dimension coincides - for metrizable spaces - with
other dimensions like the inductive or the combinatorial ( = covering) dimension
(138], for instance we have dim(Rn) = n.
For any topological space X we denote by C(X), C0 (X) the ring of all (respec-
tively, all bounded) continuous real valued functions on X. We quote from (199]
without proof:
Theorem 10.50 Let X be a topological space. Then
st.rk(C(X)) = st.rk(C0 (X)) = dim(X) + 1. 0
Corollary 10.51 The rings
C(R), C(R 2 ), ••• , C(W), ... ,
are mutually elementarily inequivalent, and so are the rings
C(I), C(l2 ), ••• , C(r), ... ,
where I= [O, 1] denotes the unit interval of the reals R.

0
We refer to [199] for further information on the stable rank for suitable "dense"
subrings of C(X), where Proposition 10.48 is just a particular example.
KRULL AND GELFAND-KIRILLOV DIMENSION 273
Polynomial identities; Krull and Gelfand-Kirillov

dimension
We now turn to a brief analysis of the first order properties of rings satisfying a
polynomial identity (pi-rings).
For the definition and the basic properties of pi-rings we refer to the books of
Procesi [154] and Rowen [169].
Here, we only deal with pi-rings satisfying a proper polynomial identity. Recall
that
Sn(Xi, ... , Xn) = L sgn(O")Xu(l) ... Xu(n)
ueSn
denotes the standard indentity of degree n. According to a theorem of Amitsur
R satisfies a proper identity if and only if for some positive integers n, k the ring
R satisfies
Sn(Xi, ... , Xn)k = 0 for all Xi, ... , Xn E R.
Hence R admits a multilinear identity with all coefficients equal to ±1. For the
present exposition we may take this property for the definition of a pi-ring.
The smallest integer n such that s;n is an identity for R (for some k) is called
the pi-degree of R: pi-degree(R). Recall that a ring R is called semiprime if
the intersection of its (two-sided) prime ideals is zero. Here, a two-sided ideal
p £; R is prime if for any two-sided ideals a and b of R the property ab ~ p implies
a ~ p or b ~ p. If a semi prime ring R satisfies S! for some k it also satisfies Sn.
Another basic theorem of Amitsur-Levitzki states that - for any commutative
field I< - the full matrix ring Mn(I<) has pi-degree n, equivalently S 2n is an
identity for Mn(I<), but Mn(I<) does not satisfy any (non-trivial) polynomial
identity of degree less than 2n. Conversely, any prime ring R of pi-degree n
embeds into Mn(I<) for some field I<.
Proposition 10.52 For any pair ( n, k) of positive integers the class of rings
satisfying the identity S! is finitely axiomatizable. The class of pi-rings is thus
elementarily closed but not axiomatizable.
Moreover, if R and S are elementarily equivalent it follows that
pi-degree(R) = pi-degree(S).
Proof. The first assertion is obvious and clearly implies that the rings with
polynomial identity form an elementarily closed class. Since - for any field I<
- the full matrix algebra Mn(K) satisfies S 2 n but not Sm form < 2n the com-
pactness theorem implies that the class of pi-rings is not axiomatizable.
0
Corollary 10.53 The prime pi-rings of fixed pi-degree n (n E NJ form a finitely

axiomatizable class. The class of all prime pi-rings, however, is not axiomatizabltJ
Actually the pi-degree of the full matrix ring Mn(R) over a commutative ring
equals n. Since pi-degree is preserved under elementary equivalence this proves:
Corollary 10.54 For any commutative ring R "/= 0 the full matrix rings
are mutually elementarily inequivalent. 0
This result supplements Corollary 9.20, where the corresponding event is de-
rived from Noetherianness of R. Since there are rings R with R 3! Mn(R) for
each integer n 2: 1 - take for instance the endomorphism ring of an infinite
dimensional vector space - some restricting hypothesis on R is needed in order
to derive non-equivalence results for full matrix rings.
An important class of pi-rings is formed by the rings R which are module-finite
over their center Z(R).
Lemma 10.55 The class of rings R which are module-finite over their center is
an elementary but not an axiomatizable class.
Proof. The first order sentence

n
:l r1, ... ,rnE R VrE R :l z 1, ... ,znE z(R) r = ~
L.J z,·r,·
i=l
clearly characterizes those rings R that are n-generated as modules over Z(R).
Since - for any field J( - the full matrix ring Mn(I<) has dimension n 2 over
its center, the class of rings being module-finite over its center is not axiomatiz-
able.
D
Next we are going to review the concept of Gelfand-Kirillov dimension. For a
detailed account on the topic we refer to the recent book of Krause and Lenagan
(117].
If R is a finitely generated algebra over a field K and V is a finite dimensional
subspace of R containing 1 and a generating system for R the Gelfand-Kirillov
dimension GK-dim(R) of R is defined as
. (R) _ 1.
GK - d 1m logdimK(Vn)
- 1m sup l ,
n-oo ogn
where Vn denotes the subspace spanned by all products V1 · · · Vn with Vi, . .. , Vn E
v.
Actually GK-dim(R) is independent of the choice of the generating system
V, its meaning is to measure the growth of the algebra R, since
limsuplog di~(Vk) = inf{r E Rldim(Vm) :=:; m• for large m}.

n-oo ogn
To illustrate the concept we cite a few examples. R has Gelfand-Kirillov
dimension zero if and only if R has finite K-dimension. The free algebra
is easily seen to have infinite Gelfand-Kirillov dimension, while the polynomial

algebra K[X1 , ••• , Xn] has Gelfand-Kirillov dimension n.
If R is not finitely generated over K we may also attach a Gelfand-Kirillov
dimension to R, defined as
GK-dim(R) = sup 5 GK-dim(S),
where S runs through the finitely generated subalgebras of R. We will, however,

mainly restrict to the case of finitely generated algebras.
Notice that d = GK-dim(R) need not be an integer; actually exactly the
values 0, 1 and all real numbers 2 :=:; r :=:; oo (including oo) will occur (117].
The following theorem, which we quote from (117], establishes the link to the
concept of Krull dimension and provides one important instance, where Gelfand-
Kirillov dimension actually is given by an integer:
Theorem 10.56 If R is a prime polynomial identity algebra ove a field K then
GK-dimK(R) = tr.degK(R) 2: cl.K-dim(R).

If moreover - as a /{-algebra - R is finitely generated over /{
GK-dimK(R) = tr.degK(R) = cl.rK-dim(R)

and this common value is a non-negative integer.
D
Here, the classical Krull dimension cl.K-dim(R) of R refers to the maximal

length n of a chain
0 ~Po~ P1 ~ · · · ~ Pn ~ R
of two-sided prime ideals of R. If no such n exists, cl.K-dim(R) = oo.
A basic theorem of Kaplansky asserts that, for any prime pi-algebra R, with
S being the set of its central non-zero divisors, the quotient ring s- 1 R is a full
matrix algebra Mn(L) over the quotient field L of the center of R.
The transcendency degree of R over I< is by definition the transcendency
degree tr.degK(L) of Lover I<.
Proposition 10.57 If R and S are elementarily equivalent left Noetherian rings

then
cl.K-dim(R) = cl.K-dim(S).
Proof. That p = Rx 1 +···+Rn is a (two-sided) prime ideal (i. e. p ~ R,

further xRy ~ p implies x E p or y E p ) can be expressed elementarily in the
generators x 1 , ... , Xn of p. Thus, if R has a chain
0 ~ Po ~ P1 ~ · · · ~ Pn ~ R
of prime ideals of length n, the same assertion holds true for S, and conversely.0
Corollary 10.58 For left (or right} Noetherian rings, classical Krull dimension
is preserved under elementary descent. D
Corollary 10.59 Assume that R and R' are finitely generated prime pi-algebras
over fields I< and I<', respectively, and are both left Noetherian. Assume R is
elementarily equivalent to R' with respect to the two-sorted language of algebras.
Then
GK-dimK(R) = GK-dimK'(R') D
Corollary 10.60 Assume R is a left Noetherian prime polynomial identity alge-

bra, which is finitely generated over a field K. Both Gelfand-Kirillov dimension
and transcendency degree are preserved under the passage to elementarily subal-
gebras (with respect to the two-sorted language of algebras).
Proof. Let d = GK-dim(R) = cl.K-dim(R) ; dis an integer. We know

already that passing to an elementary subalgebra R' (over a field K') preserves
the classical Krull dimension, so
cl.K-dim(R') = d.
Since R' is a prime pi-algebra we get from the preceding theorem
d s; GK-dimK·(R') = tr.degK'(R') = d'.

We may hence choose elements x 1 , ... , xd' of the center of R' which are al-
gebraically independent over K'. Since (K',R') is elementary in (K,R) these
elements belong to the center of R and are algebraically independent over K. So
d = tr.degK(R) ::'.". d',

hence d = d' follows. D
Corollary 10.61 Assume R, R' are finitely generated algebras over fields K, I<',
respectively, which are module-finite over the respective centers. If R and R' are
elementarily equivalent with respect to the two-sorted language of algebras then
cl.K-dim(R) = cl.K-dim(R').
If moreover R is prime, we also have
GK-dimK(R) = GK-dimK(R').
Proof. Since R is finitely generated as a K-algebra and is a finitely gen-

erated module over its center C - as is easily checked - C is also a finitely
generated K-algebra, hence both C and Rare left (and right) Noetherian. So
Corollary 10.59 applies to the present situation. D
Remark 10.62 As was shown in Chapter 4 none of the concepts (classical) Krull
dimension and Gelfand-Kirillov dimension - which for a commutative domain
coincides with the transcendency degree - is preserved under elementary equiv-
alence R = S. As the preceding discussion shows, it makes sense - however -
to restate the question once we assume additionally that both R and S are, say,
left Noetherian.
The authors do not know of any example where - in presence of this addi-
tional assumption - Krull-dimension or Gelfand-Kirillov is not preserved under
elementary equivalence of rings (resp. algebras).
The corresponding question - basically if we do not assume a polynomial
identity - arises for the Krull dimension in the sense of Gabriel [67] or Gabriel-
Rentschler [71]. We refer to the memoir of Gordon and Robson [81] for a detailed
account on these dimensions.
Exercises
Exercise 10.63 Prove that each of the following properties
(i) R is a principal ideal domain,
(ii) Risa (commutative Noetherian) regular local ring,
(iii) R is a factorial domain,
is preserved under elementary descent.
Exercise 10.64 ( i) The class of fp-self-injective rings is axiomatizable.

(ii) For any pair (d, t) of natural numbers the class of left Artinian rings of length
d and self-injective dimension t is finitely axiomatizable.
Exercise 10.65 If R is any left Noetherian ring of finite global dimension prove by
means of Corollary 10.28 that the rings
of the power series sequence are mutually elementarily inequivalent.
Exercise 10.66 [J~ndrup]. Let J( be a field and F = K(N). The endomorphism

ring R = EndK(F) 0P is left coherent, but its polynomial ring R[X] is not.
Exercise 10.67 Let cn(R) be the ring of all real valued functions on R that are con-
tinuously differentiable of order n. Prove that
c 0 (R),C 1 (R), ... ,cn(R), ...

EXERCISES 279
Exercise 10.68 Give an example of a Bezout domain (a Prlifer domain, resp.) that
is not elementarily equivalent to any principal ideal domain.
Exercise 10.69 Let R be the ring of all real valued continuous functions on the unit
interval [O, 1]. Prove that R is not elementarily equivalent to any coherent ring.
[Hint: Show that the annihilator of a proper zero divisor in R is never finitely generated.]
Chapter 11
Pure global dimension and

algebraically compact rings
E-algebraically compact rings
If, viewed as a left R-module, R is algebraically compact (E-algebraically com-

pact) R is called an algebraically compact (resp. E -algebraically compact)
ring.
In view of Corollary 8.27 every (left) algebraically compact ring R is F-
semiperfect and R/rad (R) is a left self-injective von Neumann regular ring.
Proposition 11.1 ([129,211,58]) Let R be a ring which is left perfect and right
coherent, or is algebraically compact and has cardinality < 2No. Then R is E-
algebraically compact.
Moreover, any E-algebraically compact ring is semiprimary, i.e. the Jacobson
radical rad (R) of R is nilpotent and R/rad (R) is semisimple Artinian.
Proof. If R is right coherent, the module RN is flat viewed as a left R-

module. Therefore, as a pure factor module of a flat module RN/ R(N) is flat,
hence projective due to the left perfectness of R. Consequently the sequence
0 -+ R(N) -+ RN -+ RN/ R(N) -+ 0 splits and R is E-algebraically compact. If R
is algebraically compact and IRI < 2No the claim follows from Corollary 8.15.
We are now going to prove that any E-algebraically compact ring is semipri-
mary. Any finitely generated right ideal is a finitely definable subgroup of the
left R-module R. Hence R satisfies the descending chain condition on finitely
281
282 CHAPTER 11: PURE-GLOBAL DIMENSION AND ALGEBRAIC COMPACTNESS
generated right ideals and, therefore, due to Bass's theorem (Theorem 10.8) is a
left perfect ring. In particular, the factor ring R/ J, J = rad (R), is semisimple
Artinian.
It remains to be shown that J is a nilpotent ideal. By assumption R satisfies
the descending chain condition for right annihilators of finite subsets, hence for
right annihilators of arbitrary subsets of R. Equivalently, R satisfies the ascending
chain condition for left annihilators l(S), S ~ R. Hence there exists an integer n
such that
We claim that l(Jn) = R. Otherwise R/l(r) is a non-zero right R-module which

in view of the left perfectness of R satisfies the descending chain condition for
cyclic right submodules, and therefore contains a simple submodule S = T / l(Jn).
Since S.J = 0 we get T.r+ 1 = 0, which in view of(*) implies T ~ l(r), thus
contradicting S -j. 0. O
The next Corollary is an immediate consequence:
Corollary 11.2 (i) Each countable self-injective ring is E-algebraically compact.

(ii) Each countable self-injective von Neumann regular ring is Artinian semi-
simple.
(iii) Each right Artinian ring is E-algebraically compact. O
Since any countable von Neumann regular ring is hereditary, assertion (ii) is
a special case of Osofsky's theorem [145] stating that rings whose cyclic modules
are all injective are already semisimple Artinian.
Moreover, if R is semiprimary and rad 2 (R) = 0 then R is E-algebraically
compact. We briefly sketch the proof of this instance: One first proves that for
any positive primitive formula in one free variable cp
cp(R) = cp(rad R) +a
holds for some finitely generated right ideal a of R. The assertion then follows
from the fact that R - as a semiprimary ring - satisfies the minimum condition
for finitely generated (right) ideals, moreover rad R - as a module over the
Artinian semisimple ring R/rad R - satisfies the minimum condition for finitely
definable subgroups. For an alternative proof we refer to Exercise 8.67.
Notice however, that there do exist semiprimary but not E-algebraically com-
pact rings with the property rad 3 (R) = 0 [212].
NOETHERIAN RINGS 283
Algebraic compactness of Noetherian rings

Theorem 11.3 A commutative Noetherian ring R is pure-injective (as an R-
module) if and only if R is a direct product of finitely many complete local rings.
Proof. "only if": As a Noetherian ring Risa direct product of finitely many
indecomposable rings R;. Each R; will be an indecomposable pure-injective R;-
module. Thus by Corollary 7.5 we conclude that EndR,(R;) ::=: R; is local. Hence,
it suffices to show that a local ring R, with maximal ideal m say, is complete
in the m-adic topology, if R is a pure-injective R-module. To that purpose we
note that all the powers mi, i E N, are finitely definable submodules of R, so
by Corollary 7.4 the canonical mapping R --+ fu!!.R/m i is surjective, hence an
isomorphism. This means that R is a complete local ring.
"if": Without restriction we may assume that R is a complete local ring. If m
denotes the maximal ideal of R and E is the injective envelope of the R-module
R/m, there is an isomorphism HomR(E,E) ::=: R. (Cf. [131] or [180]). To verify
that R is a pure-injective R-module it suffices to sow that for pure-exact sequence
0--+A--+B--+C--+0 (*)
the induced mapping HomR(B, R) --+ HomR(A, R) is surjective. Since(*) is pure

the mapping
is injective, and since E is an injective R-module the mapping
is surjective. Since there is a natural isomorphism
and HomR(E, E) ::=: R, we conclude that HomR(B, R) --+ HomR(A, R) is surjec-

tive. D
Theorem 11.4 Let R be a commutative principal ideal domain and !1 the set
of maximal ideals of R. For each m E !1, let if... be the m R,.-adic completion
of the localization R,.. Viewed as an R-module the direct product Iln&nn if... is a
pure-injective envelope of R with respect to the pure embedding r t-t (r /1 )m·
Proof. By Theorem 11.3 Ji;. is a pure-injective li;.-module, in particular, a

pure-injective R-module. Since any product of pure-injective modules is pure-
injective we see that R = Ilntn Ji;. is R-pure-injective.
From classical ideal theory it follows that the mapping R/ Ra --+ R/ Ra =
ITnEn R;./ali;. is injective, hence by an easy variant of Proposition 7.8 the embed-
ding R --+ R is pure.
Since R = J.ig!R/ Ra, with Ra running through the non-zero ideals of R, we
conclude that no proper pure R-submodule of R containing R is pure-injective.D
Unlike the behavior of injective modules over Noetherian rings, pure-injecti-
vity is, in general not preserved by localization. For instance, the power series
ring R = I<[[Xi, ... , Xn]] over a field I< is a pure-injective R-module, but for
n > 1 no non-trivial localization of R is pure-injective. This is a special case of a
general result.
Proposition 11.5 Let R be a complete local Noetherian domain of Krull dimen-
sion> 1. Let S be a multiplicatively closed subset of R-{O}. If S =f. R- {O} and
S contains a non-invertible element, the ring s- 1 R is not algebraically compact
neither as an R-module nor as an s- 1 R-module.
Proof. Let S be a multiplicatively closed set as described in the proposition.

Since s- 1 R is a torsion-free R-module, any system of linear equations over s- 1 R
is equivalent to a system of linear equations over R. Hence it suffices to prove
that s- 1 R is not an algebraically compact s- 1 R-module. By Theorem 11.3 we
may assume that s- 1 R is local, which means that S = R- p for some prime ideal
p of R, where p =f. 0 and p is not the maximal ideal m of R. By Theorem 11.3 we
have to prove that s- 1 R = Il-p is not complete in the pll-p-adic topology. In fact,
suppose Il-p were complete. Let a be an element of R such that a E m, a <f_ p, and
let b be a non-zero element of p. The integral closure R of R in the quotient field
[{ of R is a Krull domain (see e.g. [139]). [Actually since R is complete R will
be Noetherian, but we do not need this here.] Since a is a non-invertible element
in R there exists a discrete rank one valuation v on [{ for which v( a) ~ 1 and
v( r) ~ 0 for all r E R.
We set h = v(a) > 0 and k = v(ab) > 0 and consider the polynomial
f(X) = X 3hk + ak X + (ab)h E E[X].
Since f(X) reduced modulo p has 0 as a simple zero it follows from Hensel's
lemma applied to the complete local ring Il-p that f (X) has a root a in Il-p, in
particular in [{. On the other hand
0 = f(a:) = a:3hk +aka+ (ab)h
FIRST-ORDER PROPERTIES AND ULTRAPRODUCTS 285
implies that v( a) 2: 1. Consequently, by the choice of h and k we get
v(a3 hk) > v(aka) > v(ab)h

This gives the desired contradiction. D
First-order properties and ultraproducts

Proposition 11.6 The class of algebraically compact {respectively self-injective}
rings is neither closed under elementary descent nor under the formation of ul-
trapowers.
Proof. As is shown in Theorem 8.49 neither class is closed under the for-
mation of ultrapowers. With respect to the assertions concerning elementary
descent consider R = F~. As a self-injective ring R is algebraically compact.
Let S be any countable elementary subring of R and assume that S is alge-
braically compact. Sis von Neumann regular so - in virtue of Corollary 11.1
- semisimple Artinian. This contradicts to elementary equivalence of Rand S{]
As for algebraically compact rings (=self-pure-injective rings) Proposition 11.6

can be sharpened. For that purpose the following somewhat technical proposition
is useful. For a cardinal number ~ we define ~+ as the smallest cardinal number
bigger than ~-
Proposition 11.7 Let :F be an ultrafilter on a set I such that, viewed as an

ordered set, the ultrapower N 1 / :F is ~-saturated for some infinite cardinal number
~- Let R be a ring for which R 1 / :F is {left) algebraically compact and IR 1 /Fl <
2N+, then R is left perfect.
Proof. Suppose R were not left perfect; we shall prove that in the above
situation this gives rise to a contradiction. When R is not left perfect there exists
a strictly decreasing chain of principal right ideals
We define a function f : R -> N U { =} by
f(r) = { n if r E 7r1···1rnR - 7r1···1l°n+IR

CXJ if r E 7r1 · · · 7rnR for all n.
Next we define a function J* from R* = RT/ :F to N* U { oo}, where N* = NT/:F

by setting:
J*([r;]) = [f (r;)].
For each n• EN* the set Vn• = {x E R*IJ*(x) 2::: n*} is a finitely definable sub-
group of R* viewed as a left module over itself. N* has a natural structure as an
ordered set. It is easy to check that Vnj ~ Vn; if and only if ni :S:: ni. By the sat-
uration property of N* it follows that the Vn•, n* E N*, form a strictly decreasing
family of finitely definable subgroups with no cofinal subfamily of cardinality ~
Theorem 8.13 now gives the desired contradiction. D
By setting ~ = ~o we get
Corollary 11.8 Let R be a ring of cardinality::::; 2No and let :F be a non-principal

ultrafilter on N. Assume 2N 1 > 2No {which in particular holds if we assume the
continuum hypothesis). If the ring RN/ :F is (left) algebraically compact, then R
is left perfect. D
Example 11.9 Again assuming 2N 1 > 2No the above corollary shows in particular
that RN/ :Fis not an algebraically compact ring whenever R is an integral domain
(not a field) of cardinality ::::; 2No.
Corollary 11.10 Assume GCH. Let R be ring such that every ultrapower of R
is {left) algebraically compact, then R is left perfect.
Proof. Let ~ be an infinite cardinal number ;:::: IRI and let I be a set of
cardinality l{. By Theorem 2.3 there exists an ultrafilter :F on I such that NT/ :F
is ~-saturated. Moreover, IR1 /:Fl :S:: IRIN :S:: 2N < 2N+. The assertion now follows
from Proposition 11.7. D
Since a right Noetherian ring R is left perfect if and only if R is right Artinian
(this follows from Theorem 10.8) we get the following
Corollary 11.11 . Assume GCHand let R be a right Noetherian ring. R is right

Artinian if and only if every ultrapower of R is a (left) algebraically compact rin&J
Next we give some additional applications of Theorem 8.13
Proposition 11.12 Let :F be a non-principal ultrafilter on N and let z· =

zN/:F. For every prime number p the l-module G = IlnEN lpn/:F is not an
algebraically compact z• -module, provided we assume 2N 1 > 2No (which in partic-
ular holds if we assume the continuum hypothesis}.
FIRST-ORDER PROPERTIES AND ULTRAPRODUCTS 287
Proof. Let N* = NN / F be equipped with the ordering induced by the

natural ordering of N. As usually, let b. : N --+ N*. (Notation: b.(n) = n for
every n EN).
We consider the element ( = [l, 2, 3, ... ] E N* and the following subset A of
N*, defined by
A= {a E N*lka < (for all k EN}.
We claim that A has no countable cofinal subset. Indeed, let {avlv E N} be a
countable subset of A. We have to construct an element x in A such that av < x
holds for all v. In other words, we want an element x E N* for which
av < x for all v and kx < ( for all k E N.
Since N* is ~ 0 -saturated, it suffices to prove that every finite subsystem of the

above system of inequalities has a solution x. Since the av's are totally ordered,
this boils down to showing that for every a E A and every k E N there is an x
satisfying av< x and kx < (. But here x =av+ b.(l) will be a solution.
Now, for any n* E A we consider Vn• = ann a(n*), which is a finitely definable
subgroup of G. Since IGI = 2No the assertion is now a consequence of Theo-
rem 8.13. D
Proposition 11.13 The class of L.-algebraically compact rings is closed under

elementary descent but not with respect to the formation of ultraproducts.
Proof. The first assertion follows.from Corollary 8.2. As shows the example
the class in question is not closed under ultraproducts. D
Remark 11.14 The authors do not know whether the L.-algebraically compact
rings will form an elementarily closed class, equivalently if L.-algebraic compact-
ness - for a ring R - is preserved under the passage from R to an ultrapower
R1 / F. This latter property will hold true, for instance, if R is right Artinian or
semiprimary with squared-zero Jacobson radical.
Moreover, the authors do not know of any ring R that is not L.-algebraically
compact but has an ultrapower R* = RN/ F - with respect to a non-principal
ultrafilter F on N - that is an algebraically compact ring. As follows from the
discussion in Chapter 7 the ultrapower R* fails to be algebraically compact if, for

instance, R is a complete regular local ring of dimension at least 2.
Under the set theoretic assumptions of Corollary 11.8 the ultrapower R* is
not algebraically compact for any domain R which is not a field.
Notice further that - if R is a domain - algebraic compactness of some
ring S elementarily equivalent to R implies that R must be a local ring: Since
S viewed as an S-module is indecomposable, algebraic compactness of S would
imply that S = Ends(S) 0P, hence R, is a local ring.
In particular, no Peano ring and no ring R elementarily equivalent to a poly-
nomial ring K[X] over a field is algebraically compact.
Summarizing, it seems reasonable to ask whether, in general, algebraic com-
pactness of an ultrapower R* = RN/ :F ( :F non-principal) will imply ~-algebraic
compactness for R. Assuming additionally that R is (left) Noetherian we may
even restrict the question to the following particular case: Will algebraic com-
pactness for R* imply that R is (left) Artinian?
Algebraic compactness of valuation rings

Next, we deal with algebraic compactness of valuation rings, a question of impor-
tance for the model theoretic treatment of finite dimensional algebras. Let K be
a field with valuation v and consider an extension v' of v to a field extension L
of K. We say that L is an immediate extension of K if both value groups and
residue class fields for L and K agree.
A valued field K is called maximally complete if K has no proper immediate
extensions. This notion goes back to F.K. Schmidt (cf. [120] and Schilling [174]).
A valuation ring is called maximally complete if its quotient field is maximally
complete in the above sense.
A characterization of maximally complete fields is given by I. Kaplansky [107]
in terms of pseudo-convergence:
Definition 11.15 Let K be a field with a valuation v. A sequence (ap)pEfl of

elements in K, indexed by a segment ~ of the ordinals without a last element, is
called pseudo-convergent if
v(ap - a")< v(a" - ar) for all p p. In fact,
v(ap-a") = v[(ap-ap+I +( aP+l-a" )] = min[v( ap-ap+ 1 ), v( ap+ 1 -a" )] = v( aP-aP+ 1 ).

ALGEBRAIC COMPACTNESS OF VALUATION RINGS 289
Definition 11.16 An element x in K is called a limit of the pseudo-convergent

sequence (ap)pea if v(x - aP) = v(aP - ap+ 1 ) for all p.
In that case the above remark implies that v(x - ap) = v(ap - au) holds for
all p and u, p < u.
A fundamental result is the following theorem of Kaplansky[l07], which we
quote without proof:
Theorem 11.17 A valued field K is maximally complete if and only if every

pseudo-convergent sequence of elements in K has a limit in K. D
Let R be a valuation ring and K the quotient field equipped with the corre-
sponding valuation. By the above theorem it is easy to see that R is maximally
complete if and only if every pseudo-convergent sequence of elements in R has a
limit in R.
Next, we recall the notion of linear compactness. Generally, a. module M
over an arbitrary ring R is ca.lied linearly compact (in the discrete topology) if
every family of R-linear varieties Xe. +Mc., a E J, (Mc. a submodule of M), has
a non-empty intersection provided the intersection of any finite subfamily of the
varieties is non-empty.
Since a. finitely definable subgroup of a module over a commutative ring R
is a sub-R-module, Theorem 7.1 implies that a linearly compact module over a
commutative ring is algebraically compact.
Theorem 11.18 (cf. [207]) Let R be a valuation ring with quotient field K and
let v be the corresponding valuation. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
(i) As a valued field K is maximally complete.
(ii) K is a linearly compact R-module {in the discrete topology).
(iii) R is a linearly compact R-module.
(iv) R is an algebraically compact R-module.
Proof. (i) => (ii): Since R is a valuation ring, the sub-R-modules of K

are totally ordered by set inclusion. Hence a family of R-linear varieties of K
is totally ordered by set inclusion if the intersection of any finite subfamily is
non-empty. Since any totally ordered set has a well-ordered cofinal subset, it
suffices to show that any well-ordered family of R-varieties of K has a non-empty
intersection.
Let (Vp)pea be such a family of R-linear varieties of K, indexed by a segment
of ordinals. (We assume VP;;; Vu if p < u.) Let Mc. be the R-module with respect
to which V"' is a linear variety. We choose aP E VP - Vp+l· Then for a > p we

have
and also
aer E Ver = aP + Mp, aP - aer E Mp.
Thus p <a< r implies aP - a,,!/. M,, and a" - a,. E Mer, so that
v(ap - aer) < v(aer - a,.).

Hence (aP) PE~ is a pseudo-convergent sequence. By assumption there is a limit
a EK such that v(a - aP) = v(ap - aP+ 1). Thus (a - ap) E R(aP - ap+i) <:;:;Mp.
Therefore a E aP +MP= VP for all p and the intersection of the varieties {VP} is
non-empty.
*
(ii) (iii) is trivial and (iii)*(iv) is a consequence of the remark preceding
the above theorem.
*(
(iv) i): In view of an earlier remark it suffices to show that any pseudo-
convergent sequence (aP)PE~ of elements in R has a limit in R. Let /p = v(ap -
ap+ 1) and Ip= {r I v(r) ~ 1}, VP= aP +IP. Then IP is a finitely definable
subgroup in R and the VP form a decreasing family of R-linear varieties since
Ip 2 Ip+l and aP - ap+l E Ip. In view of Theorem 7.1 the intersection of the VP
is non-empty. Let a be an element in this intersection. Then v(a - aP) ~ /p for
all p:
Iffor some p we had v(a - aP) > /p, then
/p+1 ::::; v(a - ap+1) = min(v(a - ap), v(ap - ap+1)) = /p,
which contradicts the pseudo-convergence of ( aP)PE~· Consequently, v( a - ap) =
/pfor every p and a is a limit of ( aP)PE~· D
It should be noted that a valuation ring satisfying the conditions in 11.18 is
Henselian. A proof can be found in [174][p. 47].
Let K be a field and r be a totally ordered group. It can be shown that the val-
ued field of formal power series K ((f) ), consisting of all power series L-yEf a-yX-Y,
whose support is a well-ordered subset of r is maximally complete. Hence the
corresponding valuation ring K[[f+]], consisting of all power series from K((f))
with support in r+, the set of positive elements in r, is an algebraically compact
ring. Notice further that a discrete valuation ring is algebraically compact if and
only if is complete with respect to the m-adic topology, where m is the maximal
ideal of R.
For any field K the valuation ring U~= 1 K[[T 1fn]], whose quotient field is the
Puiseux-field P(K) from Example 2.27 is not maximally complete.
PURE-GLOBAL DIMENSION 291
Pure-global dimension
For a definition of the notion of pure-global dimension (and the related notions
of pure-projective and pure-projective dimension) we refer to Appendix A.
Example 11.19 (i) To illustrate the concept we mention that the rings of pure-
global dimension zero are just the pure-semisimple rings, characterized by Theo-
rem 8.4.
(ii) Any Dedekind domain R, which is not a field, has pure-global dimension
one due to a theorem of Kulikov stating that every submodule of a direct sum
of finitely generated R-modules has this property too [106,65]. We refer to the
l
paper [31] of Brune for a functorial approach towards this property.
If I< denotes a field and n is any integer n 2: 1, the matrix algebra
J<[Xn] xn-1 I<[Xn] . . . x2 I<[Xn]

XI<[Xn] I<[Xn] XI<[Xn]
x2I<[Xn]
[
xn-2~<[Xn] K[Xn] xn-1~<[Xn]
xn-lJ<[Xn] xn- 2 K[Xn] · · · X K[Xn] K[Xn]
shares with the polynomial algebra I<[X] the property that any submodule of a
pure-projective module is pure-projective (cf. Exercise 11.35). Hence
p.gl.dim(IIn) = 1.
IIn is isomorphic to the path algebra of the quiver

-2-···-n-I-
f n: 1 ~ - - - n,
so left IIn-modules may be viewed as I<-linear representations of r n·

(iii) Since for any von Neumann regular ring R exactness and pure-exactness
coincide, we have
p.gl.dim(R) = gl.dim(R)
in this case. If En denotes the free Boolean algebra on an infinite set of cardinality
~n ( n E N U { w}) we thus find
p.gl.dim(Bn) = n +1
(with the convention w +1 = oo) and thus dispose of examples of arbitrary
pure-global dimension.
While it is not difficult to prove that the class of representation-finite rings

(=left and right pure-semisimple rings) is closed under elementary equivalence
(see [88]) it is an open question whether pure global dimension zero is preserved
under the passage to ultrapowers.
Proposition 11.20 Let R be a pure-semisimple ring and S a subring which is a

pure submodule of R regarded as a (S, S)-bimodule, i.e. we assume that for every
right S-module A and every left S-module B the mapping A@sB--+ A@sR0sB,
defined by a 0 b ,_. a 0 1 0 b is injective.
Then S is a left pure-semisimple ring. In particular, pure-semisimplicity is
preserved under elementary descent.
Proof. Let B be an arbitrary left S-module. By assumption the S-homo-

morphism B--+ R 0s B, defined by b ,_. 1 0 bis a pure embedding.
Since any left R-module is pure-injective, it follows that every left R-module
is E-pure-injective. This implies, in view of Theorem 8.1, that R @s B is a
E-pure-injective S-module. By Theorem 8.1 the S-module R @s B satisfies the
descending chain condition for finitely definable subgroups. Because B--+ R@sB
is pure, it follows from Corollary 8.2 that B also is a E-pure-injective S-module,
in particular, an S-pure-injective Rmodule.
The last statement in the proposition is a consequence of the first one since S
is a pure left and right S-submodule of R when S is an elementary subring of Ro
Despite the formal analogies between global dimension and pure-global di-
mension there is not much similarity in the behavior of both concepts. In par-
ticular pure-global dimension behaves in a quite sensitive way with respect to
cardinality questions and the underlying set theory:
Theorem 11.21 ([85]) Let R be a ring and max(N 0 , IRI) = Nt. Then
p.gl.dim(R) :::; t + 1.
Proof. [For an alternative proof based on the concept of pure-injectivity we

refer to Theorem 7.47.] By means of Proposition 8.3 each R-module M is the
union of a well-ordered sequence of pure submodules M-y, indexed by the ordinals,
such that each M-r+if M-r has cardinality:::; Nt hence pure-projective dimension
:::; t + 1; moreover we may assume that M-r = Utl<-r holds for every limit ordinal
/. The assertion is now an easy consequence. D
PURE-GLOBAL DIMENSION 293
Corollary 11.22 If R is a countable ring, then each ultraproduct
II Q.,/F
er El
of algebraically compact R-modules Q" is again an algebraically compact R-module.

D
Typically the universal cardinality bound max(N 0 , IRI) for pure-global dimen-
sion is attained for rings R having a 'wild' behavior with respect to classification
of finitely presented indecomposable modules. For further information on this
topic as well as for the proof of the following result we refer to [11] and [99], see
also Exercise 11.37.
Theorem 11.23 Let I< be a field and N1 = max(N 0 , II<I). Any of the following
rings
(a) l<<Xi, ... ,Xn>, n :'.'.'. 2,
(b) I<[Xi, ... ,Xn], n :'.'.'. 2,
(c) I<[Xi, X2, X3]/(Xi, X 2, X 3)2
has pure-global dimension t + 1.
Moreover, any regular local ring R of dimension:'.'.'. 2 has pure-global dimension
t + 1, where Nt = max(No, IRI). D
For instance the pure-global dimension of C[X, Y] depends on the form 2No =
N1 of the continuum hypothesis.
Example 11.24 Let R be the ring of all entire functions in one complex variable.
Since R is a Bezout domain (i.e. every finitely generated ideal is principal) for
every maximal ideal m the localization Rrr. is a valuation ring.
R has two sorts of maximal ideals: For every a E C the set of all functions
which have a as a zero is a maximal ideal which is principal. The other kind
of maximal ideals is obtained in the following way: Let F be a non-principal
ultrafilter on C containing a discrete infinite subset of C: then all the functions
in R whose zero-sets belong to F form a maximal ideal in R which is not principal.
If m is principal, the localization Rrr. is - as an R.,,.-module - not N0 -compact,
in particular, not algebraically compact. If m is not principal, it follows from
classical theorems by WeierstraB and Mittag-Leffier that Rrr. is N0 -compact as an
R.,,.-module. Moreover, it can be shown that Rrr. is not self-pure-injective. In fact,
this either follows from Corollary 8.15 under the assumption that 2No < 2N 1 or,
without any set-theoretical assumptions, from the fact that no localization Rm

is Henselian. (Note that any maximal ideal m contains a function f such that
(1 + !) 1 / 2 is not meromorphic.)
The pure-injective dimension of any module over a principal ideal domain
is :::; 1; hence, when m is principal the self-pure-injective dimension of Rm is 1,
while the self-pure-injective dimension of Rm is ~ 1 (and = 1 if we assume the
continuum hypothesis) if m is not principal.
Furthermore, the continuum hypothesis implies that the pure-global dimen-
sion of Rm is 2, the self-injective dimension of Rm is 2 and the global dimension of
Rm is 3 for every non-principal m.
Example 11.25 Let :F be a non-principal ultrafilter on N. The ultrapower

R* = RN/ :F is a real closed field and has as such a unique ordering as an ordered
field. The corresponding valuation ring V (the "real holomorphy ring" of R*, cf.
page 44) has R as its residue class field and ff*+ /R+ as its value group, where
w+ (resp. R+) denotes the multiplicative ordered group of positive elements in
w+ (resp. R).
Since w+ /R+ is an 7Ji-group it follows from Corollary 8.15 that Vis not pure-
self-injective (i.e. not a maximal valuation ring) provided 2No < 2N1 • However,
since R* is an N0 -saturated structure, it is not hard to see that V is an N0 -
compact V-module. As above, the continuum hypothesis implies that the self-
pure-injective dimension of V is 1, the pure-global dimension of Vis 2, the self-
injective dimension of V is 2 and the global dimension of V is 3.
It should be noted that V unlike the valuation rings in the previous example
is Henselian. Actually, the valuation ring corresponding to any real closed field
(viewed as an ordered field) is Henselian.
Injective dimension of ultraproducts

Theorem 11.26 For every ring R and every R-module M we have the following
inequality
inj.dimRM:::; p.inj.dimR(M) + w.gl.dim R.
Proof. We first consider the case where the p.inj.dimR(M) = 0. If n =

w.gl.dim R < oo we have to show that Ext}~+I(A, M) = 0 for any R-module A.
Since w .gl.dim R = n there is an exact sequence
0 --+ Pn --+ Fn-1 --+ · · · --+ F1 --+ Fo --+ A --+ 0

INJECTIVE DIMENSION OF ULTRAPRODUCTS 295
where Fo, F1, · · ·, Fn-1 are free R-modules and Pn is a flat R-module. By the
(iterated) connecting homomorphism for the Ext-functors we get an isomorphism
Exfk+ 1 (A, M) ~ Extk(Pn, M). We therefore have to prove that Extk(Pn, M) = 0.
But this follows from the fact that any short exact sequence
0 -+ M -+ X -+ Pn -+ 0
is pure, since Pn is flat, and consequently splits because M is pure-injective.

