Math. J. Okayama Univ. 59 (2017), 131–140

HIGHER-DIMENSIONAL ABSOLUTE VERSIONSOF SYMMETRIC, FROBENIUS,AND QUASI-FROBENIUS ALGEBRAS
Mitsuyasu Hashimoto
Abstract. In this paper, we define and discuss higher-dimensional andabsolute versions of symmetric, Frobenius, and quasi-Frobenius algebras. In particular, we compare these with the relative notions defined by Scheja and Storch. We also prove the validity of codimension
two-argument for modules over a coherent sheaf of algebras with a 2canonical module, generalizing a result of the author.

1.

Introduction(1.1) Let (R, m) be a semilocal Noetherian commutative ring, and Λ amodule-finite R-algebra. In [6], we defined the canonical module KΛ of Λ.
The purpose of this paper is two fold, each of which is deeply related to KΛ .
(1.2) In the first part, we define and discuss higher-dimensional and absolute notions of symmetric, Frobenius, and quasi-Frobenius algebras and their
non-Cohen–Macaulay versions. In commutative algebra, the non-Cohen–
Macaulay version of Gorenstein ring is known as quasi-Gorenstein rings.
What we discuss here is a non-commutative version of such rings. Scheja
and Storch [7] discussed a relative notion, and our definition is absolute in
the sense that it depends only on Λ and is independent of the choice ofR. If R is local, our quasi-Frobenius property agrees with Gorensteinness
discussed by Goto and Nishida [1], see Proposition 3.6 and Corollary 3.7.
(1.3) In the second part, we show that the codimension-two argument
using the existence of 2-canonical modules in [4] is also still valid in noncommutative settings. For the definition of an n-canonical module, see (2.8).
Codimension-two argument, which states (roughly speaking) that removing
a closed subset of codimension two or more does not change the category ofcoherent sheaves which satisfy Serre’s (S20 ) condition, is sometimes used inalgebraic geometry, commutative algebra and invariant theory. For example,
information on the canonical sheaf and the class group is retained when weremove the singular locus of a normal variety over an algebraically closed
field, and then these objects are respectively grasped as the top exterior
Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 16E65; Secondary 14A15.
Key words and phrases. canonical module, symmetric algebra, Frobenius algebra,
quasi-Frobenius algebra, n-canonical module.
131

132

MITSUYASU HASHIMOTO

power of the cotangent bundle and the Picard group of a smooth variety. In[4], almost principal bundles are studied. They are principal bundles after
removing closed subsets of codimension two or more.
We prove the following. Let X be a locally Noetherian scheme, U an
open subset of X such that codimX (X \ U ) ≥ 2. Let i : U → X be theinclusion. Let Λ be a coherent OX -algebra. If X possesses a 2-canonicalmodule ω, then the inverse image i∗ induces the equivalence between the
category of coherent right Λ-modules which satisfy the (S20 ) condition andthe category of coherent right i∗ Λ-modules which satisfy the (S20 ) condition.
The quasi-inverse is given by the direct image i∗ . What was proved in [4]was the case that Λ = OX . If, moreover, ω = OX (that is to say, X satisfy
the (S2 ) and (G1 ) condition), then the assertion has been well-known, see[3].
(1.4) 2-canonical modules are ubiquitous in algebraic geometry. If I is adualizing complex of a Noetherian scheme X, then the lowest non-vanishingcohomology group of I is semicanonical. A rank-one reflexive sheaf over anormal variety is 2-canonical.
(1.5) Section 2 is for preliminaries. Section 3 is devoted to the discussionof the first theme mentioned in the paragraph (1.2), while Section 4 is forthe second theme mentioned in (1.3).
(1.6) Acknowledgments: Special thanks are due to Professor Osamu Iyama
for valuable advice and discussion.
The essential part of this paper has first appeared as [5, sections 9–10].
When it is published as [6], they have been removed after the requirement
to shorten the paper (also, the title has been changed slightly). Here we
revive them as an independent paper.
2.

