WorksMathematics
Nonpolynomial Hall numbers for tame and wild algebras
Abstract
We give examples showing that fixed-triple Hall polynomials may fail to exist for tame nonhereditary algebras and for wild algebras, both hereditary and nonhereditary.
Motivation, AI use, and scholarly credit
I wanted to understand whether the Hall-polynomial existence property extends to algebras of tame and wild representation type, beyond the representation-finite existence conjecture.
The constructions and proofs were developed through AI-assisted research recorded in the accompanying research archive. Wolfram Language was used for symbolic calculations, and Python and C++ for exact finite-field and matrix checks. Codex was used to audit the arguments, complete their exposition, and polish the manuscript. The work passed a Rethlas-OSV review [10, 14].
By posting this manuscript on this platform, I do not seek to assert ownership of the results or claim priority. I welcome anyone interested in preparing a finished account or checking the arguments; the eventual scholarly credit should go to those who undertake that work.
Introduction
The classical Hall polynomials count subgroups of finite abelian -groups with prescribed subgroup and quotient types. Their origins lie in the work of Steinitz and Hall; Hall’s algebra of partitions organizes these counts as multiplication constants [6, 12]. Replacing abelian groups by finite-length modules over a discrete valuation ring gives the same polynomial phenomenon, with the cardinality of the residue field as variable. A partition specifies the module type independently of that cardinality.
Ringel extended this construction to modules over finite-dimensional algebras over finite fields [16]. The product of two isomorphism classes counts submodules with those prescribed factors. For representation-directed algebras, he proved the existence of Hall polynomials, and his work on representation-finite hereditary algebras related their specializations at one to the positive part of a semisimple Lie algebra [17]. Twisting Hall multiplication by the Euler form gives the connection with quantized enveloping algebras [18]. These polynomials define a generic Hall algebra and its specializations.
Ringel formulated the conjecture that every representation-finite algebra over a finite field has Hall polynomials [16]. The representation-finite problem is also the subject of [19]. The finite-type problem and its extension to infinite representation type require different treatments of the labels and of conservative extensions. The fixed-triple condition below is the one supplied by the tame hereditary theory. We ask whether it persists for tame nonhereditary algebras and for wild algebras.
Green’s multiplication–comultiplication formula extended the Hall-algebra realization of quantum groups to hereditary algebras through the composition subalgebra generated by simple modules [5]. It also supplied a way to reduce Hall-polynomial questions by the dimension of the middle module. The composition subalgebra uses particular combinations of isomorphism classes. Polynomial structure constants for that subalgebra and polynomiality of every individual Hall number are separate counting statements.
The tame hereditary case requires a treatment of labels that vary with the field. Besides the discrete preprojective and preinjective families, regular representations occur in tubes indexed by closed points of a projective line. Their residue-field degrees affect scalar extension. Hubery proved Hall-polynomial results for Dynkin, cyclic, and affine quivers using Green’s formula; in the affine case the uniform labels are the decomposition classes of Bongartz and Dudek [9]. These classes retain discrete representation data and the degrees of the moving regular parameters.
Deng and Ruan developed this method through coherent sheaves on domestic weighted projective lines [4]. Their decomposition sequences incorporate vector bundles and torsion sheaves, and yield generic Hall algebras and their Drinfeld doubles. Their tame-quiver result also gives the following formulation for individual objects: for a finite field and fixed -modules , , , one polynomial in computes the Hall numbers after every extension conservative relative to those three modules. This fixed-object formulation is Corollary 6.8 in their original preprint and Corollary 6.7 in the author-hosted revision.
Weighted projective lines connect the hereditary theory with canonical algebras. In particular, the canonical algebras of weight type are tame tubular algebras [1, 7]. Lin and Peng constructed elliptic Lie algebras from their root categories [11]; Burban and Schiffmann studied composition Hall algebras of weighted projective lines, including the tubular case [2]. More recently, Chen, Deng, and Ruan calculated Hall polynomials involving line bundles, extension bundles, and torsion sheaves on weighted projective lines of three weights, in domestic, tubular, and wild types [3]. Those results identify specific polynomial Hall products within categories of infinite representation type.
