arXiv:1609.07613v1 [math.RA] 24 Sep 2016

Higher-dimensional absolute versions of
symmetric, Frobenius, and quasi-Frobenius
algebras
Mitsuyasu Hashimoto∗
Department of Mathematics, Okayama University
Okayama 700–8530, JAPAN
mh@okayama-u.ac.jp

Abstract
In this paper, we define and discuss higher-dimensional and absolute
versions of symmetric, Frobenius, and quasi-Frobenius algebras. In
particular, we compare these with the relative notions defined by Scheja
and Storch. We also prove the validity of codimension two-argument for
modules over a coherent sheaf of algebras with a 2-canonical module,
generalizing a result of the author.

1.

Introduction

(1.1) Let (R, m) be a semilocal Noetherian commutative ring, and Λ a
module-finite R-algebra. In [6], we defined the canonical module KΛ of Λ.
The purpose of this paper is two fold, each of which is deeply related to KΛ .
This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 26400045.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 16E65; Secondary 14A15. Key Words
and Phrases. canonical module; symmetric algebra; Frobenius algebra; quasi-Frobenius
algebra; n-canonical module.
∗

1

(1.2) In the first part, we define and discuss higher-dimensional and absolute
notions of symmetric, Frobenius, and quasi-Frobenius algebras and their nonCohen–Macaulay versions. In commutative algebra, the non-Cohen–Macaulay
version of Gorenstein ring is known as quasi-Gorenstein rings. What we discuss here is a non-commutative version of such rings. Scheja and Storch [7]
discussed a relative notion, and our definition is absolute in the sense that it
depends only on Λ and is independent of the choice of R. If R is local, our
quasi-Frobenius property agrees with Gorensteinness discussed by Goto and
Nishida [1], see Proposition 3.7 and Corollary 3.8.
(1.3) In the second part, we show that the codimension-two argument using
the existence of 2-canonical modules in [4] is still valid in non-commutative
settings. For the definition of an n-canonical module, see (2.8). Codimensiontwo argument, which states (roughly speaking) that removing a closed subset
of codimension two or more does not change the category of coherent sheaves
which satisfy Serre’s (S2′ ) condition, is sometimes used in algebraic geometry,
commutative algebra and invariant theory. For example, information on the
canonical sheaf and the class group is retained when we remove the singular
locus of a normal variety over an algebraically closed field, and then these
objects are respectively grasped as the top exterior power of the cotangent
bundle and the Picard group of a smooth variety. In [4], almost principal
bundles are studied. They are principal bundles after removing closed subsets
of codimension two or more.
We prove the following. Let X be a locally Noetherian scheme, U an open
subset of X such that codimX (X \ U) ≥ 2. Let i : U → X be the inclusion.
Let Λ be a coherent OX -algebra. If X possesses a 2-canonical module ω, then
the inverse image i∗ induces the equivalence between the category of coherent
right Λ-modules which satisfy the (S2′ ) condition and the category of coherent
right i∗ Λ-modules which satisfy the (S2′ ) condition. The quasi-inverse is given
by the direct image i∗ . What was proved in [4] was the case that Λ = OX .
If, moreover, ω = OX (that is to say, X satisfy the (S2 ) and (G1 ) condition),
then the assertion has been well-known, see [3].
(1.4) 2-canonical modules are ubiquitous in algebraic geometry. If I is a
dualizing complex of a Noetherian scheme X, then the lowest non-vanishing
cohomology group of I is semicanonical. A rank-one reflexive sheaf over a
normal variety is 2-canonical.

2

(1.5) Section 2 is for preliminaries. Section 3 is devoted to the discussion
of the first theme mentioned in the paragraph (1.2), while Section 4 is for the
second theme mentioned in (1.3).
(1.6) Acknowledgments: Special thanks are due to Professor Osamu Iyama
for valuable advice and discussion.
The essential part of this paper has first appeared as [5, sections 9–10].
When it is published as [6], they have been removed after the requirement to
shorten the paper (also, the title has been changed slightly). Here we revive
them as an independent paper.
2.

