KEVOS
ArticlesServicesCase studiesAboutContact
ArticlesServicesCase studiesAboutContact
← ArticlesWhen Is a Group Algebra a Local Ring?Engineering · Engineering MathematicsLesson 474/884← PrevNext →
ArticlePublished 8 Aug 202621 min readBy KEVOS®
On this page

Ask about this page

KEVOS AIWhen Is a Group Algebra a Local Ring?

KEVOS knowledge first · trusted web sources when needed

Skip to content

Engineering Mathematics Advanced Local rings

Local Group Algebras

For a nontrivial finite group G and a field k, the group algebra kG is local precisely when chark=p>0 and G is a p-group — the one case where the augmentation ideal is nilpotent and the only simple module is trivial.

Page ID
KEVOS-ENG-MATH-NCR-0146
Taxonomy
ENG / ENG-MATH
Collection
noncommutative-rings-core
Source
(19.31), §19 (pp. 309–310)
Reviewed
2026-08-08
Version
1.0.0

01Executive Summary

Group algebras are almost never local. If chark does not divide |G|, Maschke makes kG semisimple, and a semisimple ring is local only if it is a division ring — which kG is not once G≠1, since g of order n gives (g−1)(gn−1+⋯+1)=0.

Exactly one family survives. For k a field and G a nontrivial finite group, kG is local iff chark=p>0 and G is a p-group. In that case the augmentation ideal is nilpotent, kG/rad(kG)≅k, and kG is completely primary with (radkG)|G|=0. Since kG is artinian, (19.19) makes locality equivalent to the regular module being indecomposable, so the whole question is about idempotents.

p-groups onlyWhich G
chark=pWhich k
kG/rad≅kResidue ring
≤|G|Nilpotency index

02Overview

The augmentation map ε:kG→k, ∑agg↦∑ag, is always a surjective ring homomorphism, so its kernel I(kG) is always a maximal ideal with residue field k. Locality asks whether it is the only maximal one-sided ideal.

I(kG)=kerε=⨁g≠1k(g−1),dimkI(kG)=|G|−1.
(A)

The augmentation ideal. It is always maximal; it equals rad(kG) exactly in the local case.

The one thing to remember

kG is local iff the augmentation ideal is nilpotent iff every g∈G has p-power order with p=chark>0. Nilpotence of g−1 is the whole story, and Maschke is the obstruction on the other side.

This is the noncommutative source of local rings that matters most in practice. Restricting a kG-module to a Sylow p-subgroup lands it over a local ring, and the theorems of the previous pages — projectives are free, Krull–Schmidt uniqueness — become available. Dickson's divisibility theorem is the first payoff.

The result also survives replacing the field of coefficients by a local ring: for (R,𝔪) commutative local with char(R/𝔪)=p>0 and G a finite p-group, RG is local (19.11). That version, with R=ℤp or ℤ(p), is the foundation of integral representation theory.

03Learning Objectives

  • Prove nilpotence of I(kG) for a finite p-group in characteristic p, by induction on |G|.
  • Deduce (19.10): kG is local and completely primary with residue ring k.
  • Prove the converse: if kG is local with G≠1 finite, then chark=p and G is a p-group.
  • Connect locality with indecomposability of kG as a module over itself using (19.19).
  • State (19.11) and identify where Nakayama's Lemma is used in its proof.
  • Use locality of kH for H a Sylow p-subgroup to derive divisibility constraints on dimensions.

04Definitions

kG
The group algebra: k-vector space with basis G and multiplication extending that of G. dimkkG=|G| for G finite.
Augmentation ε
The k-algebra map kG→k with ε(g)=1 for all g∈G.
Augmentation ideal I(kG)
kerε, spanned over k by {g−1:g∈G}; a two-sided ideal of codimension 1.
Reduced augmentation ideal
For a coefficient ring R with maximal ideal 𝔪: the kernel of RG→R→R/𝔪, generated by 𝔪 together with all g−1.
p-group
A finite group whose order is a power of the prime p; equivalently every element has p-power order.
Principal indecomposable
An indecomposable direct summand of kG as a right module over itself; the projective indecomposables.

Throughout G is a finite group. The theory for infinite groups is different: for infinite G the group algebra is not artinian and the radical is a hard invariant.

