127

This is certainly related to "What are your favorite instructional counterexamples?", but I thought I would ask a more focused question. We've all seen Counterexamples in analysis and Counterexamples in topology, so I think it's time for: Counterexamples in algebra.

Now, algebra is quite broad, and I'm new at this, so if I need to narrow this then I will- just let me know. At the moment I'm looking for counterexamples in all areas of algebra: finite groups, representation theory, homological algebra, Galois theory, Lie groups and Lie algebras, etc. This might be too much, so a moderator can change that.

These counterexamples can illuminate a definition (e.g. a projective module that is not free), illustrate the importance of a condition in a theorem (e.g. non-locally compact group that does not admit a Haar measure), or provide a useful counterexample for a variety of possible conjectures (I don't have an algebraic example, but something analogous to the Cantor set in analysis). I look forward to your responses!


You can also add your counter-examples to this nLab page: http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/counterexamples+in+algebra

(the link to that page is currently "below the fold" in the comment list so I (Andrew Stacey) have added it to the main question)

YCor
  • 60,149
Dylan Wilson
  • 13,183
  • 14
    My feeling is that this question is far too broad. – Andy Putman Jun 21 '10 at 23:11
  • How shall I narrow it? And is it any less broad then the question that inspired it? – Dylan Wilson Jun 21 '10 at 23:16
  • I'm not really sure how to narrow it. I don't think "algebra" is really a unified subject. And I think the other question is overly broad too... – Andy Putman Jun 21 '10 at 23:19
  • 4
    You could limit it to: Counter examples in Group Theory, Commutative Ring Theory, etc... – Bart Snapp Jun 21 '10 at 23:40
  • Yes, Bart's suggestion would work. However, I'd hate to see a sudden flood of questions of this form. – Andy Putman Jun 21 '10 at 23:43
  • @Andy: What if we did both? Suppose we keep the question broad, but then I (or whoever) could periodically organize the answers in some sort of "archive" form underneath the original question? – Dylan Wilson Jun 22 '10 at 00:06
  • I don't think that's a good idea -- it defeats the purpose of the software, which sorts answers based on the votes of the community. I'd choose something more specific that interests you. – Andy Putman Jun 22 '10 at 00:15
  • 13
    I like that the question is general. I think if it's narrowed too much we won't get as many interesting responses. All of the big list type questions that have been successful have been fairly general, so I don't think it hurts as long as we aren't swarmed with questions like this. – jeremy Jun 22 '10 at 00:23
  • 1
    I think as stated the question overlaps too much with past questions, e.g. http://mathoverflow.net/questions/16829/what-are-your-favorite-instructional-counterexamples , http://mathoverflow.net/questions/23478/examples-of-common-false-beliefs-in-mathematics , and even http://mathoverflow.net/questions/3242/canonical-examples-of-algebraic-structures . – Qiaochu Yuan Jun 22 '10 at 02:59
  • 13
    Meta discussion: http://tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/459/counterexamples-in-algebra/ – Andrew Stacey Jun 22 '10 at 07:54
  • 6
    Whilst I like lists of counterexamples, I don't think that MO is an appropriate place for one. I've explained why in the meta discussion (NB: please vote for the comment linking to the meta discussion so that it appears "above the fold"). I think that this would work so much better as a wiki page. So I've started one on the nLab: http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/counterexamples+in+algebra Obviously, as I'm not an algebraist I didn't understand everything and have probably left out a lot of information in copying it over. I recommend closing this question and redirecting to that nLab page. – Andrew Stacey Jun 22 '10 at 08:33
  • 10
    Andrew, why not keep the question open, in order to generate the examples here that can then be more sensibly organized on your page? It seems likely to me that you will get a lot of good examples with this question that might otherwise be missed. – Joel David Hamkins Jun 22 '10 at 13:16
  • 1
    @Joel: I've essentially answered this in the meta discussion: it's a pain to copy things over since there's no easy "source" view here and the sources aren't 100% compatible. I ended up rewriting every answer into the nLab page. I could reverse your point and ask: Why not close this question with a note that counter-examples should be added to the nLab page? Since, in my humble opinion, that would be the best place for them, why not put them there from the off? – Andrew Stacey Jun 22 '10 at 13:38
  • 6
    I just had a look at the nLab page. It's the first time I've been there, so chances are I just don't know the right way to view things, but what I see looks dreadful. Subscripts and exponents don't happen; what should be $a^4=1$ shows up as a 4=1. The square root is missing in ${\bf Q}(\sqrt{69})$. I can't guess what the 5th and 6th entries under ring theory are supposed to say. – Gerry Myerson Jun 24 '10 at 00:40
  • That's because at the nLab we have standards. (W3C standards in this case). Questions about how to view nLab pages are best dealt with at the nForum. – Andrew Stacey Jun 24 '10 at 18:44
  • 1
    Glad to see lots of interesting and useful answers, as usual, in spite of the curmudgeons trying to close the question. – PrimeRibeyeDeal Mar 22 '18 at 07:27
  • I have a 4y old algebraic result (an example) that is possibly original. Would this thread be appropriate for this? – Wlod AA Aug 12 '22 at 00:55

63 Answers63

97

In the category of rings, epimorphisms do not have to be surjective: $\mathbb{Z}\hookrightarrow \mathbb{Q}$.

  • 4
    For more on epimorphisms that are not surjective you can take a look at the article of G.A.Reid "Epimorphisms and surjectivity" (Invent.9, 295-307, (1970)). He discussed this problem in the context of groups, $C^*$ algebras, von-Neumann algebras, (finite dim.) Lie algebras, semisimple Lie algebras, (locally) compact groups. For Hopf algebras you can take a look at the more recent paper arXiv:0907.2881. – Dragos Fratila Jun 25 '10 at 08:05
  • 34
    omg what's an epimorphism then? – user8248 Oct 09 '10 at 22:26
  • 10
    $f: A \to B$ is an epimorphism in any category if for every $g,h: B \to C$ $gf=hf$ implies that g=h. – Sean Tilson Oct 10 '10 at 17:34
  • Is it true for category of all rings? Or without zero divisors? – Nikita Kalinin Dec 02 '10 at 22:25
  • $R={\frac{m}{n}| n \equiv 1 \pmod 2}, S = R[x,y]/{2x=1, 2y=1}$. there are two morphisms $\mathbb Q\to S$ which coincides on $\mathbb Z$; $0,5\to x$ and $0.5 \to y$ – Nikita Kalinin Dec 02 '10 at 22:47
  • 2
    http://mathoverflow.net/questions/109/what-do-epimorphisms-of-commutative-rings-look-like – Martin Brandenburg Jun 18 '11 at 09:01
  • 1
    @unknown (google): I think of it this way: If $f:A\to B$ is an epimorphism, then everything going on in $B$ should somehow be determined by what already goes on in $A$. This is certainly the case when $A=\mathbb{Z}$, $B=\mathbb{Q}$ and $f$ is the canonical injection.

