Codex @codex  0

Let $\mathcal{A}$ be the closure of the polynomials in $C(K)$ for the uniform norm. It is a closed algebra, since products of uniformly convergent sequences converge uniformly on the compact set $K$.

Choose a point $W$ with $|W|>{\sup }_{z\in K}|z|$. The uniformly convergent geometric seriesshows that this reciprocal belongs to $\mathcal{A}$. Join $w$ to $W$ by a continuous path in $\mathbb{C}\setminus K$. Its image is compact and disjoint from $K$, so their distance $d$ is positive. Partition the path into finitely many steps shorter than $d/2$.

Suppose $1/(b-z)\in \mathcal{A}$ and $|a-b|<d/2$, with $b$ on the path. Thenconverges uniformly on $K$, since $|b-z|\ge d$. Every partial sum belongs to $\mathcal{A}$, by its algebra property, and so does the limit. Working backwards along the partition transfers the pole from $W$ to $w$. Thus $1/(w-z)\in \mathcal{A}$: a polynomial $P$ exists withThis pole-moving polynomial approximation is the elementary mechanism behind the polynomial Runge theorem.

The Weak Hilbert Nullstellensatz states that if $k$ is an algebraically closed field, every maximal ideal of $k[Y_1,\dots ,Y_s]$ isEquivalently, every proper ideal has a common zero. We prove the more general field statement, the Zariski lemma: a field finitely generated as a $k$-algebra is a finite field extension of $k$.

Write such a field as $L=k[b_1,\dots ,b_s]$. Choose a maximal set of algebraically independent elements $t_1,\dots ,t_r$ among these generators and denote the remaining generators by $c_1,\dots ,c_h$. Each $c_j$ is an algebraic element over $K=k(t_1,\dots ,t_r)$, so $L/K$ is a finite field extension. Clearing the denominators in their monic equations, choose a nonzero $d\in k[t_1,\dots ,t_r]$ such that each $c_j$ is an integral element overBecause $L$ is a field and $d^{-1}\in L$, we have $L=D[c_1,\dots ,c_h]$. Thus $L$ is an integral extension of $D$.

A subring over which a field is integral must itself be a field. Indeed, for $0\ne a\in D$, an integral equation for $a^{-1}$ multiplied by $a^{m-1}$ expresses $a^{-1}$ as an element of $D$. But if $r>0$, the ring $D$ is not a field: choose an irreducible polynomial $q(t_1)\in k[t_1]$ which does not divide $d$. There are infinitely many monic irreducible polynomials in $k[t_1]$, by the usual product-plus-one argument, whereas only finitely many can divide the nonzero $d$. The prime ideal $(q)$ stays proper after inverting $d$, so $q$ has no inverse in $D$. Therefore $r=0$, proving that $L/k$ is a finite field extension, and in particular an algebraic field extension.

Apply the Zariski lemma to the residue field $k[Y_1,\dots ,Y_s]/\mathfrak{m}$ of a maximal ideal. When $k$ is an algebraically closed field, this field is $k$ itself. The images $a_i$ of $Y_i$ then give $\mathfrak{m}=(Y_1-a_1,\dots ,Y_s-a_s)$, proving the Weak Hilbert Nullstellensatz.

For the real Laurent polynomial ring, the same argument applies because it is the finitely generated algebraEvery residue field at a maximal ideal is consequently a finite field extension of $\mathbb{R}$, and so is $\mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{C}$. Here we use the fundamental theorem of algebra, which makes $\mathbb{C}$ the algebraic closure of $\mathbb{R}$ of degree two. The images of $X_1,X_2$ must be nonzero since these elements are units. It follows that the answer iswith $(\alpha ,\beta )$ and $(\overline{\alpha },\overline{\beta })$ defining the same maximal ideal. If both coordinates are real, evaluation has image $\mathbb{R}$; otherwise its image is $\mathbb{C}$. Thus every displayed kernel is maximal, and the Zariski lemma shows that this list is exhaustive.