05Core Concepts

Why characteristic p makes g−1 nilpotent

If g has order pa and chark=p, then inside the commutative subalgebra k⟨g⟩ the freshman's dream applies:

(g−1)pa=gpa−1=0.
(B)

Valid because k⟨g⟩ is commutative of characteristic p, so the binomial coefficients (pai) vanish for 0<i<pa.

So every generator of I(kG) is nilpotent. That alone does not make the ideal nilpotent — a sum of nilpotents need not be nilpotent — but combined with the fact that a nontrivial p-group has nontrivial centre it does, by induction.

Why any other prime destroys locality

Suppose g∈G has order q with q≠chark and q prime. Then k⟨g⟩≅k[x]/(xq−1) is semisimple by Maschke, commutative, and therefore a finite product of fields — in particular it has no nonzero nilpotent element. So g−1≠0 is not nilpotent, and it lies in the augmentation ideal. Any argument that forces rad(kG)=I(kG) therefore fails.

g of order q≠p⟹k⟨g⟩ reduced⟹g−1 not nilpotent⟹rad(kG)≠I(kG)

Idempotents make the failure visible

Let g≠1 have order n invertible in k, and set e=n−1∑h∈⟨g⟩h. Then e2=n−2⋅n∑hh=e, and e≠0,1 because n≥2. So e is a nontrivial idempotent, and by (19.19) its existence alone rules out locality, kG being artinian.

Nilpotent radical: completely primary, not just local

In the local case rad(kG)=I(kG) is nilpotent with (radkG)|G|=0, so kG is completely primary. The exact nilpotency index is not |G| in general — for G=C2×C2 over 𝔽2 it is 3 — and is computed by Jennings' theory of dimension subgroups. Over a local coefficient ring rather than a field the radical need not be nilpotent at all.

06Key Results

Lemma—Nilpotence of the augmentation ideal

Let k be a field of characteristic p>0 and let G be a finite p-group. Then the augmentation ideal I(kG) is nilpotent.

Proof

Induct on |G|. If |G|=1 then I(kG)=0.

Let |G|>1. A nontrivial finite p-group has nontrivial centre, so choose a central element z of order p and set Z=⟨z⟩⊴G. Since z is central, N=kG(z−1) is a two-sided ideal, and by (B), Np=kG(z−1)p=0.

The surjection kG↠k[G/Z] has kernel exactly N and carries I(kG) onto I(k[G/Z]). By induction I(k[G/Z])m=0 for some m, so I(kG)m⊆N and therefore I(kG)mp⊆Np=0.

Theorem(19.10)Group algebras of p-groups

Let k be a field of characteristic p>0 and G a finite p-group. Then rad(kG)=I(kG), (radkG)|G|=0, and kG/rad(kG)≅k. In particular kG is an artinian local ring — indeed completely primary.

Proof

By the Lemma I(kG) is nilpotent, hence a nil ideal, hence I(kG)⊆rad(kG) by (4.11). Since kG/I(kG)≅k is a field, I(kG) is a maximal ideal, so rad(kG)⊆I(kG) as well and the two coincide. The residue ring kG/rad(kG)≅k is a division ring, so kG is local by (19.1)(3). The sharper bound (radkG)|G|=0 is (8.8).

Theorem(19.4 Ex.)Exactly when a group algebra is local

Let k be a field and G a nontrivial finite group, R=kG. The following are equivalent.

  1. R is a local ring.
  2. RR is an indecomposable R-module.
  3. R/radR is a simple ring.
  4. chark=p>0 and G is a p-group.

The hypothesis G≠1 is needed only for (4): if G=1 then kG=k is local in every characteristic.

Proof

**(4) ⇒ (1)** is (19.10).

**(1) ⇔ (2).** kG is finite-dimensional over k, hence right artinian, and idempotents of End(RR)≅R correspond to decompositions of RR. So this is exactly (19.19): for a nonzero right artinian ring, local ⇔ no nontrivial idempotents ⇔ RR indecomposable.