    (In the following we have written $j_{X} for \hom(X,-)$.) This (perhaps somewhat philosophical) viewpoint is further strengthened by the fact that the composition morphism $f^\ast:j_B\to j_A$ realizes $j_B$ as a subfunctor of $j_A$; this is in fact equivalent to $f$ being an epimorphism.

    – Eivind Dahl Jul 06 '11 at 12:04
  • 6
    @Nikita Kalinin: As you have probably noticed already, in your ring $S$ we have $x = 2xy = y$. – Torsten Schoeneberg Feb 27 '13 at 15:45
71

I like Lance Small's example of a right but not left Notherian ring: matrices of the form $\begin{pmatrix}a & b\\ 0 & c\end{pmatrix}$ where $a\in\mathbb{Z}$ and $b,c\in\mathbb{Q}$.

Eric Rowell
  • 1,629
  • 1
  • 14
  • 16
  • 5
    Indeed, this is also an example that shows right global dimension is not equal to left global dimension. The former is 1 while the latter is at least 2 (and exactly 2 IIRC) – David White Jun 18 '11 at 18:30
67

A non-abelian group, all of whose subgroups are normal: the quaternion group, $$Q=\langle\thinspace a,b\thinspace|\thinspace a^4=1,a^2=b^2,ab=ba^3\thinspace\rangle$$

Gerry Myerson
  • 39,024
64

The ring $A = \prod_{n=1}^{\infty} \mathbb{F}_2$ has some interesting/disturbing properties.

For example, the affine scheme $X := {\rm{Spec}}(A)$ has non-open connected components (since it has infinitely many open points), all local rings on $X$ are noetherian (in fact they're all $\mathbb{F}_2$ since $a^2 = a$ for all elements $a$) even though $A$ is not noetherian, and if $I$ is an ideal that isn't finitely generated then ${\rm{Spec}}(A/I) \hookrightarrow X$ is formally unramified (since closed immersion), finite type, and flat but not étale (since not finitely presented) and not open, in contrast with the noetherian case.

Harry Gindi
  • 19,374
Boyarsky
  • 1,391
  • 27
    +1. I just want to add: $X$ is the Stone-Cech-compactification of the natural numbers. The structure sheaf is the constant sheaf $\mathbb{F}_2$. – Martin Brandenburg Jun 22 '10 at 10:52
  • Wow,you're right,Martin-I didn't think of it that way! – The Mathemagician Jun 23 '10 at 00:45
  • 8
    $A$ has a proper ideal $I=\oplus_{n=1}^\infty \mathbb F_2$. Since the quotient ring $A/I$ has unit element, Zorn says it has a maximal ideal, but one cannot explicitly produce a maximal ideal. – Abhishek Parab Jun 28 '10 at 08:08
  • 3
    @AAP: Yes, such maximal ideals correspond to free ultrafilters on the natural numbers. – Martin Brandenburg Jun 28 '10 at 10:37
  • What's the difference between formally unramified and unramified? – user8248 Oct 09 '10 at 22:28
  • 1
    @unknown: unramified = formally unramified + locally of finite presentation. – Martin Brandenburg Jun 18 '11 at 09:01
  • This example also shows that a ring can be Von Neumann Regular but not Semisimple – David White Jun 18 '11 at 18:32
  • Also, ts global dimension is independent of ZFC. The continuum hypothesis implies that its global dimension is 2, but under the assumption that $2^{\aleph_0} = \aleph_n$ its global dimension is $n+1$, and its global dimension is infinite if $2^{\aleph_0} \geq \aleph_\omega$. – Jesse Elliott Jan 22 '15 at 04:18
  • Actually for every Boolean algebra, the spectrum is Hausdorff for the Zariski topology (which then coincides with the topology of inclusion of $\mathrm{Spec}(A)$ in $2^A$, which is Hausdorff compact for arbitrary $A$). Moreover every Hausdorff compact totally disconnected space $X$ can be realized this way, namely picking $A$ as the ring of continuous functions from $X$ to $\mathbf{Z}/2\mathbf{Z}$. Keyword: Stone duality. – YCor Oct 31 '16 at 04:36
58

1) (Nagata) There are noetherian domains of infinte Krull dimension: Localize $k[x_1,x_2,...]$ at the prime ideals $(x_1),(x_2,x_3),(x_4,x_5,x_6),...$.

2) (Malcev) Every commutative cancellative monoid embeds into a group. This is false in the non-commutative case. A very instructive counterexample is given by $\langle a,b,c,d,x,y,u,v : ax=by, cx=dy, au=bv \rangle$.

3) The Theorem of Cantor-Bernstein for sets does not carry over to algebraic structures. For example, the fields $K=\overline{\mathbb{Q}(x_1,x_2,...)}$ (or $K=\mathbb{C}$) and $K(t)$ embed into each other, but they are not isomorphic.

57

An exact sequence that does not split: $0 \to \mathbb{Z} \to \mathbb{Z} \to \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z} \to 0$, where the first map is multiplication by 2.

Akhil Mathew
  • 25,291
  • 8
    Does anyone think all exact sequences split? – Steven Gubkin Jun 22 '10 at 01:22
  • 36
    No, but I'd say this is a perfectly valid example of "illuminating a definition". The point isn't dispelling false beliefs, but clarifying concepts for people who are just learning the topic. – Klaus Draeger Jun 22 '10 at 09:47
  • 20
    @Steven: since I taught you about exact sequences, I'm certainly glad that you don't! More seriously, if someone met exact sequences of vector spaces first, they might have that misconception. – Mark Meckes Jun 23 '10 at 14:02
  • 2
    You would think that all people doing spectral sequence calculations have all but forgotten this fact... no one bothers to write down extension problems anymore. – Hari Rau-Murthy Dec 22 '16 at 04:32
56

A number ring which is a principal ideal domain (and, hence, a unique factorization domain) but is not Euclidean: the ring of integers of ${\bf Q}(\sqrt{-19})$. See Th Motzkin, The Euclidean algorithm, Bull Amer Math Soc 55 (1949) 1142-1146, available at http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.bams/1183514381

Gerry Myerson
  • 39,024
54

The group $\mathbb{Z}^4$ is not the fundamental group of any 3-manifold, proved by Stallings in this 1962 paper. It follows that there is no algorithm for recognizing 3-manifold groups.