Next consider the general case where p.inj.dim M = t. By assumption there
is an exact sequence
o -+ M -+ Bo -+ · · · -+ Bt -+ o
where each B;, 0 ~ i ~ t, is pure-injective. Hence, as shown above, Ext}t 1 (A, B;)
is zero for every R-module A and each B;. By dimension shifting or by the iterated
connecting homomorphisms for the Ext-functors we conclude that
for every R-module A and thus inj.dimR(M) ~ n + t. D
Proposition 11.27 Let R be a commutative local Noetherian ring of finite global

dimension n > 0 or let R = S[X11 ... , Xn_ 1 ] for some principal ideal domain S.
Assume IRI ~ 2No and 2No < 2N1 • Then for any non-principal ultrafilter :F on N
the injective dimension of R* = RN/ :F as an R* -module is ?: n + 1.
Proof. We proceed by induction on n. For n = 1 the assertion was established

in Proposition??. For n > 1 there exists a non-invertible element x of R such that
R = R/ Rx is local of global dimension n-1 or isomorphic to S[X11 •.• , Xn-il· Let
x* = .6.(x) where .6. is the canonical embedding of R into R*. Since R*/R*x* =
(R)* we conclude from a well-known change of rings theorem by [105] that
inj.dimR.R*?: 1+inj.dim(R)(R)?:1 + n,
where the last inequality follows from the inductive assumption. D
Theorem 11.28 Let R be as in the above proposition with n = 1 or n = 2.

Moreover, assume IRI ~ 2No and the continuum hypothesis 2No = l{ 1 . Then for
any non-principal ultrafilter :F on N, the injective dimension of R* = RN/ F as
an R* -module is 1 + n.
Proof. From the remarks in Example 10.12 it follows that R is uniformly

coherent. From Corollary 10.19 we conclude that w.gl.dimR* = n.
From Theorem 7.49 it follows that R* is an l{ 0 -algebraically compact R* -
module. Since by assumption IR*I = l{ 1 we obtain from Corollary 7.46 that
p.inj.dim R• (R*) :S: 1 and hence by Theorem 11.26 we get inj.dim R•(R*) :S: 1 + n.
Since the converse inequality was shown in Proposition 11.27, this concludes the
proof of Theorem 11.28. D
First-order properties of pure-global dimension

We are now prepared to deal with the behavior of pure-global dimension with
respect to elementary equivalence:
Proposition 11.29 For each integer d ;::-: 1 (resp. d ;::-: 2 ) the class of rings of
pure-global dimension d is not closed with respect to the formation of ultrapowers
(elementary descent, respectively).
Proof. The assertion with respect to elementary descent follows from Ex-
ample 10.26. With regard to the assertion on ultrapowers notice that the algebra
R =]{[Xi, X 2 , X 3 ]/(Xi, X 2 , X 3 ) 2 is finite dimensional, hence
The assertion now follows from the preceding theorem. D
Remark 11.30 There are rings, however, where passage to elementarily equiv-
alent rings basically preserves the pure-global dimension. We mentioned already
that the representation-finite rings form an elementarily closed class, all rings in
that class having pure-global dimension zero.
Each finite ring - necessarily of pure-global dimension 0 or l - trivially has
the property in question.
Less obvious examples for rings, where pure-global dimension behaves basi-
cally stable with respect to elementary equivalence are formed by certain finite
dimensional algebras having a 'tame' ( = explicitly classifyable) theory of finite
dimensional indecomposable representations. As particular examples we quote
the algebras
I< 0 ) S(I<) = ]{[X, Y]/(X, Y) 2 ,

R(I<) =( ]{EB]{ ]{ '
KRULL DIMENSION AND PURE-GLOBAL DIMENSION 297
where K denotes a field.

Notice that in the two-sorted language of algebras, each algebra, elementarily
equivalent to R(K) or S(K) is again of the form R(K'), S(K') for a suitable
choice of the field K'. As we are now going to show these algebras have pure-
global dimension one or two according as K is countable or uncountable [9].
Krull dimension and pure-global dimension

We are now going to show that the Krull dimension of mod(R 0 P) bounds the (left)
pure-global dimension of R.
Theorem 11.31 Assume that mod(R 0 P) has finite Krull dimension d. Then
p.gl.dimR :::; d.
Proof. Let F; (1 :::; i :::; d) be the i-th step of the Krull filtration for
F = add(mod(R P),Ab),
0
and let G; denote the localizing subcategory of
G = Add(mod(R P), Ab),

0
generated by F;.
First, we are going to prove that each left R-module M has pure-injective
dimension :::; d. According to Theorem 7.12, any pure-injective resolution of M
converts into an injective resolution of the functor H = - ©RM in G; therefore
our assertion amounts to prove that H has injective dimension :::; d.
Sublemma 11.31.1 Let HE G and n 2:: 1 an integer. We assume that G' is a

localizing subcategory of G with the property that any non-zero G E G' has some
non-zero subfunctor G' satisfying Extn( G', H) = 0. Then
holds for every G in G'.
Proof. Invoking an exact sequence
0 ---+ H ---+ Qo ---+ . . . ---+ Qn-1 ---+ J{ ---+ 0'

where Q 0 , ... , Qn-l are injective in G, we obtain by dimension shifting that
It therefore suffices to prove the assertion for n = 1.

Here, it evidently suffices to prove that every morphism f : X --> H, where
X ~ Y and Y/ X E G', admits an extension to Y. By virtue of Zorn's Lemma we
may assume that f is maximal with respect to extension, so the claim amounts
to prove that Y / X = 0. If G = Y / X is non-zero, our assumption implies the
existence of a non-zero subfunctor X/ X of G satisfying Ext 1 (.X / X, H) = 0. Thus
f admits an extension to a morphism f: X--> H, contradicting the maximality
off. D
Sublemma 11.31.2 Let H = -®RM for some left R-modttle M and G E G;

for some integer i. Then
Proof. The proof is by induction with respect to i.

If i = 0, let G be a non-zero functor in G 0 . According to Proposition 8.52
G has a non-zero finitely presented (simple) subfunctor G', so Ext 1 (G',H) =
0 follows from the fp-injectivity of H. Now Sublemma 11.31.1 implies that
Ext 1 (G, H) = 0 holds for every GE Go.
Assume that G =fi 0 belongs to G;. By Proposition 8.52 there exists a non-zero
subfunctor G' of G together with an exact sequence
O ----+ U ----+ F ----+ G' ----+ 0,
where Fis finitely presented and U E G;_ 1 . By the induction hypothesis we have
Ext;( U, H) = 0, moreover Exti (F, H) = 0 for all j ~ 1 since H is fp-injective (cf.
Appendix B). Thus
Ext;+ 1 (G',H) ~ Ext;(U,H) = 0
follows. Setting G' = G; we now conclude from Sublemma 11.31.1 that
holds for every Gin G;. D

We are now in a position to conclude the proof of Theorem 11.31: By our
assumption on the Krull dimension, we have F = Fd hence G =Gd. Thus Sub-
lemma 11.31.2 implies that Extd+ 1 (G,H) = 0 for every Gin G, hence H has
injective dimension ~ d. D
KRULL DIMENSION AND PURE-GLOBAL DIMENSION 299
We mention a few applications of Theorem 11.31. The first one follows from
Theorem 8.55.
Corollary 11.32 Any Dedekind domain which is not a field has pure-global di-
menszon one. D
The corollary states that pure submodules of pure-projective modules (resp.

pure factor modules of pure-injective modules) are pure-projective (resp. pure-
injective). Notice that with regard to pure-projectivity a stronger result holds
true: Due to Kulikov's theorem every submodule of a pure-projective module
over a Dedekind domain is pure-projective.
Next we deal with the Kronecker algebra over a field F.
Corollary 11.33 Let R be the J( ronecker algebra with base field F. Then R has
pure-global dimension one or two according as F is countable or uncountable.
Proof. In view of Theorem 8.58 we have p.gl.dim(R) :S: 2. If F, hence R, is

countable, R has pure-global dimension one (cf. Theorem 11.21).
For a non-countable base field we refer to the pure-exact sequence
0 ---> E9 Pn ---> IT Pn ---> IT Pn/ E9 Pn ---> 0,

nEN nEN
where (Pn) denotes the sequence of preprojective indecomposable R-modules.

Theorem 8.47 shows that EB Pn has pure-injective dimension two. D
As may be derived from [10] the corollary extends to an arbitrary tame hered-
itary algebra, see also [9] and [99].
Corollary 11.34 Let F be a field. The three-dimensional algebra
S = F[X, Y]/(X, Y) 2
has pure-global dimension one or two, according as F is countable or uncountable.
Proof. By 'reduction modulo the radical'.

D
Exercises
If H is any abelian group, the structure a group grading with group H of a K-

algebra R consists in a decomposition R = $geH R 9 of R into K-subspaces such
that RgRh <;;: Rg+h holds for all g,h EH. Similarly an H-graded R-module M carries
a decomposition M = EBheH Mh into K-subspaces such that R 9 Mh <;;: M 9 +h holds for
all g, h E H. A morphism f : M --+ N of H-graded R-modules is - by definition -
an R-linear map which is homogeneous of degree 0, i. e. satisfies J(Mh) <;;: Nh for all
h in H. We denote by ModH (R) the resulting category of H-graded R-modules.
Exercise 11.35 Let K be a field and n :;::: 1 an integer. Consider the polynomial
algebra K[X] as a Zn-graded algebra
K[X] = EB K[X][k],whereK[X][k] = Xk K[Xn],for any 0 ::::; k < n.
[k]eZn
(i) Prove that each Zn-graded K[X]-module M = EBk',;;;5 Mk may be viewed as a

left module over the matrix algebra
K[Xn] xn- 1 1qxn] ··· X 2K[Xn]
XK[Xn] )
XK[Xn] K[Xn] X 2K[Xn]
(
xn-2~<[Xn] K[Xn] xn-1 ~([Xn] .
xn-IK[Xn] xn- 21qxn] ··· XK[Xn] K[Xn]
(ii) Establish an equivalence between Mod(IIn) and Mod~(K[X]), the category of

Zn-graded K[X]-modules.
(ii) Prove that the functor
: ModZn(K[X])--+ Mod(K[X]), M ,_. M,
which forgets of the Zn-grading, preserves and reflects pure-exactness, moreover pre-
serves and reflects pure-projectivity.
(iii) Deduce that submodules of pure-projective left !In-modules are pure-projective,
consequently p.gl.dim(IIn) ::::; 1.
Exercise 11.36 Let Fn = K <Y1 , ••• , Yn> denote the free algebra in n indeterminates
over a field K. For each left Fn-module M we may view the space Mn+ 2 as a left
F2-module, F2 = F<Xi,X2>, with action of Xi,X 2 on Mn+ 2 given by
J
0
1 0
1
EXERCISES 301
( i) Deduce that for each n ~ 2 we have p.gl.dim(Fn) = p.gl.dim(F2).

(ii) Prove that the above formulas define an epimorphism
in the category of rings.
[Here, a ring homomorphism <p : R -+ S is called an epimorphism, if for any ring S'
and any ring homomorphisms u 1 , u2 : S -+ S' equality of u 1 o <p and u2 o <p implies that
u1 equals u2.]
If K is a field and the cardinal tis determined by the condition Nt = max(No, I.Kl), a
well-known result of B. L. Osofsky states that the rational function field K(X1, ... , Xn),
which is a flat module over K[X1, ... ,Xn], has projective dimension t + 1 over the
polynomial algebra K[X1, ... , Xn] [146]. (Here, we adhere to the convention that t+ 1 =
oo if t is an infinite ordinal.)
Use this fact to prove
Exercise 11.37 Let Pn = K[Xi, ... , Xn] denote the polynomial algebra in n inde-
terminates over a field K. For each left F2-module M, where F2 = K<Yi.Y2>, M 4
becomes a P2-module with action of Xi, X2 given by
0 0)
0 0
0 0 .
Y2 O
Deduce that for each n ~ 2
p.gl.dim(Pn)= p.gl.dim(Fn) = p.gl.dim(F2) = t + 1,

where t is defined by the condition Nt = max(No, IKI).
Exercise 11.38 Let Rand S be elementarily equivalent rings and assume that R is a
representation-finite ring. Prove that also S is representation-finite.
[Hint: Use Proposition 9.1 and Proposition 9.4.]
Exercise 11.39 [Small] Let K be a field and S = K[X]/(X 2), which is a local two-
dimensional K-algebra with residue class field S / J = K, where J = rad( S). Show that
the matrix-type algebra
R= ( ~ S~J)
corresponding to the (K, S)-bimodule SfJ has one as its left finitistic dimension lfPD(R)
but has right finitistic dimension rfPD(R) = 0.
Exercise 11.40 For any left Artinian ring R the following assertions are equivalent:
(i) gl.dim(R) ~ t.
(ii) Ext~t1(M,M) = 0 for each (resp. each finitely generated) left R-module M.
(iii) Ext~ 1 (S,T) = 0 for all simple left R-modules Sand T.
Exercise 11.41 Let R be a commutative local Noetherian ring. Then the following
assertions are equivalent:
(i) R is complete.
(ii) R is algebraically compact.
(iii) The canonical R-linear map
R-+ IT (R/m n), r >--> (r + m n)nEN

nEN
splits.
(iv) For each finitely generated R-module M the canonical mapping
M-+ Il(M/mnM), x,_.(x+mnM)neN

nEN
splits.
Exercise 11.42 Assume R is a commutative, local, Noetherian ring with maximal

ideal m. Then the following assertions are equivalent for an R-module Af:
( i) M is Hausdorff in the m -adic topology.
(ii) The natural R-linear map
M-+ Il(M/mnM), x>-+(x+mnM)neN

nEN
is a pure monomorphism.
Exercise 11.43 Assume R is a discrete valuation ring with maximal ideal m. Let
M be an R-module, which is Hausdorff in the m-adic topology. Then the following
( i) M is algebraically compact.
(ii) The natural R-linear map
ip:M-+ IT(M/mnM), x>-+(x+mnM)neN

nEN
is a splitting monomorphism.
(iii) M is complete in the m-adic topology.
EXERCISES 303
Exercise 11.44 Let R = (Z/2Z)N and assume the continuum hypothesis CH. Then
( i) If a is an ideal of R, which is not countably generated, then the natural mapping
R-+ fu!!.R/an is not surjective.
(ii) R is algebraically compact, but not linearly compact.
Exercise 11.45 Let R be the ring Z~ and let I denote the ideal z~N). Then
(i) R is self-injective hence algebraically compact.
(ii) R/ I is not algebraically compact.
Chapter 12
Representation theory of finite

dimensional algebras
One source of motivation to investigate finite dimensional algebras in a model

theoretic setting is the link to algebraic geometry provided by quantifier elimina-
tion for algebraically closed fields. In this way axiomatizability results for finite
dimensional algebras translate into geometrical statements on the corresponding
'subvarieties' of structure constants, once we will fix the dimension of the a.lgebras
in question.
In order to have a proper setting to formulate this transfer from model theory
to geometry we precede the proper treatment of finite dimensional algebras by
reviews on quantifier elimination and on affine varieties resp. affine schemes of
algebras and modules.
Elimination of quantifiers for algebraically closed

fields
For later reference we include a statement of Chevalley's place extension theorem
([30], chapitre VI, §1, theoreme 2):
Theorem 12.1 (Place extension) Let A be a subring of a field I< and f: A-->
L a homomorphism from A into an algebraically closed field L. Then f admits
an extension J : V --> L to a valuation ring V of I<.
D
305
306 CHAPTER 12: FINITE DIMENSIONAL ALGEBRAS
We recall that a subring V s; K is a valuation ring in K if for each non-zero

element x E K either x or 1/x belongs to V. Notice that Vis a local ring, whose
maximal ideal consists of 0 and all elements 1/x with x EK - V.
Clearly, Vis integrally closed in K, i.e. any x EK that satisfies an equation
where ao, ... , an-I are in V also belongs to V. For instance, if A= K' is a subfield
of Kand K is algebraic over K', then V = K, hence we obtain:
Corollary 12.2 Let K / K' be an algebraic field extension. Then any homomor-
phism f : J{' --+ L into an algebraically closed field L can be extended to a
homomorphism J : K --+ L. D
Notice further that Steinitz's theorem is an easy consequence of the above.
Exercise 12.3 Let K s; L be algebraically closed fields. Show that K is an

elementary subfield of L.
For the purpose of later applications we include a discussion of quantifier

elimination (for algebraically closed fields). First we review some relevant notions
from model theory.
Let C be a first-order language. By an C-structure we mean a set M together
with a mapping f M : Mn --+ M for each n-ary function symbol f of C, an n-ary
relation RM s; Mn for each n-a.ry relation symbol R of C and an element CM E M
for each constant symbol c of C. Accordingly, by a substructure N of M we mean
an C-structure N, which is a subset of M with the property that for any constant
symbol c, n-ary function symbol f and n-ary relation symbol R of C we have
that CN =CM, fN =!MIN and RMIN =RN, respectively. If Tis a theory in C,
i.e. a set of sentences in C, a model for T is an C-structure M which satisfies all
sentences in T. Notice that an C-substructure of a model of T need not be itself
a model of T.
We say that T admits elimination of quantifiers if every formula <p( X1, ... , xn)
of C - where x 1 , •.. , Xn are free variables - is T-equivalent to a quantifier-free
formula t/J(x 1 , ... , xn)· T-equivalence means that for all models A of T (i.e. all
C-structures satisfying all sentences of T) and elements ai, . .. , an in A the n-
tuple (a 1 , ... , an) satisfies <p in A if and only if it satisfies 'ljJ in A. We write this
TI- <p +-+ 'ljJ.
We quote the following theorem without proof from [118] or [153]:
VAN DEN DRIES'S TEST 307
Theorem 12.4 (Tarski) The theory of algebraically closed fields admits elimi-
nation of quantifiers. 0
Since, clearly, any quantifier-free formula for the theory of commutative rings
is equivalent to a Boolean combination of a finite number of polynomial equations
and inequations, defined over the integers Z, we obtain:
Corollary 12.5 For any first order formula c.p(x 1 , ... , XnJ in the language of
rings there exist polynomials
fo, g; E Z(Xi, ... , Xn], 1 :::; i :::; s, 1 :::; j :::; t,

such that for any algebraically closed field L the elementarily definable subset
{ ( ai, ... , Un) E L n I (ai, ... , Un) satisfies c.p in L}
is given by the system
of equations and inequations. 0
Van den Dries's test

Sometimes we will need a result on quantifier elimination, which is more specific.
A quantifier-free formula will be called positive if it is built from atomic formulas
(expressing equality = and the relations of the structure .C) by means of /\, V.
More precisely, an atomic formula either has the form x 1 = x 2 or R(xi, ... , xn),
where R stands for an n-ary relation symbol of .C and where the x; are terms of
C, i.e. belong to the smallest subset of .C obtained from the set of variables and
constant symbols from .C by forming the expressions f(xi, ... , xn) for any n-ary
function symbol f of C.
Clearly, for the theory of commutative fields, any positive quantifier-free for-
mula is equivalent to a conjunction
f;(ai, ... , an)= 0, 1 :::; i:::; s
of a finite number of polynomial equations over the integers Z.
A quantifier elimination theorem, due to L. van den Dries (195] allows to
decide whether a first order formula c.p is equivalent to a positive quantifier-free
formula.
Theorem 12.6 (van den Dries's test) Let C be a first-order language, T be

a theory in C and <p(X) be an £-formula in the free variables X = (XIi ... , Xn)·
Then the following assertions are equivalent:
(i) There is a positive quantifier-free £-formula 1/;(X) such that <p(X) is T-
equivalent to 1/;(X).
(ii) For any two models I<, L of T and each homomorphism f : A -+ L where
A is an C-substructure of I< the following condition is satisfied:
if c E An and <p(c) holds in I<, then <p(J(c)) holds in L.
Proof. Since a positive quantifier-free formula is built from atomic formulas

using /\, V, and each homomorphism preserves atomic formulas, the implication
' (i) => (ii)' is clear.
In order to prove '(ii)=> (i)' we form the set
S = {1/;(X) 11/J quantifier-free such that T f- 1/J -+ <p}

of all positive quantifier-free formulas 1/;(X), X = (XIi ... , Xn) an n-tuple of free
variables, such that 1/;( a) -+ <p( a) is satisfied by each model M of T and n-tuple
a E Mn. Accordingly we adjoin new constant symbols Xll ... , Xn to C, call the
resulting theory £' and consider the set
T' =TU {•1/;(X) 11/J ES}
of £'-sentences. Notice that a model of T' is an ordered pair (M, a), where Mis
a model of T, a E Mn, such that 1/J(a) does not hold in M, for each 1/J ES.
We claim that •<p(X) is a theorem of T':
Assume there exists a model (I<, c) of T' such that <p( c) is satisfied in I<. Let
A be the £-substructure of I< generated by {ci, ... , cn}· The diagram language
of (A, c) is the expansion C'-4 of £' formed by adding a new constant symbol Cm
for each element a E A. Clearly A may be viewed as a structure for C'-4 (called
the diagram expansion of A and denoted A) interpreting each Cm by m.
Next we form the C'-4-theory
T =TU Positive Diagram (A, c),

where Positive Diagram (A, c) is the set of all positive quantifier-free sentences of
C'-4 which are satisfied by A. An C'-4-model of Tis a tripe! (L, d, J) where Lis a
model of T, d E Ln, and f: A-+ Lis an C-homomorphism satisfying f(c) = d.
By assumption <p(c) is satisfied in I< hence hypothesis (ii) implies that the
£'-sentence <p(X) is satisfied in each model (L,d,J) ofT.
VAN DEN DRIES'S TEST 309
By virtue of Godel's completeness theorem [12] this fact implies that there is
a finite set of sentences in T such that cp(X) is a consequence. It is equivalent
to state the existence of a sentence in the positive diagram of (A, c), i.e. of a
positive quantifier-free formula ijJ(X) satisfied in (A, c) hence in (K, c), such that
T ~ 1/J(X) --+ cp(X). By the definition of S this means that 1/J(X) belongs to S,
contradicting the fact that (K, c) is a model of T'.
This proves that T' ~ •cp(X). Again, invoking the completeness theorem we
find that there exist positive quantifier-free formulas 1/J; E S, i = 1, ... , k, with
the property
Hence
T ~ cp(X) if and only if T ~ 1/J1 (X) V · · · V 1/Jm(C),
which proves the claim.
D
Because of the applications we have in mind we reformulate this criterion for

the theory of fields (or algebraically closed fields):
Theorem 12.7 Let T denote the theory of fields (algebraically closed fields, re-
spectively). A first order formula cp(x 1 , ... ,xn) (in the language of rings) is T-
equivalent to a positive quantifier-free formula, i.e. to a finite conjunction of poly-
nomial equations in x 1 , ... , Xn over the integers Z, if and only if the following
condition holds:
For any two fields (algebraically closed fields, respectively) K and L, for any
homomorphism f : A --+ L of a subring A of K to L and for any n-tuple
(a1, ... , an) E An that satisfies cp in K it follows that (f(a 1), ... , f(an)) satis-
fies cp in L.
D
For algebraically closed fields, by virtue of the place extension theorem (The-
orem 12.1), van den Dries's test takes an even simpler form:
Corollary 12.8 If T denotes the theory of algebraically closed fields it suffices

to verify the condition of Theorem 12. 7 for those subrings A that are valuation
rings in K.
D
Affine varieties and affine schemes
We first review some basic facts about affine varieties expressed in a pre-sheaf-
theoretical language. (The reader who wants more comprehensive information -
including sheaf theory - is referred, for instance, to Hartshorne's book [87].)
12.9 Assume K is an algebraically closed field. Throughout this section an

affine K-algebra is a finitely generated commutative K-algebra R = K[x 1 , ••• , Xn]
which is reduced, i.e. does not contain any (non-zero) nilpotent element. Notice
that - as a consequence of Hilbert's Nullstellensatz - the algebra homomor-
phisms from R to K separate the elements of R, i.e. for any non-zero r E R there
exists some u E HomK-Aig(R, K) with u(r) =f. 0.
An affine K-variety Vis a set V equipped with an affine K-subalgebra A(V)
of the algebra Kv of K-valued functions on V, such that evaluation
V--> HomK-Aig(A(V),K), v 1-+ v = [f 1-+ f(v)] (12.1)
is a bijection. A(V) is called the coordinate algebra of V.

The space Kn equipped with the algebra A(Kn) = K[Xi, ... , Xn] of polyno-
mial functions is an affine K-variety, called the affine n-space. We will often
write An(K) instead of Kn in order to emphasize the structure of an affine variety
on Kn.
A morphism i.p : V -+ W of K -varieties ( regular map for short) consists of
a map <p: V -+ W such that for each g E A(W) the composition cp*(g) =go cp
belongs to A(V), thus defining a morphism
cp* : A(W) --> A(V), g ....... go cp (12.2)
of affine K -algebras.
By means of the identification (1) it is easily checked that the natural map
Hom(V, W)--> HomK-A1g(A(W),A(V)), cp 1-+ cp* (12.3)
is a bijection. In particular, we obtain Hom(V, K) = A(V).

Since - up to isomorphism- each affine K-algebra R arises as the coordinate
algebra of some affine variety V (take V = HomK-Aig(R, K) and invoke Hilbert's
Nullstellensatz) the passage from varieties V to coordinate algebras A(V) de-
fines a duality between the categories of affine K-varieties and affine K-algebras,
respectively.
For each affine K-variety V the zero-sets
AFFINE VARIETIES AND AFFINE SCHEMES 311
Z(I) = {x E Vlf(x) = 0 for all f EI}

of subsets I of A(V) form the closed subsets of a topology on V referred to as
the Zariski topology. A basis for its open subsets is given by the sets
D(f) = {x E Vlf(x) "# O},

where f runs through all elements in A(V). We refer to the D(f)'s as principal
open sets in V; by Noetherianness any open set is a finite union of principal
open sets. Moreover, by the same reason, each ascending (descending) sequence
of open (respectively closed) subsets of V becomes stationary, i.e. V satisfies the
maximum (minimum) condition for open (resp. closed) subsets.
Clearly, each morphism cp : V --> W is continuous with respect to the Zariski
topologies. We further recall that a subset of V is locally closed if it is an
intersection of an open subset with a closed subset of V; moreover finite unions
of locally closed subsets are called constructible.
The interest in constructible subsets comes mainly from the following theorem
of Chevalley (see [87], p. 94):
Theorem 12.10 Each morphism cp V --> W of affine varieties sends con-

structible sets to constructible sets. O
By contrast, cp will - in general - neither preserve closedness nor openness.

Assume Z is a closed subset of the affine variety V. Endowed with the alge-
bra A(Z), consisting of all restrictions f1z of regular functions f on V, Z itself
becomes an affine variety. Similarly, for each principal open subset D(f) of V we
may view the elements of the localization
A(V)1 = { ;n lg E A(V), n E N}
as functions on D(f). In this way D(f) becomes an affine K-variety with the
coordinate algebra A(D(f)) = A(V)J·
If V is an affine K-variety we may write A(V) = I<[Xi, ... , Xn]/ I for some
ideal I in the polynomial algebra K[Xi, ... , Xn] coinciding with its radical ../I
consisting of all polynomials f where some power r,
n ~ 0, belongs to I. Viewing
Z( I) as a closed subvariety of the affine n-space J{n, it is clear that V and Z -
having isomorphic coordinate algebras - are isomorphic varieties.
Suppose Vi., V2 are affine K-varieties. Since A(Vi.)@KA(V2) serves (with re-
spect to the canonical injections A(V;) <-+ A(Vi.)@KA(V2)) as the coproduct of
A(Vi.) and A(V2) in the category of affine K-algebras, it follows that the vari-
ety Vi. x \12, endowed with the algebra A(Vi.)@KA(V2), serves as the product of
Vi. x Vi in the category of affine K-varieties. Notice that we may view an element
I:i=I f; @g; of A(Vi.)@K A(Vi) as a K-valued function on Vi. x Vi by means of the
formula
(12.4)
12.11 The concepts reviewed so far allow to introduce the notion of an affine
algebraic group G. Hereby we understand a group G equipped with the structure
of an affine K-variety such that multiplication G x G--> G and the formation of
the inverse G--> Gare regular mappings. Moreover, we speak of a regular action
of G on an affine K-variety V if the group action G x V--> V, (g,v) i-+ g.v is
a morphism of affine K-varieties. We refer to [201], [116] and [187] for further
information.
For any positive integer d the full linear group GLd(K) is the principal open
subset D( 5) of affine d 2 -space Md(K), where
5= L sgn(a)X1a(l)···Xda(d)
aESd
denotes the determinant, viewed as an element of
A(Md(K)) = K[X11, ... , Xdd]·

Thus GLd(K) is an affine K-variety with K[X11 , ... ,Xdd,5- 1 ] as its coordinate
algebra. With this structure GLd(K) becomes an affine algebraic group. More-
over notice that the natural action
of GLd(K) on affine d-space is regular.

Similar statements hold true for each closed subgroup of GLd(K)). This
applies, for instance, to the group Gd(K) consisting of all g E GLd(K) leaving
e1 = (1, ... , 0) E Kd invariant.
Let V be an affine variety and x E V. The local properties of V at x are
expressed in terms of the local ring
Ov,x = {~lf,s EA(V), s(x) "I 0}.

AFFINE VARIETIES AND AFFINE SCHEMES 313
In particular, the local dimension dimx(V) of V in x is defined as the Krull

dimension K - dim(Ov,x) of the local ring Ov,r·
Another basic result of Chevalley (see [87], p. 95), stating semicontinuity of
the fibre dimension, is an efficient tool to derive openness. Recall that a function
f : V --+ N is upper {lower) semicontinuous if for each n the elements v E V
with f(v) < n form an open (respectively closed) set in V.
Theorem 12.12 Let c.p : V --+ W be a morphism of affine varieties, for each
v E V let Fv denote the closed subvariety c.p- 1 ( c.p( v)). Then the function
is upper semicontinuous. D
If Gx V--+ V, (g, v) >--> g.v is a regular group action on V, define the dimension
dim( G.v) of a G-orbit G.v as the supremum of the local dimensions of the closure
G.v at points in G.v. Then a further semicontinuity result may be derived from
Theorem 12.12 (see [115]) that states lower semicontinuity of the orbit dimension:
Theorem 12.13 Let G be an affine algebraic group acting regularly on an affine

variety V. Then the function
V--+ N, v >--> dim(G.v)
is lower semicontinuous. D
Notice that Theorems 12.12 and 12.13 are the major technical tools in the
proof of Gabriel's theorem [68], stating that the set of representation-finite alge-
bras is an open subset of the I<-variety of structure constants (to be introduced
shortly), also in the proof of Schofield's theorem [176] asserting openness of the
subspace of algebras of finite global dimension.
12.14 Our treatment will rely solely on the concept of an affine scheme, see for
instance [42] and [201]. Let Rings and Sets denote the categories of commutative
rings (with unit) and sets, respectively. A covariant functor X : Rings --+ Sets
is an affine scheme if X is representable, i.e. if there exists a commutative ring
A and an isomorphism X 2:! Hom( A,-). In this situation the ring A is uniquely
determined by X up to isomorphism and called the coordinate ring of X.
A morphism c.p : X -+ Y of affine schemes is by definition a morphism of the

functor X to the functor Y. If X = Hom(A, -) and Y = Hom(B, -), by virtue
of Yoneda's lemma, the mapping
Hom(B, A) ---+ Hom(X, Y), hf-+ Hom(h, -)
is a bijection. Thus the category of affine schemes becomes the category dual to
the category of commutative rings.
Suppose X = Hom( A, - ); for each ideal I in the coordinate ring A, the natural
inclusion
Hom( A/ I, R) ---+Hom( A, I), u f-+ u o nat
defines Hom( A/ I,-) as an affine subscheme of X; notation 3[!]. The subschemes
arising in this way are referred to as closed subschemes.
If I = Af is a principal ideal, we write 3[f] instead of 3[!]. Since 3[L:"' I"'] =
n"' 3[Ia], any intersection of closed subschemes is a closed subscheme again. If
I = l::i':,1 Af; we obtain 3[!] = n:'=i 3[f;].
For any closed subscheme 3 = 3[!] of X, we can recover I from 3 as the
set of all r E A with u(r) = 0 for all u E 3[R], Ra commutative ring. Thus
the correspondence I f-+ 3[!] between ideals of A and closed subschemes of X
is bijective and order-reversing. In particular, A is Noetherian, if and only if X
satisfies the minimum condition for closed subschemes, i.e. X is a Noetherian
scheme.
Open subschemes of X, however, are in general no longer affine: If I is any
ideal in A we define a subfunctor n = !1[!] of X = Hom( A,-) by means of the
formula
O(R) = {u E Hom(A,R)JR.u(J) = R}.
We refer to these subfunctors !1[!], I an ideal in A, as the open subschemes of
x.
If I = Rf is principal, we write !1[f] instead of !1[!] and call !1[f] a principal
open subscheme of X. Let A 1 denote the localization of A with respect to the
multiplicative set {rJn E N} and i : A <-+ A 1, a f-+ a/l be the natural map,
then the inclusion
Hom( Al> R) ---+Hom( A, R), u f-+ u oi
defines an equivalence
which shows that principal open subschemes of X are again affine.

VARIETIES AND SCHEMES OF STRUCTURE CONSTANTS 315
Let n = f![J]; if K is a field u E f![K] holds if and only if u(I) -::/: 0. We

may thus recover VI from n. Since clearly n[J] = n[Jlf, the map I ,_. n[J]
establishes an order-reversing bijection between ideals I = VI of A , coinciding
with their radical, and open subschemes of X = Hom( A, - ). In particular if A is
Noetherian, X satisfies the maximum condition for open subschemes.
If I is an ideal of R, :::: = ::::[J] and n = f![J], notice that
X(I<) = ::::(!<) u f!(K)

is a decomposition of X(K) for any field K. Notice moreover that the subscheme
n = n[J] and the subfunctor n' = U7= 1 n[J;] satisfy n' <;::; n and agree on every
field K, i.e. we have !"!'(!<) = !"!(!<).
Since we are only interested in the values that schemes take on fields it suffices
for our purposes to call any subfunctor of the form
p
r = U (::::[Ji] n n[gi])
i=l
a constructible subscheme of X. Here, 11 , . . . , Ip are ideals and g1 , ... , gp are

elements of A.
Notice further that the functors R >-+ GLd(R) and R >-+ Gd(R) from Rings
to Groups, the category of groups, define GLd and Gd as affine group schemes
acting regularly on the affine d-space scheme Ad defined as the affine scheme
Ad : Rings --> Sets, R ,_. Rd,
represented by the polynomial ring Z[X1 , . . . , Xd]·
Varieties and schemes of structure constants
Again we assume that K is an algebraically closed field. Suppose that A is a

d-dimensional K-algebra (as always associative with a unit element). Up to iso-
morphism, we may assume that A = J<d and that the element e1 of the standard
basis e1 , ... , ed serves as the unit element with respect to multiplication. Writing
d
eiei =L aiik ek, 1 :::; i,j :::; d, (12.5)
k=l
we refer to a = (Oijk) E J<d 3

as the normalized structure constants for the algebra
A.
For notational reasons we prefer to view a as the d-tuple A 1 , ... , Ad of d x d-

matrices over [{ arising from the regular representation
a : A---+ Md(K), a f-+ a= [x f-+ ax]
of A as A;= a(e;) for 1 ::=; k ::=; d. Notice that for each 1 ::=; k ::=; d we have
A;= (aikih<i<d.1<k<d (12.6)

- - - -
moreover that A is isomorphic to the subalgebra ©1=
1 KA; of Md(K).
The following is immediate from the preceding discussion:
Lemma 12.15 Let a= (aiik) E Kd' and for 1 :'.Si::=; d let A; denote the d x d-
matrix over K, whose (j, k)-entry is a;ki· Then a is the system of normalized
structure constants for some [{-algebra A with underlying K -space Kd {with re-
spect to a K -basis e1 , ... , ed and admitting e 1 as the unit element) if and only if
( A 1 , ... , Ad) satisfies the following conditions:
(i) A;Ai = 2::%= 1 a;ikAk (1 :'.S i,j :'.S d),
(ii) A1 =Ed the d x d-identity matrix,
(iii) A;e 1 = e; (1 :'.Si :'.S d). D
Clearly, conditions (i), (ii) and (iii) are polynomial equations in the coor-
dinates of a, thus the structure constants of d-dimensional K-algebras form a
closed subset Algd(K) of affine d3 -space. Therefore, we may view AlgAK) itself
as an affine K-variety, referred to as the variety of d-dimensional algebras.
Observe that equations (i), (ii) and (iii) of Lemma 12.15 define polynomial
equations in the coordinates a;jk, all having integral coefficients. Hence the
'affine scheme' Algd is already defined over the integers Z.
12.16 Different points of AlgAK) may represent isomorphic K-algebras. In

fact, the subgroup Gd(K) of GLd(K), consisting of all K-automorphisms of Kd
leaving e1 invariant, acts by obvious base change
g.a(x) =go (a(g- 1 .x)) o g- 1 ,
g E Gd(K), x E Kd, a E HomK(I<d,HomK(Kd,Kd)), on Algd(K) in such a way

that Gd-orbits Gd.a = {g.a[g E Gd(K)} correspond bijectively to isomorphism
classes of d-dimensional K-algebras.
Denoting the set of corresponding isomorphism classes by algAK) this proves
that
VARIETIES AND SCHEMES OF STRUCTURE CONSTANTS 317
has an interpretation as an orbit space.