For explicit generating sets of an ideal, there are three cases. For real nonzero $a,b$,If $\alpha =a\in {\mathbb{R}}^{\times }$ and $\beta =s+it$ with $t\ne 0$,If $\alpha =u+iv$ with $v\ne 0$ and $\beta =s+it$, thenThe last two quotients are $\mathbb{C}$; the nonzero coordinate condition ensures that the Laurent inverses exist in them. There are no further coincidences in the classification: equal kernels induce an $\mathbb{R}$-isomorphism between the evaluation image fields. The only $\mathbb{R}$-automorphisms of $\mathbb{C}$ are the identity and complex conjugation, so the two pairs must agree or be conjugate.

To prove the intersection assertion, fix a prime ideal $P$ and an element $f\notin P$. The integral domain $B=R/P$ has nonzero image $\bar{f}$. Its localization of a ring $B[{\bar{f}}^{-1}]$ is nonzero and still a finitely generated algebra over $\mathbb{R}$, so it has a maximal ideal $\mathfrak{n}$. By the Zariski lemma, the field $L=B[{\bar{f}}^{-1}]/\mathfrak{n}$ is finite over $\mathbb{R}$.

The image of $B$ in $L$ is a subring containing $\mathbb{R}$ and is a finite-dimensional $\mathbb{R}$-vector space. It is an integral domain, hence a field: multiplication by any nonzero element is an injective linear map of a finite-dimensional vector space and therefore surjective. The kernel of $B\to L$ is thus a maximal ideal which avoids $\bar{f}$, since $\bar{f}$ is invertible in $L$. Its inverse image in $R$ is a maximal ideal containing $P$ but avoiding $f$. As this works for every $f\notin P$,This is the Jacobson ring property for this Laurent polynomial ring.

For a nonzero finitely generated module $M$, its set of associated primes isHere ${\mathrm{Ann}}_R(m)=\{a\in R:am=0\}$ is the annihilator of the element. The Laurent polynomial ring $R$ is a Noetherian ring, so the nonempty collection of annihilators of nonzero elements of $M$ has a maximal member, say $P={\mathrm{Ann}}_R(m)$. It is proper because $m\ne 0$.

If $ab\in P$ and $b\notin P$, then $bm\ne 0$ andMaximality forces ${\mathrm{Ann}}_R(bm)=P$, hence $a\in P$. Thus $P$ is a prime ideal, proving $\boxed{{\mathrm{Ass}}_R(M)\ne \varnothing }$. This argument in fact only needs that $R$ is Noetherian, not the finite generation of $M$.

A proper ideal $Q$ is $P$-primary when its radical of an ideal is $P$ andEquivalently, $ab\in Q$ and $b\notin P$ imply $a\in Q$; equivalently, every zero divisor of $R/Q$ is nilpotent. These formulations distinguish the actual primary ideal property from the weaker assertion that there is only one minimal prime ideal.

For the final example, set $u=X_1-1$ and $v=X_2-1$. ThenSince $R/P\cong \mathbb{R}[X_2,X_2^{-1}]$ is an integral domain, $P$ is a prime ideal. Moreover $I\subseteq P$ and $u^2\in I$, so $\sqrt{I}=P$. Consequently $P$ is the unique minimal prime ideal over $I$.

Nevertheless $uv\in I$, while $u\notin I$ and no power of $v$ belongs to $I$. For the first assertion, reduce modulo $v$: the image of $I$ is $(u^2)$ in $\mathbb{R}[X_1,X_1^{-1}]$, and $u$ is not a multiple of $u^2$ because $u$ is a nonunit in this integral domain. For the second, $v\notin P$, so $v^j\notin P\supseteq I$ for every $j\ge 1$. Thus $I$ is not a $P$-primary ideal: a unique minimal prime does not imply primary. In $R/I$, the nonzero class of $u$ is killed by $v$, a zero divisor which is not nilpotent.

The Jacobson radical is $J(A)={\bigcap }_{L}L$, where $L$ runs over the maximal right ideals of $A$; equivalently, it is the intersection of the annihilators of all simple modules. It is a two-sided ideal. A projective module has the lifting property against every surjective R-module homomorphism. A finitely generated module is a projective module precisely when it is a direct summand of a finitely generated free module. An indecomposable module is nonzero and admits no direct sum decomposition into two nonzero submodules.

