## THE ORLOV SPECTRA OF ABELIAN CATEGORIES ∗

JUNLING ZHENG 1 AND YU-ZHE LIU 2 , †

Abstract. We introduced the notion of Orlov spectra of Abelian categories, and study its some properties. In particular, we give precise result of Orlov spectra of algebras with type A n .

## Contents

| 1.               | Introduction                                                              |   1 |
|------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----|
| 2.               | Preliminaries                                                             |   2 |
| 2.1.             | The extension dimension of Abelian category                               |   2 |
| 2.2.             | Ghosts and coghosts                                                       |   4 |
| 2.2.1.           | Contravariantly finite subcategories and covariantly finite subcategories |   4 |
| 2.2.2.           | Ghost lemma and Coghost lemma                                             |   4 |
| 2.3.             | Coghosts on Artin algebra                                                 |   7 |
| 2.3.1.           | Some properties of coghost on Artin algebra                               |   7 |
| 2.3.2.           | Some properties of strong generator over Artin algebra                    |   8 |
| 3. Loewy lengths | 3. Loewy lengths                                                          |  10 |
| 3.1.             | Properties of Loewy lengths                                               |  10 |
| 3.2.             | Strong generators                                                         |  11 |
| 3.3.             | Loewy lengths of some Artin alegbras                                      |  12 |
| 3.3.1.           | Loewy lengths of SPI Artin algebras                                       |  12 |
| 3.3.2.           | Loewy lengths of semi-simple Artin algebras                               |  13 |
| 3.3.3.           | Loewy length of Artin algebras with Orlov spectra { 0 , 1 }               |  14 |
| 4.               | Radical Layer lengths                                                     |  16 |
| 4.1.             | Torsion pairs and radical Layer lengths                                   |  16 |
| 4.2.             | Short exact sequences and radical layer length                            |  16 |
| 4.2.1.           | The first main result and some corollaries                                |  17 |
| 4.2.2.           | The second main result and some corollaries                               |  19 |
| 5.               | Application: The Orlov spectrum with type A n                             |  23 |
| Acknowledgements | Acknowledgements                                                          |  27 |
| Funding          | Funding                                                                   |  27 |
| References       | References                                                                |  28 |

## 1. Introduction

Rouquier introduced in [22,23] the dimension of a triangulated category under the idea of Bondal and van den Bergh in [8]. Roughly speaking, it is an invariant that measures how quickly the category can be built from one object. This dimension plays an important

∗ 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification : 18G20, 16E10, 16G10.

:

Key words

Extension dimensions, Artin algebras, Orlov spectrums.

1 Department of Mathematics, China Jiliang University, Hangzhou, 310018, Zhejiang Province, P. R. China. E-mail: zhengjunling@cjlu.edu.cn / zjlshuxue@163.com.

2 School of Mathematics and statistics, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, Guizhou Province, P. R. China. E-mail: liuyz@gzu.edu.cn / yzliu3@163.com .

† Corresponding author.

role in representation theory [5,7,10,12,20,22,23,27]. For example, it can be used to compute the representation dimension of Artin algebras [19,22]. Similar to the dimension of triangulated categories, the (extension) dimension of an Abelian category was introduced by Beligiannis in [6], also see [11]. The size of the extension dimension reflects how far an Artin algebra is from a finite representation type, some relate result can be seen in [26].

The spectrum of a triangulated category is an invariant of the category introduced by Orlov in 2009 (see [21]). It can be seen as a generalization of the Rouquier dimension for triangulated categories. In 2012, Ballard, Favero, and Katzarkov systematically studied this invariant and named it the Orlov spectrum (see [5]). Similar to the Orlov spectrum of triangulated categories, we will define the Orlov spectrum for Abelian categories, which can be regarded as a generalization of the extension dimension for Abelian categories. In this paper, we will mainly investigate some properties of the Orlov spectrum of finite representation type algebras. We used the properties of coghost to demonstrate our main results, where coghost is a dual of ghost which is introduced by Lank in [17]. The main theorems of our paper are as follows:

## Theorem 1.1.

(1) (see Theorem 4.5) Let 0 -→ L -→ M -→ N -→ 0 be an exact sequence in mod Λ. Then

$$\max \{ \ell \ell ^ { t _ { s } } ( L ), \ell \ell ^ { t _ { s } } ( N ) \} \leqslant \ell \ell ^ { t _ { s } } ( M ) \leqslant \ell \ell ^ { t _ { s } } ( L ) + \ell \ell ^ { t _ { s } } ( N ),$$

where ℓℓ t S is t S -radical layer length ( see Definition 4.2 . ) In particular, if ℓℓ t S ( L ) = 0 , then ℓℓ t S ( N ) = ℓℓ t S ( M ); if ℓℓ t S ( N ) = 0 , then ℓℓ t S ( L ) = ℓℓ t S ( M ) .

(2) (see Theorem 4.14) If Λ is representation-finite, then

$$\int _ { \mu } \left \{ \left \lceil \frac { \ell \ell ^ { t s } ( \Lambda ) } { d } \right \rceil - 1 \, \Big | \, d \in \mathbb { N } \ a n d \ 1 \leqslant d < \ell \ell ^ { t s } ( \Lambda ) \right \} \subseteq \text{OSpec} ( \Lambda ),$$

where ⌈ α ⌉ is the least integer greater than α .

Furthermore, we obtain the following result by using Theorem 1.1, cf. Propositions 5.1 and 5.4.

Theorem 1.2 (Theorem 5.7) . Let -→ A n be the linearly oriented quiver with type A n , i.e.,

/

$$\overrightarrow { \mathbb { A } } _ { n } = \ 1 \xrightarrow { a _ { 1 } } 2 \xrightarrow { a _ { 2 } } \cdots \xrightarrow { a _ { n - 1 } } n \.$$

/

/

/

/

/

Then the Orlov spectrum OSpec( A n ) of A n := k -→ A n is { 0 1 2 , , , · · · , n - } 1 .

## 2. Preliminaries

Let A be an Abelian category. In this paper, we assume that all subcategories of A are full, additive and closed under isomorphisms and all functors between categories are additive. For a subclass U of A , we use add U to denote the subcategory of A consisting of direct summands of finite direct sums of objects in U , and use ⟨U⟩ to denote the subcategory of A containing all objects lying in U . For two objects X and Y in A , we denote by X ≤ Y if X is a subobject of Y , and denote by X ≤ ⊕ Y if X is a direct summand of Y . Let N be the set of natural numbers and N + = N \{ 0 . }

## 2.1. The extension dimension of Abelian category. Let U 1 , U 2 , · · · , U n be subcategories of A . Define

$$\mathcal { U } _ { 1 } \cdot \mathcal { U } _ { 2 } \coloneqq \text{add} \{ X \in \mathcal { A } & | \text{there exists an sequence } 0 \to U _ { 1 } \to X \to U _ { 2 } \to 0 \\ & \text{in } \mathcal { A } \text{ with } U _ { 1 } \in \mathcal { U } _ { 1 } \text{ and } U _ { 2 } \in \mathcal { U } _ { 2 } \}.$$

For any subcategories U V , and W of A , by [11, Proposition 2.2] we have

$$( \mathcal { U } \cdot \mathcal { V } ) \cdot \mathcal { W } = \mathcal { U } \cdot ( \mathcal { V } \cdot \mathcal { W } ).$$

Inductively, we can define

$$\mathcal { U } _ { 1 } \cdot \mathcal { U } _ { 2$$

$$\text{in } \mathcal { A } \text{ with } U \in \mathcal$$

For a subcategory U of A , set [ U ] 0 = 0, [ U ] 1 = add U , [ U ] n = [ U ] 1 [ U ] n -1 for each n ⩾ 2, and [ U ] ∞ = ⋃ n ⩾ 0 [ U ] n , cf. [6].

Example 2.1. Notice that [ U ] n and [ U ] n -1 [ U ] n -1 are generally not equal. To avoid this misunderstanding, we provide this example by using

/

$$A _ { 4 } = \mathbf k \mathcal { Q } \text{ with } \$$

/

/

/

/

/

Take S = S (1) ⊕ S (2) ⊕ S (3) ⊕ S (4) be the direct sum of simple A 4 -modules S (1), S (2), S (3), and S (4), and define [ U ] 1 = add S . Then [ U ] 2 = [ U ] 1 [ U ] 1 consist of all indecomposable A 4 -modules with dimensions ⩽ 3, that is,

$$[ \mathcal { U } ] _ { 2 } = \{ S ( 1 ), S ($$

For [ U ] 3 , a customary misunderstanding is that [ U ] 3 = [ U ] 2 [ U ] 2 . Indeed, by the definition of [ U ] n = [ U ] 1 [ U ] n -1 and P (1) ∈ U [ ] 2 [ U ] 2 , we have

̸

$$\begin{array} {$$

whose elements are the objects to be obtained by the extensions of a module lying in [ U ] 1 and a module lying in [ U ] 2 . We have P (1) / ∈ U [ ] 3 . Similarly, one can check that

$$[ \mathcal { U } ] _ { 4 } = [ \mathcal { U } ] _ { 1 } \cdot [ \mathcal { U } ] _ { 3 } = [ \mathcal { U } ] _ { 2 } \cdot [ \mathcal { U } ] _ { 2 } = [ \mathcal { U } ] _ { 3 } \cdot [ \mathcal { U } ] _ { 1 } = \bmod A _ { 4 }$$

because P (1) ∈ U [ ] 4 .

The following two lemmas are useful for this paper.

Lemma 2.2 ( [26, Lemma 2.3]) . Let A be an Abelian category and T , T 1 2 ∈ A and m,n ∈ N . Then

$$( 1 ) \ [ T _ { 1 } ] _ { m } \bullet [ T _ { 2 } ] _ { n } \subseteq [ T _ { 1 } \oplus T _ { 2 } ] _ { m + n } ;$$

$$( 2 ) \ [ T _ { 1 } ] _ { m } \oplus [ T _ { 2 } ] _ { n } \subseteq [ T _ { 1 } \oplus T _ { 2 } ] _ { \max \{ m, n \} }.$$

Lemma 2.3 ( [26, Lemma 2.4]) . Let F : A → B be an exact functor of Abelian categories. Then F ([ T ] n ) ⊆ [ F T ( )] n for any T ∈ A and positive integer n ⩾ 1 .

Definition 2.4. Let X be an object in A . The generation time of X , denoted U A ( X ) is

$$\circledast _ { \mathcal { A } } ( X ) \coloneqq \begin{cases} \inf \{ n \in \mathbb { N } \ | \ \mathcal { A } = [ X ] _ { n + 1 } \}, & \text{if } [ X ] _ { t } = \mathcal { A } \text{ for some } t \in \mathbb { N } ; \\ + \infty, & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases}$$

The object X is called a strong generator of A if U A ( X ) is finite.

Example 2.5. Consider the algebra A 4 given in Example 2.1 and keep the notations from this example. Then we have U mod A 4 ( S ) = 4 -1 = 3 &lt; + ∞ . Thus, S is a strong generator of mod A 4 .

$$\text{Lemma $2.6$. $ For an object $X$ in $\mathcal{A}$ with $\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{A} } ( X ) < + \infty, \, w e \ h a v e \\ \mathcal { O } _ { \mathcal { A } } ( X ) \geqslant \mathcal { O } _ { \mathcal { A } } ( X \oplus Y )$$

holds for arbitrary object Y in A .

Proof. By add X = [ X ] 1 ⊆ [ X ⊕ Y ] 1 = add( X ⊕ Y ) and induction, we have

$$[ X ] _ { n + 1 } \subseteq [ X \oplus Y ] _ { n + 1 }$$

since, for any integer m ⩾ 0, [ X ] m ⊆ [ X ⊕ Y ] m yields

$$[ X ] _ { m + 1 } = [ X ] _ { 1 } \cdot [ X ] _ { m } \subseteq [ X \oplus Y ] _ { 1 } \cdot [ X \oplus Y ] _ { m } = [ X \oplus Y ] _ { m + 1 }.$$

Furthermore, (2.1) follows

$$\Theta _ { \mathcal { A } } ( X ) = \inf \{ n \in \mathbb { N } \, | \, [ X ] _ { n + 1 } = \mathcal { A } \} \geqslant \inf \{ n \in \mathbb { N } \, | \, [ X \oplus Y ] _ { n + 1 } = \mathcal { A } \} = \Theta _ { \mathcal { A } } ( X \oplus Y )$$

by Definition 2.4 in the case for U A ( X &lt; ) + ∞

$$& \geq \inf \{ n \in \mathbb { N } \ | \ [ X \oplus Y ] _ { n + 1 } = \mathcal { A } \} = \mathcal { O } _ { \mathcal { A } } ( X \oplus Y ) \\ & \, + \infty.$$

Definition 2.7. The Orlov spectrum OSpec( A ) of an Abelian category A is defined as

$$O S p e c ( \mathcal { A } ) = \{ \Theta _ { \mathcal { A } } ( X ) \, | \, X \text{ is a strong generator of } \mathcal { A } \}.$$

.

The extension dimension ([6]) of A is defined as the infimum of OSpec( A ), that is,

$$\text{ext.dim} \mathcal { A } \coloneqq \inf OSpec ( \mathcal { A } ).$$

Dually, we can define the ultimate dimension of A is defined as the supremum of OSpec( A ), that is,

$$u. \dim \mathcal { A } \coloneqq \sup O S p e c ( \mathcal { A } ).$$

For Artin algebra Λ , we set OSpec( Λ ) := OSpec( mod Λ ), and u dim( . Λ ) := u dim( . mod Λ ).

Lemma 2.8. If [ T ] n +1 = A ̸ = [ T ] n , then n ∈ OSpec( A ) .

̸

Proof. Since [ T ] 1 ⊆ [ T ] 2 ⊆ · · · ⊆ [ T ] n = A and [ T ] n +1 = A , we have U A ( T ) = n . It follows n ∈ OSpec( A ) by the definition of Orlov spectrum (see Definition 2.7). □

̸

Example 2.9. Consider the algebra A 4 given in Example 2.1 and keep the notations form this example. By Example 2.5, we have 3 ∈ OSpec( A 4 ). Moreover, by Lemma 2.8, we can also prove 3 ∈ OSpec( A 4 ) since [ S ] 4 = mod A 4 = [ S ] 3 holds.