Since Gd(K) is affine and acts regularly on AlgAK) it follows by Chevalley's
theorem that each orbit Gd.a is a constructible set in Algd(K). But - in general
- an orbit Gd.a will neither be an open nor a closed subset of AlgAK).
12.17 We are now going to describe a similar geometrical setting for modules
over finite dimensional algebras. For a fixed pair (d, t) of positive integers we
will deal with modules (A, M) of K.dimension t over a K-algebra A of dimension
d. As before we assume that A E Algd(K), moreover that the action of the
elements of the standard basis ei, ... , ed of A = Kd on M is given by matrices
Mi, ... , Mt E Mt(K).
In this way we deal with the affine (closed) subvariety
Algmodd,t(J<)
of
Md(K)d x Mt(K)d
consisting of all (A, M) satisfying the polynomial equations with coefficients in Z
given by the formulas
d d
A;Ai = L aijkAk, M;Mi = L aiikMk, (12.7)
k=I k=I
where 1 :S: i, j :S: d and A; = (O:ikj),

A1 = Ed, M1 = Et, (12.8)
where Ed, Et denotes the identity matrix of size d (respectively t),
A;e 1 = e; for 1 :S: i :S: d. (12.9)
Clearly the mapping
7r : Algmodd,t(K) --+ Algd(K), (A, M) >-->A

is a morphism of affine varieties, whose fibre 7r- 1 (A) = Modt(A) over A E
AlgAK) defines the affine variety of A-modules of dimension t.
Again we have regular actions by means of base change (transport of struc·
ture) with the affine groups Gd(K) x GLt(K) and GLt(K) on the varieties
Algmodd,t(J<) and Modt(A), respectively, such that isomorphism classes of mo-
dules (A, M) and A-modules Mare given by the orbit spaces
algmodd,t(K) = Algmodd,t(J<)/(Gd(K) x GLt(K))

and
respectively.
12.18 For a more substantial geometrical treatment we have to treat Algd

and Algmodd,t as affine schemes, thus we have to define the sets Algd(R) and
Algmodd,t(R) for each commutative affine ring R, which can be done functorially
in an obvious way. We are interested in the treatment of Algd and Algmodd,t
as schemes because we want to deal with algebras and modules over different
fields, possibly of varying characteristic.
Proposition The affine schemes Algd and Algmodd t are Noetherian, i.e.
satisfy the minimum condition for closed subschemes. '
Proof. In an obvious way the polynomial equations of Lemma 12.15 de-

fine a factor ring A of Z[XijkhSi,j,kSd such that Hom( A, R) = Algd(R) holds for
each commutative ring R. Similarly, equations (10.7) to (10.9) allow to represent
Algmodd,t by a factor algebra B of Z[Xijk, Ypqrh$i,j,k$d, 1$p,q,r$t· The assertions
now follow from the Noetherianness of A and B.
D
Orders and lattices
We are now going to describe a setting that allows to deal simultaneously with
algebras over different fields, possibly of different characteristic.
12.19 Assume V a valuation ring in a field K, m is the maximal ideal of V

and k = V /m is the residue class field of V.
We say that A is a V-order if A is a V-algebra that is finitely generated
free as a V-module; if A ~ Vd (as V-modules) we say that A has rank d. By
definition an A-lattice (over a V-order A) is a left A-module M, which is finitely
generated free over V; if M ~ V 1 as V-modules M has rank t.
We denote by latt(A) the category of left lattices over A. Since V is a local
ring, latt(A) contains proj(A), the category of finitely generated projective (left)
A-modules. As a valuation ring V is coherent, thus any V-order A is (left and
right) coherent; moreover every A-lattice M is finitely presented, hence has a
ORDERS AND LATTICES 319
resolution
· · · ---> P2 ---> Po ---> M
P1 ---> ---> 0
by finitely generated projective lattices P; (i E N).
[Notice that exactness of a sequence of lattices always means exactness in
mod( A).]
If A is a V-order of rank d, clearly AK= K@vA is a K-algebra of dimension
d; also each A-lattice M of rank t gives rise to an AK-module MK= K@vM of
dimension t.
Clearly, V-orders (of rank d) and lattices (of rank t) over orders (of rank d)
have a description by structure constants with entries in V.
The arising spaces of structure constants are just the values of the affine
schemes Algd and Algmodd 1 at V. Thus - extending the terminology in-
troduced before - for any co'mmutative ring R the set Algd(R) consists of all
(structure constants of) R-orders of rank d, similarly Algmodd,t(R) denotes the
set of (structure constants of) lattices (A, M) having rank (d, t) over R. Recall
that these schemes are defined over Z. Occasionally - it will always be clear
from the context - we will use the notions 'order' and 'lattice' in this broader
sense.
Let A bead-dimensional K-algebra given by (normalized) structure constants
/ = (/ijk) with respect to a K-basis 1 = e1 , •.. , ed of A. For any non-zero c E V
the structure constants "tiik of V relative to the K-basis e1 , ce 2 , ••• , ced, which
are different from 0 and 1, arise from 'Yiik either by multiplication with c or c2 ,
hence by a suitable choice of c we have "{ E AlgAV). The same base change
for A applied to a module (A, M) has - in the notation of 10.9 - the effect to
multiply the matrices M 2 , ••• , M 1 by the same scalar c. This proves the following
lemma:
Lemma 12.20 Let A be an integral domain with quotient field K.
(i) Every finite dimensional K -algebra A has the form A ~ AR- for some
V-order A'.
(ii) For any finite dimensional module (A, M) over a finite dimensional K-
algebra A there exists a lattice M' over a V-order A' such that (A, M) ~(AR-, MK).
0
If A is V-order and M, N are A-lattices, clearly scalar extension

HomA(M, N) ---> HomAK(M, N), f >-+ K@v f
is a monomorphism, which allows to identity HomA(M, N) with a V-submodule
of Hom AK (MK, N K ). The following lemma has an obvious proof:
Lemma 12.21 For all A-lattices M, N over a V-order A, we have

I<HomA(M,N) = HomAK(MK,NK)·
D
Lemma 12.22 For a valuation ring V in a field I< and a V-order A let H be
a finite dimensional AK-module. Then there exists an A-lattice M such that
H ~MK as AK-modules.
Proof. Assume H is given by an exact sequence
AK __!:__. AK -----+ H -----+ 0
of left AK-modules. By Lemma 12.21 we may assume that h = fK for some

A-linear map f: An--+ Am. Defining the A-module N by exactness of
An _.!___. Am -----+ N -----+ 0'
it is clear that NK ~ H. The V-torsion module tN of N is an A-submodule
of N. Since V is a valuation ring, M = N /tN is actually an A-lattice and
MK~ NK ~ H follows, since tensoring with I< kills V-torsion. D
We now deal with the process of reduction modulo m = rad(V). Notice that
A = A/m A is an algebra over the residue class field k = V/m, whose dimension
equals the rank of A. Moreover, each A-lattice of rank t gives rise to an A-module
M = M/mM having dimension t.
Lemma 12.23 If M is an A-lattice over a V -order A, V a valuation ring, such
that M is A-projective it follows that M is A-projective.
Proof. We choose an exact sequence
O-----+ C ~An~ M-----+ O
of A-modules, which automatically splits over V, hence - by reduction modulo

m - leads to the commutative diagram
~M 0
1
o -----+ c ~ An -.!.... M -----+ o,
with exact rows, where the vertical maps refer to reduction modulo m.
Since M is A-projective the lower sequence splits, we hence find an A-linear
map r : An --+ C such that r o u = le. We infer from Nakayama's lemma that
r o u : C --+ C is an epimorphism, hence an isomorphism. Thus the upper se-
quence splits and M is A-projective. D
With respect to isomorphy and indecomposability, reduction modulo m be-

haves more complex:
Lemma 12.24 Assume M, N are A-lattices over a V -order A, where V is a
valuation ring in a field I<. Then Hom A( M, N) is a finitely generated free module
over V.
Moreover, the following assertions are equivalent:
(i) Ext~(M, N) is (finitely generated) V-free.
(ii) Ext~(M,N) has no V-torsion.
(iii) An exact sequence T/ : 0 ~ N ~ X _:. M ~ 0 splits in mod(A) if and
only if the sequence T/K: 0 ~ NK ~ XK ~MK~ 0 splits in mod( AK)·
Proof. Let Am ~ An ~ M ~ 0 be an exact sequence of A-modules. This
leads to the exactness of
0 - - HomA(M,N) - - Nn - - Nm,
which by the coherence of V implies that HomA(M, N) is a finitely generated,
hence free V-submodule of Nn.
Further, if 0 ~ C ~ P ~ M ~ 0 is an exact sequence of A-lattices, where
P is finitely generated projective, we see from the exact sequence
HomA(M,N) - - HomA(C,N) - - Ext~(M,N) - - 0

that Ext~(M,N) is always a finitely presented module over V, hence is free if
and only if it is torsionfree. This proves '( i) <:} (ii)'.
To prove that '(ii) <:} (iii)', we observe that the V-torsion part of Ext~ (M, N)
is just the kernel of the natural map
Ext~(M,N) - - Ext~K(MK,NK), T/ >-t T/K,

as follows from the formula
Proposition 12.25 Let M and N be A-lattices over a V-order A, V a valuation

ring.
If Ext~ ( M, N) has no V -torsion, the reduction modulo m = rad(V)
'PM,N : HomA(M, N) - - Hom,i:(.M, N), [u] >-t u

is an isomorphism of V-modules.
Proof. By coherence of A, the lattice M has an exact resolution
by projective A-lattices P0 , Pi, P 2 • Application of HomA(-, N) leads to an exact

sequence (*):
where it follows from the assumption that X is (finitely generated) free over V:
Setting
B = im[HomA(Po, N)--+ HomA(Pi, N)],

Z ker[HomA(Pi,N)--+ HomA(P2,N)],
T HomA(Pi, N),
it follows that B ~ Z ~ T, where Z/B = Ext~(M,N) is V-free by hypothesis,

and moreover T/Z ~ HomA(P2, N) is V-free as a finitely generated submodule
of HomA(P2, N). Hence X = T / B is V-free.
This proves that (*) splits over V, hence reduction modulo m leads to the
exact sequence
Further from the exactness of
we derive that the commutative diagram
0 -+ HomA(M, N) -+ HomA(Po,N) --+ HomA(Pi, N)

l'f!M,N l 'f!Po,N l 'f!P1,N
o -+ Hom,.i:(.M,.N) -+ Hom,.i:(P0 ,N) --+ Hom,.i:(Pi,.N),
where the vertical maps refer to the reduction modulo m, has exact rows. Since
clearly 'f!A,N hence 'f!P,N for a projective Pis an isomorphism, bijectivity of 'f!M,N
follows. O
Corollary 12.26 Let M, N be lattices over a V-order A, V a valuation domain.

We assume that Ext~(M, N) or Ext~(N, M) has no V-torsion.
Then M ~ N in latt(A) holds if and only if M ~ N in mod(A) holds in
mod( A).
Proof. One of the assertions is trivial, so let us assume that M ~ N, and

Ext~(N, M) has no V-torsion. Our assumption implies the existence of an A-
linear map u : M ---+ N such that u : M -> N is an isomorphism. Since M, N
are finitely generated free as V-modules, Nakayama's lemma implies that u is an
isomorphism. D
Lemma 12.27 Assume V is a commutative algebraically compact ring and A

is a V -algebra which is a finitely generated V -projective module. Then A is an
algebraically compact ring.
Proof. From the associativity formula
HomA(X, Homv(M, V)) = Homv(X @AM, V),

which holds for any right A-module X and any left A-module M, we derive from
the algebraic compactness of V - substituting the 'variable' X by a pure-exact
sequence of right A-modules - that for any left (right) A-module M its dual
M = Homv(M, V) is an algebraically compact right (resp. left) A-module. By
assumption, A =A, so A is algebraically compact as a left and right A-module-o
Next, we turn to an investigation of indecomposable modules. Here, we need

a result on the algebraic compactness of valuation rings. Recall that a valuation
of a field/{, or the corresponding valuation ring V, is called maximally complete
if the valuation cannot be extended to any field extension L/ K while leaving
the value group and the residue class field unchanged. By Theorem 11.18 V is
maximally complete if and only if V is algebraically compact.
Theorem 12.28 Each order A over a maximally complete (=algebraically com-

pact) valuation ring V is semiperfect.
Hence idempotents can be lifted both with respect to rad( A) and m A. In par-
ticular, if A does not have non-trivial idempotents, A is a local ring.
Proof. First note that A is an algebraically compact ring. Since A ~ Vd as

a V-module, A clearly admits a finite decomposition A= EB~=l P; into indecom-
posable (projective) A-modules.
Due to algebraic compactness each P; has a local endomorphism ring, hence
by projectivity is a local A-module. Thus each simple A-module Sallows an epi-
morphism P;-> S for some i = 1, ... , n, therefore admits P; as a projective cover.
This trivially implies that any finitely generated A-module has a projective cover,
i.e. A is semiperfect. [If Mis a finitely generated A-module and P-> M/rad(M)
is a projective cover of M/rad(M), P also serves as a projective cover for M.]
Therefore A/rad( A) is a semisimple algebra over k = A/m, moreover idempotents
may be lifted modulo rad(A). D
Corollary 12.29 If A is an order over an algebraically compact valuation ring,

each A-lattice M has a decomposition
in indecomposable lattices M;, all having local endomorphism rings. In partic-

ular, the lattices Mi, ... , Mn are uniquely determined by M up to ordering and
isomorphism. D
Thus the Krull-Schmidt theorem holds for latt(A) if V, hence A is algebraically

compact.
Remark 12.30 Generally, an order A over a valuation ring V fails to be semiper-

fect; accordingly reduction modulo m = rad(V) will not preserve indecomposabil-
ity in general. The authors are indebted to S. J~ndrup for providing an example
for a commutative order A of rank two over a rank-two (in the sense of valu-
ation theory) valuation ring with the property that A is indecomposable as an
A-module (thus without non-trivial idempotents) but A/rad(A) splits into the
direct product of two fields. This shows that Theorem 12.28 does not hold for
lattices over arbitrary valuation rings.
Notice also that in comparable situations lifting of idempotents usually is
derived from the stronger assumption that A is complete in the m -adic topology,
(cf. [39], p. 123).
Proposition 12.31 Let A be an order over a maximally complete valuation ring,

such that Ext~ ( M, M) has no V -torsion.
Then M is an indecomposable A-lattice if and only if M = M/mM is an
indecomposable module over the k = V/m -algebra A = A/m A.
Proof. If M =Mi EB M 2 is a non-trivial decomposition of M, by Nakayama's

lemma M =Mi EBM2 is a non-trivial decomposition of~!. Thus it remains to be
shown that decomposability of M implies decomposability of M. According to
Proposition 12.25 the assumption on Ext~(M,M) implies that reduction modulo

m defines a surjective ring homomorphism
By assumption M decomposes non-trivially, hence EndA(M) is not a local ring,

thus EndA(M) cannot be a local ring either. Invoking Theorem 12.28 EndA(M)
has a non-trivial idempotent, hence M decomposes non-trivially as an A-lattic«EJ
The next example - which we leave as an exercise to the reader - shows

that the assumption on the V-torsion of Ext~(M, M) is indispensable:
Exercise 12.32 Let V be a valuation domain and consider the V -order A

V[X]/(X 2 ).
( i) An A-lattice is uniquely determined by a finitely generated V -module M,
equipped with a V -linear endomorphism u satisfying u 2 = 0.
(ii) For v E V let Mv denote the A-lattice V 2 endowed with the endomorphism
(~ ~).
(iii) Mv is indecomposable over A if and only if v E max(V) if and only if
Ext~(Mv,Mv) is V-torsionfree.
Indecomposable modules
In the interest of a coherent presentation we deal in the following only with finite
dimensional algebras over fields in spite of the fact that some of the results hold
true in the larger context of Artin algebras, i.e. rings R with an Artinian center
C that are module-finite over C. Few results will even extend to the context of
Artinian rings. We leave these generalizations as an exercise to the reader, cf.
[88] and [206]. Also notice that R-modules will usually be left R-modules unless
the contrary is explicitly stated. :F will always denote an ultrafilter on a set I.
Proposition 12.33 Let d be a fixed positive integer. The class of algebras (K, R)
of dimension d is finitely axiomatizable. Hence an ultraproduct of algebras
has dimension d if and only if for :F-almost all a we have that Ra has Ka-
dimension d.
Moreover, for any d-dimensional algebra R over the field K = ITaeI Ka/:F
there exists a family of Ka-algebras Ra such that R and ITaeI Ra/ :F are isomor-
phic K -algebras.
Proof. For the first assertion we refer to Example 9.3. For the second asser-
tion according to Proposition 9.4 we may assume that - as a K-vectorspace -
we have R = ITaeIRa/:F, where Ra= Kad with Ka-basis e~al, ... ,e~a)_ Since the
elements e; = [e~a)lae/ (1 $ i $ d) form a K-basis of R, R is uniquely determined
by its structure constants /ijk = [1t'2J
E K given by
d
e;ei =L /ijkek (1 $ i,j $ d).
k=l
As is elementary to check, the formula
(1 $ i,j $ d)
turns Ra into a Ka-algebra for :F-almost all a. And clearly
II Ra/:F ~ R
(aE/)
as K-algebras. D
Describing finite dimensional R-modules M similarly by structure constants

describing multiplication R x R __.. R and R x M __.. M relative to fixed bases of
Rand M, leads - with a nearly identical proof - to the next consequence.
Proposition 12.34 For a fixed pair (d, t) of positive integers the class of modules
( K, R, M) where dimK R = d and dimK M = t is finitely axiomatizable.
Moreover, if R = Ilae/ Ra/ :F is a d-dimensional algebra over an ultra product
K = Ilae/ Ka/ :F of fields, an R-module M has K -dimension t if and only if there
exists a family of Ra-modules Ma, :F-almost all having Ka-dimension t, such that
M ~ TiaeI Ma/ :F as R-modules. O
As we may further deduce from Proposition 9.4, two finite dimensional R-

modules M = Ilae/ Ma/:F and N = Tiae/ Na/:F are isomorphic if and only if Ma
and Na are isomorphic Ra-modules for :F-almost all a.
Lemma 12.35 Let R = TiaEI R.:,/.r be a finite dimensional algebra over the
ultraproduct K = TiaeI Kai :F and let M = TiaeI Mal :F be a finite dimensional
R-module.
M is an indecomposable R-module if and only if for :F-almost all a the Ra-
module Ma is indecomposable.
Proof. By Proposition 9.4 we have
EndR(M) ~ II EndRa(Ma)l:F,
a El
hence EndR(M) is a local ring if and only if EndR..(Ma) is local for almost all ao
We remind the reader that in view of Example 9.26 it is essential to assume

that the dimensions dimKaMa ( a E I) are bounded.
As we may deduce from Theorem 2.13, Lemma 12.35 states in conjunction
with Proposition 12.34 that there is a first order sentence 'Pd,t in the language
of modules satisfied exactly by the indecomposable modules (K, R, M) with
dimK R = d and dimK M = t. It is not difficult to present such a sentence
'Pd,t explicitly:
Just state that there exist K-bases ei, ... , ed of R, bi, ... , bt of M and t x t-
matrices E 1 , ... , Ed over K, where E; represents the action M --+ M, x 1-+ e;x
with respect to bi, ... , bt. State moreover that any idempotent t x t-matrix over
K that commutes with Ei, . .. , Ed is either 0 or the identity matrix.
If R is any finite dimensional K-algebra and t is a positive integer we denote by
indt(R) the set of isomorphism classes of indecomposable R-modules of dimension
t. Accordingly
00
ind(R) = LJ indt(R)
t=l
denotes the set of isomorphism classes of all finite dimensional indecomposable
R-modules.
The following proposition serves as a key tool in our model theoretical analysis
of finite dimensional representation theory.
Proposition 12.36 Let R = TiaeI Ral:F be a d-dimensional algebra over the

field K = TiaeI Kal:F. For any positive integer t the mapping
'P: II indt(Ra)l:F---+ indt(R), [Ma] 1-+ II Mal:F

a El a El
is a bijection.
Proof. In virtue of Lemma 12.35 cp is a well-defined mapping. Since the

existence of an isomorphism IIaeI Ma/ F ~ TiaeI M~/ F (for t-dimensional R-
modules) implies that Ma ~ M~ holds for .F-almost all a, cp is clearly a monomor-
phism. Surjectivity of cp follows from Proposition 12.34 in conjunction with
Lemma 12.35
Invoking Theorem 2.13 we obtain the following consequence:
Corollary 12.37 For any triple (d, t, n) of positive integers there is a first or-
der sentence in the two-sorted language of algebras satisfied exactly by all d-
dimensional algebras with Jindt(R)J = n. D
We note that it is not difficult to state such a sentence explicitly describing,

for instance, t-dimensional R-modules by means of a system of d matrices of size
t x t with entries in the base field of R.
We further remark that (for any finite dimensional K-algebra R) any ul-
trapower R = R 1 / F arises from R by scalar extension to /{* = /{ 1 / F, i.e.
R* ~ K*@KR. Similarly for each finite dimensional R-module M we have
M 1 /.F ~ K*@KM.
Proposition 12.38 For a finite dimensional /{-algebra R the following asser-

tions are equivalent:
{i) indt(R) is finite for each t EN.
{ii) For each ultrafilter F on a set I each finite dimensional R 1 / F - module
has the form M 1 / F for some finite dimensional R-module M.
{iii) For each Mac Lane separable extension L / /{ each finite dimensional
L@KR-module has the form L@KM for some finite dimensional R-module M.
Moreover, if {i) - {iii) are satisfied, for any Mac Lane separable field extension
L / K the mapping
is a bijection.
Proof. (i) :=} (ii) follows from Proposition 12.36 To prove (ii) :=} (iii) we
first remark that, generally, scalar extension with respect to K' / /{ leads to an
injection
ind1 (R) ~ ind1 (K'0KR), M 1-+ K'@KM,
since K'@KM ~ I<'@KN implies M(dimKK') 9i N(dimKK') as R-modules, hence
M ~ N follows if we suppose M, N to be indecomposable over R.
Now suppose that L/ K is Mac Lane separable. By Proposition 2.18 we may

assume that K ~ L ~ K* for some ultrapower K* of K. Invoking (ii) we see
that the composition
ind1(R) ....!...+ ind1(L@KR) ~ i~dt(K*@KR),
where <p(M) = L@KM and tfJ(N) = K*®LN, is a bijection, so t/J - being already
injective - is also bijective, hence bijectivity of cp follows.
Since K*/K is Mac Lane separable (ii) follows from (iii), which concludes
the proof. D
Corollary 12.39 For a finite dimensional K-algebra the following assertions are
equivalent:
(i) R is representation-finite.
(ii) For any ultrafilter :F the ultrapower R 1 / :F is representation-finite.
(iii) For each Mac Lane separable field extension L/K the algebra L@KR is
representation-finite. D
In order to determine the size of the various sets ind 1(R) we restrict to the
case of algebraically closed base fields. Our first result towards this direction
states:
Proposition 12.40 Let R be a finite dimensional algebra over an algebraically

closed field K. If for some positive integer t the set ind1(R) is infinite we have
lind1(R)I = IKI.
Proof. We first assume that !Kl = 2N for some, necessarily infinite, cardinal
number N. Let I be a set of cardinality N. By a theorem of Keisler and Kunen
there exists a good, w-incomplete ultrafilter :Fon I ( [181] , p. 327).
It further follows from ( [181] , p. 325) that for any family (X.,.)aeI of sets
either TiaeI X.,. / :F is finite or has cardinality ~ 2N. In particular, K* = K 1 / :F
has cardinality 2N, hence K and K* are algebraically closed fields of the same
characteristic and same uncountable cardinality. Thus K and K* are isomorphic
by Steinitz's theorem on algebraically closed fields.
We may thus view R as a d-dimensional algebra over K*, hence by virtue
of Proposition 12.33 as an ultraproduct R = TiaeI R.,./:F of d-dimensional K.,.-
algebras R.,.. Since
fI
ind1(R) = indt(R.,.)/:F
a El
is supposed to be infinite, our assumption on :F shows that ind 1(R) has cardinality
2N = JKJ, which proves the proposition in this case.
Since the assertion of the proposition is obvious if K is countable, we may
assume from now on that K is of uncountable cardinality N. Invoking the first
part of the proof we may embed K into some algebraically closed field L such
that Jind1(L®K R)J = JLJ. By a suitable descent argument we are going to deduce
that Jindt(R)I = IKI:
With respect to some K-basis e1 , ••• , ed we represent R by its structure con-
stants /ijk E K, 1 :::; i,j, k :::; d. Notice that the same /iik serve as structure
constants for L®K R with respect to the L-basis 1 ® ei, ... , 1 ® ed. Similarly, if
U is an (indecomposable) L®K R-module of dimension t we will represent U by
structure constants Apqr EL, 1:::; p:::; d, 1:::; q,r:::; t with respect to the L-basis
1®ei, ... ,1 ® ed of L®KR and some L-basis of U, which we will not specify.
By assumption ind1(L®KR) has a subset J of cardinality N. Let K' be any
algebraically closed subfield of L having cardinality N, containing the /ijk and
all the Apqr's for the various U's contained in J. The /ijk (1:::; i,j,k:::; d) thus
define a K'-algebra of dimension d with lind 1(R')I = N. Moreover, it follows from
the place extension theorem (Theorem 12.1) that there exists an isomorphism
t.p : K -+ K', which fixes each /ijk(l :::; i,j, k :::; d), hence defines an isomorphism
of the algebras (K,R) and (K',R'). We conclude lind 1(R)I = N, which finishes
the proof. D
Actually Proposition 12.40 can be strengthened:
Theorem 12.41 There exists a function /3 : N x N -+ N such that for any d-

dimensional algebra R over an algebraically closed field K and any t E N we have
either lind1(R)I = IKI or lind1(R)I :::; /](d, t).
Proof. Assume that for a given pair (d, t) a constant /3( d, t) with the above
properties will not exist. Invoking Proposition 12.40 we thus find a sequence
(Kn, Rn) of d-dimensional Kn-algebras, Kn algebraically closed, such that
n :::; ind1(Rn) < oo.
Replacing Kn by an appropriate ultrapower we may assume by Proposition 12.36
that each Kn has cardinality > 2No. If :F denotes any non-principal ultrafilter
on N we conclude that R = TineN Rn/:F is a d-dimensional algebra over the
algebraically closed field K = flneN Kn/ :F.
We infer from Proposition 12.36 that
ind1(R) = TI ind1(Rn)/:F
nEN
TESTS FOR FINITE REPRESENTATION TYPE 331
has cardinality 2No < IKI, thus contradicting Proposition 12.40

D
Remark 12.42 The assertion of Theorem 12.41 no longer holds true if we do

not assume that the base fields are algebraically closed. For instance if - for
some fixed prime p - Rn denotes the 3-dimensional algebra
over the field Fp" of pn elements, it is easily checked that all indt(Rn) are finite
but
for every even integer t.

Returning to the case of algebraically closed base fields, we note that very
little is known about the actual size of the constants (3( d, t) appearing in Theo-
rem 12.41. The scarce information available depends on the explicit classification
of algebras over algebraically closed fields effected up to dimension 5 [68), [86],
[134]. Practically nothing is known about the (3( d, t)' s for higher dimensions.
Tests for finite representation type
If Risa finite dimensional K-algebra, each indecomposable projective module is

(isomorphic to) a direct factor of R, so by duality HomK(-, K) each indecom-
posable injective module is (isomorphic to) a direct factor of R = HomK(R,K).
The next theorem characterizes algebras of finite representation type by means
of a homological test.
Theorem 12.43 (Auslander) Let R be a finite dimensional algebra and M be

a finite dimensional left R-module. Then the following assertions are equivalent:
(i) Each finite dimensional indecomposable left R-module is isomorphic to a
direct factor of M.
(ii) Each indecomposable projective {resp. injective) left R-module is a direct
factor of M, moreover EndR(M) has global dimension at most two.
Under any of these assumptions R is representation-finite, moreover each {not
necessarily finite dimensional) left R-module X is isomorphic to a direct sum of
finite dimensional indecomposable modules.
Proof. We may assume that R is basic, i.e. as a left R-module R is the direct
sum of a representative system of indecomposable projective modules.
(i)'* (ii): By assumption M = R EB N for some R-module N thus, if E
denotes the endomorphism algebra of M, the functor HomR(M, -) : Mod(R)--+
Mod(E 0 P) is a full embedding. Clearly = HomR(M, -) induces an equivalence
between add(M) - the full subcategory of Mod(R) consisting of all finite direct
sums of indecomposable direct factors of M - and the category proj(E 0 P) of
finite dimensional projective right E-modules. Since, moreover, commutes
with direct limits it induces an equivalence between Mod(R) and the category
of all flat right E-modules. Invoking Bass's theorem 9.8 we see that each <l>(X)
is projective hence a direct sum of indecomposable projective factors of EE. We
conclude that X is a direct sum of direct factors of M.
(ii)'* (i): Again the functor is a full embedding and induces an equivalence
between the categories add(M) and proj(E0P). Invoking duality HomK(-, I<) we
see that each finite dimensional R-module has a resolution by finite dimensional
injective modules
x
0 ---+ ---+ 1° ---+ / 1 ,
where - by assumption - / 0 and /1 belong to add(M). This leads to the

following exact sequence
of right E-modules. Since gl.dim(E):::; 2 and <t>(/0 ) and <1>(/1) are finitely gener-
ated projective, we conclude that <l>(X) is projective, hence X belongs to add(M).
By the Krull-Schmidt property X is a direct sum of objects in add(M) and the
claim is proved. D
Corollary 12.44 A finite dimensional I< -algebra R is representation-finiteif and

only if there exists a finite dimensional R-module M such that EndR( R EB REB M)
has global dimension :::; 2. D
Next we review the concepts of almost-split sequences and irreducible maps.

By definition a short exact sequence
TJ:O---+A~C~B---+0
in mod(R) is an almost-split sequence sequence if T/ is non-split, A and B are

indecomposable, moreover, T/ satisfies any of the two equivalent conditions:
(i) each R-linear map f : X ---> B, where X is finite dimensional indecom-

posable and f is not an isomorphism, lifts to an R-linear map J : X ---> C, i.e.
v 0 f = f.
(ii) each R-linear map g : A ---> Y, where Y is finite dimensional indecompos-
able and g is not an isomorphism, extends to an R-linear map g : C ---> Y, i.e.
g 0 u = g.
As is easily seen, TJ is uniquely determined - up to isomorphism - by each of
its end terms. In particular, the isomorphism class of A is uniquely determined
by the isomorphism class of B and conversely. A is called the Auslander-Reiten
translate of B, we write A= r(B), also B = r- 1 (A).
The next theorem, which states the existence of almost-split sequences is one
of the most basic tools in representation theory. Here, D refers to the duality
HomK(-,K): mod(R) ~ mod(R0 P), while for a finite dimensional left (right)
R-module M, represented by a minimal projective resolution
the transpose TrM of M is the right (left) R-module given by exactness of
where a 1' = Hom( a, R) denotes the transpose of the mapping a. Actually , Tr

extends to a functor
Tr: mod(R)--> mod(R0 P), M,..... TrM

where mod(R) and mod(R0 P) refer to the factor categories of left (right) R-
modules modulo maps that factor through projective (resp. injective) modules,
also called the projectively (resp. injectively) stable category of modules.
Theorem 12.45 (Auslander) For a finite dimensional algebra the following as-
sertions hold true:
(i) For each finite dimensional indecomposable non-projective module B there
exists an almost-split sequence 0 ---> A ---> C ---> B ---> 0
(ii) For each finite dimensional indecomposable non-injective module A there
exists an almost-split sequence 0 ---> A ---> C ---> B ---> 0.
Moreover the Auslander-Reiten translates T and r- 1 are given by T = DTr
and r- 1 = TrD, respectively, hence for any almost-split sequence
0-->A-->C-->B-->0
we have
dimK(A)::; d 2 dimK(B) and dimK(B) ::; d 2 dimK(A)
if d = dimK(R).
Proof. We shall deal with the functor category
F(R) = [mod(R), mod(K)]

of K-linear functors from mod(R) to mod(K). Notice that all finitely generated,
especially all finitely presented functors belong to F(R). Moreover, the functor
D : F(R) ---+ F(R 0 "), F >-+ Do F o D
defines a duality, where
D: mod(R) ~ mod(R0 " )
and
D : mod(K) ~ mod(K)
refer to the formation of K-duals.
Since mod(R) is closed under kernels, finitely generated subfunctors of finitely
presented functors are again finitely presented; moreover since D(Hom(E, -)) =
-@AE for all E E mod(R), duals of finitely presented functors are finitely pre-
sented too.
If B E mod(R) is indecomposable, Homn(B, -) is a projective functor with
local endomorphism ring (isomorphic to Endn(B), which is local), hence has
a unique maximal subfunctor rad(Homn(B, -)), consequently is the projective
cover of the simple functor
SB = Homn(B, -)/rad(Homn(B, -)).

Notice that each simple functor arises in this way; moreover SB(A) is non-zero
for some indecomposable A if and only if A~ B.
Let P1 ~ P0 __::..... B---+ 0 be a minimal projective resolution of B, which is
assumed to be indecomposable, and let N be the kernel of v. The diagram
0 ---+ N ---+ Po __::..... B ---+ 0

ia II II
P1 __::..... Po __::..... B ---+ 0,
where a is an epimorphism, gives rise to the commutative diagram

0 -+ HomR(B,-) -+ Hom(Po, -) -+ Hom(N,-) -+ Extk(N,-) -+ 0
II II la• l
0 -+ HomR(B,-) -+ Hom(Po,-) -+ Hom(Pi,-) -+ -®RTrB -+ 0
having exact rows; since a• is a monomorphism this defines an injection
Extk(B, -) ~ -®RTr(B).
Since -®RTr(B) is an indecomposable injective functor (its endomorphism
ring, isomorphic to EndR(TrB) is local), which we can see either by duality
or invoking Theorem 7.12, the functor -®RTrB has a simple socle T, necessarily
contained in Extk{B, -). [Notice that each finitely presented functor F(R) has
a simple subfunctor: Since DF is finitely presented, it has a simple quotient S.
Then DS is a simple subfunctor of F.]
If S denotes the unique simple quotient of HomR(TrB, - ), then DS = D o
So D has DS = T as the unique simple subfunctor, so T(DTrB) f:. 0. Let
7J E T(DTrB) ~ Extk(B, DTrB) be a non-zero element, the corresponding exact
sequence
7/ : 0----> DTrB----> X----> B----> O
is almost-split. D
If A and B are finite dimensional indecomposable R-modules we call an R-
linear f : A --+ B an irreducible map if f is not an isomorphism and for any
factorization
either u is a split monomorphism or v is a split epimorphism.

Assume f : A --+ B is an irreducible map. If A is an injective module f arises
as a 'direct factor' of the natural map A --+ A/soc(A); if A is non-injective and
0 --+ A --+ X --+ A --+ 0 denotes an almost-split sequence, f is a 'direct factor' of
A-+X.
Dually, if B is projective, f is isomorphic to a 'direct factor' of the injection
rad(B) --+ B; if Bis non-projective and 0--+ B--+ Y--+ B--+ 0 is an almost-split
sequence, f is isomorphic to a 'direct factor' of the map Y--+ B.
As follows from this description any irreducible map is either a monomorphism
or an epimorphism. Moreover, we have the following consequence, which we state
for the purpose of later reference.
Lemma 12.46 Let R be an algebra of dimension d and let the R-linear map
f :A
--+ B be irreducible then
In this context it is natural to introduce the Auslander-Reiten quiver I'(R)

of R, which is the oriented graph having ind(R) the set of isomorphism classes
[M] of indecomposable finite dimensional R-modules as the set of its vertices.
Moreover, there is an arrow from [M] to [NJ in f(R) if and only if there exists
an irreducible map f: M--+ N.
As a sample we depict the Auslander-Reiten quiver of the path algebra R of
the quiver
0 0 0
.6. : ! ! !
0 ---+ 0 +-- 0
of Dynkin type Es.
100 010 001 110 000 001

110 011 111 110 001 000
oo/ ""'11/ ""'o/ ""'11/ ""'11/ ""'oo/
011 110 111 011 100 000

Notice that in the display any indecomposable K-linear representations V of .6.
is represented by its dimension vector dim(V), which attaches to each vertex p
of .6. the K-dimension of lip.
Clearly, r(R) is a locally finite graph, i.e. each vertex has only finitely many
neighbors, so r(R) decomposes into connected components that are at most
countable. The next completeness test states - roughly - that R is already
representation-finite if f(R) has a finite component (cf. [3] or [159]).
Theorem 12.47 (Auslander) Let R be a connected, i.e. two-sided indecom-

posable, finite dimensional algebra. R is representation-finite if and only if the
Auslander-Reiten quiver f(R) of R has a finite connected component, i.e. there

exists a finite system M of finite dimensional indecomposable R-modules such
that for any irreducible map f : X -+ M (g : M -+ Y) with M in M also X
{resp. Y) belongs to M (up to isomorphism}.
Proof. Actually we prove a stronger result:
Let M be a component of r(R) such that for some integer f3 each

M EM has length :S f3 then M = f(R).
Let M be in M and let N denote an indecomposable R-module. We first

prove the following two assertions:
(a) If HomR(M, N) #- 0 then N belongs to M.
(b) If HomR(N, M) #- 0 then N belongs to M.
ad (a): We assume that N does not belong to M. We set M 0 = M and

consider a non-zero homomorphism h : M -+ N. We distinguish two cases:
either M is indecomposable injective and h factors through the natural mapping
u : M -+ M' = M /soc ( M) or there is an almost-split sequence 0 -+ M ~ M' -+
M" -+ 0 and h factors through u. Decomposing M' into indecomposable direct
factors in either case we may write h = I;; v; o u;, where each u; is an irreducible
map. In particular, we obtain a non-zero composition M = M 0 ~ M 1 ~ N,
where u 1 : M 0 -+ M 1 is irreducible. Applying the same argument to h 1 and
continuing with the process we obtain for each integer n a non-zero composition
where all the M; are indecomposable R-modules and the u;, i = 1, ... , n, are
irreducible maps. This, in particular, shows that the M;, i = 0, ... , n, actually
belong to M, thus all have length ::; (3. In view of Harada-Sai's lemma (cf.
Lemma 8.6) the above composition is zero for n 2: z!3, a contradiction. Hence N
belongs to M, moreover, the above proof actually shows the existence of a chain
of at most z!3 irreducible maps joining M to N.
ad (b): The proof is dual to the previous one.
We now prove that each indecomposable finite dimensional R-module belongs

to M. Let M be any indecomposable module in M. There is an indecomposable
projective module P with the property HomR(P, M) #- 0. In view of (b) P belongs
to M. Since, by assumption R is connected, for each indecomposable projective
module Q there exists indecomposable projective modules P = P0 , P1 , ... , P. = Q

such that for each i = 1, ... , s we have Homn(P;_i, P;) -j. 0 or Homn(P;, P;_ 1 ) -j.
0. Repeated application of properties (a) and (b) thus shows that each P; belongs
toM.
Finally, if N is any indecomposable R-module, there exists some indecompos-
able projective module P; with Homn(P;,N)-j. 0. In view of (a) this proves that
N belongs to M, which concludes the proof of the theorem.
0
Both Theorem 12.43 and 12.47 allows to deduce that - if d means a fixed
positive integer - the representation-infinite algebras (K, A) of dimension d form
an axiomatizable class. Accordingly we present two different proofs for this latter
assertion, one invoking ultraproducts the other based on a syntactical analysis of
finite representation type.
Theorem 12.48 For each a E I let Ra denote a Ka-algebra of dimension d.