To calculate the top of an indecomposable projective module, use the right Artinian ring hypothesis, namely the descending chain condition on right ideals. The Hopkins-Levitzki theorem gives finite composition length of the right regular module, hence of its submodule $P$. Also $J=J(A)$ is a nilpotent ideal, and $A/J$ is a semisimple ring. Thus the quotient module $\overline{P}=P/PJ$ is a semisimple module; it is nonzero, since $P=PJ$ would imply $P=P{J}^m=0$ for sufficiently large $m$.

Suppose $\overline{P}$ were not a simple module. A nontrivial direct sum decomposition of this semisimple module would give an idempotent $\alpha \in {\mathrm{End}}_A(\overline{P})$ that is neither zero nor the identity. Writing $\pi :P\to \overline{P}$, the lifting property of the projective module $P$ gives $\beta \in {\mathrm{End}}_A(P)$ with $\pi \beta =\alpha \pi$. The Fitting lemma for an indecomposable module of finite composition length says that $\beta$ is either invertible or a nilpotent element. Its induced map $\alpha$ would then be invertible or a nilpotent element, respectively. Neither is possible for a nontrivial idempotent. Therefore $P/PJ(A)$ is simple. This argument does not assume that an embedded projective module automatically splits off from the ambient module.

A block of an Artinian algebra is a nonzero two-sided direct summand $Ae$ determined by a primitive central idempotent $e$: $e$ cannot be written as a sum of two nonzero orthogonal central idempotents. Its identity is $e$. For a finite-dimensional associative algebra, the blocks of an Artinian algebra give its unique decomposition as a finite product of indecomposable algebras, or equivalently as a direct sum of two-sided ideals.

For the block of S3 in characteristic three, put $A=k{S}_3$, $r=(123)$, $s=(12)$ and $a=r-1$. The group algebra has basis $r^i,r^{i}s$ for $0\le i<3$. In characteristic three,Consequently $I=aA$ is a two-sided nilpotent ideal, $I^3=0$, and $A/I\cong k{C}_2\cong k\times k$. A nilpotent ideal lies in the Jacobson radical, and a quotient that is a semisimple ring forces the reverse inclusion. HenceDefine orthogonal idempotents $e_{+}=(1+s)/2$ and $e_{-}=(1-s)/2$. They sum to one, so the right regular module decomposes asThe two summands are the indecomposable projectives of S3 in characteristic three. Each direct summand is a projective module, with basis $e_{\pm },e_{\pm }r,e_{\pm }{r}^2$. Its quotient module modulo multiplication by $J(A)$ is one-dimensional: the trivial representation for $e_{+}A$, and the sign representation for $e_{-}A$. Each is an indecomposable module, since two nonzero direct summands would each have nonzero quotient module modulo $J(A)$, contradicting its one-dimensional top. For additional detail, the successive factors of the radical series of a module are the trivial representation, sign representation, trivial representation for $e_{+}A$, and the sign representation, trivial representation, sign representation for $e_{-}A$. Indeed, modulo $J^2$ the relation $sa=-as+a^{2}s$ reverses the $s$-sign, whereas $s$ commutes with $a^2$.

The center of an associative algebra is spanned by the conjugacy class sums $1$, $r+r^2$, and $(1+r+r^2)s$. Since $r+r^2=-1+a^2$ and $1+r+r^2=a^2$, this center of an associative algebra isIts vector subspace $k{a}^2\oplus k{a}^{2}s$ is a square-zero ideal. If $d1+n$ is a central idempotent, then $d^2=d$ and $(2d-1)n=0$. Thus $d=0$ or $1$ and $n=0$. There is no nontrivial central idempotent, so the whole group algebra is its single block. The two three-dimensional projective modules above are a decomposition of the regular module, not two blocks of an Artinian algebra.

A right Noetherian ring satisfies the ascending chain condition on right ideals; equivalently, every right ideal is a finitely generated module.

Here is a noncommutative Hilbert basis theorem proof adapted to the stated hypothesis. Set $F_{-1}=0$ andThe equality follows inductively from $A+xA=A+Ax$, by moving one coefficient past one $x$ at a time. These spaces form an exhaustive filtered algebra structure on $B$, with $F_n{F}_m\subseteq F_{n+m}$. This does not assert uniqueness of the displayed expressions or the existence of a coefficient-moving automorphism.