- 2.2. Ghosts and coghosts. This section contains two parts as follows: in the first part we recall contravariantly finite subcategories and covariantly finite subcategories of Abelian categories; and in the second part we recall ghosts introduced by Beligiannis (see [6]), and coghosts introduced by Lank (see [17, Definition 4.5]). The properties of coghosts are similar to that of ghosts. However, for the convenience of reading, we still provide detailed proofs for properties of coghosts in our paper.
- 2.2.1. Contravariantly finite subcategories and covariantly finite subcategories. Let A be an Abelian category and C be a subcategory of A in this section. A map f : C → X in A with C ∈ C is called a right C -approximation of X if for every f ′ : C ′ → X with C ′ ∈ C there exists a map g : C ′ → C such that the following diagram

~

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00207v2-figure-65321945-3483-46bb-bdff-d95cfdb1fe4d.jpg)

~

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

/

/

commutes, that is, f ′ = f g . If for every X ∈ A admits a right C -approximation, then C is called contravariantly finite . Dually, a map f : X → C in A with C ∈ C is called a left C -approximation of X if for every f ′ : X → C ′ with C ′ ∈ C there exists a map g : C → C ′ such that the following diagram

/

/

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00207v2-figure-25b42a22-a80f-4e0d-a9ce-1b7ea1eb3389.jpg)

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

~

~

commutes, that is, f ′ = f g . If for every X ∈ A admits a left C -approximation, then C is called covariantly finite .

2.2.2. Ghost lemma and Coghost lemma. Let T be an object in an Abelian category A .

Definition 2.10 ([6, Definition 1.2], [17, Definition 4.5]) . A morphism f : Y → A (resp. f : A → Y ) in A is called a T -ghost (resp. T -coghost ) if the induced map Hom A ( T , f ′ ) (resp. Hom ( A f, T ′ )) is zero for each T ′ ∈ add T . Furthermore, if a map can be written a composition of n T -coghost maps, then it is called an n -fold ghost (resp. n -fold coghost ).

Notation 2.11. For a set S of some objects lying in an Abelian category A , we use ⟨ S ⟩ be the minimal full subcategory containing S . For any n ∈ N + , we set

- (1) Gh n T ( X,Y ) := { f ∈ Hom ( A X,Y ) | f is an n -fold T -coghost map } ,

- (2) Gh n T ( -, Y ) := 〈 Gh n T ( X,Y ) | X ∈ Obj( A ) 〉 ,
- (3) and Gh n T ( X, -) := 〈 Gh n T ( X,Y ) | Y ∈ Obj( A ) 〉 .

Remark 2.12. It is easy to see that Gh n T ( X,Y ) is an ideals of A , that is, for any T -coghost f : X → Y and arbitrary homomorphism g : Y → Z (resp., g : Z → X ), the composition g f (resp., f g ) is also a T -coghost.

Recall that the kernel of a morphism f : X → Y in an Abelian category A is the morphism η : K → X from an object K in A to X such that

- (1) f η = 0;
- (2) and, for any morphism η ′ : K ′ → X satisfying f η ′ , there is a unique morphism τ : K ′ → K such that η ′ = η τ .

One can check that K is unique up to isomorphism. In most cases, K is written as Ker f .

Lemma 2.13. The kernel of any left C -approximation in A is a C -coghost.

Proof. Assume that f : X → T is a left C -approximation and η : Ker f → X its kernel. Here, T is an object lying in C . For each h ∈ Hom ( A X,T ′ ), there exists a map f ′ : T → T ′ such that T ′ ∈ C and h = f ′ f since f is a left C -approximation. Thus, we obtain the following diagram

/

/

/

/

/

/

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00207v2-figure-0d9b2b27-7954-4e58-98ba-0a0c844151b6.jpg)

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

|

|

v

v

commutes. Then

$$h \circ \eta = ( f ^ { \prime } \circ f ) \circ \eta = f ^ { \prime } \circ ( f \circ \eta ) = f ^ { \prime } \circ ( f \circ \eta ) = f ^ { \prime } \circ 0 = 0.$$

It follows that η : Ker f → X is a C -coghost by the definition of coghost.

□

Let Fac ( T ) (resp. Sub ( T )) be the subcategory of A whose object is isomorphic to a quotient (resp. subobject) of some direct sum T ⊕ I , where I is a finite index set. The following lemma, i.e., Ghost Lemma, is established by Beligiannis in [6].

## Lemma 2.14 (Ghost Lemma [6, Lemma 1.3]) .

- (a) If X ∈ [ Fac ( T )] n , then Gh n T ( X, -) = 0 .
- (b) If add T is contravariantly finite in A , then the following are equivalent :
- (1) Gh n T ( X, -) = 0;
- (2) X ∈ [ Fac ( T )] n .

Next, we provide a dual result, say Coghost Lemma, for Ghost Lemma which is first shown by Lank in [17, Lemma 4.6].

## Lemma 2.15 (Coghost Lemma) .

- (a) If Y ∈ [ Sub ( T )] n , then Gh n T ( -, Y ) = 0 .
- (b) If add T is covariantly finite in A , then the following are equivalent :
- (1) Gh n T ( -, Y ) = 0;
- (2) Y ∈ [ Sub ( T )] n .

For the convenience of readers, we still provide a proof for Coghost Lemma.

Proof. (a) If n = 1. Let f : X → Y be a T -coghost. Since Y ∈ [ Sub ( T )] 1 , there is a monomorphism g : Y → T ′ such that T ′ ∈ add T . And, by the definition of coghost and T ′ ∈ add T , we have g f = 0 since f : X → Y is a T -coghost. Thus, f = 0 by using g to be a monomorphism.

Next, assume that, for any n ⩽ k , Y ∈ [ Sub ( T )] k yields that Gh k T ( -, Y ) = 0. Considering the case of n = k +1. we have, for any Y ∈ [ Sub ( T )] k +1 , the following short exact sequence

$$0 \longrightarrow Y _ { 1 } \stackrel { g _ { 1 } } { \longrightarrow } Y \stackrel { g _ { 2 } } { \longrightarrow } Y _ { 2 } \longrightarrow 0$$

with Y 1 ∈ [ Sub ( T )] 1 and Y 2 ∈ [ Sub ( T )] k , and there is a monomorphism h 1 : Y 1 → T 1 such that T 1 ∈ add T . Let f ∈ Gh k +1 T ( -, Y ). Then we have f = f 1 f 2 · · · f k f k +1 , where each f i : X i → X i -1 is a T -coghost (we set X 0 := Y in this proof). By assumption and Y 2 ∈ [ Sub ( T )] k , we have Gh k T ( -, Y 2 ) = 0. Since f 1 is T -coghost, we obtain that g 2 f 1 is also a T -coghost by Remark 2.12. Then

$$g _ { 2 } \circ ( f _ { 1 } \circ f _ { 2 } \circ \cdots \circ f _ { k } ) = ( g _ { 2 } \circ f _ { 1 } ) \circ f _ { 2 } \circ \cdots \circ f _ { k } \in \text{Gh} _ { T } ^ { k } ( -, Y _ { 2 } ).$$

Moreover, g 2 ( f 1 f 2 · · · f k ) = 0. Then, since g 1 is the kernel of g 2 , there exists a unique morphism h : X k → Y 1 such that

$$f _ { 1 } \circ f _ { 2 } \circ \cdots \circ f _ { k } = g _ { 1 } \circ h,$$

that is, we obtain the following diagram

O

O

/

/

GLYPH&lt;31&gt;

?

/

/

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00207v2-figure-32d76145-29d0-400c-bbd5-62eebfe999e1.jpg)

O

O

O

O

commutes. Thus, h 1 ( h f k +1 ) = ( h 1 h ) f k +1 = 0 by using f k +1 to be a T -coghost. It follows that h f k +1 = 0. Then f = f 1 · · · f k +1 = g 1 h f k +1 = g 1 0 = 0, i.e., Gh k +1 T ( -, Y ) = 0 .

(b) It is trivial that (2) implies (1) by (a). Next, we prove (1) implies (2).

First of all, we show that (1) implies (2) in the case of n = 1. Assume that Y is an object satisfying Gh 1 T ( -, Y ) = 0, and f : Y → T 1 is a left add T -approximation of Y . Then for each map h : Y → T ′ 1 with T ′ 1 ∈ add T , there is a morphism g : T 1 → T ′ 1 such that the following diagram

GLYPH&lt;31&gt;

GLYPH&lt;127&gt;

/

/

/

/

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00207v2-figure-7702f8b3-dd1f-4031-9bf2-c3efbacea1c6.jpg)

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;127&gt;

GLYPH&lt;127&gt;

commutes. Thus, h f 1 = ( g f ) f 1 = g ( f f 1 ) = g 0 = 0. It follows that f 1 is a T -coghost. Furthermore, Gh 1 T ( -, Y ) = 0 yields that f 1 , as a morphism in Gh 1 T (Ker f, Y ), is zero. Thus, Ker f = 0. Therefore, f is monomorphic, i.e., Y ∈ [ Sub ( T )] 1 as required.

Next, suppose that Gh k T ( -, Y ) = 0. Considering the following family of exact sequences

/

$$( \ 0 \longrightarrow Y _ { i + 1 } \stackrel { f _ { i + 1 } } { \longrightarrow } Y _ { i } \stackrel { g _ { i } } { \longrightarrow } T _ { i } \ ) _ { 0 \leqslant i \leqslant k },$$

/

/

/

/

/

where, for all i , g i is a left add T -approximation of Y i ; Y i +1 := Ker g i ; and Y 0 := Y , we know that f , . . . , f 1 k +1 are T -coghosts by Lemma 2.13. Then we obtain

$$f _ { 1 } \circ f _ { 2 } \circ \cdots \circ f _ { k - 1 } \circ f _ { k } = 0$$

P

P

O

O

O

O

\

\

/

/

/

/

by Gh k T ( -, Y ) = 0, and it follows f k = 0 by using all f i (0 ⩽ i ⩽ k -1) to be monomorphisms. On the other hand, (2.2) induces two family exact sequences

$$( 0 \longrightarrow Y _ { i + 1 } \stackrel { f _ { i + 1 } } { \longrightarrow } Y _ { i } \longrightarrow \text{Im} \, g _ { i } \longrightarrow 0 ) _ { 0 \leqslant i \leqslant k - 1 } \\ \text{ and } ( 0 \longrightarrow \text{Im} \, g _ { i } \longrightarrow T _ { i } ) _ { 0 \leqslant i \leqslant k - 1 }$$

by the canonical decomposition of g i . It is easy to see that Im g i ∈ [ Sub ( T i )] 1 ⊆ [ Sub ( T )] 1 holds for each 0 ⩽ i ⩽ k -1, and then we have

$$\L d s \text{ for each } 0 \leq i \leq k - 1, \text{ and then we have } \quad \ \ Y = Y _ { 0 } \in [ Y _ { 1 } ] _ { 1 } \cdot [ I m g _ { 0 } ] _ { 1 } \\ & \quad \subseteq [ Y _ { 2 } ] _ { 1 } \cdot [ I m g _ { 1 } ] _ { 1 } \cdot [ I m g _ { 0 } ] _ { 1 } \\ & \quad \subseteq [ Y _ { 3 } ] _ { 1 } \cdot [ I m g _ { 2 } ] _ { 1 } \cdot [ I m g _ { 1 } ] _ { 1 } \cdot [ I m g _ { 0 } ] _ { 1 } \\ & \quad \ \colon \\ & \quad \subseteq [ Y _ { n } ] _ { 1 } \cdot [ g _ { n - 1 } ] _ { 1 } \cdots \cdot [ I m g _ { 2 } ] _ { 1 } \cdot [ I m g _ { 1 } ] _ { 1 } \cdot [ I m g _ { 0 } ] _ { 1 } \\ & \quad \ \leq [ 0 ] _ { 1 } \cdot [ Sub ( T ) ] _ { 1 } \cdots \cdot [ Sub ( T ) ] _ { 1 } \cdot [ Sub ( T ) ] _ { 1 } \cdot [ Sub ( T ) ] _ { 1 } \\ & \quad \ \ = [ Sub ( T ) ] _ { n }. \\ \text{erefore, (1) implies (2) by induction.}$$

Therefore, (1) implies (2) by induction.

□

Remark 2.16. If U is a subcategory of V , then [ U ] n ⊆ V [ ] n holds for all n ∈ N , see [26, Proposition 2.2(2)]. Immediately, for each T ∈ A , we have [ T ] n ⊆ [ Fac ( T )] n and [ T ] n ⊆ [ Sub ( T )] n .

2.3. Coghosts on Artin algebra. Let Λ be an Artin R -algebra defined over Artin ring R in this section. Then the category mod Λ of finitely generated right Λ -module (say Λ -module for short) is an Abelian category. Now, we provide some properties of coghosts and strong generator in mod Λ which are dual of the properties of ghost.

2.3.1. Some properties of coghost on Artin algebra. Let T be a finitely generated Λ -module. The following Lemma is well-known.

Lemma 2.17. The subcategory add T of mod Λ is a covariantly finite subcategory.

We will prove Proposition 2.18 through the above lemma. Thus, for the convenience of readers, we still provide proof of the above lemma.

Proof. First of all, for each M ∈ mod Λ , Hom ( Λ M,T ) can be seen as a finitely generated R -module defined by

↦

$$\text{Hom} _ { \Lambda } ( M, T ) \times R \to \text{Hom} _ { \Lambda } ( M, T ), \ ( h, r ) \mapsto h \cdot r,$$

where h · r is the map M → T sending each m ∈ M to f ( m r ) , see [4]. Then Hom Λ ( M,T ) containing a family of right R -homomorphism f , . . . , f 1 n which form a set of generators for Hom Λ ( M,T ).

Next, take an arbitrary map g : M → N with N ∈ add T . Notice that there is a positive integer m such that N is isomorphic to a direct summand of T ⊕ m (written as N ≤ ⊕ T ⊕ m for simplification), we can find two Λ -homomorphisms

$$\eta = \binom { \eta _ { 1 } } { \vdots } \, \colon N \to T ^ { \oplus m } \text{ and } \theta = ( \theta _ { 1 } \, \cdots \, \theta _ { m } ) \, \colon T ^ { \oplus m } \to N$$

such that θ η = ∑ m i =1 θ η i i = 1 N . Here, η , . . . , η 1 m are R -homomorphisms in Hom Λ ( N,T ), and θ , . . . , θ 1 m are R -homomorphisms in Hom Λ ( T, N ). Thus, for the Λ -homomorphism η i g ∈ Hom ( Λ M,T ), there are n elements b 1 j , . . . , b nj such that η i g = ∑ n j =1 b ij f j . It follows that

$$\Pi \text{ows} \ t n a t \\ \eta \circ g = \begin{pmatrix} \eta _ { 1 } \circ g \\ \vdots \\ \eta _ { n } \circ g \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { n } b _ { 1 j } f _ { j } \\ \vdots \\ \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { n } b _ { m j } f _ { j } \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} b _ { 1 1 } & \cdots & b _ { 1 n } \\ \vdots & & \vdots \\ b _ { m 1 } & \cdots & b _ { m n } \end{pmatrix} \circ \begin{pmatrix} f _ { 1 } \\ \vdots \\ f _ { n } \end{pmatrix}.$$

The right of the above equation is written as B f for simplification in this proof. Then we obtain

$$g = 1 _ { N } \circ g = ( \theta \circ \eta ) \circ g = \theta \circ ( \eta \circ g ) = \theta \circ ( B \circ f ) = ( \theta \circ B ) \circ f.$$

Thus, g factors through f , see the following diagram

/

/

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00207v2-figure-204cb6af-af9c-4ab0-958d-ec92fb6fe650.jpg)

w

w

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

8

8

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

{

{

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

whose triangles ♠ and ♣ are commute. Therefore, we get a Λ -homomorphism f which is a left add T -approximation of M . Thus, add T is covariantly finite. □

Proposition 2.18. For a chain of add T -coghosts

/

$$Y _ { n } \xrightarrow { f _ { n } } Y _ { n - 1 } \xrightarrow { f _ { n - 1 } } \cdots \xrightarrow { f _ { 3 } } Y _ { 2 } \xrightarrow { f _ { 2 } } Y _ { 1 } \xrightarrow { f _ { 1 } } Y _ { 0 }$$

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

̸

in mod Λ satisfying f 1 f 2 · · · f n = 0 , we have Y 0 / ∈ [ T ] n .