With respect to any ultrafilter :F on I let K = ITaeI Ka/ :F and R = ITaeI Ra/ :F.
The mapping
1/;: ind(R)---+ I1 ind(Ra)/:F, M ...+ [U"], where U ~ I1 Ua/:F

ex El ex El
is always an injection. Moreover if any of the equivalent assertions

(i) R is representation-finite,
(ii) there exists an integer N such that lind(Ra)I ~ N for :F-almost all a is
satisfied, 1/; is a bijection hence lind(R)I = lind(Ra)I for :F-almost all a in I.
Proof. On indt( R) 1/J is just the inverse to the bijection r.p of Proposition 12.36.
This proves that actually 1/J is a well-defined mapping and moreover injective.
Thus condition (ii) implies that lind(R)I ~ N, so R is representation-finite. It
therefore remains to prove that (i) implies that 1/J is bijective which in turn implies
(ii).
Assume that R is representation-finite and let
cxel ex El
be a complete system of finite dimensional indecomposable R-modules. As follows

from Lemma 12.35 there exists some F E :F such that M 1"' .•. , MP" are indecom-
posable Ra-modules, moreover they contain a complete system of indecomposable
projective (resp. injective) Ra-modules.
In view of Proposition 9.4 we have
EndR(M1 ffi · · · ffi Mp)= II EndR (M1a ffi · · · ffi Mpa)/:F,

0
a El
which is an algebra of global dimension :5 2. Proposition 10.31 shows that

EndR (M1a ffi · · · ffi Mp,,) has global dimension :5 2 for :F-almost all a, we thus
0
conclude from Theorem 12.43 that M 1a, ... , Mpa form a complete system of in-
decomposable Ra-modules; so lind(Ra)I :5 p follows. D
Invoking additionally irreducible maps it follows easily from Lemma 12.46 that
- under the assumption that R is representation-finite - 'ljJ actually defines
an isomorphism of (finite) Auslander-Reiten quivers thus f(R) and f(Ra) are
isomorphic for :F-almost all a. We leave the proof of this assertion to the reader.
The following proposition is an immediate consequence of Theorem 12.48.
Proposition 12.49 For any fixed positive integer d the representation-infinite

algebras (K, R) of dimension d form an axiomatizable class with respect to the
language A. In particular the property ' (K, R) is representation-finite' is pre-
served under elementary equivalence. D
Actually the preceding Proposition may be sharpened in order to exhibit an

explicit system of axioms for infinite representation type:
Proposition 12.50 There is a first order sentence 'Pd,n in the language A of

algebras satisfied exactly by the representation-finite algebras R of dimension d
with lind(R)I = n.
Proof. We first note that there is a first order sentence stating that R is an
algebra of dimension d. We further know how to express the statement lind1(R)I =
k by an explicit first order sentence in A. If R is representation-finite of dimension
d with lind(R)I = n each indecomposable R-module M is connected with an
indecomposable direct factor P of R by a chain
of irreducible maps f; (1 :::; i :::; p), where p :::; n. It follows from Lemma 12.46
that dim(M) :::; Jln+i = c(n). This proves that R satisfies the sentence
6(n) 6(n+l)
'Pn : L lind1(R)I = L lind1(R)I = n.
t=l t=l
Assume conversely that R has dimension d and satisfies 'Pn: Then

o(n) o(n+l)
M = LJ ind1(R) = LJ ind1(R)
t=l t=l
consists of n mutually non-isomorphic indecomposable R-modules. Clearly each

indecomposable projective module belongs to M. If M E M, and f : M --+ X
(respectively g : X --+ M) is an irreducible map then also X belongs to M as fol-
lows from Lemma 12.46. Hence M = ind(R) by Theorem 12.47 which concludes
the proof. O
Clearly the sentences ...,'Pn( n E N) [together with a first order sentence de-
scribing d-dimensional algebras] constitute a system of axioms for infinite repre-
sentation type for algebras of dimension d.
Finite representation type is finitely axiornatiz-

able
Again we assume the base fields algebraically closed. We are going to show that
finite axiomatizability of finite representation type can be derived from a deep
theorem of Nazarova-Roiter, which establishes correctness of the second Brauer-
Thrall conjecture.
Theorem 12.51 (Nazarova-Roiter) A finite dimensional algebra R over an

algebraically closed field I< is representation-finite if and only if ind 1 ( R) is finite
for each positive integer t.
Moreover, if R is representation-infinite ind 1(R) is an infinite set for infinitely
manyt EN. 0
The first proof - still containing some gaps - was given by Nazarova and
Roiter [140]. According to a theorem of Smali1l - [185] stating that ind 1 (R)
is infinite for infinitely many t if there exists some t 0 such that ind10 (R) is an
infinite set - the second assertion of the theorem follows from the first one
and all amounts to prove the existence of such an integer t 0 • Involving covering
techniques and deep combinatorial analysis new proofs were recently given by R.
Bautista [17], K. Bongartz [25], U. Fischbacher [60].
For additional information on the subject we refer to the survey of C. M.
Ringel [159] illustrating the importance of the second Brauer-Thrall conjecture,
FINITE REPRESENTATION TYPE IS FINITELY AXIOMATIZABLE 341
also to the report of C. Riedtmann [157] commenting upon the link to another
significant theorem concerning finite representation type and proved by Bautista,
Gabriel, Roiter and Salmeron [18]:
Theorem 12.52 Each finite dimensional representation-finite algebra R over an

algebraically closed field I< has a multiplicative I< -basis B, i.e. for any b, b' E B
either bb' is zero or belongs to B. D
Corollary 12.53 For any integer d, the set alg~in(J<) of isomorphism classes of
d-dimensional representation-finite algebras is finite for every algebraically closed
~UK. D
We are now in a position to prove finite axiomatizability of finite representa-

tion type (see also [88], [100]):
Theorem 12.54 For a fixed positive integer d the class of all representation-
finite d-dimensional algebras over algebraically closed fields is finitely axiomatiz-
able with respect to the two-sorted language of algebras.
Proof. Nazarova-Roiter's theorem states that an algebra R over an alge-

braically closed field is representation-finite if and only if
ind1 (R) < oo for each t EN.
Fixing the dimension d and invoking Theorem 12.41 this amounts to the condi-
tions
'Pd,t: lind1(R)I ~ /](d, t) for each t E N.
The representation-finite algebras of dimension d thus form an axiomatizable class
defined by the set {'Pd,t it E N} of first order sentences in the language of algebras.
Since also the representation-infinite algebras (of dimension d) constitute an
axiomatizable class it follows from Theorem 2.13 that the representation- finite
(representation-infinite) algebras of dimension d, respectively, each form a finitely
axiomatizable class. D
Corollary 12.55 There exists a Junction I : N ---+ N such that each representation-
infinite algebra R over an algebraically closed field has an infinite number of in-
decomposable modules for some dimension 0 ~ t ~ 1( dim( R)).
Proof. As was shown in the course of the proof of Theorem 12.54 the set of
axioms
'Pd,t : lindi(R)I $ /3(d, t); (d, t EN)
characterizes finite representation type in dimension d. Invoking finite axiomati-
zability, we conclude that a finite number
lind1(R)I $ /3(d, t) (t $ 1(d))
of them is already sufficient. The assertion now follows from Theorem 12.41 D
Corollary 12.56 There exists a function v : N -+ N such that v(dim(R))

bounds the number (of isomorphism classes) of indecomposable R-modules for
each representation-finite algebra of finite dimension over a perfect field.
Proof. If K is a perfect field the algebraic closure [{ of K defines a Mac

Lane separable extension, hence by Corollary 12.39 it suffices to deal with an
algebraically closed base field.
According to Proposition 12.50 representation-infinite algebras of dimensional
dare characterized by the set of first order sentences {•cpd,nln E N}, where 'Pd,n
states Iind( R) I = n. Again a finite number {''Pd,n In $ v( d)} is sufficient to
characterize infinite representation type. Hence the axiom lind(R)I $ v(d) char-
acterizes finite representation type. D
The method of proof gives no indication about the actual size of an integer
v(d) bounding the number (of isomorphism classes) of indecomposable modules
over representation-finite algebras of dimension d. For the determination of such
explicit bounds we refer the reader to K. Bongartz's paper [26].
Invoking irreducible maps and Lemma 12.46 we see - adapting the proof of
Proposition 12.50 - that accordingly for any representation-finite algebra Rover
an algebraically closed field the number
dim( R) 2.,( dim(R))+l
bounds the dimensions of indecomposable R-modules.
Corollary 12.57 There exists a constructible subscheme E of Algd such that for
any perfect field K the set E(K) consists of all representation-finite algebras in
Algd(K).
FINITE REPRESENTATION TYPE IS FINITELY AXIOMATIZABLE 343
Proof. By means of Corollary 12.39 it suffices to prove the assertion for

algebraically closed base fields.
Invoking structure constants / = (lijk) to describe d-dimensional algebras, a
first order sentence in the language of algebras describing finite representation
type translates into a first order formula
r.p(X;ik) (1 ::; i,j, k::; d)

in the language of rings, satisfied (for algebraically closed fields) exactly by the
structure constants/ of representation-finite algebras (of dimension d).
By quantifier elimination we may assume that r.p is quantifier-free, hence given
as a Boolean combination of polynomial equations and non-equations, defined
over the integers Z. r.p thus defines a constructible subscheme of Algd(J<), having
all the required properties. D
Therefore, there exist polynomials
fpq,gp E Z[Xiik], 1::; i,j, k::; d, 1 ::; p::; s, 1::; q::; t
such that - for any perfect base field I< - the d3-tuple I E J<d3 represents a
representation-finite algebra if and only if for some integer p = 1, ... , s we have
Remark 12.58 Since for non-perfect base fields extension to the algebraic clo-
sure may change the representation type, it is not possible to find polynomials
- as above - that work for arbitrary base fields.
Corollary 12.59 An ultraproduct
II Rc,/F
<>El
of d-dimensional algebras over perfect base fields is representation-finite if and

only if F-almost all Rc:. are representation-finite.
Remark 12.60 Corollary 12.57 implies that for any algebraically closed field I<
the representation-finite algebras of dimension d form a constructible subset of
Algd(I<).
According to a theorem of Gabriel [68] this subset is always open. The authors
do not know if there exists an open subscheme n ~ Algd defining finite represen-
tation type, i.e. with the property that !i(J<) consists of the representation-finite
algebras in AlgAI<) for each algebraically closed, hence each perfect field I<.
Finite global dimension is open
Combined with van den Dries's test (Theorem 12.7) the results of the section
on orders and lattices yield the next theorem, which implies openness as well as
finite axiomatizability of finite global dimension.
Theorem 12.61 For any integer n, there are open subschemes nn and 0n such
that for any field K nn(K) and 0n(K) consist of all modules in Algmodd,t(I<)
having projective dimension :S n (respectively injective dimension :S n).
Proof. We first deal with projective dimension. Assuming (d, t) fixed, we

know from Proposition 9.12 that proj.dimA(M) > n amounts to a first order
property in the two-sorted language of modules, thus - invoking structure con-
stants - to a first order formula 1/; in the language of fields for the structure
constants of (A, M).
We are going to apply van den Dries's test (Theorem 12.7) in order to show
that 1/; is equivalent (with respect to the theory of fields) to a quantifier-free
formula defining nn. Let us assume the setting
K 2 V----+ L,
where K and L are fields, V is a subring of K and consider a lattice M over a
V-order A. We have to show that proj.dimAK(MK) > n implies that L@KM has
projective dimension> n over L@KA.
Since base field extension preserves projective dimension, we may assume
that L is algebraically closed and by means of the place extension theorem (The-
orem 12.1) additionally that Vis valuation ring in K.
Since A is coherent, there is an exact sequence
(*) 0 ----+ N ----+ Pn ----+ · · · ----+ Po ----+ M ----+ O
of A-modules, where each P; ( 0 :S i :S n) is a projective A-lattice. Hence all

terms of(*) are A-lattices, and by assumption NK is not AK-projective. Invoking
Lemma 12.23 we conclude that L0K N is not L@K A-projective.
Because M is V-projective, the sequence (*) splits over V, hence tensoring
with L over V leads to the exact sequence
(**) 0-+ L@KN-+ L@KPn-+ · · ·-+ L@KPo-+ L@KM-+ 0,
which proves our claim that L@KM has projective dimension> n over L@KA.
FINITE GLOBAL DIMENSION IS OPEN 345
Concerning injective dimension notice that the duality
(A,M) ,_. (A 0 P,HomK(M,K))
corresponds on the level of structure constants to the automorphism (A, M) ,_.

(A 1•,M 1•) given by transposition on Algmodd,t· O
We list some obvious consequences:
Corollary 12.62 'Finite projective dimension', accordingly 'finite injective di-

mension' is given by an open subscheme of the affine scheme Algmodd,t· O
Correspondingly, the modules of infinite projective (respectively injective) di-

mension are given by certain closed, hence affine subschemes of Algmodd,t
Corollary 12.63 There exists a function 8 : N x N --+ N such that each finite
dimensional module (A, M) of finite projective dimension (finite injective dimen-
sion) satisfies
proj.dimA(M)::; 8(dim(A),dim(M)),
respectively
inj.dimA(M)::; 8(dim(A),dim(M)).
Proof. The condition 'projective dimension ::; n' defines an open subscheme
On of the affine scheme Algmodd 1• Since an open subscheme n is determined
by its values f!(K), K a field, we ~btain an ascending sequence
which stops by Noetherianness, thus
un.
00
r=l
= fis(d,t)
for some 8(d, t) EN. This proves the assertion concerning projective dimension.
Again, the assertion concerning injective dimension follows by duality. 0
The following consequence sharpens a result first derived by A. H. Schofield

(176] stating that for any algebraically closed field K the finite global dimension of
a finite dimensional K-algebra is bounded by a function of its dimension. Notice
that it is not necessary to assume the base fields to be algebraically closed:
Corollary 12.64 There exists a function / : N ---+ N such that
gl.dim(A) ~ 1(dim(A))
holds for any finite dimensional algebra A (over a not necessarily algebraically
closed field} having finite global dimension.
Proof. Since gl.dim(A) = proj.dimA(S) for some simple A-module S, we may

take
1(d) =I: h(d,t).
t:=;d
D
As further consequences we are going to derive axiomatizability results for

various classes of finite dimensional algebras:
Corollary 12.65 There is a function O" : N -+ N such that
inj.dim(A) ~ u(dim(A))
holds for any finite dimensional algebra A of finite self-injective dimension.

Accordingly, the d-dimensional algebras (d E N) of finite self-injective dimen-
sion form a finitely axiomatizable class.
Proof. With the notations of Corollary 12.63 u( d) = h( d, d) works for the

first assertion. With regard to the second assertion we invoke Exercise 10.64. D
Proposition 12.66 For any n E N there is are open subschemes fin and f! 00 of
Algd such that for any field I< the set f!n(I<) (respectively f! 00 (I<)) consists of
the algebras in AlgiI<) having self-injective dimension ~ n (respectively finite
self-injective dimension). For n ~ u(d) we may choose f! 00 =fin.
Proof, Notice that self-injective dimension is preserved under base field ex-
tension; the rest of the proof follows the lines of the proof of Theorem 12.61 D
Theorem 12.67 For any fixed integer d the algebras of dimension d over an
unspecified field having finite global dimension form a finitely axiomatizable class
(with respect to the two-sorted language of algebras).
FINITE GLOBAL DIMENSION IS OPEN 347
Proof. By Corollary 12.64 we have gl.dim(R) < oo if and only if gl.dim(R) :S

1( d). The latter condition is equivalent to a first order sentence in the two-sorted
language of algebras (Proposition 10.31 ). D
For algebraically closed base fields we have a more precise result, which
strengthens a result of A. Schofield [176]:
Theorem 12.68 There are uniquely determined open subschemes nn and !1 00

of Algd such that for any algebraically closed field K the set !ln(K) consists of
all algebras in AlgAK) having global dimension :S n {finite global dimension,
respectively). Moreover, for each n ~ 1(d) we have !1 00 = nn.
Proof. We know already that 'global dimension > n' amounts to a first
order condition ~n(A) for algebras of fixed dimension d (Proposition 10.31). This
amounts to a first order formula 1/Jn(Xijk) in the language of fields for the structure
constants /iik of A. We are now going to show that 1/Jn(Xiik) is equivalent to a
positive quantifier-free formula with respect to the theory of algebraically closed
fields.
According to van den Dries's test (Theorem 12.7), we have to show in the
setting
K2_V-+L
- where L (and K) are algebraically closed fields and Vis a subring of K - that
for each V-order A the assumption gl.dim(AK) > n leads to gl.dim(L0KA) > n.
Clearly, we may invoke place extension (cf. Theorem 12.l )in order to as-
sume that V is a valuation ring in K. By assumption there is a finite di-
mensional AK-module, say MK for some A-lattice M (Lemma 12.22), such that
proj.dimAK(MK) > n. By Theorem 12.61 this implies that
proj.dimL®KA(L@KM) > n,
hence gl.dim(L0KA) > n, which proves the model theoretic assertion.
The assertions of the theorem are now an immediate consequence. D
Remark 12.69 In the preceding theorem it is essential to restrict to algebraically

closed base fields since there is no open subscheme nn of Algd defining 'global
dimension :S n' for every field. This has an obvious reason: such a subscheme
nn of Algd is defined by a finite number of polynomials
and nn(K) is given by all a E Algd(K) such that fi(1) # 0 for some 1::; i::; q.
Consequently 'global dimension ::; n' would be preserved under base field
extension, which is apparently not the case. (For an explicit example take the
field extension L/K, where Lis the rational function field F 2 (X), K = F 2 (X 2 )
and A= F 2 (X), viewed as a 2-dimensional K-algebra.)
By the same reasoning we may derive from Theorem 12.68 the well-known
fact that global dimension is preserved under base field extension L/ K if both
L and K are algebraically closed. For further information on the homological
implications of base field extensions see [100].
Exercises
Exercise 12. 70 A ring R is representation-finite if and only if R 1 /Fis representation-

finite, where F denotes any ultrafilter on the set I.
Exercise 12. 71 Let ( K', R') be an elementary subalgebra of the finite dimensional
K-algebra (K,R). Prove that R ~ K ®K' R'. Deduce that R' is representation-finite
if and only if R is representation-finite.
Exercise 12. 72 State explicitly a first order sentence 'P = 'Pd,t,n in the two-sorted
language of algebras satisfied exactly by all d-dimensional algebras R with indt(R) = n.
Exercise 12.73 Let (K,R) = Il,er(Ka,Ra)/F be an ultraproduct of d-dimensional

algebras. Let A = TiaeI Aa/ F and B = TiaeI Ba/ F be indecomposable finite dimen-
sional R-modules and !a : Aa -+Ba be Ra-linear.
Prove that f = TiaeI fa/ F : A -+ B is an irreducible R-linear map if and only if
each !a : Aa -+ Ba is an irreducible Ra-linear map.
Exercise 12. 74 Assume (K, R) and (K', S') are representation-finite algebras of finite
=
dimension and assume (K,R) (K',S').
( i) Prove the existence of an isomorphism 'P : f( R) -+ f( R') of the associated
Auslander-Reiten quivers preserving dimension.
(ii) Show that the assertion does not extend to the representation-infinite case.
Exercise 12. 75 Let R be a C-algebra of finite dimension and Fa non-principal ul-

trafilter on an infinite set P of prime numbers. Show the existence of a family Rp
of d-dimensional algebras over F P such that R and the ultraproduct TipeP Rp/ F are
isomorphic algebras.
EXERCISES 349
Exercise 12. 76 Prove the existence of a function >. : N --+ N such that for every
representation-finite algebra R over an algebraically closed field we have
fPD(R) ::; >.( dim(R)).
Exercise 12. 77 Let R be a K-algebra of dimension d, K a field. Prove the equivalence
of the following assertions:
( i) Each monomorphism P -> Q splits, where P and Q are (possibly infinite-
dimensional) projective R-modules.
(ii) Each monomorphism Rn --+ Rm, n, m E N splits.
(iii) Each monomorphism R --+ Rd splits.
Deduce that 'fPD(R) = O' is equivalent to 'FP(R) = O', moreover, that 'fPD(R) = O'
amounts to a first order axiom for algebras of dimension d.
We recall that for finite dimensional algebras it is still an open question whether
fPD(R) = FPD(R).
Exercise 12.78 Assume that fPD(R) = FPD(R) holds for d-dimensional algebras.
Deduce that for any t E N the condition 'fPD(R) = t' amounts to a first order axiom
for d-dimensional algebras.
[Hint: Use Propositions 10.33 and 10.34.]
Exercise 12.79 For any integer r the algebras with a center of dimension ~ r define
a closed subscheme of Algd.
Exercise 12.80 Let d be a fixed positive integer.
( i) The local d-dimensional algebras over algebraically closed base fields with squared-
zero Jacobson radical form a finitely axiomatizable class with respect to the two-sorted
language of algebras.
(ii) There is a closed subscheme ~ of Algd such that for any algebraically closed
field K the set ~(K) consists of the local radical-squared zero algebras.
(iii) For any A E ~(K) the orbit Gd(K).A of A is Z-closed in the affine variety
Algd(K).
Exercise 12.81 For each algebraically closed field K let alg~in(K) denote the set of
isomorphism classes of representation-finite K-algebras of dimension d.
( i) If K = ITaeI Ka/Fis an ultraproduct of algebraically closed fields, there is a
natural bijection
alg~in(K) _. IIalg~in(Ka)/F.
ael
(ii) The number v(d,p) = Jalg~in(J<)J depends only on d and the characteristic p
of K. (We still assume that K is algebraically closed.)
(iii) There is a finite set E(d) of prime numbers such that v(d,p) = v(d,O) holds
for every prime p rt E(d).
[Hint: Use Theorem 12.52.]
Recall that An denotes the affine n-space scheme, represented by the polynomial
algebra Z[Xi, ... , Xn]· The purpose of the next exercise it to establish a schematic
version of Chevalley's theorem stating that regular maps send constructible sets to
constructible sets (cf. Theorem 12.10):
Exercise 12.82 (i) If 'P: An--+ Am is a morphism of schemes, there are polynomials
Ji, ... ,fm E Z[X1, ... ,Xn] such that for each commmutative ring R the mapping
'PR: An(R)--+ Am(R) is given by the formula 'PR(x) = (/1(x), ... ,fm(x)).
(ii) Let ~ be a constructible subscheme of An. Show by means of quantifier elimina-
tion that there exists a constructible subscheme :=: of Am such that for any algebraically
closed field K we have
'PK(~(K)) = 3(K).
In particular, 'PK(~(K)) is a Z-constructible subset of Km.

(iii) Let X be an affine scheme. X is isomorphic to a closed subscheme of An (for
some n) if and only if the coordinate ring of X is a finitely generated ring over the
integers Z. (Call such a scheme finitely generated over Z).
(iv) Let Xi;:;; An and Yi;:;; Am be closed subschemes. Show that every morphism
1/1: X--+ Y extends to a morphism 'P: An--+ Am.
(v) Show that assertion (ii) extends to a morphism 1/1 : X --+ Y if X and Y are
affine schemes, which are finitely generated over Z.
Exercise 12.83 Assume G i;:;; GLd is a closed group subscheme of the affine group
scheme GLd and consider the natural action of G on the affine n-space scheme Ad.
(i) Any element (ni, ... ,nd) E Z defines a morphism 'P: G--+ Ad such that
'PR: G(R)--+ Rn is given by the mapping g ,_. g.(ni, ... , nd)·
(ii) For any algebraically closed field K the G(K)-orbit of (ni, ... , nd) in Kd is a
Z-constructible set.
Chapter 13
Problems
In the following we collect a list of questions of probably varying degree of diffi-

culty, where the authors ignore the answer.
Fields
Problem 13.1 Give a characterization of all fields J{, whose theory Th( K) is
finitely axiomatizable.
[Of course, any finite field has this property.]
Problem 13.2 For any integer n let Kn = Q(Xi, ... , Xn) be the rational func-
tion field in the indeterminates Xi, ... , Xn. Are the fields
mutually elementarily inequivalent?
[If Q is replaced by a real closed field, according to Proposition 2.36 the corre-
sponding question has a positive answer. With respect to Q the only information
we have is given in (2.32) and (2.34).]
Problem 13.3 Let K, L be two fields with K(X) L(X). Does this imply
I<= L '?
[Of course, a positive answer would also settle Problem 11.2].
351
352 CHAPTER 13: PROBLEMS
Problem 13.4 If Q denotes the algebraic closure of the rational number field
will
Q(X) =C(X)
hold true?
[For a discussion of the background of the question we refer to Theorem 3.20

and Remark 3.21. As is shown in Example 3.12 for polynomial rings we have
Q[X] °t C[X].
Problem 13.5 Give a description of all infinite families A of {isomorphism

classes of) finite groups such that the class of all A-admissible fields is finitely
axiomatizable.
[There are such infinite families: As is shown in Remark 5.15, for characteristic
different from two, G-admissibility for the quaternion group G of order 8 implies
admissibility for all groups z2) n ~ l.]
Problem 13.6 Let /{ be the field of all meromorphic Junctions in one complex
variable. Is /{ Hilbertian?
Problem 13. 7 Assume F and G are elementarily equivalent fields. Does this
imply elementary equivalence of the power series fields F((X)) and G((X))?
[For characteristic zero, by Ax-Kochen's theorem (see Chapter 2) the question

has a positive answer; if char( F) = char( G) = p > 0 it is an open problem whether
F = G implies F((X)) = G((X)). See Remark 3.39 for a further discussion.]
Rings
Problem 13.8 Does elementary equivalence R[X] =S[X] of polynomial rings
imply R =
S ?
[With respect to isomorphism the corresponding question has a negative an-

swer: If A = R[x 1 , x 2 , x3 ] with x~ + x~ + x~ = 1, it was shown by M. Hochster
[91] that
are not isomorphic, but have isomorphic rings R[X] ~ S[X] of polynomials. The
authors ignore whether Rand Sare elementarily equivalent.]
RINGS 353
Problem 13.9 Let R be a ring, elementarily equivalent to a Noetherian {resp.

coherent) ring. Does R contain an elementary subri.ng that is Noetherian (resp.
coherent}?
[According to Propositions 10.6 and 10.15 each elementary subring of a left

Noetherian (coherent) ring is again left Noetherian (resp. coherent). In gen-
eral both properties are lost, however, while passing to ultrapowers. Further we
know from Exercise 4.28 that any ring R elementarily equivalent to the ring Z
of integers contains Z as an elementary subring. Compare also Exercise 4.26 and
Theorems 4.17 ff.].
Problem 13.10 Does elementary equivalence of two rings R and S imply
w .g!.dimR = w .g!.dimS?
[If w.gl.dimR S: 1, the answer is in the affirmative by Proposition 10.17; also
if both R and S are, say, left coherent the same conclusion
w.g!.dimR = w.g!.dimS
holds by Corollary 10.19. The authors suspect that in general the answer will be
in the negative; cf. Remark 10.25.]
Problem 13.11 Let R be a left hereditary ring. Is every elementary subring of

R again hereditary?
[As is shown in Example 10.26 the hereditary rings to not form an elementarily
closed class. Conversely - as is shown in Corollary 10.30 - any elementary
subring of a left Noetherian and hereditary is again left Noetherian and hereditary.
In particular the problem has a positive answer in case R is supposed to be a
commutative domain, hence a Dedekind domain.]
Problem 13.12 Let R be a ring of finite Krull dimension {notation: K - dimR

) in the sense of Gabri.el [67} or Gabriel-Rentschler [71}, see also {81}. Assume
that R and S are elementarily equivalent and both left Noetherian. Does it follow
that K - dimR = K - dimS ?
[With respect to the classical Krull-dimension the answer is in the affirmative

by Proposition 10.57. See also Remark 10.62.]
Problem 13.13 Do the left Artinian rings of fixed {left} length d and finite global
dimension form a {finitely) axiomatizable class.
[We refer to Remark 10.32 for a further discussion of the question and known
related results, also to Chapter 10, pages 344, ff.]
Problem 13.14 Is the class ofE-algebraically compact rings elementarily closed?
[According to Proposition 9.22 the class of E-algebraically compact rings is

closed under elementary descent. Moreover, E-algebraic compactness for mo-
dules is preserved under the formation of ultrapowers with respect to the lan-
guage M(R) (Theorem 8.10) but not with respect to the two-sorted language M
(Proposition 9.22).]
Problem 13.15 Let :F be a non-principal ultrafilter on N and assume that R = 0
RN/ :F is an algebraically compact ring.

(i) Does this imply that R is E-algebraically compact?
(ii) Assuming additionally that R is left Noetherian we ask alternatively if R
must be left Artinian?
[Phenomena related to both questions are dis~ussed in Chapter 7 and Re-

mark 11.14.]
Problem 13.16 Is pure-semisimplicity preserved under the passage to ultrapow-

ers?
Problem 13.17 Assume S is an elementary subring of R. Is it true that
p.gl.dim( S) :::; p.gl.dim( R)
follows?
Problem 13.18 Is either of the classes of rings with, respectively without a suf-
ficient supply of algebraically compact indecomposable modules closed under ele-
mentary descent?
[We refer to Summary 7.61 for a discussion of examples related to both ques-
tions].
MODULES (ONE-SORTED LANGUAGE) 355
Modules (one-sorted language)

Problem 13.19 Give a characterization of those rings R such that the class
of all injective (respectively projective, flat) modules is finitely axiomatizable in
M(R).
(Compare the article of Jensen and Vamos [101].
Problem 13.20 Let M be an R-module and assume that the diagonal embedding
M ---+ MN/ Af(N) splits. Does this imply that M is algebraically compact?
(According to TheoremTh:7.9 the answer is positive for any countable ring R

and also if R is commutative Noetherian and Mis a finitely generated R-module.
The same question may be asked for the special case M = R.]
Modules (two-sorted language)

Problem 13.21 Is projectivity (freeness, pure-projectivity, respectively) preserved
under elementary descent with respect to the two-sorted language of modules?
[The answer should be "no"; but we do not know of any example. The envi-
ronment of the question is described in (8.12), (8.14), (8.15), (8.16)].
Problem 13.22 Is any of the properties 'indecomposable', respectively 'indecom-

posable with local endomorphism ring' for modules (R, M) preserved under ele-
mentary descent with respect to the two-sorted language of modules?
(Neither property is stable with respect to elementary equivalence as is shown

in Examples 9.25. The authors also ignore if the property '(R, M) is indecom-
posable of finite length' is preserved under elementary descent or elementary
equivalence. Of course this happens to be true if (R, M) is additionally assumed
to be finitely presented.]
Problem 13.23 Let n be a fixed positive integer. Is the class of all n-generated
flat modules finitely axiomatizable with respect to the two-sorted language of mo-
dules?
(According to Exercise 9.31 the class in question is axiomatizable.]

Finite dimensional algebras

Problem 13.24 Is pure-global dimension left-right symmetric for finite dimen-
sional algebras?
[Kaplansky gave an example of a von Neumann regular ring of right global

dimension one but left global dimension> 1 [108]. Since for von Neumann regular
rings global dimension equals pure-global dimension this shows that we don't have
symmetry for pure-global dimension, in general. As was mentioned already, for
arbitrary rings even with respect to pure-global dimension zero the question of
left-right symmetry is still open (see D. Simson [184) and the references, given
there, for a recent account on that problem). As for finite dimensional algebras
there is a theorem due to Auslander and Tachikawa [4], [192] stating that left pure-
global dimension zero coincides with being of finite representation type, which is
a symmetric notion. In all examples of finite dimensional algebras, where pure-
global dimension was actually computed (see [11], [9], [99]) we observe left-right
symmetry.]
Problem 13.25 Does there exist a finite dimensional algebra R over a field K,
where the category mod(R) of finite dimensional R-modules has Krull dimension
one?
[Typically, for finite dimensional algebras R with a 'wild', i.e. 'unclassifi-

able' behavior of indecomposable finite dimensional modules K - dim(mod(R))
will not even exist, see Baer [7]. Exactly for representation-finite R we have
K - dim(mod(R)) = 0. For all other examples of finite dimensional algebras,
where this dimension has been computed, see Geigle [76], [75], its value is two
or does not exist [7]. If R is commutative - and still of finite K-dimension -
it is easy to prove that the Krull dimension K - dim(mod(R)) of the category
mod(R)) is either 0 or ~ 2.]
Problem 13.26 Does there exist a finite dimensional algebra R over an infinite
field K such that every algebra S elementarily equivalent to R (with respect to the
two-sorted language of algebras) has pure-global dimension one?
[In view of Theorem 11.21 it does not make sense to state the corresponding
question for pure-global dimension d > 1. For d = 1 the question amounts to
exhibit a K-algebra R of pure-global dimension one such that base field extension
with respect to an elementary field extension L of K will not alter the pure-global
dimension. The authors suspect that no such algebra will exist.]
FINITE DIMENSIONAL ALGEBRAS 357
Problem 13.27 Let R be a finite dimensional algebra over an uncountable field

I< and assume that R is not representation-finite. Does there exist a sequence of
finite dimensional R-modules Mn such that the ultraproduct
- with respect to some ultrafilter :F on N- is not algebraically compact?
[We refer to Chapter 7, page 189 ff. for some partial answers towards this
question.]
Problem 13.28 Assume R is a (finite dimensional) algebra over the field I<. Is
there coincidence between the notions 'R is tame' and 'R has a sufficient supply
of algebraically compact indecomposable modules' hence also between 'R is wild'
and 'R has not a sufficient supply of algebraically indecomposable modules'?
[More specifically we may ask whether the algebra I<[X, Y]/(XY) or any of
their finite dimensional factor algebras
I<[X, Y]/(Xn, XY, r), (n ~ 3)
has sufficiently many algebraically compact indecomposable modules? Further

aspects of the question are discussed in Chapter 7, see also Remark 8.72].
Problem 13.29 Let d and t be fixed integers. Does the property indt(R) :$ n
define an open subscheme of Algd?
[For any algebraically closed field I< the property in question defines an open
subset of AlgAI<). A positive answer would prove that finite representation type
defines an open subscheme of Algd.]
358 TABLES
Tables
The following tables collect most axiomatizability results about rings and mo-
dules (with respect to the two-sided language), i.e. results contained in Chapters 7
to 11.
By contrast, the results of Chapters 1 to 4, mostly centered around the ques-

tion of elementary equivalence of rings and fields, also most results about Galois
groups from Chapter 5 are not suitable for such a tabular presentation. A similar
argument applies to the one-sorted language of modules (Chapter 6).
An entry + or - in the tables indicates a positive (respectively negative)

assertion. A question-mark? points towards an open problem.
FIELDS 359
First order properties of fields
property of the field stable under axiomatizable finitely

elementary axiomatizable
equivalence
characteristic p,
p fixed prime + + + (2.15)
characteristic # 0 + (2.15) - (2.15) -
characteristic 0 + + (2.15) - (2.15)
algebraically closed + + (2.16) - (2.16)
separably closed + + (2.17) - (2.17)
formally real + + (2.23) - (2.23)
real closed + + (2.26) - (2.26)
perfect + + +
trivial Brauer group + + (2.22) - (2.22)
C;, i fixed integer + + - (2.46)
C;, i arbitrary + + (2.46) ? (2.21)
Pythagorean + + + (2.31)
Peano field + + (4.2) - (4.2)
Hilbertian + + (5.2) - (5.2)
universally + + (5.4) - (5.7)
admissible
A-admissible, A
fixed finite family + + + (5.4)
of finite groups
TABLE 1
360 TABLES
First order properties of rings I
property of stable stable closed axioma- finitely

the ring under under under tizable axioma-
elementary elementary ultra-
descent equivalence products tizable
von Neumann + + + + + (10.1)
regular
semisimple + + (10.5) - (10.5) - -
Artinian
division ring + ·+ + + + (10.1)
domain + + + + + (10.1)
prime ring + + + + + (10.1)
Ore domain + + + + + (10.1)
Bezout + + + + + (10.3)
principal ideal + (10.7) - (10.6) - - -
domain
discrete
valuation + (10.7) - (10.6) - - -
domain
valuation
domain + + + + + (10.3)
Priifer + + + + + (10.3)
Dedekind + (10.7) - (10.6) - - -
local + + + + + (10.3)
regular local + (10.30) - (10.6) - - -
Peano + + + + (4.2) - (4.2)
primitive - (10.40) - + (10.40) - -
perfect + (10.11) - (10.11) - - -
F-semiperfect + + + + + (10.1)
TABLE 2
RINGS 361
First order properties of rings II

the ring under under under tizable ax10ma-
semi perfect + + (10.10) - (10.10) - -
semi perfect
fixed length + + + + + (10.10)
R/rad(R)
semi primary
lg(R/radR) = d
nil potency + + + + + (10.9)
degree t for
rad(R)
Artinian + + (10.5) - (10.5) - -
Artinian
length d + + + + + (10.5)
Artinian
length d + + + + + (10.31)
gl.dim(R) = t
Artinian
length d + + (10.31) ?(10.32) ? ?
gl.dim( R) < oo
Artinian
length d + + + + + (10.64)
inj.dimn(R) = t
Noetherian + (10.6) - (10.6) - - -
Noetherian
gl.dim( R) = t + (10.30) - (10.6) - - -
TABLE 3
362 TABLES
First order properties of rings III
property of stable stable closed ax1oma- finitely

the ring under under under tizable ax1oma-
coherent + (10.15) - (10.15) - - -
coherent
w .gl.dim( R) = t + (10.20) ? (10.25) ? ? ?
coherent
fp-inj.dimR(R) + + + + (10.35) - (10.15)
=t
uniformly
coherent + + (10.13) ? ? ?
uniformly
coherent + + + + (10.13) ?
fixed bound
for coherence
uniformly
coherent + + (10.22) ? ? ?
w.gl.dim(R) = t
w.gl.dim(R) = 1 + + + + (10.16) - (10.17)
commutative
w.gl.dim(R) = 1 + + + + + (10.16)
semifir + + + + (10.17) - (10.17)
semi-
hereditary + + + + (10.16) - (10.17)
commutative
semi- + + + + + (10.16)
hereditary
hereditary ? - (10.26) - - -
gl.dim( R) = t - (10.26) - - - -
t>1
TABLE4
RINGS 363
First order properties of rings IV

the ring under under under tizable ax1oma-
self-injective - (11.6) - - (8.48) - -
algebraically
compact - (11.6) - - - - (8.48)
~>algebraically
compact + (11.13) ? (11.14) ? (11.13) - -
pure-
semisimple + (11.20) ? - (10.2) - -
representation-
finite + + (11.38) - (10.2) - -
pure global
dimension d - (11.29) - - (11.29) - -
polynomial
identity + + (10.52) - (10.52) - -
prime
pi-degreed + + + + + (10.53)
Noetherian
cl.K-dim(R) + (10.58) - (4.14) - - -
=d
Noetherian
e.dim(R) = d + (10.37) ? - - -
stable rank d + + + + + (10.49)
finite
stable rank + + (10.49) - (10.49) - -
TABLE 5
364 TABLES
First order properties of modules (two-sorted

language) I
property stable stable closed ax10ma- finitely

of the under under under tizable axioma-
module elementary elementary ultra-
n-generated + + + + + (9.3)
finitely
generated + + (9.3) - (9.3) - -
non-finitely
generated + + + + (9.3) - (9.3)
(m, n)-
presented + + + + + (9.4)
finitely
presented + + (9.4 - (9.3) - -
finite length t + + + + + (9.1)
finite length + + (9.1) - (9.3) - -
locally finite + (9.30) - - (9.30) - -
Noetherian + (9.18) - (9.18) - - -
Artinian + (9.18) - (9.18) - - -
locally
coherent + (9.18) - (9.18) - - -
semisimple
of finite t + + + + + (9.29)
length
semisimple + (9.30) - - (9.30) - -
finite
Goldie + + + + + (9.19)
dimension n
finite
Goldie + + (9.19) - (9.3) - -
dimension
TABLE 6
MODULES 365

language) II
property stable stable closed axioma- finitely

of the under under under tizable ax1oma-
n-generated
free (n E N) + + + + + (9.3)
n-generated
projective + + + + + (9.3)
(n EN)
finitely
generated + + (9.3) - (9.3) - -
free
finitely
generated + + (9.3) - (9.3) - -
projective
free ? - (9.14) - (9.14) - -
projective ? - (9.14) - (9.14) - -
pure-
projective ? - (9.14) - (9.14) - -
flat + (9.5) - (9.5) - - -
n-generated
flat (n EN) + + + + (9.31) ?
flat of
rank n EN + + + + (9.31) ?
fp-injective + + + + (9.22) ?
injective - (9.22) - - (9.22) - -
:E-injective + (9.22) - - (9.22) - -
TABLE 7
366 TABLES

language) III
property stable stable closed ax1oma- finitely
of the under under under tizable axioma-
algebraically
compact - (9.22) - - (9.22) - -
E-algebraically
compact + (9.22) - - (9.22) - -
R uniformly
right coherent
for fixed bound + + + + (9.5) ?
of coherence,
M fiat
R of right
finite width d, + + + + + (9.9)
M fiat
(d EN)
R right
Artinian of
length d, + + + + + (9.12)
M projective
(d EN)
R left
Noetherian, + (9.22) - - (9.6) - -
M injective
indecomposable ? - (9.25) - (9.25) - -
local
endomorphism ? - (9.26) - (9.26) - -
ring
E-algebraically
compact ? - (9.38) - (9.26) - -
indecomposable
TABLE 8
Appendix A
Basic notions and definitions

from homological algebra
Projective, injective and fl.at modules

All rings are supposed to be associative with an identity element and all modules
are supposed to be unitary. When nothing else is said a module will be a left
module over the given ring.
If Risa ring and Fan R-module, Fis called free if there exists a family u;,
i EI, of elements of F such that every element m E F has a unique representation
of the form
where each r; is an element of Rand r; = 0 for almost all i (that is, r; = 0 for all
i with at most a finite number of exceptions). Therefore, Fis free if and only if
F is isomorphic to a direct sum R(I) of copies of R.
An R-module P is called projective if for each pair of R-modules A, B and

every pair of R-homomorphisms f: A~ Band u: P ~ B, where f is surjective,
there exists an R-homomorphism v: P ~ A such that the diagram
v/ ! f
---+
p B
u
367
368 APPENDIX A: HOMOLOGICAL ALGEBRA
is commutative, i.e. u = f o v. It is not hard to see that an R-module P is

projective ¢? P is a direct summand of a free R-module ¢? X >--+ HomR(P, X) is
an exact functor (denoted HomR(P,-)) from the category of R-modules to the
category of abelian groups.
An R-module Q is called injective if, whenever A is a submodule of an

R-module B, every R-homomorphism A - t Q can be extended to an R-homo-
morphism B - t Q. R. Baer's test for injectivity asserts that it suffices to
check this condition for B = R. It is not hard to see that an R-module Q is
injective if and only if the contravariant functor X >--+ HomR(X, Q), which we
denote HomR(-, Q), from the category of R-modules to the category of abelian
groups is exact.
Definition A.1 An R-module M is called finitely presented if there is an

exact sequence G - t F - t M - t 0, where F and G are finitely generated free
R-modules.
An R-module M is called flat if X >--+ X &JRM is an exact functor (denoted

-0RM) from the category of right R-modules to the category of abelian groups.
The module M is flat if and only if every R-linear mapping u : E - t M with
Ea finitely presented R-module (see Definition A.I) admits a factorization u =
[E - t P - t M], where P is a (finitely generated) projective module.
Every projective R-module M is flat, while the converse, in general, does
not hold. However, as follows from the above factorization property, a finitely
presented R-module M if flat if and only if M is projective.
Projective, injective and fl.at dimension

For every R-module M there exists a projective resolution, that is an exact
sequence of the form
... -t Pn -t Pn-1 -t ... -t P1 -t Po -t M -t 0,
where P 0 , Pi, ... are projective R-modules.
Similarly, for every R-module M there exists an injective resolution, that

is, an exact sequence of the form
0 -t M -t QO -t Ql -t ... -t Qn-1 -t Qn -t ... ,

GLOBAL AND WEAK GLOBAL DIMENSION 369
where Q0 , Q1 , ••• are injective R-modules.
Let M be an R-module and n a non-negative integer. M is said to have

projective (or homological) dimension (notation proj.dimR(M)) equal to n,
if
(i) there exists an exact sequence of the form
(*) 0 --> Pn --> Pn-1 --> ... --> P1 --> Po --> M --> 0,
where Po, ... , Pn are projective R-modules, and
(ii) there is no exact sequence of this type with fewer terms.
If there is no exact sequence as (*) we say that M has infinite projective (or
homological) dimension.

injective dimension (notation inj.dimR(M)) equal ton, if
..
( ) 0--> M--> QO--> QI--> ... --> Qn-1--> Qn--> O,
where Q 0 , • •• , Qn are injective R-modules, and

If there is no exact sequence as(**) we say that M has infinite injective dimension.
Further, let M be an R-module and n a non-negative integer. M is said to

have weak homological (or flat dimension) dimension (notation w.dimR(M))
equal to n, if
(•••) 0--> Fn--> Fn-1--> ... --> F1--> Fo--> M--> 0,
where Fo, ... , Fn are flat R-modules, and
If there is no exact sequence as (***) we say that M has infinite weak homological
(or flat) dimension.
Global and weak global dimension

Theorem and Definition A.2 For every ring R the supremum of the projective
dimensions of all R-modules is equal to the supremum of the injective dimensions
of all R-modules. This common value, which is either a non-negative integer or
oo, is called the (left) global dimension of R and is denoted gl.dim (R), for
emphasis also l.gl.dim ( R).
Similarly, by considering right R-modules one obtains the right global dimen-
sion of R, which is denoted r.gl.dim (R) or gl.dim (R 0 P).
Theorem and Definition A.3 For every ring R the supremum of the weak ho-
mological {=fiat) dimensions of all left R-modules is equal to the supremum of
the weak homological (=fiat) dimensions of all right R-modules. This common
value, which is either a non-negative integer or oo, is called the weak global
dimension of R and is denoted w.gl.dim (R).
It should be noted that a ring has a left and a right global dimension (which
may be different), but only one weak global dimension. For every ring R the
following inequalities hold
w.gl.dim (R) ::; l.gl.dim (R) and w.gl.dim (R) ::; r.gl.dim (R).
In an important case there are equalities.