**(1) ⇒ (3)** is trivial, a division ring being simple.

**(3) ⇒ (1).** R/radR is semisimple; if it is simple then R has a unique simple module S up to isomorphism and R/radR≅Mn(D) with D=EndR(S) and dimkS=n⋅dimkD. The trivial module ktriv is a simple R-module with dimk=1 and EndR(ktriv)=k, so S≅ktriv, forcing n=1 and D=k. Hence R/radR≅k is a division ring and R is local.

**(1) ⇒ (4).** Assume R=kG is local. Since kG/I(kG)≅k, the augmentation ideal is a maximal left ideal, and by uniqueness rad(kG)=I(kG). As kG is artinian its radical is nilpotent, so every g−1 with g∈G is nilpotent.

Suppose some g∈G had order divisible by a prime q≠chark; replacing g by a suitable power we may assume g has order exactly q. Then q is invertible in k, so k⟨g⟩≅k[x]/(xq−1) is semisimple by Maschke and commutative, hence a product of fields, hence has no nonzero nilpotent element. But g−1≠0 is nilpotent — a contradiction. Therefore every element of G has order a power of chark. Since G≠1 this forces chark=p>0, and G is then a p-group by Cauchy's theorem.

Proposition(19.11)Group rings over a local coefficient ring

Let (R,𝔪) be a commutative local ring whose residue field k=R/𝔪 has characteristic p>0, and let G be a finite p-group. Then A=RG is a local ring with A/radA≅k, and radA is the reduced augmentation ideal generated by 𝔪 together with all g−1, g∈G.

Proof

Let V be any simple left A-module. Being simple, V is cyclic over A, hence finitely generated over R. By Nakayama's Lemma (4.22), 𝔪V≠V. But 𝔪V is an A-submodule of V (as 𝔪 is central in A), so simplicity gives 𝔪V=0.

Hence V is a simple module over A/𝔪A≅kG. Since G is a p-group and chark=p, (19.10) says kG has exactly one simple module, the trivial one, so G acts trivially on V.

Therefore the ideal ℑ generated by 𝔪 and all g−1 annihilates every simple left A-module, giving ℑ⊆radA. Since A/ℑ≅k is a field, ℑ is maximal, so radA=ℑ and A/radA≅k is a division ring; A is local by (19.1)(3).

Remark—Noncommutative coefficients

(19.11) remains true when R is a noncommutative local ring: the same reduction sends the problem to the case of a division ring of coefficients, where the argument behind (8.8) again shows that G acts trivially on every simple module. The result is central to the theory of integral representations of finite groups.

Corollary(19.30)Dickson's divisibility theorem

Let k be a field of characteristic p>0, G a finite group, H a Sylow p-subgroup, and U a principal indecomposable right kG-module. Then |H| divides dimkU. The proof restricts U to kH, which is local by (19.10), and uses that finitely generated projectives over a local ring are free (19.29).

Theorem(19.31)Multiplicities in the regular module

Let k be a splitting field for G of characteristic p>0 and R=kG. Then every irreducible right R-module occurs as a composition factor of RR with multiplicity divisible by the p-part of |G|.

The multiplicity of an irreducible V as a composition factor of RR equals the k-dimension of a principal indecomposable left kG-module; applying (19.30) on the left gives the divisibility. The identification of multiplicities with dimensions of principal indecomposables belongs to the block theory of §25 and is not proved here.

07Proof Techniques and Method

How these proofs work, and which move to reuse.

Move 1

Quotient by a central subgroup of order p

A nontrivial p-group has nontrivial centre, so kG always has a central square-zero-like ideal kG(z−1) with kG/N≅k[G/Z]. Induction on |G| then works. This is the standard induction for p-group algebras.

Move 2

Test nilpotence inside a cyclic subalgebra

To show g−1 is not nilpotent, restrict to k⟨g⟩, which is a quotient of k[x] and completely understood: semisimple and reduced when the order of g is invertible in k.

Move 3

Identify the unique simple module

The trivial module is always simple of dimension one. If a group algebra has only one simple module, it must be the trivial one, and the Wedderburn quotient collapses to k. This converts simple quotient into division ring quotient.

The asymmetry between the two directions is worth noting. Sufficiency (p-group ⇒ local) is a nilpotence computation. Necessity is a reduction argument: it uses that kG is artinian, so the radical is nilpotent, and then tests one element at a time inside a cyclic subalgebra.

