text:
# Multi-symplectic Birkhoffian Structure for PDEs with Dissipation Terms Supported by the Special Funds for Major State Basic Research Projects , G 1999, 032800

## 1 Introduction

The multi-symplectic Hamilton’s Equation is proposed first time by Bridges in 1997. Birkhoff’s Equation is named by Santilli, who just discussed $`1`$-dimensional cases. We return to multi-symplectic Hamilton’s Equation, and we just discuss $`1+1`$-dimensional cases. It is a local concept of symplecticity for Hamiltonian systems. The concept can be abstracted as follows. Let $`M`$ and $`K`$ be any skew symmetric matrices on $`^n(n3)`$ and Let $`S:^n`$ be any smooth function. Then we will call a system of the following form a Hamiltonian system on a multi-symplectic structure,

$$Mz_t+Kz_x=_zS(z,x,t),z^n,(x,t)^2,$$
(1)
where the general gradient $`_z`$ is defined with respect to the standard inner product on $`^n`$, denoted by $`<,>`$. Associated $`M`$ and $`K`$ are the so-called pre-symplectic forms

$$\omega (U,V)=<MU,V>,\kappa (U,V)=<KU,V>.$$
(2)
The two $`2`$-forms $`\omega `$ and $`\kappa `$ define two symplectic structure on $`^m(m=\text{rank}Mn)`$ and $`^k(k=\text{rank}Kn)`$ respectively. The pair $`(\omega ,\kappa )`$ satisfies conservation of symplecticity

$$\frac{}{t}\omega +\frac{}{x}\kappa =0.$$
(3)
A multi-symplectic integrator is numerical approximation of equation (1)

$$Mt^{i,j}z_{i,j}+Kx^{i,j}z_{i,j}=(_zS(z_{i,j},x_i,t_j))_{i,j},\text{where}z_{i,j}=z(x_i,t_j),$$
(4)
which has a discrete conservation law as

$$t^{i,j}\omega _{i,j}+x^{i,j}\kappa _{i,j}=0.$$
(5)
The problem with this type to abstract and to discrete the systems or PDEs is that it is subject to conservative systems or nonconservative systems without dissipation terms. A more general multi-symplectic structure is to represent some nonconservative systems with dissipation terms, since,—different from form (1)—,symplecticity may depend on time variables explicitly, and the right hand is a gradient function (vector function) plus a dissipation terms.

Similarly, let $`M(z,x,t)`$ and $`K(z,x,t)`$ are skew symmetric metrics on $`^n2`$, and $`B;^n\times ^2`$ be any smooth function. Then a Birkhoffian system under the following multi-symplectic structure is given

$$M(z,x,t)z_t+K(z,x,t)z_x=_zB(z,x,t)+\frac{F}{t}+\frac{G}{x},$$
(6)
where $`M`$ and $`F`$, $`K`$ and $`G`$ are independent. We will show their relationship in the next section.

Structure (6) is interesting for two reasons: it is a natural generalization of structure (1) as well as Birkhoff’s representation for ODEs to PDEs, and it can be used to develop symplectic numerical integrators for nonconservative systems with dissipation terms. For example, consider the equation describe a linear damped string

$$u_{tt}u_{xx}+u+\alpha u_t+\beta u_x=0.$$
(7)
we introduce the new variables $`p`$ and $`q`$, defined below, and equation (7) is rewritten as first-order form

$$u_t=p,u_x=q,p_tq_x+u+2p=0,$$
(8)
or, with $`z=(u,p,q)^\text{T}^3`$, we obtain a multi-symplectic Birkhoff’s equations (ds1.6), where

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \text{e}^{\alpha t\beta x}& 0\\ \text{e}^{\alpha t\beta x}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),K=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& \text{e}^{\alpha t\beta x}\\ 0& 0& 0\\ \text{e}^{\alpha t\beta x}& 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(9)
and

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill F=(\frac{1}{2}e^{\alpha t\beta x}p,\frac{1}{2}e^{\alpha t\beta x}u,0)^\text{T},0),\\ \hfill G=(\frac{1}{2}e^{\alpha t\beta x}q,0,\frac{1}{2}e^{\alpha t\beta x}u,0)^\text{T}),\\ \hfill B=\frac{1}{2}\text{e}^{\alpha t\beta x}[u^2+p^2q^2+\alpha up+\beta uq].\end{array}$$
(10)
We now show an outline of the paper. In section 2 we introduce accurate definition of multi-symplectic Birkhoff’s equations. From the point of inverse variational problem we discuss the conditions of self-adjointness for Birkhoff’s equations. This leads naturally to a variational principle. In section 3, we introduce continuous and discrete dissipation laws of symplecticity, energy and momentum, then give definition of multi-symplectic Birkhoffian integrator. In section 4,we consider equation (7) to illustrate how a multi-symplectic Birkhoffian integrator to preserve the discrete version of the dissipation laws.

## 2 Multi-symplectic Birkhoff’s Equation

The general multi-symplectic structure we shall study is given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}& [\frac{F_\nu (z,x,t)}{z^\mu }\frac{F_\mu (z,x,t)}{z^\nu }]\frac{z_\nu }{t}+[\frac{G_\nu (z,x,t)}{z^\mu }\frac{G_\mu (z,x,t)}{z^\nu }]\frac{z_\nu }{x}\hfill \\ & [\frac{B(z,x,t)}{z^\mu }+\frac{F_\mu (z,x,t)}{t}+\frac{G_\mu (z,x,t)}{x}]=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
Equations (11) are called multi-symplectic Birkhoff’s equations. Why using this name is reviewed in Ref.. The function $`B(z,x,t)`$ is called Birkhoffian. A representation of a system via multi-symplectic Birkhoff’s equations is called a multi-symplectic Birkhoffian representation, and the system is called multi-symplectic system.

Now we consider a general first-order form in the self-explanatory unified notation

$$M_{\mu \nu }(z,x,t)z_t^\nu +K_{\mu \nu }z_x^\nu +D_mu(z,x,t)=0.$$
(12)
We give the conditions of variational self-adjointness for equation (12) as follows.

###### Theorem 2.1.

(self-adjointness of the covariant general form) A necessary and sufficient condition for equations (11) to be self-adjoint in a region $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$ of points (z,x,t) is that all the following conditions

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill M_{\mu \nu }+M_{\nu \mu }=0,K_{\mu \nu }+K_{\nu \mu }=0,\\ \hfill \frac{M_{\mu \nu }}{z^\tau }+\frac{M_{\nu \tau }}{z^\mu }+\frac{M_{\tau \mu }}{z^\nu },\frac{K_{\mu \nu }}{z^\tau }+\frac{K_{\nu \tau }}{z^\mu }+\frac{K_{\tau \mu }}{z^\nu },\\ \hfill \frac{M_{\mu \nu }}{t}=\frac{D}{z^\nu }\frac{D}{z^\mu },\frac{K_{\mu \nu }}{t}=\frac{D}{z^\nu }\frac{D}{z^\mu },\end{array}$$
(13)
are identically verified in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}`$.

Note that the conditions of self-adjointness are formulated for the covariant form because this is the form derivable from a variational principle which is the most general possible first-order action functional given by the pfaffian action

$$\mathrm{\pounds }(\stackrel{~}{E})=\underset{t_1}{\overset{t_2}{}}\underset{x_1}{\overset{x_2}{}}\text{d}t\text{d}x[F\nu (z,x,t)z_t^\nu +G_\nu (z,x,t)z_x^\nu B(z,x,t)](\stackrel{~}{E}).$$
(14)
Strip away the integral from $`\mathrm{\pounds }(\stackrel{~}{E})`$ in (14), define a general Lagrange density $`=F\nu (z,x,t)z_t^\nu +G_\nu (z,x,t)z_x^\nu B(z,x,t)`$. It doesn’t exist a Legendre transformation (including conjugate momenta ) leads reduction from the Lagrange equation to Hamilton’s equation. While from the variational principle we can write a Birkhoff’s equation directly, and for any self-adjoint covariant system, a variational principle can be constructed.

###### Proposition 2.1.

(Self-adjointness of Birkhoff’s Equations). Necessary and sufficient condition for a general first order system ($`ds2.2`$) to be self-adjoint is that it is of the Birkhoffian type, i.e.,

$$\begin{array}{cc}& M_{\mu \nu }(z,x,t)z_t^\nu +K_{\mu \nu }z_x^\nu +D_mu(z,x,t)=\hfill \\ & [\frac{F_\nu (z,x,t)}{z^\mu }\frac{F_\mu (z,x,t)}{z^\nu }]\frac{z_\nu }{t}+[\frac{G_\nu (z,x,t)}{z^\mu }\frac{G_\mu (z,x,t)}{z^\nu }]\frac{z_\nu }{x}\hfill \\ & [\frac{B(z,x,t)}{z^\mu }+\frac{F_\mu (z,x,t)}{t}+\frac{G_\mu (z,x,t)}{x}]=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
## 3 Multi-symplecticity Dissipation Laws and Multi-symplectic Integrators

The multi-symplectic Birkhoff’s equations (11) determines 2 $`two`$-forms $`\omega `$ and $`kappa`$. Since

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \frac{}{t}\omega (U,V)=<MU_t,V>+<MU,V_t>+<M_tU,V>,\\ \hfill \frac{}{x}\kappa (U,V)=<KU_x,V>+<KU,V_x>+<K_xU,V>,\end{array}$$
(16)
one obtains

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{}{t}\omega (U,V)+\frac{}{x}\kappa (U,V)& =<MU_t+KU_x,V><U,MV_t+KV_x>+<M_tU+K_xU,V>\hfill \\ & =<F_{zt}U+G_{zx}U,V><F_{zt}V+G_{zx}V,U>\hfill \\ & =0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
This statement is true for any solution pair $`(U,V)`$ and we write is as

$$_t\omega +_x\kappa =0.$$
(18)
This is different from the conservation law (3), —although they look like each other—, since that $`M_t0`$ and $`K_x0`$. Therefore we define this law as a multi-symplectic dissipation law for Birkhoffian system, and in the next section this definition will be verified very natural.

The numerical framework is start from the Birkhoff’s equation (11) with the associated dissipation law of symplecticity (18). The idea is to develop a numerical scheme to approximate equations (11) and it also preserve a discrete version of dissipation of symplecticity. A numerical discretization of (18) can be written schematically as

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill M_{i,j}_t^{i,j}z_{i,j}+K_{i,j}_x^{i,j}z_{i,j}& =(_zS(z_{i,j},x_i,t_j))_{i,j}+(_tF(z_{i,j},x_i,t_j))_{i,j}\hfill \\ & +(_xG(z_{i,j},x_i,t_j))_{i,j},z_{i,j}=z(x_i,t_j),\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
and $`_t^{i,j}`$ and $`_x^{i,j}`$ are discretizations of the derivatives $`_t`$ and $`_x`$ respectively. A discrete version of the dissipation law can be written as follows

$$_t^{i,j}\omega _{i,j}+_x^{i,j}\kappa _{i,j}=0,$$
(20)
where

$$\omega _{i,j}=<M_{i,j}U_{i,j},V_{i,j}>,\kappa _{i,j}=<K_{i,j}U_{i,j},V_{i,j}>.$$
(21)
###### Definition 3.1.