Preliminaries(2.1) Throughout this paper, R denotes a Noetherian commutative ring.
For a module-finite R-algebra Λ, a Λ-module means a left Λ-module. Λop
denotes the opposite algebra of Λ, and thus a Λop -module is identified with aright Λ-module. A Λ-bimodule means a Λ ⊗R Λop -module. The category offinite Λ-modules is denoted by Λ mod. The category Λop mod is also denotedby mod Λ.
(2.2) Let (R, m) be semilocal and Λ be a module-finite R-algebra. For an
R-module M , the m-adic completion of M is denoted by M̂ . For a finite
Λ-module M , by dim M or dimΛ M we mean dimR M , which is independentof the choice of R. By depth M or depthΛ M we mean depthR (m, M ), whichis independent of R. We say that M is globally Cohen–Macaulay (GCM forSYMMETRIC, FROBENIUS, AND QUASI-FROBENIUS ALGEBRAS

133

short) if dim M = depth M . We say that M is globally maximal Cohen–
Macaulay (GMCM for short) if dim Λ = depth M . If R happens to be local,
then M is GCM (resp. GMCM) if and only if M is Cohen–Macaulay (resp.
maximal Cohen–Macaulay) as an R-module.
(2.3) For M ∈ Λ mod, we say that M satisfies (Sn0 )Λ,R , (Sn0 )R or (Sn0 ) if
depthRP MP ≥ min(n, htR P ) for every P ∈ Spec R (this notion depends onR).
(2.4) Let X be a locally Noetherian scheme and Λ a coherent OX -algebra.
For a coherent Λ-module M, we say that M satisfies (Sn0 ) or (Sn0 )Λ,X , orsometimes M ∈ (Sn0 )Λ,X , if depthOX,x Mx ≥ min(n, dim OX,x ) for everyx ∈ X.
(2.5) Assume that (R, m) is complete semilocal, and Λ 6= 0 a modulefinite R-algebra. Let I be a normalized dualizing complex of R. The lowestinon-vanishing cohomology group Ext−s
R (Λ, I) (ExtR (Λ, I) = 0 for i < −s)is denoted by KΛ , and is called the canonical module of Λ. If Λ = 0, thenwe define that KΛ = 0. For basics on the canonical modules, we refer thereader to [6]. Note that KΛ depends only on Λ, and is independent of R.
(2.6) Assume that (R, m) is semilocal which may not be complete. We
say that a finitely generated Λ-bimodule K is a canonical module of Λ if K̂
is isomorphic to the canonical module KΛ̂ as a Λ̂-bimodule. It is unique up
to isomorphisms, and denoted by KΛ . We say that K ∈ mod Λ is a right(resp. left) canonical module of Λ if K̂ is isomorphic to KΛ̂ in mod Λ̂ (resp.
Λ̂ mod). If KΛ exists, then K is a right canonical module if and only if
K∼= KΛ in mod Λ.
(2.7) We say that ω is an R-semicanonical right Λ-module if for any P ∈Spec R, RP ⊗R ω is the right canonical module RP ⊗R Λ for any P ∈ suppR ω.
(2.8) Let C ∈ mod Λ. We say that C is an n-canonical right Λ-module
over R if C ∈ (Sn0 )R , and for each P ∈ Spec R with ht P < n, we have that
CP is an RP -semicanonical right ΛP -module.
3.

Symmetric and Frobenius algebras(3.1) Let (R, m) be a Noetherian semilocal ring, and Λ a module-finite
R-algebra. Let KΛ denote the canonical module of Λ, see [6].
We say that Λ is quasi-symmetric if Λ is the canonical module of Λ. Thatis, Λ ∼= KΛ as Λ-bimodules. It is called symmetric if it is quasi-symmetricand GCM. Note that Λ is quasi-symmetric (resp. symmetric) if and only ifΛ̂ is so. Note also that quasi-symmetric and symmetric are absolute notion,

134

MITSUYASU HASHIMOTO

and is independent of the choice of R in the sense that the definition does
not change when we replace R by the center of Λ, because KΛ is independentof the choice of R.
(3.2) For (non-semilocal) Noetherian ring R, we say that Λ is locally quasisymmetric (resp. locally symmetric) over R if for any P ∈ Spec R, ΛP is
a quasi-symmetric (resp. symmetric) RP -algebra. This is equivalent to saythat for any maximal ideal m of R, Λm is quasi-symmetric (resp. symmetric),see [6, (7.6)].
In the case that (R, m) is semilocal, Λ is locally quasi-symmetric (resp.
locally symmetric) over R if it is quasi-symmetric (resp. symmetric), but
the converse is not true in general.
Lemma 3.3. Let (R, m) be a Noetherian semilocal ring, and Λ a modulefinite R-algebra. Then the following are equivalent.
1 ΛΛ is the right canonical module of Λ.
2 Λ Λ is the left canonical module of Λ.
Proof. We may assume that R is complete. Then replacing R by a Noether
normalization of R/ annR Λ, we may assume that R is regular and Λ is afaithful R-module.
We prove 1⇒2. By [6, Lemma 5.10], KΛ satisfies (S20 )R . By assumption, ΛΛ satisfies (S20 )R . As R is regular and dim R = dim Λ, KΛ = Λ∗ =HomR (Λ, R). So we get an R-linear map
ϕ : Λ ⊗R Λ → R