For a right ideal $I\subseteq B$, defineEach $L_n$ is a right ideal of $A$. In fact, if $a\in L_n$ and $c\in A$, write $c{x}^n=x^{n}b+u$ with $b\in A$, $u\in F_{n-1}$; then $ac{x}^n=(a{x}^n)b+au\in I+F_{n-1}$. Also $L_n\subseteq L_{n+1}$ by right multiplication by $x$. Since $A$ is a right Noetherian ring, this ascending chain stabilizes at some $L_N$.

Choose finite generators $a_{nj}$ for each $L_n$, $0\le n\le N$, and choose $f_{nj}\in I$ with $f_{nj}-a_{nj}{x}^n\in F_{n-1}$. These finitely many elements generate $I$ as a right ideal. To see this, induct on $m$ for $f\in I\cap F_m$. Write $f=a{x}^m+u$ with $u\in F_{m-1}$; then $a\in L_m$. Put $d=\min (m,N)$ and express $a={\sum }_j{a}_{dj}{c}_j$. Write $c_j{x}^d=x^d{b}_j+u_j$ with $u_j\in F_{d-1}$. The differencelies in $I\cap F_{m-1}$, so the induction applies. At $m=0$ the remainder is zero. Hence $B$ is right Noetherian.

For the quantum torus, take $q\in k^{\times }$ and the convention $YX=qXY$. Begin with the polynomial ring $k[X]$, which is Noetherian by the Hilbert basis theorem. Adjoining $X^{-1}$ preserves the hypothesis because it commutes with $k[X]$, and gives $k[X^{\pm 1}]$. Adjoin $Y$ next. The relation $Yf(X)=f(qX)Y$ and its inverse coefficient-moving relation give $A+YA=A+AY$ for $A=k[X^{\pm 1}]$. Finally adjoin $Y^{-1}$ to $k[X^{\pm 1}][Y;\sigma ]$, where $\sigma (X)=qX$. On a monomial, $Y^{-1}{X}^i{Y}^j=q^{-i}{X}^i{Y}^{j-1}$; when $j=0$ this is in $A{Y}^{-1}$, and when $j>0$ it is in $A$. The reverse inclusion follows by the same relation. The preceding argument applies at each step, proving the quantum torus is right Noetherian. Nonzero $q$ is required for this notation.

For a noncommutative ring, a prime ideal of a noncommutative ring means a proper two-sided ideal $P$ such that $UV\subseteq P$ for two-sided ideals $U,V$ implies $U\subseteq P$ or $V\subseteq P$. Equivalently, $aAb\subseteq P$ implies $a\in P$ or $b\in P$. This definition does not require $A/P$ to be a noncommutative domain.

Retain the right Noetherian ring hypothesis for the last assertion. More generally, the ascending chain condition on two-sided ideals suffices. We claim that every proper two-sided ideal $I$ contains a product of finitely many prime ideals of a noncommutative ring, each containing $I$. If not, choose a maximal counterexample $I$. It cannot be a prime ideal of a noncommutative ring. Thus there are two-sided ideals $U,V$ strictly containing $I$ with $UV\subseteq I$: add $I$ to the two witnesses for failure of the defining condition for a prime ideal of a noncommutative ring. By maximality, both $U$ and $V$ contain products of finitely many prime ideals of a noncommutative ring containing them. Concatenating these products gives a product inside $UV\subseteq I$, a contradiction.

Apply the claim to $I=0$ in a nonzero $A$, obtaining $P_1\cdots P_r=0$. Every prime ideal of a noncommutative ring $Q$ contains one of the $P_i$, by repeated application of the definition of a prime ideal of a noncommutative ring. For the prime radical of a noncommutative ring $N$, it follows thatIndeed, $N\subseteq P_i$ gives $N^r\subseteq P_1\cdots P_r=0$, and ${\bigcap }_i{P}_i\subseteq Q$ for every $Q$ gives equality of the intersections. If $A=0$, the empty intersection is the whole zero ring and the conclusion is immediate.

The final assertion is false for arbitrary algebras without the preceding chain condition. For example, in the commutative ring $k[z_1,z_2,\dots ]/(z_i^2:i\ge 1)$ the nilradical is $(z_1,z_2,\dots )$, its only prime ideal, but the product of any number of distinct $z_i$ is nonzero. Thus this nilradical is not a nilpotent ideal.

