cluster categories were defined in @xcite as tools for categorification of fomin - zelevinsky cluster algebras @xcite .
they are defined as the orbit categories of the derived category @xmath0 of hereditary abelian categories @xmath1 by a certain autoequivalence .    in the situation where @xmath1 is the category of finite dimensional representations of a finite acyclic quiver ,
the cluster category has been subject to intense investigation . in this case
it has been shown that the cluster category and the set of exceptional objects form a good model for the cluster algebra associated with the same quiver .    in this paper
we work with a cluster category @xmath2 defined from a different hereditary abelian category , namely the tube @xmath3 .
this category is called the cluster tube and has recently been studied in @xcite and @xcite .
although this category is also a hom - finite triangulated 2-calabi - yau category , it does not admit all of the nice properties of cluster categories from quivers .
in particular , the maximal rigid ( also called maximal exceptional ) objects do not satisfy the more restrictive definition of cluster - tilting objects
.    moreover , the gabriel quivers of the endomorphism rings of maximal rigid objects in the cluster tube have loops .
consequently , @xmath2 with its maximal rigid objects does not carry a cluster structure in the sense of @xcite .
the axioms for cluster structures can be modified , however , to apply also to cluster tubes , see @xcite .
the aim of the present paper is to study the endomorphism rings of the maximal rigid objects .
we will find a description in terms of quivers with relations . like cluster - tilted algebras ,
the algebras we consider here are gorenstein of gorenstein dimension 1 , unless @xmath4 , in which case they are self - injective . however , the proof ( from @xcite ) for cluster - tilted algebras has no analogy in our setting .
instead , we use the fact that our algebras are gentle , and apply the technique from @xcite to our quivers with relations in order to prove the result
. the properties of the algebras we study in this paper are thus reminiscent of those of the algebras recently studied in @xcite .
since the endomorphism rings are gentle , they are string algebras .
we use the theory of string- and band - modules to show that the endomorphism rings are of finite type .
one of the main results about cluster - tilted algebras , which was proved in @xcite , is the close connection between the module category of the cluster - tilted algebra and the cluster category it arises from .
this connection is provided by the hom - functor .
in our situation , the hom - functor is not full , and therefore there is no analogous theorem .
we will nevertheless study the action of the hom - functor on the objects , and in particular show that it is dense .
indeed , when @xmath5 is maximal rigid , we find an explicit description of @xmath6 for every indecomposable @xmath7 in @xmath2 .
the paper is organised as follows : section [ sec : objects ] contains the definition of the cluster tube and a description of maximal rigid objects recalled from @xcite . in section
[ sec : endoring ] we give the description of the endomorphism rings , before we in section [ sec : gentle ] study the gentleness and gorenstein dimension and give some facts about indecomposable representations .
finally , in section [ sec : homfunctor ] we describe the action of the hom - functor .    throughout the paper we will work over some field @xmath8 , which is assumed to be algebraically closed .
modules over an algebra will always mean left modules , and we will read paths in quivers from right to left .
we start off by reviewing some properties of cluster tubes .
these categories have recently been studied in @xcite and @xcite , and more details can be found in these papers .    for any integer @xmath9 ,
let @xmath3 be a tube of rank @xmath10 , that is , the category of nilpotent representations of a cyclically oriented @xmath11-quiver .
it can also be realised as the thick subcategory generated by a tube in the regular component in the ar - quiver of a suitable tame hereditary algebra .
all maps in this category are linear combinations of finite compositions of irreducible maps , and are subject to mesh relations in the ar - quiver .