The numerical scheme determined by equation ($`refds3.5`$) is called a multi-symplectic integrator if discrete law (21) is a dissipation law for equations (20).

## 4 example

We consider the following equation

$$u_{tt}u_{xx}+u+2u_t=0.$$
(22)
it has a multi-symplectic Birkhoffian representation that has structure

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \text{e}^{2t}& 0\\ \text{e}^{2t}& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),K=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& \text{e}^{2t}\\ 0& 0& 0\\ \text{e}^{2t}& 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(23)
and

$$\frac{1}{2}\text{e}^{2t}[u^2+p^2q^2+2up].$$
(24)
It has a dissipation law

$$\frac{\text{d}}{\text{d}t}(\text{d}p\text{d}u)+\frac{\text{d}}{\text{d}x}(\text{d}q\text{d}u)=2\text{d}p\text{d}u,$$
(25)
using the conditions of self-adjointness, the dissipation law can be rewritten as

$$frac\text{d}\text{d}t(\text{e}^{2t}\text{d}p\text{d}u)+\frac{\text{d}}{\text{d}x}(\text{e}^{2t}\text{d}q\text{d}u)=0.$$
(26)
Approximating the equation (22) in Birkhoffian structure as follows

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \frac{\text{e}^{\delta t}p_{i+1/2,j+1}\text{e}^{\delta t}p_{i+1/2,j}}{\delta t}+\frac{q_{i+1,j+1/2}q_{i,j+1/2}}{\delta x}=u_{i+1/2,j+1/2},\\ \hfill \frac{u_{i+1/2,j+1}u_{i+1/2,j}}{\delta t}=p_{i+1/2,j+1/2},\\ \hfill \frac{u_{i+1,j+1/2}u_{i,j+1/2}}{\delta t}=q_{i+1/2,j+1/2},\end{array}$$
(27)
where

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill p_{i+1/2,j+1/2}=\frac{1}{4}\text{e}^{\delta t}(p_{i+1,j+1}+p_{i,j+1})+\frac{1}{4}\text{e}^{\delta t}(p_{i+1,j}+p_{i,j}),\\ \hfill u_{i+1/2,j+1/2}=\frac{1}{4}(u_{i+1,j+1}+u_{i,j+1}+u_{i+1,j}+u_{i,j}),\\ \hfill q_{i+1/2,j+1/2}=\frac{1}{4}(u_{i+1,j+1}+u_{i,j+1}+u_{i+1,j}+u_{i,j}).\end{array}$$
(28)
Discrete the dissipation law (23) directly by using the same scheme, we get

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{\text{e}^{\delta t}\text{d}p_{i+1/2,j+1}\text{d}u_{i+1/2,j+1}\text{e}^{\delta t}\text{d}p_{i+1/2,j}\text{d}u_{i+1/2,j}}{\delta t}\hfill \\ & \frac{\text{d}q_{i+1,j+1/2}\text{d}u_{i+1,j+1/2}\text{d}q_{i,j+1/2}\text{d}u_{i,j+1/2}}{\delta x}=0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(29)
From the discrete equations (25), we also can construct the dissipation, i.e. (29) is a symplectic dissipation law for equations (25). So the scheme determined by equations (25) is a multi-symplectic integrator for Birkhoff’s equations of system (22).


format: text

text:
# Morita Contexts for Corings and EquivalencesMSC (2000): 16D90, 16S40, 16W30, 13B02 Keywords: Morita Contexts, Hopf Algebras, (Cleft) Galois Extensions, Entwining Structures, Entwined Modules.

## Introduction

Let $`𝒞`$ be a coring over a not necessarily commutative ring $`A`$ and assume $`A`$ to be a right $`𝒞`$-comodule through $`\varrho _A:AA_A𝒞𝒞,`$ $`a𝐱a`$ for some group-like element $`𝐱𝒞`$ (see \[Brz02, Lemma 5.1\]). In the first section we study from the viewpoint of Morita theory the relationship between $`A`$ and its subring of coinvariants $`B:=A^{co𝒞}:=\{bA\varrho (b)=b𝐱\}.`$ We consider the $`A`$-ring $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞:=\mathrm{Hom}_A(𝒞,A)`$ and its left ideal $`Q:=\{q`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞c_1q(c_2)=q(c)𝐱`$ for all $`c𝒞\}`$ and show that $`B`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ are connected via a Morita context using $`{}_{B}{}^{}A_{{}_{}{}^{}𝒞}^{}`$ and $`{}_{{}_{}{}^{}𝒞}{}^{}Q_{B}^{}`$ as connecting bimodules. Our Morita context is in fact a generalization of Doi’s Morita context presented in \[Doi94\].

In the second section we introduce the weak (resp. the strong) structure theorem for $`^𝒞.`$ For the case $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ is locally projective, in the sense of B. Zimmermann-Huignes, we characterize $`A`$ being a generator (a progenerator) in the category of right $`𝒞`$-comodules by $`^𝒞`$ satisfying the weak (resp. the strong) structure theorem. Here the notion of Galois corings introduced by T. Brzeziński \[Brz02\] plays an important role. The results and proofs are essentially module theoretic and similar to those of \[MZ97\] for the catgeory $`(H)_A^C`$ of Doi-Koppinen modules corresponding to a right-right Doi-Koppinen structure $`(H,A,C)`$ (see also \[MSTW01\] for the case $`C=H`$).

The notion of a $`C`$-Galois extension $`A`$ of a ring $`B`$ was introduced by T. Brzeziński and S. Majid in \[BM98\] and is related to the so called entwining structures introduced in the same paper. In the third section we give equivalent conditions for a $`C`$-Galois extension $`A/B`$ to be cleft. Our results generalize results of \[Brz99\] from the case of a base field to the case of a commutative ground ring. In the special case $`\varrho (a)=a_\psi x^\psi ,`$ for some group-like element $`xC,`$ we get a complete generalization of \[DM92, Theorem 1.5 \] (and \[Doi94, Theorem 2.5\]).

With $`A`$ we denote a not necessarily commutative ring with $`1_A0_A`$ and with $`_A`$ (resp. $`{}_{A}{}^{},`$ $`{}_{A}{}^{}_{A}^{}`$) the category of *unital* right $`A`$-modules (resp. left $`A`$-modules, $`A`$-bimodules). For every right $`A`$-module $`W`$ we denote by $`\mathrm{Gen}(W_A)`$ (resp. $`\sigma [W_A]`$) the class of $`W`$-generated (resp. $`W`$-subgenerated) right $`A`$-modules. For the well developed theory of categories of type $`\sigma [W]`$ the reader is referred to \[Wis88, Section 15\].

An $`A`$-module $`W`$ is called locally projective (in the sense of B. Zimmermann-Huignes \[Z-H76\]), if for every diagram

with exact rows and $`F`$ f.g.: for every $`A`$-linear map $`g:WN,`$ there exists an $`A`$-linear map $`g^{}:WL`$, such that the entstanding parallelogram is commutative. Note that every projective $`A`$-module is locally projective. By \[Z-H76, Theorem 2.1\] a left $`A`$-module $`W`$ is locally projective, iff for every right $`A`$-module $`M`$ the following map is injective

$$\alpha _M^W:M_AW\mathrm{Hom}_A(^{}W,M),\text{ }m_Aw[fmf(w)].$$

It’s easy then to see that every locally projective $`A`$-module is flat and $`A`$-cogenerated.

Let $`𝒞`$ be an $`A`$-coring. We consider the canonical $`A`$-bimodule $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞:=\mathrm{Hom}_A(𝒞,A)`$ as an $`A`$-ring with the canonical $`A`$-bimodule structure, multiplication $`(fg)(c):=g(c_1f(c_2))`$ and unity $`\epsilon _𝒞.`$ If $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ is locally projective, then we have an isomorphism of categories $`^𝒞\sigma [𝒞_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞]`$ (in particular $`^𝒞_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ is a full subcategory) and we have a left exact functor $`\mathrm{Rat}^𝒞():_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞^𝒞`$ assigning to every right $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$-module its maximum $`𝒞`$*-rational* $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$-submodule, which turns to be a right $`𝒞`$-comodule. Moreover $`^𝒞=_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ iff $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ is f.g. and projective. For more investigation of the $`𝒞`$-rational $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$-modules see \[Abu03\].

After this paper was finished, it turned out that some results in this paper were discovered independently by S. Caenepeel, J. Vercruysse and S. Wang \[CVW04\].

## 1 Morita Contexts

In this section we fix the following: $`𝒞`$ is an $`A`$-coring with group-like element $`𝐱`$and $`A`$ is a right $`𝒞`$-comodule with structure map

$$\varrho _A:AA_A𝒞𝒞,\text{ }a𝐱a$$

(e.g. \[Brz02, Lemma 5.1\]), hence $`A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ with $`ag:=a_{<0>}g(a_{<1>})=g(𝐱a)`$ for all $`aA`$ and $`g`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞.`$ For $`M_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ put

$$M^𝐱:=\{mMmg=mg(𝐱)\text{ for all }g\text{ }^{}𝒞\}.$$

In particular $`A^𝐱:=\{aAag=ag(𝐱)`$ for all $`g`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞\}A`$ is a subring. For $`M^𝒞`$ we set

$$M^{co𝒞}:=\{mM\varrho (m)=m_A𝐱\}M^𝐱.$$

Obviously $`B:=A^{co𝒞}=\{bAb𝐱=𝐱b\}A^𝐱`$ is a subring and $`\varrho _A`$ is $`(B,A)`$-bilinear. For $`M^𝒞`$ we have $`M^{co𝒞}_B.`$ Moreover we set

$$Q:=\{q\text{ }^{}𝒞c_1q(c_2)=q(c)𝐱\text{ for all }c𝒞\}(^{}𝒞)^𝐱.$$

###### Lemma 1.1.

1. For every right $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$-module $`M`$ we have an isomorphism of right $`B`$-modules

$$\omega _M:\mathrm{Hom}_^{}𝒞(A,M)M^𝐱,\text{ }ff(1_A)$$

with inverse $`m[ama].`$
2. Let $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ be locally projective. If $`M^𝒞,`$ then $`M^{co𝒞}=M^𝐱\mathrm{Hom}_^{}𝒞(A,M)=\mathrm{Hom}^𝒞(A,M).`$ Hence

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_M:M^{co𝒞}_BAM,\text{ }m_Bama$$

is surjective *(*resp. injective, bijective*)*, iff

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_M^{}:\mathrm{Hom}^𝒞(A,M)_BAM,\text{ }f_Baf(a)$$

is surjective *(*resp. injective, bijective*)*.
3. We have $`\mathrm{Hom}_^{}𝒞(A,^{}𝒞)(^{}𝒞)^𝐱.`$ If moreover $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ is $`A`$-cogenerated *(*resp. locally projective and $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}𝒞:=\mathrm{Rat}^𝒞(^{}𝒞_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞)`$*)*, then $`Q=(^{}𝒞)^𝐱`$ *(*resp. $`Q=(^{\mathrm{}}𝒞)^{co𝒞}`$*)*.
4. For every $`M_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ *(*resp. $`M^𝒞`$*)* and all $`mM,`$ $`qQ`$ we have $`mqM^𝐱`$ *(*resp. $`mqM^{co𝒞}`$*)*.