  • 5
    Leave it to John to not only find the counterexample no one else thinks of,but to have the exact reference handy.We are very priviledged to have you as a contributor,Professor Stillwell. Keep up the awesome work. – The Mathemagician Jun 22 '10 at 02:41
  • Algorithm in which sense? There's no algorithm to determine whether a presentation defines the trivial group (hence for recognizing 0-manifold groups)... – YCor Oct 31 '16 at 04:40
  • @YCor This is the usual sense of algorithm. The point is that the algorithm has to recognize whether a given finite presentation is of a 3-manifold group. Contrast this with the problem of recognizing 4-manifold groups, which is trivially solvable because any finitely-presented group is the group of a 4-manifold. As you point out, the corresponding problem for 0-manifold groups is clearly not solvable. – John Stillwell Nov 01 '16 at 18:52
  • @JohnStillwell so I should just point out that the 3-dim case is an easy consequence of the 0-dimensional case and the fact that, for instance, 3-dimensional groups don't contain $\mathbf{Z}^4$. Say, because $(G*G)^4$ is a 3-dimensional group iff $G$ is trivial. – YCor Nov 01 '16 at 20:32
47
  • Does $R[x] \cong S[x]$ imply $R \cong S$? ( Taken from this link. )

  • Here is a counterexample. Let $$R=\displaystyle\frac{\mathbb{C}[x,y,z]}{(xy-(1-z^2))}, \quad \ S= \displaystyle\frac{\mathbb{C}[x,y,z]}{(x^2y-(1-z^2))}$$ Then, $R$ is not isomorphic to $S$ but, $R[T]\cong S[T]$. In many variables, this is called the Zariski problem or cancellation of indeterminates and is largely open. Here is a discussion by Hochster (problem 3)

  • http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~hochster/Lip.text.pdf

Excellent Counterexamples.

Let $G$ be a group and let $\mathscr{S}(G)$ denote the group of Inner-Automorphisms of $G$.

The only isomorphism theorem I know, that connects a group to its inner-automorphism is: $$G/Z(G) \cong \mathscr{S}(G)$$ where $Z(G)$ is the center of the group. Now, if $Z(G) =\{e\}$ then one can see that $G \cong \mathscr{S}(G)$. What about the converse? That is if $G \cong \mathscr{S}(G)$ does it imply that $Z(G)=\{e\}$? In other word's I need to know whether there are groups with non-trivial center which are isomorphic to their group of Inner-Automorphisms. That is if $G \cong \mathscr{S}(G)$ does it imply that $Z(G)= \{e\}$?

The answer is yes there are groups with non-trivial center which are isomorphic to $\mathscr{S}(G)$. The answer is given at this link

Next one:

  • Does there exists a finite group $G$ and a normal subgroup $H$ of $G$ such that $|Aut(H)|>|Aut(G)|$

Arturo Magidin posed this question some time ago at MATH.SE

  • Question. Can we have a finite group $G$, normal subgroups $H$ and $K$ that are isomorphic as groups, $G/H$ isomorphic to $G/K$, but no $\varphi\in\mathrm{Aut}(G)$ such that $\varphi(H) = K$?

  • Answer was provided by Vipul Naik. Link is given here.

Question was posed by Zev Chonoles at $\textbf{MATH.SE}$

  • I know it is possible for a group $G$ to have normal subgroups $H, K$, such that $H\cong K$ but $G/H\not\cong G/K$, but I couldn't think of any examples with $G$ finite. What is an illustrative example?

  • Answer from this link: Take $G = \mathbb{Z}_4 \times \mathbb{Z}_2$, $H$ generated by $(0,1)$, $K$ generated by $(2,0)$. Then $H \cong K \cong \mathbb{Z}_2$ but $G/H \cong \mathbb{}Z_4$ while $G/K \cong \mathbb{Z}_2 \times \mathbb{Z}_2$.

C.S.
  • 4,735
39

A number field where the ring of integers is Euclidean but not norm-Euclidean: ${\bf Q}(\sqrt{69})$. See David A Clark, A quadratic field which is Euclidean but not norm-Euclidean, Manuscripta Mathematica 83 (1994) 327-330.

Gerry Myerson
  • 39,024
34

In group theory, Lagrange's Theorem states that the order of a subgroup divides the order of the group, however the converse is false. The usual counterexample given is the alternating group $A_4$ of order 12 which has no subgroup of order 6.

  • 1
    Having internalised this counterexample in my undergraduate days, I was completely gobsmacked by Hall's theorem in my first-year algebra class. – LSpice Jun 19 '11 at 16:47
  • Also, Lagrange's Theorem for groups does not hold for loops (does not hold without associativity). – MattAllegro Aug 09 '15 at 13:27
  • 2
    The higher alternating groups will work as well. More generally, any nonabelian simple group must have even order but cannot have a subgroup of index 2, for it would automatically be normal. – PrimeRibeyeDeal Mar 22 '18 at 07:37
31

From Milnor's book "Algebraic K-Theory":

A (nonzero!) associative ring for which a free module of rank 2 is isomorphic to a free module of rank 1: The ring of endomorphisms of an infinite-dimensional vector space.

30

Two finite non-isomorphic groups with the same order profile: let $C_n$ be the cyclic group of $n$ elements, let $Q=\langle\thinspace a,b\thinspace|\thinspace a^4=1,a^2=b^2,ab=ba^3\thinspace\rangle$ be the quaternion group, then $C_4\times C_4$ and $C_2\times Q$ are not isomorphic (the first is abelian, the second is not) but both have 1 element of order 1, 3 elements of order 2, and 12 elements of order 4.

By contrast, if two finite abelian groups have the same order profile, then they are isomorphic.

Gerry Myerson
  • 39,024
  • Such two groups are called conformal. See this MO question : http://mathoverflow.net/q/39848 . An easy example is that of $C_3\times C_3\times C_3$ and the group of matrices $I_3+N$ with nilpotent, over the field ${\mathbb F}_3$. – Denis Serre Jan 23 '17 at 13:26
27

The ring $R = k[x,y]/(x^2, xy)$ is a simple example of a local commutative noetherian ring that is not Cohen-Macaulay. It is sometimes referred to as the "Emmy Ring."

This ring is very useful for showing how unintuitive non-CM rings can be. For instance, letting $I = (x)$, then $\operatorname{depth} R/I = 1 > 0 = \operatorname{depth} R$; in particular the (innocuous looking) inequality

$ \operatorname{depth} R/I + \operatorname{grade} I \leq \operatorname{depth} R $

need not hold. Here $\operatorname{grade} I$ is the length of the longest regular sequence in $I$.

24

Tarski's monsters: infinite groups in which every proper non-trivial subgroup is of prime order $p$. They are $2$-generated simple groups.

They were constructed by Olshanskii and as far as I remember they were also constructed independently by Rips, maybe even before Olshanskii, but he did not bother publishing it. Can anyone confirm this?

Denis Serre
  • 51,599
Yiftach Barnea
  • 5,208
  • 2
  • 36
  • 49
  • 1
    Rips had some preliminary text published and also gave a series of talks. It is hard to tell if these ideas would lead to the construction of an actual example. Some key components of Olshanskii's construction are missing in Rips' constructions. –  Oct 09 '10 at 22:07
  • 1
    I remember Rips talking about this in Oxford mid-late 70s and everyone then believed that he had constructed Tarski monsters. I was a graduate student then and do not know what Rips published. – Geoff Robinson May 14 '14 at 19:28
22

A finite group in which a product of two commutators need not be a commutator: This is Exercise 3.27 in Rotman, The Theory of Groups, a construction attributed to Carmichael. Let $G$ be the subgroup of $S_{16}$ generated by the eight permutations $(ac)(bd)$, $(eg)(fh)$, $(ik)(jl)$, $(mo)(np)$, $(ac)(eg)(ik)$, $(ab)(cd)(mo)$, $(ef)(gh)(mn)(op)$, and $(ij)(kl)$. Then the commutator subgroup of $G$ is generated by the first four of these elements, and has order 16. It contains $\alpha=(ik)(jl)(mo)(np)$, but $\alpha$ is not a commutator.