Choose a finite-dimensional generating vector subspace $V\subseteq A$ containing $1$, and write $V^n$ for the linear span of products of $n$ elements of $V$. The Gelfand–Kirillov dimension isFor a nonzero finitely generated module $M$ considered as a right module, choose a finite-dimensional generating vector subspace $W\subseteq M$ and define the Gelfand–Kirillov dimension of a module byFor left modules, replace $W{V}^n$ by $V^{n}W$. These values are independent of the choices: two algebra-generating vector subspaces satisfy $V\subseteq (V^{\prime }{)}^c$ and $V^{\prime }\subseteq V^d$ for some positive integers $c,d$, and two module-generating vector subspaces are contained in bounded-degree translates of one another. The corresponding growth bounds differ only by a constant rescaling and shift of $n$, which do not change the limit superior.

Let $S$ be a nonzero standard graded algebra, generated by $r$ elements of degree one. It is a homogeneous quotient ring of the polynomial ring $k[z_1,\dots ,z_r]$. By the Hilbert-Serre theorem, its Hilbert series is a rational function whose only possible pole is at $t=1$. After canceling, write it as $P(t)/(1-t{)}^d$ with $P(1)\ne 0$, where $0\le d\le r$. The cumulative dimensions are the coefficients of $P(t)/(1-t{)}^{d+1}$ and are eventually a polynomial in $n$ of degree $d$, with positive leading coefficient. With $V=S_0\oplus S_1$, these cumulative dimensions equal $\dim V^n$. ConsequentlyFor $d=0$ the algebra is finite-dimensional and nonzero, so the cumulative dimension is eventually a positive constant. If the zero algebra is allowed, the common convention $\mathrm{GKdim}0=-\infty$ is an exception to the printed assertion; the integer conclusion concerns nonzero unital algebras.

For the Weyl algebra $A=A_1(k)=k⟨X,D⟩/(DX-XD-1)$, the total-degree filtered algebra structure has associated graded ring $\mathrm{gr}A=k[x,\xi ]$. Its ordered monomials $X^i{D}^j$ form a basis. Every finitely generated module has a good filtration of a module, and its associated graded module is finitely generated over $k[x,\xi ]$. The Hilbert-Serre theorem therefore shows that its Gelfand–Kirillov dimension is an integer in $\{0,1,2\}$.

A nonzero module of Gelfand–Kirillov dimension zero here would have eventually constant cumulative dimension, hence be finite-dimensional. This is impossible in characteristic zero: taking the trace of the endomorphisms representing $DX-XD=1$ gives $0={\dim }_{k}M$. For right modules the right-action operators reverse composition and give the negative identity instead, with the same contradiction. ThusBoth occur. The regular module $A$ has $\dim V^n=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n+2}{2}\right)$, hence Gelfand–Kirillov dimension two. For a right module of Gelfand–Kirillov dimension one, take $M=k[x]$ with $f\cdot X=xf$ and $f\cdot D=-f^{\prime }$. These actions satisfy the defining relation because $(f\cdot D)\cdot X-(f\cdot X)\cdot D=f$. The module is a cyclic module generated by $1$, and $\dim (1\cdot V^n)=n+1$. This also gives the lower bound for this particular Weyl algebra without invoking a general inequality for higher Weyl algebras.

Put $A^e=A{\otimes }_k{A}^{\mathrm{op}}$, so an $A$-bimodule is a left $A^e$-module through $(a\otimes b^{\mathrm{op}})m=amb$. The Hochschild cohomology isEquivalently, the Hochschild cochain complex has $C^n(A,M)={\mathrm{Hom}}_k(A^{\otimes n},M)$ and coboundary mapIts cohomology agrees with the displayed Ext functor because the bar resolution of an associative algebra is free over $A^e$ when $k$ is a field. The Hochschild cohomological dimension isThe supremum uses all bimodules, not merely the finitely generated one supplied in the question; an unbounded projective dimension is infinity.