A ring R is called left (resp. right) Noetherian if every left (resp. right)
ideal of R is finitely generated.
Theorem A.4 If R is left Noetherian then
w.gl.dim (R) = l.gl.dim (R).
If R is left and right Noetherian, then
w.gl.dim (R) = l.gl.dim (R) = r.gl.dim (R).
The functors Ext7k and Tor~

The above dimensions can be expressed in terms of the derived functors of the
functor HomR(-, -) and the functor tensor product -Ql,)R- .
In fact, there are functors Ext~(-,-) in two variables (the right derived
functors of HomR(-, -)), whose values for a pair (A, B) of R-modules can be
obtained - up to isomorphism - in either of the following two ways:
(1) Let · · · --+ Pn+l --+ Pn --+ Pn-1 --+ · · · --+ P1 --+ Po --+ A --+ 0 be a
projective resolution of A. Then Ext'R(A, B) can be computed as the nth group
of cohomology of the cocomplex
0--+ HomR(P0 , B) --+ HomR(Pi, B) --+ HomR(P2 , B) --+ · · ·

· · · --+ HomR(Pn-1' B) --+ HomR(Pn, B) --+ HomR(Pn+l> B) --+ · · ·
THE FUNCTORS Extn AND Tor~ 371
or
(2) Let 0 -+ B -+ Q 0 -+ Q1 -+ · · · -+ Qn-l -+ Qn -+ Qn+l -+ · · · be an
injective resolution of B. Then Extn(A, B) can be computed as the nth group of
cohomology of the cocomplex
0-+ HomR(A,Q 0 )-+ HomR(A,Q 1 ) -+ HomR(A,Q 2 )-+ · · ·

· · ·-+ HomR(A,Qn-l) -+ HomR(A,Qn)-+ HomR(A,Qn+l)-+ · ··.
The following then holds
Theorem A.5 (i) For every R-module A and any exact sequence of R-modules
TJ : 0 -+ B' -+ B -+ B" -+ 0 there is an exact sequence
0 -+ HomR(A,B') -+ HomR(A, B) -+ HomR(A,B")

-+ Extk(A, B') -+ Extk(A,B) -+ Extk(A,B")
-+ Ext1(A, B') -+ Ext1( A, B) -+ Ext1(A,B")
depending functorially on A and TJ.

(ii) For every R-module B and any exact sequence of R-modules µ 0 -+
A' -+ A -+ A" -+ 0 there is an exact sequence
0 -+ HomR(A", B) -+ HomR(A, B) -+ HomR(A',B)

-+ Extk(A", B) -+ Extk(A, B) -+ Extk(A', B)
-+ Ext1(A", B) -+ Ext1(A, B) -+ Ext1(A', B)
depending functorially on B andµ.
Theorem A.6 Let A be an R-module and n a non-negative integer. Then the

projective dimension of A is s; n if and only if Extk(A, B) = 0 for t = n + 1
(equivalently for all t > n) and all R-modules B.
Let B be an R-module and n a non-negative integer. Then the injective di-
mension of B is s; n if and only if Extk(A, B) = 0fort=n+1 (equivalently for
all t > n} and all (resp. all finitely generated) R-modules A.
Moreover, for every non-negative integer n we have gl.dim (R) s; n if and
only ifExtk(A, B) = 0 fort= n + 1 (equivalently for all t > n} and all (resp. all
finitely generated) R-modules A and all R-modules B.
Similarly, there are functors (the left derived functors of -0R-) called Tor~( A, B)
in two variables (A, B), where A runs through the right R-modules and B runs
through the left R-modules.
The values of Tor~( A, B) of a pair (A, B), (where A is a right R-module and
Bis a left R-module) can be computed in either of the following two ways:
(1) Let · · · -> Fn+l -> Fn -> Fn-l -> · · · -> F1 -> Fo -> A-> 0 be a flat
resolution of A, i.e. an exact sequence of right R-module where F 0 , Fi, ... are
flat. (Since projective modules are flat, in particular, any projective resolution
will do.) Tor~( A, B) can then be computed - up to isomorphism - as the nth
group of homology of the complex
or
(2) Let · · · -> Gn+l -> Gn -> Gn-1 -> · · · -> G1 -> Go -> B -> 0 be a flat
resolution for B. Then Torn(A, B) can be computed as the nth group of homology
of the complex
The following now holds
Theorem A. 7 (i) For every right R-module A and any exact sequence TJ : 0 ->
B' -> B --. B" -> 0 of R-modules there is an exact sequence
--. Torf(A, B') --. Torf(A, B) --. Torf(A,B")
--
--.
->
Torf(A, B')
A0RB'
--.
->
depending functorially on A and TJ.

Torf(A, B)
A0RB
--.
->
Torf(A,B")
A0RB"
- 0
(ii) For every R-module B and any exact sequenceµ : 0 -> A' -> A -> A" -> 0
of right R-modules there is an exact sequence
--. Torf (A', B) --. Torf(A, B) --. Torf(A", B)

--
--.
->
Torf(A', B)
A'0RB
depending functorially on B andµ.
--.
->
Torf(A,B)
A0RB
--.
->
Torf(A", B)
A"0RB
- 0
Theorem A.8 Let A be a right R-module and n a non-negative integer. Then

the weak homological {=fiat) dimension of A is::; n if and only if Tor~( A, B) = 0
fort = n + 1 (equivalently for all t > n) and all (resp. all finitely presented) left
R-modules B.
Let B be a left R-module and n a non-negative integer. Then the weak ho-
mological dimension of B is ::; n if and only if Tor~( A, B) = 0 for t = n + 1
PURE-EXACTNESS 373
(equivalently for all t > n) and all {resp. all finitely presented} right R-modules
B.
Moreover, for every non-negative integer n we have w.gl.dim (R) :::; n if and
only if Tor~(A, B) = 0 fort= n + 1 (equivalently for all t > n} and all (resp. all
finitely presented} right R-modules A and left R-modules B.
In this connection we mention some more special dimensions related to the

projective dimensions.
There are two finitistic global dimensions fPD (R) and FPD (R) of a ring
R. fPD (R) is the supremum of the projective dimensions of all finitely gener-
ated (left) R-modules of finite projective dimension. FPD (R) is defined as the
supremum of the projective dimensions of all (left) R-modules of finite projective
dimension. One has the obvious inequalities
fPD (R):::; FPD (R):::; l.gl.dim(R).
Correspondingly one can, of course, introduce finitistic dimension by considering

right R-modules.
Pure-exactness
Next, we consider some notions from "relative homological algebra". First, we
mention an entirely module theoretic concept.
In the following theorem, for an R-module M we consider the "dual module"
M* = Homz(M, Q/Z) equipped with the structure of a right R-module in the
natural way.
Theorem A.9 Let 0 -+ A ~ B ~ C -+ 0 be an exact sequence of R-modules.

The following conditions are equivalent:
(i) For every right R-module L the homomorphism L0RA ~ L@RB is
injective.
(ii) For every finitely presented module M and every homomorphism cp : M -+
C there exists a homomorphism 1/J : M -+ B such that f3 o 1/J = cp
(iii) The induced sequence of right R-modules
O--> C* .!:.__.. B* ~A*--> 0
is split-exact.
Definition A.10 A short exact sequence 0 ---+ A ---+ B ---+ C ---+ 0 is called
pure-exact if it satisfies the equivalent conditions from the above theorem. If
A is a submodule of the module B, A is called a pure submodule, if the exact
sequence 0 ---+ A -=-+ B -~ B /A .:._. 0 is pure in the above sense, where t is the
natural injection and "' the canonical homomorphism of B onto B /A.
Definition A.11 A long exact sequence
· · · ---+ A n-1 fn-1

---+
An fn
---+
A n-1 ----+ · · ·
is called pure-exact if im(fn-l) = ker(fn) is a pure submodule of An for each n.
Pure-projective and pure-injective dimension

Definition A.12 An R-module P is called pure-projective if for each pure-
exact sequence
0--+A~B_!!_.C--+0
and every homomorphism 'P : P --+ C there exists a homomorphism 1/; : P ---+ B
such that /3o1/; = 'P·
Since every R-module M admits a pure-exact sequence 0---+ K---+ F---+ M---+
0, where F is a direct sum of a family of finitely presented modules, it follows
that a module Pis pure-projective if and only if it is a direct summand of a direct
sum of a (possibly infinite) family of finitely presented modules.
Accordingly, for every R-module M there exists a pure-projective resolu-

tion, that is a pure-exact sequence
· · ·---+ Pn---+ Pn-1 · · ·---+ P1---+ Po---+ M---+ 0

where P0 , Pi, ... are pure-projective R-modules.

pure-projective dimension equal to n if
(i) there exists a pure-exact sequence of the form
(o) 0 ---+ Pn ---+ Pn-1 ---+ · · · ---+ P1 ---+ Po ---+ M ---+ 0,
where P0 , ••• , Pn are pure-projective R-modules, and
(ii) there is no such pure-exact sequence of this type with fewer terms.
If there is no pure-exact sequence as ( o) we say that M has infinite pure-
projective dimension.
THE FUNCTORS Pext'.R 375
Definition A.13 An R-module M is called pure-injective or algebraically

compact if for every pure-exact sequence
o-A~B_!__.c-o
and every homomorphism cp : A ---+ M there exists a homomorphism ¢ : B ---+ M

such that 1/J o a = cp. .
For every R-module M there exists a pure-injective resolution, that is a

pure-exact sequence
0 ---+ M ---+ JO ---+ Jl ---+ ... ---+ Jn-1 ---+ Jn . . . ---+
where J 0 , J1, ... are pure-injective R-modules.
Let M be an R-module and n a non-negative integer. M 1s said to have

pure-injective dimension equal to n, if
(i) there exists a pure-exact sequence of the form
(<><>) 0 ---+ M ---+ Jo ---+ JI ---+ ••• ---+ 1n- I ---+ r ---+ 0
where J 0 , •.• , In are pure-injective R-modules, and

(ii) there is no pure-exact sequence of this type with fewer terms.
If there is no pure-exact sequence as ( <> <>) we say that M has infinite pure-
injective dimension.
Theorem and Definition A.14 For every ring R the supremum of the pure-
injective dimensions of all R-modules is equal to the supremum of the pure-
projective dimensions of all R-modules. This common value, which is either a
non-negative integer or oo, is called the (left) pure-global dimension of R and
is denoted p.gl.dim (R) or l.p.gl.dim (R) for emphasis.
Similarly, by considering right R-modules one defines the right pure-global di-
mension of R which is denoted p.gl.dim (R 0 P) or r.p.gl.dim (R).
The functors Pext1k

The above dimensions can be expressed in terms of the functors Pext'.R(-, -),
whose values of a pair (A, B) of R-modules can be obtained in either of the
following two ways:
(1) Let 0 ----> B ----> 1° ----> ... ----> r- 1 ----> r ----> 1n+l ----> ... be a pure-injective
resolution of B. Then Pext'.R(A, B) can be computed - up to isomorphism - as
the nth group of cohomology of the cocomplex
0----> HomR(A,I°)----> HomR(A,1 1) ----> HomR(A,1 2 )----> · · ·

· · ·----> HomR(A,r- 1) ----> HomR(A,r)----> HomR(A,r+i)----> · · ·.
(2) Let · · · ----> Pn+l ----> Pn ----> Pn-1 ----> · · · ----> Po ----> A ----> 0 be a pure-
projective resolution of A. Then Pext'.R(A, B) can be computed as the nth group
of cohomology of the cocomplex
0----> HomR(P0 , B) ----> HomR(Pi, B) ----> HomR(P2 , B) ----> · · ·

· · ·----> HomR(Pn-1, B) ----> HomR(Pn, B)----> HomR(Pn+i, B)----> · · ·.
The following then holds
Theorem A.15 Let B be an R-module and n a non-negative integer. Then the

pure-injective dimension of B is Sn if and only if Pextk(A, B) = 0 fort= n + 1
(equivalently for all t > n} and all R-modules A.
Let A be an R-module and n a non-negative integer. Then the pure-injective
dimension of A is S n if and only if Pextk( A, B) = 0 for t = n + 1 {equivalently
for all t > n) and all R-modules B.
Moreover, for every non-negative integer n we have p.gl.dim(R) S n if and
only if Pextk(A, B) = 0 fort = n+ 1 (equivalently for all t > n} and all R-modules
A and B.
Further, assuming the occuring sequences TJ and µ to be pure-exact we obtain

long exact sequences as in Theorem A.5 replacing Ext by Pext.
Fp-injective modules
The next theorem gives rise to the introduction of a new class of modules.
Theorem A.16 For an R-module M the following conditions are equivalent.

(i) For every exact sequence 0 ----> A ~ B ~ C ----> 0 with C finitely
presented and B finitely generated projective and for every homomorphism c.p
A ----> M, there exists an R-homomorphism if; : B ----> M such that c.p = if; o a
KRULL-DIMENSION AND REGULAR LOCAL RINGS 377
(ii) For every finitely presented R-module F we have Extk(F, M) = 0, i.e.

each exact sequence 0 -+ M -+ X -+ F -+ 0 splits.
(iii) Every exact sequence 0-+ M-+ B-+ C-+ 0 is pure-exact.
Definition A.17 An R-module M is called fp-injective or absolutely pure

if M satisfies the equivalent conditions in the above theorem.
Definition A.18 Let M be an R-module. Then the fp-injective dimension of

M (notation fp-inj.dimR(M)) is defined as the smallest integer n ~ 0 such that
for every finitely presented R-module F. (If no such integer exists we say that
fp-inj.dimR(M) is infinite.)
If the ring R is left coherent, i.e. if every finitely generated left ideal is a
finitely presented R-module, then every finitely presented module F admits a
projective resolution
... -+ Pn -+ Pn-1 -+ ... -+ P1 -+ Po -+ F -+ 0,
where all the modules P0 , Pi, ... are finitely generated. Since a finitely presented
module is flat if and only if it is projective, this shows that
proj.dimR(F) = w.dimR(F),
accordingly
w.gl.dim (R) =sup proj.dimR(F),
where F runs through all finitely presented R-modules. Moreover - still under
the assumption that R is left coherent -
w.gl.dim (R) =sup fp-inj.dimR(M),
where M runs through all (left) R-modules.
Krull-dimension and regular local rings

An important ring theoretic dimension connected with homological dimension is
the following
Definition A.19 Let R be a commutative ring and d denote a non-negative in-

teger. The Krull dimension of R {denoted K-dim(R)) is said to bed if there
exists a chain Po ~ p 1 ~ · • · ~ Pd ~ R of prime ideals in R, but no longer
chain. If there exist arbitrarily long chains of prime ideals in R, we say that R
has infinite Krull dimension.
(For a more refined definition of Krull dimension for not necessarily commu-
tative rings, where the dimension is not just an integer but an ordinal number,
see for instance [117].)
Definition A.20 A commutative ring is called local if it has exactly one maxi-
mal ideal.
Theorem A.21 Every commutative local Noetherian ring has finite Krull di-
mension d, and the minimal number of generators of the maximal ideal is 2: d.
Definition A.22 A commutative local Noetherian ring R with Krull dimension

d is called regular if the maximal ideal of R can be generated by d elements.
Theorem A.23 (Auslander-Buchsbaum-Serre) Let R be a commutative lo-

cal Noetherian ring with maximal ideal m. The following conditions are equiva-
lent:
(i) R is regular,
(ii) There exists a generating sequence x 1 , ... , xd for m such that for any
i = 1, ... , d the mapping
x; : R/(Rx1 + · · · + Rx;_1)-+ R/(Rx1 + · · · + Rx;_1)
induced by the multiplication with x; is injective.

(iii) The projective dimension of R/m, viewed as an R-module, is finite.
(iv) The global dimension of R is finite.
(v) gl.dim(R) = K-dim(R).
Theorem A.24 (Auslander-Buchsbaum) Every regular commutative local Noe-

therian ring is a factorial domain, i.e. has unique factorization in irreducible
{prime) elements.
Appendix B
Functor categories on finitely

presented modules
This appendix collects the basic properties of categories of additive abelian group-
valued functors and explains their applications to the study of modules. For more
detailed information on functor categories we refer the reader to [136], [67] and
[149].
Additive categories and additive functors

By an additive category A we understand a category A where for any two
objects A, Bin A the morphism set A(A, B) carries the structure of an abelian
group in such a way that the composition
A(A, B) x A(B, C)--> A(A, C), (u, v) >-+ vou
becomes bilinear for each triple of objects A, B, C from A.

For most of the applications, we have in mind, A will be either the category
Mod (R) (resp. mod(R)) of all (resp. all finitely presented) left modules over
some ring R or the category of abelian group valued functors on mod(R) (see
below).
If also B is an additive category a functor F : A -+ B is called an additive
functor if for any pair of objects Ai, A 2 from A the induced map
is a homomorphism of abelian groups.
379
380 APPENDIX B: FUNCTOR CATEGORIES
F : A --> B is called full (resp. faithful) if 'PA,,A, is a surjective (resp. an

injective) mapping for each pair (Ai, A2) of objects of A. A functor F which is
full and faithful is also called a full embedding.
Let F 1, F 2 : A --> B be additive functors. By a morphism u : F 1 --> F2 we
mean a collection UA: F1 (A)--> F2 (A) of morphisms in B, indexed by the objects
of A, such that for any morphism f : A1 --> A2 in A the diagram
F1(Ai) F1(A2)
UA1 l l UA2
F2(Ai) F1(A2)
is commutative, i.e. uA 2 o F1 (J) = F2 (J) o UA 1 holds. The composition v o u of

morphisms u: F 1 --> F 2 and v: F 2 --> F3 is defined by the rule (vou)A =VA ouA
for every object A in A. The identity functor lA : A --> A on A acts as the
identity on objects and morphisms of A.
An additive functor u : F 1 --> F 2 such that uA : F1 (A) --> F2 (A) is an iso-
morphism for each A is called an isomorphism of functors. It is equivalent
to stating that there exists a morphism v : F 2 --> F 1 such that v o u = 1F1 and
u o v = lF,· The functors F1 and F 2 are called isomorphic in this case.
If a functor F : A--> B has the property that each object Bin Bis isomorphic
to an object of the form F(A) for some object A in A, we call F representative
or dense. Further, F: A--> B is called an equivalence of categories if Fis a
full, faithful and representative functor. It is equivalent to stating the existence
of a functor G : B --> A such that Go F (resp. F o G) are isomorphic to the
identity functor on A (resp. B). The categories A and B are called equivalent
in this case.
Each system A' of objects of A may also viewed as an additive category by
putting A'(X, Y) = A(X, Y) for all objects X, Y in A'. Any additive category
arising in this way is called a full subcategory of A. If a functor F : A --> B
is a full embedding, the category A is equivalent to the full subcategory of B
consisting of all objects of the form F(A) with A in A.
A subfunctor F' of F : A --> B consists in attaching to each object A in A
a subobject F'(A) of F(A) in such a way that for every morphism u : A --> B
we have u(F'(A)) ~ F'(B). A subfunctor gives rise to the natural embedding
l: F'--> F, which is a morphism of functors.
If A is an additive category the dual category A 0 P has the same objects
and morphism groups as A, but reversed composition. A 0 P is again additive, a
functor F : A op --> B is also called a contravariant functor from A to B, while
for emphasis the functors from A to B are sometimes called covariant.
ABELIAN AND GROTHENDIECK CATEGORIES 381
Abelian categories and Grothendieck categories

A sequence 0 --+ A' ~ A ___.::._. A" --+ 0 in an additive category A is called exact
if for any object X in A the induced sequences
0 --+ A(X, A') ~ A(X, A) ~ A(X, A")
and
O--+ A(A",X) ~ A(A,X) ~ A(A',X)
are exact sequences of abelian groups. We may define an abelian category A
to be an additive category with finite direct sums such that for any morphism
u : Ai --+ A 2 there exist exact sequences 0 --+ K --+ Ai ~ B --+ 0 and 0 --+
B ~ A 2 --+ C --+ 0 (in the above sense) such that u = f3 o a. We refer to
the monographs of Freyd [63] and Mitchell [137] for a more detailed treatment of
abelian categories.
In many questions dealing with the problem of extending (resp. lifting) mor-
phisms in an abelian category the next lemma is a useful tool.
Lemma B.1 (Homotopy-lemma) Let
K: 0 --+ X'
v!
--+ x u"
--+ X" --+ 0
lf lg lh
v' y v"
-\: 0 --+ Y' --+ --+ Y" --+ 0
be a commutative diagram having exact rows. [We will also express this fact
saying that (f,g, h):"'--+ A is a morphism of exact sequences.]
Then h lifts to a morphism h : X" --+ Y with u" o h = h if and only if J
extends to a morphism f: X--+ Y' with f = f o u'.
Proof. First assume that there exists a morphism h : X" --+ Y with u" oh = h.
Since v" o (g - ho u") = 0 there exists a morphism f : X --+ Y' with the property
v' of= g - ho u". It follows that v' of o u' =go u' = v' of, hence f o u' = f.
Assume conversely that there exists a morphism J: X--+ Y' with Jou'= f.
Since (g - v' o f) o u' = 0 there exists a morphism h : X" --+ Y satisfying
ho u" = g - v' o J, hence v" oho u" = v" o g =ho u", and v" oh= h follows. D
In an abelian category C an object P is called projective in case for any

exact sequence 0 --+ A' _.:; A _.:; A" --+ 0 the induced sequence
0 --+ A(P, A') ~ A(P, A) ~ A(P, A") --+ 0

is an exact sequence of abelian groups, i.e. the functor A(P, -) is exact.

Similarly, an object Qin A is called injective if the functor A(-, Q) is exact.
A system G of objects in an additive category C is said to be a generating
system or a system of generators for C in case for every non-zero morphism
u : C 1 --> C 2 in C there exist an object Gin G and a morphism <p: G--> C 1 with
non-zero composition u o <p: G--> C 2 •
Let (A<>)aEI be a family of objects in an additive category A. We say that
a pair (A, t") consisting of an object A and a family l" : A" --> A, a E J, of
morphisms in A is a coproduct (or direct sum) of the family (A") if for each
object X in A the mapping
A(A,X)--+IIA(Aa,X), ui-+(uot")
iEl
is an isomorphism of abelian groups. With the notation A = EB<>El A" this fact
is characterized by the formula
A (EBA",x) =II A(Aa,X)

<>El <>El
Similarly, a pair (A, 7r") consisting of an object A and a family 7ra, a E J, of

morphisms 7r": A--> A" in A is called a direct product in case for each object
X of A the mapping
A(X,A)--+ IIA(X,A"), ui-+ (7r"ou)

iEl
is an isomorphism of abelian groups. With the notation A = TI<>El A" this fact is
characterized by the formula
A (x, II <>El
Aa) =II A(X,Aa).
<>El
Further we have the notion of a of a directed system (A", u 13") in an additive

category A (relative to a directed index set I), i.e. for each pair a :S f3 in I
we assume given a morphism Uf3<> : A" --> A13 in A such that u,"" = 10 holds
for all a E I and, moreover, we have transitivity u'"Y/3 o u13" = u'"Y" for each
triple a :'.S /3 :'.S / in I. A directed system in the category A op is also called an
inverse or projective system in A. Notice that for each object X in A the
system (A(A",X),A(u13a,X)) is an inverse system of abelian groups. A direct
limit of the directed system (Aa, u13") is defined to be a pair (A, u"), where each
ABELIAN AND GROTHENDIECK CATEGORIES 383
Ua : Aa --+ A is a morphism in A, a E /, such that for each object X in A the

mapping
A(A,X)-> ilm.A(Aa, X), f 1-+ (f O Ua)
is an isomorphism of abelian groups. Here, the inverse limit llm.A(Aa, X) denotes
the subgroup of the direct product Ilael A(Aa, X) consisting of all families (va)
satisfying Va = v13 o Uf3a for each pair a :::; f3 in /.
By means of the notation A = .limAa this fact is characterized the formula
By a morphism h: (Aa,Uf3a)--+ (Ba,Vf3a) of /-directed systems we mean a

family of morphisms ha : Aa --+ Ba, a E /,such that for each pair a :=:; (J in I the
relation h13 o Uf3a = Vf3a o ha holds. If, moreover, (A, ua) and (B, Va) are direct
limits of (Aa, U13a) resp. (Ba, v13a) there exists a unique morphism h : A --+ B,
written h = l!mha, such that the diagram
Aa ~ Ba
! Ua ! Va
A _!::.._. B
is commutative for each a E /.

In a similar way one explains the notion of a direct system of exact sequences
T/a : u~ A O! ~A"Cit
A '()f----+
and the corresponding direct limit
We now assume that A is an abelian category where direct sums exist with
respect to any index set. We then say that A has arbitrary direct sums (or
coproducts). It is easy to see that in this case also direct limits of arbitrary
direct systems exist in A. If additionally for each directed system (TJa) of exact
sequences Tfa the limit sequence .limTJa is exact we say that A is a category with
exact direct limits.
Definition B.2 A Grothendieck category is an abelian category with a gen-

erating set of objects which has arbitrary direct sums and where the formation of
direct limits is exact.
Each module category Mod (R) is a Grothendieck category. Further examples

will be provided by the functor categories of abelian group valued functors to be
considered below.
Corresponding to the above notions we have the notion of a functor T :
A--+ B preserving exactness (resp. direct sums, direct products or direct
limits). For instance T commutes with direct sums if and only if for any direct
sum (A, la) of a family (Aa)aeI of objects in A the pair (T(A), T( la)) is a direct
sum of the family (T(Aa))aeI of objects in B.
An important property of Grothendieck categories is to have enough injective
objects: For a proof of the next theorem we refer to [137]:
Theorem B.3 Let C be a Grothendieck category. For every object C in C there

exists an injective envelope, i.e. an embedding u : C <---+ Q into an injective
object Q, such that no proper subobject of Q containing C is injective. Equiv-
alently, Q is injective and further a morphism f : Q --+ X into an object X of
C is a monomorphism if and only if its restriction f ou to C is a monomorphisnfJ
Abelian group valued functors

Let A be be a small additive category, i.e. the objects of A form a set. Let
B be an additive category and Fi, F2 : A --+ B be additive functors from A to
B. A morphism from Fi to F 2 is determined by a certain element of the product
set IlAeA B(F1(A), F2(A)), hence the morphisms from A to B also form a set
- actually a subgroup of IlAeA B(F1(A), F2(A)) - denoted Hom( Fi, F2) and
sometimes abbreviated to (Fi. F 2 ). With respect to the composition of functors
and the above group structure on the morphism sets the additive functors from A
to B again form an additive category called the category of additive functors
from A to Band denoted Add( A, B), also written (A, B) in abbreviated form.
Actually, the functor category Add( A, B) may be defined if - more generally
- A is an additive category whose isomorphism classes of objects form a set, the
typical examples being a category mod(R) of finitely presented modules or one
of its full subcategories. By abuse of language also these categories will be called
small (some authors prefer the terminology skeletally small):
Let A' denote the full subcategory of A formed by a representative system of
objects of A with respect to isomorphism then for any pair of (additive) functors
Fi, F2 : A --+ B a morphism u : Fi --+ F 2 is uniquely determined by its restriction
ulA': Fi IA'--+ F2IA' to A', moreover, the restriction map
ABELIAN GROUP VALUED FUNCTORS 385
becomes an isomorphism of groups. This shows that also (A, B) is an additive

category and moreover allows to deduce that, in fact, the restriction functor
Add( A, B)--+ Add( A', B), F ,.._. F\A'

defines an equivalence of categories.
In the sequel A denotes a small additive category (in the wider sense); we
will deal exclusively with abelian group valued functors on A, i.e. with additive
functors F : A -+ Ab, where Ab denotes the category of abelian groups.
A sequence of functors and morphisms F ~ G ~ H from A to Ab is
called exact if for every object A in A the sequence
F(A) ~ G(A) ~ H(A)

is an exact sequence of abelian groups. This is in accordance with the general
definition of exactness given above. As is easily checked the category Add( A, Ab)
thus becomes an abelian category.
In a similar way we can obtain the direct sum (=coproduct) resp. the direct
product of a family of functors (Fa)aeI by setting
EB Fa) (A)= EB Fa(A),

(aeI aEl
respectively
(aIIEl Fa) (A)= aIIEl Fa( A).

Further, if (Fa, Ua13) is a directed system of functors and morphisms with respect
to a dircted poset, the corresponding direct limit l!mFa may be obtained on
objects by the formula
The arising direct limit functor for Add(A, Ab) shares with the corresponding
functor for Ab the property to be exact. This means that for any directed system
(1Ja) of exact sequences
1/a :
of exact sequences of functors from Add(A,Ab) (with respect to a directed set

I) the induced direct limit sequence
is an exact sequence of abelian groups for each A in A.

For any object A in A the Hom-functor A(A, -) : A ---> Ab, also written
Hom( A,-) or sometimes abbreviated to (A, - ), from A to the category Ab of
abelian groups is defined as the additive functor F : A ---> Ab such that on
objects F(X) = A(A,X) and on morphisms u: X---> Y the attached morphism
F(u) : A(A, X) ---> A(A, Y) is given by composition f >--> uof with u. Any functor
F : A ---> B equivalent to a functor A(A, - ), A in A, is called a representable
functor.
Definition B.4 (i) A functor F : A ---> Ab is called finitely generated if there

exists an exact sequence A(A 11 - ) ---> F---> 0 of functors in Add(A,Ab ).
(ii) A functor F : A ---> Ab is called finitely presented if there exists an
exact sequence A(A2 , - ) ---> A(A 11 - ) ---> F---> 0 of functors in Add( A, Ab).
The role of the Hom-functors in the functor category (A, Ab) is explained by
Yoneda's lemma:
Proposition B.5 (Yoneda's lemma) For any additive functor F: A ---> Ab

the mapping
Hom( A( A,-), F) --+ F(A), u >--> uA(lA)
is an isomorphism of abelian groups with inverse
e >--> (ux)xeA, where ux(f) = F(f)(e).

0
Corollary B.6 For any two objects A1 , A 2 of A the natural mapping
where A(!, u) = u of is an isomorphism of abelian groups. 0
Corollary B. 7 The Hom-functors A(A, - ) for A in A form a generating system

of finitely generated projective functors in Add(A, Ab). 0
Summarizing the preceding facts we obtain.

MODULES VERSUS FUNCTORS 387
Theorem B.8 Let A be a small additive category. Then the category Add( A, Ab)
of all additive functors from A to Ab is an abelian category with exact direct lim-
its, where the representable functors A(A, - ) form a system of generators con-
sisting of finitely generated projective functors. In particular Add( A, Ab) is a
Grothendieck category. D
A particularly important consequence of the Grothendieck property is the

existence of injective hulls (cf. [137]):
Corollary B.9 For every functor F : A -+ Ab there exists an injective enve-

lope, i.e. an embedding u : F <--> Q into an injective functor Q, such that no
proper subfunctor of Q containing u(F) is injective. D
Replacing A by its opposite category A 0 P shows that the corresponding as-

sertions to the above also hold true for contravariant additive functors.
Modules versus functors

Every ring R may be viewed as an additive category [R] having just one object B.
with morphism group [R](B.,B.) =Rand composition given by the multiplication
of R. An additive functor M: [R] -+Ab is thus an abelian group M(B.) equipped
with a linear R-action, i.e. is a left R-module. In this way the category Mod (R)
is just a special functor category Add([R],Ab).
Conversely, a small additive category may be viewed as a generalization
of a ring (a ring with several objects), correspondingly the functor category
Add( A, Ab) may be viewed as a generalization of a module category Mod (R).
In principle this allows to profit from the extensively developed theory of rings
and modules, adopting module theoretic arguments to the study of functors. The
corresponding philosophy is explained in detail in [136]; in fact, in dealing with
functor categories, we will mostly assume this transfer from modules to functors
tacitly, leaving the details of the adoption of the arguments to the reader.
According to these general principles, for instance, it is straightforward to
explain the notion of a flat (resp. fp-injective) abelian group valued functor:
An additive functor H : A -+ Ab is a flat functor if and only if every mor-
phism u: E-+ H, where Eis a finitely presented functor, admits a factorization
u : E -+ P -+ H through a representable functor P = A(A, -), equivalently a
finitely generated projective functor P. [It is equivalent to state that His a direct
limit of projective functors, but we will not use this fact, here.] Clearly, every
projective functor H is fl.at, the converse being true if H is a finitely presented

functor.
Similarly an additive functor Q : A ---> Ab is called an fp-injective func-
tor if for any finitely generated subfunctor E' of a finitely presented (resp. a
finitely generated projective) functor E, every morphism v : E' ---> Q extends to
a morphism v: E---> Q.
Further examples illustrating the power of this transfer from rings and modules
to functors (together with non-trivial applications of the functorial results to
module categories) will be given at the end of this appendix.
Flat functors on finitely presented modules

The next two theorems deal with flat functors from finitely presented modu-
les to abelian groups. If M is a. left R-module, we denote by HomR(-, M) :
mod(R) 0 P----+ Ab the restriction of the Hom-functor to the category of finitely
presented left R-modules.
Theorem B.10 For a contravariant functor H : mod(R) ---> Ab the following

(i) H is fiat in Add(mod(R) 0 P, Ab), i.e. any morphism f : E ---> H, where E is
a finitely presented functor, admits a factorization through a functor HomR(-, C)
with C in mod( R).
(ii) H is left-exact, i.e. for any exact sequence A __.::_. B __::__. C ----+ 0 of
finitely presented modules the induced sequence 0---> H(C) ~ H(B) ~ H(A)
is exact.
(iii) Every exact sequence of functors 0 ---> G' ~ G ~ H ---> 0 is pure-exact,
i.e. stays exact under Hom( F, - ) for each finitely presented functor F.
(iv) There exists a left R-module M such that H is isomorphic to HomR(-, M).
Proof. '(ii){:} (iv)': Since HomR(-,M) is a left exact functor for any R-
module M we have to show that '(ii)=} (iv)' holds: For every A in mod(R) and
element a in A we denote by a : R ---> A the R-linear mapping r >--+ ra. For the
contravariant functor H : mod(R) ---> Ab the group H(R) is therefore equipped
with the structure of a left R-module given by r.x = H(r)(x), r ER, x E H(R).
Moreover, we may define a morphism of functors by the formula
<.p: H---> HomR(-,H(R)), 'PA(x) =(a>--+ H(a)(x)],
where A E mod(R), a E A, x E H(A).

FLAT FUNCTORS ON FINITELY PRESENTED MODULES 389
Clearly, 'PR is an isomorphism, hence 'PF is an isomorphism for each finitely

generated free module F = Rn. Invoking an exact sequence F 1 --+ F0 --+ A --+ 0,
where Fi, F 2 are finitely generated free, we obtain a commutative diagram
O ----+ H(A) ----+ H(Fo) ----+ H(F1)

! 'PA ! 'PFo ! 'PFi
0 ----+ Homn(A,H(R)) ----+ Homn(F0 , H(R)) ----+ Homn(F1,H(R))
having exact rows by the left-exactness of H. Since 'PFo and 'PF, are isomorphisms
this implies that also t.p A is an isomorphism.
'(ii)=} (i)': Let
Homn(-,A) ~ Hom(-,B) ~ E--+ 0, A,B E mod(R),
be a finite presentation for the functor E. We define a finitely presented R-

module C by exactness of the sequence A ~ B ~ C ----+ 0. Since the induced
sequence
Homn(-,A) ~ Homn(-,B) ~ Homn(-,C)
has zero composition, we obtain a morphism /3 : E --+ Hom(-, C) with the
property that /3 o a= v o -. Clearly, the diagram
0-> Hom(Homn(-, C), H) -> Hom(Homn(-,B),H) -> Hom(Homn(-, A), H)

! - 0 ,6 II II
O -. Hom(E, H) -> Hom(Homn(-, B), H) -> Hom(Homn(-, A), H)
is commutative and, due to Yoneda's lemma, has exact rows. Consequently, the
mapping
Hom(Homn(-, C), H)--+ Hom(E, H), u,..... u o /3
is bijective, hence any morphism f : E --+ H admits a (unique) factorization
through /3 : E --+ Homn( -, C) thus proving that H is fiat.
'(i) =} (ii)': Conversely, we are going to show that any functor H : mod(R) 0 P --+
Ab having the factorization property (i) is left exact. Let
be an exact sequence in mod(R). We have to show that
0----+ H(C) ~ H(B) ~ H(A)
is an exact sequence.
By Yoneda's lemma any x E ker ( H(C) ~ H(B)) corresponds to a mor-

phism x : HomR(-, C) --> H with zero composition
Defining E as the cokernel-term of the exact sequence
HomR(-,B) ~ HomR(-,C) ~ E--+ 0
we thus obtain a morphism /3: E--> H such that
x = [HomR(-, C) ~ E ..!.._. n].