Rotman remarks elsewhere that the smallest group in which there is a product of commutators which is not a commutator is a group of order 96.

Gerry Myerson
  • 39,024
  • Leave it to Rotman to find such a cool counterexample and not hesitate to put it in one of his textbooks.This is why most of them are classics. – The Mathemagician Jun 22 '10 at 05:46
  • While doing work at an REU some years ago, I needed to know that every element of $A_n$ was in fact a commutator. So I learned of this subtlety at a relatively early age -- it would certainly have made things easier if every element of the commutator subgroup was automatically a commutator. – Pete L. Clark Jun 27 '10 at 23:16
  • 1
    (But it is true for alternating groups, as I did not quite mention in my previous response. It seems that it's actually true for lots of groups, just not all of them...) – Pete L. Clark Jun 27 '10 at 23:16
  • 1
    Yes, Ore's conjecture, now proved by Liebeck, Shalev et al, says that in any finite non-Abelian simple group, every element is a commutator. This is not generally true even in perfect groups. – Geoff Robinson May 17 '14 at 20:28
22

Grigorchuk 1984 example of a finitely generated group with intermediate growth (there are no such linear group).

coudy
  • 18,537
  • 5
  • 74
  • 134
21

Two famous cases that come to mind are:

  1. Nagata's counterexample to Hilbert's fourteenth problem.

  2. Counterexamples by various people to (the original version of) the Burnside problem.

Timothy Chow
  • 78,129
  • Can you give a brief description of Nagata's actual construction? Or a reference? (The wikipedia page doesn't say much). – Dylan Wilson Jun 22 '10 at 01:26
  • 2
    This is not my area at all, but this looks like a readable reference: http://www.math.bas.bg/serdica/2001/2001-171-192.pdf – Timothy Chow Jun 22 '10 at 02:18
  • 3
    And Nagata's example of a Noetherian ring with infinite Krull dimension, as well as a noetherian domain whose normalization is not a module-finite extension. – Boyarsky Jun 22 '10 at 02:27
20

There are finitely presented groups whose word problem is undecidable in computability theory.

20

An infinite group with exactly two conjugacy classes. See G. Higman, B. H. Neumann, and H. Neumann, Embedding theorems for groups, J. London Math. Soc. 24 (1949), 247-254.

  • 7
    That is not a big deal. A much bigger deal is an infinite finitely generated group with 2 conjugacy classes constructed by Osin (Annals of Math, this year). –  Oct 09 '10 at 22:15
  • 9
    Maybe it is not a big deal now, but note that the paper was published in 1949. – Geoff Robinson May 14 '14 at 19:30
19

Higman's group $G=\left< a_1,\ldots, a_4 | \forall i\in\mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z}: a_i=[a_{i+1},a_i] \right>$, which has no subgroups of finite index. See: G. Higman, A finitely generated infinite simple group, J. London Math. Soc. 26 (1951), 61-64.

Abel Stolz
  • 804
  • 5
  • 15
16

I think the Prüfer group $G=\mathbb{Z}_{p^\infty}$ deserves its place here.

For example,

  • it has two nonisomorphic subgroups $H_1, H_2$ such that $G/H_1 \simeq G/H_2$,
  • moreover, it has a proper subgroup $0 \neq H \subseteq G$ such that $G \simeq G/H$,
  • it is an infinite group whose proper subgroups are all finite,
  • moreover, it is a non-cyclic group whose all proper subgroups are cyclic,
  • it is Artinian and not Noetherian (as a $\mathbb{Z}$-module), ...
14

An infinitely generated and non-Noetherian subring of a polynomial ring:

$$R=K[x,xy,xy^2,\ldots, xy^n,\ldots] \subset S=K[x,y].$$

Explanation The ring $R$ is graded and monomial: it is spanned by the monomials $x^ay^b$ that are contained in it, whose exponents are the lattice points in the cone $C=\{(a,b)=(0,0)$ or $a>0, b\geq 0\}.$ The minimal generators of the homogeneous ideal $R_{+}$ of positive degree elements correspond to the minimal generators $(1,n), n\geq 0$ of the lattice cone $C\cap\mathbb{Z}^2.$ Thus $R_{+}$ (respectively, $R$) is infinitely-generated with ideal (respectively, $K$-algebra) minimal generators $x,xy,xy^2,\ldots, xy^n,\ldots.$

14

Harry Hutchins "Examples of commutative rings" may be of interest. It is based on his 1978 Chicago Ph.D. thesis under Kaplansky, and not surprisingly it serves as a useful complement to Kaplansky's excellent textbook Commutative Rings (most references to proofs refer to Kaplansky). There is also a 3 page list of errata, updates,... dated July 1983, which is distributed with the book.

Hutchins, Harry C. 83a:13001 13-02
Examples of commutative rings. (English)
Polygonal Publ. House, Washington, N. J., 1981. vii+167 pp. $13.75. ISBN 0-936428-05-8

The book is divided into two parts: a brief sketch of commutative ring theory which includes pertinent definitions along with main results without proof (but with ample references), and Part II, the 180 examples. The examples do cover a very large range of topics. Although most of them appear elsewhere, they are enhanced by a fairly complete listing of their properties. Example 67, for instance, is M. Hochster's counterexample to the polynomial cancellation problem, and it lists a number of properties of the two rings that were not given in the original paper Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 34 (1972), no. 1, 81 - 82; MR 45 #3394. Some of the examples appear more than once, since many rings exhibit more than one interesting property. (R=Kx, y, z is used in Examples 6 and 22.) The examples are grouped into areas, but a drawback is that these have not been labeled and separated off. In addition, the Index is for Part I and definitions only, and this means that searching for a specific example with certain properties can be time consuming. The book can be used as a supplement to one of the standard texts in commutative ring theory, and it does appear to complement the monograph by I. Kaplansky Commutative rings, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, Mass., 1970; MR 40 #7234; second edition, Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill., 1974; MR 49 #10674. --Reviewed by Jon L. Johnson

Bill Dubuque
  • 4,706
13

If $f$ and $g$ are relatively prime in ${\mathbf Q}[X]$ then the mapping ${\mathbf Q}[X]/(fg) \rightarrow {\mathbf Q}[X]/(f) \times {\mathbf Q}[X]/(g)$ given by $h \bmod fg \mapsto (h \bmod f, h \bmod g)$ is a ring isomorphism. This is a special case of the Chinese remainder theorem.