Preliminaries

(2.1) Throughout this paper, R denotes a Noetherian commutative ring.
For a module-finite R-algebra Λ, a Λ-module means a left Λ-module. Λop
denotes the opposite algebra of Λ, and thus a Λop -module is identified with a
right Λ-module. A Λ-bimodule means a Λ ⊗R Λop -module. The category of
finite Λ-modules is denoted by Λ mod. The category Λop mod is also denoted
by mod Λ.
(2.2) Let (R, m) be semilocal and Λ be a module-finite R-algebra. For an
R-module M, the m-adic completion of M is denoted by M̂. For a finite
Λ-module M, by dim M or dimΛ M we mean dimR M, which is independent
of the choice of R. By depth M or depthΛ M we mean depthR (m, M), which
is independent of R. We say that M is globally Cohen–Macaulay (GCM for
short) if dim M = depth M. We say that M is globally maximal Cohen–
Macaulay (GMCM for short) if dim Λ = depth M. If R happens to be local,
then M is GCM (resp. GMCM) if and only if M is Cohen–Macaulay (resp.
maximal Cohen–Macaulay) as an R-module.
(2.3) For M ∈ Λ mod, we say that M satisfies (Sn′ )Λ,R , (Sn′ )R or (Sn′ ) if
depthRP MP ≥ min(n, htR P ) for every P ∈ Spec R (this notion depends on
R).
(2.4) Let X be a locally Noetherian scheme and Λ a coherent OX -algebra.
For a coherent Λ-module M, we say that M satisfies (Sn′ ) or (Sn′ )Λ,X , or
sometimes M ∈ (Sn′ )Λ,X , if depthOX,x Mx ≥ min(n, dim OX,x ) for every x ∈
X.

3

(2.5) Assume that (R, m) is complete semilocal, and Λ 6= 0 a module-finite
R-algebra. Let I be a normalized dualizing complex of R. The lowest noni
vanishing cohomology group Ext−s
R (Λ, I) (ExtR (Λ, I) = 0 for i < −s) is denoted by KΛ , and is called the canonical module of Λ. If Λ = 0, then we define
that KΛ = 0. For basics on the canonical modules, we refer the reader to [6].
Note that KΛ depends only on Λ, and is independent of R.
(2.6) Assume that (R, m) is semilocal which may not be complete. We say
that a finitely generated Λ-bimodule K is a canonical module of Λ if K̂ is
isomorphic to the canonical module KΛ̂ as a Λ̂-bimodule. It is unique up to
isomorphisms, and denoted by KΛ . We say that K ∈ mod Λ is a right (resp.
left) canonical module of Λ if K̂ is isomorphic to KΛ̂ in mod Λ̂ (resp. Λ̂ mod).
If KΛ exists, then K is a right canonical module if and only if K ∼
= KΛ in
mod Λ.
(2.7) We say that ω is an R-semicanonical right Λ-module if for any P ∈
Spec R, RP ⊗R ω is the right canonical module RP ⊗R Λ for any P ∈ suppR ω.
(2.8) Let C ∈ mod Λ. We say that C is an n-canonical right Λ-module over
R if C ∈ (Sn′ )R , and for each P ∈ Spec R with ht P < n, we have that CP is
an RP -semicanonical right ΛP -module.
3.

Symmetric and Frobenius algebras

(3.1) Let (R, m) be a Noetherian semilocal ring, and Λ a module-finite Ralgebra. Let KΛ denote the canonical module of Λ, see [6].
We say that Λ is quasi-symmetric if Λ is the canonical module of Λ. That
is, Λ ∼
= KΛ as Λ-bimodules. It is called symmetric if it is quasi-symmetric
and GCM. Note that Λ is quasi-symmetric (resp. symmetric) if and only if
Λ̂ is so. Note also that quasi-symmetric and symmetric are absolute notion,
and is independent of the choice of R in the sense that the definition does not
change when we replace R by the center of Λ, because KΛ is independent of
the choice of R.
(3.2) For (non-semilocal) Noetherian ring R, we say that Λ is locally quasisymmetric (resp. locally symmetric) over R if for any P ∈ Spec R, ΛP is a
quasi-symmetric (resp. symmetric) RP -algebra. This is equivalent to say that
for any maximal ideal m of R, Λm is quasi-symmetric (resp. symmetric), see
[6, (7.6)].

4

In the case that (R, m) is semilocal, Λ is locally quasi-symmetric (resp.
locally symmetric) over R if it is quasi-symmetric (resp. symmetric), but the
converse is not true in general.
Lemma 3.3. Let (R, m) be a Noetherian semilocal ring, and Λ a module-finite
R-algebra. Then the following are equivalent.
1 ΛΛ is the right canonical module of Λ.
2

ΛΛ

is the left canonical module of Λ.