For wild quivers, geometry gives another reason to examine individual Hall numbers. Reineke and Ringel showed that projective varieties can occur as quiver Grassmannians, and Hille gave constructions using adjacent homogeneous pieces of a projective coordinate ring [15, 20, 8]. A quiver Grassmannian fixes a middle representation and a subrepresentation dimension vector. A Hall number imposes two further isomorphism conditions, on the submodule and its quotient. Hubery’s discussion of wild Hall polynomials instead proposes polynomial sums over suitable combinatorial classes [9 Section 9]; here the labels are three fixed modules over one finite base field.
We prove that fixed-triple Hall-polynomial existence fails in each of the following classes: tame nonhereditary algebras, wild hereditary algebras, and wild nonhereditary algebras. In the tame case, every canonical parameter of weight type in characteristic at least five admits an example. Two cross-ratio conditions produce a smooth genus-one curve. In the wild hereditary case, a smooth plane cubic gives an explicit triple for the three-arrow Kronecker quiver. Passing to a local radical-square-zero algebra gives the wild nonhereditary example. In all three cases the remaining genus-one point count prevents rational dependence on field size.
The fixed-triple question
Let be a finite field with elements and let be a finite-dimensional -algebra. All modules are finite-dimensional, and bound-quiver modules are represented by vector spaces at vertices and maps in the indicated arrow directions. For -modules , , , define
Thus specifies the submodule and the quotient. For a field extension , write and for scalar extension of an -module . The extension is conservative for the triple if each indecomposable summand of remains indecomposable over . A fixed-triple Hall polynomial is satisfying
for every finite extension conservative for the triple. A module is absolutely indecomposable if it stays indecomposable after every field extension.
For infinite representation type, this relative condition distinguishes the question from conservativity for every indecomposable of the algebra. For example, choose and a field generator of . On the two-arrow Kronecker quiver take at both vertices as a -vector space, with arrows the identity and multiplication by . Its endomorphisms are precisely multiplication by elements of , so it is indecomposable. If divides , then over the multiplication operator has distinct eigenvalues and the representation splits into one-dimensional-at-each-vertex summands. Every has a prime divisor , so no nontrivial extension is conservative for every indecomposable of this algebra. The triples constructed here have absolute summands, and all finite extensions are conservative for them.
We use tame and wild representation type after scalar extension to an algebraic closure . Tameness means that, for each positive integer , all but finitely many -dimensional indecomposable modules occur by specializing finitely many one-parameter families: these families are bimodules free of finite rank on the side, specialized by tensoring with for . Wildness means that a bimodule free of finite rank on the side induces a functor preserving indecomposability and reflecting isomorphisms. Such a functor is called a representation embedding. A finite-dimensional algebra is hereditary if every submodule of a projective module is projective. In particular, a path algebra of a finite acyclic quiver is hereditary. The wild examples below also admit explicit embeddings of pairs of arbitrary linear operators, as checked in § 6.
Main results
Theorem 1.1. Let have characteristic at least five and let . Let be the algebra with vertices , arrows
and relations
The algebra is tame and nonhereditary. There exist -modules of total dimensions , respectively, whose indecomposable summands are absolutely indecomposable and whose Hall numbers over , , are not the values of a rational function in with real coefficients. In particular this triple has no Hall polynomial.
Theorem 1.2. Let be any finite field. The following wild algebras admit fixed triples with absolutely indecomposable summands and nonrational Hall numbers on the entire finite-extension tower.
The hereditary algebra , where has two vertices and three arrows from the first to the second. There are modules of dimension vectors and a smooth plane cubic such that, for every finite extension with ,
(ii) The nonhereditary algebra , where is the ideal generated by all products of two loops. There are modules of total dimensions such that
Here nonrationality means that no represents the sequence as for all .
Theorem 1.1 is proved in § 4. § 5 and § 6 prove the two parts of Theorem 1.2.
Genus-one point counts
Lemma 2.1. Let be a smooth projective geometrically integral curve of genus one. For , put
If is a bounded real sequence, then is not eventually the restriction of a real rational function in .
Proof. The genus-one Hasse–Weil identities give complex numbers with
see [13]. Consequently,
Suppose for all sufficiently large . If is nonzero, write it as a quotient of nonzero polynomials. Its order of growth at infinity is the integer given by numerator degree minus denominator degree. The bound forces that integer to be at most zero. Thus is bounded. The same conclusion holds for . Since is bounded, so is , whereas the second identity in (4) then forces to be unbounded. This is a contradiction. □
In particular, a nonzero rational multiple of added to a rational function of cannot be rational in : subtract the rational part and divide by the nonzero multiplier, ignoring its finitely many zeros and poles. This observation applies to the multiplicative factors in (2) and (3).