###### Proof.

1. Obvious.
2. Trivial.
3. Considering $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ as a right $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$-module via right multiplication we get $`\mathrm{Hom}_^{}𝒞(A,^{}𝒞)(^{}𝒞)^𝐱`$ by (1). If $`q`$ $`(^{}𝒞)^𝐱,`$ then we have for all $`g`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ and $`c𝒞:`$

$$g(c_1q(c_2))=g(c_1q(c_2))=(qg)(c)=(qg(𝐱))(c)=q(c)g(𝐱)=g(q(c)𝐱),$$

i.e. $`c_1q(c_2)q(c)𝐱Re(𝒞,A)`$ $`:=\{\mathrm{Ke}(g)g\mathrm{Hom}_A(𝒞,A)\}.`$ If $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ is $`A`$-cogenerated, then $`Re(𝒞,A)=0,`$ hence $`Q=(^{}𝒞)^𝐱.`$

Assume $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ to be locally projective. Then we have for all $`qQ,g`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ and $`c𝒞:`$

$$(qg)(c)=g(c_1q(c_2))=g(q(c)𝐱)=q(c)g(𝐱)=(qg(𝐱))(c),$$

hence $`q`$ $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}𝒞,`$ with $`\varrho (q)=q_A𝐱,`$ i.e. $`q`$ $`(^{\mathrm{}}𝒞)^{co𝒞}.`$ On the other hand, if $`q(^{\mathrm{}}𝒞)^{co𝒞},`$ then for all $`g`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ we have $`qg=qg(𝐱),`$ i.e. $`q(^{}𝒞)^𝐱=Q.`$
4. Let $`M_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞.`$ Then we have for all $`qQ,`$ $`g`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ and $`mM:`$

$$(mq)g=m(qg)=m(qg(𝐱))=(mq)g(𝐱),$$

i.e. $`mqM^𝐱.`$ If $`M^𝒞,`$ then we have for all $`mM`$ and $`qQ:`$

| $`\varrho _M(mq)`$ | $`=`$ | $`\varrho _M(m_{<0>}q(m_{<1>}))`$ |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`=`$ | $`m_{<0><0>}_Am_{<0><1>}q(m_{<1>})`$ |  |  |
|  | $`=`$ | $`m_{<0>}_Am_{<1>1}q(m_{<1>2})`$ |  |  |
|  | $`=`$ | $`m_{<0>}_Aq(m_{<1>})𝐱`$ |  |  |
|  | $`=`$ | $`m_{<0>}q(m_{<1>})_A𝐱`$ |  |  |
|  | $`=`$ | $`mq_A𝐱,`$ |  |  |

i.e. $`mqM^{co𝒞}.\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 1.2.

1. With the canonical actions $`A`$ is a $`(B,^{}𝒞)`$-bimodule.
2. $`Q`$ is a $`(^{}𝒞,B)`$-bimodule.

###### Proof.

1. By assumption $`A^𝒞_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞.`$ For all $`bB,`$ $`aA`$ and $`g`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ we have

$$b(ag)=bg(𝐱a)=g(b(𝐱a))=g(𝐱(ba))=(ba)g.$$
2. For all $`aA,`$ $`qQ`$ and $`c𝒞`$ we have

$$c_1(aq)(c_2)=c_1q(c_2a)=(ca)_1q((ca)_2)=q(ca)𝐱=(aq)(c)𝐱.$$

For all $`qQ,`$ $`bB`$ and $`c𝒞`$ we have

$$c_1(qb)(c_2)=c_1q(c_2)b=q(c)𝐱b=q(c)b𝐱=(qb)(c)𝐱.$$

On the other hand we have for all $`qQ,`$ $`g`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ and $`c𝒞:`$

| $`c_1(gq)(c_2)`$ | $`=`$ | $`c_1q(c_{21}g(c_{22}))`$ | $`=`$ | $`c_{11}q(c_{12}g(c_2))`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`=`$ | $`c_{11}(g(c_2)q)(c_{12})`$ | $`=`$ | $`(g(c_2)q)(c_1)𝐱`$ |
|  | $`=`$ | $`q(c_1g(c_2))𝐱`$ | $`=`$ | $`(gq)(c)𝐱.`$ |

Moreover we have for all $`bB,`$ $`qQ,`$ $`g`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ and $`c𝒞:`$

| $`((gq)b)(c)`$ | $`=`$ | $`(gq)(c)b`$ | $`=`$ | $`q(c_1g(c_2))b`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`=`$ | $`(qb)(c_1g(c_2))`$ | $`=`$ | $`(gqb)(c).\mathrm{}`$ |

###### Theorem 1.3.

Keep the notation above fixed.

1. $`(A^𝐱,^{}𝒞,A,(^{}𝒞)^𝐱,\stackrel{~}{F},\stackrel{~}{G})`$ is a Morita context derived form $`A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞,`$ where

| $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ | $`:`$ | $`(^{}𝒞)^𝐱_{A^𝐱}A`$ | $``$ | $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞,`$ | $`q_{A^𝐱}a`$ | $``$ | $`qa,`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ | $`:`$ | $`A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞(^{}𝒞)^𝐱`$ | $``$ | $`A^𝐱,`$ | $`a_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞q`$ | $``$ | $`aq.`$ |
2. $`(B,^{}𝒞,A,Q,F,G)`$ is a Morita context, where

| $`F`$ | $`:`$ | $`Q_BA`$ | $``$ | $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞,`$ | $`q_Ba`$ | $``$ | $`qa,`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`G`$ | $`:`$ | $`A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞Q`$ | $``$ | $`B,`$ | $`a_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞q`$ | $``$ | $`aq.`$ |

If moreover $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ is locally projective, then the two Morita contexts coincide.

###### Proof.

1. By Lemma 1.1 we have $`\mathrm{End}(A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞)A^𝐱,`$ $`(^{}𝒞)^𝐱\mathrm{Hom}_^{}𝒞(A,^{}𝒞)`$ and the result follows by \[Fai81, Proposition 12.6\].
2. By Lemma 1.2 $`A`$ is a $`(B,^{}𝒞)`$-bimodule and $`Q`$ is a $`(^{}𝒞,B)`$-bimodule. For all $`qQ,g`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞,`$ $`aA`$ and $`c𝒞`$ we have

$$F(gq_Ba)(c)=q(c_2g(c_1))a=(gqa)(c)=(gF(q_Ba))(c)$$

and

| $`F(q_Bag)(c)`$ | $`=`$ | $`q(c)(ag)`$ | $`=`$ | $`q(c)g(𝐱a)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`=`$ | $`g(q(c)𝐱a)`$ | $`=`$ | $`g(c_1q(c_2)a)`$ |
|  | $`=`$ | $`g(c_1(qa)(c_2))`$ | $`=`$ | $`(F(q_Ba)g)(c),`$ |

hence $`F`$ is $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$-bilinear. Note that by Lemma 1.1 $`G`$ is well defined and is obviously $`B`$-bilinear. Moreover we have for all $`a,\stackrel{~}{a}A`$ and $`q,\stackrel{~}{q}Q`$ the following associativity relations:

| $`(F(q_Ba)\stackrel{~}{q})(c)`$ | $`=`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{q}(c_1q(c_2)a)`$ | $`=`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{q}(q(c)𝐱a)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`=`$ | $`q(c)\stackrel{~}{q}(𝐱a)`$ | $`=`$ | $`(qG(a_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞\stackrel{~}{q}))(c),`$ |
| $`G(a_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞q)\stackrel{~}{a}`$ | $`=`$ | $`q(𝐱a)\stackrel{~}{a}`$ | $`=`$ | $`(q\stackrel{~}{a})(𝐱a)`$ |
|  | $`=`$ | $`F(q_B\stackrel{~}{a})(𝐱a)`$ | $`=`$ | $`aF(q_B\stackrel{~}{a}).`$ |

If $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ is locally projective, then $`A^𝐱=A^{co𝒞},`$ $`(^{}𝒞)^𝐱=Q`$ by Lemma 1.1 and the two contexts coincide.$`\mathrm{}`$

###### 1.4.

\[Brz02, Definition 5.3\] An $`A`$-coring $`𝒞`$ is said to be Galois, if there exists an $`A`$-coring isomorphism $`\chi :A_BA𝒞`$ such that $`\chi (1_A_B1_A)=𝐱.`$ Recall that $`A_BA`$ is an $`A`$-coring with the canonical $`A`$-bimodule structure, comultiplication

$$\mathrm{\Delta }:A_BA(A_BA)_A(A_BA),\text{ }\stackrel{~}{a}_Ba(\stackrel{~}{a}_B1_A)_A(1_A_Ba)$$

and counity $`\epsilon _{A_BA}:A_BAA,`$ $`\stackrel{~}{a}_Ba\stackrel{~}{a}a.`$

###### 1.5.

Consider the functors

$$()^{co𝒞}:^𝒞_B\text{ and }_BA:_B^𝒞.$$

By \[Brz02, Proposition 5.2\] $`(_BA,()^{co𝒞})`$ is an adjoint pair of covariant functors, where the adjunctions are given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_N:N(N_BA)^{co𝒞},\text{ }nn_B1_A$$
(1)
and

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_M:M^{co𝒞}_BAM,\text{ }m_Bama.$$
(2)
If $`\mathrm{\Psi }_M`$ is an isomorphism for all $`M^𝒞,`$ then we say $`^𝒞`$ satisfies the weak structure theorem. If in addition $`\mathrm{\Phi }_N`$ is an isomorphism for all $`N_B,`$ then we say $`^𝒞`$ satisfies the strong structure theorem (in this case $`()^{co𝒞}`$ and $`_BA`$ give an equivalence of categories $`^𝒞_B`$).