such that ϕ(ab ⊗ c) = ϕ(a ⊗ bc) and that the induced map h : Λ → Λ∗given by h(a)(c) = ϕ(a ⊗ c) is an isomorphism (in mod Λ). Now ϕ induces
a homomorphism h0 : Λ → Λ∗ in Λ mod given by h0 (c)(a) = ϕ(a ⊗ c). To
verify that this is an isomorphism, as Λ and Λ∗ are reflexive R-modules,
we may localize at a prime P of R of height at most one, and then take acompletion, and hence we may further assume that dim R ≤ 1. Then Λ is a
finite free R-module, and the matrices of h and h0 are transpose each other.
As the matrix of h is invertible, so is that of h0 , and h0 is an isomorphism.
2⇒1 follows from 1⇒2, considering the opposite ring.

Definition 1. Let (R, m) be semilocal. We say that Λ is a pseudo-Frobenius
R-algebra if the equivalent conditions of Lemma 3.3 are satisfied. If Λ is
GCM in addition, then it is called a Frobenius R-algebra. Note that thesedefinitions are independent of the choice of R. Moreover, Λ is pseudoFrobenius (resp. Frobenius) if and only if Λ̂ is so. For a general R, we saythat Λ is locally pseudo-Frobenius (resp. locally Frobenius) over R if ΛP ispseudo-Frobenius (resp. Frobenius) for P ∈ Spec R.

SYMMETRIC, FROBENIUS, AND QUASI-FROBENIUS ALGEBRAS

135

Lemma 3.4. Let (R, m) be semilocal. Then the following are equivalent.
1 (KΛ̂ )Λ̂ is projective in mod Λ̂.
2 Λ̂ (KΛ̂ ) is projective in Λ̂ mod,where ˆ? denotes the m-adic completion.
Proof. We may assume that (R, m, k) is complete regular local and Λ is afaithful R-module. Let ¯? denote the functor k⊗R ?. Then Λ̄ is a finite dimensional k-algebra. So mod Λ̄ and Λ̄ mod have the same number of simple
modules, say n. An indecomposable projective module in mod Λ is nothing but the projective cover of a simple module in mod Λ̄. So mod Λ andΛ mod have n indecomposable projectives. Now HomR (?, R) is an equivalence between add(KΛ )Λ and add Λ Λ. It is also an equivalence between
add Λ (KΛ ) and add ΛΛ . So both add(KΛ )Λ and add Λ (KΛ ) also have n indecomposables. So 1 is equivalent to add(KΛ )Λ = add ΛΛ . 2 is equivalent
to add Λ (KΛ ) = add Λ Λ. So 1⇔2 is proved simply applying the duality
HomR (?, R).
(3.5) Let (R, m) be semilocal. If the equivalent conditions in Lemma 3.4
are satisfied, then we say that Λ is pseudo-quasi-Frobenius. If it is GCM
in addition, then we say that it is quasi-Frobenius. These definitions are
independent of the choice of R. Note that Λ is pseudo-quasi-Frobenius(resp. quasi-Frobenius) if and only if Λ̂ is so.
Proposition 3.6. Let (R, m) be semilocal. Then the following are equivalent.
1 Λ is quasi-Frobenius.
2 Λ is GCM, and dim Λ = idim Λ Λ, where idim denotes the injective
dimension.
3 Λ is GCM, and dim Λ = idim ΛΛ .
Proof. 1⇒2. By definition, Λ is GCM. To prove that dim Λ = idim Λ Λ, we
may assume that R is local. Then by [1, (3.5)], we may assume that R iscomplete. Replacing R by the Noetherian normalization of R/ annR Λ, we
may assume that R is a complete regular local ring of dimension d, and Λ
its maximal Cohen–Macaulay (that is, finite free) module. As add Λ Λ =add Λ (KΛ ) by the proof of Lemma 3.4, it suffices to prove idim Λ (KΛ ) =d. Let IR be the minimal injective resolution of the R-module R. ThenJ = HomR (Λ, IR ) is an injective resolution of KΛ = HomR (Λ, R) as a leftΛ-module. As the length of J is d andExtdΛ (Λ/mΛ, KΛ ) ∼= ExtdR (Λ/mΛ, R) 6= 0,
we have that idim Λ (KΛ ) = d.