08Worked Example

The Klein four group in characteristic 2

Let k=𝔽2 and G=⟨g⟩×⟨h⟩≅C2×C2. Setting x=g−1 and y=h−1, we have x2=g2−2g+1=g2+1=0 and likewise y2=0, and x,y commute. Counting dimensions gives

kG≅𝔽2[x,y]/(x2,y2),rad(kG)=(x,y),dimkkG=4.
(E.1)

The radical has k-basis {x,y,xy}, so dimkrad(kG)=3 and kG/rad(kG)≅𝔽2. Its powers are (rad)2=kxy of dimension 1 and (rad)3=0: the nilpotency index is 3, comfortably below the guaranteed bound |G|=4.

Cross-checks. The units are exactly 1+rad(kG), so |U(kG)|=23=8 out of 16 elements. The only idempotents are 0 and 1, as (19.19) requires. And by (19.29) every finitely generated projective kG-module is free, so projective kG-modules have k-dimension divisible by 4 — in particular the trivial module is not projective.

Three group algebras that are not local

  • ℚC2≅ℚ×ℚ, via e=12(1+g). Characteristic 0, so Maschke applies and the algebra is semisimple with two blocks. Not local.
  • 𝔽2C3≅𝔽2[x]/(x3−1)≅𝔽2[x]/(x−1)×𝔽2[x]/(x2+x+1)≅𝔽2×𝔽4. Here p=2 but G is a 3-group, so the hypotheses of (19.10) fail on the group side. Not local.
  • 𝔽3S3: here p=3 divides |G|=6 but G is not a 3-group. The quotient is 𝔽3S3/rad≅𝔽3×𝔽3, of dimension 2, so there are two simple modules and two principal indecomposables, each of dimension 3. Not local, but the Sylow subalgebra 𝔽3A3≅𝔽3[t]/(t3) is.

A local group ring that is not artinian

Take R=ℤ(2), a commutative local ring with 𝔪=2ℤ(2) and residue field 𝔽2 of characteristic 2, and G=C2=⟨g⟩. By (19.11), A=ℤ(2)C2 is local with radA=(2,g−1) and A/radA≅𝔽2.

What changes over a coefficient ring

radA here is not nilpotent — 2n≠0 for every n — so A is local but not completely primary and not artinian. Over a field the local case is always artinian; over a local coefficient ring it need not be. This is exactly the setting of integral representation theory, where ℤpG for a p-group is the basic local object.

09Process and Workflow

Is my group ring local?

Coefficients a field, chark∤|G|No (for G≠1). Maschke makes kG semisimple, and kG is not a division ring because g of order n gives zero divisors.
Coefficients a field of characteristic p, G a p-groupYes, and completely primary: rad(kG)=I(kG) with (rad)|G|=0 and residue ring k.
Coefficients a field of characteristic p, G not a p-groupNo. Some g∈G has order divisible by a prime q≠p, and g−1 is a non-nilpotent element of the augmentation ideal; equivalently the semisimple quotient is not a division ring.
Coefficients a local ring (R,𝔪) with residue characteristic p, G a p-groupYes by (19.11), with rad=(𝔪,g−1:g∈G) — but do not expect the radical to be nilpotent.
Compare chark with |G|If the characteristic does not divide the order, stop: semisimple, not local.
Test whether G is a p-groupA single element of order prime to p is enough to rule out locality.
Identify the radicalIn the local case it is the augmentation ideal, of codimension 1. Otherwise compute it, or use the ideal generated by Op(G) as a first approximation.
Exploit localityProjectives become free, Krull–Schmidt applies with local endomorphism rings, and restriction to a Sylow p-subgroup becomes a usable tool.

10Comparison and Classification

Is kG local?
kGkG/radLocal?
𝔽pCpn𝔽pyes
𝔽2C2×C2𝔽2yes
k, chark=pany finite p-groupkyes
ℚC2ℚ×ℚno
𝔽2C3𝔽2×𝔽4no
𝔽3S3𝔽3×𝔽3no
ℂany G≠1∏iMni(ℂ)no
any ktrivial groupkyes
Properties of kG across the three regimes
chark∤|G|p∣|G|, G not a p-groupG a p-group, chark=p
Semisimple●yes○no○no
Local○no○no●yes
rad nilpotentyes (it is 0)●yes●yes
Unique simple module○no○no●yes
Nontrivial idempotents●yes●yes○no
Projectives are free○no○no●yes

Properties of kG across the three regimes

The first column assumes G≠1; for the trivial group every entry degenerates to the field case.