̸

Proof. Notice that the composition f 1 f 2 · · · f n ∈ Gh n T ( Y , Y n 0 ) is a non-zero Λ -homomorphism, we obtain Gh n T ( Y , Y n 0 ) = 0. Then, by Lemma 2.17 and Lemma 2.15 (b), Y 0 / ∈ [ Sub T ] n holds. Thus, Y 0 / ∈ [ T ] n since [ T ] n ⊆ [ Sub T ] n by Lemma 2.16. □

2.3.2. Some properties of strong generator over Artin algebra. In this subdivision, we provide some properties for strong generator in the category mod Λ of finitely generated Λ -module over an Artin algebra Λ .

Proposition 2.19. If T is a strong generator of mod Λ, then any automorphism f : X → X defined on non-zero Λ-module X is not a T -coghost.

Proof. Assume mod Λ = [ T ] n , n ∈ N + . If f is both an isomorphism and a T -coghost, then f n is an isomorphism which is not zero. In thise caes, X / ∈ [ T ] n = mod Λ by Property 2.18, a contradiction. □

Proposition 2.20. Given a map f : M 1 → M 2 in mod Λ. If for each indecomposable module N ∈ add T , either Hom ( Λ M ,N 1 ) = 0 or Hom ( Λ M ,N 2 ) = 0 , then f is a T -coghost.

Proof. Let N ′ = ⊕ t k =1 N k ∈ add T be an arbitrary module, where all direct summands N k of N are indecomposable. Then for any homomorphism g = ( g 1 . . . g t ) : M 2 → N ′ ,where g k ∈ Hom ( Λ M ,N 2 k ) for each 1 ⩽ k ⩽ t , we have

$$g \circ f = \begin{pmatrix} g _ { 1 } \circ f \\ \vdots \\ g _ { t } \circ f \end{pmatrix} \in \text{Hom} _ { A } ( M _ { 1 }, N ^ { \prime } ),$$

where g k f ∈ Hom ( Λ M ,N 1 k ). Since either Hom Λ ( M ,N 1 k ) = 0 or Hom Λ ( M ,N 2 k ) = 0, we obtain that g k f = 0 for each 1 ⩽ k ⩽ t , and so g f = 0. □

Proposition 2.21. Given a map f : M 1 → M 2 in mod Λ. If f is both T 1 -coghost and T 2 -coghost, then f is a ( T 1 ⊕ T 2 ) -coghost.

Proof. For any morphism g = ( g 1 g 2 ) ∈ Hom ( Λ M ,T 2 ′ 1 ⊕ T ′ 2 ), where T ′ 1 ∈ add T 1 and T ′ 2 ∈ add T 2 , we have

$$g \circ f = \binom { g _ { 1 } } { g _ { 2 } } \, \circ f = \binom { g _ { 1 } \circ f } { g _ { 2 } \circ f }.$$

Since f is both T 1 -coghost and T 2 -coghost, we obtain g 1 f = 0 and g 2 f = 0. Then g f = 0, i.e., f is a ( T 1 ⊕ T 2 )-coghost. □

The following lemma is well-known. We will use it to prove Proposition 2.23.

Lemma 2.22. Let M and N be two Λ-modules in mod Λ.

- (1) If N is semi-simple, then Hom ( Λ N,M ) = Hom Λ ( N, soc M . )
- (2) If M is semi-simple, then Hom ( Λ N,M ) = Hom Λ (top N,M . )

Proposition 2.23. If T is a strong generator, then soc T ∼ = top T ∼ = Λ / rad Λ.

Proof. We only show that soc T ∼ = Λ / rad Λ , the proof of top T ∼ = Λ / rad Λ is similar by using Ghost Lemma 2.14.

First of all, we show that each simple Λ -modules is a direct summand of soc T . Otherwise, there is a simple module S ∈ mod Λ such that Hom ( Λ S, T ′ ) = 0 holds for all T ′ ∈ add T . Then, clearly, any non-zero homomorphism f : S → S is a T -coghost by Proposition 2.20. It contradicts with Proposition 2.19 because, by Schur's lemma, f is an automorphism. Thus, S ≤ ⊕ soc T holds for each simple module S . It follows that Λ / rad Λ ∼ = ⊕ S S ≤ ⊕ soc T as required.

On the other hand, soc T ≤ ⊕ ⊕ S S is trivial. Thus soc T ∼ = Λ / rad Λ . □

̸

̸

̸

Lemma 2.24. If T is a strong generator, then Hom ( Λ Y, T ) = 0 and Hom ( Λ T, Y ) = 0 hold for all 0 = Y ∈ mod Λ.

̸

Proof. Since f 1 : Y → top Y, f 2 : top Y → soc T = Λ / rad Λ , and f 3 : soc T → T, we have f 3 f 2 f 1 = 0. Then Hom Λ ( Y, T ) = 0. □

̸

Proposition 2.25. If T is a strong generator of mod Λ, then, for arbitrary projective or injection simple modules S , . . . , S 1 t , the direct sum ⊕ t i =1 S i lies in [ T ] 1 .

̸

Proof. By Lemma 2.24, there is Λ -homomorphism f : S → T for any simple module S such that f = 0. Thus, f is monomorphic by Schur's lemma. If S is projective, then f is a section, i.e., f ≃ ( 1 S 0 ) : S → S ⊕ T ′ (= ∼ T . ) It follows that S ≤ ⊕ T . We can show that S ≤ ⊕ T holds in the case for S to be injective by dual method. Thus, ⊕ t i =1 S i ∈ add T = [ T ] 1 since add T is closed under direct sum. □

Proposition 2.26. If T is a strong generator in mod Λ, then, for any T -coghost f : X → Y with Y indecomposable, we have f ∈ rad A ( X,Y ) .

Proof. If f / ∈ rad A ( X,Y ) = { f ∈ Hom ( A X,Y ) | 1 Y -f g is an isomorphism for all g ∈ Hom ( A Y, X ) } , then there exists a morphism g ∈ Hom ( A Y, X ) such that 1 Y -fg is not an isomorphism. Since f is a T -coghost, we have h f = 0 for all h ∈ Hom ( A Y, T ′ ) with T ′ ∈ add T. Then

$$h \circ ( 1 _ { Y } - f \circ g ) = h \circ 1 _ { Y } - h \circ f \circ g = h - 0 \circ g = h.$$

Thus, for each n ∈ N + , the following equation

$$h \circ ( 1 _ { Y } - f \circ g ) ^ { n } = & h \circ ( 1 _ { Y } - f \circ g ) \circ ( 1 _ { Y } - f \circ g ) ^ { n - 1 } \\ = & h \circ ( 1 _ { Y } - f \circ g ) ^ { n - 1 }$$

$$\text{lowing equation} \\ \theta ^ { \circ } g ) ^ { n } = & h \circ ( 1 _ { Y } - f \circ g ) \circ ( 1 _ { Y } - f \circ g ) ^ { n - 1 } \\ = & h \circ ( 1 _ { Y } - f \circ g ) ^ { n - 1 } \\ & \vdots \\ = & h \circ ( 1 _ { Y } - f \circ g ) \\ = & h \\ t \text{ an isomorphism and } Y \text{ is indecomposable.} \, \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{ } \text{$$

̸

holds. Since 1 Y -f g is not an isomorphism and Y is indecomposable, we get (1 Y -f g ) m = 0 for some m ∈ N + . And then we have h = h (1 Y -f g ) m = h 0 = 0. Thus, Hom ( A Y, T ′ ) = 0. By Lemma 2.24, we have Hom A ( Y, T ′ ) = 0, this is a contradiction. □

## 3. Loewy lengths

The Loewy length ℓℓ M ( ) of a Λ -module M in mod Λ is defined as the length of the ascending chain

$$0 = \text{rad} ^ { n } \, M \leq \text{rad} ^ { n - 1 } \, M \leq \dots \leq \text{rad} ^ { 1 } \, M \leq \text{rad} ^ { 0 } \, M = M$$

where we use ' X ≤ Y ' to represent a submodule (resp. subobject) X of Y in mod Λ (resp. A ), and, for each 1 ⩽ i ⩽ n , rad i M is the submodule of M satisfying rad i M = rad(rad i -1 M ). Obviously, the Loewy length of any semi-simple module is 1, and the Loewy length of a Λ -module M is zero if and only if M = 0.

3.1. Properties of Loewy lengths. We recall some well-known results for Loewy length in this subsection.

Lemma 3.1. For arbitrary short exact sequence

$$0 \longrightarrow X \stackrel { f } { \longrightarrow } Y \stackrel { g } { \longrightarrow } Z \rightarrow 0$$

in mod Λ, we have

$$\max \{ \ell \ell ( Y ), \ell \ell ( Z ) \} \leqslant \ell \ell ( Y ) \leqslant \ell \ell ( X ) + \ell \ell ( Z ).$$

Lemma 3.2. For each M ∈ [ T ] m , we have ℓℓ M ( ) ⩽ mℓℓ T ( ) .

Proof. In the case of m = 1, it is trivial that if M ∈ [ T ] 1 = add T then ℓℓ M ( ) ⩽ ℓℓ T ( ). Consider the induction hypothesis which admit that if m ≤ t then ℓℓ M ( ) ⩽ t ℓℓ ( T ). Then for m = t +1, there is a short exact sequence

$$0 \longrightarrow A \longrightarrow M \longrightarrow B \longrightarrow 0$$

such that A ∈ [ T ] 1 and B ∈ [ T ] t hold for arbitrary M ∈ [ T ] t +1 . Then, by Lemma 3.1, we have

$$\ell \ell ( M ) \leqslant \ell ( A ) + \ell \ell ( B ) \leqslant 1 \, \ell \ell ( T ) + t \, \ell \ell ( T ) = ( 1 + t ) \, \ell \ell ( T ).$$

Thus, this lemma holds by induction.

□

Notice that if T is a strong generator of mod Λ and the m is the positive integer satisfying [ T ] m = mod Λ , then by Lemma 3.2, the following two statement hold.

- (1) ℓℓ ( Λ ) ⩽ mℓℓ T ( );
- (2) for each M ∈ [ Λ / rad Λ ] m , we have ℓℓ M ( ) ⩽ mℓℓ ( Λ / rad Λ ) = m .

The statement (1) holds by Λ ∈ [ T ] m ; and the statement (2) can be shown in the case for T = Λ / rad Λ .

Proposition 3.3. U mod Λ ( Λ / rad Λ ) = ℓℓ ( Λ ) -1 .

Proof. The case ℓℓ ( Λ ) = 1 is trivial. Now consider the case ℓℓ ( Λ ) ⩾ 2 . For each M ∈ mod Λ , the following family of short exact sequence

$$( 0 \longrightarrow \text{rad} ^ { t } M \longrightarrow \text{rad} ^ { t - 1 } M \longrightarrow \text{rad} ^ { t - 1 } M / \text{rad} ^ { t } M \longrightarrow 0 ) _ { 1 \leqslant t \leqslant \ell \ell ( A ) - 1 }$$

satisfies rad t -1 M/ rad t M ∈ [ Λ / rad Λ ] 1 for all 1 ⩽ t ⩽ ℓℓ ( Λ ) -1 since all rad t -1 M/ rad t M are semi-simple. Then [ Λ / rad Λ ] ℓℓ ( Λ ) = mod Λ . It follows that U mod Λ ( Λ / rad Λ ) ⩽ ℓℓ ( Λ ) -1.

On the other hand, if U mod Λ ( Λ / rad Λ ) ⩽ ℓℓ ( Λ ) -2, then Λ ∈ mod Λ = [ Λ / rad Λ ] ℓℓ ( Λ ) -1 . It follows ℓℓ ( Λ ) ⩽ ( ℓℓ ( Λ ) -1) ℓℓ ( Λ / rad Λ ) by Lemma 3.2, a contradiction. □

Corollary 3.4. The following two statements hold.

- (1) ℓℓ ( Λ ) -1 ∈ OSpec( Λ ) .
- (2) u dim( . Λ ) ⩾ ℓℓ ( Λ ) -1 .

