arXiv:1706.05425v1 [math.RT] 16 Jun 2017

PROJECTIVE INDECOMPOSABLE MODULES AND
QUIVERS FOR MONOID ALGEBRAS
STUART MARGOLIS AND BENJAMIN STEINBERG
Abstract. We give a construction of the projective indecomposable
modules and a description of the quiver for a large class of monoid algebras including the algebra of any finite monoid whose principal right
ideals have at most one idempotent generator. Our results include essentially all families of finite monoids for which this has been done previously, for example, left regular bands, J -trivial and R-trivial monoids
and left regular bands of groups.

1. Introduction
In a highly influential paper [6], Bidigare, Hanlon and Rockmore showed
that a number of popular Markov chains, including the Tsetlin library and
the riffle shuffle, are random walks on the faces of a hyperplane arrangement
(the braid arrangement for these two examples). More importantly, they
showed that the representation theory of the monoid of faces, where the
monoid structure on the faces of a central hyperplane arrangement is given
by the Tits projections [28], could be used to analyze these Markov chains
and, in particular, to compute the spectrum of their transition operators.
The face monoid of a hyperplane arrangement satisfies the semigroup
identities x2 = x and xyx = xy. Semigroups satisfying these identities are
known in the literature as left regular bands (although they were studied
early on by Schützenberger [24] under the more descriptive name “treillis
gauches,” translated by G. Birkhoff in his Math Review as skew lattices,
a term which nowadays has a different meaning). Brown developed [7, 8]
a theory of random walks on finite left regular bands. He gave numerous
examples that do not come from hyperplane arrangements, as well as examples of hyperplane walks that could more easily be modeled on simpler
left regular bands. For example, Brown considered random walks on bases
of matroids. Brown used the representation theory of left regular bands to
extend the spectral results of Bidigare, Hanlon and Rockmore [6] and gave
an algebraic proof of the diagonalizability of random walks on left regular
bands.
Date: March 27, 2018.
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. 20M25,16G10,05E99.
The authors were supported by United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation
#2012080 and the second author was supported by NSA MSP #H98230-16-1-0047.
1

2

STUART MARGOLIS AND BENJAMIN STEINBERG

One of the equivalent definitions of a left regular band is that M is that
every element of M is an idempotent and distinct elements of M generate
distinct principal right ideals. There are many classes of finite monoids that
generalize this property and that have arisen in deep ways in algebra and
combinatorics. This paper studies the representation theory of such monoids
with an eye towards applications of these results in related fields.
In this paper we study the representation theory of a collection of finite
monoids that have been called ‘right semi-abundant’ in the literature [13,14]
but which we dub ‘right Fountain monoids’ in honor of John Fountain as he
has advocated the study of these and related classes of monoids for a number
of years. Fountain monoids generalize the class of (von Neumann) regular
monoids, whose representation theory has been extensively studied [18, 21].
In fact many of the results of this paper are extensions of our previous
results [18] to the non-regular setting. This requires a bit of work because
regular monoids have quasi-hereditary algebras in good characteristic [21],
where as a Fountain monoid can have loops in its quiver.
The most important class of Fountain monoids studied in this paper is the
collection of finite monoids such that every principal right ideal has at most
one idempotent generator. In the semigroup literature this class is denoted
by ER. Besides left regular bands, many of the most widely studied classes
of monoids belong to the class ER. We discuss a few of these. Of course
all finite groups belong to ER. More generally, inverse semigroups, which
are exactly the class of semigroups such that every principal right and left
ideal has a unique idempotent generator belong to ER. Inverse semigroups
are the regular semigroups that have faithful representations by partial oneto-one maps on a set (for this reason, they appear in many applications of
semigroup theory) and the class of regular semigroups whose idempotents
commute. It is known that they are precisely the semigroups in ER whose
algebras are semisimple over the complex numbers [26]. The representation
theory of inverse semigroups was studied extensively in [25].
The class of J -trivial monoids consist of finite monoids such that each
two-sided principal ideal has a unique generator and thus is in ER. A very
important example of a J -trivial monoid defined for any finite Coxeter
group is the monoid associated to its 0-Hecke algebra. Norton first described
the representation theory of the 0-Hecke algebra of a Coxeter group W
in 1979 [20], but did not exploit its structure as the monoid algebra of a
monoid M (W ). The monoid M (W ) has been rediscovered many times over
the years. The easiest way to define it is as the monoid with generating
set the Coxeter generators of W and relations those of W in braid form,
and replacing the involution relation s2 = 1 by the idempotent relation
s2 = s for each Coxeter generator s. The monoid M (W ) has a number of
amazing properties. Its size is exactly that of W and it admits the strong
Bruhat order as a partial order compatible with multiplication. In fact, it is
isomorphic to the monoid of principal order ideals of the Bruhat order under
set multiplication. From the point of view of this proposal, we are interested

PROJECTIVE INDECOMPOSABLE MODULES AND QUIVERS

3

that the monoid algebra of M (W ) is the 0-Hecke algebra H0 (W ), as can
readily be seen from the presentation for M (W ) that we mentioned above.
A detailed study of the representation theory of J -trivial monoids was
undertaken in [12]. More generally, a number of authors have considered the
representation of R-trivial monoids, monoids in which each principal right
ideal has a unique generator, especially in connection with Markov chains [3,
5, 19]. Left regular bands are precisely the regular R-trivial monoids.
Recall that a finite monoid is aperiodic if all its group subsemigroups are
trivial. Left regular bands, J -trivial monoids and R-trivial monoids are
aperiodic. There are non-aperiodic analogues of these classes of monoids
that have also appeared in the literature. The class LRBG consists of all
finite monoids with the property that every principal left ideal is a twosided ideal.Left regular bands are precisely the aperiodic LRBGs and it
is known that every LRBG is a member of ER. The class LRBG arises
naturally in the study of the Mantaci-Reutenauer algebra [17], which is a
wreath product analogue of Solomon’s Descent Algebra. As a consequence
of the main theorem of the authors’ work [18] we computed the quiver of an
algebra associated to the Mantaci-Reutenauer algebra.
Two idempotents e, f in a monoid M are conjugate if there exist elements
x, y ∈ M such that e = xy, f = yx. The class DG consists of all finite monoids such that each conjugacy class of idempotents contains a single element.
The J -trivial monoids are precisely the aperiodic monoids in DG. Recall
that a finite category C is an EI-category if every endomorphism is an isomorphism. The representation theory of EI-categories has been extensively
studied in recent years. If C is a category, its consolidation S(C) is the
semigroup whose elements are the morphisms of C plus a new element 0.
The product is that of C when it exists and 0 otherwise. It is easy to see that
the algebra of the category C is the algebra of the semigroup S(C) modulo
the ideal generated by the element 0 (this is called the contracted algebra of
a semigroup with 0). See [26, Chapter 8] for details on the connection between monoid representation theory and the representation theory of finite
categories. It is easy to check that a skeletal category is an EI-category if
and only if the semigroup S(C) is in DG. The quiver of algebras of semigroups in DG is among the quivers in the class of rectangular monoids that
is considered in [19] by the authors.
A block group is a finite monoid such that every principal right ideal and
every principal left ideal has at most one idempotent generator. This is the
class of monoids that are both in ER and in the dual class EL consisting
of monoids such that every principal left ideal has at most one idempotent
generator. All inverse monoids are block groups. Examples of block groups
that are not inverse monoids include the power monoid P (G) of a finite
group G. This is the monoid of all subsets of G under multiplication of
subsets. Another example is the monoid of all Hall relations Hn on a set of
size n. Hn consists of all relations R such that X contains a permutation
(a perfect matching). Not much is known about the representation theory

4

STUART MARGOLIS AND BENJAMIN STEINBERG

of general block groups. Also if C is an EI-category, then S(C) is a block
group.
A final example of an important monoid in ER is the following. Let W
be a finite Coxeter group and let F (HW ) be the hyperplane face monoid
associated to the reflection arrangement HW of W [6, 8]; it is a left regular
band. Since W acts on F (HW ) by automorphisms, we can form the semidirect product F (HW )⋊W , which belongs to ER Its algebra can be identified
with the crossed product of W with CF (HW ). Saliola has noticed possible
applications of this monoid in combinatorics and probability
theory. The
1 P
group W is the group of units of F (HW ) ⋊ W and if e = |W
w∈W w, then
|
it is known that eC[F (HW ) ⋊ W ]e is isomorphic to Solomon’s descent algebra Σ(W ) since the decent algebra is the algebra of invariants CF (HW )W
of the hyperplane face monoid algebra (cf, [8]). Computing the quiver of
the crossed product could potentially help in computing the quiver of the
descent algebra.
This last example is generic for ER. It is known that ER consists exactly
of the finite monoids that are homomorphic images of a submonoid of a
semidirect product of a finite R-trivial monoid and a finite group [22]. These
examples led us to consider questions related to the representation theory
of ER monoids. One of the main results of this paper computes the quiver
of the algebra of a monoid M in ER.
In addition to computing quivers, we consider in this paper the problem of
describing the projective indecomposable modules for the algebra of a Fountain monoid. It is notoriously difficult to write down explicit primitive idempotents for monoids algebras (cf. [5, 11]) and often they have complicated
expressions in terms of the monoid basis, making it virtually impossible to
determine even the dimension of the corresponding projective indecomposable module let alone construct a matrix representation out of it. In [18],
we were able to give an explicit construction of projective indecomposable
modules for a family of von Neumann regular monoids, whereas in [19] we
constructed projective indecomposable modules for R-trivial monoids as
certain partial transformation modules. This paper provides the common
generalization of these results and gives an explicit description of the projective indecomposable modules for the widest class of monoid algebras to
date.
The paper is organized as follows. After a section of preliminaries, we
recall the notion of a Fountain monoid and prove some new properties of
these monoids under the assumption of finiteness. Then we turn to the
question of describing the projective indecomposable modules for the algebra
of a class of Fountain monoid. The final section uses our construction of the
projective indecomposables to compute the quiver of a monoid in ER. This
extends a number of previous results [12, 19, 23].