Proof. We may assume that R is complete. Then replacing R by a Noether
normalization of R/ annR Λ, we may assume that R is regular and Λ is a
faithful R-module.
We prove 1⇒2. By [6, Lemma 5.10], KΛ satisfies (S2′ )R . By assumption, ΛΛ satisfies (S2′ )R . As R is regular and dim R = dim Λ, KΛ = Λ∗ =
HomR (Λ, R). So we get an R-linear map
ϕ : Λ ⊗R Λ → R
such that ϕ(ab ⊗ c) = ϕ(a ⊗ bc) and that the induced map h : Λ → Λ∗
given by h(a)(c) = ϕ(a ⊗ c) is an isomorphism (in mod Λ). Now ϕ induces a
homomorphism h′ : Λ → Λ∗ in Λ mod given by h′ (c)(a) = ϕ(a ⊗ c). To verify
that this is an isomorphism, as Λ and Λ∗ are reflexive R-modules, we may
localize at a prime P of R of height at most one, and then take a completion,
and hence we may further assume that dim R ≤ 1. Then Λ is a finite free
R-module, and the matrices of h and h′ are transpose each other. As the
matrix of h is invertible, so is that of h′ , and h′ is an isomorphism.
2⇒1 follows from 1⇒2, considering the opposite ring.
Definition 3.4. Let (R, m) be semilocal. We say that Λ is a pseudo-Frobenius
R-algebra if the equivalent conditions of Lemma 3.3 are satisfied. If Λ is GCM
in addition, then it is called a Frobenius R-algebra. Note that these definitions
are independent of the choice of R. Moreover, Λ is pseudo-Frobenius (resp.
Frobenius) if and only if Λ̂ is so. For a general R, we say that Λ is locally
pseudo-Frobenius (resp. locally Frobenius) over R if ΛP is pseudo-Frobenius
(resp. Frobenius) for P ∈ Spec R.
Lemma 3.5. Let (R, m) be semilocal. Then the following are equivalent.
1 (KΛ̂ )Λ̂ is projective in mod Λ̂.
5

2

Λ̂ (KΛ̂ )

is projective in Λ̂ mod,

where ˆ? denotes the m-adic completion.
Proof. We may assume that (R, m, k) is complete regular local and Λ is a
faithful R-module. Let ¯? denote the functor k⊗R ?. Then Λ̄ is a finite dimensional k-algebra. So mod Λ̄ and Λ̄ mod have the same number of simple
modules, say n. An indecomposable projective module in mod Λ is nothing
but the projective cover of a simple module in mod Λ̄. So mod Λ and Λ mod
have n indecomposable projectives. Now HomR (?, R) is an equivalence between add(KΛ )Λ and add Λ Λ. It is also an equivalence between add Λ (KΛ ) and
add ΛΛ . So both add(KΛ )Λ and add Λ (KΛ ) also have n indecomposables. So 1
is equivalent to add(KΛ )Λ = add ΛΛ . 2 is equivalent to add Λ (KΛ ) = add Λ Λ.
So 1⇔2 is proved simply applying the duality HomR (?, R).
(3.6) Let (R, m) be semilocal. If the equivalent conditions in Lemma 3.5
are satisfied, then we say that Λ is pseudo-quasi-Frobenius. If it is GCM
in addition, then we say that it is quasi-Frobenius. These definitions are
independent of the choice of R. Note that Λ is pseudo-quasi-Frobenius (resp.
quasi-Frobenius) if and only if Λ̂ is so.
Proposition 3.7. Let (R, m) be semilocal. Then the following are equivalent.
1 Λ is quasi-Frobenius.
2 Λ is GCM, and dim Λ = idim Λ Λ, where idim denotes the injective dimension.
3 Λ is GCM, and dim Λ = idim ΛΛ .
Proof. 1⇒2. By definition, Λ is GCM. To prove that dim Λ = idim Λ Λ, we
may assume that R is local. Then by [1, (3.5)], we may assume that R
is complete. Replacing R by the Noetherian normalization of R/ annR Λ,
we may assume that R is a complete regular local ring of dimension d, and
Λ its maximal Cohen–Macaulay (that is, finite free) module. As add Λ Λ =
add Λ (KΛ ) by the proof of Lemma 3.5, it suffices to prove idim Λ (KΛ ) = d.
Let IR be the minimal injective resolution of the R-module R. Then J =
HomR (Λ, IR ) is an injective resolution of KΛ = HomR (Λ, R) as a left Λ-module.
As the length of J is d and
ExtdΛ (Λ/mΛ, KΛ ) ∼
= ExtdR (Λ/mΛ, R) 6= 0,
6