If we replace ${\mathbf Q}[X]$ with its subring ${\mathbf Z}[X]$, which is a UFD, then for relatively prime $f$ and $g$ in ${\mathbf Z}[X]$ the mapping ${\mathbf Z}[X]/(fg) \rightarrow {\mathbf Z}[X]/(f) \times {\mathbf Z}[X]/(g)$ given by $h \bmod fg \mapsto (h \bmod f, h \bmod g)$ is a ring homomorphism, but it is not necessarily an isomorphism since it need not be surjective (though it is injective). For example, if $f = X-1$ and $g = 1+X+\cdots + X^{n-1}$ where $n > 1$ then the natural mapping $${\mathbf Z}[X](X^n-1) \rightarrow {\mathbf Z}[X]/(X-1) \times {\mathbf Z}[X]/(1+X+\cdots + X^{n-1})$$ does not have $(0,1)$ in its image. The reason is that if $f(X) \in {\mathbf Z}[X]$ is mapped to $(0,1)$ then $f(X) = (X-1)g(X)$ for some $g(X) \in {\mathbf Z}[X]$ and then $1 = (\zeta_p-1)g(\zeta_p)$ for any prime $p$ dividing $n$, which says $\zeta_p-1$ is a unit in ${\mathbf Z}[\zeta_p]$, and that's false.

KConrad
  • 49,546
  • 2
    But curiously enough, $\mathbb{Z}\left[X\right] / \left(\Phi_{n} \Phi_m\right) \to \mathbb{Z}\left[X\right] / \left(\Phi_n\right) \times \mathbb{Z}\left[X\right] / \left(\Phi_m\right)$ is an isomorphism whenever $n/m$ is not of the form $p^a$ for some prime $p$ and some $a \in \mathbb{Z}$. (See, e.g., Theorem 1 in Dresden's Resultants of cyclotomic polynomials, http://home.wlu.edu/~dresdeng/papers/Res.pdf .) – darij grinberg Oct 26 '14 at 16:11
12

Thompson's group T is a finitely presented infinite simple group.

Steve D
  • 4,345
  • Other important examples of fp infinite simple groups were constructed by Burger and Mozes. Their examples are CAT(0), so have the very important consequence that many famous results about hyperbolic groups don’t extend to CAT(0) groups. – HJRW Aug 12 '22 at 20:30
12

A polynomial, solvable in radicals, whose splitting field is not a radical extension (of $\bf Q$). Let $f(x)$ be any cyclic cubic, that is, any cubic with rational coefficients, irreducible over the rationals, with Galois group cyclic of order 3. Then $f(x)=0$ is solvable in radicals (every cubic is), so the splitting field $K$ of $f$ over $\bf Q$ is contained in a radical extension of $\bf Q$, but $K$ is not itself a radical extension of $\bf Q$. The degree of $K$ over $\bf Q$ is 3, so for $K$ to be radical over $\bf Q$ it would have to be an extension of $\bf Q$ by the cube root of some element of $\bf Q$, but such extensions are not normal.

Gerry Myerson
  • 39,024
12

Two non-zero commutative rings with unity, one a subring of the other, but with different unities. Let $R={\bf Z}/10{\bf Z}$, $S=2R$, then $R$ and $S$ are commutative rings with unity, $S$ is a subring of $R$, but the identity element of $S$ isn't the identity element of $R$. If we view $R$ as $\lbrace0,1,\dots,9\rbrace$ with operations modulo 10, so $S=\lbrace0,2,4,6,8\rbrace$, then the multiplicative identity in $S$ is 6.

This works more generally if $\gcd(m,n)=1$, $R={\bf Z}/mn{\bf Z}$, and $S=mR$. It works even more generally if $A$ and $B$ are non-zero commutative rings with unity, $R=A\times B$, and $S=A\times\lbrace0\rbrace$.

Gerry Myerson
  • 39,024
10

This quasigroup is not isomorphic to any loop (i.e. quasigroup with identity):

* | a   b   c
-------------
a | a   c   b
b | c   b   a
c | b   a   c

See e.g. Latin squares: Equivalents and equivalence.

10

While a finite abelian group is determined by its character table, this is not true for (finite) nonabelian groups. E.g., the dihedral and quaternion groups of order 8 (or more generally two nonabelian groups of order p3 for a prime p) are nonisomorphic but have the same character table.

Kimball
  • 5,709
  • R. Brauer asked whether knowing the character table, together with the "power maps" (knowing which conjugacy classes contain powers of elements frm any given conjugacy class) was enough to determine the group. E.C. Dade produced examples in the first issue of Journal of Algebra to show that Brauer's question still had a negative answer ( though Brauer's extra information distinguishes the different non-Abelian p-groups of order $p^{3}$. – Geoff Robinson Jan 22 '15 at 03:59
9

My favorite counter example in Galois theory is the field extension $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[3]{2})/\mathbb{Q}$.

Here are some cases to which it provides a counter example:

  1. It is a non-Galois extension (so providing counter example to "every extension is Galois").

  2. The Galois group of its Galois closure is non-abelian.

  3. Although the intersection of it with $\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_3 \sqrt[3]{2})$ is $\mathbb{Q}$, these fields are not linearly disjoint.

[Here $\zeta_3=e^{\frac{2\pi i}{3}}$.]

9

Sweedler's Hopf algebra. It is the Hopf algebra generated by two elements $x, g$ with relations $g^2 = 1$, $x^2 = 0$, and $gxg = - x$. The coproduct is given by $$ \Delta(g) = g \otimes g, \quad \Delta(x) = x \otimes 1 + g \otimes x,$$ the counit by $$ \varepsilon(g) = 1, \quad \varepsilon(x) = 0,$$ and the antipode by $$ S(g) = g, \quad S(x) = - gx.$$ It is noncommutative and noncocommutative, is quasitriangular and coquasitriangular, but is not a quantum double.

MTS
  • 8,419
9

An infinitely-generated Noetherian ring: $\mathbb{Q},$ the field of rational numbers.

9

A subring of a UFD need not be a UFD.

An example by M. Zafrullah: Let R be the set of real numbers and Q be the set of rational numbers. Then the polynomial ring R[X] is a UFD (since it is a PID), but its subring Q + XR[X] is not a UFD.

  • As a number theorist, I have found it perplexing that commutative algebraists seem to regard this type of construction as being in some sense the simplest possible example. Any student of algebraic number theory will have no trouble proving that a nonmaximal order in the ring of integers of a number field is not a UFD, and that a number field $K$ contains nonmaximal orders iff $K \neq \mathbb{Q}$: let $\alpha$ be an algebraic integer such that $K = \mathbb{Q}(\alpha)$. If $\mathbb{Z}[\alpha]$ is not the full ring of integers of $K$, great. Otherwise, take $\mathbb{Z}[2\alpha]$. – Pete L. Clark Jul 03 '10 at 01:28
  • 1
    @Pete: Your example is simple in a writing-down-sense. $\mathbb{Z}[\alpha]$ may well be the shortest expression for such a ring. If one is intressted in proof as well, then your example is much more complicated than $\mathbb{Q}+X\mathbb{R}[X]$ because one has to define and prove several things about algebraic integers first. – Johannes Hahn Aug 11 '10 at 09:47
  • 9
    Every integral domain is a subring of a UFD (for example, its field of fractions). So all you need here is an integral domain which is not a UFD. – Chris Eagle Jun 18 '11 at 08:50
  • Anyway, there's no reason to think that the UFD property is hereditary since it requires the existence of sufficiently many irreducibles as well as the uniqueness of factorizations. It's not at all surprising that if you cut out a lot of elements of a UFD you will be unable to find the irreducibles you need. Chris Eagle's example demonstrates one reason: if the larger ring is a UFD for trivial reasons, such as everything being a unit, then not only does the subring have to have sufficiently many irreducibles, but it also has to "invent" factorization from scratch. – Ryan Reich Jun 20 '11 at 14:54
8

An example showing that, in the standard definition of a ring (without $1$), it won't do to replace the left and right distributive laws with the single law$$(u+v)\cdot(x+y)=u\cdot x+u\cdot y+v\cdot x+v\cdot y$$as was done on p. 18 of my old copy (July 1957 printing) of Kelley's General Topology.