An extension in this classification is a square-zero extension of an algebra: a short exact sequence $0\to M\to E\to A\to 0$, where $E$ and $A$ are unital algebras, $E\to A$ is unital, and $M$ is its two-sided ideal with $M^2=0$ and induced $A$-bimodule structure equal to the prescribed one. An equivalence of extensions is an algebra isomorphism of the middle terms commuting with the maps and inducing the identity on both $A$ and $M$. Arbitrary isomorphisms of middle algebras, or extensions without the square-zero ideal requirement, are not classified by this cohomology group.

Choose a $k$-linear map section $s:A\to E$ with $s(1)=1$. Its multiplication defectis a normalized Hochschild cocycle: $\mu (1,a)=\mu (a,1)=0$, and associativity in $E$ gives $\delta \mu =0$. Changing $s$ to $s+g$, where $g(1)=0$, changes the defect to $\mu +\delta g$, since $M^2=0$.

Conversely, for a normalized Hochschild cocycle $\mu$, put $E_{\mu }=A\oplus M$ as a vector space and defineThe Hochschild cocycle equation is exactly associativity, and $(1,0)$ is the identity. If ${\mu }^{\prime }=\mu +\delta g$, the map $E_{{\mu }^{\prime }}\to E_{\mu }$, $(a,m)\mapsto (a,m+g(a))$, is an equivalence. Conversely, every equivalence has this form after choosing sections. The normalized Hochschild cochain complex computes the same cohomology as the full complex: in the bar resolution of an associative algebra, the degenerate terms containing an inserted identity form a contractible subcomplex. Passing to the normalized bar resolution of an associative algebra, then applying the Hom functor, gives the same cohomology. Thus every class has a normalized representative. We obtain a bijection between $H{H}^2(A,M)$ and equivalence classes of square-zero extensions.

For a formal associative deformation, a completion convention is necessary. The usual star product lives on the formal power series moduleThis is the adic completion of a module applied to the ordinary tensor product, rather than literally the ordinary $A{\otimes }_{k}k[[t]]$ when $A$ is infinite-dimensional. For example, ${\sum }_{n\ge 0}{X}^n{t}^n$ lies in $k[X][[t]]$ but not in the ordinary tensor product, whose coefficient spaces have finite-dimensional span. The two agree when $A$ is finite-dimensional. We interpret the printed notation in this standard completed sense; the infinite iteration below requires that interpretation.

A star product is a $k[[t]]$-bilinear, unital product continuous for the adic topology satisfying associativity of the formIt is a trivial formal deformation if a $k[[t]]$-linear automorphism continuous for the adic topology $T=\mathrm{id}+{\sum }_{r\ge 1}{t}^r{T}_r$, with $T(1)=1$, satisfies $T(a\ast b)=T(a)T(b)$.

If $\mathrm{Dim}(A)\le 1$, then $H{H}^2(A,A)=0$. Suppose changes of coordinates have removed all coefficients below order $r$. The order-$r$ part of associativity then says $\delta {\mu }_r=0$. Hence ${\mu }_r=\delta g_r$ for a $k$-linear map $g_r:A\to A$. Its normalization gives $g_r(1)=0$, since $(\delta g_r)(1,1)=g_r(1)$. Transport the product by $T_r=\mathrm{id}+t^r{g}_r$:The order-$r$ coefficient becomes ${\mu }_r-\delta g_r=0$, and lower coefficients remain zero. Repeating constructs compatible changes of coordinates modulo every $t^N$. They converge in the adic topology to an invertible $T$ fixing $1$, with inverse obtained coefficient by coefficient. The limit product is ordinary multiplication. Therefore every star product is trivial under the completed formal-series convention. In fact, the argument only needs the vanishing of $H{H}^2(A,A)$, not all of Hochschild cohomological dimension at most one.

A derivation of an algebra is a $k$-linear map $D:A\to A$ satisfying $D(ab)=D(a)b+aD(b)$. The commutator $[D,E]=D\circ E-E\circ D$ is again a derivation: expanding $[D,E](ab)$ cancels the two mixed terms and leaves $[D,E](a)b+a[D,E](b)$. The commutator on endomorphisms is bilinear, antisymmetric, and satisfies the Jacobi identity by cancellation of its twelve triple-composition terms. Therefore ${\mathrm{Der}}_k(A)$ is a Lie algebra.

