Why is $S_{0}$ a subring of the graded ring $S=\bigoplus_{d\geq 0}S_{d}$.

199 Views Asked by At

An (essentially) the same question has been asked and answered here Definition of graded rings, but the user who posted the answer has not been here for a while, and I am confused by the answer, so I post a new question here.

A graded is a ring $S$ together with a family $(S_{d})_{d\geq 0}$ of subgroups of the additive group of $S$, such that $S=\bigoplus_{d\geq 0}S_{d}$ and $S_{e}S_{d}\subseteq S_{e+d}$ for all $e,d\geq 0$.

I want to show that

$S_{0}$ is a subring of $S$.

It is clear from the definition that $S_{0}\leq S$, so we only need to show $S_{0}$ is closed under multiplication and contains the multiplicative identity $1$.

The closure under multiplication follows immeidately from $S_{0}S_{0}\subseteq S_{0+0}=S_{0}$.


However, I got stuck in why $1\in S_{0}$. The answer referred above goes as follows. Write $1=\sum_{d\geq 0}x_{d}$, where $x_{d}=x_{d}(1)$ is uniquely determined by $1$, $x_{d}\in S_{d}$, and only finitely many of $x_{d}$'s are nonzero.

Fix $n\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$. Then, $$x_{n}=x_{n}1=\sum_{d\geq 0}x_{d}x_{n}=x_{0}x_{n}+x_{1}x_{n}+\cdots.$$

So far so good, but then the answer argues that "by comparing degree", we can conclude that $x_{n}=x_{0}x_{n}.$

I don't understand why this follows. I understand by saying "comparing degree", the answer might actually mean the following. Everything here is a homogenous element of degree $\geq n$, i.e. $x_{n}\in S_{n}$, $x_{n}x_{0}\in S_{n}$, $x_{1}x_{n}\in S_{n+1}$, $x_{2}x_{n}\in S_{n+2},\cdots$.

So in the RHS of the equation, only $x_{0}x_{n}$ is of degree $n$ (which equals to the degree of $x_{n}$), and other summands are of degree $\geq n+1$. But why does this imply that we must have $x_{0}x_{n}=x_{n}$? Equivalently, why does this imply $x_{d}x_{n}=0$ for all $d\geq 1$?

I know that $S_{i}\cap S_{j}=0$ for $i\neq j$, but why does this prevent a homogeneous element of degree $n$ from being written as a sum of homogeneous elements of different degrees?

Thank you!

1

There are 1 best solutions below

1
On BEST ANSWER

You know much more than just $S_i\cap S_j=0$. You know $S$ is the direct sum of the $S_i$. This by definition means that every element of $S$ is uniquely written as a sum $\sum a_i$ where $a_i\in S_i$ (and all but finitely many of them are $0$). In particular, this means the unique way to write $x_n$ as such a sum is taking $a_n=x_n$ and $a_i=0$ for $i\neq n$. Since $x_n=\sum_d x_dx_n$ gives another such way of representing $x_n$ (with $a_i=0$ for $i<n$ and $a_i=x_{i-n}x_n$ for $i\geq n$) it must be the same, i.e. we must have $x_n=x_0x_n$ and $x_dx_n=0$ for all $d>0$.