(Spoiler alert: if you click on the gray box, an example of what can go wrong is revealed.)

Take an additive group of order $3$, choose a nonzero element $c$, and define $x\cdot y=c$.

bof
  • 11,631
  • Do you also mean to exclude the $0a = a0 = 0$ axiom? – darij grinberg Oct 26 '14 at 16:01
  • @darijgrinberg Kelley's General Topology, first printing, p. 18: "A ring is a triple $(R,+,\cdot)$ such that $(R,+)$ is an abelian group and $\cdot$ is a function on $R\times R$ to $R$ such that: the operation is associative, and the distributive law $(u+v)\cdot(x+y)=u\cdot x+u\cdot y+v\cdot x+v\cdot y$ holds for all members $x$, $y$, $u$, and $v$ of $R$." – bof Oct 26 '14 at 20:40
  • 1
    @darijgrinberg $0a=a0=0$ is not usually included among the axioms for a ring, since it is a consequence of the usual distributive laws together with the additive group properties. – bof Oct 26 '14 at 20:43
  • @darijgrinberg Of course you only have to add the axiom $0\cdot0=0$ to Kelley's axioms to get a correct definition of a ring. – bof Oct 26 '14 at 20:58
  • OK, I see what you mean. Well, I am used to including $0a=a0=0$ with the axioms, but I guess this is atypical. – darij grinberg Oct 26 '14 at 21:31
  • https://mathoverflow.net/questions/135527/what-is-a-kelley-ring – Vít Tuček Feb 10 '16 at 00:26
8

A principal ideal with two non-associate generators (i.e. generators that are not unit multiples of each other).

In the ring $k[x,y,z]/(x-xyz)$, we have $([x])=([xy])$, but there is no unit $u$ such that $[xy]=u[x]$. See http://blog.jpolak.org/?p=534

8

Please forgive me if someone has already posted this...

Let $X > Y > Z$ be a tower of groups with $Y$ and $Z$ being normal subgroups of $X$ and $Y$, respectively. $Z$ need not be a normal subgroup of $X$.

An example: $D_4 >$ Klein's $4$-group $> Z/2Z$.

7

I like Amnon Yekutieli's example of a module whose completion is not complete.

Let $A$ be a commutative ring, $I$ an ideal of $A$ and $M$ an $A$-module. Algebraically you can define the completion $\hat{M}$ of $M$ as the inverse limit of the modules $M / I^k M$ (with the canonical quotient maps $M / I^{k+1} M \to M / I^k M$). There is a canonical module morphism $M \to \hat{M}$ and you can call $M$ ($I$-adically) complete if this is an isomorphism.

I used to think that the completion of an arbitrary module is complete! Rest assured that this is true if $A$ is Noetherian. But it does fail for the simplest example of a non-Noetherian ring: take $A = k[x_1, x_2, \ldots]$ the ring of polynomials in countably many variables, and $M = A$. For the ideal $I = \langle x_1, x_2, \ldots \rangle$ generated by the all variables, the completion $\hat{M}$ is, as one would expect from the finite dimensional case, the ring of power series in countably many variables (these power series should have only finitely many monomials of any given degree, so something like $\sum_i x_i$ does not count). However this module is not $I$-adically complete: indeed, look at the sequence of polynomials $\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^i$. If it did converge to a power series, by comparing coefficients, it is clear that the limit would have to be $\sum_{i=1}^\infty x_i^i$. (Since all power series in $I^k \hat{M}$ have only monomials of degree at least $k$, elements of the completion of $\hat{M}$ have a well-defined coefficient for any monomial.) But it does not in fact converge to that since it is easy to check that the tails, $\sum_{i=j}^\infty x_i^i$ do not lie in any $I^k \hat{M}$, i.e, you can't have an equality of the form $\sum_{i=j}^\infty x_i^i = m_1 g_1 + \cdots + m_l g_l$, where the $m_i$ are finitely many monomials: every term on the RHS mentions one of the finitely many variables present in the $m_i$, but there is no such "finite cover by variables" for the LHS.

I learned this example from Amnon Yekutieli's paper On Flatness and Completion for Infinitely Generated Modules over Noetherian Rings.

7

Counter-example to the idea that algebraic duals cannot become simpler.

Consider the free $\mathbb{Z}$-module on a countable set $V=\mathbb{Z}^{(\omega)}$. The dual is $V^{\ast}\cong \mathbb{Z}^{\omega}$, a countable direct product of $\mathbb{Z}$'s, which is not free and also much bigger than $V$. Strangely, the double dual is $V^{\ast\ast}\cong V$!

Pace Nielsen
  • 18,047
  • 4
  • 72
  • 133
7

I am also making this list for my record. The examples here are marvelous. I will put something that were not in this list. These examples are from Field Theory.

An Algebraic Extension of Infinite Degree.

$\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt 2, \sqrt 3, \sqrt 5, \cdots)$ over $\mathbb{Q}$.

A Nontrivial Finite Extension that is Isomorphic to the Ground Field.

Let $F=\mathbb{Q}(x)$ and $k=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt x)$. Then $k$ is a degree-2 extension of $F$. However, they are isomorphic.

A Finite Extension which Contains Infinitely Many Subextensions.

Let $p$ be a prime. Let $F=\mathbb{GF}(p)(x,y)$ and $k=\mathbb{GF} (p) (x^{\frac 1 p},y^{\frac 1 p})$. For any $f(y)\in \mathbb{GF}(p)(y)$, $$ K=F(x^{\frac 1 p} f(y) + y^{\frac 1 p})$$ is a nontrivial subextension of $k$.

Sungjin Kim
  • 3,310
6

The quaternion group of order $8$ has a real irreducible character of degree $2,$ but the associated representation can not be realized over the real field.

6

I have been maintaining this small blog for a few months https://counterexamplesinalgebra.wordpress.com/

6

This is probably more of an example than a counterexample. Consider the following binary operation table defined on a three element set with zero:

    0 1 2
0   0 0 0
1   0 0 1
2   0 2 2
V. Murskii showed that the equational theory of this algebra has no logically equivalent (in equational logic) finite theory. Lyndon earlier showed that every two element algebra with one binary operation did have a finite basis, and Perkins found a six element semigroup with no finite basis. I don't know the status of algebras with a single ternary operation.

Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2010.06.21

5

Examples of modules not having a basis.

It is well known that a vector space always has a basis. A module may not have a basis. Here are some examples:

  • The module $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$ of the integers modulo $n$. This module has torsion.
  • The module $\mathbb{Q}$ of the rational numbers over the integers. This module is torsion-free.
  • The module $F[X]$ over the ring $F^\prime[X]$ of polynomials that have coefficient of $X$ equal to $0$. This module is finitely generated and torsion-free.

For more details, you can have a look here.

5

A finitely generated soluble group isomorphic to a proper quotient group

Let $\mathbb{Q}_2$ be the ring of rational numbers of the form $m2^n$ with $m, n \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $N = U(3, \mathbb{Q}_2)$ the group of unitriangular matrixes of dimension $3$ over $\mathbb{Q}_2$. Let $t$ be the diagonal matrix with diagonal entries: $1, 2, 1$, put $H = \langle t, N \rangle$ and $w=\left( \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 \end{array} \right)$. Then the group $G=H/\langle w^2 \rangle$ is finitely generated soluble and isomorphic to a proper quotient subgroup.

For more details you can see here.

5

The (several) results of A.H. Schofield answering Artin's question (in the negative) by constructing skew-field extensions $K \subset L$ such that the right and left degrees are different deserve a mention.

5

A finitely generated module with a non-finitely generated submodule: Consider the polynomial ring $k[x_1, x_2, ...]$ as a module over itself. The submodule generated by $\{ x_1, x_2, ...\}$ is not finitely generated.

Dylan Wilson
  • 13,183
  • Analysis is a good source of natural-looking examples of non-noetherian algebra. For example, the ring $C[0,1]$ of continuous functions has the very non-finitely generated ideal of functions vanishing at 0. It's a nice contrast with the non-example $\mathbb{R}[x]$ and ideal $(x)$. – Ryan Reich Jun 20 '11 at 15:03
5

Matrices in $\text{Mat}_2(\mathbb{Z})$ not conjugate to their transpose by $\text{GL}_2(\mathbb{Z})$.

A matrix and its transpose are similar over any field (cf. here), thus a matrix $M\in\text{Mat}_2(\mathbb{Z})$ is conjugate to $M^\top$ by a matrix in $\text{GL}_2(\mathbb{Q})$.

But there are matrices $M\in\text{Mat}_2(\mathbb{Z})$ that are not conjugate to $M^\top$ by any matrix in $\text{GL}_2(\mathbb{Z})$. E.g. $$ M=\begin{pmatrix}2&5\\-9&-22\end{pmatrix} $$ See here for the details. Note that even $M\in\text{SL}_2(\mathbb{Z})$.

This shows that linear algebra over rings, even nicest ones like $\mathbb{Z}$ a Euclidean domain, becomes a lot more challenging than over fields.

  • This phenomenon is related to ideal classes in rings of algebraic integers (the Latimer-MacDuffee theorem). See Theorem 2.1 in https://kconrad.math.uconn.edu/blurbs/gradnumthy/matrixconj.pdf. Example 3.7 there is another example where $M$ and $M^\top$ in ${\rm M}_2(\mathbf Z)$ are not conjugate in ${\rm M}_2(\mathbf Z)$, but the $M$ there does not have determinant $1$. – KConrad Aug 11 '22 at 21:17
4

This is obscure, but Mogiljanskaja gave an example of two (and even an infinite sequence of) non-isomorphic semigroups such that their power semigroups are isomorphic. This resolved a question of Schein and Tamura. I don't remember the example now, but I should have the papers in my family house. If this is of any interest to anybody I could try to write it up since the papers are not readily available -- my copies came from Russia by snail mail and it cost a bit. There are two papers. The first shows an example of a sequence of semigroups and is quite simple. The second one adds one semigroup to the sequence and that's a bit more intricate, but still elementary. The semigroups can also easily be made commutative, which Mogiljanskaja remarks on.

4

If $x$ and $y$ are elements of an associative ring such that $xy\ne1=yx$ then there is a mutually inverse pair of invertible matrices one of which is lower triangular but not upper triangular and the other is upper triangular but not lower triangular. $$\begin{pmatrix} y & 0 \\ 1-xy & x \\ \end{pmatrix}^{-1} = \begin{pmatrix} x & 1-xy \\ 0 & y \\ \end{pmatrix} $$ To construct such a ring, consider the monoid $M$ of functions $\mathbb N\to \mathbb N$. Let $x$ be the function $n\mapsto n+1$ and let $y$ be the function $n\mapsto n-1$ if $n>0$ and $0\mapsto 0$. View $x$ and $y$ as members of the monoid algebra $\mathbb ZM$. This example also relates to proofs of general forms of Schanuel's lemma.

4

Regarding Schur's lemma:

For a finite group $G$ and $V$ a finite-dimensional irreducible representation of $G$ over a field $K$, there exist endomorphisms of this representation that are not scalar multiples of the identity. For example, take $G=\mathbb{Z}_4$, $K=\mathbb{R}$, and $\rho:\mathbb{Z_4}\rightarrow GL(\mathbb{R}^2)$ given by

$$\rho(1)=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & \ \ 0 \end{pmatrix}$$

Then since $\rho(1)$ has no real eigenvalues the representation is irreducible. But on the other hand, $\mathbb{Z}_4$ is abelian and $\rho(1): \mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^2$ is an endomorphism of this representation.

This is why it is important $K$ be algebraically closed.

Denis Serre
  • 51,599
  • 1
    If $V$ is any representation of anything, and if $M$ is any matrix without eigenvalues in $K$ that commutes with everything, then it is a counterexample to Schur's lemma without algebraic closure (the proof of the lemma tells you this). In particular, if the group is abelian these are easy to find. What if the group is not abelian? – Ryan Reich Jun 20 '11 at 15:42
4

Desmond MacHale wrote an article, "Minimum Counterexamples in Group Theory", Mathematics Magazine, 54 (1981), no. 1, 23–28; jstor. I've found this paper useful in an introductory algebra class and I like the philosophy of the paper, "Is X true? No, probably not. So what is a smallest counterexample?" A variation on the group theory (and Irish!) tune of MacHales appears here. A followup article is "Constructing a minimal counterexample in group theory" by Arnold Feldman, also in Mathematics Magazine (1985).

4

Radical of a primary ideal is prime but not every ideal whose radical is prime is primary. Here is a cute counterexample: Let $I=(x^2,xy)\in F[x,y]$ where $F$ is a field. The radical $\sqrt{I}$ of $I$ is $(x)$ which is prime but $I$ is not primary; $xy\in I$, $x\not\in I$ but no power of $y$ belongs to $I$.