Canonical algebras of type (2,2,2,2)
The algebra and the module labels
Throughout this section and . The presentation (1) is a canonical algebra of tubular type ; the canonical-algebra classification gives its tameness [1 Section 1.4]. It has dimension : there are six stationary paths, eight arrows, and a two-dimensional space of length-two paths.
Its nonhereditary property follows directly from the projectives. Let be the representation whose space at a vertex is spanned by paths from to , modulo the relations, and let be the simple representation supported at . The map sends the generator of to . It is an isomorphism at each arm. At the sink its kernel in , ordered by the four arms, has basis
the coefficient vectors of the two relations. Thus its kernel is supported at and is . Thus
is a projective resolution. The arrow acts as the identity in , so compatibility forces every map to be zero. Since , applying to this resolution gives . Hence is nonhereditary.
We first take . Let have at every vertex, with , the identity matrix, and with given by
Here denotes the diagonal matrix with entries . These maps satisfy the two relations. All four are invertible.
For define , and define , by
The vertex order is ; unlisted arrow maps have zero source or target. In particular both representations satisfy the relations. Their total dimensions are six, while the total dimension of is twelve.
Lemma 3.1. For every field extension ,
The indecomposable summands of the triple are absolutely indecomposable.
Proof. For , an endomorphism at the sink preserves the first three image lines , , . The first two force its matrix to be diagonal, and the third makes its diagonal entries equal. Compatibility with each nonzero column then forces the same scalar at every arm. For , use its first three kernel lines, which are the same three lines, to obtain the identical conclusion at the source and arms.
For , the identity maps identify the four arm endomorphisms with the source endomorphism. The map identifies the sink endomorphism with it. Commutation with forces this common matrix to be diagonal; every diagonal matrix commutes with all . The two coordinate representations give the direct-sum decomposition of , and each has scalar endomorphisms over every extension. A nontrivial decomposition would give a nontrivial idempotent in its scalar endomorphism ring, which is impossible.
The Hall condition as two cross-ratios
The projective line is the set of one-dimensional subspaces of , written . We write and for . For four distinct such lines with nonzero representatives , define
The quotient is independent of the representatives and invariant under simultaneous invertible linear transformations. For , one has . Write for the group of invertible matrices and for its quotient by nonzero scalar matrices. The first three ordered distinct lines determine a unique element of carrying to them. One sees this by choosing representatives of the first two lines as a basis and rescaling them so their sum represents the third. The fourth line is then determined by the cross-ratio. Applied to the columns defining , this proves that distinct values of give nonisomorphic modules. Over they form an infinite family, so has infinite representation type.
A submodule of dimension vector has , , and a line at each arm. It is a submodule for every such choice. Its sink image lines are , whereas the kernel lines of the four quotient maps at the source are . Changes of basis on a one-dimensional arm absorb each nonzero rescaling of a column or row. The preceding classification therefore gives
with distinctness of the four lines on each side included in each condition. Every quadruple in (6) is uniquely for . The diagonal torus is the subgroup of represented by for . Its left multiplication preserves (7) because it commutes with every . An invertible matrix has two distinct row lines, so these row directions define a map
Every pair has lifts: choose a nonzero representative of each row line. The two representatives can be independently rescaled, and quotienting by common scalar leaves exactly choices, where . Thus every fiber has elements, over the original field .
Use coordinates for the two row lines. The four image vectors in (7), before taking their projective classes, are
The row matrix is invertible exactly when . On the chart , put and . The determinants needed for the second cross-ratio are
In homogeneous coordinates each is a form of degree one in and degree one in , obtained from the displayed vectors. Define the curve by
Its equation has bidegree , meaning degree two in each of the two coordinate pairs. On this curve, implies that and are nonzero. The determinant identity
then gives . Since all are invertible, the four vectors are nonzero whenever the row matrix is invertible. Thus the open conditions
are exactly the remaining Hall conditions.
Smooth members over the original field
For a binary quartic
its discriminant is the integer polynomial defined by
The right side is divisible coefficientwise by 27. The discriminant vanishes exactly when the form has a repeated projective zero. For example, over a splitting field write ; its discriminant is , which also shows the stated vanishing criterion. Formula (11) is the expansion of that expression. We use it in characteristics at least five.