PROJECTIVE INDECOMPOSABLE MODULES AND QUIVERS

5

2. Preliminaries
2.1. Finite monoids. We recall some basic facts from the theory of finite
semigroups and monoids [22]. The reader is referred to [9, 16, 22, 26] for
details.
Let M be a finite monoid. If m ∈ M , then mω denotes the unique
idempotent in the cyclic semigroup generated by m. Note that if M has
cardinality n, then mω = mn! and so (xy)ω x = x(yx)ω for all x, y ∈ M .
Green’s relations R, L and J are defined on M by
• m L n if M m = M n;
• m R n if mM = nM ;
• m J n if M mM = M nM .
The L -class of m ∈ M is denoted by Lm and similar notation is used for Rand J -classes. One defines the L -order on M by m ≤L n if M m ⊆ M n.
The quasi-orders ≤R and ≤J are defined analogously. A monoid is called
L -trivial if each L -class is a singleton. One defines analogously R-trivial
monoids and J -trivial monoids.
The set of idempotents of M is denoted by E(M ). An element m ∈ M is
regular if m = mnm for some n ∈ M . This is equivalent to Lm ∩ E(M ) 6= ∅,
Rm ∩ E(M ) 6= ∅ and Jm ∩ E(M ) 6= ∅ (the last equivalence uses finiteness).
A J -class is called regular if it contains an idempotent or, equivalently,
contains only regular elements. An important fact about finite monoids is
that they enjoy a property called stability which states that
xy J x ⇐⇒ xy R x
xy J y ⇐⇒ xy L y
for x, y ∈ M [26, Theorem 1.13]. One consequence of stability is that any
R-class and L -class in a J -class intersect. Another fact about finite semigroups that we shall use is that if J is a J -class such that J 2 ∩ J 6= ∅, then
J is regular (cf. [26, Corollary 1.24]).
If e ∈ E(M ), then eM e is a monoid with identity e and its group of
units is denoted Ge and called the maximal subgroup of M at e. For a finite
monoid, Ge = Je ∩ eM e [26, Corollary 1.16]. If e J f , then eM e ∼
= fMf
and hence Ge ∼
= Gf [26, Corollary 1.12]. The group Ge acts freely on the left
of Re by left multiplication [26, Proposition 1.10] and two elements belong
to the same orbit if and only if they are L -equivalent [26, Corollary 1.17].
Dually, Ge acts freely on the right of Le by right multiplication and two
elements are in the same orbit if and only if they are R-equivalent.
Elements x, y ∈ M are (generalized) inverses if xyx = x and yxy = y.
In this case, xy, yx are J -equivalent idempotents. Conversely, if e, f are
J -equivalent idempotents of a finite monoid, then there is an inverse pair
x, y with xy = e and yx = f . Then z 7→ yzx gives an isomorphism of eM e
with f M f , which restricts to an isomorphism of Ge with Gf .

6

STUART MARGOLIS AND BENJAMIN STEINBERG

A monoid in which every element has at most one inverse is called a
block group. Classical examples of block groups are inverse monoids (monoids in which each element has exactly one inverse; these have semisimple
algebras in good characteristic), monoids with commuting idempotents, J trivial monoids (see [12] for interesting examples from the point of view of
representation theory), power sets of finite groups and the monoid of Hall
relations (a Hall relation is a binary relation containing a perfect matching). It is a deep theorem of finite semigroup theory that every finite block
group is a quotient of a subsemigroup of the power set of a finite group;
see [22, Chapter 4] for details.
A finite monoid M is called aperiodic if all its maximal subgroups are
trivial; this is equivalent to there existing k > 0 with mk = mk+1 for all
m ∈ M.
The class ER consists of those finite monoids M whose idempotents generate an R-trivial monoid. The classes EL and EJ are defined similarly. It
is known that EJ = ER ∩ EL is the class of finite block groups [1,22]. Also,
a finite monoid M belongs to ER if and only if it contains no two-element
right zero subsemigroup, that is, M does not contain two R-equivalent idempotents. Every monoid in ER has the property that it has a unique minimal
left ideal, which is also its unique minimal two-sided ideal. This follows from
basic structural properties of minimal ideals of finite semigroups [22, Appendix A]. Namely, the two-sided minimal ideal is the disjoint union of
all minimal left ideals and each minimal left ideal can be generated by an
idempotent. If e, f are idempotents generating minimal left ideals, then
(ef )ω must generate the same minimal left ideal as f and so without loss
of generality, we may assume that ef = f . But, by stability, it then follows
that f generates the same principal right ideal as e and so f e = e. As the
idempotents generate an R-trivial monoid, we deduce that e = f . Note
that the class ER is closed under direct product, submonoids and quotient
monoids. The canonical example of a monoid in ER is a semidirect product R ⋊ G with G a finite group acting on a finite R-trivial monoid R by
automorphisms. In fact, a result of Stiffler [22, 27] implies that each finite
monoid in ER is a quotient of a subsemigroup of such a semidirect product.
If J is a regular J -class and e ∈ E(J), then a sandwich matrix for J is a
matrix over Ge ∪ {0} obtained in the following way. Let A be the set of Rclasses of J and B be the set of L -classes of J. By the elementary structure
theory of finite semigroups (cf. [22, Appendix A, page 600] or [16]) each L class of J meets Re and each R-class of J meets Le . Choose representatives
ρa ∈ Le ∩ a for each a ∈ A and λb ∈ Re ∩ b for each b ∈ B. Then λb ρa ∈ eM e
for each a ∈ A and b ∈ B. Define a matrix P : B × A −→ Ge ∪ {0} by
(
λb ρa ,
P (b, a) =
0,

if λb ρa ∈ Ge
else.

PROJECTIVE INDECOMPOSABLE MODULES AND QUIVERS

7

One can show that if one changes the representatives of the L -classes and Rclasses, then the sandwich matrix will change by left and right multiplication
by diagonal matrices over Ge . Hence if k is a commutative ring with unit,
then properties like left, right or two-sided invertibility of P over kGe does
not depend on the choices. One can also show that these properties do not
depend on the choice of the idempotent e [16].
Sometimes, it is fruitful to view P as follows. We have that ZLe is a
free right ZGe -module on |A| generators and ZRe is a free left ZGe -module
on |B| generators. Thus HomZGe (ZRe , ZGe ) is a free right ZGe -module
on |B| generators. There is a natural right ZGe -module homomorphism
T : ZLe −→ HomZGe (ZRe , ZGe ) given by
T (ℓ)(r) =

(

rℓ, if rℓ ∈ Ge
0, else

for ℓ ∈ Le and r ∈ Re . It is easy to check that P is the matrix of T with
respect to an appropriate choice of bases.
If M is a block group, then P can always be taken to be an identity
matrix and if M ∈ ER, then P can be taken to have a block diagonal form,
where each diagonal block is a row of identity elements of Ge . Hence, for any
monoid M ∈ ER, the sandwich matrices are right invertible over Z. We do
not prove these assertions here, but we will prove later that T is surjective.

2.2. Finite dimensional algebras. Next we review some basic elements
of the theory of finite dimensional algebras. References for this material
include [2, 4, 10, 15]. Fix a field k. Let A be a finite dimensional k-algebra.
The radical rad(A) of A is its largest nilpotent ideal. It is also the intersection of all maximal left (right) ideals. It is the smallest ideal I such that
A/I is semisimple. If V is any finite dimensional (left) A-module, then the
radical rad(V ) is the intersection of all maximal submodules of V . One has
that rad(V ) = rad(A)V and rad(V ) is the smallest submodule such that
V / rad(V ) is semisimple. One usually calls V / rad(V ) the top of V . The socle Soc(V ) of V is its largest semisimple submodule, that is, the submodule
generated by all simple submodules of V .
If V is a right A-module, then the vector space dual D(V ) = Homk (V, k)
is a left A-module via (af )(v) = f (va) for f : V −→ k, v ∈ V and a ∈ A
(and dually, one can go from left modules to right modules and we use the
same notation).
A finite dimensional algebra A is said to be split if A/ rad(A) is a direct product of matrix algebras over k. For example, any algebra over an
algebraically closed field is split. This is equivalent to the endomorphism
monoid of each simple A-module being isomorphic to k. We recall that if A is
a semisimple algebra and S1 , . . . , Sk are representatives of the isomorphism