###### 1.6.

Let $`W_A`$ and consider the canonical right $`𝒞`$-comodule $`W_A𝒞.`$ Then $`W(W_A𝒞)^{co𝒞}`$ via $`ww_A𝐱`$ with inverse $`w_Acw\epsilon _𝒞(c)`$ and we define

$$\beta _W:=\mathrm{\Psi }_{W_A𝒞}:W_BAW_A𝒞,\text{ }w_Baw_A𝐱a.$$
(3)
In particular we have for $`W=A`$ the morphism of $`A`$-corings

$$\beta :=\mathrm{\Psi }_{A_A𝒞}:A_BAA_A𝒞𝒞,\text{ }\stackrel{~}{a}_Ba\stackrel{~}{a}𝐱a.$$
(4)
If $`\beta `$ is bijective, then $`𝒞`$ is a Galois $`A`$-coring and we call the ring extension $`A/B`$ $`𝒞`$-Galois.

###### Theorem 1.7.

For the Morita context $`(B,^{}𝒞,A,Q,F,G)`$ the following statements are equivalent:

1. $`G:A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞QB`$ is surjective *(*bijective and $`B=A^𝐱`$*)*;
2. there exists $`\widehat{q}Q,`$ such that $`\widehat{q}(𝐱)=1_A;`$
3. for every right $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$-module $`M`$ we have a $`B`$-module isomorphism $`M_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞QM^𝐱.`$
4. for every right $`𝒞`$-comodule $`M`$ we have $`M_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞QM^{\mathrm{𝐜𝐨}𝒞}`$ as $`B`$-modules.

If moreover $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ is locally projective, then *(1)-(4)* are moreover equivalent to:
5. $`A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ is *(*f.g.*)* projective.

###### Proof.

(1) $``$ (2). Assume $`G`$ to be surjective. Then there exist $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_k`$ and $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_kQ,`$ such that $`G(\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}a_i_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞q_i)=1_A.`$ Set $`\widehat{q}:=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}a_iq_iQ.`$ Then we have

$$\widehat{q}(𝐱)=(\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}a_iq_i)(𝐱)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}q_i(𝐱a_i)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(a_iq_i)=G(\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}a_i_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞q_i)=1_A.$$

(2) $``$ (3). Consider the $`B`$-module morphism

$$\xi _M:M_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞QM^𝐱,\text{ }m_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞qmq.$$

Let $`\widehat{q}Q`$ with $`\widehat{q}(𝐱)=1_A`$ and define $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_M:M^𝐱M_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞Q,`$ $`mm_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞\widehat{q}.`$ For every $`nM^𝐱`$ we have

$$(\xi _M\stackrel{~}{\xi }_M)(n)=\xi _M(n_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞\widehat{q})=n\widehat{q}=n\widehat{q}(𝐱)=n.$$

On the other hand we have for all $`mM`$ and $`qQ:`$

| $`(\stackrel{~}{\xi }_M\xi _M)(m_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞q)`$ | $`=`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_M(mq)`$ | $`=`$ | $`mq_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞\widehat{q}`$ | $`=`$ | $`m_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞q\widehat{q}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`=`$ | $`m_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞q\widehat{q}(𝐱)`$ | $`=`$ | $`m_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞q,`$ |  |  |

i.e. $`\xi _M`$ is bijective with inverse $`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_M.`$

(3) $``$ (4). Let $`M^𝒞.`$ By Lemma 1.1 we have $`\xi _M(M_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞Q)M^{co𝒞}M^𝐱.`$ By assumption $`\xi _M:A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞QM^𝐱`$ is bijective. Hence $`M^𝐱=M^{co𝒞}`$ and $`M_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞Q\stackrel{\xi _M}{}M^{co𝒞}.`$

(4) $``$ (1) We are done since $`G=\xi _A.`$

Assume $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ to be locally projective.

Then $`B\mathrm{End}(A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞),`$ $`Q\mathrm{Hom}_^{}𝒞(A,^{}𝒞)`$ and we get (1) $``$ (5) by \[Fai81, Corollary 12.8\].$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 1.8.

For the Morita context $`(B,^{}𝒞,A,Q,F,G)`$ assume there exists $`\widehat{q}Q`$ with $`\widehat{q}(𝐱)=1_A`$ *(*equivalently $`G:Q_BA`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ is surjective*)*. Then:

1. For every $`N_B,`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_N`$ is an isomorphism.
2. $`B`$ is a left $`B`$-direct summand of $`A.`$

###### Proof.

1. Let $`N_B.`$ Then we have by Theorem 1.7 the isomorphisms $`G:A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞QB`$ and $`\xi _{N_BA}:(N_BA)_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞Q(N_BA)^{co𝒞}.`$ Moreover $`\mathrm{\Phi }_N`$ is given by the canonical isomorphisms

$$NN_BBN_B(A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞Q)(N_BA)_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞Q(N_BA)^{co𝒞}.$$
2. The map $`\mathrm{tr}_A:AB,`$ $`aa\widehat{q}`$ is left $`B`$-linear with $`\mathrm{tr}_A(b)=b`$ for all $`bB.\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 1.9.

For the Morita context $`(B,^{}𝒞,A,Q,F,G)`$ assume there exists $`\widehat{q}Q`$ with $`\widehat{q}(𝐱)=1_A`$ *(*equivalently $`G:Q_BAB`$ is surjective*)*. Then:

1. $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ and $`Q_B`$ are generators.
2. $`A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ and $`{}_{{}_{}{}^{}𝒞}{}^{}Q`$ are f.g. and projective.
3. $`F:Q_BA`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ induces bimodule isomorphisms

$$A\mathrm{Hom}_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞(Q,^{}𝒞)\text{ and }Q\mathrm{Hom}_^{}𝒞(A,^{}𝒞).$$
4. The bimodule structures above induce ring isomorphisms

$$B\mathrm{End}(A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞)\text{ and }B\mathrm{End}(_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞Q)^{op}.$$

###### Proof.

The result follows by standard argument of Morita Theory (e.g. \[Fai81, Proposition 12.7\]).$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 1.10.

Consider the Morita context $`(B,^{}𝒞,A,Q,F,G)`$ and assume that $`F:Q_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞A`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ is surjective. Then:

1. $`A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ is a generator, $`Q\mathrm{Hom}_B(A,B)`$ as bimodules and $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞\mathrm{End}(Q_B).`$
2. $`^𝒞`$ satisfies the weak structure theorem *(*in particular $`A/B`$ is $`𝒞`$-Galois*)*.

###### Proof.

1. The result follows by standard argument of Morita Theory (e.g. \[Fai81, Proposition 12.7\]).
2. By assumption $`\epsilon _𝒞=F(\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}q_i_Ba_i)`$ for some $`\{(q_i,a_i)\}_{i=1}^kQ\times A.`$ In this case $`\mathrm{\Psi }_M:M^{co𝒞}_BAM`$ is bijective with inverse $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M:MM^{co𝒞}_BA,`$ $`m\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}mq_i_Ba_i.`$ In fact, we have for all $`mM,`$ $`nM^{co𝒞}`$ and $`aA:`$

| $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_M\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M)(m)`$ | $`=`$ | $`\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(mq_i)a_i`$ | $`=`$ | $`\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(m_{<0>}q_i(m_{<1>})a_i`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`=`$ | $`\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}m_{<0>}(q_ia_i)(m_{<1>})`$ | $`=`$ | $`\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}m_{<0>}\epsilon _𝒞(m_{<1>})`$ |
|  | $`=`$ | $`m`$ |  |  |

and

| $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M\mathrm{\Psi }_M)(n_Ba)`$ | $`=`$ | $`\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(na)q_i_Ba_i`$ | $`=`$ | $`\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}nq_i(𝐱a)_Ba_i`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`=`$ | $`\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}n_Bq_i(𝐱a)a_i`$ | $`=`$ | $`\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}n_B(q_ia_i)(𝐱a)`$ |
|  | $`=`$ | $`n_B\epsilon _𝒞(𝐱a)`$ | $`=`$ | $`n_Ba.\mathrm{}`$ |

###### Theorem 1.11.

For the Morita context $`(B,^{}𝒞,A,Q,F,G)`$ the following are equivalent:

1. $`F:Q_BA`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ is surjective *(*bijective*)*;
2. (a) $`Q_B`$ is f.g. and projective;

(b) $`\mathrm{\Omega }:A\mathrm{Hom}_B(Q,B),`$ $`a[qaq]`$ is a bimodule isomorphism;

(c) $`{}_{{}_{}{}^{}𝒞}{}^{}Q`$ is faithful.

If $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ is $`A`$-cogenerated, then *(1)* $`\&`$ *(2)* are moreover equivalent to:
3. (a)$`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is f.g. and projective;

(b) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞\mathrm{End}(_BA)^{op},`$ $`g[aag]`$ is a ring isomorphism.
4. $`A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ is a generator.

If moreover $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ is f.g. and projective, then *(1)-(4)* are equivalent to:
5. $`^𝒞`$ satisfies the weak structure theorem.

###### Proof.

The implications (1) $``$ (2), (3), (4) follow without any finiteness conditions on $`𝒞`$ by standard argument of Morita Theory (e.g. \[Fai81, Proposition 12.7\]). Note that $`{}_{{}_{}{}^{}𝒞}{}^{}Q`$ is faithful by the embedding $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞\mathrm{End}(Q_B)`$ (see Proposition 1.10 (1)).

(2) $``$ (1). Let $`\{(q_i,p_i)\}_{i=1}^kQ\times \mathrm{Hom}_B(Q,B)`$ be a dual basis for $`Q_B.`$ By (b) there exist $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_kA,`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }(a_i)=q_i`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},k.`$ For every $`qQ`$ we have then $`(\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}q_ia_i)q=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}q_i(a_iq)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}q_ip_i(q)=q,`$ hence $`\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}q_ia_i=\epsilon _𝒞`$ by (c) and the $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$-bilinear morphism $`F:Q_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞A`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ is surjective.

Assume $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ to be $`A`$-cogenerated.

(3) $``$ (1). Let $`\{(a_i,p_i)\}_{i=1}^kA\times \mathrm{Hom}_B(A,B)`$ be a dual basis of $`{}_{B}{}^{}A.`$ By (b), there exist $`g_1,\mathrm{},g_k`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞,`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(g_i)=p_i`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},k.`$ Claim: $`g_1,\mathrm{},g_kQ.`$ For all $`f`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ and $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$ we have

| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(g_if)(a)`$ | $`=`$ | $`a(g_if)`$ | $`=`$ | $`(ag_i)f)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`=`$ | $`p_i(a)f`$ | $`=`$ | $`f(𝐱p_i(a))`$ |
|  | $`=`$ | $`f(p_i(a)𝐱)`$ | $`=`$ | $`p_i(a)f(𝐱)`$ |
|  | $`=`$ | $`(p_if(𝐱))(a)`$ | $`=`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(g_if(𝐱))(a),`$ |

hence $`g_if=g_if(𝐱),`$ i.e. $`g_i`$ $`(^{}𝒞)^𝐱=Q`$ (by Lemma 1.1 (2)). Moreover for every $`aA`$ we have: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}g_ia_i)(a)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}ag_ia_i=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}p_i(a)a_i=a,`$ i.e. $`\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}g_ia_i=\epsilon _𝒞`$ and the $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$-bilinear morphism $`F`$ is surjective.