Lemma 3.2. For every finite field of characteristic at least five and every with , there is for which the discriminant, in the second coordinate, of (9) has four distinct projective zeros in the first coordinate.
Proof. On the affine chart write , where the polynomials in are
For each coefficient polynomial, its homogeneous form is obtained by , and likewise for and . Form the binary quartic from these homogeneous forms. Applying (11) gives
where and the coefficients, in ascending powers, are
Substitution of the displayed into and (11), followed by collecting the powers , gives precisely the matrix (13). The calculation is an identity over .
For , the first and last rows factor as
If all vanished, then or . The first case is excluded by
In the second case direct substitution in the first and fourth rows of (13) gives
No prime at least five divides both numbers. Hence the five coefficients have no common zero in any field of the stated characteristic. Therefore is not the zero polynomial in for any fixed . Under the hypotheses on , (12) is a nonzero polynomial of degree at most ten in . It has at most ten roots in . A field with more than ten elements contains a value with nonzero discriminant, and the factors in (12) exclude for that value. ∎
The changes and come from algebra isomorphisms over . To see the maps explicitly, write for the four full paths. The replacements
give and , with and , respectively. Each replacement permutes arms and multiplies one arrow on a specified arm by a nonzero scalar, so it defines an invertible map of the bound quivers.
For , every exceptional parameter can thereby be moved outside . The parameter moves to . The parameter moves to ; this collides with only in characteristic three and with only in characteristic three, and cannot equal . Finally moves to ; a collision with the exceptional set occurs only in characteristic three or five. In characteristic five, and the first change applies. The allowed parameter set is preserved by both transformations.
The remaining fields are and . The orbits under the two transformations and direct evaluations of (12) are
| parameter orbit | representative | |||
| 2 | 4 | 4 | ||
| 2 | 5 | 1 | ||
| 3 | 4 | 5 |
Table 1.
For example, applying and to gives in , and in ; in these transformations interchange . The table therefore covers all allowed parameters. In every case we can construct the modules over an isomorphic algebra with an admissible representative and transport them back over .
Lemma 3.3. For the parameters just selected, is smooth, projective, and geometrically integral of genus one. The complement of the open conditions (10) on this curve is a reduced finite set with at most eight geometric points.
Proof. Regard the bihomogeneous equation as , with , , binary quadratics in , . If they had a common projective zero, then in a local coordinate at that point both and would vanish to order at least two. This would give a repeated zero of . Thus there is no common zero. The projection to the first projective line has nonzero quadratic equation on every fiber, so it is finite of degree two. Its discriminant is not a square in , since it has four simple zeros. The generic quadratic is therefore irreducible, giving a geometrically integral curve.
A fiber with two distinct roots has a nonzero derivative in a local fiber coordinate at each root. At a double root choose a fiber coordinate in which the quadratic is and is a unit. This is possible because a nonzero binary quadratic with a double root is a nonzero multiple of the square of a linear form. Here is a local coordinate on the base. The invertible local change gives
The right side is a unit times a local representative of and has a simple zero. Its derivative is nonzero at the double-root point, proving smoothness. Both coordinates are local coordinates on projective lines, so the argument also covers infinity in either factor. There are exactly four simple branch points. Riemann–Hurwitz for the degree-two map gives , so . The point lies on the curve and is -rational.
Let be the diagonal . Direct substitution gives
Since , each intersection with the diagonal already lies on or . Each determinant has bidegree and has no component in common with the integral curve of bidegree . The intersection number is : on the two ruling classes have square zero and mutual intersection one. Each determinant divisor consequently meets the curve in at most four geometric points. Their union, taken with reduced structure, is the asserted boundary, of size at most eight.
Proof of Theorem 1.1. Choose an algebra-isomorphic parameter and as above. Let be the reduced boundary in Lemma 3.3. Equations {(6)–(10)} and the row-fiber calculation give, for every finite extension ,
For write and use the trace of Lemma 2.1. Then and the count equals
If it were for a rational function, then
would be rational in , contradicting Lemma 2.1. Lemma 3.1 gives the absolute summands. Transport along the -algebra isomorphisms preserves submodules, quotient types, endomorphism rings, and scalar extension. It therefore gives the required triple for every original . The tame and nonhereditary assertions were proved at the start of the section.