8

STUART MARGOLIS AND BENJAMIN STEINBERG

classes of simple A-modules, then
A∼
=

k
M

dim Si
· Si
dim EndA (Si )

k
M

dim Si
· Pi .
dim EndA (Si )

i=1

as an A-module. Also note that every module over a semisimple algebra
A is projective and hence every left ideal of A is of the form Ae with e an
idempotent.
If G is a group, then k is called a splitting field for G if kG is split. A
famous result of Brauer [15, Corollary 9.15, Theorem 10.3] asserts that if G
is of exponent n and k contains a primitive nth -root of unity, then k is a
splitting field for G. It is also known that, for a monoid M , the algebra kM
is split if and only if k is a splitting field for all the maximal subgroups of M ,
cf. Proposition 4.6 below. We recall that a group algebra kG is semisimple if
and only if the characteristic of k does not divide |G| by Maschke’s theorem.
A module V is indecomposable if it cannot be expressed as a direct sum of
proper submodules. If V is a module with V / rad(V ) simple, then necessarily
V is indecomposable. By the Krull-Schmidt theorem, each finite dimensional
A-module V can be written as a direct sum of indecomposable modules and
the isomorphism classes (with multiplicities) are unique. In particular, we
can decompose the regular A-module as A = P1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Ps where the Pi
are projective indecomposable modules. One has that Pi / rad(Pi ) is simple
and Pi ∼
= Pj if and only if Pi / rad(Pi ) ∼
= Pj / rad(Pj ). Moreover, every
simple A-module is isomorphic to one of the form Pi / rad(Pi ) and every
projective indecomposable module is isomorphic to some Pi . Let us assume
that P1 , . . . , Pk form a complete set of representatives of the isomorphism
classes of projective indecomposable modules and let Si = Pi / rad(Pi ) be
the corresponding simple module. Then
A∼
=

i=1

Each finite dimensional A-module V has a projective cover P . This is a
finite dimensional projective module P with a surjective homomorphism
ψ : P −→ V such that ker ψ ⊆ rad(P ). The projective module P is unique
up to isomorphism and satisfies P/ rad(P ) ∼
= V / rad(V ). If S is a simple
module, its projective cover is the unique projective indecomposable module
P with P/ rad(P ) ∼
= S.
The injective indecomposable A-modules are exactly the vector space duals of projective indecomposable right A-modules. If S is a simple module,
there is a unique (up to isomorphism) injective indecomposable module I
whose socle is isomorphic to S called the injective envelope of S; it is the
vector space dual of the right projective cover of D(S), which is a simple
right A-module.
A finite dimensional algebra A is said to be split basic if each simple
module is one-dimensional. Every split k-algebra is Morita equivalent to

PROJECTIVE INDECOMPOSABLE MODULES AND QUIVERS

9

a unique (up to isomorphism) basic one. Moreover, Gabriel described split
basic algebras in terms of quivers. A quiver Q is a finite directed graph (possibly with loops and multiple edges). The path algebra kQ is the k-algebra
with basis the directed paths in Q with product induced by concatenation
(where undefined concatenations are made 0). We allow an empty path at
each vertex and compose from right to left as in a category. Let J be the
ideal spanned by all non-empty paths. An ideal I of kQ is called admissible
if J n ⊆ I ⊆ J 2 for some n ≥ 2. If I is admissible, then kQ/I is a finite
dimensional split basic k-algebra and every split basic finite dimensional
k-algebra is isomorphic to one of this form by a theorem of Gabriel. The
quiver Q is unique up to isomorphism, but the ideal I is not.
The quiver of a split algebra A is the directed graph with vertex set
the set of isomorphism classes [S] of simple A-modules S. The number of
directed edges from [S] to [S ′ ] is dim Ext1A (S, S ′ ). If P is the projective
cover of S, then using the long exact sequence for Ext, one easily checks
that Ext1A (S, S ′ ) ∼
= HomA (rad P, S ′ ) ∼
= HomA (rad(P )/ rad2 (P ), S ′ ). The
basic algebra Morita equivalent to A is isomorphic to the path algebra on
its quiver modulo an admissible ideal. Thus computing the quiver of a
finite dimensional algebra, like a monoid algebra, is the first step toward
understanding its representation theory.
2.3. The representation theory of finite monoids. We review here key
aspects of the representation theory of finite monoids. More details can be
found in [26]. Let k be a field and M a finite monoid. Fix e ∈ E(M ).
Then kLe is a kM -kGe -bimodule, where M acts on the left of Le via left
multiplication if the result is in Le , and otherwise the result is 0. Similarly,
kRe is a kGe -kM -bimodule. If V is a kGe -module, we put
IndGe (V ) = kLe ⊗kGe V
CoindGe (V ) = HomkGe (kRe , V ) ∼
= HomGe (Re , V ) ∼
= D(D(V ) ⊗kGe kRe )
where HomGe (Re , V ) is the set of Ge -equivariant mappings Re −→ V . One
has natural isomorphisms e IndGe (V ) ∼
= V ∼
= e CoindGe (V ) and there is a
unique kM -module homomorphism ϕV : IndGe (V ) −→ CoindGe (V ) which
extends the natural isomorphism e IndGe (V ) −→ e CoindGe (V ). If V is
semisimple, then ϕV is injective if and only if IndGe (V ) is semisimple and ϕV
is surjective if and only if CoindGe (V ) is semisimple (cf. [26, Corollary 4.22]).
If V is simple, then IndGe (V ) and CoindGe (V ) are indecomposable modules and V ♯ = Soc(CoindGe (V )) = kM e CoindGe (V ) is simple and is the image of ϕV ; hence ker ϕV = rad(IndGe (V )) and V ♯ ∼
= IndGe (V )/ rad(IndGe (V )).
The natural morphism ϕV is induced by the sandwich matrix of the J -class
of e. If the characteristic of k does not divide the order of Ge , then one
has that the sandwich matrix of Je is right invertible over kGe if and only
if CoindGe (V ) = V ♯ for all simple kGe -modules V (cf. [26, Lemma 5.20]
and [26, Corollary 4.22]).

10

STUART MARGOLIS AND BENJAMIN STEINBERG

Fix idempotent representatives e1 , . . . , en of the regular J -classes of M .
Then the isomorphism classes of simple kM -modules are in bijection with
pairs (i, [V ]) where i = 1, . . . , n and V is a simple kGei -module. The corresponding simple kM -module is V ♯ .
3. Fountain monoids
f is defined on a monoid M by m L
f n if, for
The equivalence relation L
all idempotents e ∈ E(M ), we have me = m if and only if ne = n [14].
f-class of m is denoted L
e m . The relation Re is defined dually and we
The L
e
e
use Rm for the R-class of m. Notice that if e is an idempotent, then since
ee , then me = m and so m ∈ M e. If m ∈ M e, then, for an
ee = e if m ∈ L
idempotent f , we have that ef = e implies mf = mef = me = m and so
e e if and only if mf = m implies ef = e for each idempotent f ∈ E(M )
m∈L
e e is a left ideal and so M acts on
(cf. [14, Lemma 2.1]). It follows that M e \ L
e
e e and m ∈ M , then the
the left of Le by partial mappings. That is, if x ∈ L
e e , in which case the result
action of m on x is defined if and only if mx ∈ L
of the action is mx. Also it is easy to see that if m, n ∈ M are regular, then
fn [26, Proposition 17.3]. Thus if e ∈ E(M ), then
m L n if and only if m L
e
Le \ Le consists of non-regular elements.
If M is a monoid and m ∈ M , then the right stabilizer of m is the
submonoid of M consisting of those elements n ∈ M with mn = m.
e m contains
Proposition 3.1. Let M be a finite monoid and m ∈ M . Then L
an idempotent if and only if the right stabilizer of m has a unique minimal
left ideal.
e m is an
Proof. Let N be the right stabilizer of m. Suppose that e ∈ L
idempotent. Then since ee = e, we have that me = m and so e ∈ N . We
claim that N e is the unique minimal left ideal of N . Indeed, if n ∈ N , then
mnω = m and so enω = e. Thus e ∈ N n.
Conversely, suppose that N has a unique minimal left ideal L and let
e m . By
e ∈ E(L). Note that me = m since e ∈ N . We claim that e ∈ L
the discussion above we must show that if f ∈ E(M ) and mf = m, then
em,
ef = e. But then f ∈ N and so L ⊆ N f , whence ef = e. Thus e ∈ L
thereby completing the proof.

f-class contains an idempotent.
A monoid is called right Fountain if each L
Left Foutain monoids are defined dually. A monoid is Fountain if it is both
left and right Fountain. In the literature, the term “semi-abundant” is used
wherever we have used Fountain, but we have renamed the class in John
Fountain’s honor as he promoted the study of these monoids over the years.

Corollary 3.2. Let M be a finite monoid. If M ∈ ER (i.e., contains no
two-element right zero subsemigroups) or if M is a regular monoid, then M
is right Fountain. In particular, block groups (e.g., J -trivial monoids) are

PROJECTIVE INDECOMPOSABLE MODULES AND QUIVERS

11

Fountain and R-trivial monoids (or monoids where regular J -classes are
L -classes) are right Fountain.
f is not in general a right congruence, it enjoys the following
Although L
congruence-like property in finite right Fountain monoids.

Proposition 3.3. Let M be a finite right Fountain monoid and suppose
that e, f ∈ E(M ) are J -equivalent. If x, y ∈ M with xyx = x, yxy = y,
e e −→ L
ef given by ρ(m) = mx is a bijection
xy = e and yx = f , then ρ : L
e f −→ L
e e given by ψ(n) = ny.
with inverse ψ : L

e e , then mx ∈ L
e f . Let a ∈ E(M )
Proof. First we must show that if m ∈ L
e mx , and so mxa = mx. We show that a L f and
be an idempotent in L
e f . Since mxf = mx, we have that af = a and hence f af a =
hence mx ∈ L
f aa = f a. Notice that mxay = mxy = me = m and so m(xay)ω = m.
f e. Thus, f = yex =
Therefore, (xay)ω = xy(xay)ω = e(xay)ω = e as m L
ω
ω
ω
y(xay) x = (yxa) yx = (f a) f = f af = f a and so a L f . Therefore, we
ef .
obtain mx ∈ L
e e . Clearly, if m ∈ L
e e ⊆ M e,
e f to L
A dual argument shows that ψ maps L
then ψ(ρ(m)) = mxy = me = m and dually, ρψ is the identity.