@xmath3 is a hereditary abelian category , and following the construction introduced in @xcite , we form its cluster category , called the _
cluster tube of rank @xmath10 _ and denoted @xmath2 .
this is by definition the orbit category obtained from the bounded derived category @xmath12 by the action of the self - equivalence @xmath13 $ ] . here ,
@xmath14 $ ] denotes the suspension functor of @xmath15 , while @xmath16 is the auslander - reiten translation . unless the actual value of @xmath10 is important
, we will usually suppress the subscript @xmath10 in the notation , and write @xmath17 , @xmath18 and @xmath19 .
for a finite - dimensional hereditary algebra @xmath20 , a theorem due to keller @xcite guarantees that the associated cluster category @xmath21 is triangulated with a canonical triangulated structure inherited from the derived category .
keller s result is not directly applicable in our situation , since @xmath17 has no tilting objects .
nevertheless , @xmath2 also inherits a triangulated structure from @xmath15 , see @xcite for a rigorous treatment of this .
the indecomposable objects of the cluster tube @xmath19 are in bijection with the indecomposables in @xmath17 itself , and we will sometimes use the same symbol to denote both an object in the tube @xmath17 and its image in the cluster tube @xmath19 .
the irreducible maps in @xmath19 are the images of the irreducible maps in @xmath18 , which again are the shifts of the irreducible maps in the tube @xmath17 .
so the ar - quiver of @xmath19 is isomorphic to the ar - quiver of @xmath17 .    for a given rank @xmath10
, we will use a coordinate system on the indecomposable objects .
choose once and for all a quasisimple object and give it coordinates @xmath22 .
now give the other quasisimples coordinates @xmath23 such that @xmath24 , where @xmath25 is reduced modulo the rank @xmath10
. then give the remaining indecomposables coordinates @xmath26 in such a way that there are irreducible morphisms @xmath27 for @xmath28 and @xmath29 for @xmath30 .
throughout , the first coordinates will be reduced modulo @xmath10 .
see figure [ figure : coordinates ] .     and
@xmath2.,width=453 ]    the infinite sequence of irreducible maps @xmath31 is called a _
ray_. similarly , the infinite sequence @xmath32 is called a _ coray_. note that the sum of the coordinates is constant , modulo @xmath10 , for indecomposables located on the same coray .    for an indecomposable object @xmath33 where @xmath34 we will also need the notion of the _ wing _ @xmath35 determined by @xmath7 .
this is by definition the set of indecomposables whose position in the tube is in the triangle with @xmath7 on top .
@xmath7 will be called the _ summit _ of @xmath35 . in terms of coordinates ,
the objects in the wing @xmath36 are @xmath37 such that @xmath38 and @xmath39 .
the _ height _ of @xmath35 is the quasi - length @xmath40 .
the dimensions of the hom - spaces in @xmath19 are given by the following lemma , proved in @xcite .
[ lem : homspaces ] for @xmath7 and @xmath41 indecomposable in @xmath19 , we have @xmath42 where @xmath43 is the usual @xmath8-vector space duality @xmath44 .    when @xmath7 and @xmath41 are indecomposable , the maps in @xmath45 which are images of maps in @xmath46)$ ] for @xmath47 in @xmath17 will be called @xmath18-maps , and those which are images of maps in @xmath17 itself will be called @xmath17-maps .
since @xmath17 is hereditary , all maps in @xmath19 are linear combinations of maps of these two kinds .
the hom - hammock of an indecomposable object ( that is , the support of @xmath48 ) is illustrated in figure [ figure : homhammock ] .
note that the two components in the figure wrap around the tube and intersect . moreover , if @xmath49 , then each component intersects itself , possibly with several layers , and therefore there exist hom - spaces of arbitrary finite dimension between indecomposables .    .
there are @xmath17-maps to the indecomposables in the right component , and @xmath18-maps to the indecomposables in the left component.,width=340 ]    so for indecomposable @xmath7 and @xmath41 , the existence of a @xmath18-map @xmath50 is equivalent to the existence of a @xmath17-map @xmath51 .
the following lemma is then easily verified :    [ lem : dendo ] let @xmath7 be an indecomposable object of @xmath2 . then there exists a @xmath18-endomorphism of @xmath7 if and only if @xmath52 .
we will need the following lemma on the relationship between @xmath17-maps and @xmath18-maps :    [ lem : rayfactoring ] for @xmath7 , @xmath41 and @xmath53 indecomposable objects in @xmath2 , we have the following :    * assume that @xmath54 and @xmath55 .
if there are non - zero @xmath18-maps @xmath56 and @xmath57 , and an irreducible map @xmath58 , then @xmath59 up to multiplication by a non - zero scalar .