(4) $``$ (1). Since $`Q\mathrm{Hom}_{\text{ }^{}𝒞}(A,^{}𝒞),`$ we have $`\mathrm{I}m(F)=\mathrm{tr}(A,^{}𝒞):=\{\mathrm{I}m(h):h\mathrm{Hom}_{\text{ }^{}𝒞}(A,^{}𝒞)\},`$ hence $`\mathrm{I}m(F)=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ iff $`A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ is a generator (e.g. \[Wis88, Page 154\]).

Assume $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ to be f.g. and projective.

(1) $``$ (5) follows without any finiteness conditions on $`𝒞`$ by Proposition 1.10 (2).

(5) $``$ (1). Since $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ is f.g. and projective, we have $`^𝒞_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ (e.g. \[Brz02, Lemma 4.3\]), hence $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞^𝒞,`$ $`Q=(^{}𝒞)^{co𝒞}`$ and $`F=\mathrm{\Psi }_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞.\mathrm{}`$

## 2 Galois Extensions and Equivalences

The notation of the first section remains fixed. For every $`M^𝒞`$ we have the $`𝒞`$-colinear morphism

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_M^{}:\mathrm{Hom}^𝒞(A,M)_BAM,\text{ }f_Baf(a).$$

In this section we characterize $`A`$ being a generator (resp. a progenerator) in $`^𝒞`$ under the assumption that $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ is locally projective. Our approach is similar to that of \[MZ97\] and our results generalize those obtained there for the special case of the category of Doi-Koppinen modules $`(H)_A^C.`$

###### Lemma 2.1.

Assume $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ to be locally projective. If $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is flat and $`A/B`$ is $`𝒞`$-Galois, then:

1. $`A`$ is a subgenerator in $`^𝒞,`$ i.e. $`\sigma [A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞]=\sigma [𝒞_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞].`$
2. for each $`M^𝒞,`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_M^{}`$ is injective.
3. for every $`A`$-generated $`M^𝒞,`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_M^{}`$ is an isomorphism.

###### Proof.

Assume $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ to be locally projective.

1. Since $`A/B`$ is $`𝒞`$-Galois, $`\beta ^{}:=\mathrm{\Psi }_𝒞^{}`$ is an isomorphism, hence $`𝒞`$ is $`A`$-generated. Consequently $`\sigma [A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞]\sigma [𝒞_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞]\sigma [A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞],`$ i.e. $`\sigma [A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞]=\sigma [𝒞_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞].`$
2. With slight modifications, the proof of \[MZ97, Lemma 3.22\] applies.
3. If $`M^𝒞`$ is $`A`$-generated, then $`\mathrm{\Psi }_M^{}`$ is surjective, hence bijective by (2).$`\mathrm{}`$

The following result is a generalization of \[Brz99, Proposition 3.13\] (which in turn generalizes \[DT89, Theorem 2.11\]):

###### Proposition 2.2.

Assume $`A/B`$ to be $`𝒞`$-Galois.

1. If $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is flat, then $`^𝒞`$ satisfies the weak structure theorem.
2. Assume there exists $`\widehat{q}Q,`$ such that $`\widehat{q}(𝐱)=1_A.`$ If $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is flat, or for all $`bB`$ and $`c𝒞`$ we have $`\widehat{q}(cb)=q(c)b,`$ then $`^𝒞`$ satisfies the strong structure theorem.

###### Proof.

1. The proof is the first part of the proof of \[Brz02, Theorem 5.6\].
2. By assumption and Corollary 1.8, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_N`$ is an isomorphism for all $`N_B.`$ If $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is flat, then $`^𝒞`$ satisfies the weak structure theorem by (1). On the other hand, if for all $`bB`$ and $`c𝒞`$ we have $`\widehat{q}(cb)=q(c)b,`$ then an analog argument to that in the proof of \[Brz99, Proposition 3.13\] shows that $`^𝒞`$ satisfies the weak structure theorem.$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 2.3.

Assume $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ to be locally projective. Then the following are equivalent:

1. $`^𝒞`$ satisfies the weak structure theorem;
2. $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is flat and $`A/B`$ is $`𝒞`$-Galois;
3. $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is flat and $`\beta ^{}:=\mathrm{\Psi }_𝒞^{}`$ is an isomorphism;
4. $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is flat and for every $`A`$-generated $`M^𝒞,`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_M^{}`$ is bijective;
5. for every $`M^𝒞=\sigma [𝒞_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞],`$ the $`𝒞`$-colinear morphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }_M^{}`$ is bijective;
6. $`\sigma [𝒞_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞]=\mathrm{Gen}(A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞);`$
7. $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is flat, $`\sigma [𝒞_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞]=\sigma [A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞]`$ and $`\mathrm{Hom}_^{}𝒞(A,):\mathrm{Gen}(A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞)_B`$ is full faithful;
8. $`\mathrm{Hom}^𝒞(A,):^𝒞_B`$ is faithful;
9. $`A`$ is a generator in $`^𝒞.`$

###### Proof.

(1) $``$ (5) $`\&`$(2) $``$ (3) follow by Lemma 1.1. The equivalences (4) $``$ (5) $``$ (6) $``$ (7) follow by \[MZ97, Theorem 2.3\]. The equivalence (8) $``$ (9) is evident for any category, and moreover (6) $``$ (9) by the fact that $`\mathrm{Gen}(A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞)\sigma [A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞]\sigma [𝒞_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞]=^𝒞.`$ By Lemma 2.1 we have (3) $``$ (4). Now assuming (1) we conclude that $`A/B`$ is $`𝒞`$-Galois and that $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is flat (since (1) $``$ (5) $``$ (7)), hence (1) $``$ (2) follows and we are done.$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Definition 2.4.

(\[MZ97, Definition 2.4\]) A left module $`P`$ over a ring $`𝒮`$ is called a weak generator, if for any right $`𝒮`$-module $`Y,`$ $`Y_𝒮P=0`$ implies $`Y=0.`$ A right module $`P`$ over a ring $``$ is called quasiprogenerator (resp. progenerator), if $`P_{}`$ is f.g. quasiprojective and generates each of its submodules (resp. $`P_{}`$ is f.g., projective and a generator). $`P_{}`$ is called faithful (resp. balanced), if the canonical morphism $`\mathrm{End}(_{\mathrm{End}(P_{})}P)^{op}`$ is injective (resp. surjective).

###### Theorem 2.5.

Assume $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ to be flat. Then the following are equivalent:

1. $`^𝒞`$ satisfies the strong structure theorem;
2. $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is faithfully flat and $`A/B`$ is $`𝒞`$-Galois.

If moreover $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ is locally projective, then *(1)* $`\&`$ *(2)* are moreover equivalent to:
3. $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is faithfully flat and $`\beta ^{}:=\mathrm{\Psi }_𝒞^{}`$ is bijective;
4. $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is faithfully flat and for every $`M\sigma [A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞],`$ $`\mathrm{\Psi }_M^{}`$ is bijective;
5. $`A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ is quasiprojective and generates each of its submodules, $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is a weak generator and $`\sigma [𝒞_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞]=\sigma [A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞];`$
6. $`A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ is a quasiprogenerator and $`\sigma [𝒞_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞]=\sigma [A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞];`$
7. $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is a weak generator, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_M^{}`$ is an isomorphism for every $`M\mathrm{Gen}(A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞)`$ and $`\sigma [A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞]=\sigma [𝒞_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞];`$
8. $`\mathrm{Hom}^𝒞(A,):^𝒞_B`$ is an equivalence;
9. $`A`$ is a progenerator in $`^𝒞.`$

###### Proof.

(1) $``$(2) is \[Brz02, Theorem 5.6\]. Assume $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ to be locally projective. Then (2) $``$ (3) follows by Lemma 1.1 and we get (1) $``$ (8) $``$ (9) by characterizations of progenerators in categories of type $`\sigma [M]`$ (see \[Wis88, 18.5, 46.2\]). Moreover (4) $``$ (5) $``$ (6) $``$ (7) follow from \[MZ97, Theorem 2.5\]. Obviously (3) $``$ (4) (note that (3) $``$ (2) $``$ (1)). Assume now (4). Then $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is faithfully flat and moreover $`\mathrm{\Psi }_𝒞^{}`$ is bijective, since $`𝒞\sigma [A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞]`$ by (6), i.e. (4) $``$ (3) and the proof is complete.$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 2.6.

Assume $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ to be locally projective. Then $`\mathrm{I}m(F)`$ $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}𝒞.`$ In fact we have for all $`qQ,`$ $`aA,`$ $`g`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ and $`cC:`$

$$((qa)g)(c)=g(c_1q(c_2)a)=g(q(c)𝐱a)=q(c)g(𝐱a)=(qg(𝐱a)(c),$$

hence $`qa`$ $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}𝒞,`$ with $`\varrho (qa)=q_A𝐱a.`$

###### Proposition 2.7.

Assume $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ to be locally projective and that there exists $`\widehat{q}Q`$ with $`\widehat{q}(𝐱)=1_A`$ *(*equivalently $`G:A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞Q`$ $`B`$ is surjective*)*. Then $`^𝒞`$ satisfies the strong equivalence theorem, iff $`\mathrm{I}m(F)=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}𝒞`$ and the following map is surjective for every $`M^𝒞`$

$$\varpi _M:M_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞\text{ }^{\mathrm{}}𝒞M,\text{ }m_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞fmf.$$

In this case $`Q_BA\stackrel{𝐹}{}`$ $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}𝒞`$ and $`M_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}𝒞\stackrel{\varpi _M}{}M`$ for every $`M^𝒞.`$

###### Proof.

Consider for every $`M^𝒞`$ the commutative diagram

Assume $`\mathrm{I}m(F)=`$ $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}𝒞`$ and $`\varpi _M`$ to be surjective for every $`M^𝒞.`$ Then $`\mathrm{\Psi }_M`$ is obviously surjective. Let $`K=\mathrm{Ke}(\mathrm{\Psi }_M).`$ Since $`\mathrm{\Psi }_M`$ is a morphism in $`^𝒞\sigma [𝒞_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞]`$ we have $`K^𝒞,`$ hence $`\mathrm{\Psi }_K:K^{co𝒞}_BAK`$ is surjective. By Theorem 1.7 we have $`K_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞Q\stackrel{\xi _K}{}K^{co𝒞}`$ and $`A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞Q\stackrel{\xi _A}{}B,`$ hence

$$K^{co𝒞}K_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞Q=\mathrm{Ke}(\mathrm{\Psi }_M)_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞Q=\mathrm{Ke}(\mathrm{\Psi }_M_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞id_Q)=\mathrm{Ke}(id_{M^{co𝒞}})=0,$$

i.e. $`\mathrm{\Psi }_M`$ is bijective. By corollary 1.8 $`\mathrm{\Phi }_N`$ is bijective for every $`N_B.`$ Consequently $`^𝒞`$ satisfies the strong structure theorem.