We state two immediate consequences of the proposition.

Corollary 3.4. If M is a finite right Fountain monoid and e ∈ E(M ), then
e e by right multiplication.
Ge acts on the right of L

Proof. If g ∈ Ge with inverse g′ ∈ Ge , then gg ′ g = e = g′ gg′ and so right
e e to L
e e with inverse g′ .
multiplication by g yields a bijection from L


Corollary 3.5. Let M be a finite right Fountain monoid and k a field.
e e is a kM -kGe Then, for e ∈ E(M ), the partial transformation module kL
∼
e
e
bimodule. If f ∈ E(M ) with e J f , then kLe = kLf as left kM -modules.

Proof. The first statement follows from Corollary 3.4. For the second item,
since e J f there exist x, y ∈ M with xyx = x, yxy = y, xy = e and
e e −→ L
e f given by ρ(m) = mx induces a kM -module
yx = f . Then ρ : L
e e −→ kL
e f by Proposition 3.3.
isomorphism kL

4. Projective indecomposable modules

We give an explicit construction of the projective indecomposable modules
for a natural class of right Fountain monoids. This family includes all Rtrivial monoids and all regular monoids whose sandwich matrices are right
invertible, and hence includes all families of monoids for which we have
previously constructed projective indecomposable modules [18, 19].
Proposition 4.1. Let M be a finite monoid and k a field. If L is a left
ideal of M , then kL + rad(kM ) = kL2 + rad(kM ).

12

STUART MARGOLIS AND BENJAMIN STEINBERG

Proof. The inclusion from right to left is obvious. For the other direction,
let A = kM/ rad(kM ). Then (kL + rad(kM ))/ rad(kM ) is a left ideal of the
semisimple
algebra A and hence is generated as a left ideal by an idempotent
P
e = m∈L cm m + rad(kM ). Then
X
e = e2 =
cm cn mn + rad(kM ) ∈ (kL2 + rad(kM ))/ rad(kM ).
m,n∈L

This establishes the inclusion from left to right.



The following simple lemma will be useful to prove our main result.
Lemma 4.2. Let A and B be finite dimensional algebras and let V be a finite
dimensional A-B-bimodule. Let e ∈ B be an idempotent. Then rad(V e) =
rad(V )e (where the radical is taken as A-modules).
Proof. We have rad(V e) = rad(A)(V e) = (rad(A)V )e = rad(V )e, as required.

We write x <L y to indicate that M x ( M y.
Proposition 4.3. Let M be a finite monoid and k a field. If e ∈ E(M ),
e e \ Le ] ⊆ rad(kL
e e ).
then k[L

ee = Le , there is nothing to prove and so we assume that Le ( L
ee .
Proof. If L
e
e
Let x ∈ Le \ Le . Assume that each y ∈ Le \ Le with y <L x belongs to
e e ). (This holds vacuously if x is <L -minimal in L
e e \ Le .) We show
rad(kL
e
that P
x ∈ rad(kLe ). Let L = M x. Then by Proposition 4.1 we have that
x = i∈J ci ai xbi x + r with ci ∈ k, ai , bi ∈ M and r ∈ rad(kM ). Let F ⊆ J
e e . Notice that since x is not regular,
be the set of indices i with ai xbi x ∈ L
ee)
ai xbi x <L x (and hence ai xbi x ∈
/ Le as x ∈ M e). Thus ai xbi x ∈ rad(kL
e
whenever i ∈ F by our assumption. Therefore, in kLe , we have that
X
e e ).
x = xe =
ci ai xbi x + re ∈ rad(kL
i∈F

This completes the proof.



The following proposition is an elementary exercise in representation theory.
Proposition 4.4. If U and V are finite dimensional modules over a finite
dimensional algebra A with U ⊆ rad(V ), then rad(V /U ) = rad(V )/U and
V / rad(V ) ∼
= (V /U )/ rad(V /U ).
Proof. We compute that rad(V /U ) = rad(A) · V /U = (rad(A)V + U )/U =
(rad(V ) + U )/U = rad(V )/U . The second statement follows from the first
and the usual isomorphism theorem.

e e is a kM -kGe -bimodule
We recall that if M is right Fountain, then kL
for e ∈ E(M ) by Corollary 3.5.

PROJECTIVE INDECOMPOSABLE MODULES AND QUIVERS

13

Corollary 4.5. Let M be a finite right Fountain monoid, k a field and
e ∈ E(M ). Suppose that the characteristic of k does not divide |Ge | and
e e ⊗kGe V is an indecomposable
that V is a simple kGe -module. Then kL
♯
kM -module with simple top V (the simple kM -module corresponding to
V ).
Proof. Let η be a primitive idempotent of kGe with V ∼
= kGe η. Consider
the exact sequence of kM -kGe -bimodules
e e \ Le ] −→ kL
e e −→ kLe −→ 0.
0 −→ k[L

Then since V is a projective kGe -module, we obtain an exact sequence of
kM -modules
e e \ Le ] ⊗kGe V −→ kL
e e ⊗kGe V −→ kLe ⊗kGe V −→ 0.
0 −→ k[L

As kLe ⊗kGe V = IndGe (V ) is indecomposable with simple top V ♯ by the
discussion in Subsection 2.3, it suffices, by Proposition 4.4, to show that
e e \ Le ] ⊗kGe V is contained in the radical of kL
e e ⊗kGe V . But if U is an
k[L
A-kGe -bimodule, with A a finite dimensional k-algebra, then one has that
U ⊗kGe V ∼
= U η as an A-module and so the result follows from Proposition 4.3
and Lemma 4.2.

The next proposition shows that if V is a simple kGe -module and V ♯ is
the corresponding simple kM , then both of these modules have isomorphic
endomorphism algebras.
Proposition 4.6. Let M be a finite monoid and e ∈ E(M ). Let V be a simple kGe -module. Then there is an isomorphism EndkGe (V ) ∼
= EndkM (V ♯ )
where V ♯ = Soc(CoindGe (V )) is the corresponding simple kM -module.
Proof. Recall that V ∼
= eV ♯ as a kGe -module; we shall work with the
♯
latter. If ϕ : V −→ V ♯ is an endomorphism, then ϕ|eV ♯ : eV ♯ −→ eV ♯
is a kGe -module endomorphism. Thus there is a restriction homomorphism T : EndkM (V ♯ ) −→ EndkGe (eV ♯ ). Moreover, T is injective because
EndkM (V ♯ ) is a division algebra by Schur’s lemma. On the other hand, there
is an isomorphism EndkM (CoindGe (V )) −→ EndkGe (V ) obtained by restricting ϕ ∈ EndkM (CoindGe ) to e CoindGe (V ) = eSoc(CoindGe (V )) = eV ♯
(see [26, Proposition 4.6]). Moreover, ϕ(V ♯ ) = ϕ(Soc(CoindGe (V ))) ⊆
Soc(CoindGe (V )) = V ♯ and so we conclude that T is surjective. This completes the proof.

It follows from Proposition 4.6 that k is a splitting field for M if and only
if it is for each maximal subgroup of M , as was asserted earlier.
We now prove the main theorem of this section. It simultaneously generalizes our previous results for R-trivial monoids [19] and regular monoids [18].
Theorem 4.7. Let M be a finite right Fountain monoid and k a field whose
characteristic does not divide the order of any maximal subgroup of M . Let
e1 , . . . , en be a complete set of idempotent representatives of the regular J classes of M . Then the following are equivalent.

14

STUART MARGOLIS AND BENJAMIN STEINBERG

(1) Each sandwich matrix of Jei is right invertible over kGei , for i =
1, . . . , n.
(2) Each coinduced module CoindGei (V ) with V a simple kGei -module
is simple, for i = 1, . . . , n.
(3) The projective cover of the simple module V ♯ associated to each sime e ⊗kGe V .
ple kGei -module V is kL
i
i

Proof. First of all, the assumption that the sandwich matrix of Jei is right
invertible is equivalent to the assertion that V ♯ = CoindGei (V ) for each
simple kGei -module V by [26, Corollary 4.22] and [26, Lemma 5.20].
e e ⊗kGe V
Assume first that (2) holds. Then Corollary 4.5 shows that kL
i
i
is an indecomposable module with simple top CoindGei (V ).
Note that CoindGei (V ) = HomGei (Rei , V ) is isomorphic as a vector space
to V ℓi where ℓi is the number of L -classes in Jei because Rei is a free left Gei set with basis of cardinality ℓi . Since EndkM (CoindGei (V )) ∼
= EndkGei (V )
(cf. [26, Proposition 4.6]), it follows that
kM/ rad(kM ) =

n
M

M

i=1 V ∈Irrk (Gei )

ℓi dim V
· CoindGei (V ).
dim EndkGei (V )

On the other hand, if e ∈ E(M ), then
ee ∼
e e ⊗kGe kGe
kL
= kL

∼
e e ⊗kGe 
= kL
∼
=

M

V ∈Irrk (Ge )

M

V ∈Irrk (Ge )


dim V
·V
dim EndkGe (V )

(4.1)

dim V
e e ⊗kGe V ).
· (kL
dim EndkGe (V )

ee ∼
e f by Corollary 3.5. Therefore, if U =
Also, if e J f , then kL
= kL
L
L
∼ n ℓi · k L
e
e e and so
i
e∈E(M )/L kLe , then U =
i=1
U/ rad(U ) ∼
=

n
M
i=1



ℓi · 

M

V ∈Irrk (Gei )

∼
= kM/ rad(kM ).



dim V
· CoindGei (V )
dim EndkGei (V )

fis an equivalence
Thus there is a projective cover ψ : kM −→ U . But since L
f
relation and each L -class contains a unique L -class of idempotents, we
deduce that dim U = |M | and so ψ is an isomorphism. Therefore, U is a
e e ⊗kGe V is a
projective module and hence each of its direct summands kL
projective module. This completes the proof that (2) implies (3).