11Relationship Map

Group algebras kG, G finitealways artinian, always with augmentation ideal I(kG)
chark=p divides |G|modular case; rad(kG)≠0
Op(G)≠1the ideal generated by {h−1:h∈Op(G)} lies in the radical
G is a p-grouprad(kG)=I(kG), kG local and completely primary
  • kG local — k a field, G≠1 finite
    • equivalent to
      • kG has no nontrivial idempotent (19.19)
      • kG indecomposable as a right module over itself
      • kG/rad is a simple ring
      • chark=p and G is a p-group
    • gives
      • projectives are free (19.29)
      • Dickson's divisibility (19.30)
      • multiplicity divisibility over a splitting field (19.31)
    • extends to
      • RG for (R,𝔪) local, char(R/𝔪)=p (19.11)
      • noncommutative local coefficient rings
      • ℤpG in integral representation theory

12Applications and Industry Use

Applications here means where this structure is used — inside mathematics and in the engineering and computing disciplines that consume it.

Modular representation theory

Restriction to a Sylow subgroup

The main technical use of (19.10): kH is local for H a Sylow p-subgroup, so restricting a projective kG-module to H gives a free module. Dickson's theorem and much of the theory of vertices and sources start here.

Integral representation theory

ℤpG for a p-group

(19.11) makes ℤpG local for G a p-group, which is what allows lattices over ℤpG to be studied by reduction modulo p and lifting — the standard technique for integral representations.

Cohomology of groups

Filtration by radical powers

For a p-group in characteristic p the radical filtration of kG is the filtration by powers of the augmentation ideal, and its associated graded algebra is computed by Jennings' theorem — the entry point to modular group cohomology.

Computer algebra

Meataxe and module decomposition

When kG is local there is nothing to split: the regular module is indecomposable and decomposition algorithms terminate immediately. That base case is what recursive splitting routines over general kG reduce to.

The honest framing: locality of kG is a rare event, and its value lies in being the extreme opposite of the semisimple case. Between the two extremes sits everything interesting in modular representation theory, and both endpoints are used as reference points.

13Computational Notes

Computational notes cover algorithms, cost and library behaviour rather than manufacturing process.

  • Deciding locality of kG for an explicitly given finite group is trivial computationally: factor |G| and compare with chark. No algebra computation is needed, which is unusual for a ring-theoretic property.
  • Computing rad(kG) in the local case costs nothing — it is the codimension-one augmentation ideal — while in the general modular case it requires a radical computation on an algebra of dimension |G|.
  • The nilpotency index of I(kG) for a p-group is not read off from |G|; Jennings' theorem expresses it through the dimension subgroup series, and implementations in GAP compute it from the Jennings series rather than by multiplying ideals.
  • For large p-groups the dimension |G| makes dense linear algebra impractical; practical systems work with the Jennings filtration and with basis-free representations of the augmentation ideal.

Why the modular case is expensive and the local case is not

Everything hard about kG lives in the semisimple quotient and in the lifting of its idempotents. When kG is local that quotient is k, there are no idempotents to lift, and the algorithms have nothing to do.

14Failure Modes and Common Mistakes

Characteristic dividing |G| is not enough

𝔽3S3 has 3∣6, is not semisimple, and is still not local — its semisimple quotient is 𝔽3×𝔽3. Locality needs G itself to be a p-group, not merely to have order divisible by p.

The trivial group is a genuine exception

The equivalence with *chark=p and G a p-group* requires G≠1. For G=1, kG=k is local in every characteristic, including 0. Stating the theorem without that hypothesis makes it false.

Over a coefficient ring the radical need not be nilpotent

ℤ(p)G for a p-group is local by (19.11), but its radical contains p, which is not nilpotent. Conclusions that quietly assume completely primary — for example that the module category has finite length — fail here.