136

MITSUYASU HASHIMOTO

2⇒1. We may assume that R is complete regular local and Λ is maximal
Cohen–Macaulay. By [1, (3.6)], we may further assume that R is a field.
Then Λ Λ is injective. So (KΛ )Λ = HomR (Λ, R) is projective, and Λ is quasiFrobenius, see [8, (IV.3.7)].
1⇔3 is proved similarly.
Corollary 3.7. Let R be arbitrary. Then the following are equivalent.
1 For any P ∈ Spec R, ΛP is quasi-Frobenius.
2 For any maximal ideal m of R, Λm is quasi-Frobenius.
3 Λ is a Gorenstein R-algebra in the sense that Λ is a Cohen–Macaulay
R-module, and idimΛP ΛP ΛP = dim ΛP for any P ∈ Spec R.
Proof. 1⇒2 is trivial.
2⇒3. By Proposition 3.6, we have idim Λm Λm = dim Λm for each m. Thenby [1, (4.7)], Λ is a Gorenstein R-algebra.
3⇒1 follows from Proposition 3.6.
(3.8) Let R be arbitrary. We say that Λ is a quasi-Gorenstein R-algebra
if ΛP is pseudo-quasi-Frobenius for each P ∈ Spec R.
Definition 2 (Scheja–Storch [7]). Let R be general. We say that Λ issymmetric (resp. Frobenius) relative to R if Λ is R-projective, and Λ∗ :=HomR (Λ, R) is isomorphic to Λ as a Λ-bimodule (resp. as a right Λ-module).
It is called quasi-Frobenius relative to R if the right Λ-module Λ∗ is projective.
Lemma 3.9. Let (R, m) be local.
1 If dim Λ = dim R, R is quasi-Gorenstein, and Λ∗ ∼= Λ as Λ-bimodules∗∗∼(resp. Λ = Λ as right Λ-modules, Λ is projective as a right Λmodule), then Λ is quasi-symmetric (resp. pseudo-Frobenius, pseudoquasi-Frobenius).
2 Assume that R is Gorenstein. If Λ is symmetric (resp. Frobenius,
quasi-Frobenius) relative to R, then Λ is symmetric (resp. Frobenius,
quasi-Frobenius).
3 If Λ is nonzero and R-projective, then Λ is quasi-symmetric (resp.
pseudo-Frobenius, pseudo-quasi-Frobenius) if and only if R is quasiGorenstein and Λ is symmetric (resp. Frobenius, quasi-Frobenius)
relative to R.
4 If Λ is nonzero and R-projective, then Λ is symmetric (resp. Frobenius, quasi-Frobenius) if and only if R is Gorenstein and Λ is symmetric (resp. Frobenius, quasi-Frobenius) relative to R.
Proof. We can take the completion, and we may assume that R is complete
local.