PROJECTIVE INDECOMPOSABLE MODULES AND QUIVERS

15

Next assume that (3) holds. Again put
U=

M

e∈E(M )/L

ee ∼
kL
=

n
M
i=1

ee .
ℓi · k L
i

Then, as above, we have that dim U = |M | since M is right Fountain. Also
U is projective by hypothesis. As V ♯ is a submodule of CoindGei (V ) for a
simple kGei -module V , we have dim V ♯ ≤ ℓi · dim V . It follows from (4.1)
and Corollary 4.5 that
U/ rad(U ) ∼
=

n
M

M

ℓi

i=1 V ∈Irrk (Gei )

dim V
·V♯
dim EndkGei (V )

and so U contains ℓi dim V / dim EndkGei (V ) copies of the projective cover
of V ♯ in its decomposition into indecomposable modules. On the other
hand, kM has dim V ♯ / dim EndkM (V ♯ ) copies of the projective cover of V ♯
in its decomposition into indecomposable modules. From the equalities
dim EndkM (V ♯ ) = dim EndkGei (V ) (from Proposition 4.6) and dim kM =
dim U , we conclude that dim V ♯ = ℓi · dim V for all i and V and hence
CoindGei (V ) is simple for all i and V , establishing (2). This completes the
proof.

Let us state the dual to Theorem 4.7.
Theorem 4.8. Let M be a finite left Fountain monoid and k a field whose
characteristic does not divide the order of any maximal subgroup of M . Let
e1 , . . . , en be a complete set of idempotent representatives of the regular J classes of M . Then the following are equivalent.
(1) Each sandwich matrix of Jei is left invertible over kGei , for i =
1, . . . , n.
(2) Each induced module IndGei (V ) with V a simple kGei -module is simple, for i = 1, . . . , n.
(3) The injective envelope of the simple module V ♯ associated to each
e
ee ) ∼
simple kGei -module V is D(D(V ) ⊗kGei kR
i = HomGei (Rei , V ).

Since the sandwich matrices of block groups can be taken to be identity
matrices, Theorem 4.7 and Theorem 4.8 apply to describe both the projective and injective indecomposable modules of a block group. Theorem 4.7
also applies if M is a monoid such that each regular J -class is an L -class,
or more generally if M contains no two-element right zero semigroup (i.e.,
the idempotents of M generate an R-trivial submonoid). Indeed, if the
idempotents of M generate an R-trivial monoid, then it is well known to
specialists that the sandwich matrices can be taken to be block diagonal
where the diagonal blocks are rows of ones and such a matrix is evidently
right invertible. Let us provide some details, but in the language of modules
rather than that of sandwich matrices.

16

STUART MARGOLIS AND BENJAMIN STEINBERG

Recall that M acts on the right of Re by partial transformations, for each
e ∈ E(M ), by restricting the right translation action. The following result
can be found in [22, Theorem 4.8.3].
Proposition 4.9. Let M be a finite monoid. Then the idempotents of M
generate an R-trivial monoid if and only if the action of M on Re is via
partial injective mappings for all e ∈ E(M ).
Using Proposition 4.9, we show that Theorem 4.7 applies in this case.
Proposition 4.10. Let M be a finite monoid whose idempotents generate
an R-trivial monoid and k a field whose characteristic does not divide the
order of the maximal subgroup Ge . Then CoindGe (V ) is simple for any
simple kGe -module V .
Proof. Since kGe is semisimple, V is a direct summand in kGe . Thus
CoindGe (V ) is a direct summand in Coind Ge (kGe ). Since CoindGe (V ) is
indecomposable, it is simple if and only if it is semisimple. So it is enough to
show that CoindGe (kGe ) is semisimple. But this latter module is isomorphic
to D(kRe ) ∼
= kRe where the module structure is given by
(
f (rm), if rm ∈ Re
mf (r) =
0,
else
for f : Re −→ k, m ∈ M and r ∈ Re ; see [26, Exercise 5.9]. Also, it is known
that the socle of D(kRe ) ∼
= CoindGe (kGe ) is kM eD(kRe ) (cf. [26, Propositions 4.8 and 4.19]) so it suffices to show that D(kRe ) = kM eD(kRe ).
Let δr be the indicator mapping of {r} for r ∈ R (and more generally,
let δA denote the indicator function of any A ⊆ Re ). We need to show
that each δr ∈ kM eD(kRe ). First note that since M acts on Re by partial
injections and ee = e, it follows that re = e if and only if r = e. Thus
eδe = δ{e}e−1 = δe and so δe ∈ kM eD(kRe ). Now if r ∈ Re , then there
exists y ∈ M with ry = e. Moreover, since M acts on Re by partial injective
mappings, {e}y −1 = {r}. Thus yδe = δ{e}y−1 = δr . This completes the proof
that D(kRe ) = kM eD(kRe ) and hence the proof of the proposition.

It follows from Propostition 4.10 that Theorem 4.7 holds for monoids
whose idempotents generate an R-trivial monoid.
5. Quivers of some right Fountain monoids
The following proposition will be used to describe the radical of a projective indecomposable module for finite monoids satisfying the equivalent
conditions of Theorem 4.7.
Proposition 5.1. Let M be a finite right Fountain monoid and k a field
whose characteristic does not divide the order of the maximal subgroup Ge .
e e ⊗kGe W ) ∼
e e ) ⊗kGe W .
If W is a simple kGe -module, then rad(kL
= rad(kL

PROJECTIVE INDECOMPOSABLE MODULES AND QUIVERS

17

ee)
Proof. Since automorphisms of a module preserve its radical, clearly rad(kL
is a sub-bimodule. As kGe is semisimple, W ∼
= kGe η for some primi∼
e
e
e e η and
tive idempotent η. Then kLe ⊗kGe W = kLe ⊗kGe kGe η ∼
= kL
e e ⊗kGe W ) ∼
e e η) = rad(kL
e e )η ∼
e e ) ⊗kGe kGe η ∼
so rad(kL
= rad(kL
= rad(kL
=
e
rad(kLe ) ⊗kGe W , where the equality comes from Lemma 4.2.

For an idempotent e ∈ M , let I(f ) = {m ∈ M | f ∈
/ M mM }; it is an
ideal if non-empty. If U is a kM -module, then put I(f )U to be the span of
all vectors mu with m ∈ I(f ) and u ∈ U , that is, I(f )U = kI(f ) · U .
Proposition 5.2. Let M be a right Fountain monoid and e, f ∈ E(M ).
Then we have
!
ee)
e e ) ⊗kGe W
rad(k
L
rad(kL

∼
⊗kGe W
=
ee)
e
I(f ) rad(kL
I(f ) rad(kLe ) ⊗kGe W

for any kGe -module W .

e e ) and I(f ) rad(kL
e e ) are sub-bimodules of kL
ee,
Proof. First note that rad(kL
the former because the radical is preserved by any module automorphism
and the latter by associativity. The isomorphism then follows from the
associativity of tensor product up to isomorphism. In detail, we have


e e ) ⊗kGe W
kM
rad(kL
e e ) ⊗kGe W

∼
⊗kM rad(kL
=
kI(f )
e e ) ⊗kGe W
I(f ) rad(kL


kM
∼
e
⊗
rad(k
L
)
⊗kGe W
=
kM
e
kI(f )
!
ee)
rad(k
L
∼
⊗kGe W
=
ee)
I(f ) rad(kL

as required.



We now provide a reduction for computing the quiver of kM when M is a
right Fountain monoid and k is a splitting field for each maximal subgroup
of M whose characteristic divides the order of no maximal subgroup of M
provided that the equivalent conditions of Theorem 4.7 hold. If e, f ∈ M ,
e e )/f I(f ) rad(kL
e e ) is a kGf -kGe -bimodule and hence a left
then f rad(kL
k[Gf × Ge ]-module in the natural way.

Theorem 5.3. Let M be a finite right Fountain monoid and k a field.
Suppose that:

(1) the characteristic of k divides the order of no maximal subgroup of
M;
(2) k is a splitting field for each maximal subgroup of M ; and
(3) the equivalent conditions of Theorem 4.7 hold.