* assume that @xmath54 .
if there are non - zero @xmath18-maps @xmath60 and @xmath56 , and an irreducible map @xmath61 , then @xmath62 , up to multiplication by a non - zero scalar .
[ rem : rayfactoring ] note that by repeated application , the same applies to compositions of irreducible maps , i.  e.  to all @xmath17-maps , under the assumption that the required hom - spaces are non - zero for each indecomposable that the composition factors through .    *
( i ) : * we lift the maps to the derived category @xmath18 , and denote by @xmath63 , @xmath64 and @xmath65 the preimages of the objects in @xmath17 . since @xmath7 and @xmath41 have quasilength @xmath66 , we have that the space @xmath67)$ ] of @xmath18-maps is at most one - dimensional for any indecomposable @xmath68 , and similarly for @xmath41 .
the aim is to show that the map @xmath69 ) : \hom_{\d}(\hat{y},\tau^{-1}\hat{z}[1 ] ) \to \hom_{\d}(\hat{x},\tau^{-1}\hat{z}[1])\ ] ] is surjective .
we can view this as a map @xmath70 or , by duality and the ar - formula , @xmath71 which we now wish to show is injective .
but this is clear from the structure of the tube when the hom - spaces are non - zero .    *
( ii ) : * we need to show that the map @xmath72 ) : \hom_{\d}(\hat{x},\tau^{-1}\hat{y}[1])\to \hom_{\d}(\hat{x},\tau^{-1}\hat{z}[1])\ ] ] is surjective .
similarly as above , by duality this is equivalent to the map @xmath73 being injective .
but by the combinatorics of the tube , this is clearly an isomorphism , since by assumption both spaces are 1-dimensional .
let @xmath74 , and choose some indecomposable @xmath7 in @xmath3 with quasilength @xmath75 .
let @xmath76 be a linearly oriented quiver with underlying graph the dynkin diagram @xmath77 .
then the category @xmath78 of finitely generated modules over the path algebra @xmath79 is naturally equivalent with the subcategory @xmath80 of @xmath3 .
embedding to @xmath15 and projecting to @xmath2 we find that @xmath78 embeds into the subcategory @xmath81 of @xmath2 .
the image is the subcategory @xmath82 obtained by deleting the @xmath18-maps from @xmath83 . from now on , we will drop the subscript when we speak of an additive hull as a set of objects , since there is a bijection between the objects of @xmath17 and those of @xmath19 .    the triangulated category @xmath19 is a 2-calabi - yau category , which in particular means that for any two objects @xmath7 and @xmath41 , we have symmetric ext - spaces : @xmath84 two indecomposable objects @xmath7 and @xmath41 will be called _ compatible _ if @xmath85 .
it is worth noticing that @xmath7 and @xmath41 are compatible if and only if @xmath86 .    in an abelian or triangulated category @xmath87 , an object @xmath5
is called _ rigid _ if it satisfies @xmath88 . if it is maximal with respect to this property ,
that is if @xmath89 implies that @xmath90 , then it is called _
maximal rigid_. the maximal rigid objects in the cluster tube @xmath19 do not satisfy the stronger condition of _ cluster tilting _ , see @xcite .
the following description of the maximal rigid objects was given in @xcite :    [ prop : tiltedbijection ] there is a natural bijection between the set of maximal rigid objects in @xmath2 and the set @xmath91 where @xmath92 is a linearly oriented quiver with the dynkin diagram @xmath93 as its underlying graph .