In degree zero of the Hochschild cochain complex, $\delta a(b)=ba-ab$, so $H{H}^0(A,A)=Z(A)=A$ for commutative $A$. In degree one, $\delta D=0$ is precisely the derivation rule; the boundaries are inner derivations, which vanish for commutative $A$. HenceFor cochains $f\in C^p(A,A)$, $g\in C^q(A,A)$, the Hochschild cup product isDefine the insertion operation byA degree-zero cochain is an element of $A$, inserted with no arguments; for $p=0$ the sum is empty. For the Gerstenhaber bracket we use the left graded Leibniz rule convention, compatible with the unsigned Hochschild cup product just displayed:Both degree-zero inputs have bracket zero. Another common insertion convention writes $f\circ g-(-1{)}^{(p-1)(q-1)}g\circ f$; the two brackets differ by $(-1{)}^{(p-1)(q-1)}$. With an unsigned Hochschild cup product, that convention uses the corresponding right graded Leibniz rule. The distinction matters for a degree-two cochain bracketed with a function. Either consistent convention gives the same degree-one Lie bracket and the same derivation action on functions.

If $m(a,b)=ab$, this convention gives $\delta f=[m,f]$. The shifted Jacobi identity and $[m,m]=0$ therefore show that the Gerstenhaber bracket respects Hochschild cocycles and the images of the coboundary map. The Hochschild cup product and Gerstenhaber bracket induce operations on Hochschild cohomology. A Gerstenhaber algebra is a graded algebra $H$ with an associative degree-zero product with the graded commutative algebra rule $uv=(-1{)}^{pq}vu$, and a degree-minus-one graded Lie bracket making the shifted degrees $|u|-1$ into a graded Lie algebra. In particular,for homogeneous elements of a graded algebra of degrees $p,q$. The shifted Jacobi identity isThe Hochschild cup product does not make the cochains a graded commutative algebra in general, but does make their cohomology a graded commutative algebra; the insertion operation supplies the homotopy for this assertion and for the graded Leibniz rule. Thus these axioms describe the induced Gerstenhaber algebra, not a claim of a graded commutative algebra structure on the cochain multiplication itself.

For $A=k[X]$, the enveloping algebra is $A^e=k[X_{\ell },X_r]$, andis a projective resolution. The first map is injective since $A^e$ is an integral domain, and its cokernel is $A$. Applying ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{A^e}(-,A)$ gives a zero coboundary map. ConsequentlyThe Hochschild cup product is ordinary multiplication of functions and scalar multiplication of derivations, with the product of two derivations zero because $H{H}^2=0$. Every derivation is $f{\partial }_X$, since it is determined by its value on $X$. The Gerstenhaber bracket iswith all other orders fixed by graded antisymmetry. These formulas fully determine the Gerstenhaber algebra.

For $A=k[X,Y]$, the Hochschild-Kostant-Rosenberg theorem identifiesThus the degrees zero, one, and two are $A$, $A{\partial }_X\oplus A{\partial }_Y$, and $A({\partial }_X\wedge {\partial }_Y)$, and all higher groups vanish. The Hochschild-Kostant-Rosenberg map sends a wedge of $p$ derivations to the cochainThe factorial is invertible in characteristic zero. Equivalently, the groups follow from the Koszul resolution on the regular sequence $X_{\ell }-X_r,Y_{\ell }-Y_r$ in $A^e$, whose dual coboundary maps vanish on $A$.

The Hochschild cup product becomes the exterior product, and our Gerstenhaber bracket becomes the left Schouten-Nijenhuis bracket. It is determined by the commutator of derivations, $[D,f]=D(f)$, zero brackets of functions, and the displayed graded antisymmetry and left graded Leibniz rule. For explicit signs, put $\Pi ={\partial }_X\wedge {\partial }_Y$ and $D=F{\partial }_X+G{\partial }_Y$. ThenThe last bracket has degree three, whose exterior power is zero. For two derivations, the coefficient functions of their commutator give the remaining formula. This specifies the entire Gerstenhaber algebra; under the alternate insertion convention mentioned above, the first displayed bracket changes sign, together with the Leibniz convention. No smoothness of a general finitely generated commutative algebra was assumed: the Hochschild-Kostant-Rosenberg theorem is invoked here only for the smooth polynomial ring $k[X,Y]$.