  • Do not assume rad(kG) equals the augmentation ideal outside the p-group case; in general it is the smaller ideal rad(kG)⊊I(kG), and for chark∤|G| it is zero.
  • Do not read Dickson's theorem as constraining all indecomposable modules; it constrains the principal — that is, projective — indecomposables.
  • Do not apply (19.31) without the splitting-field hypothesis; over a non-splitting field the multiplicities involve the endomorphism division rings of the irreducibles.
  • Do not confuse Op(G), the largest normal p-subgroup, with a Sylow subgroup. The ideal generated by {h−1:h∈Op(G)} lies in rad(kG), but the corresponding statement for a non-normal Sylow subgroup is false.

15Historical Notes and Lessons Learned

  • 1898MaschkeMaschke proves that kG is semisimple when chark does not divide |G| — the theorem that confines local group algebras to the modular case.
  • 1900sDicksonDickson initiates modular representation theory and proves the divisibility of the dimensions of principal indecomposables by the order of a Sylow p-subgroup.
  • 1935–1950sBrauerBrauer builds modular character theory and block theory, in which the p-group case functions as the extreme local example and defect groups measure the distance from it.
  • 1941JenningsJennings determines the associated graded algebra of the augmentation ideal filtration for a p-group in characteristic p, pinning down the nilpotency index.
  • 1950s–1960sIntegral representationsThe study of lattices over ℤpG and ℤG turns (19.11) into a working tool: locality of the p-adic group ring is what makes reduction and lifting arguments available.

The historical pattern is instructive. Maschke's theorem is a statement about when representation theory is easy; the local case is a statement about when it is maximally hard in a controlled way. Almost every technique in modular representation theory is a way of interpolating between the two by restricting to p-subgroups, where locality is restored.

16Quick Reference

CriterionkG local ⇔ chark=p>0 and G a p-group (G≠1)
Radicalrad(kG)=I(kG), of codimension 1
Residue ringkG/rad(kG)≅k
Nilpotency(radkG)|G|=0; exact index by Jennings
Key identity(g−1)pa=gpa−1=0 for g of order pa
Coefficient ringsRG local for (R,𝔪) local with char(R/𝔪)=p
Consequencef.g. projectives free; |H|∣dimkU for principal indecomposables
ObstructionAn element of order prime to chark yields a non-nilpotent g−1
Numbered results used on this page
ReferenceStatementHypotheses
(8.8)G acts trivially on every simple kG-modulechark=p, G a finite p-group
(19.10)kG local, rad=I(kG), (rad)|G|=0chark=p, G a finite p-group
(19.11)RG local with residue ring k(R,𝔪) local, chark=p, G a p-group
(19.19)Local ⇔ no nontrivial idempotentR≠0 right artinian
(19.29)f.g. projectives are freeR local
(19.30)|H| divides dimkUU principal indecomposable, H Sylow p
(19.31)Multiplicity divisible by the p-part of |G|k a splitting field, chark=p

17Frequently Asked Questions

Why does kG fail to be local as soon as some element has order prime to the characteristic?

If g has prime order q≠chark then k⟨g⟩≅k[x]/(xq−1) is semisimple and commutative, hence a product of fields with no nonzero nilpotents, so g−1 is a non-nilpotent element of the augmentation ideal. But if kG were local its radical would be the augmentation ideal and, kG being artinian, would be nilpotent.

Is kG local when chark=p divides |G| but G is not a p-group?

No. 𝔽3S3 is the smallest instructive example: it is not semisimple, but its radical has codimension 2 and the semisimple quotient 𝔽3×𝔽3 supplies a nontrivial idempotent. What survives is that the Sylow subalgebra 𝔽3A3 is local, and that is what the theory uses.

Does the group have to be finite?

Yes for the statements here. For infinite groups kG is not artinian, the augmentation ideal has infinite codimension in no useful sense, and determining rad(kG) is a deep problem — for many infinite groups it is not even known whether the radical vanishes.

What is the exact nilpotency index of the augmentation ideal?

(19.10) guarantees only that it is at most |G|. The exact value is determined by Jennings' theory via the dimension subgroup series; for C2×C2 over 𝔽2 it is 3, while for the cyclic group Cpn over 𝔽p it is exactly pn=|G|.