Proof. By Proposition 3.3, we have U mod Λ ( Λ / rad Λ ) = ℓℓ ( Λ ) -1 holds for arbitrary Artin algebra Λ . Then the statement (1) holds by Definition 2.7. Furthermore, the statement (2) is obtained by (1) and the definition of ultimate dimension ( see Definition 2.7) as following formula

$$u. \dim ( \Lambda ) = \sup ( \text{OSpec} ( \Lambda ) ) \geqslant \ell \ell ( \Lambda ) - 1$$

as required.

$$4 ) - 1 \, \begin{matrix} & & \\ & & \\ & & \Box \end{matrix}$$

3.2. Strong generators. Recall that the following well-known lemma which will be used to prove Lemma 3.6 in our paper.

Lemma 3.5. For any short exact sequence

$$0 \longrightarrow A \longrightarrow B \longrightarrow C \longrightarrow 0$$

in mod Λ, we have

$$\text{pd} \, B \leqslant \text{pd} ( A \oplus C ) \text{ and id} \, B \leqslant \text{id} ( A \oplus C ) ^ { \ 1 }$$

Lemma 3.6. Let M and T be two Λ-modules such that M ∈ [ T ] n +1 . Then pd M ⩽ pd T and id M ⩽ id T .

there is the following family of short exact sequences

Proof. First of all, by M ∈ [ T ] n +1 , (0 -→ X i -→ Y i -1 -→ Z i -→ 0) 1 ⩽ ⩽ i n such that Z i -1 ≤ ⊕ Y i -1 (in this case, Y i -1 ∼ = Z i -1 ⊕ Z ′ i -1 for some Z ′ i -1 ), where Z 0 = M ; X ,. . . , X 1 n ∈ [ T ] 1 ; and Z i ∈ [ T ] n -i +1 . Then, naturally, we have the following short exact sequences

$$\begin{array} { c } 0 \longrightarrow \left ( \bigoplus _ { t = 1 } ^ { i } X _ { t } \right ) \oplus X _ { i + 1 } \longrightarrow \left ( \bigoplus _ { t = 1 } ^ { i } X _ { t } \right ) \oplus Y _ { i } \longrightarrow Z _ { i + 1 } \longrightarrow 0 \\ \end{array} \right ) \oplus Y _ { i } \longrightarrow Z _ { i + 1 } \longrightarrow 0$$

for any 1 ⩽ i ⩽ n -1. Then, by Lemma 3.5 and the above two families of short exact sequences, we have

$$\text{sequences, we have} \quad \text{$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$ \quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\	$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$
\text{$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\	$ \quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$
\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\ \quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\ \text{$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$
\quad\text{$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$
$\quad\text{$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\ \text{$\ \quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad\text{$\ \quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$
\text{$ \quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$$\ \text{$\ \quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$
\text{$\quad$ \quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$
\text{\ \quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$
$\ \text{$\ \quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$\quad$$$

$$\leqslant \text{pd} \left ( \left ( \bigoplus _ { t = 1 } ^ { n } X _ { t } \right ) \oplus Y _ { n } \right ) \tilde { \leqslant } \text{pd} \, T,$$

where ♠ holds since all X i and Y n are Λ -modules lying in [ T ] 1 = add T . We can prove id M ⩽ id T by similar way. □

Proposition 3.7. If T is a strong generator of mod Λ, then the global dimension gl dim . Λ of Λ and the projective dimension pd T of T coincide.

Proof. Assume mod Λ = [ T ] n +1 . Then we have pd( Λ / rad Λ ) ⩽ pd T by Lemma 3.6 since it is clear that Λ / rad Λ is a Λ -module in mod Λ = [ T ] n +1 . It follows that gl dim . Λ = pd( Λ / rad Λ ) ⩽ pd T . On the other hand, pd T ⩽ gl dim . Λ by the definition of global dimension of the Artin algebra Λ . Thus, pd T = gl dim . Λ as required. □

Corollary 3.8. Keep the notations from Proposition 3.7, then the following two statements hold.

1 For any module X in mod Λ , 'pd X ' and 'id X ' are projective dimension and injective dimension of X , respectively.

- (1) There is an indecomposable module M with pd M = gl dim . Λ such that M ∈ [ T ] 1 .
- (2) There is an indecomposable module N with id N = gl dim . Λ such that N ∈ [ T ] 1 .

Proof. We only prove (1), the proof of (2) is similar. Considering the decomposition T = ⊕ t i =1 T i of T , where T , . . . , T 1 t are indecomposable, we obtain

$$\text{gl.dim} \, \Lambda = \text{pd} \, T = \max _ { 1 \leqslant i \leqslant t } \text{pd} \, T _ { i },$$

that is, there is an index ı such that pd T = pd T ı as required.

□

Next we provide an instance for Corollary 3.8.

Example 3.9. Let Λ = k Q I / be the basic algebra whose quiver and admissible ideal is given by

$$1 \stackrel { a } { \longrightarrow } 2 \stackrel { b } { \longrightarrow } 3 \text{ \ and \ } \mathcal { I } = \langle a b \rangle,$$

respectively. One can check that T := S (1) ⊕ S (2) ⊕ S (3) is a strong generator of the finitely generated module category mod Λ of Λ and the projective dimension of the direct summand S (1) of T equals to 2. Moreover, we have pd S (2) = 1 and pd S (3) = 0. Therefore, pd T = pd S (1) = gl dim . Λ = 2 in this example.

- 3.3. Loewy lengths of some Artin alegbras. In this subsection we consider the Loewy lengths of some Artin algebras. This section containing three parts. In the parts one, i.e., 3.3.1, we show that the Loewy length of an SPI Artin algebra , an Artin algebra whose simple modules are either projective or injective, is less than or equal to two. In the parts two, i.e., 3.3.2, we provide a description of semi-simple algebra by using Loewy length. In the last parts, i.e., 3.3.3, we prove that the Loewy length of an Artin algebra with Orlov spectrum { 0 1 , } equals to two, and compute the Orlov spectrum of any SPI Artin algebra.

3.3.1. Loewy lengths of SPI Artin algebras.

Proposition 3.10. If Λ is an SPI Artin algebra, then ℓℓ ( Λ ) ⩽ 2 .

Proof. Assume that there is an SPI Artin algebra Λ such that all simple modules are either projective or injective and ℓℓ ( Λ ) = n ⩾ 3. Then there is a projective module P with ℓℓ P ( ) = n . In particular, we have ℓℓ (rad P ) = n -1 and ℓℓ (rad 2 P ) = n -2. The following short exact sequence

$$0 \longrightarrow \text{rad} ^ { 2 } P \longrightarrow \text{rad} \, P \longrightarrow \text{rad} \, P / \text{rad} ^ { 2 } \, P \longrightarrow 0$$

admits rad P/ rad 2 P = Q ⊕ E such that Q is the sum of some simple projective modules and E is the sum of some simple injective modules by our assumption. Then the pullback of

/

/

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00207v2-figure-b8b8140f-0388-402f-9bad-dfc064a3f20e.jpg)

is of the following form.

/

/

/

/

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

/

/

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

/

/

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00207v2-figure-04154704-fe63-4596-a6e7-a70ad55077fa.jpg)

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

Since Q is projective and E is injective, we have W ∼ = rad 2 P ⊕ Q and rad P ∼ = W ⊕ E .

Thus, we have

$$n - 1 & = \ell \ell ( \text{rad} \, P ) = \ell \ell ( W \oplus E ) = \ell \ell ( \text{rad} ^ { 2 } \, P \oplus Q \oplus E ) \\ & = \max \{ \ell \ell ( \text{rad} ^ { 2 } \, P ), \ell \ell ( Q ), \ell \ell ( E ) \} = n - 2$$

by n ⩾ 3, a contradiction.

□

Example 3.11. The inverse of Proposition 3.10 maybe not hold. For example, let the path algebra Λ = k Q ⟨ / αβ, βα ⟩ , where the quiver Q as follows

h

$$1 \underset { \beta } { \overset { \alpha } { \underset { \beta } { \unrhd } } } 2.$$

)

)

h

In this case, we have ℓℓ ( Λ ) = 2, but S (1) and S (2) are neither projective nor injective. 3.3.2. Loewy lengths of semi-simple Artin algebras.

Lemma 3.12. Assume that Λ is a representation-finite Artin algebra which is not semisimple. Then { 0 1 , } ⊆ OSpec( Λ . )

Proof. Let ind mod ( Λ ) be the set of all indecomposable Λ -modules (up to isomorphism). Since Λ is representation-finite, that is, ind mod ( Λ ) is a finite set, it is easy to see that

$$T = \bigoplus _ { X \in \text{ind} ( \text{mod} \Lambda ) } X$$

is a strong generator of mod Λ , and, in this case, we obtain [ T ] 1 = mod Λ . Thus, 0 ∈ OSpec( Λ ).

On the other hand, there is an indecomposable projective module P whose Loewy length ℓℓ P ( ) equals to the Loewy length ℓℓ ( Λ ) of Λ . Let

$$T ^ { \prime } = \bigoplus _ { X \in \text{ind} ( \text{mod} A ) \mathfrak { \{ P \} } } X,$$

then the following short exact sequence

$$0 \longrightarrow \text{rad} \, P \longrightarrow P \longrightarrow P / \text{rad} \, P \longrightarrow 0$$

shows that P ∈ [ T ′ ] 2 since rad P, P/ rad P ∈ [ T ′ ]. On the other hand, P / ∈ [ T ′ ] 1 . That is, [ T ′ ] 1 ⊊ [ T ′ ] 2 = mod Λ . It follows 1 ∈ OSpec( Λ ). □

Theorem 3.13. For an Artin algebra Λ, the following statement are equivalent.

- (1) Λ is semi-simple.
- (2) ℓℓ ( Λ ) = 1 .
- (3) OSpec( Λ ) = { } 0 .

/

/

/

/

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

/

/

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

/

/

Proof. First of all, since ℓℓ ( Λ ) = 1, we obtain ℓℓ ( Λ / rad Λ ) = 0. It follows Λ / rad Λ = 0, i.e., Λ is semi-simple. Thus, (2) admits (1).

Second, if Λ is semi-simple, then all indecomposable Λ -modules are simple modules which are direct summands of Λ . It is easy to see that ℓℓ ( Λ ) = 1, Thus, (1) and (2) are equivalent.

Third, we show that (1) admits (3). Notice that semi-simple Artin algebra are always representation-finite. Thus, we can assume that Λ = ⊕ n i =1 S i is basic up to Morita equivalence, where S , . . . S 1 n are simple. Then we obtain that each basic Λ -module M is isomorphic to

$$\bigoplus _ { i = 1 } ^ { n } S _ { i } ^ { \oplus t _ { i } }, \ \ ( t _ { i } \in \{ 0, 1 \} ) \\ \tau \pi \ \pi \ = \ \circ \ = \ \pi \ \pi / \nu \ \pi.$$

which lies in [ Λ ] 1 = mod Λ . Thus, 0 ∈ OSpec( Λ ). However, if a Λ -module T does not contain some simple module S i as its direct summand (up to isomorphism), then [ T ] n ⊊ mod Λ holds for all n ∈ N . Then OSpec( Λ ) = { } 0 .

Finally, it is easy to prove that Λ is semi-simple if OSpec( Λ ) = { } 0 by Lemma 3.12. Therefore, the statements (1), (2) and (3) are equivalent. □

3.3.3. Loewy length of Artin algebras with Orlov spectra { 0 1 , } . The following result shows that the Loewy length of an Artin algebra with Orlov spectrum { 0 1 , } equals to two.

Proposition 3.14. If OSpec( Λ ) = { 0 1 , } , then ℓℓ ( Λ ) = 2 .

Proof. If ℓℓ ( Λ ) = n ⩾ 3, then n ∈ OSpec( Λ ) by Proposition 3.3 (or Corollary 3.4 (1)), a contradiction. Thus, ℓℓ ( Λ ) ⩽ 2. By Theorem 3.13 and OSpec( Λ ) = { 0 1 , } , we obtain that Λ is not semi-simple, i.e., ℓℓ ( Λ ) ⩾ 2. Thus, ℓℓ ( Λ ) = 2. □

Theorem 3.15. Let Λ be an SPI Artin algebra which is not semi-simple.

- (1) If Λ is representation-finite, then OSpec( Λ ) = { 0 1 , } .
- (2) If Λ is representation-infinite, then OSpec( Λ ) = { } 1 .

Proof. Assume mod Λ = [ T ] n +1 for some n ∈ N . By Property 2.25, all simple modules lie in [ T ] 1 = add T since every simple module is either a projective module or an injective module. Thus, T ∼ = ( Λ / rad Λ ) ⊕ T ′ for some module T ′ . Then we obtain

$$\i i n s, \, \i i = \langle \, \overline { \, l a u \, \, \i } \oplus \, \i i \text{ for some unique } \, \i i \text{.} \, \i i \text{ in the we } \, \i i \text{out} \, \\ \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \ \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \  \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \. \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \	 \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \cdots \, \, \quad \, \, \,$$

It follows that u dim( . mod Λ ) = sup(OSpec( Λ )) ⩽ 1. On the other hand, u dim( . mod Λ ) ⩾ ℓℓ ( Λ ) -1 = 1 by Corollary 3.4 (2). That is, u dim( . mod Λ ) = 1. Thus, 1 ∈ OSpec( Λ ).

If Λ is representation-finite, then, by Lemma 3.12, we have OSpec( Λ ) = { 0 1 , } , that is, the statement (1) holds; otherwise, OSpec( Λ ) = { } 1 , that is, the statement (2) holds. □

Next, we provide some examples for Theorem 3.15.

Example 3.16. Consider the hereditary algebra Λ = ⃗ A 2 = k Q with Q = 1 α -→ 2. It is representation-finite, to be more precise, the number of isoclasses of indecomposable module equals to 3. Since the simple module S (2) is projective and the simple module S (1) is injective, we have OSpec( Λ ) = { 0 1 , } by Theorem 3.15 (1).

Example 3.17. (1) Consider the path algebra Λ = k Q given by the following quiver shown in Figure 3.1. It is clearly that Λ is a hereditary algebra, and then Λ is representationinfinite since the underlying graph of Q is not a Dynkin type (cf. [1, Chap VII, Section 2]). Moreover, the simple module S (0) is projective and, for any 1 ⩽ i ⩽ n , the simple module S i ( ) is injective. Therefore, OSpec(Λ) = { } 1 by Theorem 3.15 (2).

(2) Consider the path algebra Λ = k Q given by the quiver shown in Figure 3.2, where t is an even number with t ⩾ 4. Now we compute its Orlov spectrum. First, it is clear that

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00207v2-figure-0f3bfd81-683d-45c2-8790-399971d30549.jpg)

· · ·

Figure 3.1. The path algebra in Example 3.17 (1)

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00207v2-figure-a7c68bfb-7799-4ff6-934c-68a4ee4e1406.jpg)

Figure 3.2. The path algebra in Example 3.17 (2)

Λ is a hereditary algebra. Then, it is not representation finite since the underlying graph of Q is not a Dynkin type (cf. [1, Chap VII, Section 2]). On the other hand, it is easy to see that the simple modules S (2 ) ( i i ∈ N , 2 ⩽ 2 i ⩽ t ) is indecomposable projective and

S (2 j +1) ( j ∈ N , 1 ⩽ 2 j +1 ⩽ t ) is indecomposable injective. Therefore, OSpec(Λ) = { } 1 by Theorem 3.15 (2) as required.

## 4. Radical Layer lengths

Layer length, introduced by Huard, Lanzilotta, and Hern´ndez in [13], is closely related a to finitistic dimension.

## 4.1. Torsion pairs and radical Layer lengths.

Definition 4.1. A torsion pair ( torsion theory ) for mod Λ is a pair ( T , F ) of classes of modules in mod Λ satisfying the following conditions:

- (1) Hom Λ ( M,N ) = 0 for each M ∈ T and N ∈ F ;
- (2) for each X ∈ mod Λ , if Hom ( Λ X, - | ) F = 0 then X ∈ T ;
- (3) for each Y ∈ mod Λ , if Hom ( Λ -, Y ) | T = 0 then Y ∈ F .