An explicit eight-point boundary
Take , , and . The affine equation in (9) is
Its discriminant in and the discriminant of that quartic are
The homogeneous quartic is squarefree in the stated characteristics, so Lemma 3.3 applies. The boundary consists of the following eight -rational points:
For , solving for gives ; gives no affine point on this divisor. Direct substitution yields
Its four roots give , , , . Similarly, gives and
The three roots give , , , and the homogeneous equations also contain . All eight points are distinct in characteristic at least eleven. Each list has four points and hence exhausts its determinant divisor’s intersection with . The diagonal restriction is , together with its fourth projective root at infinity. Thus, if denotes the projective curve,
Over , the fiber over each has points, where , for nonzero squares , and for nonsquares. At infinity use . For , the character values are
and the value at infinity is 1. Their sum is 4, so and the Hall number is 80.
The three-arrow Kronecker algebra
Choose a smooth plane cubic . Such a curve exists over every finite field: in characteristic two use , and in other characteristics use . In the first equation the three partial derivatives are , , , with no common projective zero. For the second equation, in characteristic three the derivative is , so a singular point would have ; its unique point at infinity is , where the derivative is nonzero. In characteristic at least five, on a singular point would have , , and . None of satisfies the last equation. The point at infinity is again smooth.
The Hasse bound gives
Choose a -point outside and choose projective coordinates carrying it to . In these coordinates a homogeneous cubic equation has a nonzero coefficient of . Divide by that coefficient and set
The ring is graded by total degree; is the image of homogeneous degree- polynomials, and for . Division by the monic polynomial in identifies , as a graded -module, with
For this gives , and for it gives . Multiplication by is injective. Modulo , the same three basis vectors give a free module over , in which multiplication by is injective, for every . These assertions remain true after any field extension. A repeated component would make every point on it singular. Over an algebraic closure, distinct components of a plane cubic would intersect by Bézout’s theorem and give a singular point. The smooth cubic is therefore geometrically integral, so is a domain for every extension .
For , define the -representation to have source , target , and three maps given by multiplication by . Products and homogeneous components below are taken in this coordinate ring, or in after extension.
Lemma 4.1. For and every field extension , multiplication induces an isomorphism
Proof. We prove the formula over ; the same argument applied to the monic equation over proves it after any extension. Write a representation morphism as and . Compatibility means for and . For a monomial , where and , the two descriptions of give
Induction on gives ; multiplying by yields . In particular
Since is a nonzero divisor on , this equality implies . There is a unique with , and grading gives . If this says and . Cancelling the nonzero divisor in proves . Degree- monomials span . Since , compatibility then forces also to be multiplication by . Conversely, every such multiplication pair is a morphism, and its value on determines , proving bijectivity.
In particular for every extension, so all are absolutely indecomposable. Set
Their dimension vectors are , , .
Lemma 4.2. Let be finite. A map has cokernel isomorphic to and is injective if and only if its pair of linear forms is linearly independent and their common zero lies outside .
Proof. Lemma 4.1 identifies maps with pairs , and maps with rows . Their composite is zero precisely when in . Since the relation has degree three, this is an equality in .
The zero pair is not injective. A nonzero dependent pair can be changed to , with , by an automorphism of the two summands of . Any row annihilating it has as a quadratic polynomial, hence . Its source map then factors through one copy of of dimension six and cannot surject onto of dimension nine. Such a pair cannot have the prescribed cokernel.
Suppose now that are independent. They are relatively prime linear polynomials. The equation implies , so and for . An epimorphism requires . Choose a third linear coordinate . The forms are a basis of the original three-dimensional space of linear forms. Choose the representative of their common point so that and . Restricting the homogeneous cubic to this line gives
where changing the representative of changes by a nonzero cube and hence does not affect its vanishing. The cokernel of is the degree-three component of this quotient. It vanishes exactly when . Under that condition its degree-four component also vanishes, so is onto as well.
For , the column is injective at both vertices because is a domain and . The row is onto at both vertices, and their composite is zero. The dimension equalities
give equality of the image and kernel at each vertex. Multiplication commutes with , so these maps form an exact sequence of representations with quotient exactly . If , the degree-three quotient above is one-dimensional, so no annihilating row is onto. This proves both directions.