On the other hand, assume that $`^𝒞`$ satisfies the strong structure theorem. Note that $`F`$ is the adjunction of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}𝒞,`$ hence $`Q_BA\stackrel{𝐹}{}`$ $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}𝒞`$ and consequently $`\varpi _M`$ is also bijective for every $`M^𝒞`$ by the commutativity of the above diagram.$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remarks 2.8.

Assume $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ to be locally projective.

1. $`\varpi _A:A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}𝒞A`$ is surjective iff there exists $`\widehat{g}`$ $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}𝒞`$ with $`\widehat{g}(𝐱)=1_A.`$ To prove this assume first that $`\varpi _A`$ is surjective. Then there exist $`\{(a_i,g_i)\}_{i=1}^kA\times `$ $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}𝒞,`$ such that $`\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}a_ig_i=1_A.`$ Set $`\widehat{g}:=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}a_ig_i`$ $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}𝒞.`$ Then $`\widehat{g}(𝐱)=(\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}a_ig_i)(𝐱)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}g_i(𝐱a_i)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}a_ig_i=1_A.`$ On the other hand, assume there exists $`\widehat{g}`$ $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}𝒞`$ with $`\widehat{g}(𝐱)=1_A.`$ Then for every $`aA`$ we have $`1_A(\widehat{g}a)=(\widehat{g}a)(𝐱)=\widehat{g}(𝐱)a=a,`$ i.e. $`\varpi _A`$ is surjective.
2. Assume $`\varpi _A`$ to be surjective. If $`\mathrm{\Psi }_M`$ is surjective for $`M^𝒞,`$ then $`\varpi _M`$ is surjective, since

$$\varpi _M(\mathrm{\Psi }_M_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞id_{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}𝒞)=\mathrm{\Psi }_M(id_{M^{\mathrm{𝐜𝐨}𝒞}}_B\varpi _A).$$

###### Theorem 2.9.

Assume $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ to be f.g. and projective. Then the following are equivalent:

1. $`^𝒞`$ satisfies the weak structure theorem;
2. $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is flat and $`A/B`$ is $`𝒞`$-Galois;
3. $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is flat and $`\beta ^{}:=\mathrm{\Psi }_𝒞^{}`$ is an isomorphism;
4. $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is flat and for every $`A`$-generated $`M^𝒞=_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞,`$ the $`𝒞`$-colinear morphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }_M^{}`$ is bijective;
5. for every $`M^𝒞,`$ the $`𝒞`$-colinear morphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }_M^{}`$ is bijective;
6. $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is flat, $`_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞=\sigma [A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞]`$ and $`\mathrm{Hom}_^{}𝒞(A,):\mathrm{Gen}(A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞)_B`$ is full faithful;
7. $`\mathrm{Hom}_^{}𝒞(A,):_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞_B`$ is faithful;
8. $`A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ is a generator;
9. $`F:Q_BA`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ is surjective *(*bijective*)*;
10. (a) $`Q_B`$ is f.g. and projective;

(b) $`\mathrm{\Omega }:A\mathrm{Hom}_B(Q,B),`$ $`a[qaq]`$ is a bimodule isomorphism;

(c) $`{}_{{}_{}{}^{}𝒞}{}^{}Q`$ is faithful;
11. (a)$`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is f.g. and projective;

(b) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞\mathrm{End}(_BA)^{op},`$ $`g[aag]`$ is a ring isomorphism.

###### Proof.

The result follows by Theorems 1.11, 2.3 and the fact that in case $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ is f.g. and projective $`^𝒞=_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞=\sigma [𝒞_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞].\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 2.10.

*(Morita, e.g. \[Fai81, 4.1.3, 4.3\], \[MZ97, 2.6\]).* Let $``$ be a ring, $`P`$ a right $``$-module, $`𝒮:=\mathrm{End}(P_{})`$ and $`P^{}:=\mathrm{Hom}_{}(P,).`$

1. The following are equivalent:

1. $`P_{}`$ is a generator;
    2. $`{}_{𝒮}{}^{}P`$ is f.g. projective and $`\mathrm{End}(_𝒮P)^{op}`$ canonically.
2. The following are equivalent:

1. $`P_{}`$ is a faithful quasiprogenerator and $`{}_{𝒮}{}^{}P`$ is finitely generated;
    2. $`P_{}`$ is a progenerator;
    3. $`{}_{𝒮}{}^{}P`$ is a progenerator and $`P_{}`$ is faithfully balanced;
    4. $`P_{}`$ and $`{}_{𝒮}{}^{}P`$ are generators;
    5. $`P_{}`$ and $`{}_{𝒮}{}^{}P`$ are f.g. and projective;
    6. $`\mathrm{Hom}_{}(P,):_{}_𝒮`$ is an equivalence with inverse $`\mathrm{Hom}_𝒮(P^{},);`$
    7. $`_{}P^{}:_{}_𝒮`$ is an equivalence with inverse $`_𝒮P.`$

As a consequence of Theorems 2.5 and 2.10 we get

###### Theorem 2.11.

Assume $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ to be f.g. and projective. Then the following are equivalent:

1. $`^𝒞`$ satisfies the strong structure theorem;
2. $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is faithfully flat and $`A/B`$ is $`𝒞`$-Galois;
3. $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is faithfully flat and $`\beta ^{}:=\mathrm{\Psi }_𝒞^{}`$ is bijective;
4. $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is faithfully flat and for every $`M\sigma [A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞],`$ the map $`\mathrm{\Psi }_M^{}`$ is bijective;
5. $`A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ is quasiprojective and generates each of its submodules, $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is a weak generator and $`_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞=\sigma [A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞];`$
6. $`A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ is a quasiprogenerator and $`_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞=\sigma [A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞];`$
7. $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is a weak generator, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_M^{}`$ is an isomorphism for every $`M\mathrm{Gen}(A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞)`$ and $`_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞=\sigma [A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞];`$
8. $`A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ is a faithful quasiprogenerator and $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is finitely generated;
9. $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is a progenerator and $`A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ is faithfully balanced;
10. $`\mathrm{Hom}_^{}𝒞(A,):_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞_B`$ is an equivalence with inverse $`\mathrm{Hom}_B(Q,);`$
11. $`_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞Q:_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞_B`$ is an equivalence with inverse $`_BA;`$
12. $`A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ and $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ are generators;
13. $`A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ and $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ are f.g. and projective;
14. $`A_{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ is a progenerator.

## 3 Cleft $`C`$-Galois Extensions

In what follows $`R`$ is a *commutative* ring with $`1_R0_R`$ and $`_R`$ is the category of $`R`$-(bi)modules. For an $`R`$-coalgebra $`(C,\mathrm{\Delta }_C,\epsilon _C)`$ and an $`R`$-algebra $`(A,\mu _A,\eta _A)`$ we consider $`(\mathrm{Hom}_R(C,A),):=\mathrm{Hom}_R(C,A)`$ as an $`R`$-algebra with the *usual convolution product* $`(fg)(c):=f(c_1)g(c_2)`$ and unity $`\eta _A\epsilon _C.`$ The unadorned $``$ means $`_R.`$

###### 3.1.

Entwined modules. A right-right entwining structure $`(A,C,\psi )`$ over $`R`$ consists of an $`R`$-algebra $`(A,\mu _A,\eta _A),`$ an $`R`$-coalgebra $`(C,\mathrm{\Delta }_C,\epsilon _C)`$ and an $`R`$-linear map

$$\psi :C_RAA_RC,\text{ }caa_\psi c^\psi ,$$

such that

| $`(a\stackrel{~}{a})_\psi c^\psi `$ | $`=`$ | $`a_\psi \stackrel{~}{a}_\mathrm{\Psi }c^{\psi \mathrm{\Psi }},`$ | $`(1_A)_\psi c^\psi `$ | $`=`$ | $`1_Ac,`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`a_\psi \mathrm{\Delta }_C(c^\psi )`$ | $`=`$ | $`a_{\psi \mathrm{\Psi }}c_1^\mathrm{\Psi }c_2^\psi ,`$ | $`a_\psi \epsilon _C(c^\psi )`$ | $`=`$ | $`\epsilon _C(c)a.`$ |

###### 3.2.

Let $`(A,C,\psi )`$ be a right-right entwining structure. An entwined module corresponding to $`(A,C,\psi )`$ is a right $`A`$-module, which is also a right $`C`$-comodule through $`\varrho _M,`$ such that

$$\varrho _M(ma)=m_{<0>}a_\psi m_{<1>}^\psi \text{ for all }mM\text{ and }aA.$$

The category of right-right entwined modules and $`A`$-linear $`C`$-colinear morphisms is denoted by $`_A^C(\psi ).`$ For $`M,N_A^C(\psi )`$ we denote by $`\mathrm{Hom}_A^C(M,N)`$ the set of $`A`$-linear $`C`$-colinear morphisms from $`M`$ to $`N.`$ With $`\mathrm{\#}_\psi ^{op}(C,A):=\mathrm{Hom}_R(C,A),`$ we denote the $`A`$-ring with $`(af)(c)=a_\psi f(c^\psi ),`$ $`(fa)(c)=f(c)a,`$ multiplication $`(fg)(c)=f(c_2)_\psi g(c_1^\psi )`$ and unity $`\eta _A\epsilon _C`$ (see \[Abu03, Lemma 3.3\]).

Entwined modules were introduced by T. Brzeziński and S. Majid \[BM98\] as a generalization of the Doi-Koppinen modules presented in \[Doi92\] and \[Kop95\]. By a remark of M. Takeuchi (e.g. \[Brz02, Proposition 2.2\]), we have an $`A`$-coring structure on $`𝒞:=A_RC,`$ where $`𝒞`$ is an $`A`$-bimodule through $`a(\stackrel{~}{a}c):=a\stackrel{~}{a}c,`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{a}c)a:=\stackrel{~}{a}a_\psi c^\psi `$ and has comultiplication

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒞:A_RC(A_RC)_A(A_RC),\text{ }ac(ac_1)_A(1_Ac_2)$$

and counity $`\epsilon _𝒞:=id_A\epsilon _C.`$ Moreover $`_A^C(\psi )^𝒞,`$ $`\mathrm{\#}_\psi ^{op}(C,A)`$ $`{}_{}{}^{}𝒞`$ as $`A`$-rings and $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ is flat (resp. f.g., projective), if $`{}_{R}{}^{}C`$ is so (e.g. \[Abu03\]).