18

STUART MARGOLIS AND BENJAMIN STEINBERG

Let e, f ∈ E(M ) and let W be a simple kGf -module and V a simple kGe module. Then the number of arrows in the quiver of kM from the isomorphism class of CoindGe (V ) to the isomorphism class of CoindGf (W ) is the
multiplicity of W ⊗ D(V ) as an irreducible constituent in the k[Gf × Ge ]e e )/f I(f ) rad(kL
e e ).
module f rad(kL

e e ⊗kGe V −→ CoindGe (V ) is a
Proof. By Theorem 4.7, we have that kL
projective cover. Therefore, we have that

e e ⊗kGe V ), CoindG (W ))
Ext1kM (CoindGe (V ), CoindGf (W )) ∼
= HomkM (rad(kL
f
∼
e
= HomkM (rad(kLe ) ⊗kG V, CoindG (W ))
e

f

(5.1)

where first isomorphism uses the long exact sequence for Ext and the second uses Proposition 5.1. Since CoindGf (W ) is a kM/kI(f )-module, we
then have, in light of Proposition 5.2, that the right hand side of (5.1) is
isomorphic to


e e ) ⊗kGe V
rad(k
L

 , CoindGf (W ) ∼
HomkM/kI(f ) 
=
e
I(f ) rad(kLe ) ⊗kGe V
(5.2)
!
!
e
rad(kLe )
HomkM/kI(f )
⊗kGe V, CoindGf (W ) .
ee)
I(f ) rad(kL

Let ηW be a primitive idempotent with kGf ηW ∼
= W and ηV a primitive
idempotent with kGe ηV ∼
= V . Applying that coinduction is right adjoint to
restriction yields that the right hand side of (5.2) is isomorphic to
"
!
# !
!
ee)
ee)
f rad(kL
f rad(kL
∼
.
⊗kGe V, W = D ηW
η
HomkGf
ee)
ee) V
f I(f ) rad(kL
f I(f ) rad(kL
(5.3)
Since k is a splitting field for Gf and Ge , we have that ηW ⊗ηV is the primitive
idempotent of kGf ⊗ kGe ∼
= k[Gf × Ge ] corresponding to W ⊗ D(V ).
This completes the proof that dim Ext1kM (CoindGe (V ), CoindGf (W )) is
the multiplicity of W ⊗D(V ) as an irreducible constituent of the k[Gf ×Ge ]e e )/f I(f ) rad(kL
e e ).
module f rad(kL

5.1. Quivers of monoids whose idempotents generate an R-trivial
monoid. In order to compute the quiver of kM , for a finite monoid M ∈
ER over a field k whose characteristic does not divide the order of any
maximal subgroup of M and which is a splitting field for each maximal
subgroup, we need to compute the kernel of the natural homomorphism
ϕkGe : IndGe (kGe ) −→ CoindGe (kGe ). Recall that IndGe (kGe ) = kLe .
Since CoindGe (kGe ) ∼
= D(kRe ) is semisimple by Proposition 4.10, ker ϕkGe =
rad(kLe ) and ϕkGe is surjective.

PROJECTIVE INDECOMPOSABLE MODULES AND QUIVERS

19

Proposition 5.4. Let M be a finite monoid whose idempotents generate
an R-trivial monoid, e ∈ E(M ) and k a field whose characteristic does not
divide the order of Ge . Then rad(kLe ) is spanned by all differences x − y
with x, y ∈ Le such that x and y act as the same partial injective mapping
on the right of Re .
Proof. Recall that if x ∈ Le and r ∈ Re , then
(
rx, if rx ∈ Re
(ϕkGe (x))(r) =
0,
else
and so if x, y ∈ Le act as the same partial injection on the right of Re , then
x − y ∈ ker ϕkGe = rad(kLe ). (Note that if r ∈ Re , x ∈ Le , then rx ∈ Re if
and only if rx ∈ Ge by stability.)
Since ϕkGe is surjective by semisimplicty of CoindGe (kGe ) ∼
= D(kRe ) (see
Proposition 4.10), it follows that ker ϕkGe has dimension |Le | − |Re |. Let
T be a complete set of equivalence class representatives for the equivalence
relation ∼ on Le given by x ∼ y if they act the same on the right of Re by
partial injections. If x ∈ Le , let x ∈ T be the representative of the ∼-class of
x. Then the span of the differences x − y with x ∼ y has basis the non-zero
elements of the form x − x. There are exactly |Le | − |T | such elements. So
to complete the proof of the proposition, it suffices to show that |T | = |Re |.
We claim that if x ∈ T , there is a unique element rx ∈ Re such that
rx x = e. Indeed, since x ∈ Le , we have mx = e for some m ∈ M . Then
emx = ee = e and so rx = em ∈ Re . Uniqueness follows because x acts as
a partial injection on the right of Re .
We thus have a mapping ψ : T −→ Re given by ψ(x) = rx . We claim that
ψ is a bijection. If r ∈ Re , then ra = e for some a ∈ M and so rae = ee = e,
whence ae ∈ Le . If x = ae, then rx = rae = e and so r = ψ(x). Thus ψ is
onto.
Now suppose that ψ(x) = r = ψ(y). Then rx = e = ry. As r ∈ Re
and x ∈ Le , we deduce that rxr = er = r and xrx = xe = x. Similarly,
ryr = r and yry = y. We claim that if r ′ ∈ Re , then r ′ x ∈ Re if and
only if r ′ y ∈ Re , and if r ′ x, r ′ y ∈ Re , then r ′ x = r ′ y. Indeed, if r ′ x ∈ Re ,
then r ′ xrx = r ′ x and so r ′ xr ∈ Re . But r ′ (xr) = r ′ xr(xr) and hence, since
xr acts on the right of Re as a partial injection, we have r ′ = r ′ xr. Thus
r ′ yr = r ′ xryr = r ′ xr = r ′ . Therefore, r ′ y ∈ Re . Also, since r ′ xr = r ′ yr
and r acts on the right of Re as a partial injection, we must have r ′ x = r ′ y.
Similarly, if r ′ y ∈ Re , then r ′ x ∈ Re and r ′ x = r ′ y. Thus x ∼ y and hence
x = y, as x, y ∈ T . Therefore, ψ is a bijection. This completes the proof. 
Our goal now is to give an explicit description of the k[Gf × Ge ]-module
e e )/f I(f ) rad(kL
e e ) from Theorem 5.3 when M ∈ ER. So for the
f rad(kL
remainder of this subsection, M will denote a finite monoid whose idempotents generate an R-trivial monoid, k will be a field whose characteristic
divides the order of no maximal subgroup of M and which is a splitting field

20

STUART MARGOLIS AND BENJAMIN STEINBERG

for all maximal subgroups and e, f ∈ E(M ). Note that M e \ Le = I(e)e and
e e \ Le = I(e)e ∩ L
e e by stability.
that L
Let ∼ be the congruence on M defined by m ∼ n if they act on the right
of Re as the same partial injection. Let ≡ be the least equivalence relation
on f M e such that:
(1) x ≡ y if x, y ∈ f I(f )I(e)e
(2) x ≡ y if x = zu and y = zv with z ∈ f I(f ) and u, v ∈ Le with u ∼ v.
Proposition 5.5. The equivalence relation ≡ on f M e enjoys the following
properties.
(1) ≡ ⊆ ∼.
(2) If x ≡ y, then x ∈ Le if and only if y ∈ Le .
Proof. Elements of I(e) all act on Re as the empty function, so the first
property defining ≡ is satisfied by ∼. The second property is clear since
∼ is a congruence. Thus ≡ ⊆ ∼. If x ∈ Le with mx = e, then em ∈ Re
and emx = e. Thus x does not act as the empty mapping on Re and so ∼
separates Le from I(e). As ≡ ⊆ ∼, we deduce that ≡ separates f M ∩ Le
from f M e \ Le .

We next want to show that ≡ is Gf × Ge -stable.
Proposition 5.6. The equivalence relation ≡ on f M e is Gf × Ge -stable.
That is, if g ∈ Gf , h ∈ Ge and x ≡ y. Then gxh−1 ≡ gyh−1 .
Proof. Define an equivalence relation a on f M e by x a y if and only if
gxh−1 ≡ gyh−1 for all g ∈ Gf and h ∈ Ge . Clearly, a ⊆ ≡ and a is
Gf × Ge -stable. We claim that a satisfies the defining properties of ≡ and
hence the reverse inclusion holds. Since f I(f )I(e)e is Gf × Ge -invariant,
the first property is clear. Since Le is invariant under right multiplication
by elements of Ge , ∼ is a congruence on M and f I(f ) is invariant under left
multiplication by elements of Gf , the second property is also clear.

It follows that f M e/≡ is a Gf × Ge -set via the action (g, h)[x]≡ =
[gxh−1 ]≡ . Let C be the ≡-class of f I(f )I(e)e (which is possibly empty
if e or f belongs to the minimal ideal). Then X = (f M e/≡) \ {C} is a
Gf × Ge -invariant subset of f M e/≡. Let U = kX be the corresponding
ee.
permutation module. The next proposition shows that f I(f )e \ C ⊆ L

e e , then z ∈ f I(f )I(e)e.
Proposition 5.7. Suppose that z ∈ f I(f )e. If z ∈
/L
ee .
Consequently, f I(f )e \ C ⊆ L

ee , then z ∈ L
e u with u ∈ E(M ) and u ∈
Proof. If z ∈
/ L
/ Le . Then from
ze = z, we obtain ue = u. So u ∈ I(e)e. Thus z = zu ∈ f I(f )I(e)e.