we have that idim Λ (KΛ ) = d.
2⇒1. We may assume that R is complete regular local and Λ is maximal
Cohen–Macaulay. By [1, (3.6)], we may further assume that R is a field.
Then Λ Λ is injective. So (KΛ )Λ = HomR (Λ, R) is projective, and Λ is quasiFrobenius, see [8, (IV.3.7)].
1⇔3 is proved similarly.
Corollary 3.8. Let R be arbitrary. Then the following are equivalent.
1 For any P ∈ Spec R, ΛP is quasi-Frobenius.
2 For any maximal ideal m of R, Λm is quasi-Frobenius.
3 Λ is a Gorenstein R-algebra in the sense that Λ is a Cohen–Macaulay
R-module, and idimΛP ΛP ΛP = dim ΛP for any P ∈ Spec R.
Proof. 1⇒2 is trivial.
2⇒3. By Proposition 3.7, we have idim Λm Λm = dim Λm for each m. Then
by [1, (4.7)], Λ is a Gorenstein R-algebra.
3⇒1 follows from Proposition 3.7.
(3.9) Let R be arbitrary. We say that Λ is a quasi-Gorenstein R-algebra if
ΛP is pseudo-quasi-Frobenius for each P ∈ Spec R.
Definition 3.10 (Scheja–Storch [7]). Let R be general. We say that Λ is
symmetric (resp. Frobenius) relative to R if Λ is R-projective, and Λ∗ :=
HomR (Λ, R) is isomorphic to Λ as a Λ-bimodule (resp. as a right Λ-module).
It is called quasi-Frobenius relative to R if the right Λ-module Λ∗ is projective.
Lemma 3.11. Let (R, m) be local.
1 If dim Λ = dim R, R is quasi-Gorenstein, and Λ∗ ∼
= Λ as Λ-bimodules
∗ ∼
∗
(resp. Λ = Λ as right Λ-modules, Λ is projective as a right Λ-module),
then Λ is quasi-symmetric (resp. pseudo-Frobenius, pseudo-quasi-Frobenius).
2 If R is Gorenstein and Λ is symmetric (resp. Frobenius, quasi-Frobenius)
relative to R, then Λ is symmetric (resp. Frobenius, quasi-Frobenius).
3 If Λ is nonzero and R-projective, then Λ is quasi-symmetric (resp. pseudoFrobenius, pseudo-quasi-Frobenius) if and only if R is quasi-Gorenstein
and Λ is symmetric (resp. Frobenius, quasi-Frobenius) relative to R.

7

4 If Λ is nonzero and R-projective, then Λ is symmetric (resp. Frobenius,
quasi-Frobenius) if and only if R is Gorenstein and Λ is symmetric (resp.
Frobenius, quasi-Frobenius) relative to R.
Proof. We can take the completion, and we may assume that R is complete
local.
1. Let d = dim Λ = dim R, and let I be the normalized dualizing complex
(see [6, (5.2)]) of R. Then
−d
∼
KΛ = Ext−d
(I)) ∼
= Hom(Λ, KR ) ∼
= Hom(Λ, R) = Λ∗
R (Λ, I) = HomR (Λ, H