the proposition follows from the following considerations , which will be needed for the rest of the paper : all summands of a maximal rigid object in @xmath2 are concentrated in the wing @xmath94 determined by a
_ top summand _ @xmath95 with @xmath96 .
now the claim follows from the embedding of @xmath97 into @xmath98 , since it is easily seen that @xmath99 for two indecomposables @xmath7 and @xmath41 in @xmath94 vanishes if and only if both @xmath100 and @xmath101 vanish , where @xmath102 and @xmath103 are the corresponding @xmath104-modules .
since there are @xmath10 choices for the top summand , this provides the bijection .
with the description of the maximal rigid objects of @xmath19 presented in section [ sec : objects ] , we now proceed to determine their endomorphism rings in terms of quivers and relations .
let @xmath5 be a maximal rigid object in the cluster tube @xmath2 , and let @xmath105 denote the tilting @xmath104-module associated with @xmath5 according to proposition [ prop : tiltedbijection ] .
since the module category of a hereditary algebra @xmath20 sits naturally embedded in the cluster category @xmath21 , we can think of the module @xmath105 as a cluster - tilting object in @xmath106 .
the endomorphism ring , or cluster - tilted algebra , @xmath107 can easily be found from the tilted algebra @xmath108 , by the results in @xcite , or more generally in @xcite .
every minimal relation on the quiver of a tilted algebra of type @xmath109 is a zero relation of length two .
the quiver of the cluster - tilted algebra is then obtained by inserting an arrow @xmath110 from the end vertex to the start vertex of each defining relation path @xmath111 .
the relations for the cluster - tilted algebra are , as prescribed by @xcite , the compositions of any two arrows in any of the 3-cycles formed by adding the new arrows .
we can now formulate the main theorem of this section .
[ theorem : endoring ] let @xmath5 be a maximal rigid object in @xmath2
. then the endomorphism ring @xmath112 is isomorphic to the algebra @xmath113 where    * @xmath114 is the quiver obtained from the quiver of @xmath115 by adjoining a loop @xmath116 to the vertex corresponding to the projective - injective @xmath104-module .
* @xmath117 is the ideal generated by the relations in @xmath115 and in addition @xmath118 .
before we can present the proof of the theorem , we need some considerations on the combinatorial structure of the maximal rigid objects , so we postpone the proof until we have established a few lemmas .
we define a _ non - degenerate subwing triple _ @xmath119 to be a triple @xmath120 of indecomposables in @xmath19 with @xmath121 such that if @xmath122 , then @xmath123 and @xmath124 for some @xmath125 .
this means that @xmath7 is on the ray @xmath126 and on the coray @xmath127 , so in particular @xmath128 and @xmath129 are contained in @xmath35 .
moreover , there is exactly one quasisimple @xmath130 which is in @xmath35 but not in @xmath131 .
see figure [ figure : subwingtriple ] . a _ degenerate subwing triple _
@xmath119 is a triple with @xmath132 such that if @xmath122 , then either @xmath133 and @xmath134 or @xmath135 and @xmath136 .
note that any subwing triple ( degenerate or non - degenerate ) is determined by the top indecomposable @xmath7 and the unique quasisimple which is not in any of the two subwings @xmath128 or @xmath129 .    .
if @xmath122 and @xmath123 with @xmath137 , then @xmath124.,width=377 ]    [ lem : subwingmaps ] let @xmath119 be a non - degenerate subwing triple .
let @xmath138 and @xmath139 .
* there are no @xmath17-maps @xmath140 .
* there are no @xmath17-maps @xmath141 .
* there is a @xmath18-map @xmath140 if and only if @xmath142 is on the left edge of @xmath129 and @xmath143 is on the right edge of @xmath129 . in this case , this map factors through the @xmath18-map @xmath144 .