This is from page 154 of Commutative Algebra Vol. 1 by Zariski and Samuel. Now that I check, this is the 1975 printing which I bought on 1979. How time flies when you are having fun! :-)

Sinan Sertoz
  • 1
  • 1
  • 3
2

Here's one from universal algebra: the class of mono-unary algebras $\mathfrak A=(A,f)$ such that $f$ is a permutation with a unique fixed point does not have the unique factorization property for direct decomposition.

Example. For $n\equiv1\pmod3$ let $\mathfrak A_n=(A,f)$ where $|A|=n$ and $f$ is a permutation of order $3$ with a unique fixed point; then $\mathfrak A_{100}\cong\mathfrak A_{10}\times\mathfrak A_{10}\cong\mathfrak A_4\times\mathfrak A_{25}$, and $\mathfrak A_4,\mathfrak A_{10},\mathfrak A_{25}$ are indecomposable.

Another example, smaller if less pretty. Let $$\mathfrak A=\langle[5],\ (1)(2\ 3)(4\ 5)\rangle,$$ $$\mathfrak B=\langle[9],\ (1)(2\ 3\ 4\ 5)(6\ 7\ 8\ 9)\rangle,$$ $$\mathfrak C=\langle[5],\ (1)(2\ 3\ 4\ 5)\rangle,$$ $$\mathfrak D=\langle[9],\ (1)(2\ 3)(4\ 5)(6\ 7\ 8\ 9)\rangle;$$ then $\mathfrak A$, $\mathfrak B$, $\mathfrak C$, $\mathfrak D$ are indecomposable, and $\mathfrak A\times\mathfrak B\cong\mathfrak C\times\mathfrak D$.

bof
  • 11,631
2

If $K/\Bbb Q$ is a number field and $\mathcal{O}_K$ its ring of integers, $\mathcal{O}_K$ need not have a power basis as a $\Bbb Z$-module; i.e., $\mathcal{O}_K\neq\Bbb Z[\alpha]$ for any $\alpha\in\mathcal{O}_K$! An example is given by $K = \Bbb Q(\alpha)$, where $\alpha$ is a root of $T^3 - T^2 - 2T - 8$ (a $\Bbb Z$-basis is instead given by $\{1,\alpha,(\alpha^2 + \alpha)/2\}$).

See Keith Conrad's notes for more detail on this example.

Stahl
  • 1,049
  • 7
  • 18
2

The Krull topology on an absolute Galois group is not the profinite topology.

For instance, let $G_\mathbb{Q}=\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{\mathbb{Q}}/\mathbb{Q})$ for some fixed algebraic closure $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}/\mathbb{Q}$. It is easy to see that $G_\mathbb{Q}$ has uncountably many (normal) subgroups of index $2$, because they are $1-1$ with one-dimensional quotients of a $\mathbb{F}_2$-vector space of infinite dimension. Being of finite index, they are all open in the profinite topology, hence closed since a profinite group is compact when endowed with the profinite topology. Since there are only countably many quadratic extensions of $\mathbb{Q}$, one of the above subgroups cannot be closed in the Krull topology, by the fundamental theorem of infinite Galois theory.

2

There exist non-isomorphic finite groups $G_1$ and $G_2$ such that $\mathbb{Q}[G_1]$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Q}[G_2]$. Just take the two distinct non-abelian groups of order $p^3$ where $p$ is an odd prime.

In fact, an example due to Everett Dade cleverly builds on this example to construct non-isomorphic finite groups $H_1$ and $H_2$ such that $k[H_1]$ is isomorphic to $k[H_2]$ for every field $k$.

Kapil
  • 1,546
2

A very basic one: Over the field of two elements, the symmetric matrix $\left(\begin{matrix}1&1\\1&1\end{matrix}\right)$ is nilpotent and thus not diagonalizable.

Roland Bacher
  • 17,432
1

Assertion: If $S$ is an associative ring with identity and $M, N$ are unital left $S$-modules, then $\hom_S(M,N)$ is a unital left $S$-module.

Th is is false in general. Consider the matrix ring $S:=M_2({\mathbb Z})$, and let $M={\mathbb Z}^2=N$ be equipped with natural $S$-module structure. We have $\hom_S(M,N)\hookrightarrow S$, as additive groups; moreover, if $\phi\in \hom_S(M,N)$, then $\phi(A{\bf v})=A(\phi({\bf v}))$ for every $A\in M_2({\mathbb Z})$ and ${\bf v}\in M$. Thus, the scalar matrices, and only those, are the elements in $\hom_S(M,N)$, since the only matrices that commute with all four of the elementary matrices are precisely the scalar matrices. By the isomorphism ${\mathbb Z}\cong {\mathbb Z} I_2$, we have $X:=\hom_S(M,N)\cong {\mathbb Z}$, and this makes $\hom_{\mathbb Z}(X,X)\cong {\mathbb Z}$.

Now, to make $X=\hom_S(M,N)$ into a unital left $S$-module, we need to give a unital ring homomorphism $S\rightarrow \hom_{\mathbb Z}(X,X)\cong {\mathbb Z}$. But there is no such. To see this, we notice that the elementary matrices in $S$ are nilpotent elements, and therefore, must be mapped to the unique nilpotent element $0\in {\mathbb Z}$. Since a ring homomorphism is additive, the only homomorphism $S\rightarrow {\mathbb Z}$ must be trivial.

sms1
  • 193
1

You might find several answers in Harry Hutchins's book on Examples of Commutative Rings.

1

OP: [...] counterexamples can illuminate a definition (e.g. a projective module that is not free), [...]

Indeed, let our ring $\ \mathcal R\ $ be the the ring of all continuous functions from the Euclidean sphere $\ \mathbb S\ :=\ \mathbb S^2\ $ (or more generally, $\ \mathbb S\ :=\ \mathbb S^{2\cdot n},\ $ where $\ n\in\mathbb N).\ $ Then module $\ \mathbb T\ $ of all continuous vector fields that are tangent to $\ \mathbb S\ $ is a direct summand of free module $\ \mathcal R^3\ $ hence $\ \mathbb T\ $ is projective but it is not free.

The last property of $\ \mathbb T\ $ that states that $\ \mathbb T\ $ is not free is implied by the Karol Borsuk's theorem about the unruly hair on sphere $\ \mathbb S\ $ that is impossible to brush smoothly.

Wlod AA
  • 4,686
  • 16
  • 23
-2

This one is only about terminology, but while the topic is couterexamples in Algebra so it's tempting to give this one: Lie algebra is not an algebra.

truebaran
  • 9,140
  • 3
    Sure it is. It is just not an associative algebra. – Tobias Kildetoft Dec 15 '14 at 10:59
  • 2
    It's an algebra and it's not an algebra. Mathematicians seem to find practical to use "algebra" in several distinct meanings, which are more or less obvious to guess according to the context, when they are not specified. In practice, it is very common that people deal with together both associative unital algebras and Lie algebras, and call the first simply "algebras" and the second "Lie algebras" (e.g., search stuff about universal enveloping algebras, since it relates the two). – YCor Oct 31 '16 at 04:51
-5

Videque

  1. Counterexamples in X
  2. Counterexamples in Clifford Algebras