Proof of Theorem 1.2(i). The two-dimensional subspaces of correspond to points by taking the common zero of their linear forms. For each point outside the subspace has
ordered bases. Lemma 4.2 identifies these bases with exactly the injective maps having the specified quotient. Two injections from have the same image precisely when they differ by an automorphism of , and . Consequently
which is (2). For it equals , with as in Lemma 2.1. That lemma proves nonrationality. The absolute summands were proved after Lemma 4.1, and Lemma 5.2 supplies heredity and wildness.
A local wild nonhereditary algebra
For a -representation , define on by
Every product of two loops is zero, so this is a module for . The ideal has square zero and , so it is the Jacobson radical of . For any -module , its radical is , and its socle is the subspace annihilated by . For with , or for , the images of the arrow maps span and their common kernel in is zero, since multiplication by is injective. Hence
These assertions hold after every field extension.
Lemma 5.1. For every finite extension with ,
Proof. Work over and write with , . Let , , be the arrow maps of . Let be a submodule of the required type and quotient type. Set and let be its image under projection to . Since , equation (15) gives
so and , . The multiplication maps are the three arrow restrictions. They give a Kronecker representation isomorphic to , by taking the top and radical of the given -module isomorphism. The quotient similarly has radical and top , and gives the Kronecker representation . Thus is a Kronecker subrepresentation of of type with quotient .
Conversely, fix such a Kronecker subrepresentation . A vector subspace of with projection and intersection is determined uniquely by the graph of a linear map
After quotienting by , projection onto is an isomorphism on the subspace, with inverse . Its preimage in is therefore
It is stable under all three loops because . Choose a linear lift of ; subtracting that lift from the second coordinate identifies the module with the encoding of , hence with .
To identify the quotient, extend linearly to and define
This map is surjective and has kernel . For , give its target the encoded quotient actions, for example , and likewise for . These are well-defined because . The equality , and its two analogues, prove that is a module map. Its target is the encoding of the Kronecker quotient . Thus every graph has exactly the prescribed submodule and quotient types.
The map space has dimension over . Each fixed Kronecker subrepresentation therefore has exactly local lifts, and the first construction recovers that subrepresentation uniquely from a lift.
Proof of Theorem 1.2(ii). The hat construction gives of total dimensions . Lemma 5.1 and (2) prove (3). A rational function representing this sequence could be divided by to represent the hereditary sequence, so it is nonrational.
An endomorphism of an encoded preserves its radical and therefore has block matrix
where is arbitrary. Its map to the Kronecker endomorphism ring is surjective. The kernel consists of the lower-left blocks and has square zero. After any extension , the quotient ring is . A ring with a nilpotent ideal and division-ring quotient is local: an element with nonzero quotient has an inverse by lifting an inverse modulo the ideal and using the finite geometric series for the remaining nilpotent error. Thus stays indecomposable. Since , all summands in the triple are absolute.
Lemma 5.2 proves that is wild and nonhereditary.
Lemma 5.2. The three-arrow Kronecker algebra is wild and hereditary. The local algebra is wild and nonhereditary.
Proof. Label the two vertices of by , in arrow order. Its path projectives are , with the three coordinate inclusions, and . Evaluation identifies and with the two vertex spaces, so both functors are exact and are projective. For a representation , the evaluation epimorphism
is the identity at vertex 1 and sends to at vertex 2. Its kernel is zero at vertex 1 and consists of
at vertex 2. It is therefore . Thus every representation has a projective resolution of length at most one. If with projective, dimension shifting gives , so is projective. This proves heredity.
Associate to a vector space with two arbitrary operators the Kronecker representation . Its morphisms are exactly the linear maps intertwining both operators: the identity arrow forces source and target maps to agree. This is a fully faithful exact embedding of finite-dimensional -modules, proving that is wild.
Composing with the hat construction gives an exact functor into -modules. The identity arrow makes the radical and socle both the second copy of . To verify the two required reflection properties, an isomorphism of encoded modules induces an isomorphism of their tops and radicals, hence of the Kronecker representations. For an indecomposable finite-dimensional representation its endomorphism ring is local: the stable kernel and image decomposition of a sufficiently large power of any endomorphism shows that the endomorphism is either invertible or nilpotent, and in the latter case its difference from the identity is invertible. For the encoded representation the map of endomorphism rings onto the Kronecker endomorphism ring is surjective with square-zero kernel, by the displayed block calculation. An element is invertible exactly when its image is invertible: lift an inverse and correct both products by the finite geometric series for the nilpotent error. The preimage of the nonunits is therefore an ideal, so the encoded endomorphism ring is local. This proves preservation of indecomposability.