Inspired by \[Doi94, 3.1\] we make the following definition:

###### 3.3.

Let $`(A,C,\psi )`$ be a right-right entwining structure over $`R`$ and consider the corresponding $`A`$-coring $`𝒞:=A_RC.`$ We say that $`(A,C,\psi )`$ satisfies the left $`\alpha `$-condition, if for every right $`A`$-module $`M`$ the following map is injective

$$\alpha _M^\psi :M_RC\mathrm{Hom}_R(\mathrm{\#}_\psi ^{op}(C,A),M),\text{ }mc[fmf(c)]$$

(equivalently, if $`{}_{A}{}^{}𝒞`$ is locally projective).

Let $`M`$ be a right $`\mathrm{\#}_\psi ^{op}(C,A)`$-module $`M`$ and consider the canonical map $`\rho _M:M\mathrm{Hom}_R(\mathrm{\#}_\psi ^{op}(C,A),M).`$ Set $`\mathrm{Rat}^C(M_{\mathrm{\#}_\psi ^{op}(C,A)}):=(\rho _M^\psi )^1(M_RC).`$ We call $`M`$ $`\mathrm{\#}`$-rational, if $`\mathrm{Rat}^C(M_{\mathrm{\#}_\psi ^{op}(C,A)})=M`$ and set $`\varrho _M:=(\alpha _M^\psi )^1\rho _M.`$ The category of $`\mathrm{\#}`$-rational right $`\mathrm{\#}_\psi ^{op}(C,A)`$-modules will be denoted by $`\mathrm{Rat}^C(_{\mathrm{\#}_\psi ^{op}(C,A)}).`$

###### Theorem 3.4.

*(\[Abu03, Theorem 3.10\])* Let $`(A,C,\psi )`$ be a right-right entwining structure and consider the corresponding $`A`$-coring $`𝒞:=A_RC.`$

1. If $`{}_{R}{}^{}C`$ is flat, then $`_A^C(\psi )`$ is a Grothendieck category with enough injective objects.
2. If $`{}_{R}{}^{}C`$ is locally projective *(*resp. f.g. and projective*)*, then

$$_A^C(\psi )\mathrm{Rat}^C(_{\mathrm{\#}_\psi ^{op}(C,A)})\sigma [(A_RC)_{\mathrm{\#}_\psi ^{op}(C,A)}]\text{(}\text{resp. }_A^C(\psi )_{\mathrm{\#}_\psi ^{op}(C,A)}\text{)}\text{.}$$
(5)

In what follows we fix a right-right entwining structure $`(A,C,\psi )`$ with $`𝒞:=A_RC`$ the corresponding $`A`$-coring and assume that $`A_A^C(\psi )^𝒞`$ with

$$\varrho _A:AA_RC,\text{ }aa_{<0>}a_{<1>}=1_{<0>}a_\psi 1_{<1>}^\psi .$$

Then $`1_{<0>}1_{<1>}𝒞`$ is a group-like element and

$$Q\{q\mathrm{Hom}_R(C,A)q(c_2)_\psi c_1^\psi =q(c)1_{<0>}1_{<1>}\text{ for all }cC\}.$$

For every $`M_A^C(\psi ),`$ we set

$$M^{co𝒞}:=\{mMm_{<0>}m_{<1>}=m1_{<0>}1_{<1>}\}.$$

Moreover we set $`B:=A^{co𝒞}.`$

###### Remark 3.5.

Let $`xC`$ be a group-like element. For every right $`C`$-comodule $`M`$ we put $`M^{coC}:=\{mM\varrho _M(m)=mx\}.`$ If $`\varrho _A(1_A)=1_Ax,`$ then we have $`M^{coC}=M^{co𝒞}`$ for every $`M_A^C(\psi ).`$

By \[Brz99, Corollaries 3.4, 3.7\] $`_R^cA:^C_A^C(\psi )`$ is a functor, which is left adjoint to the forgetful functor. Here, for every $`N^C,`$ we consider the canonical right $`A`$-module $`N_R^cA:=N_RA`$ with the $`C`$-coaction $`nan_{<0>}a_\psi n_{<1>}^\psi .`$

###### Proposition 3.6.

Let $`R`$ be a QF ring and assume $`C`$ be right semiperfect. Let $`{}_{R}{}^{}C`$ to be locally projective (projective) and put $`C^{\mathrm{}}:=\mathrm{Rat}(_{}_{}{}^{}CC^{}).`$

1. The following are equivalent:

1. $`A`$ is a generator in $`_A^C(\psi );`$
    2. $`A`$ generates $`C^{\mathrm{}}_R^cA`$ in $`_A^C(\psi );`$
    3. the map $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{C^{\mathrm{}}_R^cA}^{}:\mathrm{Hom}_A^C(A,C^{\mathrm{}}_R^cA)_BAC^{\mathrm{}}_R^cA`$ is surjective *(*bijective*)*.
2. The following are equivalent:

1. $`A`$ is a progenerator in $`_A^C(\psi );`$
    2. $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{C^{\mathrm{}}_R^cA}^{}`$ is surjective *(*bijective*)* and $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is a weak generator.

###### Proof.

By \[MTW01, 2.6\] $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a generator in $`^C,`$ hence $`C^{\mathrm{}}_R^cA`$ is a generator in $`_A^C(\psi )`$ by the functorial isomorphism $`\mathrm{Hom}_A^C(C^{\mathrm{}}_R^cA,M)\mathrm{Hom}^C(C^{\mathrm{}},M)`$ for every $`M_A^C(\psi ).`$

1. The assertions follow form the note above and Theorem 2.3.
2. (a) $``$ (b) follows by Theorem 2.5.

(b) $``$ (a). By the note above $`C^{\mathrm{}}_R^cA`$ is a generator in $`_A^C(\psi ),`$ and the surjectivity of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{C^{\mathrm{}}_R^cA}^{}`$ makes $`A`$ a generator in $`_A^C(\psi ).`$ So $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is flat by Theorem 2.3. The weak generator property makes $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ faithfully flat and we are done by Theorem 2.5.$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Definition 3.7.

A (total) integral for $`C`$ is a $`C`$-colinear morphism $`\lambda :CA`$ (with $`1_{<0>}\lambda (1_{<1>})=1_A`$). We call the ring extension $`A/B`$ cleft, if there exists a $``$-invertible integral. We say $`A`$ has the right normal basis property, if there exists a left $`B`$-linear right $`C`$-colinear isomorphism $`AB_RC.`$

###### Lemma 3.8.

Let $`\lambda \mathrm{Hom}_R(C,A)`$ be $``$-invertible with inverse $`\overline{\lambda }.`$ Then:

1. $`\lambda \mathrm{Hom}^C(C,A)`$ iff $`\overline{\lambda }Q.`$
2. If $`\varrho (a)=a_\psi x^\psi `$ for some group-like element $`xC,`$ then there exists $`\widehat{\lambda }Q,`$ such that $`1_{<0>}\widehat{\lambda }(1_{<1>})=\widehat{\lambda }(x)=1_A`$ *(*in this case $`C`$ admits a total integral, namely the $``$-inverse of $`\widehat{\lambda }`$*)*.

###### Proof.

Let $`\lambda \mathrm{Hom}_R(C,A)`$ be $``$-invertible with inverse $`\overline{\lambda }.`$

1. If $`\overline{\lambda }Q,`$ then we have for all $`cC:`$

| $`\lambda (c_1)c_2`$ | $`=`$ | $`\lambda (c_1)1_\psi c_2^\psi `$ |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`=`$ | $`\lambda (c_1)\epsilon (c_3)1_\psi c_2^\psi `$ |  |  |
|  | $`=`$ | $`\lambda (c_1)(\overline{\lambda }(c_3)\lambda (c_4))_\psi c_2^\psi `$ |  |  |
|  | $`=`$ | $`\lambda (c_1)\overline{\lambda }(c_3)_\psi \lambda (c_4)_\mathrm{\Psi }c_2^{\psi \mathrm{\Psi }}`$ |  |  |
|  | $`=`$ | $`\lambda (c_1)\overline{\lambda }(c_{22})_\psi \lambda (c_3)_\mathrm{\Psi }c_{21}^{\psi \mathrm{\Psi }}`$ |  |  |
|  | $`=`$ | $`\lambda (c_1)\overline{\lambda }(c_2)1_{<0>}\lambda (c_3)_\mathrm{\Psi }1_{<1>}^\mathrm{\Psi }`$ |  |  |
|  | $`=`$ | $`1_{<0>}\lambda (c)_\mathrm{\Psi }1_{<1>}^\mathrm{\Psi }`$ |  |  |
|  | $`=`$ | $`\lambda (c)_{<0>}\lambda (c)_{<1>}`$ |  |  |

i.e. $`\lambda \mathrm{Hom}^C(C,A).`$ On the other hand, if $`\lambda \mathrm{Hom}^C(C,A),`$ then we have for all $`cC:`$

| $`\overline{\lambda }(c_2)_\psi c_1^\psi `$ | $`=`$ | $`\overline{\lambda }(c_1)\lambda (c_2)\overline{\lambda }(c_4)_\psi c_3^\psi `$ |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`=`$ | $`\overline{\lambda }(c_1)\lambda (c_2)_{<0>}\overline{\lambda }(c_3)_\psi \lambda (c_2)_{<1>}^\psi `$ |  |  |
|  | $`=`$ | $`\overline{\lambda }(c_1)1_{<0>}\lambda (c_2)_\psi \overline{\lambda }(c_3)_\mathrm{\Psi }1_{<1>}^{\psi \mathrm{\Psi }}`$ |  |  |
|  | $`=`$ | $`\overline{\lambda }(c_1)1_{<0>}(\lambda (c_2)\overline{\lambda }(c_3))_\psi 1_{<1>}^\psi `$ |  |  |
|  | $`=`$ | $`\overline{\lambda }(c)1_{<0>}1_\psi 1_{<1>}^\psi `$ |  |  |
|  | $`=`$ | $`\overline{\lambda }(c)1_{<0>}1_{<1>},`$ |  |  |

i.e. $`\overline{\lambda }Q.`$
2. Assume $`\varrho (a)=a_\psi x^\psi `$ for some group-like element $`xC.`$ Let $`\lambda \mathrm{Hom}^C(C,A)`$ with $`\overline{\lambda }Q`$ (see (1)). Then $`\widehat{\lambda }:=\overline{\lambda }\lambda (x)Q,`$ since $`\lambda (x)B,`$ and moreover $`1_{<0>}\widehat{\lambda }(1_{<1>})=\widehat{\lambda }(x)=\overline{\lambda }(x)\lambda (x)=(\overline{\lambda }\lambda )(x)=\epsilon _C(x)1_A=1_A.\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 3.9.