By assumption /3 admits a factorization J3 = [E
~ HomR(-, D) ..!...... where H],
D is a finitely presented R-module.
In view of Corollary B.6 there exists an R-linear mapping w : C --> D with
the property w o - = / o a. We hence obtain a factorization
where w o v = 0. Since v is an epimorphism, this implies w = O, hence x = 0,

therefore H(v) is a monomorphism.
Similarly, any x E ker ( H(B) ~ H(A)) is determined by a morphism x:
HomR( -, B) --> H having zero composition
HomR(-,A) ~ HomR(-,B) __:__. H.

Defining E as the cokernel-term of the exact sequence
HomR(-,A) ~ HomR(-,B) ~ E--+ 0

we thus obtain a morphism /3: E--> H such that
By assumption /3 admits a factorization J3 = [E

~ HomR(-, D) ..!.._. where H],
D is a finitely presented R-module. Invoking Corollary B.6 we find an R-linear
mapping w : B --> D with the property w o - = / o a. We thus obtain a
factorization
FLAT FUNCTORS ON FINITELY PRESENTED MODULES 391
where w o u = 0. This defines an R-linear mapping t : C-+ D with the property

w = [B ~ C _:.._. D]. Now the factorization
x= [HomR(-,B)~HomR(-,C)--=-+H], c=Oo(to-)
proves that the element z = c(lc) in H(C) satisfies x = H(v)(z), which shows
the exactness of the sequence (*) at H(B).
'(i) =>(iii)' Let 0-+ G' ~ G ...!!..... H-+ 0 be an exact sequence of functors.
Since H is fiat, every morphism f : F -+ H, where F is a finitely presented
functor, admits a factorization f = [F ~ P _.!!___. HJ, where P is a projective
functor. Therefore h lifts to a morphism h : P -+ G with (3 o h = h, hence
f = (3 o (h o g ), which establishes purity of the above sequence.
'(iii)=> (i)': Due to Corollary B.6 there exists an exact sequence of functors
0--+ C ~ EfJPa ...!!..... H--+ 0

a El
where each Pa is finitely generated projective. By assumption any morphism

f: F-+ H, F a finitely presented functor, lifts to a morphism J: F-+ E9ael Pa
with (3 o J = f. Since F is finitely presented, f even factors through a finite direct
sum of the Pc.'s, which proves the flatness condition. 0
Theorem B.11 If A denotes the category of finitely presented (left) modules

over a ring R, the attachment M >--+ HomR(-, M) defines a full embedding
cI>: Mod(R)--+ Add(A 0 P,Ab), M >--+ HomR(-,M)
with the following properties:

( i) cI> commutes with direct sums, direct products and direct limits.
(ii) A sequence 0 -+ M' -+ M -+ M" -+ 0 of left R-modules is pure-exact if
and only if the induced sequence
0 -+ HomR(-, M') -+ HomR(-, M) -+ HomR(-, M") -+ 0
is exact {resp. pure-exact).

(iii) A functor H : A op -+ Ab is finitely generated projective if and only if
His isomorphic to a functor HomR(-,M), where Mis a finitely presented left
R-module.
(iv) A functor H: A 0 P-+ Ab is projective if and only if H is isomorphic to
a functor HomR(-, M), where M is a pure-projective left R-module.
( v) A functor H : A op --+ Ab is flat if and only if there exists a left R-module

M such that His isomorphic to Homn(-,M).
Accordingly (1) induces an equivalence
mod(R)--+ proj(A P,Ab),

0
between the category of finitely presented R-modules and the category of finitely
generated projective functors, also an equivalence
p.Proj(R)--+ Proj(A 0 P,Ab)
between the category of pure-projective R-modules and the category of projective

functors, and finally an equivalence
Mod(R)-+ Flat(A 0 P,Ab)
between the category of R-modules and the category of flat functors.
Proof. Let f : Homn(-, M) --+ Homn(-, N) be a morphism; then - using

the identifications M = Homn(R, M) and N = Homn(R, N)- f is the morphism
induced by the R-linear map u = fn : M --+ N. This proves that (1) is a full
embedding.
Assertion (i) is a consequence of Yoneda's lemma. Assertion (ii) follows di-
rectly from the definitions.
In view of Corollary B.7 in order to prove (iii) it suffices to show that every
finitely generated projective functor H: A 0 P--+ Ab is isomorphic to a direct fac-
tor of a functor Homn(-, E), with Ea finitely presented module. The assumption
on H implies that for some idempotent endomorphism e : E --+ E there exists
an exact sequence 0 --+ H --+ Homn(-, E) ~ Homn(-, E). If I< is defined by
means of the exact sequence 0--+ I<--+ E .._:__. E, therefore H ~ Homn(-, I<).
Since (1) commutes with direct sums, assertion (iv) is an immediate conse-
quence of (iii). Finally assertion (v) follows from the preceding proposition. D
Perfectness and Pure-semisimplicity

We illustrate the comparison between modules and functors dealt with in the
above theorems by an application to the decomposition of modules.
Let A be a small additive category. A morphism u : A1 --+ A 2 in a small addi-
tive category A is said to belong to the radical of A (notation u E rad (A)(A1 , Az))
PERFECTNESS AND PURE-SEMISIMPLICITY 393
if for any f E A(A2 , A1 ) the morphism 1 - f o u is not an invertible element in

the endomorphism ring A(Ai, Ai) of A1 . In case A 1 has a local endomorphism
ring it is equivalent to state that there is no morphism f : A 2 --+ A 1 satisfying
f o u = IA,. The radical rad (A) is a two-sided ideal of the category A, that is
rad (A)(Ai, A 2 ) is a subgroup of A(Ai, A 2 ) for any objects A1 , A 2 of A, moreover
rad (A) is closed under left and right multiplication with morphisms from A.
In an obvious way this allows to form the factor category A/rad (A), which
has the same objects as A, while morphisms are given by the formula
and composition is induced by the composition in A.

We refer to Appendix C for the definition of a perfect ring. Transferred to
functor categories Add(A,Ab) H. Bass's characterization of perfect rings reads
as follows:
Theorem B.12 (Bass's theorem) For a small additive category A the follow-
ing assertions are equivalent:
(i) Each functor F: A--+ Ab has a projective cover 7r: P--+ F, i.e. P is a
projective functor and a morphism f : X --+ P is an epimorphism if and only if
7r o f is an epimorphism.
(ii) Each fiat functor H : A --+ Ab is projective.

(iii) For each object A in A the functor A(-, A) : A op --+ Ab satisfies the
descending chain condition on finitely generated subfunctors.
(iv) The following two conditions hold
(a) Every sequence
of morphisms r; in rad (A) is T-nilpotent, i.e. there exists an integer n such that
roor10···rn-10rn=O,
(b) A/rad (A) is semi-simple, i.e. every functor F : A --+ Ab which is zero
on all morphisms from rad (A) is semi-simple, i.e. decomposes into a direct sum
of simple functors.
D
A small additive category A is called left perfect if A satisfies the equivalent

conditions of the above theorem. Accordingly, right perfectness of A means that
A op is left perfect.
Corollary B.13 Let A be a small additive category which is left perfect and
P: A--+ Ab be a projective functor.
Then P ~ $ 0 P0 , where each P0 is a projective cover of a simple functor. In
particular, each P is a finitely generated projective functor.
0
Proof. By assertion (iv) of Bass's theorem the functor P/rad (P) admits
a decomposition P /rad (P) = $ 0 S0 into a direct sum of simple functors S0 •
By assertion (i) each S 0 has a projective cover P(S0 ), therefore $ 0 P(S0 ) is a
projective cover of P /rad (P) since rad (A) is left T-nilpotent. By the uniqueness
property of projective covers P is therefore isomorphic to $ 0 P"'. Representing
a simple functor S as a homomorphic image of a finitely generated projective
functor H (use Yoneda's lemma) finally shows that the projective hull P(S) of S
is isomorphic to a direct factor of H, hence P(S) is finitely generated projectiveO
Applied to the case where A is the category mod(R) of finitely presented
modules over a ring R this leads to the following characterization of rings having
(left) pure-global dimension zero:
Theorem B.14 For a ring R the following assertions are equivalent:
(i) Every left R-module M is pure-projective.
(ii) Every left R-module M is isomorphic to a direct sum of finitely presented
modules.
(iii) The category A = mod( R) is right perfect.
Proof. With A= mod(R) we pass to the functor category Add( A, Ab) and
make use of the comparison functor
cl>: Mod(R)---+ Add(A 0 P,Ab), M >-+ HomR(-,M)
whose properties are summarized in Theorem B.11.
Implication '(ii):::? (i)' is obvious.
'(i):::? (iii)': Every flat functor H: A 0 P--+ Ab has the form H = HomR(-,M)
for some R-module M. By assumption Mis pure-projective, it thus follows from
Theorem B.11 that His projective.
'(iii) :::? (ii)': We show that every left R-module M decomposes into a di-
rect sum of finitely presented R-modules. In fact, the functor P = HomR(-, M)
is flat, hence projective. In view of Corollary B.13 the functor P therefore is
isomorphic to a direct sum of finitely generated functors P0 , necessarily of the
form P0 = HomR(-, Ecx) with all the Ecx in mod(R). From the isomorphism
HomR(-, M) = $ HomR(-, E 0 ) = HomR($ HomR(-, E 0 ) we deduce that, as
claimed, P is isomorphic to the direct sum EBa E 0 • D
FP-INJECTIVE FUNCTORS ON FINITELY PRESENTED MODULES 395
A ring which satisfies the equivalent conditions of the above theorem is called
left pure-semisimple. According to Definition A.14 it is an equivalent assertion
that R has left pure-global dimension zero.
Fp-injective functors on finitely presented mo-

dules
Of similar importance are the tensor product functors. If M is a left R-module,
we denote by -@RM: mod(R0 P) -->Ab the restriction of the tensor product
functor to the category of finitely presented right R-modules. Accordingly -0 RM
is an object in Add(mod(R 0 P),Ab).
Theorem B.15 For a covariant functor Q : mod(R0 P) --+ Ab the following

(i) Q is fp-injective in Add(mod(R 0 P), Ab), i.e. any morphism h: U--+ Q of
a finitely generated subfunctor U of a functor P = HomR(E, -), where E is a
finitely presented module, can be extended to a morphism h : P --+ Q.
(ii) Q is right exact, i.e. for any exact sequence A ~ B ~ C --> 0
of finitely presented right modules the induced sequence Q(A) ~ Q(B) ~
Q( C) --+ 0 is exact.
(iii) Every exact sequence 0--+ Q --+ G --+ G" --+ 0 of functors is pure-exact.
(iv) There exists a right R-module M such that Q is isomorphic to -@RM.
(v) Every exact sequence 0 --+ Q --+ G --+ F--+ 0, where F is a finitely functor,
splits. I.e. we have Ext 1 (F,Q) = 0 for each finitely presented functor F.
Proof. '( v) => (i) ': We define the finitely presented functor F as the cokernel-
term of the exact sequence T/= 0 --+ U --+ P --+ F --+ 0. Forming the push-out TJ.f
of T/ along f leads to the commutative diagram
T/= 0 --> u --> p --> F --> 0

!f ! II
T/·f: 0 --> Q --> x --> F --> 0
with exact rows. By assumption the sequence TJ.f is split-exact, hence the identity
IF lifts to a morphism F --+ X, hence in view of the homotopy lemma f extends
to a morphism P--+ Q.
'(i) =>(iii)': Letµ: 0--+ Q--+ G--+ G"--+ 0 be an exact sequence of functors,
where Q is pure-injective. A finitely presented functor F can be viewed as the
cokernel-term of an exact sequence >..: 0 ---> U ---> P ---> F ---> 0, where P is a

finitely generated projective functor and U is a finitely generated subfunctor of
P. By the projectivity of P any morphism h : F ---> G" extends to a morphism
from >.. to µ. We thus obtain a commutative diagram
>..: 0 ----> u ----> p ----> F
lf lg lh
µ: 0 ----> Q ----> G ----> G" ----> 0
having exact rows. Since by assumption f extends to a morphism P ---> Q, in
view of the homotopy lemma h lifts to a morphism F---> G, which proves that µ
is pure-exact.
'(iii) =} (v)': In view of (iii) the sequence 0 ---> Q---> G---> F---> 0 is pure-
exact, hence IF: F---> F lifts to a morphism F---> G.
'(ii) ¢} (v)': Let A ~ B ~ C ---> 0 be an exact sequence of finitely
presented right R-modules, and define the finitely presented functor F as the
cokernel-term of the exact sequence
( <>) 0---> HomR(C, -) ~ HomR(B, -) ~ HomR(A, -) ----> F----> 0

of functors on mod(R0 P). Notice that any finitely presented functor arises in this
way. We view the sequence ( <>) as a projective resolution of F in the category
Add(mod(R 0 P), Ab). Applying the functor Hom(-, Q) to ( <>) we obtain - in
view of Yoneda's lemma - the complex
F(A) ~ F(B) ~ F(C)----> 0,
of abelian groups whose homology term, calculated at stage F(B), is Ext 1 (F, Q)
(compare Appendix A). Vanishing of Ext 1 (F, Q) for each finitely presented func-
tor is therefore equivalent to the right-exactness of the functor Q.
'(ii) ¢} (iv)': Since -®RM is a right exact functor for any left R-module
M, it suffices to show that any right exact functor Q : mod(R0 P) ----> Ab is
isomorphic to a tensor product functor. For any right R-module A and element
a in A, the R-linear mapping a: R---> A is defined by r f-+ ar. Clearly, Q(R) is a
left R-module with respect to the R-action r.x = Q(r)(x) for r E R, x E Q(R).
Moreover, the formula
1/JA : A®RQ(R)----> Q(A), a0 x f-+ Q(a)(x)

defines a morphism of functors 1f; : -0RQ(R) ---> Q, where clearly 1/JR is an iso-
morphism and, by an argument similar to that of Theorem B.10, right exactness
of Q and -0RQ(R) implies that 1f; is an isomophism. D
FP-INJECTIVE FUNCTORS ON FINITELY PRESENTED MODULES 397
The next theorem - which is similar to Theorem B.11 - plays a central role
in the study of algebraically compact modules:
Theorem B.16 Let R be any ring andB denote the categorymod(R0 P) of finitely
presented right R-modules. Then the attachment M r--+ -0RM defines a functor
Ill : Mod (R 0 P) _____, Add(B, Ab), M r--+ -0RM
which is a full embedding and satisfies the following properties

(i) Ill commutes with direct sums, direct products and direct limits.
(ii) A sequence 1): 0-+ M'-+ M-+ M"-+ 0 of right R-modules is pure-exact
if and only if the induced sequence
Ill (1)) :
is exact (resp. pure-exact) in Add(B,Ab).

(iii) An additive functor Q : B -+ Ab is fp-injective if and only if Q is
isomorphic to a functor -0RM for some right R-module M.
(iv) An additive functor Q : B -+ Ab is injective if and only if Q is isomorphic
to a functor -0RM for some pure-injective (=algebraically compact) right R-
module M.
Moreover, Ill induces an equivalence
Mod (R) _____, Fp-inj(B, Ab)
between the category of all left R-modules and the full subcategory of Add(B, Ab)
consisting of all fp-injective functors, and further an equivalence
p.Inj(R) _____, Inj(B, Ab)
between the category of all pure-injective (=algebraically compact) left R-modules

and the category of all injective functors.
Proof. In view of the isomorphisms M = R0RM, N = R0RN the map-

ping Hom(-0RM, -0RN) -+ HomR(M, N), f r--+ fR is inverse to the mapping
HomR(M, N)-+ Hom(-0RM, -0RN), u r--+ -0Ru, induced by Ill, which shows
that Ill is a full embedding. The commutation properties (i) follow directly from
corresponding properties of the tensor product functor E0R-, where E is a
finitely presented right R-module.
That 1J is pure-exact if and only if W(TJ) is exact is exactly the definition
of purity. Moreover, representing a pure-exact sequence 1J as a direct limit of
split-exact sequences TJ°', shows that also \II (TJ) is a direct limit of the split-exact
sequences W(TJ°'), hence again pure-exact. This proves assertion (ii), while (iii)
is covered by Theorem B.15.
It therefore remains to prove assertion (iv): Assume first that Q is an injective
functor, hence in view of (iii) we may assume that Q = -®RA for a left R-module
A. To show that A is pure-injective we consider a pure-exact sequence
µ: O -----> A -----> B -----> C -----> O
in Mod (R). In view of assertion (ii) the induced sequence
'11(µ) : o _____, w(A) _____, w(B) _____, w(C) _____, o

is exact, hence splits by the injectivity of w(A). Since '11 is a full embedding, this
shows that the sequence µ splits, therefore A is pure-injective.
Conversely, assume that A is a pure-injective module. The functor w(A)
embeds in view of Corollary B.9 into an injective functor H. In view of the
preceding theorem we may assume that H has the form H = w(M) for some
R-module M. Since \II is a full embedding, the inclusion w(A) <--+ w(M) = H
is induced by a morphism u : A ~ M which, due to assertion (ii), is a pure
monomorphisrh, hence splits by the pure-injectivity of A. Therefore w(u) splits,
consequently \ll(A) = -®RM shares with H the property to be an injective
functor. This proves assertion (iv).
The remaining assertions are reformulations of the above. D
We refer to Chapters 7 and 8 for a further study of the interplay between

pure-injective modules and injective functors.
N oetherianness and pure-semisimplicity

In the same spirit we give another application of the preceding two theorems to
the decomposition theory of modules.
We start with the functorial version of a well-known characterization of Noethe-
rian rings by the properties of their injective modules. For a (module theoretic)
proof of the next theorem we refer to [180].
A non-zero functor Fis called indecomposable if F ~ F 1 EBF2 implies F 1 = 0
or F2 = 0.
Theorem B.17 Let A be a small additive category. Then the following asser-
tions are equivalent;
NOETHERIANNESS AND PURE-SEMISIMPLICITY 399
(i) Each functor A(A, -), A in A, satisfies the ascending chain condition for
subfunctors, i.e. for each chain U0 ~ U1 ~ · · · of subfunctors of A(A, -) there
exists an integer n such that Uk = Un for each k ::=: n.
(ii) Each subfunctor of a representable functor A(A, -) is finitely generated.
(iii) Each fp-injective functor Q E Add( A, Ab) is injective.
(iv) Every direct sum Q = EB ael Q"' of injective functors Q"' : A ~ Ab is
injective.
( v) Every countable direct sum a:lneN E( Sn) of injective hulls of simple func-
tors is an injective functor.
(vi) Every injective functor Q is isomorphic to a direct sum Q = 6'aeI of
indecomposable functors Q"'. D
A small additive category A is said to be left (resp. right) Noetherian if

A (resp. A 0 P) satisfies the equivalent conditions of the above theorem. We now
apply Theorem B.17 to the case A = mod(R0 P).
Theorem B.18 For a ring R the following assertions are equivalent.

(i) R is left pure-semisimple
(ii) The category mod(R0 P) is left Noetherian.
(iii) Each left R-module M is pure-injective (=algebraically compact}.
(iv) Every (resp. every pure-injective) left R-module is isomorphic to a direct
sum of indecomposable modules.
(v) Each countable direct sum of pure-injective left R-modules is pure-injective.
(vi) Each direct sum of pure-injective left R-modules is pure-injective.
Proof. '(i) {::} (iii)' follows from Theorem A.14. The implications '(iii) =>
(vi)' and '(vi)=> (v)' are obvious.
'(v) => (ii)': Let Qn : mod(R0 P) ~ Ab, n E N, be a sequence of injective
functors. In view of Theorem B.16 each Qn has the form -@RMn, for some
pure-injective R-module Mn. The assumption implies that M = a:lneN Mn is
a pure-injective R-module, therefore -@RM~ a:lneN Qn is an injective functor.
Now the preceding theorem implies that the additive mod(R0 P) is left Noetherian.
'(ii) => (iii)': Let M be a left R-module. The functor -@RM is an fp-injective
functor on mod(R0 P) and actually injective because mod(R0 P) is left Noetherian.
Thus M is a pure-injective R-module.
The equivalence'( ii) {::} (vi)' follows by a similar argument making use of the
characterization of Noetherianness by assertion (vi) of the preceding theorem. D
Theorem B.19 For a ring R the following assertions are equivalent:

(i) The ring R is left and right pure-semisimple.
(ii) The category mod(R) is left Noetherian and right perfect.
(iii) For each EE mod(R) the functor Homn(E, -) has finite length.
Proof. '( i) ¢> (ii)': In view of Theorem B.14 the category mod(R) is right
perfect if and only if R is left pure-semisimple. Similarly, due to Theorem B.18
mod(R) is left Noetherian if and only if R is right pure-semisimple.
'(ii) ¢> (iii)': The combination of left Noetherianness and right perfectness
for mod(R) states that each functor Homn(E, -), E E mod(R), satisfies the
ascending chain condition as well as the descending chain condition for finitely
generated (resp. all) subfunctors. It is equivalent to state that there exists a
positive integer n such that each chain U1 ~ U2 ~ • • • ~ U, of subfunctors of
Homn(E, -) has length r :'.S: n.
Appendix C
Glossary of some basic notions

in ring and module theory
Algebraically compact: See Appendix A, p. 375.
Artinian: A left module M over a ring R is called Artinian if M satisfies the

descending chain condition for submodules, that is, for any descending chain of
submodules
M1 ::2 M2 ::2 · · · ::2 M; ::2 M;+i ::2 · · ·
there exists an index n such that M; = Mn for all i 2: n.
A ring R is called left Artinian if R is Artinian viewed as a left R-module. Every
left Artinian ring is also left Noetherian.
Artin algebra: A ring R is called an Artin algebra if the center C of R is an

Artinian ring and R is a finitely generated C-module. An Artin algebra is a left
and right Artinian ring.
Bezout: A commutative domain R is called a Bezout domain if every finitely

generated ideal is principal.
Cogenerator: A module Q is called a cogenerator (in the category of R-

modules) if for every non-zero homomorphism u : X -+ Y of R-modules there
exists a homomorphism g : Y -+ Q such that g o u =f. 0. Equivalently, Q is a
cogenerator if and only if each module X embeds into a suitable direct product
Q1 of copies of Q.
Coherent: A ring R is called left coherent if every finitely generated left ideal
a of R is finitely presented, i.e. there exists a finitely generated left free R-module
401
402 APPENDIX C:
F and a finitely generated submodule K of F such that a - viewed as a left

R-module - is isomorphic to F/K.
Dedekind: A commutative domain R is called a Dedekind domain if every

non-zero ideal I of R has a unique factorization into a product of prime ideals
of R. Equivalently, R is Dedekind if every ideal of R is projective viewed as an
R-module.
Dimension: For the various ring theoretic and homological dimensions we refer
to Appendix A:
finitistic global dimension ---+ Appendix A, p. 373
flat dimension ---+ Appendix A, p. 369
fp-injective dimension ---+ Appendix A, p. 377
global dimension ---+ Appendix A, p. 369
injective dimension ---+Appendix A, p. 369
Krull dimension ---+ Appendix A, p. 378
projective dimension ---+ Appendix A, p. 369
pure-global dimension ---+ Appendix A, p. 375
pure-injective dimension ---+ Appendix A, p. 375
pure-projective dimension ---+ Appendix A, p. 374
weak dimension ---+ Appendix A, p. 369
weak global dimension ---+ Appendix A, p. 370
Domain: A ring R # 0 (not necessarily commutative) without proper zero-

divisors is called a domain.
Essential: Let M be a module over a ring R. A submodule K of M is called

essential in Min case for every submodule L of M, Kn L = 0 implies L = 0.
Exact: A sequence M' ~ M ~ M" of R-modules and R-linear maps is

called exact (at M) if the image of u' coincides with the kernel of u.
Factorial: A commutative domain R is called factorial if every element r E R,

r # 0 and r not invertible, can be written as a product of irreducible elements of R
and this representation is unique in the sense that any other such representation
can be obtained by changing the order of the irreducible factors and multiplying
by invertible elements.
Faithful: A left module M over a ring R is called faithful if its annihilator is

zero, i.e. if for any r E R, r # 0, there exists an element m E M for which
rm -:j;O.
GLOSSARY OF NOTIONS IN RINGS AND MODULES 403
Finitely presented: See Appendix A, p. 368.
Flat: See Appendix A, p. 368.
Fp-injective: See Appendix A, p. 377.
Free: See Appendix A, p. 367.
F-semiperfect: A ring R is called F-semiperfect if R/rad (R) is von Neumann

regular and any idempotent in R/rad (R) can be lifted to an idempotent in R.
Generator: A module G is called a generator (in the category of R-modules)

if for every non-zero homomorphism u : X -+ Y of R-modules there exists a
homomorphism J : G -+ X such that u o J I- 0. It is equivalent to state that
every R-module X is isomorphic to a factor module of a suitable direct sum G(/)
of copies of G or to state the existence of a positive integer n such that R is
isomorphic to a direct factor of en.
Henselian: A commutative local ring R with maximal ideal m is Henselian if it

satisfies any of the following three equivalent conditions:
(i) Every commutative R-algebra, which is finitely generated as an R-module,
is a direct product of finitely many local rings.
(ii) For every monic polynomial J(X) E R[X] such that
J(X) =9o(X) ho(X) modulo m R[X]

with monic polynomials 90 and h0 having the property that
9o R[X] + h0 R[X] + m R[X] = R[X]

there exist monic polynomials 9(X) and h(X) such that
J(X) = 9(X) h(X), 9(X) - 9o(X) Em R[X] and h(X) - ho(X) Em R[X].
(iii) Every monic polynomial
J(X) = xn + Tn-Ixn-I + ... + T1X +To E R[X],

where To Em and T1 fl. m has a root in m.
Hereditary: A ring R is called left hereditary if every left ideal of R is projective

viewed as a left R-module. Equivalently, every submodule of a projective left R-
module is projective.
404 APPENDIX C:
Idempotent: An element e of a ring R is called idempotent if e2 = e. A left

(resp. right) ideal a is a direct summand of Ras a left (resp. right) R-module if
and only a = Re (resp. a = eR) for some idempotent e of R.
Injective: See Appendix A, p. 368.
Injective envelope: Every module Mover a ring R can be embedded into an

injective module Q: M --.':...+ Q. Here Q is called an injective envelope of M if it
satisfies any of the following three equivalent conditions:
(i) a(M) is essential in Q.
(ii) No proper submodule of Q containing a(M) is injective.
(iii) An R-linear map f : Q --> X into an R-module X is injective if and only
if f o a : M --> X is injective.
Integrally closed: A commutative domain R is called integrally closed if R has

the following property: every element x in the quotient field of R belongs to R if
x is a root of a monic polynomial with coefficients in R.
Jacobson radical: For an arbitrary ring R the intersection of all maximal left
ideals equals the intersection of all maximal right ideals. This common intersec-
tion is called the Jacobson radical of R, denoted rad (R).
For a left R-module M the Jacobson radical of M is defined as the intersection
of all maximal submodules of M. If M has no maximal submodules its Jacobson
radical equals M.
Kronecker algebra: The Kronecker algebra, with respect to a base field k, is

the path algebra k[f] of the quiver r: 0 4 0.
Kronecker module: Let k be a field. A pair of two k-linear maps Vi 4 Vi

with the same domain (resp. range) is called a Kronecker module when viewed
as a representation of the quiver o 4 o. Alternatively, a Kronecker module may
be defined as a module over the Kronecker algebra.
Local: A ring R is called local if R satisfies any of the following equivalent

conditions:
(i) R has a unique maximal left ideal.
(i) R has a unique maximal right ideal.
(iii) The sum of any two non-invertible elements of R is again non-invertible.
Nilpotent: An element r of a ring R is called nilpotent if rn = 0 for some

positive integer n.
An ideal a of R is said to be nilpotent if there exists an integer n such that

a 1 ···an = 0 for each n-tuple of elements ai, ... , an from a. Any nilpotent ideal
is contained in the Jacobson radical.
Nilradical: The nilradical of a commutative ring is the ideal consisting of the

nilpotent elements. The nilradical can alternatively be obtained as the intersec-
tion of all prime ideals.
Noetherian: A left module Mover a ring R is called Noetherian if M satisfies

any of the following two equivalent conditions
(i) For any ascending chain of submodules
there exists an index n such that M; = Mn for all i 2". n.

(ii) Every submodule of M is finitely generated.
A ring R is called left Noetherian if R is Noetherian viewed as a left R-module.
Path algebra: For a finite quiver r and a field k we define k[f] as the k-space
of all r 0 x r o-matrices
With respect to matrix multiplication, which relies on the composition in the

path category, k[f] is a k-algebra, called the path algebra of r with respect to k.
The following three concepts are essentially identical (there exist natural bijec-
tions which are functorial with respect to the corresponding notion of morphism)
(a) k-linear representation M: r--> Mod (k) of a quiver r,
(b) additive functor M: k(r)--> Ab on the path category,
(c) left module Mover the path algebra k[f]).
Path category: For a quiver r = (f 0 , r 1 ) a path w from a vertex p to a

vertex q (also written w : p --> q) is a finite sequence (q\un, . .. , u 1 \p) of composable
arrows, i.e. the u;'s are arrows from r with the property p = a(u 1 ), q = w(un),
and w(u;) = a(u;+ 1 ) for each i = 1, ... , n - 1. In particular, for each vertex p
there is the empty path lp = (pip). The composition of paths (s \vm, ... , v1 \r) o
(q\un, ... , u 1 \p) is defined if and only if q = r and then is given by concatenation
(s\vm, ... ,v1 ,un,···,u 1 \p). With respect to composition for any vertex p the
empty path lp acts as the identity.
The k-linear path category k(r) with respect to a base field k, has as objects the
vertices of r, while for any two vertices p, q of r the morphism space k(r)(p, q) is
406 APPENDIX C:
the free k-space on the set of all paths from p to q. Further composition in k(f)
is k-bilinear and on paths is given by their composition as paths.
Peano: Any ring R elementarily equivalent to the ring Z of integers is called a

Peano ring.
Perfect: Let R be a ring with Jacobson radical rad (R). The ring R is called
left perfect if it satisfies any of the following equivalent conditions:
(i) R satisfies the descending chain condition for principal right ideals.
(ii) R satisfies the descending chain condition for finitely generated right ideals.
(iii) Every flat left R-module is projective.
(iv) R/rad (R) is left and right Artinian and every non-zero left R-module has
a maximal submodule.
(v) Every left R-module has a projective cover.
Prime: A ring R =f. 0 is called prime if it satisfies any of the following four
equivalent conditions:
(i) Every non-zero left ideal of Risa faithful (left) R-module.
(ii) Every non-zero right ideal of Risa faithful (right) R-module.
(iii) For any two non-zero two-sided ideals a 1 and a 2 the product a 1 a 2 is =f. 0.
(iv) For every pair of non-zero elements x and y in R there exists an element
r E R such that xry =f. 0.
A two-sided ideal p of a ring R is called prime if R/p is a prime ring.
An element p E R is called prime if the two-sided ideal RpR generated by p is a
prime ideal.
Primitive: A ring R is called left primitive if there exists a faithful simple left
R-module.
Principal ideal domain: A commutative domain R is called a principal ideal

domain if every ideal a of R has the form Rr for some r in R.
Projective: See Appendix A, p. 367.
Projective cover: Every module M over a ring R can be written as a homo-

morphic image of a projective R-module, i.e. there is a surjective homomorphism
7r : P --+ M with a projective R-module P. Here P, or better 7r, is called a
projective cover of M if one of the following equivalent assertions is satisfied
(i) 7rlL: L-+ Mis not surjective for any proper submodule L of P,
(ii) The kernel of 7r is a small submodule of P,
(iii) If X is an R-module an R-linear map f: X--+ Pis surjective if and only

if 7ro f is surjective.
Priifer: A commutative domain R is called a Priifer domain if every finitely

generated ideal of R is a projective R-module.
Pure-exact: See Appendix A, p. 374.
Pure-injective: See Appendix A, p. 375.
Pure-projective: See Appendix A, p. 374.
Pure-semisimple: A ring R is called left pure-semisimple if every left R-module

M is isomorphic to a (possibly infinite) direct sum EB" M" of finitely presented
modules.
Quiver: A quiver is an oriented graph, possibly with loops. Formally, a quiver

r is defined to be a pair (fo,fi) of (finite) sets together with two mappings
a : f 1 --+ fo (resp. w : f 1 --+ fo), called the source map (resp. sink map). The
elements of f 0 (resp. f 1 ) are called the vertices (resp. arrows) of r. Notation:
a(u) ~ w(u) for each u E f1.
Reduced: A commutative ring R is called reduced if R has no nilpotent elements.
Regular local ring: See Appendix A, p. 378.
Representation of quiver: If J( is a field, a I<-linear representation V of a

quiver r = (f 0 , r 1 ) consists in an assignment of a vector space v;, for each vertex
p of rand a I<-linear mapping V(u): V<>(u)--+ Vw(u) for each arrow u of r. Vis
called finite dimensional in case each v;,, p E r 0 , is a finite dimensional I<-space.
A morphism of I<-linear representations V and W is defined to be a family of
I<-linear mappings 'Pp : v;, --+ WP, p E f 0 , such that for each arrow u of r the
diagram
<Pa(u)
v<>(u) ---+ w<>(u)
V(u) l l W(u)
'l'.,(u)
Vw(u) ---+ Ww(u)
is commutative, that is, W(u) o 'P<>(u) = 'Pw(u) o V(u). The composition of mor-
phisms 1f; : U --+ V and cp : V --+ W is given by (cp o 1/J)p = 1/Jp o 'Pp· The
resulting category is the category of all (resp. of all finite dimensional) I<-linear
representations of r.
408 APPENDIX C:
Representation-finite: A ring R is called (left) representation-finite if there

is a finite number of left R-modules Ui, ... , Ut such that any left R-module M
is isomorphic to a (possibly infinite) direct sum eler Mer with each Mer equal to
some of the U; (i = 1, ... , t). To be representation-finite is a left-right symmetric
property.
Semifir: A ring R is called a left semifir (=semi-free ideal ring) if every finitely
generated left ideal of R is a free R-module.
Semihereditary: A ring R is called left semihereditary if every finitely gener-

ated left ideal is a projective R-module. Equivalently, every finitely generated
submodule of a projective left R-module is projective.
Semiperfect: A ring R is called semi perfect if R/rad (R) is semisimple Artinian

and any idempotent in R/rad (R) can be lifted to an idempotent in R. Here,
rad (R) is the Jacobson radical of R.
Semi primary: A ring R is called semiprimary if R/rad (R) is semisimple Ar-

tinian and there exists a positive integer n such that rad (Rt= 0. Here, rad (R)
is the Jacobson radical of R.
Semisimple: A module M over a ring R is called semisimple if M is the direct

sum of a family of simple R-modules.
A ring R is semisimple as a left (or right) module over itself if and only if the
Jacobson radical rad (R) is zero.
Semisimple Artinian: A ring R is called semisimple Artinian if it satisfies any

of the following four equivalent conditions:
(i) R is semisimple as a left (resp. right) R-module.
(ii) The Jacobson radical rad (R) is zero and R is left Artinian.
(iii) The Jacobson radical rad (R) is zero and R is right Artinian.
(iv) R is isomorphic to a direct product of a finite number of full matrix rings
over division rings.
Simple: A module M f= 0 over a ring R is called simple if 0 and M are the only
submodules of M.
A ring Rf= 0 is called simple if R has no two-sided ideal different from 0 and R.
Simple Artinian: A ring R is simple Artinian if and only if R is isomorphic to

the ring of all n x n-matrices, n a positive integer, over a division ring.
Small: A submodule J( of a module M is called small if for every proper

submodule L of M also J( +Lis a proper submodule of M.
Socle: The socle soc (M) of an R-module Mis defined as the sum of all simple
submodules of M. If there are no such submodules, soc (M) = 0.
T-nilpotent: A sequence (r0 , ri, ... ) of elements in a ring R is called left (resp.
right) T-nilpotent if there exists an integer n such that the product r 0 r 1 · · · r n-l rn
(resp. rn rn-1 · · · r1 ro) equals zero.
An ideal a of R is said to be left (resp. right) T-nilpotent in case any sequence
of elements from a is left (resp. right) T-nilpotent. Each T-nilpotent ideal is
nilpotent and is contained in the Jacobson radical.
Uniformly coherent: A ring R is called left uniformly coherent if there exists

a function cp : N - t N with the following property:
Any left ideal a of R generated by n elements can be written as a quotient Ff I<,
where F is a free left R-module generated by n elements and the submodule J(
can be generated by cp( n) elements.
Valuation ring : A commutative domain R is called a valuation ring if it

satisfies any of the following three conditions:
(i) The set of all principal ideals of R is linearly ordered with respect to inclu-
sion.
(ii) The set of all ideals of R is linearly ordered with respect to inclusion.
(iii) There exists a valuation v on the quotient field J( of R, i.e. a mapping
v: J( -{O} - t G into an (additively written) ordered group G satisfying v(xy) =
v(x)+v(y) and v(x+y) :'.'.'. min(v(x),v(y)) ifx, y, x+y f 0, such that R consists
of 0 and all elements with v(x) :'.'.'. 0.
Every finitely generated ideal of a valuation ring R is a principal ideal. A Noethe-
rian valuation R is called a discrete valuation ring.
Von Neumann regular: A ring R is called von Neumann regular if for any
a E R there exists x E R such that a = axa. Equivalently, all left (resp. right)
R-modules are flat.
Bibliography
(l] F. W. Anderson and K. R. Fuller. Rings and categories of modules. Graduate

Texts in Mathematics 13, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1974.
(MR 54 #5281 (C. Faith)].
[2] N. Aronszajn and U. Fiman. Algebraic spectral problems. Studia Math., 30:273-
338, 1968.
(3] M. Auslander. Applications of morphisms determined by objects. In Representa-

tion theory, pages 245-327, Proceedings, Philadelphia 1976, Marcel Dekker, New
York, 1978.
(4] M. Auslander. Representation theory of Artin algebras II. Comm. Algebra,

1:269-310, 1974. [MR 50 #2240 (S. Page); Zbl. 285.16029 (R. Gordon)].
(5] M. Auslander and E. Lluis, editors. Representations of algebras, Proceedings,

Puebla, Mexico 1980, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1981. Lec-
ture Notes in Mathematics 944.
(6] M. Auslander and E. Lluis, editors. Representations of algebras, Proceedings

(Workshop), Puebla, Mexico 1980, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York,
1981. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 903.
(7] D. Baer. Homological properties of wild hereditary Artin algebras. In V. Dlab,

P. Gabriel, and G. Michler, editors, Representation theory I, Finite dimensional
algebas, pages 1-12, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1986. Lecture
Notes in Mathematics 1177.
(8] D. Baer. Zerlegungen von Moduln und Injektive iiber Ringoiden. Arch. Math.,
36:495-501, 1981. (MR 82k #16019 (C. U. Jensen); Zbl. 441.16018 (Autor-
referat)].
(9] D. Baer, H. Brune, and H. Lenzing. A homological approach to representations of

algebras II: Tame hereditary algebras. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 26:141-153, 1982.
(MR 84a:16038b (V. Dlab ); Zbl. 504.16021 (F. R. Bobovic)].
411
412 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[10] D. Baer, W. Geigle, and H. Lenzing. The preprojective algebra of a tame hered-
itary Artin algebra. Comm. Algebra, 15:425-457, 1987.
[11] D. Baer and H. Lenzing. A homological approach to representations of algebras

I: The wild case. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 24:227-233, 1982. [MR 84a #16038a (V.
Diab); Zbl. 504.16020 (B. L. Osofsky)].
[12] J. Barwise. Handbook of mathematical logic. North-Holland Publishing Co.,

Amsterdam-New York-Oxford, 1977. [MR 56 #15351 (Editors), MR 58 #10395
(J. Cowles); MR 58 #10343 (H. Luckhardt); MR 58 #27475 (Editors); MR 58
#5109 (P. G. Hinman); Zbl. 443.03001 (A. M. Coyne)].
[13] H. Bass. Algebraic K-theory. Benjamin, New York, 1968. [MR 40 #2736 (F.
Kasch); Zbl. 174 p. 303 (W. Vogel)].
[14] H. Bass. Finitistic global dimension and a homological generalization of semi pri-
mary rings. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 95:466-488, 1960. [MR 28 #1212 (F.
Kasch); Zbl. 34 p.22 (F. Kasch)].
[15] W. Baur. Elimination of quantifiers for modules. Israel J. Math., 25:64-70, 1976.
[MR 56 #15409 (0. V. Belegradek); Zbl. 354.02043 (A. M. W. Glass)].
[16] W. Baur. On the elementary theory of quadruples of vector spaces. Ann. Math.
Logic, 19:243-262, 1980. [MR 82g #03056 (G. Cherlin); Zbl. 453.03010 (from the
introduction)].
[17] R. Bautista. On algebras of strongly unbounded representation type. Com-

ment. Math. Helvetici, 60:352-399, 1985. [MR 87b #16029 (D. Zacharia); Zbl.
584.16017 (A. Skowronski].
[18] R. Bautista, P. Gabriel, A. V. Roiter, and L. Salmeron. Representation-finite

algebras and multiplicative bases. Inv. math., 81:217-286, 1985.
[19] A. Bau val. Polynomial rings and weak second-order logic. J. Symb. Logic, 50:953-
972, 1985.
(20] J. L. Bell and M. Machover. A course in mathematical logic. North-Holland Pub!.