For a given class X in mod Λ and a module M ∈ mod Λ , the trace of X is the submodule Trace X ( M ) of M which is the sum of all images Im( f ) of the morphisms f ∈ Hom ( Λ X,M ) with X ∈ X . Let ( T , F ) be a torsion theory for mod Λ . Let us recall that t := Trace T is the so called torsion radical attached to ( T , F ). In fact, t ( M ) is the largest submodule of M lying in T . And we write q t := 1 mod Λ /t , i.e., q t ( M ) := M/t M ( ) for each M ∈ mod Λ . Thus, for each M ∈ mod Λ , we have the following short exact sequence

$$0 \longrightarrow t ( M ) \longrightarrow M \longrightarrow q _ { t } ( M ) \longrightarrow 0$$

where t ( M ) ∈ T and q t ( M ) ∈ F .

Definition 4.2 ( [13]) . Given a torsion pair ( T , F ) with the torsion radical t . The t -radical layer length is a function ℓℓ t : mod Λ → N ∪ {∞} via

$$\ell \ell ^ { t } ( M ) = \inf \{ i \geqslant 0 \ | \ t \mathbb { \circ } F _ { t } ^ { i } ( M ) = 0, M \in \bmod \Lambda \}$$

where F t = rad t .

Let S be a subset of some simple Λ -modules and S ′ the set of all the others simple Λ -modules. A S -filtration of a Λ -module M is a filtration 0 ⊆ M 0 ⊆ M 1 · · · ⊆ M m -1 ⊆ M m = M such that M/M i i -1 ∈ S holds for all 1 ⩽ i ⩽ m . We use F S to represent the subcategory of mod Λ generated by all Λ -modules M with some S -filtration. We have the following statements:

- · it is easy to check that F S is closed under extensions, submodules and quotients modules;
- · and there is a subcategory T S of mod Λ such that ( T S , F S ) is a torsion pair (the corresponding torsion radical is denoted by t S ),

and have the following results.

Proposition 4.3 ( [27, Proposition 3.2]) . If S = ∅ , then ℓℓ t S ( M ) = ℓℓ M ( ) for each M ∈ mod Λ.

Lemma 4.4. Let the pair ( T S , F S ) be a torsion pair as above.

- (1) ( [15, Proposition 5.9]) T S = { M ∈ mod Λ | top( M ) ∈ add( S ′ ) } ;

̸

- (3) ( [15, Lemma 3.4(a)]) ℓℓ t S ( ⊕ n i =1 M i ) = sup 1 ⩽ ⩽ i n ℓℓ t S ( M i ) , where M i ∈ mod Λ for all 1 ⩽ i ⩽ n .
- (2) ( [15, Lemma 3.3(c)]) If M ∈ T S and M = 0 , then ℓℓ t S ( M ) = ℓℓ t S (rad M ) + 1;

4.2. Short exact sequences and radical layer length. In this section, we show two main results, i.e., Theorems 4.5 and 4.14, of our paper.

4.2.1. The first main result and some corollaries. In this subdivision, we show the following theorem which is the first result of our paper.

Theorem 4.5. Let 0 -→ L -→ M -→ N -→ 0 be an exact sequence in mod Λ. Then max { ℓℓ t S ( L , ℓℓ ) t S ( N ) } ⩽ ℓℓ t S ( M ) ⩽ ℓℓ t S ( L ) + ℓℓ t S ( N . )

In particular, if ℓℓ t S ( L ) = 0 , then ℓℓ t S ( N ) = ℓℓ t S ( M ); if ℓℓ t S ( N ) = 0 , then ℓℓ t S ( L ) = ℓℓ t S ( M ) .

We need some lemmas for proving it.

Lemma 4.6. Let X be a Λ-module.

- (1) ( [13, Proposition 5.9 (c)]) t S ( Λ Λ ) is a two side ideal of Λ and t S ( X ) = X t · S ( Λ Λ ) .
- (2) ( [4, Propostion 3.5]) rad X = X · rad( Λ Λ ) .
- (3) rad( t S ( Λ Λ )) = t S ( Λ Λ ) · rad( Λ Λ ) .
- (4) t S (rad( t S ( Λ Λ ))) = t S ( Λ Λ ) · rad( Λ Λ ) · t S ( Λ Λ ) .
- (5) t S ( F i t S ( Λ Λ )) is an ideal of Λ for each i ⩾ 0 .

Proof. The statement (3) can be obtained by (2) in the case of X = t S ( Λ Λ ). The statement (4) is obtained by (1) and (3), and the statement (5) is obtained by (1)-(4). □

Lemma 4.7. For any module X ∈ mod Λ, we have t S ( F i t S ( X )) = X t · S ( F i t S (Λ Λ )) for each i ⩾ 0 .

Proof. Lemma 4.6 (1) admits this statement under the case for i = 0. Assume that if i = n then t S ( F n t S ( X )) = X t · S ( F n t S ( Λ Λ )). For the case i = n +1, we have

$$\text{$two.$} \text{$1.$ Lemma $4.0$} ( 1 ) \text{ amits $this$ statement under $necease for $i=0$} \text{.} \text{  assume that} \text{ $i$} = n \text{ then $t_{\mathcal{S}$} ( X ) ) = X \cdot t_{\mathcal{S}$} ( F _ { t _ { \mathcal{S} } } ^ { n } ( \Lambda _ { \mathcal{A} } ) ). \text{ For the case $i=n+1$, we have} \\ t_{\mathcal{S}$} ( F _ { t _ { \mathcal{S} } } ^ { n + 1 } ( X ) ) = t_{\mathcal{S}$} ( F _ { t _ { \mathcal{S} } } ^ { n } ( F _ { t _ { \mathcal{S} } } ( X ) ) ) \\ & = F _ { t _ { \mathcal{S} } } ( X ) \cdot t _ { \mathcal{S} } ( F _ { t _ { \mathcal{S} } } ^ { n } ( \Lambda _ { \mathcal{A} } ) ) \quad \text{ (using assumption)} \\ & = \text{rad} ( t _ { \mathcal{S} } ( X ) ) \cdot t _ { \mathcal{S} } ( F _ { t _ { \mathcal{S} } } ^ { n } ( \Lambda _ { \mathcal{A} } ) ) \quad \text{ (F _ { t _ { \mathcal{S} } } = \text{rad} \circ t _ { \mathcal{S} } ) \\ & = t _ { \mathcal{S} } ( X ) \cdot \text{rad} ( \Lambda _ { \mathcal{A} } ) \cdot t _ { \mathcal{S} } ( F _ { t _ { \mathcal{S} } } ^ { n } ( \Lambda _ { \mathcal{A} } ) ) \quad \text{ (Lemma $4.6$} ( 2 ) ) \\ & = t _ { \mathcal{S} } ( X ) \cdot \text{rad} ( t _ { \mathcal{S} } ( F _ { t _ { \mathcal{S} } } ^ { n } ( \Lambda _ { \mathcal{A} } ) ) ) \quad \text{ (Lemma $4.6$} ( 2 ) ) \\ & = t _ { \mathcal{S} } ( X ) \cdot F _ { t _ { \mathcal{S} } } ^ { n + 1 } ( \Lambda _ { \mathcal{A} } ) \quad \text{ (F _ { t _ { \mathcal{S} } } = \text{ rad} \circ t _ { \mathcal{S} } ) \\ & = X \cdot t _ { \mathcal{S} } ( \Lambda _ { \mathcal{A} } ) \cdot F _ { t _ { \mathcal{S} } } ^ { n + 1 } ( \Lambda _ { \mathcal{A} } ) \quad \text{ (Lemma $4.6$} ( 1 ) ) \\ & = X \cdot t _ { \mathcal{S} } ( F _ { t _ { \mathcal{S} } } ^ { n + 1 } ( \Lambda _ { \mathcal{A} } ) ), \quad \text{ (Lemma $4.6$} ( 3 ) ( 4 ) ) \\ \text{which yields that this lemma holds by induction. } \quad \quad \quad$$

which yields that this lemma holds by induction.

## Lemma 4.8.

- (1) The functor t S and rad preserve monomorphism and epimorphism.
- (2) For each i ⩾ 0 , F i t S and t S F i t S preserve monomorphism and epimorphism.

Proof. (1) The functor t S preserving monomorphism and epimorphism is proven in [27, Lemma 3.3]. By [13, Lemma 3.6(a)], rad preserves monomorphism, and by [1, Chapter V, Lemma 1.1], rad preserves epimorphism.

- (2) This statement is a direct corollary of (1).

□

t

Lemma 4.9. Let X be a Λ-module. Then we have t S ( F ℓℓ S ( X ) t S ( X )) = 0 . Proof. By Definition 4.2, we have this observation. □

Now, we prove the first main result of our paper.

The proof of Theorem 4.5. By Lemma 4.8, we know that F t S = rad t S preserve monomorphism and epimorphism. Thus, by [13, Lemma 3.4(b)(c)], we obtain ℓℓ t S ( L ) ⩽ ℓℓ t S ( M ) and ℓℓ t S ( N ) ⩽ ℓℓ t S ( M ), i.e., max { ℓℓ t S ( L , ℓℓ ) t S ( N ) } ≤ ℓℓ t S ( M ).

Next, we prove the second ' ⩽ ', it can be obtained by proving

$$t _ { \mathrm S } ( F _ { t _ { \mathrm s } } ^ { \ell \ell ^ { t _ { \mathrm s } } ( L ) + \ell \ell ^ { t _ { \mathrm s } } ( N ) } ( M ) ) \subseteq t _ { \mathrm s } ( F _ { t _ { \mathrm s } } ^ { \ell \ell ^ { t _ { \mathrm s } } ( L ) } ( L ) ) = 0,$$

see Lemmas 4.8 (2) and 4.9, and Definition 4.2. i

By Lemma 4.6 (5), t S ( F t S ( Λ Λ )) is an ideal of Λ for each i ≥ 0, then we have

$$\text{by Lemma 4.0} \{ 0 \}, \tilde { \varsigma } _ { i \varsigma } ( \tilde { r } _ { i \varsigma } ( \Lambda _ { A } ) ) & \text{ is an ideal or } \Lambda \text{ for each } \tilde { \varsigma }, \text{ then we have } \\ \left ( t _ { S } ( F _ { t _ { S } } ^ { \ell \ell ^ { s } s } ( N ) ( M ) ) + L ) / L & = ( M \cdot t _ { S } ( F _ { t _ { S } } ^ { \ell \ell ^ { s } s } ( \Lambda _ { A } ) ) + L ) / L & = ( \text{ Lemma 4.7} ) \\ & = M / L \cdot t _ { S } ( F _ { t _ { S } } ^ { \ell \ell ^ { s } s } ( \Lambda _ { A } ) ) \\ & \cong N \cdot t _ { S } ( F _ { t _ { S } } ^ { \ell \ell ^ { s } s } ( \Lambda _ { A } ) ) & \quad ( M / L \cong N ) \\ & = t _ { S } ( F _ { t _ { S } } ^ { \ell \ell ^ { s } s } ( N ) ) & \quad ( \text{ Lemma 4.7} ) \\ & = 0. & \quad ( \text{ Lemma 4.9} ) \\ \dots \quad. & \quad. & \quad. & \quad. & \quad. & \quad. & \quad. & \quad. & \dots.$$

Thus, t S ( F ℓℓ t S ( N ) t ( M )) + L = L . It follows t S ( F ℓℓ t S ( N ) t ( M )) ⊆ L .

$$\text{Thus, } t _ { \S } ( F _ { t _ { \S } } ^ { \ell \ell ^ { \ell } s ( N ) } ( M ) ) + L = L. \text{ It follows } t _ { \S } ( F _ { t _ { \S } } ^ { \ell \ell ^ { \ell } s ( N ) } ( M ) ) & \subseteq L. \text{ Furthermore, we obtain} \\ t _ { \S } ( F _ { t _ { \S } } ^ { \ell \ell ^ { \ell } s ( L ) + \ell \ell ^ { \ell } s ( N ) } ( M ) ) & = ( t _ { \S } F _ { t _ { \S } } ^ { \ell \ell ^ { \ell } s ( L ) } \cdot F _ { t _ { \S } } ^ { \ell \ell ^ { \ell } s ( N ) } ) ( M ) \\ & = ( t _ { \S } F _ { t _ { \S } } ^ { \ell \ell ^ { \ell } s ( L ) } \cdot t _ { \S } F _ { t _ { \S } } ^ { \ell \ell ^ { \ell } s ( N ) } ) ( M ) & ( t _ { \S } ^ { 2 } = t _ { \S } ) \\ & \subseteq t _ { \S } ( F _ { t _ { \S } } ^ { \ell \ell ^ { \ell } s ( L ) } ( L ) ) \\ & = 0, & ( L e m m a { 4. 9 } ) \\ \text{that is } \, \text{$\Lambda $ 1 \uplus$ holds} & & \sqcap$$

that is, (4.1) holds.

□

Here are some corollaries about Theorem 4.5.

Corollary 4.10. Let M ∈ [ T ] n +1 . Then ℓℓ t S ( M ) ⩽ ( n +1) ℓℓ t S ( T . )

Proof. A module M lying in [ T ] n +1 provides a family of short exact sequences

$$( 0 \longrightarrow Y _ { i } \longrightarrow Z _ { i - 1 } \oplus Z ^ { \prime } _ { i - 1 } \longrightarrow Z _ { i } \longrightarrow 0 ) _ { 1 \leqslant i \leqslant n },$$

where Z 0 = M Y ,...,Y , 1 n ∈ [ T ] 1 , Z i ∈ [ T ] n -i +1 . Then we obtain

$$\vee \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \cdot \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \rowndown \\ \text{where } Z _ { 0 } = M, Y _ { 1 }, \dots, Y _ { n } \in [ T ] _ { 1 }, \, Z _ { i } \in [ T ] _ { n - i + 1 }. \, \text{ Then we obtain} \\ \ell ^ { l s } ( M ) = \ell ^ { l s } ( Z _ { 0 } ) & \leqslant \ell ^ { l s } ( Z _ { 0 } \oplus Z _ { 0 } ^ { \prime } ) \\ & \leqslant \ell ^ { l s } ( Y _ { 1 } ) + \ell ^ { l s } ( Z _ { 1 } ) & \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \ \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \ \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \   \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \
 \quad \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \dots \, \quad \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cd. \, \quad \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot\cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cd. \quad \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cd. \, \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \, \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cd. \end{cases}$$

□

In the case for S = { S ∈ mod Λ is simple | pd S &lt; ∞} , we define ℓℓ ∞ ( M ) := ℓℓ t S ( M ) in this situation, see [15, Definition 4.2]. Then the following corollary holds.

Corollary 4.11. Let 0 -→ L -→ M -→ N -→ 0 be an exact sequence in mod Λ. Then the following statements hold.