Assume $`A/B`$ to be cleft.

1. $`_A^C(\psi )`$ satisfies the weak structure theorem (in particular $`A/B`$ is $`𝒞`$-Galois*)*.
2. For every $`M_A^C(\psi ),`$ the $`C`$-colinear morphism

$$\gamma _M:MM^{co𝒞}_RC,\text{ }mm_{<0>}\overline{\lambda }m_{<1>}$$

is an isomorphism.
3. $`A`$ has the right normal basis property.
4. If $`{}_{R}{}^{}C`$ is faithfully flat, then $`_A^C(\psi )`$ satisfies the strong structure theorem.

###### Proof.

Assume there exists a $``$-invertible $`\lambda \mathrm{Hom}^C(C,A)`$ with inverse $`\overline{\lambda }Q`$ (see Lemma 3.8 (1)).

1. Let $`M_A^C(\psi )`$ and consider

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M:MM^{co𝒞}_BA,\text{ }mm_{<0>}\overline{\lambda }\lambda (m_{<1>}).$$

Then we have for all $`nM^{co𝒞},`$ $`mM`$ and $`aA:`$

| $`(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M\mathrm{\Psi }_M)(na)`$ | $`=`$ | $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M(na)`$ |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`=`$ | $`(na_{<0>})\overline{\lambda }_B\lambda (a_{<1>})`$ |  |  |
|  | $`=`$ | $`na_{<0><0>}\overline{\lambda }(a_{<0><1>})_B\lambda (a_{<1>})`$ |  |  |
|  | $`=`$ | $`n_Ba_{<0><0>}\overline{\lambda }(a_{<0><1>})\lambda (a_{<1>})`$ |  |  |
|  | $`=`$ | $`n_Ba_{<0>}\overline{\lambda }(a_{<1>1})\lambda (a_{<1>2})`$ |  |  |
|  | $`=`$ | $`n_Ba`$ |  |  |

and

| $`(\mathrm{\Psi }_M\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_M)(m)`$ | $`=`$ | $`(m_{<0>}\overline{\lambda })\lambda (m_{<1>})`$ |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`=`$ | $`m_{<0><0>}\overline{\lambda }(m_{<0><1>})\lambda (m_{<1>})`$ |  |  |
|  | $`=`$ | $`m_{<0>}\overline{\lambda }(m_{<1>1})\lambda (m_{<1>2})`$ |  |  |
|  | $`=`$ | $`m_{<0>}\epsilon _C(m_{<1>})1_A`$ |  |  |
|  | $`=`$ | $`m.`$ |  |  |
2. For every $`M_A^C(\psi ),`$ $`\gamma _M`$ is bijective with inverse

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_M:M^{co𝒞}_RCM,\text{ }ncn\lambda (c).$$

In fact we have for all $`mM,`$ $`nM^{co𝒞}`$ and $`cC:`$

| $`(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_M\gamma _M)(m)`$ | $`=`$ | $`(m_{<0>}\overline{\lambda })\lambda (m_{<1>})`$ |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`=`$ | $`m_{<0><0>}\overline{\lambda }(m_{<0><1>})\lambda (m_{<1>})`$ |  |  |
|  | $`=`$ | $`m_{<0>}\overline{\lambda }(m_{<1>1})\lambda (m_{<1>2})`$ |  |  |
|  | $`=`$ | $`m_{<0>}\epsilon _C(m_{<1>})`$ |  |  |
|  | $`=`$ | $`m`$ |  |  |

and

| $`(\gamma _M\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_M)(n_Bc)`$ | $`=`$ | $`(n\lambda (c))_{<0>}\overline{\lambda }(n\lambda (c))_{<0>}`$ |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`=`$ | $`(n\lambda (c)_{<0>})\overline{\lambda }\lambda (c)_{<1>}`$ |  |  |
|  | $`=`$ | $`(n\lambda (c_1))\overline{\lambda }c_2`$ |  |  |
|  | $`=`$ | $`n\lambda (c_1)_{<0>}\overline{\lambda }(\lambda (c_1)_{<1>})c_2`$ |  |  |
|  | $`=`$ | $`n\lambda (c_{11})\overline{\lambda }(c_{12})c_2`$ |  |  |
|  | $`=`$ | $`nc.`$ |  |  |
3. By (2) the left $`B`$-linear right $`C`$-colinear map

$$\gamma _A:AB_RC,aa_{<0>}\overline{\lambda }a_{<1>}$$

is an isomorphism with inverse $`bcb\lambda (c).`$
4. Assume $`{}_{R}{}^{}C`$ to be faithfully flat. By (3) $`AB_RC`$ as left $`B`$-modules, hence $`{}_{B}{}^{}A`$ is faithfully flat. By (1) $`A/B`$ is $`𝒞`$-Glaois and we are done by Theorem 2.5.$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 3.10.

The following statements are equivalent:

1. $`A/B`$ is cleft;
2. $`_A^C(\psi )`$ satisfies the weak structure theorem and $`A`$ has the right normal basis property;
3. $`A/B`$ is $`𝒞`$-Galois and $`A`$ has the right normal basis property;
4. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:\mathrm{\#}_\psi ^{op}(C,A)\mathrm{End}(_BA)^{op},`$ $`g[aa`$ $`g]`$ is a ring isomorphism and $`A`$ has the right normal basis property.

If moreover $`{}_{R}{}^{}C`$ is faithfully flat, then *(1)-(4)* are equivalent to
5. $`_A^C(\psi )`$ satisfies the strong structure theorem and $`A`$ has the right normal basis property.

###### Proof.

(1) $``$ (2). This follows by Proposition 3.9.

(2) $``$ (3). By assumption $`\beta :=\mathrm{\Psi }_{A_RC}`$ is an isomorphism.

(3) $``$ (4). By assumption $`A_BAA_RC`$ as left $`A`$-modules, hence we have the canonical isomorphisms

| $`\mathrm{\#}_\psi ^{op}(C,A)`$ | $``$ | $`\mathrm{Hom}_A(A_RC,A)`$ | $``$ | $`\mathrm{Hom}_A(A_BA,A)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $``$ | $`\mathrm{Hom}_B(A,\mathrm{End}(_AA))`$ | $``$ | $`\mathrm{End}(_BA).`$ |

(4) $``$ (1). Assume $`\theta :B_RCA`$ to be a left $`B`$-linear right $`C`$-colinear isomorphism and consider the right $`C`$-colinear morphism $`\lambda :CA,`$ $`c\theta (1_Ac)`$ and the left $`B`$-linear morphism $`\delta :=(id\epsilon _C)\theta ^1:AB.`$ Define $`\overline{\lambda }:=\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(\delta )\mathrm{\#}_\psi ^{op}(C,A).`$ Then we have for all $`cC:`$

| $`\lambda (c_1)\overline{\lambda }(c_2)`$ | $`=`$ | $`\lambda (c)_{<0>}\overline{\lambda }(\lambda (c)_{<1>})`$ | $`=`$ | $`\lambda (c)\overline{\lambda }`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`=`$ | $`\delta (\lambda (c))`$ | $`=`$ | $`((id\epsilon _C)\theta ^1)(\lambda (c))`$ |
|  | $`=`$ | $`((id\epsilon _C)\theta ^1)(\theta (1_Ac))`$ | $`=`$ | $`\epsilon _C(c)1_A.`$ |

On the other hand we have for all $`aA:`$

| $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\overline{\lambda }\lambda )(a)`$ | $`=`$ | $`a(\overline{\lambda }\lambda )`$ | $`=`$ | $`a_{<0>}(\overline{\lambda }\lambda )(a_{<1>})`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | $`=`$ | $`a_{<0>}\overline{\lambda }(a_{<1>1})\lambda (a_{<1>2})`$ | $`=`$ | $`a_{<0><0>}\overline{\lambda }(a_{<0><1>})\lambda (a_{<1>})`$ |
|  | $`=`$ | $`(a_{<0>}\overline{\lambda })\lambda (a_{<1>})`$ | $`=`$ | $`(a_{<0>}\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(\delta ))\lambda (a_{<1>})`$ |
|  | $`=`$ | $`\delta (a_{<0>})\lambda (a_{<1>})`$ | $`=`$ | $`\delta (a_{<0>})\theta (1_Aa_{<1>})`$ |
|  | $`=`$ | $`\theta (\delta (a_{<0>})a_{<1>})`$ | $`=`$ | $`\theta (\theta ^1(a))=a,`$ |

hence $`\overline{\lambda }\lambda =\eta _A\epsilon _C.`$

Now assume $`{}_{R}{}^{}C`$ to be faithfully flat. Then (1) $``$ (5) follows by Proposition 3.9 (4) and we are done.$`\mathrm{}`$

The following result deals with the special case $`\varrho (a)=a_\psi x^\psi ,`$ for some group-like element $`xC.`$ In this case we obtain the equivalent statements (1)-(5) in Theorem 3.10 without any assumptions on $`C.`$

###### Theorem 3.11.

Assume that $`\varrho (a)=a_\psi x^\psi `$ for some group-like element $`xC.`$ The following statements are equivalent:

1. $`A/B`$ is cleft;
2. $`_A^C(\psi )`$ satisfies the strong structure theorem and $`A`$ has the right normal basis property;
3. $`_A^C(\psi )`$ satisfies the weak structure theorem and $`A`$ has the right normal basis property;
4. $`A/B`$ is $`𝒞`$-Galois and $`A`$ has the right normal basis property;
5. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }:\mathrm{\#}_\psi ^{op}(C,A)\mathrm{End}(_BA)^{op},`$ $`g[aa`$ $`g]`$ is a ring isomorphism and $`A`$ has the right normal basis property.

###### Proof.

By Theorem 3.10 it remains to prove that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_N`$ is an isomorphism for every $`N_B,`$ if $`A/B`$ is cleft. But in our special case there exists by Lemma 3.8 some $`\widehat{\lambda }Q`$ with $`1_{<0>}\widehat{\lambda }(1_{<1>})=1_A`$ and we are done by Corollary 1.8 (2).$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3.12.

Let $`(H,A,C)`$ be a right-right resp. a left-right Doi-Koppinen structure. Then $`(A,C,\psi )`$ is a right-right entwining structure with

$$\psi :C_RAA_RC,\text{ }caa_{<0>}ca_{<1>}$$

resp. a left-right entwining structure with

$$\psi :A_RCA_RC,\text{ }aca_{<0>}a_{<1>}c.$$

If $`x`$ is a group-like element of $`C,`$ then $`A(H)_A^C`$ with $`\varrho (a):=a_{<0>}xa_{<1>}`$ (resp. $`\varrho (a)=a_{<0>}a_{<1>}x`$) and we get \[DM92, Theorem 1.5\] (resp. \[Doi94, Theorem 2.5\]) as special cases of Theorem 3.11.