* there is a @xmath18-map @xmath141 if and only if @xmath142 is on the right edge of @xmath129 and @xmath143 is on the left edge of @xmath128 , and @xmath145 . in this case , this map factors through the @xmath18-endomorphism of @xmath7 .
claims ( i ) and ( ii ) are easily verified ; one must keep in mind that @xmath146 by the definition of subwing triples .    since the existence of a @xmath18-map @xmath140 is equivalent to the existence of a @xmath17-map @xmath147
, we see that the only way such a map can arise is when @xmath142 is on the left edge of @xmath129 , and @xmath143 is on the right edge of @xmath128 . now by lemma [ lem : rayfactoring ] and remark [ rem : rayfactoring ] , this @xmath18-map factors through the ray @xmath148
. in particular , it factors @xmath149 where @xmath150 is the @xmath17-map from @xmath142 to @xmath53 , and
@xmath151 is the unique ( up to multiplication with scalars ) @xmath18-map @xmath152 .
applying lemma [ lem : rayfactoring ] to @xmath151 , we find that it factors @xmath153 , where @xmath154 is the @xmath18-map from @xmath53 to @xmath41 and @xmath155 is the @xmath17-map from @xmath41 to @xmath143 .
so claim ( iii ) holds .    for claim ( iv ) , observe that since @xmath156 , a necessary condition for the existence of a @xmath17-map @xmath157 is that @xmath158 .
moreover , we have that @xmath142 must be on the right edge of @xmath35 and @xmath143 must be on the left edge of @xmath35 .
now the claim is proved using a similar argument as for ( iii ) and the fact from lemma [ lem : dendo ] that if @xmath145 then @xmath7 has a @xmath18-endomorphism .
[ lem : subwingext ] let @xmath119 be a subwing triple , and let @xmath159 .
* @xmath41 and @xmath160 are compatible if and only if @xmath161 or @xmath162 .
* @xmath53 and @xmath160 are compatible if and only if @xmath161 or @xmath163 .    by the 2-calabi - yau property
, we have symmetric ext - groups , so it is enough to check vanishing of @xmath164 and @xmath165 . for this , we use the ar - formula @xmath166 and similarly for @xmath53 . then consider the intersection of the hom - hammock of @xmath41 with @xmath167 .
[ lem : maxcompatible ] let @xmath168 be a wing in @xmath2 of height @xmath169 , and let @xmath170 be a set of pairwise compatible indecomposable objects in @xmath171 .
* @xmath170 has at most @xmath172 elements . *
if @xmath170 has less than @xmath172 elements , there exists a set @xmath173 of @xmath172 pairwise compatible indecomposable objects , containing @xmath170 . *
if @xmath170 has @xmath172 elements , then @xmath7 is an element of @xmath170 .
the argument is essentially the same as for proposition [ prop : tiltedbijection ] , and the result follows from the theory of tilting modules applied to @xmath79-modules , noting that the projective - injective indecomposable is a summand of every tilting module .
[ lem : subwingstructure ] let @xmath174 be some indecomposable summand of a maximal rigid object @xmath175 in @xmath2 .    * there are @xmath176 indecomposable summands of @xmath5 in @xmath177 . *
assume @xmath178 .
then there is a subwing triple @xmath179 such that @xmath180 and @xmath181 are either summands of @xmath5 or zero , and all summands of @xmath182 which are in @xmath177 are in @xmath183 , with @xmath184 summands in @xmath185 and @xmath186 summands in @xmath187 .    given a rank @xmath10 ,
we let @xmath188 be a maximal rigid object in @xmath2 .
we proceed by reverse induction on the quasilength of the summands of @xmath5 .