- (1) max { ℓℓ L , ℓℓ N ( ) ( ) } ⩽ ℓℓ M ( ) ⩽ ℓℓ L ( ) + ℓℓ N . ( )
- (2) max { ℓℓ ∞ ( L , ℓℓ ) ∞ ( N ) } ⩽ ℓℓ ∞ ( M ) ⩽ ℓℓ ∞ ( L ) + ℓℓ ∞ ( N ) .
- (3) If ℓℓ ∞ ( L ) = 0 ( resp. ℓℓ ∞ ( N ) = 0) , then ℓℓ ∞ ( N ) = ℓℓ ∞ ( M ) ( resp. ℓℓ ∞ ( L ) = ℓℓ ∞ ( M )) .

Proof. (1) and (2) are particular cases of Theorem 4.5. We need prove (3). If ℓℓ ∞ ( L ) = 0, then we have

$$\ell \ell ^ { \infty } ( N ) = \max \{ \ell \ell ^ { \infty } ( L ), \ell \ell ^ { \infty } ( N ) \} \leqslant \ell \ell ^ { \infty } ( M ) \leqslant \ell \ell ^ { \infty } ( L ) + \ell \ell ^ { \infty } ( N ) = \ell \ell ^ { \infty } ( N )$$

by (2). Thus, ℓℓ ∞ ( M ) = ℓℓ ∞ ( N ) in this situation. We can show that ℓℓ ∞ ( N ) = 0 admits ℓℓ ∞ ( L ) = ℓℓ ∞ ( M ) by similar way. □

Remark 4.12. Note that the functions Loewy length ℓℓ and infinite layer length ℓℓ ∞ are particular radical layer length, see more details [13, 15]. Corollary 4.11 (1) is a classical result. The first ' ⩽ ' in Corollary 4.11 (2) is first established in [15, Proposition 4.5 (a) (b)].

Corollary 4.13. Assume ℓℓ t S ( Λ ) = n . Then for each M ∈ mod Λ, we have ℓℓ t S ( F i t S ( M )) ⩽ n -i for each 0 ⩽ i ⩽ n .

Proof. By [27, Lemma 2.6], if M ∈ mod Λ is a Λ -module M with ℓℓ t S ( M ) = n , then ℓℓ t S ( F i t S ( M )) = n -i for each 0 ⩽ i ⩽ n . Obviously, any module M has a free precover f : A ⊕ I → M which induces a short exact sequence

$$0 \longrightarrow \ker f \longrightarrow A ^ { \oplus I } \longrightarrow M \longrightarrow 0,$$

where I is a finite index set. It yields ℓℓ t S ( M ) ⩽ ℓℓ t S ( Λ ) ⩽ n by using Theorem 4.14 as required. □

4.2.2. The second main result and some corollaries. In this subdivision, we show the following theorem which is the second result of our paper.

Theorem 4.14. If Λ is representation-finite, then

$$\left \{ \left \lceil \frac { \ell \ell ^ { t s } ( \Lambda ) } { d } \right \rceil - 1 \, \Big | \, d \in \mathbb { N } \ a n d \ 1 \leqslant d < \ell \ell ^ { t s } ( \Lambda ) \right \} \subseteq \text{Spec} ( \Lambda ),$$

where ⌈ α ⌉ is the least integer greater than α.

We need the following lemma for proving Theorem 4.14

## Lemma 4.15. A family

$$( 0 \longrightarrow M _ { i } \stackrel { \varphi _ { i } } { \longrightarrow } M _ { i - 1 } \longrightarrow N _ { i } \longrightarrow 0 ) _ { 1 \leqslant i \leqslant d }$$

of short exact sequences induces a short exact sequence

$$0 \longrightarrow M _ { d } \longrightarrow M _ { 0 } \longrightarrow N _ { [ 0, d ] } \longrightarrow 0$$

satisfying ℓℓ t S ( N [0 ,d ] ) ⩽ ∑ d i =1 ℓℓ t S ( N i ) , where d ⩾ 1 .

Proof. The case for d = 1 is trivial. Next, we show this lemma holds for d ⩾ 2.

For simplification, we define

N

[

u,u

+ ]

i

:=

M /M

u

u

+

i

which is induced by the cokernel of the composition

$$\varphi _ { [ u, u + i ] } & \coloneqq \varphi _ { u + 1 } \circ \cdots \circ \varphi _ { u + i } \colon M _ { u + i } \to M _ { u } \\ & ( 0 \leqslant u < u + i \leqslant d, \, 1 \leqslant i \leqslant d - u ).$$

Since composition φ [ u -1 ,u + ] i is always monomorphic, φ [0 ,d ] induces a short exact sequence which is of the form

$$0 \longrightarrow M _ { d } \stackrel { \varphi _ { [ 0, d ] } } { \longrightarrow } M _ { 0 } \longrightarrow N _ { [ 0, d ] } \longrightarrow 0,$$

where N [0 ,d ] ∼ = M /M 0 d . Moreover, for any 1 ⩽ i ⩽ d , the epimorphism ϕ [ d -( +1) i ,d ] : M d -( +1) i → N [ d -( +1) i ,d ] induced by the cokernel of φ [ d -( +1) i ,d ] and the monomorphism ϕ d -i : N [ d -i,d ] → N [ d -( +1) i ,d ] obtained by the universal property of the cokernel of φ [ d -i,d ] provide the following diagram

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00207v2-figure-d888ab17-9bf7-4b82-8415-d6923d144eca.jpg)

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

commutes, whose rows and columns are exact, and the commutative square marked by ' ♠ ' is both a push-out and pull-back square. Of course, the above diagram can also be induced by using the snake lemma. Then we obtain a family

$$( 0 \longrightarrow N _ { [ d - j, d ] } \longrightarrow N _ { [ d - ( j + 1 ), d ] } \longrightarrow N _ { d - ( j + 1 ) } \longrightarrow 0 ) _ { 0 \leqslant j \leqslant d - 2 }$$

of short exact sequences (see the shadow of the above diagram), where N [ d,d ] := N d . Then, by Theorem 4.14, we have

$$\ell \ell ^ { t s } ( N _ { [ 1, d ] } ) & \leqslant \ell \ell ^ { t s } ( N _ { [ 2, d ] } ) + \ell \ell ^ { t s } ( N _ { 1 } ) \\ & \leqslant \ell \ell ^ { t s } ( N _ { [ 3, d ] } ) + \ell \ell ^ { t s } ( N _ { 2 } ) + \ell \ell ^ { t s } ( N _ { 1 } )$$

$$\mathcal { U } ^ { \bullet } ( N _ { [ 1, d ] } ) & \leqslant \mathcal { U } ^ { \bullet } ( N _ { [ 2, d ] } ) + \mathcal { U } ^ { \bullet } ( N _ { 1 } ) \\ & \leqslant \mathcal { I } ^ { t s } ( N _ { [ 3, d ] } ) + \mathcal { I } ^ { t s } ( N _ { 2 } ) + \mathcal { I } ^ { t s } ( N _ { 1 } ) \\ & \quad \vdots \\ & \leqslant \mathcal { I } ^ { t s } ( N _ { d } ) + \cdots + \mathcal { I } ^ { t s } ( N _ { 2 } ) + \mathcal { I } ^ { t s } ( N _ { 1 } ) = \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { d } \mathcal { I } ^ { t s } ( N _ { i } ). \\ & \quad \quad \bigoplus \text{.} \quad T h \text{sounds } A ^ { 1 } \, A$$

Now we prove Theorem 4.14.

The proof of Theorem 4.14. This proof is divided to two parts (i) and (ii).

- (i) In the case of ℓℓ t S ( Λ ) = 1, we have

$$\left \{ \left \lceil \frac { \ell \ell ^ { t s } ( \Lambda ) } { d } \right \rceil - 1 \, \left | \, d \in \mathbb { N } \text{ and } 1 \leqslant d < \ell \ell ^ { t s } ( \Lambda ) \right \} \right | _ { \ell \ell ^ { t s } ( \Lambda ) = 1 } = \{ 0 \} \subseteq \text{Spec} ( \Lambda ).$$

(ii) Assume that ℓℓ t S ( Λ ) = n ⩾ 2, and for any 1 ⩽ d &lt; ℓℓ t S ( Λ ), assume n = dm + , r where 0 ⩽ r &lt; d . Thus, we need show m -1 ∈ OSpec( Λ ) for proving this theorem. To do this, we construct a Λ -module T such that U mod Λ ( T ) = m -1 in this proof.

First of all, notice that, for arbitrary M ∈ mod Λ , we have the following two short exact sequences

$$0 & \longrightarrow t _ { \mathfrak { S } } \circ F _ { t _ { \mathfrak { S } } } ^ { i - 1 } ( M ) \stackrel { f _ { i - 1 } } { \longrightarrow } F _ { t _ { \mathfrak { S } } } ^ { i - 1 } ( M ) \longrightarrow q _ { t _ { \mathfrak { S } } } \circ F _ { t _ { \mathfrak { S } } } ^ { i - 1 } ( M ) \longrightarrow 0 \\ \text{and } 0 & \longrightarrow F _ { t _ { \mathfrak { S } } } ^ { i } ( M ) \longrightarrow t _ { \mathfrak { S } } \circ F _ { t _ { \mathfrak { S } } } ^ { i - 1 } ( M ) \stackrel { g _ { i - 1 } } { \longrightarrow } \text{top} ( t _ { \mathfrak { S } } \circ F _ { t _ { \mathfrak { S } } } ^ { i } ( M ) ) \longrightarrow 0 \\ \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot$$

for each 1 ⩽ i ⩽ n -1. Here, F i t S ( M ) = rad( t S F i -1 t S ( M )), see Definition 4.2. It follows that the following push-out square

/

/

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

/

/

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

$$\cdots \cdots \cdot \\ t _ { \mathbf S } \circ F _ { t _ { \mathbf S } } ^ { i - 1 } ( M ) \xrightarrow { f _ { i - 1 } } F _ { t _ { \mathbf S } } ^ { i - 1 } ( M ) \\ g _ { i - 1 } \Big \downarrow \Big \downarrow \\ \text{top} ( t _ { \mathbf S } \circ F _ { t _ { \mathbf S } } ^ { i - 1 } ( M ) ) \xrightarrow { f _ { i - 1 } } D _ { i }$$

/

/

/

/

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

/

/

/

/

provides the diagram

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00207v2-figure-15f7e707-ed9e-4e99-8462-ca8e6666d159.jpg)

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

commutes, whose rows and columns are exact. Thus, we obtain that

$$\ell \ell ^ { t s } ( D _ { i } ) \leqslant \ell ^ { t s } ( \text{top} ( t _ { \mathbf S } \circ F _ { t _ { \mathbf S } } ^ { i - 1 } ( M ) ) ) + \ell \ell ^ { t s } ( q _ { t _ { \mathbf S } } \circ F _ { t _ { \mathbf S } } ^ { i - 1 } ( M ) ) \leqslant 1 + 0 = 1 \quad \ \ ( 4. 3 )$$

holds for each 1 ⩽ i ⩽ n -1, and there is a family

$$( 0 \longrightarrow F _ { t _ { S } } ^ { i } ( M ) \stackrel { \varphi _ { i } } { \longrightarrow } F _ { t _ { S } } ^ { i - 1 } ( M ) \longrightarrow D _ { i } \longrightarrow 0 ) _ { 1 \leqslant i \leqslant n - 1 }$$

of short exact sequences.

Second, the composition φ [ ud, u ( +1) ] d := φ ( u +1) d · · · φ ud +1 (1 ⩽ u &lt; m ) (resp. φ [ md,md + ] r := φ md + r · · · φ md +1 ) is monomorphic since all φ i are monomorphic, it induces a short exact sequence which is of the form

$$0 \longrightarrow F _ { t _ { \S } } ^ { ( u + 1 ) d } ( M ) \longrightarrow F _ { t _ { \S } } ^ { u d } ( M ) \longrightarrow D _ { [ u d, ( u + 1 ) d ] } \longrightarrow 0$$

$$( \text{resp. } 0 \longrightarrow F _ { t _ { S } } ^ { ( m - 1 ) d - r } ( M ) \longrightarrow F _ { t _ { S } } ^ { ( m - 2 ) d } ( M ) \longrightarrow D _ { [ ( m - 2 ) d, ( m - 1 ) d - r ] } \longrightarrow 0 ). \quad ( 4. 5 )$$

where

$$\begin{array} { c } D _ { [ u d, ( u + 1 ) d ] } \cong F _ { t _ { S } } ^ { u d } ( M ) / F _ { t _ { S } } ^ { ( u + 1 ) d } ( M ) \\ ( \text{resp.} \ D _ { [ ( m - 2 ) d, ( m - 1 ) d - r ] } \cong F _ { t _ { S } } ^ { ( m - 2 ) d } ( M ) / F _ { t _ { S } } ^ { ( m - 1 ) d - r } ( M ) ). \end{array}$$

By Lemma 4.15 and (4.3), we have

$$\ell \ell ^ { t s } ( D _ { [ u d, ( u + 1 ) d ] } ) \leqslant \sum _ { i = u d + 1 } ^ { ( u + 1 ) d } \ell \ell ^ { t s } ( D _ { i } ) = d$$

$$\left ( \text{resp.} \ \ell \ell ^ { t _ { S } } ( D _ { [ ( m - 2 ) d, ( m - 1 ) d - r ] } ) \leqslant \sum _ { i = ( m - 2 ) d + 1 } ^ { ( m - 1 ) d - r } \ell \ell ^ { t _ { S } } ( D _ { i } ) \leqslant d \right ).$$

Then, by using (4.4) and (4.5), we have

$$\text{Then, by using } ( 4. 4 ) \text{ and } ( 4. 5 ), \text{ we have} \\ [ M ] _ { 1 } & = [ \text{rad} ^ { 0 } \circ t _ { 5 } ^ { 0 } ( M ) ] _ { 1 } = [ F _ { t _ { 5 } } ^ { 0 } ( M ) ] _ { 1 } \\ & \subseteq [ F _ { t _ { 5 } } ^ { d } ( M ) ] _ { 1 } \cdot [ D _ { [ 0, d ] } ] _ { 1 } \\ & \subseteq [ F _ { t _ { 5 } } ^ { 2 d } ( M ) ] _ { 1 } \cdot [ D _ { [ d, 2 d ] } ] _ { 1 } \cdot [ D _ { [ 0, d ] } ] _ { 1 } \\ & \quad \vdots \\ & \subseteq [ F _ { t _ { 5 } } ^ { ( m - 2 ) d } ( M ) ] _ { 1 } \cdot [ D _ { [ ( m - 3 ) d, ( m - 2 ) d ] } ] _ { 1 } \cdot \cdots \cdot [ D _ { [ 0, d ] } ] _ { 1 } \\ & \subseteq [ F _ { t _ { 5 } } ^ { ( m - 1 ) d - r } ( M ) ] _ { 1 } \cdot [ D _ { [ ( m - 2 ) d, ( m - 1 ) d - r ] } ] _ { 1 } \cdot [ D _ { [ ( m - 3 ) d, ( m - 2 ) d ] } ] _ { 1 } \cdot \cdots \cdot [ D _ { [ 0, d ] } ] _ { 1 }.$$

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

/

/

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

/

/

/

/

/

/

Finally, we construct the Λ -module T as follows

$$T = \bigoplus _ { Z \in \mathcal { W } _ { d } } Z,$$

where W d := { Z ∈ ind mod ( Λ ) | ℓℓ t S ( Z ) ⩽ d } . We claim that [ T ] m = mod Λ and [ T ] m -1 ⊊ mod Λ hold. Indeed, by Lemma 4.4 (3), we have

$$\ell \ell ^ { t s } ( T ) = \ell \ell ^ { t s } \left ( \bigoplus _ { Z \in \mathcal { W } _ { d } } Z \right ) = \sup \{ \ell \ell ^ { t s } ( Z ) \ | \ Z \in \mathcal { W } _ { d } \} \leqslant d.$$

m

Then we have [ M ] 1 ⊆ ︷ ︸︸ ︷ [ T ] 1 [ T ] 1 · · · [ T ] 1 = [ T ] m by (4.6). In this case, mod Λ = [ T ] m . On the other hand, if [ T ] m -1 = mod Λ , then, by Corollary 4.10, we obtain

$$\ell \ell ^ { t s } ( \Lambda ) \leqslant ( m - 1 ) \, \ell \ell ^ { t s } ( T ) \leqslant ( m - 1 ) d = m d - d < m d - j = \ell \ell ^ { t s } ( \Lambda ),$$

This is a contradiction.