Explicitly, take the right module and let the three loops act by the right-module-linear matrices
Their pairwise products are zero. They define a - bimodule free of rank two on the right, whose tensor functor is the construction above. Together with reflection of isomorphisms and preservation of indecomposability, this proves the required representation embedding. This proves that is wild.
is four-dimensional and local, with basis . Its unique simple module has dimension one and is a direct sum of three such simples. Every finite projective over a finite-dimensional local algebra is free: lift a basis of its quotient by the radical and split the resulting surjection from a free module. The chosen ranks make the radical quotient of the kernel zero, and Nakayama’s lemma makes the kernel zero. A nonzero projective therefore has dimension divisible by four. The submodule of the projective has dimension three and is not projective. This proves nonheredity.
Zhili College, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
Email address: [email protected]
References
- [1]M. Barot and J. Schröer, Module varieties over canonical algebras, J. Algebra 246 (2001), 175–192. https://www.matem.unam.mx/~barot/articles/modvarcan.pdf.DOI
- [2]I. Burban and O. Schiffmann, The composition Hall algebra of a weighted projective line, J. Reine Angew. Math. 679 (2013), 75–124. https://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4412.
- [3]J. Chen, B. Deng, and S. Ruan, Hall polynomials for weighted projective lines, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 230 (2026), 108157. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.16543.
- [4]B. Deng and S. Ruan, Hall polynomials for tame type, J. Algebra 475 (2017), 171–206. Original preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.03504; author-hosted revision: https://archive.ymsc.tsinghua.edu.cn/pacm_download/108/1092-Hallpoly-revision.pdf.
- [5]J. A. Green, Hall algebras, hereditary algebras and quantum groups, Invent. Math. 120 (1995), 361–377.DOI
- [6]P. Hall, The algebra of partitions, Proceedings of the Fourth Canadian Mathematical Congress, Banff 1957, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1959, 147–159.
- [7]D. Happel and C. M. Ringel, The derived category of a tubular algebra, Lecture Notes in Math. 1177 (1986), 156–180.DOI
- [8]L. Hille, Moduli of representations, quiver Grassmannians, and Hilbert schemes, arXiv:1505.06008v1 (2015). https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.06008.
- [9]A. Hubery, Hall polynomials for affine quivers, Represent. Theory 14 (2010), 355–378. https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0703178.
- [10]H. Ju et al., Automated conjecture resolution with formal verification, arXiv:2604.03789 (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.03789.
- [11]Y. Lin and L. Peng, Elliptic Lie algebras and tubular algebras, Adv. Math. 196 (2005), 487–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aim.2004.09.006.
- [12]I. G. Macdonald, Symmetric Functions and Hall Polynomials, second ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995.DOI
- [13]J. S. Milne, Elliptic Curves, second ed., World Scientific, 2021. https://www.jmilne.org/math/Books/EC2.pdf.DOI
- [14]F. Nie, H. Ye, S. Liu, Z. Wang, S. Ermon, and J. Zou, One-sided verification under limited expert review, arXiv:2610.18089 (2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.18089.
- [15]M. Reineke, Every projective variety is a quiver Grassmannian, Algebra. Represent. Theory 16 (2013), 1313–1314. https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.5730.
- [16]C. M. Ringel, Hall algebras, Topics in Algebra, Part 1, Banach Center Publ. 26 (1990), 433–447.DOI
- [17]C. M. Ringel, Hall polynomials for the representation-finite hereditary algebras, Adv. Math. 84 (1990), 137–178. https://noah.nrw/ubbibs/download/pdf/5112430.DOI
- [18]C. M. Ringel, Hall algebras revisited, Israel Math. Conf. Proc. 7 (1993), 171–176. https://www.math.uni-bielefeld.de/~ringel/opus/hall-rev.pdf.
- [19]Q. Tang, Hall polynomials for representation-finite algebras, Hexagon:2610.00403v1 (2026). https://hexagonmath.org/pdf/2610.00403v1.
- [20]C. M. Ringel, Quiver Grassmannians for wild acyclic quivers, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 146 (2018), 1873–1877. https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.08782.