Comp., Amsterdam-New York-Oxford, 1977. [MR 57 #12155 (J. M. Plotkin);
Zbl. 359.02001 (P. St~panek)].
[21] J. L. Bell and A. B. Slomson. Models and ultraproducts: an introduction. North-

Holland, Amsterdam-Oxford-New York, 1969. [MR 42 #4381 (S. Garfunkel);
Zbl. 179, p. 314 (K. Hauschild)].
[22] G. Bergman. Centralizers in free associative algebras. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.,
137:327-344, 1969.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 413
(23] I. N. Bernstein, I. M. Gelfand, and V. A. Ponomarev. Coxeter functors and

Gabriel's theorem. Russian Math. Surveys, 28:17-32, 1973.
(24] J.-E. Bjork. Rings satisfying a minimum condition for principal ideals. J. Reine
Angew. Math., 236:112-119, 1969. (MR 40 #1419 (E.-A. Behrens); Zbl. 175, p.
32 (L. C. A. van Leeuwen)].
[25] K. Bongartz. A criterion for finite representation type. Math. Ann., 269:1-12,
1984.
[26] K. Bongartz. Treue einfach zusammenhangende Algebren I. Comment. Math.

Helv., 57:282-330, 1982. (MR 84a:l6051 (H. Grassmann); Zbl. 502.16022 (J.
Waschbiisch)].
(27] N. Bourbaki. Algebre, chapitre 10. Algebre homologique. Masson, Paris, 1980.
(28] N. Bourbaki. Algebre commutative, chapitre 1. Hermann, Paris, 1961.
(29] N. Bourbaki. Algebre commutative, chapitre 3. Hermann, Paris, 1961.
[30] N. Bourbaki. Algebre commutative, chapitre 5, 6. Hermann, Paris, 1964.
(31] H. Brune. On the global dimension of the functor category (( modR)) 0P, Ab) and
a theorem of Kulikov. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 28:31-39, 1983. [MR 84d:16035 (S.
S. Page); Zbl. 507.16030 (D. Simson)].
(32] H. Cartan and S. Eilenberg. Homological Algebra. Princeton University Press,

Princeton, N. J., 1956. (MR 17#1040 (G. Hochschild); Zbl. 75, pp. 243-247 (G.
Hochschild)].
(33] C. C. Chang and H.J. Keisler. Model theory. North-Holland, Amsterdam-New

York-Oxford, 1977. (MR 58 #27177 (Editors)].
(34] S. U. Chase. Direct products of modules. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 97:457-473,
1960. (MR 22 #11017 (D. Zelinksky); Zbl. 100, p. 266 (J. Guerindon)].
[35] G. L. Cherlin. Model theoretic algebra-Selected topics. Lecture Notes in Mathe-

matics 521, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1976. (MR 58 #27455
(Editors); Zbl. 338.02029 (Autorreferat)].
(36] I. S. Cohen. Commutative rings with restricted minimum condition. Duke Math.
J., 17:27-42, 1950. (MR 11-413 (C. Chevalley); Zbl. 41.364 (H. Grell)].
(37] P. M. Cohn. Dependence II. The dependence number. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.,
135:267-279, 1969. (MR 43 #4848 (J. Knopfmacher); Zbl. 217, p. 58 (L. A.
Korfman)].
414 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[38] P. M. Cohn. Free rings and their relations. Academic Press, London, 1971. [MR
51 #8155 (L. Bokut); Zbl. 232.16003 (A. V. Mikhalev, L.A. Skornjakov)].
[39] C. W. Curtis and I. Reiner. Methods of representation theory with applications to

finite groups and orders I. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1981. [MR 82i:20001
(J. L. Alperin); Zbl. 469.20001 (W. H. Gustafson)].
[40] F. Delon. lndecidabilite de la theorie des anneaux de series formelles a plusieurs

indeterminees. Fund. Math., 112:215-229, 1981. [MR 83e #03048 (G. Cherlin);
Zbl. 515 #12020 (N. Klingen)].
[41] F. Delon. Periodicite des theories elementaires des corps de series formelles
iterees. J. Symb. Logic, 51:334-351, 1986.
[42] M. Demazure and P. Gabriel. Groupes algebriques. North-Holland, Amsterdam,

1970. [MR 46 #1800 (J.-E. Bertin); Zbl. 203, p. 234 (I. V. Dolga~ev)].
[43] J. Dieudonne. Sur la reduction canonique des couples de matrices. Bull. Soc.
Math. Fronce, 74:130-146, 1946. [MR 9-264 (Mac Duffee)].
[44] V. Diab and P. Gabriel, editors. Representation theory I, Proceedings, Ot-

tawa 1979, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1980. Lecture Notes
in Mathematics 831.
[45] V. Diab and P. Gabriel, editors. Representation theory II, Proceedings, Ot-
tawa 1979, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1980. Lecture Notes
in Mathematics 832.
[46] V. Diab and P. Gabriel, editors. Representations of algebras, Proceedings, Ot-

tawa 1974, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1975. Lecture Notes in
Mathematics 488.
[47] V. Diab, P. Gabriel, and G. Michler, editors. Representation theory I, Fi-

nite dimensional algebas, Proceedings, Ottawa 1984, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-
Heidelberg-New York, 1986. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1177.
[48] V. Diab, P. Gabriel, and G. Michler, editors. Representation theory II, Groups
and orders, Proceedings, Ottawa 1984, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New
York, 1986. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1178.
[49] V. Diab and C. M. Ringel. Indecomposable representations of graphs and alge-

bras. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., 173, 1976.
[50] 0. I. Domanov. A prime but not primitive regular ring. Uspehi mat. Nauk,
32:219-220, Russian 1977. [Zbl. 374 #16007; MR 58 #28058 (from the text)].
BIBLIOGRAPHY 415
(51] A. Douady. Determination d'un groupe de Galois. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris,

258:5305-5308, 1964. (MR 29 #100 (K. lwasawa); Zbl. 146, p. 421 (L. Miller)].
(52] M. Dugas and M. Gobel. All infinite groups are galois groups over any field.
Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 304:355-384, 1987.
(53] P. C. Eklof and G. Sabbagh. Definability problems for modules and rings. J. Sym-
bolic Logic, 36:623-649, 1971. (MR 47 #1605 (A. J. Macintyre); Zbl. 227.02030;
Zbl. 251.02052].
(54] E. Ellentuck and R. V. B. Rucker. Martin's axiom and saturated models. Proc.
Amer. Math. Soc., 34:243-249, 1972.
(55] Yu. L. Ersov. Fields with a solvable theory. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSR, 174:19-20,
1967. (MR 35 #5424 (J. Sonner); Zbl. 153, p. 372 (P. M. Cohn)].
(56] C. Faith. Algebra II Ring Theory. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York,
1976.
(57] C. Faith. Lectures on injective modules and quotient rings. Lecture Notes in
Mathematics 49, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1967. (MR 37
#2791 (W. H. Caldwell); Zbl. 162, p.50 (Y. Utumi)].
(58] C. Faith. Rings with ascending chain condition on annihilators. Nagoya Math.
J., 27:179-191, 1966.
(59] C. F. Faith and E. A. Walker. Direct-sum representations of injective modules.

J. Algebra, 5:203-221, 1967.
(60] Urs Fischbacher. Une nouvelle preuve d'un theoreme de Na.zarova et Roiter. C.
R. Acad. Sc. Paris, 300:1259-1262, 1985. (MR 86g:l6029 (A. G. Wiedemann);
Zbl. 586.16012 (0. Kerner)].
(61] J. W. Fisher and R. L. Snider. Prime von Neumann regular rings and primitive
group algebras. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 44:244-250, 1974. (MR 49 #7297 (J.
K. Luedeman); Zbl. 256.16008 (Autorreferat)].
(62] 0. Forster. Uber die Anzahl der Erzeugenden eines Ideals in einem noetherschen
Ring. Math. Z., 84:80-89, 1964. (MR 51 #12944 (F. J. Servedio); Zbl. 126, p.
273 (G. Ancochea)].
(63] P. Freyd. Abelian categories. Harper & Row, New York, 1964.
(64] M. Fried and M. Jarden. Field Arithmetic. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-

New York, 1986.
416 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[65] L. Fuchs. Infinite abelian groups I, IL Academic Press, New York-London,

1973. MR 49 #19799 (Editors); MR 50 (E. A. Walker); Zbl. 257.20035 (K. M
Rangaswamy), Zbl. 209 p. 55 (K. Latt)].
(66] P. Gabriel. Auslander-Reiten sequences and representation-finite algebras. In
P. Gabriel V. Dlab, editor, Representation theory I, pages 1-71, Proceedings,
Ottawa, Carleton University 1979, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York,
1980. Leet. Notes in Math. 831 (MR 82i:16030 (I. Reiten); Zbl. 445.16023 (W.
M iiller )].
[67] P. Gabriel. Des categories abeliennes. Bull. Soc. math. France, 90:323-448, 1962.
(MR 38 #1144 (T.-Y. Lam)= Zbl. 201, p. 356].
(68] P. Gabriel. Finite representation type is open. In Representations of algebras,
pages 132-135, Proceedings, Ottawa 1974, Springer- Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-
New York, 1975. Leet. Notes in Math. 488 [MR 51 #12944 (F. J. Servedio); Zbl.
313.16034 (Autorreferat)].
[69] P. Gabriel. Unzerlegbare Darstellungen I. Manuscripta Math., 6:71 -103, 1972.
(MR 48 #11212 (K. W. Roggenkamp); Zbl. 232.08001 (Autorreferat)].
(70] P. Gabriel and U. Oberst. Spektralkategorien und regulare Ringe im von-
Neumannschen Sinn. Math. Z., 92:389-395, 1966. (MR 37 #1439 (Y. Utumi);
Zbl. 136, p.256 (S. E. Dickson)].
[71] P. Gabriel and R. Rentschler. Sur la dimension des anneaux et ensembles or-
donnes. C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 265:A712-A715, 1967. [MR 37 #243 (C. Newell);
Zbl. 155, p. 362 (C. W. Holland)].
[72] H. Gaifman. Models and types of Peano's arithmetic. Ann. Math. Logic, 9:223-
306, 1976. (MR 53 #10577 (S. R. Kogalovskii); Zbl. 332.02058 (F. G. Asenjo)].
(73] S. Garavaglia. Decomposition of totally transcendental modules. J. Symbolic
Logic, 45:155-164, 1980. (MR 8la #03032 (P. C. Eklof); Zbl. 453.03036 (Sum-
mary)].
(74] S. Garavaglia. Direct product decompositions of theories of modules. J. Symbolic
Logic, 44:77-88, 1979. (MR 80c:03038 (P. C. Eklof); Zbl. 438.03038 (G. Fuhrken)].
(75] W. Geigle. Krull dimension and Artin algebras. In G. Michler V. Dlab,
P. Gabriel, editor, Representation theory I, Finite dimensional algebras,
pages 135-155, Proceedings, Ottawa, 1984, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-
New York, 1986. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1177.
[76] W. Geigle. The Krull-Gabriel dimension of the representation theory of a tame
hereditary Artin algebra and applications to the structure of exact sequences.
Manuscripta Math., 54:83-106, 1985.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 417
[77] L. Gillman and M. Jerison. Rings of continuous functions. D. van Nostrand,

Princeton-Toronto-London-New York, 1960. [MR 22 #6994 ( J. Dieudonne); Zbl.
93, p. 300 (F. CSik)].
(78] R. Gobel. W ie weit sind Moduln vom Satz von Krull-Remak-Schmidt entfernt.
Jahresber. Deutsch. Math. Ver., 88:11-49, 1986.
[79] R. Goblot. Sur les derives de certaines limites projectivees. Bull. Sci Math.,
94:251-255, 1970.
(80] K. Goodearl. Von Neumann regular rings. Pitman, London-San Francisco-
Melbourne, 1979. [MR 80e:16011 (F. J. Papp); Zbl. 411.16007 (L. A. Skorn-
jakov)].
[81] R. Gordon and J. C. Robson. Krull dimension. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., 133,
1973. [MR 50 #4664 (G. Michler); Zbl. 269.16017 (G. Krause)].
(82] S. Goto. Every Noetherian uniformly coherent ring has dimension at most 2. J.
Math. Kyoto Univ., 23:269-279, 1983. [MR 85f #13015 (L. J. Ratliff Jr.); Zbl.
533.13005 (I. J. Papick)].
[83] L. Gruson and C. U. Jensen. Deux applications de la notion de L-dimension. C.
R. Acad. Sci. Paris Ser. A-B, 282:A23-A24, 1976. [MR 53 #5706 (T. Albu);
Zbl. 341.18010 (Resume)].
[84] L. Gruson and C. U. Jensen. Dimensions cohomologiques reliees aux foncteurs
lim!i}. In Seminaire d' Algebre Paul Dubreil et Marie-Paule Malliavin, pages 234-
294, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1981. Leet. Notes Math. 867
[MR 83d:16026 (D. Salles); Zbl. 505.18005 (D. E. Rush)].
[85] L. Gruson and C. U. Jensen. Modules algebriquement compacts et foncteurs
lim!i}. C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris Ser. A-B, 276:A 1651-A1653, 1973. [MR 47 #8653
(T. Albu); Zbl. 259.18015 (C. U. Jensen: Autorreferat)].
[86] D. Happel. Deformations of five dimensional algebras with unit. In Ring theory,
pages 459-, Antwerp Conference 1978, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1979. [MR
81i:l6030 (J. Emsalem); Zbl. 439.16014 (M. Lindner)].
(87] R. Hartshorne. Algebroic geometry. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New
York, 1977. [MR 57 #3116 (R. Speiser); Zbl. 367.14001 (W. Kleinert)].
[88] C. Herrmann, C. U. Jensen, and H. Lenzing. Applications of model theory to
representations of algebras. Math. Z., 178:83-98, 1981. [MR 83C:16023 (S.O.
Smal~); Zbl. 445.16020 (Autorreferat)].
[89] I. N. Herstein. Noncommutative rings. The Mathematical Association of Amer-

ica, 1968. [MR 37 #2790 (W. S. Martindale); Zbl. 177, p. 58 (B. L. Osofsky)].
418 BIBLIOGRAPHY
(90] D. Hilbert. Uber die Irreduzibilitat ganzer rationaler Funktionen mit ganzzahli-
gen Koeffi.zienten. J. Reine Angew. Math., 110:104-129, 1892.
(91] M. Hochster. Nonuniqueness of coefficient ring in a polynomial ring. Proc. Amer.

Math. Soc., 34:81-82, 1972. (MR 45-3394 (W. Heinzer); Zbl. 233.13012 (Autor-
referat)].
(92] B. Huppert. Endliche Gruppen. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York,

1967. (MR 37 #302 (J. H. Walter); Zbl. 217, p. 72 (U. Schonwfilder)].
(93] N. Jacobson. Lectures in abstract algebra, Volume III-Theory of fields and Galois
theory. Van Nostrand, Princeton, New Jersey, 1964. (MR 30 #3087 (C. Faith);
Zbl. 124, p. 270 (D. Kirby)].
(94] N. Jacobson. Structure of rings. Amer. Math. Soc. Coll. Publ., Providence, 1956.
(95] P. Jaffard. Systemes d'ideaux. Dunod, Paris, 1960. (MR 22 #5628 (L. Fuchs);
Zbl. 101, p. 275 (W. Krull)].
(96] C. U. Jensen. Les foncteurs derives de lim et leurs applications en theorie des
modules. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York, 1972. (MR 53 #10874 (E. Enochs)].
[97] C. U. Jensen. Peano rings of arbitrary global dimension. J. London Math. Soc.,
21:39-44, 1980. [MR 81i:16037 (T. Albu); Zbl. 416.03038 (Autorreferat)].
[98] C. U. Jensen. Some curiosities of rings of analytic functions. J. Pure Appl.

Algebra, 38:277-283, 1985.
[99] C. U. Jensen and H. Lenzing. Algebraic compactness of reduced products and

applications to pure global dimension. Comm. Algebra, 11:305-325, 1983. [MR
84m:16018 (V. Dlab ); Zbl. 503.16027 (D. Simson)].
[100] C. U. Jensen and H. Lenzing. Homological dimension and representation type

of algebras under base field extension. Manuscr. Math., 39:1-13, 1982. (MR 83k
#16019 (A. Rosenberg); Zbl. 498.16023 (D. Simson)].
[101] C. U. Jensen and P. Vamos. On the axiomatizability of certain classes of mo-

dules. Math. Z., 167:227-237, 1979. [MR 81h:03073 (A. Mekler); Zbl. 387.03012
(Autorreferat )].
[102] D. Jonah. Rings with the minimum condition for principal right ideals have the
maximum condition for principal left ideal. Math. Z., 130:106-112, 1970. [MR
41 #5402 (G. Leavitt); Zbl. 213, p.43 (A. Hirschelmann)].
(103] S. J0ndrup. On finitely generated flat modules II. Math. Scand., 27:105-112,
1970. [MR 43 #3298 (S. Elliger); Zbl. 208, p. 300 (Autorreferat)].
BIBLIOGRAPHY 419
[104] S. J0ndrup and D. Simson. Indecomposable modules over semiperfect rings.

J. Algebra, 73:23-29, 1981. (MR 83g:l6045 (G. Michler); Zbl. 496.16033 (R.
Bautista)].
[105] I. Kaplansky. Commutative rings. Allyn and Bacon, Inc., Boston, Mass., 1970.
[MR 40 #7234 (R. Gilmer); Zbl. 203, p. 346 (H. S. Butts)].
[106] I. Kaplansky. Infinite abelian groups. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbour,
1969. (MR 16-444 (T. Szele); Zbl. 57, p. 19 (K. A. Hirsch); Zbl. 194, p. 44 (K.
A. Hirsch)].
[107] I. Kaplansky. Maximal fields with valuations. Duke Math. J., 9:303-321, 1942.
[108) I. Kaplansky. On the dimension of modules and algebras X; A right hereditary

ring which is not left hereditary. Nagoya Math. J., 13:85-88, 1958. [MR 20 #7049
(D. Buchsbaum); Zbl. 84, p. 266 (J. Dieudonne)].
[109) I. Kaplansky. Projective modules. Annals of Math., 68:372-377, 1958. (MR 20

#6453 (G. Azumaya); Zbl. 83, p. 258 (M. C.R. Butler)].
[110) F. Kasch. Moduln und Ringe. B. G. Teubner, Stuttgart, 1977. (MR 55 #2971
(G. Michler)].
[111) K. Kato and J. L. Colliot-Thelene. A Hasse principle for two dimensional global
fields. J. reine angew. Math., 366:142-183, 1986.
[112] R. Kielpinski and D. Simson. On pure homological dimension. Bull. Acad. Pol.
Sc., 23:1-6, 1975.
[113] R. Klein. Uber Hilbertsche Korper. J. Reine Angew. Math., 337:171-194, 1982.
[MR 856 #12004 (A. Prestel); Zbl. 486.12008 (Autorreferat)].
[114] N. Klingen. Elementar aquivalente Korper und ihre absolute Galoisgruppe. Arch.
Math., 25:604-612, 1974. (MR 50 #9844 (G. Cherlin)].
[115] H. Kraft. Geometric methods in representation theory. 1982. Lecture Notes in

Mathematics 944 .[MR 84c:l4007 (V. L. Popov); Zbl. 517:14016 (H. Reitberger)).
[116] H. Kraft. Geometrische Methoden der lnvariantentheorie. Vieweg,

Braunschweig-Wiesbaden, 1984. (MR 86j:l4006 (J.C. Fogarty); Zbl. 569.14003
(F. Pauer)].
[117) G. R. Krause and T. H. Lenagan. Growth of algebras and Gelfand-Kirillov dimen-

sion. Pitman Advanced Publishing Program, Boston-London-Melbourne, 1985.
[MR 86g:l6001 (M. K. Smith); Zbl. 564.16001 (M. Lorenz)].
420 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[118] G. Kreisel and J. L. Krivine. Elements of mathemaiical logic. North-Holland,

Amsterdam, 1967.
[119] L. Kronecker. Algebraische Reduktion der Scharen bilinearer formen. S. - B.

Akad. Berlin, 1225-1237, 1890.
[120] W. Krull. Allgemeine Bewertungstheorie. J. Reine Angew. Math., 143:160-196,

1932.
[121] R. Kumar and J. Nishimura. Note to:"Every Noetherian uniformly coherent ring
has dimension at most 2" by S. Goto. J. Math. Kyoto Univ., 23:481-484, 1983.
[MR 85f #13016 (L. J. Ratliff, Jr); Zbl. 534.13012 (I. J. Papick)J.
[122] .J. Lambek. Lectures on rings and modules. Blaisdell Publishing Company,
Waltham, Massachusetts, 1966. [MR 34 #5857 (D. C. Murdoch); Zbl. 143, p.
264 (G. Michler)].
[123] S. Lang. Algebra. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1965. [MR 33 #5416

(R. S. Pierce); Zbl. Zbl. 193, p. 347 (K. Plewe)].
[124] S. Lang. Diophantine Geometry. Interscience Publishers, New York, 1962. [MR
26 #119 (W. E. Jenner); Zbl. 115, p. 387 (J. W. S. Cassels)].
[125] S. Lang. On quasi algebraic closure. Ann. of Math., 55:373-390, 1952. [MR
13-726 (Nakayama); Zbl. 46, p. 262 (Z. Suetuna)].
[126] J. W. Lawrence. Primitive rings do not form an elementary class. Comm. Algebra,
9:379-400, 1981. [MR 82d #16005 (A. Mekler); Zbl. 454.16001 (S. Burris)].
[127] D. Lazard. Auteur de la platitude. Bull. Soc. Math. Fronce, 97:81-128, 1969.
[MR 40 #7310 (J.-P. Lafon); erratum 41, p. 1965; Zbl. 174, p.333 (Autorreferat)].
[128] H. Lenzing. Die Koharenz unendlicher Matrixringe. Coll. Math. Soc. J. Bolyai,
6:329-336, 1971. [MR 50 #4660 (V. C. Cateforis); Zbl. 265.16014 (S. J!'lndrup)].
[129] H. Lenzing. Direct sums of projective modules as direct summands in their

corresponding direct product. Comm. Algebra, 4:681-691, 1976. [MR 53 #8137
(E. T. Wong); Zbl.342.16024 (S. J0ndrup )].
[130] H. Lenzing. Uber koharente Ringe. Math Z., 114:201-212, 1970. [MR 41 #5410
(G. Renault); Zbl.179, p. 338 (Autorreferat)].
[131] E. Matlis. Injective modules over Noetherian rings. Pac. J. Math., 8:511-528,
1958. [MR 20 #5800 (G. Azumaya); Zbl. 84, p. 266 (K. Morita)].
[132] B. H. Matzat. Konstruktive Galoistheorie. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-

New York, 1987.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 421
[133] B. H. Matzat. Uber das Umkehrproblem der Galoisschen Theorie. Jahresber.

Deutsch. Math. Ver., 90:155-183, 1988.
[134] G. Mazzola. The algebraic and geometric classification of associative algebras

of dimension five. Manuscripta Math., 27:81-101, 1979. [MR 81g:16039 (A. A.
larrobino, jr.); Zbl. 446.16033 (H. Kupisch)].
[135] G. 0. Michler and 0. E. Villamayor. On rings whose simple modules are injective.
J. Algebra, 25:185-201, 1973. [MR 47 #5052 (T. Cheatham); (MR 48 #11206
(Autorreferat), preprint); Zbl. 258.16023 (Autorreferat)].
[136] B. Mitchell. Rings with several objects. Advances in Math., 8:1-161, 1972.
[137] B. Mitchell. Theory of Categories. Academic Press, New York-London, 1965.
[138] J. Nagata. Modern dimension theory. Noordhoff, Groningen, 1965. [MR 34

#8380 (S. Marde§ic); Zbl. 129, p. 383 (J. Flachsmeyer)].
[139] M. Nagata. Local rings. Wiley (Intersience), New York, 1962.
[140] L. N azarova and A. Roiter. Categorical matrix problems and the Brauer-Thrall
conjecture. Mitt. Math. Sem. Gieflen, 115:1-153, 1975. (German translation of
preprint Kiew 1973). [MR 54 #360 (I. Reiner); MR 58 #5790 (Editors); Zbl.
315.16021 (D. Simson)].
[141] J. Neukirch. Uber die absolute Galoisgruppe algebraischer Zahlkorper. Jber.

Deutsch. Math.- Verein., 76:18-37, 1974/75. [MR 58 #5592 (J. Browkin); Zbl.
294.12006 (W. Zink)].
[142] B. H. Neumann. Groups covered by permutable subsets. J. London Math. Soc,

29:236-248, 1954.
[143] D. G. Northcott. Ideal theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1963.
[144] F. Okoh. Hereditary algebras that are not pure hereditary. Representation The-
ory II, 432-437, 1980. Lecture Notes in Math. 832 [MR 82b: 16018 (author's
summary); Zbl. 446.16020 (Autorreferat)].
[145] B. Osofsky. Rings all of whose finitely generated modules are injective. Pacific
J. Math, 14:645-650, 1964. [MR 28 #5090 (A. Kertesz); Zbl. 145, p. 266 (S.
Balcerzyk)].
[146] B. L. Osofsky. Homological dimension and the continuum hypothesis. Trans.

Amer. Math. Soc., 132:217-230, 1968. [MR 37 #205 (W. V. Vasconcelos); Zbl.
157, p. 82 (N. Popescu)].
422 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[147] A. Pfister. Zur Darstellung definiter Funktionen als Summe von Quadraten.
Invent. Math., 4:229-237, 1967. [MR 36 #5095 (D. J. Lewis); Zbl. 222.10022
(Autorreferat )].
[148] R. S. Pierce. The global dimension of Boolean rings. J. Algebra, 7:91-99, 1967.
[MR 37 #5269 (J.P. May); Zbl. 149, p. 281 (W. G. Leavitt)].
[149] N. Popescu. Abelian categories with applications to rings and modules. Academic
Press, London, New York, 1973.
[150] Y. Pourchet. Sur la representation en Somme de carres des polynomes a une

indeterminee sur un corps de nombres algebriques. Acta Arith., 19:89-104, 1971.
[MR 44 #6632 (O.H. Koerner); Zbl. 244.10019 (M. Knebusch)].
[151] M. Prest. Model theory and modules. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
1988.
[152] M. Prest. Rings of finite representation type and modules of finite Morley rank.
J. Algebra, 88:502-533, 1984. [MR 85k:16030 (C. U. Jensen); Zbl. 538.16025 (H.
Lenzing)].
[153] A. Prestel. Einfilhrung in die mathematische Logik und Modelltheorie.

Vieweg&Sohn, Braunschweig-Wiesbaden, 1986.
[154] C. Procesi. Rings with polynomial identities. Marcel Dekker, New York, 1973.
[MR 51 #3214 (W. S. Martindale); Zbl. 262.16018 (P. M. Cohn)].
[155] M. Raynaud. Anneaux locaux henseliens. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-

New York, 1970. Leet. Notes Math. 169 [MR 43 #3252 (J .-P. Lafon); Zbl. 203,
p. 51 (U. Storch)].
[156] P. Ribenboim. L'arithmetique des corps. Hermann, Paris, 1972. [MR 48 #8432
(R. Jacobowitz); Zbl. 253.12101 (B. Miiller)].
[157] C. Riedtmann. Algebres de type de representation fini d'apres Bongartz, Gabriel,

Roiter et d'autres. Asterisque 133/134, 335-350, 1986. Seminaire Bourbaki 1984-
85. [Zbl. 593.16021 (A. Skowronski)].
[158] C. M. Ringel. Infinite dimensional representations of a finite dimensional hered-

itary Artin algebra. /st. Naz. Alta Mat. Symp. Math., 23:321-412, 1979.
[159] C. M. Ringel. Report on the Brauer-Thrall conjectures; Rojter's theorem and

the theorem of Nazarova and Rojter. (On algorithms for solving vector space
problems. I). In Representation theory I, pages 104-136, Proceedings, Ottawa
1979, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1980. Leet. Notes Math.
831. [MR 82j: 16055 (S. Brenner); Zbl. 444.16019 (M. M. Kleiner)].
BIBLIOGRAPHY 423
[160) C. M. Ringel. Tame algebras and integral quadratic forms. Springer, Berlin-
Heidelberg-New York, 1984. Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1099.
[161) J. Robinson. Definability and decision problems in arithmetic. J. Symbolic Logic,

14:98-114, 1949. [MR 11-114 (R. M. Martin); Zbl. 34, p. 8 (G. Hasenjager)).
[162] J. Robinson. The undecidability of algebraic rings and fields. Proc. Amer. Math.
Soc., 10:950-957, 1959. [MR 22 #3691 (R. M. Martin); Zbl. 100, p. 15 (D.
Tamari)).
[163) R. M. Robinson. The undecidability of pure transcendental extensions of real
fields. z. Math. Logik Grundlagen Math., 10:275-282, 1964. [MR 30 #3021 (A.
Heyting); Zbl. 221.02034 (Ju. S. Gurevil:)).
[164) R. M. Robinson. Undecidable rings. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 70:137-159, 1951.
[MR 12-791 (Lorenzen); Zbl. 42, p. 245 (G. H. Mi.iller)).
[165] A. V. Roiter. The unboundedness of the dimensions of the indecomposable rep-

resentations of algebras that have a finite number of indecomposable representa-
tions. Jzv. Akad. Nauk. SSSR, 32:1275-1282, 1968.
[166) P. Roquette. Model theory and algebra. Leet. Notes Math., 498:231-275, 1975.
[MR .53 #5598 (M. Fried); Zbl. 316.12103 (Autorreferat)).
[167) A. Rosenberg and D. Zelinsky. On the finiteness of the injective hull. Math. Z.,
70:372-380, 1959. [MR 21 #4176 (G. Azumaya); Zbl. 84, p. 265 (K. Morita)).
[168) P. Rothmaler. On total transcendence of modules. J. Symbolic Logic, 48:570-574,
1983. [Zbl. 524.03018 (Autorreferat)].
[169) L. H. Rowen. Polynomial identities in ring theory. Academic Press, New York,
1980. [MR 82a:16021 (S. A. Amitsur); Zbl. 461.16001 (A. Popow)].
[170) G. Sabbagh. Aspects logiques de la purete dans les modules. C. R. Acad. Sci.
Paris Ser. A-B, 271:A909-A912, 1970. [MR 43 #269 (J. L. Mott); Zbl. 202, p.9
(Autorreferat )].
[171) G. Sabbagh. Coherence of polynomial rings and bounds in polynomial ideals.

J. Algebra, 31:499-507, 1974. [MR 50 #297 (J. T. Arnold); Zbl. 292.13007 (B.
Renschuch, W. Vogel)].
[172) G. Sabbagh. Sous-modules purs, existentiellement clos et elementaires. C. R.

Acad. Sci. Paris, 272:A1289-A1292, 1971. [MR 46 #3296 (I. L. Gaal); Zbl. 215,
p. 325 (J. Drabbe)].
[173) J. D. Sally. Numbers of generators of ideals in local rings. Dekker, New York,
1978. [MR 58 #5654 (M. Nagata); Zbl. 395.13010 (W. Vasconcelos)].
421 BIBLIOGRAPHY
(174] 0. F. G. Schilling. The theory of valuations. Amer. Math. Soc., New York, 1950.
(MR 13-315 (I. S. Cohen); Zbl. 37, p. 307 (M. Kneser)].
(175] T. Schneider. Einfii.hrung in die transzendenten Zahlen. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-

Gottingen-Heidelberg, 1957. (MR 19-252 (K. Mahler); Zbl. 77, p. 47 (0. Perron)].
(176] A. H. Schofield. Bounding the global dimension in terms of the dimension. Bull.
London Math. Soc., 17:393-394, 1985.
[177] H. W. Schiilting. Uber die Erzeugendenzahl invertierbarer Ideale in Priiferringen.

Comm. Algebra, 7:1331-1349, 1979. (MR 81j:12016 (M. Knebusch); Zbl.
432.13010 (J. Mockor)].
(178] J .-P. Serre. A course in arithmetic. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg-

Berlin, 1973. (MR 41 #138; MR 49#8956 (Editors); Zbl. 225.12002 (G. Bruck-
ner)].
(179] R. T. Shannon. The rank of a flat module. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 24:452-456,
1970. (MR 40 #5659 (B. J. Mueller); Zbl. 201, p. 42 (B. L. Osofsky)].
[180] D. W. Sharpe and P. Vamos. Injective modules. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, 1972. [MR 50 #13153 (R. A. Wiegand, S. M. Wiegand); Zbl.
245.13001 (B. L. Osofsky)).
[181) S. Shelah. Classification theory and the number of non-isomorphic models. North-
Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1978. (MR 81a:03030 (D. Lascar);
Zbl. 388.03009 (0. St~pankova)).
[182] S. Shelah. Every two elementary equivalent models have isomorphic ultrapowers.
Israel J. Math., 10:224-233, 1971. [MR 45 #6608 (J. L. Bell); Zbl. 224.02045 (P.
Olin)).
[183] D. Simson. On projective resolutions of flat modules. Coll. math., 29:209-218,

1974.
[184) D. Simson. Partial Coxeter functors and right pure semisimple hereditary rings.
J. Algebra, 71:195-218, 1981. (MR 82m:16031 (I. Reiten); Zbl. 477.16014 (R.
Bautista)).
[185) S. Smal0. The inductive step of the 2nd Brauer-Thrall conjecture. Can. J.
Math., 32:342-349, 1980. [MR 81h:16050 (A. Skowronski); Zbl. 405.16010 (Au-
torreferat)].
[186] J .-P. Soublin. Anneaux et modules coherents. J. Algebra, 15:455-472, 1970. (MR
41 #5422 (W. V. Vasconcelos); Zbl. 198, p. 358 (Autorreferat)].
BIBLIOGRAPHY 425
[187] T. A. Springer. Invariant Theory. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York,

1977. Leet. Notes Math. 585 [MR 56 #5740 (V. L. Popov); Zbl. 346.20020 (H.
Pieper)].
[188] B. Stenstrom. Coherent rings and FP-injective modules. J. London Math. Soc.,
2:323-329, 1970. [MR 41 #3533 (B. L. Osofsky); Zbl. 194, p. 66 (Autorreferat)].
[189] A. A. Suslin and L. N. Vasershtein. Serre's problem on projective modules over

polynomial rings and algebraic K-theory. lzv. Akad. Nauk. SSSR, Ser. Mat.,
40:993-1054, 1976.
[190] R. G. Swan. Algebraic K-theory. Springer Lecture Notes in Mathematics 76,

Berlin - Heidelberg - New York, 1968.
[191] W. Szmielew. Elementary properties ofabelian groups. Fund. Math., 41:203-271,

1954. [MR 17-233 (Lyndon); Zbl. 64, p. 8 (P. Lorenzen)].
[192] H. Tachikawa. Quasi-Frobenius rings and generalizations QF-3 and QF-1 rings.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1973. [MR 50 #2233 (K. R. Fuller); Zbl. 271.16004 (C.
Vinsonhaler)].
[193] M. Tretkoff. Algebraic extensions of the field of rational functions. Comm. Pure
Appl. Math., 24:491-497, 1971. [MR 43 #6187 (W.-D. Geyer); Zbl. 226.12101
(from the introduction)].
[194] L. Tschampel. Uber endliche Modelltheorie homologischer Eigenschaften von

Moduln und Ringen. Dissertation Berlin 1978. [Zbl. 432.03019 (G. Fuhrken)].
[195] L. van den Dries. Some applications of a model theoretic fact to (semi-)algebraic
geometry. Nederl. Akad. Indag. Math., 44:397-401, 1982. [MR 84m:l4029 (M.
Coste); Zbl 538:14017 (W. Schwartz)].
[196] L. van den Dries and P. Ribenboim. Application de la theorie des modeles aux
groupes de Galois de corps de fonctions. C. R. Acad. Sc. Paris, 288:A789-A792,
1979. [MR 80b:l2013 (author's introd.); Zbl. 426.12004 (T. Kodama)].
[197] B. L. van der Waerden. Einfuhrung in die algebraische Geometrie. Springer-

Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1973. [MR 7-476; Zbl. 21, p. 250 (F. Con-
forto); Zbl. 264.14001 (preface 2nd. edition)].
[198] W. V. Vasconcelos. The rings of dimension two. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York-
Basel, 1976. [MR 55 #324 (T. Matsuoka); Zbl. 352.13003 (K. Wolffhardt)].
[199] L. N. Vasershtein. Stable rank of rings and dimensionality of topological spaces.