As ≡ ⊆ ∼ by Proposition 5.5, we have that ∼ descends to an equivalence
relation on f M e/≡. Also, as ∼ is a congruence on M , we have that ∼ is a
Gf × Ge -stable equivalence relation on f M e/≡. Fix a transversal T to the
restriction of ∼ to f M ∩ Le and write x for the element of T in the ∼-class

PROJECTIVE INDECOMPOSABLE MODULES AND QUIVERS

21

of x ∈ f M ∩ Le . Let U ♭ be the subspace of U spanned by all [z]≡ with
e e ) \ (Le ∪ C) and all [x]≡ − [y]≡ such that x, y ∈ f M ∩ Le with
z ∈ (f M ∩ L
e e ) \ (Le ∪ C) is Gf × Ge x ∼ y. Since ∼ is Gf × Ge -stable and (f M ∩ L
invariant, it is immediate that U ♭ is a k[Gf × Ge ]-submodule. The proof of
the following proposition is routine.
Proposition 5.8. The vector space U ♭ has basis the elements of the form
ee ) \ (Le ∪ C).
[x]≡ − [x]≡ with x ∈ (f M ∩ Le ) \ T and [z]≡ with z ∈ (f M ∩ L

e e )/f I(f ) rad(kL
e e ) as a k[Gf ×Ge ]Our goal is to show that U ♭ ∼
= f rad(kL
module.
Proposition 5.9. There is an isomorphism

e e )/f I(f ) rad(kL
ee)
U♭ ∼
= f rad(kL

of k[Gf × Ge ]-modules.

e e ) has basis consisting
Proof. It follows from Proposition 5.4 that f rad(kL
ee \ Le . Define
of the elements x − x with x ∈ (f M ∩ Le ) \ T and y ∈ f M ∩ L
♭
e e ) −→ U on these basis elements by ψ(x − x) = [x]≡ − [x]≡ if
ψ : f rad(kL
e e \ (Le ∪ C) and ψ(y) = 0
x ∈ (f M ∩ Le ) \ T , ψ(y) = [y]≡ if y ∈ f M ∩ L
if y ∈ C. Note that if x ∈ T , then ψ(x − x) = 0 = [x]≡ − [x]≡ . We claim
that ψ is a k[Gf × Ge ]-module homomorphism. Let g ∈ Gf and h ∈ Ge . If
x ∈ f M ∩Le , then gxh−1 , gxh−1 ∈ f M ∩Le and gxh−1 ∼ gxh−1 . Therefore,
ψ(g(x − x)h−1 ) = ψ(gxh−1 − gxh−1 ) − ψ(gxh−1 − gxh−1 ) = [gxh−1 ]≡ −
[gxh−1 ]≡ − ([gxh−1 ]≡ − [gxh−1 ]≡ ) = g([x]≡ − [x]≡ )h−1 = gψ(x − x)h−1 . If
e e \ Le , then gyh−1 ∈ f M ∩ L
e e \ Le and y ∈ C if and only if
y ∈ fM ∩ L
−1
gyh ∈ C. Thus ψ(gyh−1 ) = gψ(y)h−1 , trivially, in this case.
e e ) ⊆ ker ψ. Note that f I(f ) rad(kL
e e ) is
We claim that f I(f ) rad(kL
spanned by elements of the form z(x − x) with z ∈ f I(f ) and x ∈ (f M ∩
ee with z ∈ f I(f ) and y ∈ f M ∩ L
e e \ Le . In the
Le ) \ T and zy ∈ L
e e (of course if
latter case, zy ∈ f I(f )I(e)e and so ψ(zy) = 0 if zy ∈ L
e
zy ∈
/ Le , then there is nothing to prove). In the former case, zx ≡ zx
by definition of the equivalence relation. There are a couple of cases. If
e e , then zx ∈ f I(f )I(e)e by Proposition 5.7 and hence zx ∈ C. So
zx ∈
/ L
ee . Thus we may assume that
ψ(z(x − x)) = 0. The same occurs if zx ∈
/ L
e
zx, zx ∈ Le . Since zx ≡ zx, it follows from Proposition 5.5 that either
e e \ Le . In the former case, we then have zx = zx
zx, zx ∈ Le or zx, zx ∈ L
because ∼ is a congruence and hence ψ(z(x−x)) = ψ(zx−zx)−ψ(zx−zx) =
e e \Le , we have
[zx]≡ −[zx]≡ −([zx]≡ −[zx]≡ ) = 0. In the case that zx, zx ∈ L
that ψ(z(x − x)) = ψ(zx) − ψ(zx) = [zx]≡ − [zx]≡ = 0. Thus in all cases,
z(x − x) ∈ ker ψ and so ψ descends to a well-defined k[Gf × Ge ]-module
e e )/f I(f ) rad(kL
e e ) −→ U ♭ . Also, we shall use
homomorphism Ψ : f rad(kL
ee.
without comment that Ψ maps the coset of x to 0 if x ∈ C ∩ L

22

STUART MARGOLIS AND BENJAMIN STEINBERG

e e ) and define ρ : U ♭ −→ f rad(kL
e e )/f I(f ) rad(kL
ee)
Put K = f I(f ) rad(kL
on the basis from Proposition 5.8 by ρ([x]≡ − [x]≡ ) = x − x + K if x ∈
e e ) \ (Le ∪ C). We must
(f M ∩ Le ) \ T and ρ([y]≡ ) = y + K if y ∈ (f M ∩ L
e e as the quotient of k[f M e] by
show that ρ is well defined. We can view f kL
e
e e.
the subspace spanned by f M e \ (f M ∩ Le ) and K as a subspace of f kL
e e . Notice
Let K ′ be the preimage of K under the quotient k[f M e] −→ f kL
′
′
′
that f I(f )I(e)e ⊆ K and so x + K = y + K for all x, y ∈ f I(f )I(e)e.
ee)
Suppose that x, y ∈ Le with x ∼ y and z ∈ f I(f ). Then x − y ∈ rad(kL
′
′
′
by Proposition 5.4 and so z(x − y) ∈ K . Thus zx + K = zy + K . We
deduce that a ≡ b implies a + K ′ = b + K ′ . It follows immediately that ρ is
well defined.
We claim that Ψ and ρ are inverse mappings. Suppose that x ∈ (f M ∩
Le ) \ T . Then ρ(Ψ(x − x + K)) = ρ(ψ(x − x)) = ρ([x]≡ − [x]≡ ) = x − x + K
e e )\(Le ∪C), then ρ(Ψ(y+K)) = ρψ(y) = ρ([y]≡ ) = y+K.
and if y ∈ (f M ∩ L
Thus ρ ◦ Ψ is the identity.
Similarly, if x ∈ (f M ∩ L) \ T , then Ψ(ρ([x]≡ − [x]≡ )) = Ψ(x − x + K) =
ee )\(Le ∪C), then Ψ(ρ([y]≡ )) = Ψ(y+K) = [y]≡ .
[x]≡ −[x]≡ and if y ∈ (f M ∩L
This completes the proof that Ψ and ρ are inverse isomorphisms.

The main result of this section is the next theorem, which is immediate
from Theorem 5.3 and the previous results.

Theorem 5.10. Let M be a finite monoid whose idempotents generate an
R-trivial monoid and k a field whose characteristic does not divide the order
of any maximal subgroup of M and over which each maximal subgroup of M
splits. Let e1 , . . . , en be a complete set of idempotent representatives of the
regular J -classes of M . Then the quiver of kM is isomorphic to the directed
graph that has vertices indexed by pairs (ei , [V ]) where V is a simple kGei module and edges as follows. If (e, [V ]) and (f, [W ]) are two vertices, then
the number of arrow from (e, [V ]) to (f, [W ]) is the multiplicity of W ⊗D(V )
as an irreducible constituent of the k[Gf × Ge ]-module U ♭ defined as follows.
Let ≡ be the least equivalence relation on f M e such that:
(1) x ≡ y if x, y ∈ f I(f )I(e)e;
(2) zx ≡ zy if x, y ∈ Le , z ∈ f I(f ) and x, y act as the same partial
injection on the right of Re .
Let X be the set of equivalence classes of elements of f M e not meeting
f I(f )I(e)e; it is naturally a Gf × Ge -set. Let U ♭ be the submodule of the
permutation module kX spanned by differences [x]≡ − [y]≡ with x, y ∈ Le
such that x and y act as the same partial injection on the right of Re and
e e ) \ Le .
by those [z]≡ ∈ X such that z ∈ (f M ∩ L

Recall that a finite monoid M is aperiodic if all its maximal subgroups
are trivial.

Corollary 5.11. Let M be a finite aperiodic monoid whose idempotents
generate an R-trivial monoid and let k be a field. Then the quiver of kM

PROJECTIVE INDECOMPOSABLE MODULES AND QUIVERS

23

is isomorphic to the directed graph that has one vertex for each regular J class of M and with edge set as follows. If e, f ∈ E(M ), then the number of
arrows from Je to Jf is |X| − |Re ∩ M f | where X is defined in the following
way. Let ≡ be the least equivalence relation on f M e such that:
(1) x ≡ y if x, y ∈ f I(f )I(e)e;
(2) zx ≡ zy if x, y ∈ Le , z ∈ f I(f ) and x, y act as the same partial
injection on the right of Re .
e e not meeting
Then X is the set of equivalence classes of elements of f M ∩ L
f I(f )I(e)e.

Proof. This follows from Theorem 5.10, Proposition 5.4 and the observation
that kLe / rad(kLe ) ∼
= D(kRe ), as D(kRe ) is the simple module corresponding to the J -class Je , and so if T is a transversal to ∼ on f M ∩ Le , then
|T | = dim f D(kRe ) = |Re ∩ M f |.

5.2. Quivers of block groups. Recall that a monoid M is a block group if,
for each a ∈ M , there is at most one b ∈ M such that aba = a and bab = b.
The power set of a finite group is an important example of a block group. A
finite monoid is a block group if and only if its idempotents generate a J trivial monoid (and hence a monoid that is both R-trivial and L -trivial);
in particular, block groups are Fountain. Thus Theorem 5.10 can be applied
to compute the quiver of the algebra of a block group. However, there are
a number of simplifications in this case.
Let M be a block group and fix idempotents e, f ∈ M . Let Irr(e, f ) be
ef ∩ L
e e ) \ (Rf ∪ Le ) such that if x = yz with y ∈ R
ef
the set of elements x ∈ (R
e
and z ∈ Le , then y ∈ Rf or z ∈ Le .