as Λ-bimodules, and the result follows.
2. We may assume that Λ is nonzero. As R is Cohen–Macaulay and Λ is
a finite projective R-module, Λ is a maximal Cohen–Macaulay R-module. By
1, the result follows.
3. The ‘if’ part follows from 1. We prove the ‘only if’ part. As Λ
is R-projective and nonzero, dim Λ = dim R. As Λ is R-finite free, KΛ ∼
=
∗
∗
Λ
⊗
K
.
As
K
is
R-free
and
Λ
⊗
K
is
nonzero
and
is
HomR (Λ, KR ) ∼
=
R
R
Λ
R
R
isomorphic to a direct sum of copies of KR , we have that KR is R-projective,
and hence R is quasi-Gorenstein, and KR ∼
= Λ∗ , and the
= R. Hence KΛ ∼
result follows.
4 follows from 3 easily.
(3.12) Let (R, m) be semilocal. Let a finite group G act on Λ by R-algebra
automorphisms.
L Let Ω = Λ ∗ G, the twisted group algebra. That is, Ω =
Λ ⊗R RG =
g∈G Λg as an R-module, and the product of Ω is given by
′ ′
(ag)(a g ) = (a(ga′ ))(gg ′) for a, a′ ∈ Λ and g, g ′ ∈ G. This makes Ω a modulefinite R-algebra.
(3.13) We simply call an RG-module a G-module. We say that M is a
(G, Λ)-module if M is a G-module, Λ-module, the R-module structures coming
from that of the G-module structure and the Λ-module structure agree, and
g(am) = (ga)(gm) for g ∈ G, a ∈ Λ, and m ∈ M. A (G, Λ)-module and an
Ω-module are one and the same thing.
(3.14) By the action ((a ⊗ a′ )g)a1 = a(ga1 )a′ , we have that Λ is a (Λ ⊗
Λop ) ∗ G-module in a natural way. So it is an Ω-module by the action (ag)a1 =
a(ga1 ). It is also a right Ω-module by the action a1 (ag) = g −1 (a1 a). If the
action of G on Λ is trivial, then these actions make an Ω-bimodule.

8

(3.15) Given an Ω-module M and an RG-module V , M ⊗R V is an Ωmodule by (ag)(m ⊗ v) = (ag)m ⊗ gv. HomR (M, V ) is a right Ω-module by
(ϕ(ag))(m) = g −1 ϕ(a(gm)). It is easy to see that the standard isomorphism
HomR (M ⊗R V, W ) → HomR (M, HomR (V, W ))
is an isomorphism of right Ω-modules for a left Ω-module M and G-modules
V and W .
(3.16) Now consider the case Λ = R. Then the pairing φ : RG ⊗R RG → R
given by φ(g ⊗ g ′ ) = δgg′ ,e (Kronecker’s delta) is non-degenerate, and induces
an RG-bimodule isomorphism Ω = RG → (RG)∗ = Ω∗ . As Ω = RG is a finite
free R-module, we have that Ω = RG is symmetric relative to R.
Lemma 3.17. If Λ is quasi-symmetric (resp. symmetric) and the action of G
on Λ is trivial, then Ω is quasi-symmetric (resp. symmetric).
Proof. Taking the completion, we may assume that R is complete. Then
replacing R by a Noether normalization of R/ annR Λ, we may assume that R
is a regular local ring, and Λ is a faithful R-module. As the action of G on Λ
is trivial, Ω = Λ ⊗R RG is quasi-symmetric (resp. symmetric), as can be seen
easily.
(3.18) In particular, if Λ is commutative quasi-Gorenstein (resp. Gorenstein)
and the action of G on Λ is trivial, then Ω = ΛG is quasi-symmetric (resp.
symmetric).
(3.19) In general, Ω Ω ∼
= Λ ⊗R RG as Ω-modules.
Lemma 3.20. Let M and N be right Ω-modules, and let ϕ : M → N be a
homomorphism of right Λ-modules. Then ψ : M ⊗ RG → N ⊗ RG given by
ψ(m ⊗ g) = g(ϕ(g −1m)) ⊗ g is an Ω-homomorphism. In particular,
1 If ϕ is a Λ-isomorphism, then ψ is an Ω-isomorphism.
2 If ϕ is a split monomorphism in mod Λ, then ψ is a split monomorphism
in mod Ω.
Proof. Straightforward.
Proposition 3.21. Let G be a finite group acting on Λ. Set Ω := Λ ∗ G.
1 If the action of G on Λ is trivial and Λ is quasi-symmetric (resp. symmetric), then so is Ω.
9

2 If Λ is pseudo-Frobenius (resp. Frobenius), then so is Ω.
3 If Λ is pseudo-quasi-Frobenius (resp. quasi-Frobenius), then so is Ω.
Proof. 1 is Lemma 3.17. To prove 2 and 3, we may assume that (R, m) is
complete regular local and Λ is a faithful module.
2.
(KΩ )Ω ∼
= HomR (Λ, R) ⊗ (RG)∗ ∼
= KΛ ⊗ RG
= HomR (Λ ⊗R RG, R) ∼
as right Ω-modules. It is isomorphic to ΛΩ ⊗ RG ∼
= ΩΩ by Lemma 3.20, 1,
∼
since KΛ = Λ in mod Λ. Hence Ω is pseudo-Frobenius. If, in addition, Λ is
Cohen–Macaulay, then Ω is also Cohen–Macaulay, and hence Ω is Frobenius.
3 is proved similarly, using Lemma 3.20, 2.
Note that the assertions for Frobenius and quasi-Frobenius properties also
follow easily from Lemma 3.11 and [7, (3.2)].
4.