Funct. Anal. Appl., 5:102-110, 1971. [MR 44 #1701 (K. Sieklucki); Zbl. 239.16028
(G. Maxwell)].
426 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[200] R. B. Warfield. Purity and algebraic compactness for modules. Pacific J. Math,
28:699-719, 1969. [MR 39 #4212 (B. Stentrom); Zbl. 172, p. 48 (Zusammenfas-
sung des Autors)].
[201] W. C. Waterhouse. Introduction to affine group schemes. Springer-Verlag, New

York-Heidelberg-Berlin, 1979. [MR 82e:14003 (M. H. Gizatullin); Zbl. 442.14017
(F. Oort)].
[202] R. Weissauer. Der Hilbertsche Irreduzibilitatssatz. J. Reine Angew. Math.,

334:203-220, 1982. [MR 84c:12020 (W.-D. Geyer); Zbl. 477.12029 (Autor-
referat)].
[203] G. Whaples. Algebraic extensions of arbitrary fields. Duke Math. J., 24:201-204,
1957.
[204] E. Witt. Konstruktion von galoisschen Korpern der Charakteristik p zu

vorgegebener Gruppe der Ordnung pf. J. Reine Angew. Math., 174:237-245,
1936. [Zbl. 13, p. 196 (Kothe)].
[205] 0. Zariski and P. Samuel. Commutative algebra II. Van Nostrand, Princeton-
Toronto-New York-London, 1960. [MR 22 #11006 (H. T. Muhly); Zbl. 121, p.
278 (W. Krull), p. 279 (0. ~- ll;cen)].
[206] M. Zayed. Characterisations des algebres de reprsentation finie sur des corps
algbriquement dos. In Seminaire P. Dubreil et M.P. Malliavin, pages 129-147,
1981.
[207] D. Zelinsky. Linearly compact modules and rings. Amer. J. Math., 75:79-90,
1953.
[208] M. Ziegler. Model theory of modules. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic, 26:149-213, 1984.
[MR 86c: 03034 (C. Berline); Zbl. 593.16019 (Ph. Rothmaler)].
[209] W. Zimmermann. Rein-injektive direkte Summen von Moduln. Comm. Alge-

bra, 5:1083-1117, 1977. [MR 56 #8623 (B. Stenstrom); Zbl. 371.16012 (W. G.
Leavitt)].
[210] W. Zimmermann. (:E)-Algebraic compactness of rings. J. Pure Appl. Algebra,

23:319-328, 1982. [MR 83e:16023 (R. B. Warfield, Jr.); Zbl. 474.16016 (K. R.
Goodearl)].
[211] W. Zimmermann. Uber die aufsteigende Kettenbedingung fiir Annulatoren.

Arch. Math., 27:261-266, 1976. [MR 54 #7544 (B. J. Miiller); Zbl. 337.16003
(H. H. Storrer)].
BIBLIOGRAPHY 427
[212] W. Zimmermann and B. Zimmermann-Huisgen. Algebraically compact rings

and modules. Math. Z., 161:81-93, 1978. [MR 58 #16792 (J. Guerindon); Zbl.
379.16008 (K. R. Goodearl)].
[213] B. Zimmermann-Huisgen. Rings whose right modules are direct sums of inde-
composable modules. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 77:191-197, 1979. (MR 80k:l6041
(D. R. Turnidge); Zbl. 441.16016 (H. Tachikawa)].
Index
Anderson, F. W. 234, 247 Curtis, C. W. 324

Aronszajn, N. 207-208
Auslander, M. 166, 336, 356 Dedekind, R. 249
Ax,J. 31, 37,57 Delon, F. 57, 60, 74
Demazure, M. 313
Baer, D. 126, 163, 209, 245, 293, 297, Dieudonne, J. 207
299, 356 Diab, V. 209
Baer, R. 239, 368 Domanov, 0. I. 268
Barwise, J. 1, 11, 39, 69, 156-157, 172, Douady, A. 77
309 Dries, L. van den 29, 77, 307
Bass, H. 122, 165, 232, 234, 251-252, Dugas, M. 63
263, 271
Eakin, P. 270
Baur, W. 91-92, 100, 158, 219
Eilenberg, S. 123, 231, 234, 256
Bautista, R. 340-341
Eklof, P. C. 37, 122
Bauval, A. 68, 268
Ellentuck, E 172
Bell, J. L. 1, 5, 12, 16, 20, 61, 159
Er§ov, Yu. L. 17
Bergman, G. 268
Bernstein, I. N. 169, 207 Faith, C. 163, 183, 281, 247
Bjork, J. -E. 251 Fischbacher, U. 340
Bongartz, K. 340, 342 Fisher, J. W. 268
Bourbaki, N. 52, 114-115, 229, 231, 257, Fixman, U. 207-208
305 Forster, 0. 254
Brune, H. 291, 297, 299, 356 Freyd, P. 381
Fried, M. 77
Cartan, H. 123, 231, 234, 256 Fuchs, L. 139, 205
Cassels, J. W. S. 25-26, 28 Fuller, K. 234, 247
Chang, C. C. 1, 11-12, 15, 24, 31, 46,
57, 69 Gabriel, P. 169, 176, 198, 278, 313, 331,
Chase, S. U. 122, 163, 229, 260 341, 343, 353, 379
Cherlin, G. L. 23 Gaifman, H. 63
Chevalley, C. 313 Garavaglia, S. 93, 100, 163, 171
Cohen, I. S. 232 Geigle, W. 198, 209, 218, 299, 356
Cohn, P. M. 184, 257 Gelfand, I. M. 169, 207
Colliot-Thelene, J. L. 28 Geyer, W.-D. 6
428
AUTHOR INDEX 429
Gillman, L. 24 Krivine, J. L. 306

Gobel, R. 63, 139 Kronecker, L. 207
Goblot, R. 152 Krull, W. 288
Goodearl, K. 183 Kulikov 291
Gordon, R. 198, 278, 353 Kumar, R. 254
Goto, S. 254 Kunen, K. 329
Gruson, L. 92-93, 125, 127, 131, 155,
163-164, 292 Lambek,J. 127,249
Lang, S. 19, 21, 30, 75
Happel, D. 331 Lawrence, J. W. 268
Harada, M. 165 Lazard, D. 229-230, 234
Hartshorne, R. 310-311, 313 Leap, D. 31
Herrmann, C. 292, 325, 341 Lenagan, T. H. 275, 378
Berstein, I. N. 247, 262 Lenzing, H. 18, 126, 192, 194-195, 209,
Hilbert, D. 75 232, 254, 260, 263, 281, 292-
Hochster, M. 352 293, 297, 299, 325, 341, 348,
Huppert, B. 82-83 356
Jacobson, N. 17, 21, 247 Machover 61

Matlis, E. 121, 283
Jaffard, P. 249
Jarden, M. 77 Matzat, B. H. 77
Mazzola, G. 331
Jensen, C. U. 18, 92-93, 123, 125, 127,
131, 155, 163-164,172,192, 194-
Michler, G. 183
Mittag-Leffier,G. 293
195,260-261,263,292-293,299,
325, 341, 348, 355-356
Mitchell, B. 379, 381, 384, 387
Jerison, M. 24 Monk, L. G. 91, 100
Jonah, D. 244 Nagata, J. 272, 284
J0ndrup, S. 183, 220, 256-257 Nazarova, L. 340
Neukirch, J. 77
Kaplansky, I. 8, 169, 183, 205, 235, 260,
Neumann, B. H. 100
288-289, 291, 295, 356
Nishimura, J. 254
Kasch, F. 247
Northcott, D. G. 117
Kato, K. 28
Keisler, H. J. 1, 11-12, 24, 31, 46, 57, Oberst, U. 176
69, 329 Okoh, F. 194
Kielpinski, R. 155 Olsson, J.B. 85
Klein, R. 75 Osofsky, B. L. 282, 301
Klingen, N. 227
Kochen, S. 31, 57 Pfister, A. 26
Kraft, H. 312-313 Pierce, R. S. 261
Krause, G. 275, 378 Ponomarev, V. A. 169, 207
Kreisel, G. 306 Popescu, N. 198, 379
430 AUTHOR INDEX
Pourchet, Y. 28 Stenstrom, B. 98, 239, 264

Prestel, A. 306 Suslin, A. A. 271
Prest, M. 93, 158, 163, 219 Swan, R. G. 198
Procesi, C. 273 Szmielew, W. 158
Raynaud, M. 50 Tachikawa, H. 166, 356

Reiner, I. 324 Tarski, A. 67, 175
Rentschler, R. 278, 353 Tretkoff, M. 77
Ribenboim, P. 19, 21, 24-26, 28, 30, 63 Tschampel, L. 258, 261
Riedtmann, C. 341 Tsen, C. C. 30
Ringel, C. M. 208-209, 219, 336, 340
Robinson, J. 61 Vamos, P. 31, 121, 123, 159, 283, 355,
Robinson, R. 35, 66-67, 70 398
Robson, J. C. 198, 278, 353 Vasershtein, L. N. 271-272
Roiter, A. V. 166, 340-341 Villamayor, 0. E. 183
Roquette, P. 75
Waerden, B. L. van der 23, 62
Rosenberg, A. 169, 263
Rothmaler, P. 163 Walker, E. A. 163
Rowen, L. H. 273 Warfield, R. B. 128
Rucker, R. V. B. 172 Waterhouse, W. C. 312-313
Weierstra.fi, K. 293
Sabbagh, G.105-106, 109, 122-123, 158, Weissauer, R. 75
220, 259 Whaples, G. 81
Sai, Y. 165 Witt, E. 81
Sally, J. D. 254
Zariski, 0. 51
Salmeron, L. 341
Zayed, M. 325
Samuel, P. 51
Zelinsky, D. 169, 263, 289
Schilling, 0. F. G. 47, 288, 290
Ziegler, M. 93, 99-100, 181
Schneider, T. 49
Zimmermann-Huisgen, B. 163, 282
Schofield, A. H. 263, 313, 345, 347
Zimmermann, W. 92, 163, 171, 282
Schiilting, H. W. 250
Serre, J. -P. 29
Shannon, R. T. 244
Sharpe, D. W. 121, 159, 283, 398
Shelah, S. 12, 329
Simson, D. 152, 155, 168, 183, 356
Slomson, A. B. 1, 5, 12, 16, 20, 159
Small, L. 263
Small!!, S. 340
Snider, R. L. 268
Soublin, J. -P. 229, 254, 259
Springer, T. A. 312
Index
abelian category 381 relatively 4

absolutely irreducible polynomial 6 algebraically compact module 125, 128,
absolutely pure module 377 130-131, 144,154,157,165, 171
additive category 379 indecomposable 159 126, 375
additive functor 379 over a Dedekind domain 205
-adic completion 118, 190 algebraically compact ring 281, 285, 287-
-adic topology 118 288, 323
admissible field 77 algebraic compactness
affine algebraic group 312 of reduced power 154
affine group scheme 315 of ultrapower 287
affine K-algebra 310 of ultraproduct 293
affine n -space 310 algebraic number field 13, 24, 29
affine scheme 313 almost all 2
defined over the integers 316 almost-disjoint 195, 175
affine variety 310 almost-split sequence 332
of modules 317 Amitsur-Levitzki's theorem 273
No -compact module 157 Amitsur's theorem 273
No -complete ultrafilter 156 annihilator
No -incomplete ultrafilter 156 of subfunctor 132
N -coherent ring 142, 152, 142 Archimedean field 41, 48
N -compact module 144, 146, 155, 141 Artin algebra 325, 401
N -complete filter 140, 152 Artinian module 401
N -generated module 136 Artinian ring 226, 232, 234-237, 241,
N -injective functor 142-144, 150-151 245, 401
N -injective module 141 Artin-Schreier's theorem 21-23
N -presented module 136 atomic formula 307
N -projective module 152 Auslander-Reiten quiver 336
N -pure-exact sequence 139 Auslander-Reiten translate 333
N -pure-injective module 141 Auslander's test 331
N -saturated 12 automorphism group
algebraically closed field 5, 13, 16-17, of field 63
19--21, 23, 30-31, 40, 43, 49, Ax and Kochen's theorem 31, 69
58-59,306, 309 axiomatizability
algebraically closed for Artinian rings 226, 250
431
432 SUBJECT INDEX
for C;-fields 32 Bezout domain 119, 249, 279, 401

for finite dimensional algebras 325 T-equivalence
for finitistic projective dimension 263 for formulas 306
for fiat modules of rank n 244 Boolean algebra
for fp-injective modules 239 free 261
for fp-self-injective rings 278 bounded representation type 165
for global dimension 262 bound for coherence 229-230, 232, 254
for Goldie dimension 238 Brauer group 20
for infinite projective dimension 235 trivial 20
for infinite representation type 339 Brauer-Thrall conjecture
for n -generated fiat modules 244 first 166
for self-injective dimension 278
for semifirs 256-257 cancellation law
for semihereditary rings 256-257 for function fields 30, 35, 57-58, 70
for semiperfect rings 252 for polynomial rings 34, 71, 259, 262
for semiprimary rings 252 for power series fields 30, 56
for uniformly coherent rings 254 for power series rings 269-270, 278
for universally admissible fields 79 category
for weak global dimension 258-259 abelian 381
for weak global dimension one 256- additive 379
257 of additive functors 384
axiomatizable class 15-16, 32 path 405
of algebraically closed fields 17 characteristic transfer principle 6
of C;-fields 19 Chevalley's theorem 311, 317
of fields of characteristic zero 16 C; -field 19, 30-32
of fields with trivial Brauer group class
20 axiomatizable 15-16
of fiat modules 122 elementarily closed 13
of formally real fields 21 finitely axiomatizable 15
of Hilbertian fields 75 closed subscheme 314, 345
of injective modules 122 cogenerator 401
of Peano fields 61 coherent module 237
of Peano rings 61 coherent ring 97, 99, 106, 108, 122, 124,
of projective modules 122 229,231-232,236-237,253,255,
of real closed fields 22 258-259, 264-265, 278-279, 377,
of separably closed fields 17 401
Ax-Kochen's theorem 31, 60 commutative Noetherian ring 113, 115-
122
Back-and-forth construction 39 compact module 158
Baer's test for injectivity 239, 368 compactness theorem 3, 16
base change 316 complete local ring 56
Bass's theorem 165-166, 332 completion
SUBJECT INDEX 433
-adic 29, 59 local 313

complex number field 23 of topological space 272
constructible set 311 projective 234, 369
constructible subscheme 315, 342 pure-global 155, 291-292, 375
continuum hypothesis 24, 172, 293-294 pure-injective 155, 375
generalized 12 pure-projective 291-292
coordinate algebra 310 weak global 370
coordinate ring 313 weak homological 231, 369
countable ring 157, 235-236, 239 discrete valuation ring 56
Crawley-Johnsson-Warfield theorem 234 domain
cubically closed field 55 factorial 50, 378 402
cyclically presented module 97 principal ideal 406
Dynkin diagram 169
Dedekind domain 98, 109, 115, 168, 170,
182, 190, 201, 216, 218, 232, elementarily closed class 13
250-251, 265, 291, 402 of algebraically closed fields 13
definable subfunctor 135 of flat modules 122
definable subgroup 125, 161, 171 of projective modules 122
dense functor 380 elementary class
descending chain condition of representation-finite rings 301
for closed subsets 311 elementary definability 33
for submodules 401 in field of quotients 61-62
on finitely generated ideals 251 in number field 66
on principal ideals 235, 251 of field in function field 34
descent of Henselian ring in quotient field
infinite 35, 51 50, 56
diagonal embedding 2, 4 of integers in polynomial ring 36
diagonal mapping 2, 125 of K[[X1, ... ,Xn]] in K((Xi, ... ,Xn))
diagram 50
expansion 308 of Q in polynomial ring 36
language 308 of ring in field of quo ti en ts 56
dimension elementary descent 229-230, 235, 237,
embedding 265 240, 244
finitistic global 373 for algebraically compact modules
flat 369 239
fp-injective 264, 377 for algebraically compact rings 285
Gelfand-Kirillov 275, 277-278 for Artinian modules 237
global 278, 369 for Artinian rings 237
Goldie 238 for coherent rings 255
injective 369 for Dedekind domains 251
Krull 117-118, 121, 123, 254, 271, for flat modules 229
276-278, 313, 378 for free modules 235
434 SUBJECT INDEX
for GK-dimension 276-277 for matrix rings 238, 274

for global dimension 260, 262 for modules over Z[X] 115
for injective modules 239-240 for Noetherian rings 251
for Krull dimension 276 for number fields 13
for locally coherent modules 237 for polynomial rings 36-37, 39, 43,
for locally coherent rings 237 71, 259, 262
for maximum condition 244 for power series fields 31, 56-57
for minimum condition 244 for power series fields K((X1)) · · · ( (Xn))
for Noetherian modules 237 30
for Noetherian rings 237, 251 for power series fields K ( (Xi, ... , X n))
for perfect rings 253 31
for primitive rings 268 for power series rings 43, 269-270,
for principal ideal domains 251 278
for projective modules 235 for rational function fields 28
for pure-projective modules 235 for real closed fields 9, 23, 41-42
for regular local rings 262 for rings of continuous functions 272
for I: -algebraically compact modu- for R -modules 100, 107
les 239 for self-injective rings 265
for I: -algebraically compact rings for separably closed fields 17
287 for sets 99
for I: -injective modules 239 for torsion modules 109
for transcendency degree 277 for weak global dimension 258-260
for weak global dimension 259 localization of 114
elementary embedding 4 elementary equivalence of fields 32
elementary equivalence 11, 15 elementary equivalence of Henselian fields
for algebraically closed fields 5 31
for embedding dimension 266 elementary equivalence of power series
for fields 13-14 fields 31
for flat modules 106, 115-119, 229 elementary equivalence
for fp-injective dimension 240 to algebraic number field 29
for fp-injective modules 108 to number field 66
for fp-self-injective rings 265 to polynomial ring 67, 69, 74
for free algebras 266 to pure-injective envelope 158
for function fields 14, 28, 30, 43, 47- to Q[X] 36
49, 57-58, 70 elementary extension 3
for global dimension 261 elementary subfield 18
for injective dimension 240 elementary submodule 123, 229, 237, 240,
for injective modules 120 244
for injective modules over commu- elementary subring 3, 74
tative Noetherian rings 121 elimination of quantifiers 306
for Krull dimension 276 for algebraically closed fields 307
for localizations 112-113 for modules 91-92
SUBJECT INDEX 435
elliptic curve 70 real closed 9, 21-23, 26-28, 30-31,

embedding dimension 265 41,43,45-49,58-59
envelope relatively algebraically closed 4
injective 128 rigid 63
projective 187 S -closed 87
pure-injective 128 separably closed 17
epimorphism universally admissible 77-80, 87, 89
in category of rings 213, 301 field extension
essential map 272 pure transcendental 75
essential submodule 402 filter 1
essential supremum 233-234 N -complete 140, 152
ry1-ordered field 23, 41, 43 finite axiomatizability
T/1-set 23, 173 for fields of characteristic p 16
exact sequence 402 for finite global dimension 263
of functors 385 for finite representation type 341
pure-exact 96, 98 for G -admissible fields 77
existentially closed subfield 19 for global dimension 346
for injective modules 123, 245
for ( m, n) -presented modules 228
factorial domain 50, 75, 378, 402
for self-injective dimension 346
factorial ring 72
finite field 30-31, 58, 69
faithful functor 380 finitely axiomatizable class 15
faithful module 402 finitely definable su bfunctor 135
F -product 140 finitely definable subgroup 92-93, 96-
field 99, 126, 161, 164, 170-171, 181
admissible 77 of flat module 96-97
algebraically closed 5, 17, 30-31, 43, of fp-injective module 98-99
49, 58-59, 306,309 finitely generated free module 227
Archimedean 41, 48 finitely generated module 227
cubically closed 55 finitely generated modules
T/l 23, 41, 43 elementary equivalence of 115
finite 30-31, 58, 69 finitely presented 93
formally real 21, 25, 28 finitely presented module 93-94, 96-98,
Henselian 31 107-108, 112, 228, 234, 368
Hilbertian 75-76 finite n -presentation 264
non-Archimedean 41, 48, 64 finite simple group 78
of characteristic p 16-17 finitistic global dimension 235
of characteristic zero 16 conjectures 263 373
ordered 8-9 finitistic projective dimension
Peano field 61 of ultraproduct 264
Pythagorean 34-35, 47 first order language of modules
quasi-algebraically closed 19 one-sorted 91
436 SUBJECT INDEX
first order language preserving algebraic compactness 211,

two-sided 225 221
first order sentence 2 preserving elementary equivalence 211,
flat dimension 369 221
flat module 96-97, 106, 109, 115-119, representable 386
122-123,229-232,234-235,244, representative 380
368 uniform 199
rank of 244
flat resolution 372 Gabriel's theorem 313, 343
formally real field 20-21, 25-26, 28 Galois extension 77
formula Galois group 77
atomic 307 abelian 85
positive primitive 92, 96, 99-100, alternating 81
114 cyclic of order four 82
positive quantifier-free 307 cyclic of prime power order 81
fp-injective dimension 240, 264, 377 dihedral 81-82, 87
of ultraproduct 240 finite 81
fp-injective functor 197 of length t 84
fp-injective module 98-99, 108, 119, 153, quaternion 81-82
239, 245, 377 simple 80-81, 87
free algebra 266, 275, 300 solvable 81, 84
free Boolean algebra 261, 291 symmetric 81, 87
free module 367 Gelfand-Kirillov dimension 275, 277-278
free module of infinite rank 232-233, 235- generalized continuum hypothesis 12, 23,
236 260
F-semiperfect ring 127, 180, 247-249, generator
252, 403 in additive category 382 403
full embedding global dimension 254, 278, 332, 339
of categories 380 finitistic 235 369
full functor 380 of ultrapower 260-261
full subcategory 380 Godel's completeness theorem 309
function field 28, 30 Goldie dimension 238
Pythagoras number of 27 graded module 300
function Grothendieck category 383
semicontinuous 313 group
functor affine algebraic 312
additive 379 finite simple 78
N -injective 142-144, 150-151 S -semisimple 82-83
dense 380 group-graded module 300
faithful 380 growth of algebra 275
full 380
injective 126, 131, 143, 145 Hasse principle 29
SUBJECT INDEX 437
Henselian field 31 Kronecker algebra 193, 404

Henselian ring 50-58, 60, 69, 403 Kronecker module 193, 207-208, 404
Hensel's lemma 145 p -adic 208
hereditary Noetherian ring 232 preinjective 208
hereditary ring 214, 254, 403 preprojective 194
Hilbertian field 75-76 regular 208, 209
Hilbert's 17th problem 8-9, 26 Krull dimension 39, 43-45, 50, 57, 65,
Hilbert's irreducibility theorem 75 67, 69, 75, 117-118, 121, 123,
Hilbert's Nullstellensatz 7, 310 192, 254, 271, 276-278,313
classical 276, 278
idempotent element 404 for categories 198
immediate extension for mod(R) 198, 200
of valued fields 288 infinite 66, 69 378
indentity standard 273 of Peano ring 64
infinite descent 35, 51 sense of Gabriel 278
injective dimension 123-124, 240, 369 sense of Gabriel-Rentschler 278
of ultraproduct 245 Krull filtration 198
injective envelope 121, 128, 159, 238, Krull-Schmidt theorem 324, 332
404
injective functor 126, 131, 143, 145 Lagrange's theorem 24, 27, 63
injective module 119-123, 368 .>. -simple 199
injective object language of modules
in abelian category 382 one-sorted 91
injective resolution 368 lattice 318-319
injectivity projective 320
Baer's test for 368 left perfect ring 251
integrally closed ring 306, 404 level of field 21, 25
irreducible map 335 Levitzki's theorem 165
lifting of idempotents 248-249
Jacobson radical 243 linearly compact module 174, 289
of module 404 Liouville numbers 49
of polynomial ring 262 local dimension 313
of power series ring 270 localization 112, 114, 116
of ring 404 of elementary equivalence 114
Jacobson semi-simple ring 247 localization principle
for flat modules 116
Kaplansky's theorem localizing subcategory 198
on pi-algebras 276 locally closed set 311
on projective modules 235 locally coherent module 237
Keisler-Shelah 's ultrapower theorem 3- locally finite module 244
4, 11, 16, 32, 91, 112-113, 212, local module 238, 241
231 local ring 111, 118, 306, 378, 404
438 SUBJECT INDEX
Los's principle 2-3, 5-6, 8, 11, 15-16, fp-injective 98-99, 108, 119, 153, 239,
21, 27, 227 245, 377
Lowenheim-Skolem's theorem 4-6, 24, free 367
164, 235, 237, 261 free of infinite rank 232-233, 235-
Lliroth's theorem 70 236
graded 300
Mac Lane separable 4, 17-18, 328 group-graded 300
map injective 119-123, 368
irreducible 335 Kronecker 207-208
mapping linearly compact 289
diagonal 125 local 238, 241
locally coherent 237
Martin's axiom 172
locally finite 244
maximally complete
(m,n) -presented 228
valuation ring 288, 323
of finite n -presentation 264
valued field 288
of length t 226
maximum condition
projective 122, 227, 231, 234-235,
for open subschemes 315
367
on n -genera.ted submodules 244
projective dimension of 234-235
m -adic module 205
Prlifer 208
( m, n) -presented module 228
pure-injective 125, 128, 126, 375
module pure-projective 234-235, 374
absolutely pure 377 semiprimary 281
No -compact 157 semisimple 244
N -compact 144, 146, 155, 141 I: -algebraically compact 160-161,
N -generated 136 163-164, 169-171,193-195,216
N -injective 141 I: -algebraically compact indecom-
N -presented 136 posable 245
N -projective 152 I: -injective 122, 239, 245
N -pure-injective 141 I: -pure-injective 161
algebraically compact 125, 128, 130- simple 226-227, 237, 244
131, 144, 154, 157, 165, 171, torsion-free 109, 116-117, 119
126, 375 uniform 184, 238, 241
coherent 237 weak dimension of 231, 233
compact 158 morphism
cyclically presented 97 of affine schemes 314
finitely generated 227 of functors 380
finitely generated free 227 of varieties 310
finitely presented 93-94, 96-98, 107-
108, 112, 228, 234, 368 Nakayama's lemma 323
flat 96-97, 106, 109, 115-119, 122- Nazarova-Roiter's theorem 340
123, 229-232, 234-235, 244, 368 nilpotent 404
SUBJECT INDEX 439
nilradical 405 positive diagram 308

Noetherian module 405 positive-primitive definable subgroup 92
Noetherian ring 98, 113, 115-118, 120- positive primitive formula 92, 96, 99-
123, 237-240, 245, 370, 405 100, 114
Noetherian scheme 314 positive quantifier-free formula 307
Noether-Ostrowski irreducibility theorem power series algebra
6 over afield 265
non-Archimedean field 41, 48, 64 power series field 30-31
non-essential map 272 power series field K((X1, ... , Xn)) 31,
norm residue symbol 29 50
number field 28, 31, 62, 66, 69 power series field K((X1))((X2)) · · · ((Xn))
integers in 119 50
power series fields 23
openness in infinitely many indeterminates 59
of finite global dimension 347 in infinitely many variables 60
of finite projective dimension 345 preinjective Kronecker module 208
of self-injective dimension 346 preprojective Kronecker module 194
open subscheme 314, 345 prime ideal 406
orbit space 317 prime ring 248, 406
order 318-319 primitive ring 268, 406
ordered field 8-9, 20 principal ideal domain 115, 250, 406
rank of 44-4 7 principal open sets 311
Ore condition 248 principal open subscheme 314
Ore domain 248 projective cover 406
of module 251
path algebra 405 projective dimension 123-124, 234-235,
path category 405 344-345
Peano arithmetic 63 axiomatizability of finite 235 369
Peano field 61-63, 65 projective dimension of module 234-235
rigid 63 projective dimension
Peano ring 61-65, 68, 74, 219, 261, 288, of ultraproduct 234
406 projective envelope 187
non-Noetherian 65 projective module 122, 227, 231, 234-
rigid 63 235, 367
perfect ring 124, 244, 406 projective object
pi-degree 273-274 in abelian category 381
place extension theorem 305, 309, 330, projective resolution 368
344, 347 proper polynomial identity 273
polynomial Priifer domain 72, 108-109, 111, 249-
absolutely irreducible 6 250, 279, 401
polynomial algebra 192 Priifer group 238-239
polynomial identity ring 273 Priifer module 208, 245
440 SUBJECT INDEX
Priifer module205 real closed fields

pseudo-convergence non-isomorphic 22
in valued field 288 real closure 9
Puiseux field 23, 69 reduced product
Puiseux's theorem 23, 62 algebraically compact 192
pure-exact sequence 96, 98, 155, 234, of N -injective modules 152
291, 300, 374 reduced ring 310, 407
pure-global dimension 155, 190, 194, 291- reduction modulo the radical 187, 189,
293, 300, 375 216
of free algebra 301 regular action
of free Boolean algebra 291 of algebraic group 312
of Kronecker algebra 299 regular
of polynomial algebra 301 Kronecker module 208
pure-injective dimension 155, 375 regular local ring 50-51, 262, 265, 278,
pure-injective envelope 128 288, 293, 378
pure-injective module 125, 128, 126, 375 regular map 310
pure-injective resolution 375 regular representation
pure-projective dimension 291-292, 374 of algebra 316
pure-projective module 234-235, 374 relatively algebraically closed field 4
pure-projective resolution 374 representable functor 313, 386
pure-semisimple ring 164-165, 168, 170, representation-finite ring 292, 329, 331-
181-182, 218, 222, 292, 407 332, 338, 165, 408
pure submodule 96, 105, 109, 123, 164, representation
240, 242, 244, 256, 374 of quiver 407
Pythagoras number 24-28, 70-71 representative functor 380
Pythagorean field 34-35, 47 resolution
flat 372
quantifier elimination injective 368
for modules 99 projective 368
quasi-algebraically closed field 19 pure-injective 375
quiver 407 pure-projective 374
representation of 407 rigid algebraic structure 63
quotient category 198 rigid field 63
ring
rank N -coherent 142, 152
of a fiat module 244 algebraically compact 281, 285, 287-
of lattice 318 288, 323
of order 318 Artinian 226, 232, 234-237, 241, 245
rank of ordered field 44-47 Bezout 249, 279
rational function field 4 7 coherent 97, 99; 106, 108, 122, 124,
real closed field 9, 21-23, 26-28, 30-31, 229,231-232,236-237,253,255,
41,43,45-49, 58-59 258-259,264-265,278-279, 377
SUBJECT INDEX 441
commutative Noetherian 115-118, 120- 282, 285, 291

122 ring
complete local 56 with Ore condition 248
countable 157, 235-236, 239 with polynomial identity 273
Dedekind 98, 109, 115, 168, 170, with sufficiently many a.c.i.modules
182, 190, 201, 216, 218, 232, 182
250-251, 265, 291 Roth's theorem 49
F-semiperfect 127, 247-249, 252
Henselian 50-58, 60 Sabbagh's theorem 158, 180
hereditary Noetherian 232 saturated structure 12
hereditary ring 214, 254 scheme
Jacobson semi-simple 247
affine 313
left perfect 251
Noetherian 314
local 111, 118, 378
Schofield's theorem 313
Noetherian 98, 113, 115, 123, 237-
S -closed field 87
240, 245, 370
self-injective dimension 172, 346
of continuous functions 271
self-injective ring 195, 197, 285
of finite width 232-233, 245
semi continuity
Peano 61, 288
of fibre dimension 313
perfect 124, 244
of orbit dimension 313
prime 248
semicontinuous function 313
primitive 268
Priifer 249 semifir 257, 408
pure-semisimple 164-165, 170, 181- semihereditary ring 253, 408
182, 218, 222, 292 semilocal ring 123
reduced 310 semiperfect ring 249, 252, 408
regular local 50-51, 262, 265, 278, semiprimary ring 213, 236, 239, 252, 260,
288, 293, 378 281 408
representation-finite 292, 331, 165 semiprime ring 273
self-injective 195, 197, 285 semisimple Artinian ring 408
~mihereditary 253 semisimple module 244, 408
semilocal 123 semisimple ring 408
semiperfect 249, 252 separable closure 18
semiprimary 213, 236, 239, 252 separable
semiprime 273 Mac Lane 17
E -algebraically compact 281 separably closed field 17
uniformly coherent 72, 229-232, 236- sequence
237, 254-256, 259 almost-split 332
valuation 249, 320 exact 402
von Neumann regular 127, 160, 169, pure-exact 155, 234, 374
181, 183, 195, 232, 239, 247- Serre subcategory 197
248, 254, 261, 265, 268, 270, S -group 82
442 SUBJECT INDEX
E -algebraically compact indecompos- closed 345

able module 245 constructible 315, 342
E -algebraically compact module 160- open 314, 345
161, 163-164, 169-171,193-195, principal open 314
216, 245 sum of squares 8
E -algebraically compact ring 281
E -injective module 122, 239, 245 Tarski's theorem 9, 23, 42
E -pure-injective module 161 theorem
simple Artinian ring 408 of Hasse and Siegel 24
simple group 78 of Puiseux 23
simple module 226-227, 237, 244, 408 of Tarski 23
simple ring 408 place extension 305, 330
small category 384 T-nilpotent 409
small submodule 409 torsion-free module 109, 116-117, 119
socle 244 torsion module 320
of module 409 torsion submodule 109
spectral category 175 total valuation 51
S -radical of group 83 transcendency degree 64-66
S -semisimple group 82-83 infinite 40
stable range condition 271 of prime pi-algebra 276
stable rank 271-272 over the rationals 38
of ring of continuous functions 272 translation theorem 80, 86, 88
standard indentity 273 transpose
Steinitz's theorem 5-6, 22-23, 306 of module 333
structure constants 20, 330 two-sorted first order language 225
normalized 315 ultrafilter 1
subfield No -incomplete 156
existentially closed 19 w -complete 156
subfield of codimension two 23 w -incomplete 329
subfunctor 380 principal 2
subgroup ultrapower 2
definable 125, 161, 171 of fiat modules 229
finitely definable 92-93, 96-99, 126, of the integers 74
161, 164, 170-171, 181 ultrapower theorem 91
positive-primitive definable 92 ultraproduct 2, 15, 79
submodule algebraically compact 192
elementary 123, 229, 237, 240, 244 of N -injective modules 152
pure 96, 105, 109, 123, 164, 240, of fields 2
242, 244, 256, 374 of finite dimensional algebras 325
small 409 of indecomposable modules 327
torsion 109 of modules 225
subscheme of primitive rings 268
SUBJECT INDEX 443
of representation-finite algebras 343

uniform coherence
of ultraproduct 255
uniform functor 199, 199
uniformly coherent ring 72, 229-232, 236-
237, 254-256, 259, 409
uniform module 184, 238, 241
unimodular row 271
uniserial category 209
universally admissible field 77-80, 87,
89
valuation domain 44--45, 50, 58, 69, 98,

109, 111, 249, 306, 320
discrete 56, 250 409
maximally complete 47, 288, 323
valued field
maximally complete 288
van den Dries's test 308-309, 344, 347
variety
affine 310
of algebras 316
von Neumann regular ring 127, 160, 169,
181, 183, 195, 232, 239, 247-
248, 254, 261, 265, 268, 270,
282, 285, 291, 409
weak dimension
of module 123, 231, 233
of ultraproduct 233
weak global dimension 72, 253, 260, 370
of ultrapower 260
weak homological dimension 231, 369
Weierstra:B's theorem 172
width of ring 232-233, 245
Yoneda's lemma 314, 386
Zariski's problem 34
Zariski topology 311
Model Theoretic Algebra
with particular emphasis on Fields, Rings, Modules
C U Jensen, University of Copenhagen, Denmark and
H Lenzing, University of Paderborn, FRG
Volume 2 of the series Algebra, Logic and Applications

edited by R Gobel and A Macintyre
This volume highlights the links between model theory and algebra .
Many of the subjects covered appear here for the first time in book
form. The work contains a definitive account of algebraically compact
modules, a topic of central importance for both module and model
theory.
Using concrete examples, particular emphasis is given illustrating
model theoretic concepts, such as axiomizability. Pure mathematicians,
especially algebraists, ring theorists. logicians, model theorists and
representation theorists, will find this an absorbing and stimulating
book.
About the authors

Christian Jensen has been Professor at Copenhagen University
since 1972, and has held visiting appointments at the University of
Illinois, Carleton University, Queen's University, University of Toronto
and the University of Paris.
Helmut Lenzing was appointed Professor at Paderborn University in
1972, having previously been with the University of Bielefeld. He has
been a visiting Scholar at the University of Copenhagen, University
of Toronto, Brandeis University and Carleton University.
Related Titles of Interest

Linear Algebra and Geometry, by A I Kostrikin and Yu I Manin
Abelian Group Theory, edited by R Gobel and E A Walker
Integrable Systems on Lie Algrebras and Symmetric Spaces, by
A T Fomenko and V V Trofimov
GORDON A ND BREAC H SC IENCE PU BLIS HER S ISS N 104 1 5394

New York• London • Pm is• M ontrnu x •Tokyo• M elbourne ISB N 2 -881 24 717 2

Model Theoretic Algebra - Jansen

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Model Theoretic Algebra - Jansen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIELDS, RINGS, MODULES

GORDON AND BREACH SCIENCE PUBLISHERS

Published under license by Gordon and Breach Science Publishers S .A.

Gordon and Breach Science Publishers

58, rue Lhomond

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

1 Introduction. Ultraproducts. Definitions and examples 1

2 Elementary equivalence. Axiomatizable and finitely axiomatiz-

3 Elementary definability. Applications to polynomial and power

4 Peano rings and Peano fields 61

5 Hilbertian fields and realizations of finite groups as Galois groups 75

6 The language of modules over a fixed ring 91

Elementary and axiomatizable classes . 122

7 Algebraically compact modules 125

8 Decompositions and algebraic compactness 161

9 The two-sorted language of modules over unspecified rings 225

10 The first order theory of rings 247

11 Pure global dimension and algebraically compact rings 281

12 Representation theory of finite dimensional algebras 305

Indecomposable modules . . . . . . . . . . 325

A Basic notions and definitions from homological algebra 367

B Functor categories on finitely presented modules 379

Perfectness and pure-semisimplicity . . . . 392

C Glossary of some basic notions in ring and module theory 401

Author Index 428

Subject Index 431

g)lein tbeum ireuub, id} rat~· euc~ brum

With respect to fields we concentrate on the following topics:

Concerning rings we mainly consider

In the case of modules we have to distinguish between the

In the one-sorted language of modules we concentrate on topics like

Our treatment of the two-sorted language of modules precedes and serves as a

a review on the geometrical machinery (varieties and schemes).

1.1 If I is an arbitrary set, we recall that a filter :F on I is a family of subsets

ultrafilter on I, called the principal ultrafilter generated by a. By Zorn's lemma

Ultraproducts and Los 's principle

The compactness theorem

Theorem 1.6 (Compactness theorem) Let E be a set of first order sentences

Characterization of elementary equivalence

We notice that Theorem 1.5 in particular implies that an ultrapower RI/ :F of R

Elementary substructures and Lowenheim- Sko-

1.9 On some occasions we shall need the notion of an elementary extension.

s E S, r 1 , ... , rn E R satisfying 'I/; there exists an element r E R such that

Algebraically closed fields and characteristic

By the Lowenheim-Skolem theorem one gets an explicit criterion for elemen-

Proof. As in the earlier example let P be an infinite set of primes - :F a

Noether-Ostrowski's irreducibility theorem

Theorem 1.15 (Noether-Ostrowski's irreducibility theorem) Consider a

We shall illustrate some of the preceding notions by giving a model theoretic

infinite. By classical field theory there is a field monomorphism j* such that

in /{*, hence by Los's principle there is a subset J ~ N, J E :F such that

Hilbert's 17th problem

Next, as another explicit application, we consider Hilbert's 11t1• problem from a

addition + and multiplication·, i.e. if x, y, z EI< and x ~ y then x + z ~ y + z

By Tarski's theorem R(I<) = R; hence the above sentence holds true if we

is the square of an element in R(K), hence f ~ 0 by the ordering <. D

Keisler-Shelah's ultrapower theorem

In the preceding chapter we introduced the notion of elementary equivalence. The

Cardinalities and saturation properties of ultra-

Proposition 2.2 If I and M are infinite sets there exists an ultrafilter :F on I

Let M be a model of £. A set r of .C-formulas 1(X) in one free variable

Theorem 2.3 Let .C be a first-order language of cardinality ~ N and I be an

Elementarily closed classes

which is definite in K[Xi, ... , Xn]· Therefore f is a sum of 2n squares of rational