( that is , from summands of larger quasilength to summands of smaller quasilength . )
this is ok , since there is a ( unique ) summand of maximal quasilength .    in accordance with proposition
[ prop : tiltedbijection ] , consider the top summand @xmath95 of @xmath5 , which has quasilength @xmath189 . without loss of generality
assume that this has coordinates @xmath190 .
the claim ( i ) holds for @xmath95 by the proof of proposition [ prop : tiltedbijection ] .
assume first that there are no summands of @xmath5 among the objects @xmath191 , where @xmath192 .
then all @xmath193 summands of @xmath194 are in @xmath195 .
so by lemma [ lem : maxcompatible ] , the object @xmath196 must be a summand of @xmath5 .
hence in this situation claim ( ii ) also holds , with the triple @xmath197 .
a similar argument shows that none of the objects @xmath198 , where @xmath199 , are summands if and only if @xmath200 is a summand , and thus ( ii ) holds with @xmath201 .
suppose therefore that @xmath200 is not a summand , and that there is at least one summand of @xmath5 with coordinates @xmath191 , where @xmath202 .
let @xmath203 be the one of these with highest quasi - length ( that is , maximal @xmath204 ) . consider the subwing triple @xmath205 where @xmath206 .
by lemma [ lem : subwingext ] and the maximality of @xmath207 , all @xmath193 summands of @xmath194 must be in @xmath208 .
then it follows from lemma [ lem : maxcompatible ] that there must be @xmath207 summands in @xmath94 and @xmath209 summands in @xmath35 and moreover that @xmath7 is indeed a summand of @xmath5 .
we conclude that both claims ( i ) and ( ii ) hold for the top summand .
assume now that @xmath174 is some summand of @xmath5 with @xmath178 , but not the top summand .
let @xmath210 be a summand of @xmath5 of smallest quasilength with @xmath211 such that @xmath212 .
( such a summand exists , since all summands are in @xmath94 . ) then by induction , the claims hold for @xmath213 , and by the minimality in the choice of @xmath213 , the subwing triple corresponding to @xmath213 is @xmath214 where either @xmath215 or @xmath216 is @xmath174 , and the other one is also a summand . in any case , since by the induction hypothesis claim ( ii ) holds for @xmath213 , there are @xmath176 summands of @xmath5 in @xmath177 , and so ( i ) holds for @xmath174 .
now that we know that there are @xmath217 summands of @xmath182 in @xmath177 , we can prove that ( ii ) holds by the same arguments as for @xmath95 above .
a subwing triple @xmath179 such that @xmath218 and @xmath181 are summands of a maximal rigid object @xmath5 will be called a @xmath5-_subwing triple_.    with lemma [ lem : subwingstructure ] we have obtained a combinatorial description of the maximal rigid objects as a system of subwing triples partially ordered by inclusion .
note that for a maximal rigid @xmath5 with top summand @xmath95 there is a natural map from the objects in @xmath94 to the summands of @xmath5 given by sending an object @xmath7 to the summand @xmath219 with smallest quasilength such that @xmath220 .
the restriction of this map to the set of quasisimples is a bijection .
see figure [ fig : example ] a ) for an example .
also , we have the following :    [ lem : subwingintersection ] let @xmath221 be summands of a maximal rigid @xmath5 .
then either @xmath222 , or @xmath223 , or @xmath224 and @xmath225 have empty intersection .
suppose @xmath226 and @xmath227 .
let @xmath174 be a summand of @xmath5 such that both @xmath228 and @xmath229 , and which has minimal quasilength among summands with this property .
there is some non - degenerate @xmath5-subwing triple @xmath179 , and by lemma [ lem : subwingstructure ] , the summands @xmath230 and @xmath213 must be in @xmath183 .
now by the minimality in the choice of @xmath174 , we know that @xmath230 must be in @xmath185 and @xmath213 in @xmath187 or vice versa .
it follows that @xmath224 and @xmath225 have zero intersection , since @xmath185 and @xmath187 have empty intersection .
[ lem : tmapsonrays ] let @xmath230 and @xmath213 be summands of a maximal rigid @xmath5 .
then the following are equivalent .
* there exists a non - zero @xmath17-map @xmath231 . *
either @xmath213 is on the ray @xmath232 or @xmath230 is on the coray @xmath233 .
this follows from the observation that since @xmath230 and @xmath213 are ext - orthogonal , there is no map @xmath234 .