Therefore, U mod Λ ( T ) = m -1, and then m -1 ∈ OSpec( Λ ) holds.

Example 4.16. Take

$$\Lambda = \mathbf k \mathcal { Q } / \langle ( \alpha _ { 1 } \alpha _ { 2 } \alpha _ { 3 } \alpha _ { 4 } ) ^ { 5 } \rangle,$$

O

/

/

O

o

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00207v2-figure-635c245a-9295-4273-bead-3e72490cda54.jpg)

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

o

We have seven items as follows:

- (a) Let S = ∅ , then ℓℓ t S ( Λ ) by Proposition 4.3. On the other hand, ℓℓ ( Λ ) = sup { ℓℓ P ( ( )) i | 1 ⩽ i ⩽ 4 } = 23, then by Theorem 4.14, we have

$$\{ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 1 1, 2 2 \} \subseteq \text{OSpec} ( \Lambda ).$$

- (b) Let S = { S (1) } , then ℓℓ t S ( Λ ) = sup { ℓℓ t S ( P i ( )) | 1 ⩽ i ⩽ 4 } = ℓℓ t S ( P (2)) = 18. Furthermore, by Theorem 4.14, we have

$$\{ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 1 7 \} \subseteq O S p e c ( \Lambda ).$$

- (c) Let S = { S (2) } { , S (3) } , or { S (4) } , then ℓℓ t S ( Λ ) = sup { ℓℓ t S ( P i ( )) | 1 ⩽ i ⩽ 4 } = ℓℓ t S ( P (2)) = 17 . Furthermore, by Theorem 4.14, we have

$$\{ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 1 6 \} \subseteq O S p e c ( \Lambda ).$$

- (d) Let S = { S (1) , S (2) } { , S (1) , S (3) } , or { S (1) , S (4) } , then ℓℓ t S ( Λ ) = sup { ℓℓ t S ( P i ( )) | 1 ⩽ i ⩽ 4 } = ℓℓ t S ( P (2)) = 12 . Furthermore, by Theorem 4.14, we have

$$\{ 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 1 1 \} \subseteq O S p e c ( \Lambda ).$$

- (e) Let S = { S (2) , S (3) } { , S (2) , S (4) } , or { S (3) , S (4) } , then ℓℓ t S ( Λ ) = sup { ℓℓ t S ( P i ( )) | 1 ⩽ i ⩽ 4 } = ℓℓ t S ( P (2)) = 11. Furthermore, by Theorem 4.14, we have

$$\{ 0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 1 0 \} \subseteq \text{OSpec} ( \Lambda ).$$

- (f) Let S = { S (1) , S (2) , S (3) } { , S (1) , S (2) , S (4) } , or { S (1) , S (3) , S (4) } , then ℓℓ t S ( Λ ) = sup { ℓℓ t S ( P i ( )) | 1 ⩽ i ⩽ 4 } = ℓℓ t S ( P (2)) = 6. Furthermore, by Theorem 4.14, we have

$$\{ 0, 1, 2, 3, 5 \} \subseteq \text{OSpec} ( \Lambda ).$$

- (g) Let S = { S (2) , S (3) , S (4) } , then ℓℓ t S ( Λ ) = sup { ℓℓ t S ( P i ( )) | 1 ⩽ i ⩽ 4 } = ℓℓ t S ( P (2)) = 5 . Furthermore, by Theorem 4.14, we have

$$\{ 0, 1, 2, 4 \} \subseteq \text{OSpec} ( \Lambda ).$$

By (a)-(g), we have

$$\{ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 1 0, 1 1, 1 6, 1 7, 2 2 \} \subseteq O S p e c ( A ).$$

where Q is defined as

□

Corollary/Proposition 4.17. The Orlov spectrum OSpec( Λ ) of the finite-dimensional algebra Λ = k Q /I given by the quiver shown in Figure 4.1 and the admissible ideal I = ⟨ α α 1 2 · · · α m ⟩ and 2 ⩽ m ⩽ n -1 satisfies

$$\{ 0, 1, 2, \cdots, m + n - 1 \} \subseteq O S p e c ( A ).$$

α

1

Figure 4.1. The path algebra in Corollary/Proposition 4.17

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00207v2-figure-513e07ab-7042-48a2-8f3c-d025cceebe0c.jpg)

Proof. We have the five items as follows.

- (a) If S = ∅ , then ℓℓ t S ( Λ ) = ℓℓ ( Λ ) m + n .
- (b) If S = { S (2) , S (3) , . . . , S ( ) i } (for any i satisfying 2 ⩽ i ⩽ m ), then ℓℓ t S ( Λ ) = sup { P i ( ) | 1 ⩽ i ⩽ n } = ℓℓ t S ( P (2)) = m + n +2 -2 . i
- (c) If S = { S (1) , S (2) , S (3) , . . . , S ( ) i } (for any i satisfying 2 ⩽ i ⩽ m ), then ℓℓ t S ( Λ ) = sup { P i ( ) | 1 ⩽ i ⩽ n } = ℓℓ t S ( P (2)) = m + n +1 -2 . i
- (d) If S = { S (1) , S (2) , S (3) , . . . , S ( m ,S m ) ( +1) , . . . , S ( ) i } (for any i satisfying m +2 ⩽ i ⩽ n ), then ℓℓ t S ( Λ ) = sup { P i ( ) | 1 ⩽ i ⩽ n } = ℓℓ t S ( P (2)) = n +2 -i .
- (e) If S = { S (2) , S (3) , . . . , S ( m ,S m ) ( +1) , . . . , S ( n ) } , then ℓℓ t S ( Λ ) = sup { P i ( ) | 1 ⩽ i ⩽ n } = ℓℓ t S ( P (2)) = 1.

By Theorem 4.14, we obtain ℓℓ t S ( Λ ) - ∈ 1 OSpec( Λ ). Thus, (a)-(e) yields that { 1 2 , , · · · , m + n -1 } ⊆ OSpec( Λ ). Moreover, Λ is representation-finite, it follows 0 ∈ OSpec( Λ ), see Lemma 3.12. Therefore, (4.7) holds. □

## 5. Application: The Orlov spectrum with type A n

Let -→ A n be the linearly oriented quiver with type A n , i.e.,

/

$$\overrightarrow { \mathbb { A } } _ { n } = \ 1 \xrightarrow { a _ { 1 } } 2 \xrightarrow { a _ { 2 } } \cdots \xrightarrow { a _ { n - 1 } } n \.$$

/

/

/

/

/

In this subsection, we compute the Orlov spectrum OSpec( A n ) of A n := k -→ A n .

Proposition 5.1. { 0 1 2 , , , · · · , n - } ⊆ 1 OSpec( A n ) .

Proof. For each 1 ⩽ i ⩽ n -1, we have the following three items.

- (a) For the case of S = ∅ , we have ℓℓ A ( n ) -1 = n -1 ∈ OSpec( A n ).
- (b) For the case of S = { S (1) } , we have ℓℓ t S ( A n ) = sup { P i ( ) | 1 ⩽ i ⩽ n } = n -1. Then we obtain ℓℓ t S ( A n ) -1 = n -2 ∈ OSpec( A n ) by Theorem 4.14.
- (c) For the case of S = { S (1) , . . . , S ( j ) } (1 ⩽ j ⩽ n -1), we have ℓℓ t S ( A n ) = sup { P i ( ) | 1 ⩽ i ⩽ n } = n -j . Then we obtain ℓℓ t S ( A n ) -1 = ( n -j ) -1 = n -j -1 ∈ OSpec( A n ).

The above three items yield { 0 1 2 , , , · · · , n - } ⊆ 1 OSpec( A n ).

□

Next, we define some notation to describe the Auslander-Reiten quiver Γ( A n ) of A n . Recall that a path ℘ [ i,j ] = a a i i +1 · · · a j ( j ⩾ i ) on -→ A n corresponds to an indecomposable representation M [ i,j ] = (( M [ i,j ] ) k , ( M [ i,j ] ) α ) k ∈ ( - → A n ) 0 ,α ∈ ( - → A n ) 1 satisfying

$$( M _ { [ i, j ] } ) _ { k } = \begin{cases} \mathbf k, & \text{if $i\leqslant k\leqslant j+1$;} \text{ and } ( M _ { [ i, j ] } ) _ { \alpha } = \begin{cases} 1 _ { \mathbf k }, & \text{if $\alpha\in\{a_{i},a_{i+1},\cdots,a_{j}\}$;} \\ 0, & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases} \end{cases}$$

Then each irreducible morphisms in mod A n is one of the following form:

- · the irreducible monomorphism f + [ i,j ] : M [ i,j ] → M [ i -1 ,j ] (2 ⩽ i ⩽ n ),
- · the irreducible epimorphism f -[ i,j ] : M [ i,j ] → M [ i,j -1] (2 ⩽ j ⩽ n );

and in this case, Γ( A n ) = (Γ( A n ) 0 , Γ( A n ) 1 , s , t ), where

- · Γ( A n ) 0 = { M [ i,j ] | 1 ⩽ i ⩽ j ⩽ n } ;
- · Γ( A n ) 1 = { f + [ i,j ] | 2 ⩽ i ⩽ n, 1 ⩽ j ⩽ n } ∪ { f -[ i,j ] | 1 ⩽ i ⩽ n, 2 ⩽ j ⩽ n } ;
- · s and t respectively send any arrow f ± [ - -, ] to its starting and ending points, see Figure 5.1

Figure 5.1. The Auslander-Reiten quiver of A n

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00207v2-figure-c89e68b4-7b7e-4b04-86c1-25692eb855c0.jpg)

For any 1 ⩽ m&lt;n , let

$$T _ { m } = \left ( \bigoplus _ { 1 \leqslant j \leqslant m } M _ { [ 1, j ] } \right ) \bigoplus \left ( \bigoplus _ { i \in ( \overrightarrow { \mathbb { A } } _ { n } ) _ { 0 } } M _ { [ i, i ] } \right ).$$

The computing is divided to two steps as follows:

Step 1: describe all irreducible T m -coghosts (see Proposition 5.4);

Step 2: show that sup OSpec( A n ) = n -1.

Thus, we can obtain the Orlov spectrum of A n is OSpec( A n ) = { 1 2 , , . . . , n -1 } by using Proposition 5.1.

Lemma 5.2. All f + [ i,n ] : M [ i,n ] → M [ i -1 ,n ] ( m +1 ⩽ i ⩽ n ) are T m -coghosts.

Proof. First of all, for any M [ j,j ] , we have M [ j,j ] is isomorphic to the simple module S j ( ) corresponded by j ∈ ( -→ A n ) 0 , and so the following statements hold.

- (1) If j ⩽ i -1 then Hom A n ( M [ i,n ] , M [ j,j ] ) = 0.
- (2) If j ⩾ i , then Hom A n ( M [ i -1 ,n ] , M [ j,j ] ) = 0.

The proof of (1) is trivial. Next we prove (2). For any 1 ⩽ p &lt; q ⩽ n and p &lt; r ⩽ q , the morphism h = ( h v ) v ∈ ( - → A n ) 0 ∈ rep( -→ A n ) from the representation (( M [ p,q ] ) v , ( M [ p,q ] ) α ) v ∈ ( - → A n ) 0 ,α ∈ ( - → A n ) 1 of M [ p,q ] to the simple representation of S r ( ) is a family of k -linear maps such that the following diagram commutes.

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00207v2-figure-1750b2f0-1885-417d-bb8b-2035161f9e6d.jpg)

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

GLYPH&lt;15&gt;

/

/

/

/

/

/

/

̸

( e r is the path of length zero corresponded by the vertex r of ( -→ A n ) 0 ). Then r -1 ⩾ p , and so ( M [ p,q ] ) r -1 = k . Since p = q , we obtain ( M [ p,q ] ) r = k , and so d r -1 = 1 . k By the commutativity of the above diagram, we obtain h r = 0. Take p = i -1, q = n and r = j ⩾ i . Then any h ∈ Hom A n ( M [ i -1 ,n ] , M [ j,j ] ) is zero holds for all p = i -1 &lt; r = j ⩽ q = n . Thus, the statement (2) holds. Then, by Lemma 2.20, every f + [ i,n ] ( m +1 ⩽ i ⩽ n ) is an M [ j,j ] -coghost ( j ∈ ( -→ A n ) 0 ). Furthermore, we obtain that it is also a ( ⊕ j ∈ ( - → A n ) 0 M [ j,j ] ) -coghost by Lemma 2.21.

Next, we prove that every f + [ i,n ] ( m +1 ⩽ i ⩽ n ) is a ( ⊕ 1 ⩽ ⩽ j n M [1 ,j ] ) -coghost (1 ⩽ j ⩽ m ). For any g ∈ Hom A n ( M [ i -1 ,n ] , M [1 ,j ] ), note that i &gt; j , then it is obvious that g is zero. In this case, gf + [ i,n ] = 0, then f + [ i,n ] is an M [1 ,j ] -coghost by Lemma 2.20. Thus, f + [ i,n ] is also a ( ⊕ 1 ⩽ ⩽ j n M [1 ,j ] ) -coghost by Lemma 2.21.