Codimension-two argument

(4.1) This section is the second part of this paper. In this section, we show
that the codimension-two argument using the existence of 2-canonical modules
in [4] is still valid in non-commutative settings, as announced in (1.3).
(4.2) Let X be a locally Noetherian scheme, U its open subscheme, and Λ
a coherent OX -algebra. Let i : U ֒→ X be the inclusion.
(4.3) Let M ∈ mod Λ. That is, M is a coherent right Λ-module. Then by
restriction, i∗ M ∈ mod i∗ Λ.
(4.4) For a quasi-coherent i∗ Λ-module N , we have an action
1⊗u

a

i∗ N ⊗OX Λ −−→ i∗ N ⊗OX i∗ i∗ Λ → i∗ (N ⊗OU i∗ Λ) −
→ i∗ N ,
where u is the unit map for the adjoint pair (i∗ , i∗ ). So we get a functor
i∗ : Mod i∗ Λ → Mod Λ, where Mod i∗ Λ (resp. Mod Λ) denote the category of
quasi-coherent i∗ Λ-modules (resp. Λ-modules).
Lemma 4.5. Let the notation be as above. Assume that U is large in X
op
(that is, codimX (X \ U) ≥ 2). If M ∈ (S2′ )Λ ,X , then the canonical map
u : M → i∗ i∗ M is an isomorphism.
10

Proof. Follows immediately from [4, (7.31)].
Proposition 4.6. Let the notation be as above, and let U be large in X. Assume that there is a 2-canonical right Λ-module. Then we have the following.
1 If N ∈ (S2′ )i

∗ Λop ,U

, then i∗ N ∈ (S2′ )Λ

2 i∗ : (S2′ )Λ ,X → (S2′ )i
inverse each other.
op

∗ Λop ,U

op ,X

.

and i∗ : (S2′ )i

∗ Λop ,U

→ (S2′ )Λ

op ,X

are quasi-

Proof. The question is local, and we may assume that X is affine.
1. There is a coherent subsheaf Q of i∗ N such that i∗ Q = i∗ i∗ N = N by
[2, Exercise II.5.15]. Let V be the Λ-submodule of i∗ N generated by Q. That
is, the image of the composite
Q ⊗OX Λ → i∗ N ⊗OX Λ → i∗ N .
Note that V is coherent, and i∗ Q ⊂ i∗ V ⊂ i∗ i∗ N = i∗ Q = N .
Let C be a 2-canonical right Λ-module. Let ?† := HomΛop (?, C), Γ =
EndΛ C, and ?‡ := HomΓ (?, C). Let M be the double dual V †‡ . Then M ∈
op
(S2′ )Λ ,X , and hence
M∼
= i∗ i∗ M ∼
= i∗ i∗ (V †‡ ) ∼
= i∗ (i∗ V)†‡ ∼
= i∗ (N †‡ ) ∼
= i∗ N .
op
So i∗ N ∼
= M lies in (S2′ )Λ ,X .
2 follows from 1 and Lemma 4.5 immediately.

References
[1] S. Goto and K. Nishida, Towards a theory of Bass numbers with
applications to Gorenstein algebras, Colloq. Math. 91 (2002), 191–
253.
[2] R. Hartshorne, Algebraic Geometry, Graduate Texts in Math. 52,
Springer Verlag (1977).
[3] R. Hartshorne, Generalized divisors on Gorenstein schemes, KTheory 8 (1994), 287–339.
[4] M. Hashimoto, Equivariant class group. III. Almost principal fiber
bundles, arXiv:1503.02133v1
11

[5] M. Hashimoto, Canonical and n-canonical modules on a Noetherian
algebra, arXiv:1508.07552v1
[6] M. Hashimoto, Canonical and n-canonical modules of a Noetherian
algebra, to appear in Nagoya Math. J.
[7] G. Scheja and U. Storch, Quasi-Frobenius-Algebren und lokal
vollständige Durchschnitte, Manuscripta Math. 19 (1976), 75–104.
Addendum: 20 (1977), 99–100.
[8] A. Skowroński and K. Yamagata, Frobenius Algebras. I., Basic Representation Theory, European Mathematical Society (2011).

12