SYMMETRIC, FROBENIUS, AND QUASI-FROBENIUS ALGEBRAS

137

1. Let d = dim Λ = dim R, and let I be the normalized dualizing complex(see [6, (5.2)]) of R. Then−d∼KΛ = Ext−d(I)) ∼= Hom(Λ, KR ) ∼= Hom(Λ, R) = Λ∗R (Λ, I) = HomR (Λ, Has Λ-bimodules, and the result follows.
2. We may assume that Λ is nonzero. As R is Cohen–Macaulay and Λ isa finite projective R-module, Λ is a maximal Cohen–Macaulay R-module.
By 1, the result follows.
3. The ‘if’ part follows from 1. We prove the ‘only if’ part. As Λ is
R-projective and nonzero, dim Λ = dim R. As Λ is R-finite free, KΛ ∼=HomR (Λ, KR ) ∼= Λ∗ ⊗R KR . As KΛ is R-free and Λ∗ ⊗R KR is nonzero
and is isomorphic to a direct sum of copies of KR , we have that KR is Rprojective, and hence R is quasi-Gorenstein, and KR ∼= R. Hence KΛ ∼= Λ∗ ,and the result follows.
4 follows from 3 easily.
(3.10) Let (R, m) be semilocal. Let a finite group G act on Λ by Ralgebra automorphisms.
Let Ω = Λ ∗ G, the twisted group algebra. That is,LΩ = Λ ⊗R RG = g∈G Λg as an R-module, and the product of Ω is givenby (ag)(a0 g 0 ) = (a(ga0 ))(gg 0 ) for a, a0 ∈ Λ and g, g 0 ∈ G. This makes Ω amodule-finite R-algebra.
(3.11) We simply call an RG-module a G-module. We say that M isa (G, Λ)-module if M is a G-module, Λ-module, the R-module structures
coming from that of the G-module structure and the Λ-module structureagree, and g(am) = (ga)(gm) for g ∈ G, a ∈ Λ, and m ∈ M . A (G, Λ)module and an Ω-module are one and the same thing.
(3.12) By the action ((a ⊗ a0 )g)a1 = a(ga1 )a0 , we have that Λ is a (Λ ⊗Λop ) ∗ G-module in a natural way. So it is an Ω-module by the action(ag)a1 = a(ga1 ). It is also a right Ω-module by the action a1 (ag) = g −1 (a1 a).
If the action of G on Λ is trivial, then these actions make an Ω-bimodule.
(3.13) Given an Ω-module M and an RG-module V , M ⊗R V is an Ωmodule by (ag)(m ⊗ v) = (ag)m ⊗ gv. HomR (M, V ) is a right Ω-module by(ϕ(ag))(m) = g −1 ϕ(a(gm)). It is easy to see that the standard isomorphism
HomR (M ⊗R V, W ) → HomR (M, HomR (V, W ))is an isomorphism of right Ω-modules for a left Ω-module M and G-modules
V and W .
(3.14) Now consider the case Λ = R. Then the pairing φ : RG⊗R RG → R
given by φ(g ⊗g 0 ) = δgg0 ,e (Kronecker’s delta) is non-degenerate, and induces

138

MITSUYASU HASHIMOTO

an RG-bimodule isomorphism Ω = RG → (RG)∗ = Ω∗ . As Ω = RG is a
finite free R-module, we have that Ω = RG is symmetric relative to R.
Lemma 3.15. If Λ is quasi-symmetric (resp. symmetric) and the action of
G on Λ is trivial, then Ω is quasi-symmetric (resp. symmetric).
Proof. Taking the completion, we may assume that R is complete. Then
replacing R by a Noether normalization of R/ annR Λ, we may assume that
R is a regular local ring, and Λ is a faithful R-module. As the action of G
on Λ is trivial, Ω = Λ ⊗R RG is quasi-symmetric (resp. symmetric), as canbe seen easily.
(3.16) In particular, if Λ is commutative quasi-Gorenstein (resp. Gorenstein) and the action of G on Λ is trivial, then Ω = ΛG is quasi-symmetric(resp. symmetric).
(3.17)

In general, Ω Ω ∼= Λ ⊗R RG as Ω-modules.

Lemma 3.18. Let M and N be right Ω-modules, and let ϕ : M → N be ahomomorphism of right Λ-modules. Then ψ : M ⊗ RG → N ⊗ RG given byψ(m ⊗ g) = g(ϕ(g −1 m)) ⊗ g is an Ω-homomorphism. In particular,
1 If ϕ is a Λ-isomorphism, then ψ is an Ω-isomorphism.
2 If ϕ is a split monomorphism in mod Λ, then ψ is a split monomorphism in mod Ω.
Proof. Straightforward.

Proposition 3.19. Let G be a finite group acting on Λ. Set Ω := Λ ∗ G.
1 If the action of G on Λ is trivial and Λ is quasi-symmetric (resp.
symmetric), then so is Ω.
2 If Λ is pseudo-Frobenius (resp. Frobenius), then so is Ω.
3 If Λ is pseudo-quasi-Frobenius (resp. quasi-Frobenius), then so is Ω.
Proof. 1 is Lemma 3.15. To prove 2 and 3, we may assume that (R, m) is
complete regular local and Λ is a faithful module.
2.
(KΩ )Ω ∼= HomR (Λ ⊗R RG, R) ∼= HomR (Λ, R) ⊗ (RG)∗ ∼= KΛ ⊗ RG
as right Ω-modules. It is isomorphic to ΛΩ ⊗ RG ∼= ΩΩ by Lemma 3.18, 1,
since KΛ ∼= Λ in mod Λ. Hence Ω is pseudo-Frobenius. If, in addition, Λ is
Cohen–Macaulay, then Ω is also Cohen–Macaulay, and hence Ω is Frobenius.
3 is proved similarly, using Lemma 3.18, 2.
Note that the assertions for Frobenius and quasi-Frobenius properties also
follow easily from Lemma 3.9 and [7, (3.2)].