+ -coghost. □

Finally, using Lemma 2.21 again, we have f [ i,n ] is a T m

$$\text{Lemma $5.3$. If $f^{+}_{[r,s]}$ (s>1) $is a $T_{m}$-coghost, then $s o $is f^{+}_{[r,s-1]}$.}$$

Proof. For any morphism h : M [ r -1 ,s -1] → T ′ with T ′ ∈ add T m , we have

$$( h \circ f _ { [ r - 1, s ] } ^ { - } ) \circ f _ { [ r, s ] } ^ { + } = 0$$

since h f -[ r -1 ,s ] is a morphism in Hom A n ( M [ r -1 ,s ] , T ′ ) and f + [ r,s ] is a T m -coghost. Then

Figure 5.2. Anti-commutative block in Γ( mod A n )

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00207v2-figure-84c458dd-7f67-4af0-adcc-0bd03b6de5ce.jpg)

0 = h f -[ r -1 ,s ] f + [ r,s ] = -h f + [ r,s -1] f -[ r,s ] (see Figure 5.2). Since f -[ r,s ] is an epimorphism, we obtain hf + [ r,s -1] = 0. □

The following result is given by Lemmas 5.2 and 5.3, which provide all irreducible T m -coghosts.

Proposition 5.4. The morphisms f + [ i,n -t ] ( m + 1 ⩽ i ⩽ n , 0 ⩽ t &lt; n ) constitute all irreducible T m -coghosts in mod A n .

Proof. Let F = { f + [ i,n -t ] | m +1 ⩽ i ⩽ n, 0 ⩽ t &lt; n } . We show that a homomorphism f is an irreducible T m -coghosts if and only if f ∈ F .

̸

First of all, for any 1 ⩽ t &lt; j ( ⩽ m ), f + [ t +1 ,j ] : M [ t +1 ,j ] → M [ t,j ] (see the irreducible morphisms f + [ - -, ] in the part A of Figure 5.3) is not a T m -coghost. Indeed, every f + [ i,j ] (2 ⩽ i ⩽ j ) is monomorphic, then h = t ∏ i =2 f + [ i,j ] : M [ t,j ] → M [1 ,j ] and hf + [ t +1 ,j ] are monomorphic, and then hf + [ t +1 ,j ] = 0. Since M [1 ,j ] ∈ add T , f + [ t +1 ,j ] is not a T m -coghost.

Secondly, for any f + [ r,s ] , if f + [ r,s ] is not a T m -coghost, then by Lemma 5.3, we obtain that f + [ r,s +1] is not a T m -coghost. Thus any irreducible morphisms f + [ - -, ] in the part B of Figure 5.3. Therefore, f + [ r,s ] is an irreducible T m -coghosts if and only if f + [ r,s ] ∈ F .

̸

Finally, any f -[ r,s ] : M [ r,s ] → M [ r,s -1] is not a T m -coghost because e [ r,s -1] f -[ r,s ] = 0, where e [ r,s -1] : M [ r,s -1] → top( M [ r,s -1] ) is the natural epimorphism from M [ r,s -1] to its top top( M [ r,s -1] ) = ∼ M [ r,r ] ∈ add T m . Thus, f -[ r,s ] / ∈ F .

In conclusion, f is an irreducible T m -coghosts if and only if f ∈ F

. □

Figure 5.3. The Auslander-Reiten quiver of A n ( T m -coghosts)

![Image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00207v2-figure-18e538f5-48ed-4169-a4f7-7daba40f18d3.jpg)

Lemma 5.5. For any n homomorphisms f i : X i → X i +1 (1 ⩽ i ⩽ n ) in rad A n ( X , X i i +1 ) , we have f n · · · f 2 f 1 = 0 .

Proof. Consider the Auslander algebra A Aus n = k Γ( mod A n ) / I ( mod A n ) of A n , where I ( mod A n ) is generated by

- (1) the zero relations f -[ t -1 ,t ] f + [ t,t ] (1 &lt; t ⩽ n )
- (2) and the commutative relations f -[ r -1 ,s ] f + [ r,s ] + f -[ r,s ] f + [ r,s -1] (2 ⩽ r ⩽ n -1, 3 ⩽ s ⩽ n ).

Any morphism f i is an element in A Aus n , then there are k i 1 , · · · , k it i ∈ k such that

$$f _ { i } = \sum _ { u = 1 } ^ { t _ { i } } k _ { i u } \wp _ { i u },$$

where every ℘ iu is a path on the bound quiver (Γ( mod A n ) , I ( mod A n )) of A Aus n whose length ℓ ℘ ( iu ) satisfies the following conditions:

- · ℓ ℘ ( iu ) ⩾ 1 because f i ∈ rad A n ( X , X i i +1 ) ⊆ rad( A Aus n );

- · and ℓ ℘ ( iu ) ⩽ n -1 because f + [2 ,n ] · · · f + [ n,n ] and f -[1 2] , · · · f -[1 ,n ] are the longest paths in (Γ( mod A n ) , I ( mod A n )) whose length are n -1.

Therefore, f n · · · f 1 ∈ rad n ( A Aus n ) = 0, to be more precise, we have

$$f _ { n } \circ \cdots \circ f _ { 2 } \circ f _ { 1 } = \sum _ { ( u _ { 1 }, \cdots, u _ { n } ) \in ( \mathbb { N } _ { \leqslant n } ^ { + } ) ^ { \times n } } \prod _ { i = 1 } ^ { n } k _ { i u _ { i } } \wp _ { i u _ { i } }.$$

Since ℓ ℘ ( nu n · · · ℘ 1 u 1 ) equals to either ∑ n i =1 ℓ ℘ ( iu i ) ( ⩾ n ) or zero, we have ℘ nu n · · · ℘ 1 u 1 = 0, and so f n · · · f 1 = 0. □

Proposition 5.6. sup(OSpec( A n )) = n -1 .

Proof. We have n -1 ∈ OSpec( A n ) by Proposition 5.1. Next, assume that there is an integer y ⩾ n such that y ∈ OSpec( A n ), then there is a strong generator T satisfying [ T ] y = mod ( A n ), and [ T ] y \ [ T ] n -1 contains at least one non-zero A n -module Y such that there exists a homomorphism g ∈ Gh y T ( X,Y ) which is not zero, where X is a non-zero A n -module (see Coghost Lemma 2.15). Therefore, we can find y T -coghosts

$$f _ { 1 } \colon X = X _ { 1 } \to X _ { 2 }, \ f _ { 2 } \colon X _ { 2 } \to X _ { 3 }, \ \dots, \ f _ { y } \colon X _ { y } \to X _ { y + 1 } = Y$$

satisfying the following two conditions:

- · all f i are not isomorphisms (by Lemma 2.19);

̸

- · g = f y · · · f 2 f 1 = 0.

Consider the Auslander algebra

$$A _ { n } ^ { A u s } = \text{End} _ { A _ { n } } \left ( \bigoplus _ { M \in \text{ind} ( \text{mod} ( A _ { n } ) ) } M \right )$$

of A n whose quiver Γ( A n ) = (Γ( A n ) 0 , Γ( A n ) 1 , s , t ) is shown in Figure 5.1. Then each homomorphism f i can be seen as an element in A Aus n . In the above sense, f i is either a homomorphism lying in rad( A Aus n ) or a homomorphism of the form

$$( f _ { i } = ( f _ { i 1 } \ f _ { i 2 } ) \colon X _ { i } = X _ { i 1 } \oplus X _ { i 2 } \longrightarrow X _ { i + 1 } ) \in \mathbf k \Gamma ( A _ { n } ) _ { 0 } \oplus \mathbf r a d ( A ^ { \text{Aus} } ),$$

such that f i 1 ∈ k Γ( A n ) 0 , f i 2 ∈ rad( A Aus ). Then for any h : X i +1 → T ′ , T ′ ∈ add T , we have

$$h \circ f _ { i } = \left ( h \circ f _ { i 1 } \ h \circ f _ { i 2 } \right ) = 0,$$

since f i is a T -coghost, and then h f i 1 = 0 and h f 12 = 0. The above follows that f i 1 is a T -coghost, it contradicts with Lemma 2.19. f i 1 is an isomorphism defined on some semi-simple module. Then each homomorphism f i , as an element in A Aus , lies in rad( A Aus ), that is, f i ∈ rad A n ( X , X i i +1 ). It contradicts with Lemma 5.5. □

Theorem 5.7. OSpec( A n ) = { 0 1 2 , , , · · · , n - } 1 .

Proof. This theorem is obtained by Propositions 5.1 and 5.6 immediately. □

## Acknowledgements

The authors are greatly indebted to Pat Lank for helpful suggestions.

## Funding

This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 12401042, 12171207), Guizhou Provincial Basic Research Program (Natural Science) (Grant No. ZK[2024]YiBan066), and Scientific Research Foundation of Guizhou University (Grant Nos. [2022]53, [2022]65, [2023]16).

## References

- [1] I. Assem, D. Simson, and A. Skowronski. Elements of the Representation Theory of Associative Algebras: Volume 1: Techniques of Representation Theory . Cambridge University Press, 2006
- [2] I. Assem, A. Skowro´ski, and S. Trepode. The representation dimension of a selfinjective algebra of n Euclidean type. Journal of Algebra , 459 (1):157-188, 2016. DOI:10.1016/j.jalgebra.2016.03.033
- [3] M. Auslander. Representation dimension of Artin algebras, In: Selected works of Maurice Auslander , page 505-574, 1999
- [4] M. Auslander, I. Reiten, and S. O. Smalo. Representation theory of Artin algebras , volume 36. Cambridge university press, 1997
- [5] M. Ballard, D. Favero, and L. Katzarkov. Orlov spectra: bounds and gaps. Inventiones mathematicae , 189 (2):359-430, 2012
- [6] A. Beligiannis. Some ghost lemmas, survey for 'the representation dimension of Artin algebras', Bielefeld, 2008. http://users.uoi.gr/abeligia/ghosts.pdf
- [7] P. A. Bergh, S. Oppermann, and D. A. Jorgensen. The Gorenstein defect category. The Quarterly Journal of Mathematics , 66 (2):459-471, 2015. DOI:10.1093/qmath/hav001
- [8] A. I. Bondal and M. Van den Bergh. Generators and representability of functors in commutative and noncommutative geometry. Moscow Mathematical Journal , 3 (1):1-36, 2003. DOI:10.17323/1609-45142003-3-1-1-36
- [9] D. Bravo, M. Lanzilotta, and O. Mendoza. Pullback diagrams, syzygy finite classes and Igusa-Todorov algebras. Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra , 22 3(10):4494-4508, 2019. DOI:10.1016/j.jpaa.2019.01.018
- [10] X.-W. Chen, Y. Ye, and P. Zhang. Algebras of derived dimension zero. Communications in Algebra , 36 (1):1-10, 2008. DOI:10.1080/00927870701649184
- [11] H. Dao and R. Takahashi. The radius of a subcategory of modules. Algebra &amp; Number Theory , 8 (1):141-172, 2014. DOI:10.2140/ant.2014.8.141
- [12] Y. Han. Derived dimensions of representation-finite algebras. Preprint, arXiv:0909.0330, 2009
- [13] F. Huard, M. Lanzilotta, and O. M. Hern´ andez. Layer lengths, torsion theories and the finitistic dimension. Applied Categorical Structures , 21 (4):379-392, 2013. DOI:10.1007/s10485-011-9268-x
- [14] F. Huard, M. Lanzilotta, and O. Mendoza. An approach to the finitistic dimension conjecture. Journal of Algebra , 319 (9):3918-3934, 2008. DOI:10.1016/j.jalgebra.2008.02.008
- [15] F. Huard, M. Lanzilotta, and O. Mendoza. Finitistic dimension through infinite projective dimension. Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society , 41 (2):367-376, 2009. DOI:10.1112/blms/bdp010
- [16] Z. Huang and J. Sun. Invariant properties of representations under excellent extensions. Journal of Algebra , 358 (15):87-101, 2012. DOI:10.1016/j.jalgebra.2012.03.004
- [17] P. Lank. Strong generation &amp; (co)ghost index for module categories (first edition). Preprint, arXiv:2307.13675v1, 2023.
- [18] M. Linckelmann. Finite generation of Hochschild cohomology of Hecke algebras of finite classical type in characteristic zero. Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society , 43 (5), 871-885, 2011. DOI:10.1112/blms/bdr024
- [19] S. Oppermann. Lower bounds for Auslander's representation dimension. Duke Mathematical Journal , 148 (2):211-249, 2009. DOI:10.1215/00127094-2009-025
- [20] S. Oppermann and J. ˇ t'ov´ ıˇek. Generating the bounded derived category and perfect ghosts. S c Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society , 44 (2):285-298, 2012. DOI:10.1112/blms/bdr093
- [21] D. Orlov, Remarks on generators and dimensions of triangulated categories, Moscow Mathematical Journal , 9 (1), 153-159 (2009). DOI:10.17323/1609-4514-2009-9-1-143-149
- [22] R. Rouquier. Representation dimension of exterior algebras. Inventiones mathematicae , 165 (2):357367, 2006. DOI:10.1007/s00222-006-0499-7
- [23] R. Rouquier. Dimensions of triangulated categories. Journal of K-theory , 1 (2):193-256, 2008. DOI:10.1017/is008004024jkt010
- [24] J. Wei. Finitistic dimension and Igusa-Todorov algebras. Advances in Mathematics , 222 (6):2215-2226, 2009. DOI:10.1016/j.aim.2009.07.008
- [25] J. Zhang and J. Zheng, Extension dimensions of derivd and stable equivalent algebras, Journal of Algebra , 646 (15):17-48, 2024. DOI:10.1016/j.jalgebra.2024.01.035
- [26] J. Zheng, X. Ma, and Z. Huang. The extension dimension of Abelian categories. Algebras and Representation Theory , 23 (3):693-713, 2020. DOI:10.1007/s10468-019-09861-z
- [27] J. Zheng and Z. Huang. An upper bound for the dimension of bounded derived categories. Journal of Algebra , 556 (15):1211-1228, 2020. DOI:10.1016/j.jalgebra.2020.04.012

[28]

J.

Zheng and Z. Huang. The derived and extension dimensions of Abelian categories.

Journal of

Algebra

,

606

(15):243-265, 2022. DOI:10.1016/j.jalgebra.2022.05.003

- [29] J. Zheng and Z. Huang. The finitistic dimension and chain conditions on ideals. Glasgow Mathematical Journal , 64 (1):37-44, 2022. DOI:10.1017/S001708952000052X
- [30] J. Zheng, L. Tian, Q. Shu and J. Zhang. The Extension dimension of syzygy module categories. Preprint, arXiv:2405.02921v1, 2024
Junling Zheng Yu-Zhe Liu
The Orlov spectra of abelian categories
We introduced the notion of Orlov spectra of Abelian categories, and study
its some properties. In particular, we give precise result of Orlov spectra of
algebras with type $\mathbb{A}_{n}$.