Why does (19.11) need Nakayama's Lemma?

To show 𝔪V≠V for a simple module V. Simplicity makes V cyclic over A=RG and therefore finitely generated over R, which is exactly the hypothesis Nakayama needs. Once 𝔪V≠V, simplicity upgrades it to 𝔪V=0 and the problem drops to the residue field.

Is a local group ring always completely primary?

Over a field, yes: kG is finite-dimensional, so its radical is nilpotent. Over a local coefficient ring, no: ℤ(p)Cp is local, but its radical contains p and is not nil.

18Related KEVOS Topics

Group Rings in Characteristic pIn characteristic p the obstruction to rad kG = 0 is torsion of order p. A trace-and-orbit argument of Passman and ConneNormal p-Subgroups and rad kGIn characteristic p, a normal p-subgroup acts trivially on every simple kG-module. The group elements h with h - 1 ∈ radLocal RingsA nonzero ring is local when it has exactly one maximal left ideal — equivalently, exactly one maximal right ideal, eqExamples of Local RingsDivision rings, twisted power series, constant-diagonal triangular matrices, exterior algebras and group algebras of finStrongly Indecomposable ModulesA module is strongly indecomposable when its endomorphism ring is local. That is strictly more than being indecomposab

19References

  1. T. Y. Lam, A First Course in Noncommutative Rings, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 131, Springer-Verlag, 1991, §19 (pp. 294–310), especially (19.10), (19.11), (19.30), (19.31) and Exercise 19.4; also §8 for (8.8).
  2. D. S. Passman, The Algebraic Structure of Group Rings, Wiley-Interscience, 1977 (radicals of group rings, augmentation ideals and the modular case).
  3. C. W. Curtis and I. Reiner, Methods of Representation Theory, Volume I, Wiley, 1981 (modular representations, principal indecomposables and integral representations).
  4. S. A. Jennings, “The structure of the group ring of a p-group over a modular field”, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 50 (1941), 175–185.
  5. J. L. Alperin, Local Representation Theory, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics 11, Cambridge University Press, 1986.
  6. L. E. Dickson, “On the group defined for any given field by the multiplication table of any given finite group”, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 3 (1902), 285–301.

20AI Suggested Questions

  • State and prove Jennings' theorem on the graded algebra associated with the augmentation ideal filtration.
  • How is rad(kG) described when G has a normal p-subgroup but is not itself a p-group?
  • What is known about rad(kG) for an infinite group G, and what does the semiprimitivity problem for group algebras say?
  • Work out the principal indecomposable modules of 𝔽2A4 and check Dickson's divisibility explicitly.
  • How does the theory of vertices and sources use locality of kH for p-subgroups H?
  • For which finite groups G and fields k is kG semiperfect but not local, and what are the principal indecomposables?
  • Explain how (19.11) underpins reduction-and-lifting arguments for lattices over ℤpG.
Page
KEVOS-ENG-MATH-NCR-0146
Path
Engineering / Mathematics
Template
kevos-knowledge-article-v2
KEVOS® Knowledge Library — reviewed 2026-08-08

On this page

  1. Executive Summary
  2. Overview
  3. Learning Objectives
  4. Definitions
  5. Core Concepts
  6. Key Results
  7. Proof Techniques and Method
  8. Worked Example
  9. Process and Workflow
  10. Comparison and Classification
  11. Relationship Map
  12. Applications and Industry Use
  13. Computational Notes
  14. Failure Modes and Common Mistakes
  15. Historical Notes and Lessons Learned
  16. Quick Reference
  17. Frequently Asked Questions
  18. Related KEVOS Topics
  19. References
  20. AI Suggested Questions

Continue learning

Projective Modules over Local Rings Are FreeArticle · Engineering MathematicsNEXT LESSON →Semilocal Rings: Definition and ExamplesArticle · Engineering MathematicsThe Krull–Schmidt TheoremArticle · Engineering MathematicsThe Radical and Quotients of Semilocal RingsArticle · Engineering Mathematics
KEVOS · Engineering, manufacturing and project improvement
ArticlesServicesCase studiesAboutContact
© 2026 KEVOS®