SYMMETRIC, FROBENIUS, AND QUASI-FROBENIUS ALGEBRAS

4.

139

Codimension-two argument(4.1) This section is the second part of this paper. In this section, weshow that the codimension-two argument using the existence of 2-canonicalmodules in [4] is still valid in non-commutative settings, as announced in(1.3).
(4.2) Let X be a locally Noetherian scheme, U its open subscheme, andΛ a coherent OX -algebra. Let i : U ,→ X be the inclusion.
(4.3) Let M ∈ mod Λ. That is, M is a coherent right Λ-module. Thenby restriction, i∗ M ∈ mod i∗ Λ.
(4.4)

For a quasi-coherent i∗ Λ-module N , we have an action1⊗ua→ i∗ N ,i∗ N ⊗OX Λ −−→ i∗ N ⊗OX i∗ i∗ Λ → i∗ (N ⊗OU i∗ Λ) −where u is the unit map for the adjoint pair (i∗ , i∗ ). So we get a functori∗ : Mod i∗ Λ → Mod Λ, where Mod i∗ Λ (resp. Mod Λ) denote the categoryof quasi-coherent i∗ Λ-modules (resp. Λ-modules).
Lemma 4.5. Let the notation be as above. Assume that U is large in X
op(that is, codimX (X \ U ) ≥ 2). If M ∈ (S20 )Λ ,X , then the canonical map
u : M → i∗ i∗ M is an isomorphism.
Proof. Follows immediately from [4, (7.31)].



Proposition 4.6. Let the notation be as above, and let U be large in X.
Assume that there is a 2-canonical right Λ-module. Then we have the following.
∗ op
op
1 If N ∈ (S20 )i Λ ,U , then i∗ N ∈ (S20 )Λ ,X .
op
∗
op
∗ op
op
2 i∗ : (S20 )Λ ,X → (S20 )i Λ ,U and i∗ : (S20 )i Λ ,U → (S20 )Λ ,X are
quasi-inverse each other.
Proof. The question is local, and we may assume that X is affine.
1. There is a coherent subsheaf Q of i∗ N such that i∗ Q = i∗ i∗ N = N
by [2, Exercise II.5.15]. Let V be the Λ-submodule of i∗ N generated by Q.
That is, the image of the composite
Q ⊗OX Λ → i∗ N ⊗OX Λ → i∗ N .

Note that V is coherent, and i∗ Q ⊂ i∗ V ⊂ i∗ i∗ N = i∗ Q = N .
Let C be a 2-canonical right Λ-module. Let ?† := HomΛop (?, C), Γ =EndΛ C, and ?‡ := HomΓ (?, C). Let M be the double dual V †‡ . Thenop
M ∈ (S20 )Λ ,X , and henceM∼= i∗ i∗ M ∼= i∗ i∗ (V †‡ ) ∼= i∗ (i∗ V)†‡ ∼= i∗ (N †‡ ) ∼= i∗ N .
op
So i∗ N ∼= M lies in (S20 )Λ ,X .

140

MITSUYASU HASHIMOTO

2 follows from 1 and Lemma 4.5 immediately.



References[1] S. Goto and K. Nishida, Towards a theory of Bass numbers with applications to Gorenstein algebras, Colloq. Math., 91 (2002), 191–253.
[2] R. Hartshorne, Algebraic Geometry, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 52, Springer
Verlag 1977.
[3] R. Hartshorne, Generalized divisors on Gorenstein schemes, K-Theory, 8 (1994), 287–
339.
[4] M. Hashimoto, Equivariant class group. III. Almost principal fiber bundles,
arXiv:1503.02133v1[5] M. Hashimoto, Canonical and n-canonical modules on a Noetherian algebra,
arXiv:1508.07552v1[6] M. Hashimoto, Canonical and n-canonical modules of a Noetherian algebra, to appear
in Nagoya Math. J.
[7] G. Scheja and U. Storch, Quasi-Frobenius-Algebren und lokal vollständige Durchschnitte, Manuscripta Math., 19 (1976), 75–104. Addendum: 20 (1977), 99–100.
[8] A. Skowroński and K. Yamagata, Frobenius Algebras. I., Basic Representation Theory,
European Mathematical Society 2011.
Mitsuyasu Hashimoto
Department of Mathematics
Faculty of Science
Okayama University
Okayama, 700-8530 Japane-mail address: mh@okayama-u.ac.jp(Received June 10, 2016 )(Accepted August 8, 2016 )