Proposition 5.12. Let M be a block group and e, f ∈ E(M ). If x ∈ f M e,
then the following are equivalent.
(1) x ∈ Irr(e, f ).
(2) x is not regular and x ∈
/ f I(f )I(e)e
ef ∩ L
e e and x ∈
Proof. Suppose that x ∈ Irr(e, f ). Then since x ∈ R
/ Rf ∪ L e ,
we deduce that x is not regular. Suppose that x = yz with y ∈ f I(f ) and
ey , we have that ay = y and so
z ∈ I(e)e. Then if a ∈ E(M ) with a ∈ R
ef . But f y = y implies
ax = ayz = yz = x. Therefore, af = f because x ∈ R
e
e
e e . Then by
f a = a as a ∈ Ry . Thus f R a and so y ∈ Rf . Similarly, z ∈ L
definition of irreducibility, we obtain that y ∈ Rf or z ∈ Le , contradicting
that y ∈ f I(f ) and z ∈ I(e)e. This shows that the first item implies the
second.
Next suppose that x ∈
/ f I(f )I(e)e and x is not regular. Then x ∈
/ Jf ∪ Je
e
because x is not regular. Let a ∈ E(M ) with a ∈ Rx . Then from f x = x, we
must have f a = a. If a ∈ f I(f ), then from a(xe) = x and the non-regularity
of x, we have that x ∈ f I(f )I(e)e, a contradiction. Thus Ja = Jf and so
ef . Similarly, x ∈ L
ee .
from f a = a we have that Rf = Ra . Thus x ∈ R

24

STUART MARGOLIS AND BENJAMIN STEINBERG

ef and z ∈ L
e e . Then f y = y, ze = z and so
Suppose that x = yz with y ∈ R
from x ∈
/ f I(f )I(e)e, we deduce that y ∈ Rf or z ∈ Le . This completes the
proof that x is irreducible.

Note that it follows from the second item of Proposition 5.12 that Irr(e, f )
is a Gf × Ge -set under the action (g, h)x = gxh−1 .
Theorem 5.13. Let M be a block group and e, f ∈ E(M ). Let k be field
such that the characteristic of k divides the order of no maximal subgroup of
M and k is a splitting field for each maximal subgroup of M . Let e1 , . . . , en
be a complete set of idempotent representatives of the regular J -classes
of M . Then the quiver of kM is isomorphic to the directed graph that has
vertices indexed by pairs (ei , [V ]) where V is a simple kGei -module and edges
as follows. If (e, [V ]) and (f, [W ]) are two vertices, then the number of arrow
from (e, [V ]) to (f, [W ]) is the multiplicity of W ⊗ D(V ) as an irreducible
constituent of the k[Gf × Ge ]-permutation module k Irr(e, f ).
Proof. We apply Theorem 5.10. First note that by the dual of Proposition 4.9, M acts by partial injections on the left of Le . Hence, if x, y ∈ Le
and r ∈ Re with rx = ry ∈ Re , then x = y. It follows that the equivalence
relation ∼ is equality on Le and hence ≡ is simply the equivalence relation
on f M e identifying all elements of f I(f )I(e)e and U ♭ is the k[Gf × Ge ]e e ) \ (Le ∪ f I(f )I(e)e). But this
module with basis the elements of (f M ∩ L
is Irr(e, f ) by Proposition 5.12.

The following theorem generalizes one of the main result of [12] from
J -trivial monoids to arbitrary aperiodic block groups.

Corollary 5.14. Let M be an aperiodic block group and k a field. Fix
e1 , . . . , en as set of idempotent representatives of the regular J -classes of
M . Then the quiver of kM is isomorphic to the quiver with vertex set
e1 , . . . , en and with | Irr(ei , ej )| arrows from ei to ej .
References
[1] J. Almeida. Finite semigroups and universal algebra, volume 3 of Series in Algebra.
World Scientific Publishing Co. Inc., River Edge, NJ, 1994. Translated from the 1992
Portuguese original and revised by the author.
[2] I. Assem, D. Simson, and A. Skowroński. Elements of the representation theory of
associative algebras. Vol. 1, volume 65 of London Mathematical Society Student Texts.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006. Techniques of representation theory.
[3] A. Ayyer, A. Schilling, B. Steinberg, and N. M. Thiéry. Markov chains, R-trivial
monoids and representation theory. Internat. J. Algebra Comput., 25(1-2):169–231,
2015.
[4] D. J. Benson. Representations and cohomology. I, volume 30 of Cambridge Studies
in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, second edition,
1998. Basic representation theory of finite groups and associative algebras.
[5] C. Berg, N. Bergeron, S. Bhargava, and F. Saliola. Primitive orthogonal idempotents
for R-trivial monoids. J. Algebra, 348:446–461, 2011.

PROJECTIVE INDECOMPOSABLE MODULES AND QUIVERS

25

[6] P. Bidigare, P. Hanlon, and D. Rockmore. A combinatorial description of the spectrum
for the Tsetlin library and its generalization to hyperplane arrangements. Duke Math.
J., 99(1):135–174, 1999.
[7] K. S. Brown. Semigroups, rings, and Markov chains. J. Theoret. Probab., 13(3):871–
938, 2000.
[8] K. S. Brown. Semigroup and ring theoretical methods in probability. In Representations of finite dimensional algebras and related topics in Lie theory and geometry,
volume 40 of Fields Inst. Commun., pages 3–26. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI,
2004.
[9] A. H. Clifford and G. B. Preston. The algebraic theory of semigroups. Vol. I. Mathematical Surveys, No. 7. American Mathematical Society, Providence, R.I., 1961.
[10] C. W. Curtis and I. Reiner. Representation theory of finite groups and associative
algebras. Wiley Classics Library. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 1988. Reprint
of the 1962 original, A Wiley-Interscience Publication.
[11] T. Denton. A combinatorial formula for orthogonal idempotents in the 0-hecke algebra of the symmetric group. Electron. J. Combin., 18(1):Research Paper 28, 20 pp.
(electronic), 2011.
[12] T. Denton, F. Hivert, A. Schilling, and N. Thiéry. On the representation theory of
finite J -trivial monoids. Sém. Lothar. Combin., 64:Art. B64d, 34 pp. (electronic),
2011.
[13] A. El Qallili, J. Fountain, and V. Gould. Fundamental representations for classes of
semigroups containing a band of idempotents. Comm. Alg., 36:2298–3031, 2008.
[14] J. Fountain, G. M. S. Gomes, and V. Gould. Enlargements, semiabundancy and
unipotent monoids. Comm. Algebra, 27(2):595–614, 1999.
[15] I. M. Isaacs. Character theory of finite groups. Academic Press [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers], New York-London, 1976. Pure and Applied Mathematics, No.
69.
[16] K. Krohn, J. Rhodes, and B. Tilson. Algebraic theory of machines, languages, and
semigroups. Edited by Michael A. Arbib. With a major contribution by Kenneth
Krohn and John L. Rhodes. Academic Press, New York, 1968. Chapters 1, 5–9.
[17] R. Mantaci and C. Reutenauer. A generalization of Solomon’s algebra for hyperoctahedral groups and other wreath products. Comm. Algebra, 23(1):27–56, 1995.
[18] S. Margolis and B. Steinberg. The quiver of an algebra associated to the MantaciReutenauer descent algebra and the homology of regular semigroups. Algebr. Represent. Theory, 14(1):131–159, 2011.
[19] S. Margolis and B. Steinberg. Quivers of monoids with basic algebras. Compos. Math.,
148(5):1516–1560, 2012.
[20] P. N. Norton. 0-Hecke algebras. J. Austral. Math. Soc. Ser. A, 27(3):337–357, 1979.
[21] M. S. Putcha. Complex representations of finite monoids. II. Highest weight categories
and quivers. J. Algebra, 205(1):53–76, 1998.
[22] J. Rhodes and B. Steinberg. The q-theory of finite semigroups. Springer Monographs
in Mathematics. Springer, New York, 2009.
[23] F. V. Saliola. The quiver of the semigroup algebra of a left regular band. Internat. J.
Algebra Comput., 17(8):1593–1610, 2007.
[24] M.-P. Schützenberger. Sur certains treillis gauches. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 224:776–
778, 1947.
[25] B. Steinberg. Möbius functions and semigroup representation theory. II. Character
formulas and multiplicities. Adv. Math., 217(4):1521–1557, 2008.
[26] B. Steinberg. Representation theory of finite monoids. Universitext. Springer, Cham,
2016.
[27] J. P. Stiffler. Extension of the fundamental theorem of finite semigroups. Advances
in Math., 11(2):159–209, 1973.

26

STUART MARGOLIS AND BENJAMIN STEINBERG

[28] J. Tits. Two properties of Coxeter complexes. J. Algebra, 41(2):265–268, 1976. Appendix to “A Mackey formula in the group ring of a Coxeter group” (J. Algebra 41
(1976), no. 2, 255–264) by Louis Solomon.
Department of Mathematics, Bar Ilan University, 52900 Ramat Gan, Israel
and Department of Mathematics, City College of New York, Convent Avenue
at 138th Street, New York, New York 10031, USA
E-mail address: margolis@math.biu.ac.il and bsteinberg@ccny.cuny.edu