[ lem : tsubwingtmaps ] let @xmath5 be a maximal rigid object .    * if @xmath235 is a non - degenerate @xmath5-subwing triple , there is a @xmath17-map @xmath236 and a @xmath17-map @xmath237 , and these maps are irreducible in @xmath238 .
* if @xmath239 a degenerate @xmath5-subwing triple , there is a @xmath17-map @xmath236 , and this is irreducible in @xmath240 .
a similar statement holds for a degenerate @xmath5-subwing triple @xmath241 .
* there are no other irreducible @xmath17-maps in @xmath238 than those described in ( i ) and ( ii ) . *
if @xmath235 is non - degenerate , the composition @xmath242 is zero .
claims ( i ) and ( ii ) are obvious , so consider summands @xmath243 and assume that there is a @xmath17-map @xmath244 . by lemma [ lem : tmapsonrays ] , either the summand @xmath245 must be on the ray @xmath246 or @xmath219 must be on the coray @xmath247 . assume the former case , so @xmath219 is on the left edge of @xmath248 .
we know from lemma [ lem : subwingstructure ] that there is some @xmath5-subwing triple @xmath249 , where @xmath219 must necessarily be on the left edge of @xmath250 .
( if it was on the right , it would violate lemma [ lem : subwingintersection ] . )
then clearly @xmath251 factors through the @xmath17-map @xmath252 .
a similar argument can be given in the case where @xmath219 is on the coray @xmath247 by considering a @xmath5-subwing triple @xmath253 , so ( iii ) holds as well .
the claim ( iv ) also follows from lemma [ lem : tmapsonrays ] .
[ lem : tsubwingdmaps ] let @xmath221 be summands of a maximal rigid @xmath5 .
then the following are equivalent .
* there is a non - zero @xmath18-map @xmath254 .
* one of the following is satisfied * * there is some non - degenerate @xmath5-subwing triple @xmath255 such that @xmath230 is on the left edge of @xmath250 and @xmath213 is on the right edge of @xmath248 . *
* @xmath230 is on the left edge of @xmath94 and @xmath213 is on the right edge of @xmath94 , where @xmath95 is the top summand .
assume first that @xmath256 , the top summand .
then there is a @xmath18-map @xmath257 if and only if @xmath213 is on the right edge of @xmath94 , which is a special case of b  ) .
similarly , if @xmath258 , then there is a @xmath18-map @xmath254 if and only if @xmath230 is on the left edge of @xmath94 .
so under the assumption that at least one of @xmath221 is the top summand , the claim holds .
consider therefore the case where neither @xmath230 nor @xmath213 is the top summand .
it is easily seen that if @xmath223 or @xmath259 , there can be no @xmath18-map @xmath254 .
so consider the summand @xmath219 of minimal quasilength such that both @xmath230 and @xmath213 are in @xmath260 . by lemma [ lem : subwingstructure ]
there is a @xmath5-subwing triple @xmath255 , and by the minimality of @xmath219 , either @xmath261 and @xmath262 or the other way around .
the claim now follows from lemma [ lem : subwingmaps ] .
we can now prove the main theorem .    in the argument
, we will implicitly use the fact that for indecomposable objects @xmath7 and @xmath41 with @xmath263 , there is up to multiplication by scalars at most one @xmath17-map and one @xmath18-map from @xmath7 to @xmath41 .
our task is to determine the quiver @xmath114 and defining relations of @xmath264 .
first recall that the functor @xmath265 induces an equivalence between @xmath238 and the category @xmath266 of projective @xmath267-modules .
the vertices in @xmath114 are therefore in bijection with the indecomposable summands of @xmath5 , and the arrows correspond to maps which are irreducible in @xmath238 .
no @xmath17-map can factor through a @xmath18-map , so let us first consider the arrows in @xmath114 coming from @xmath17-maps and their relations , that is the endomorphism ring of @xmath5 as an object in the subcategory @xmath268 , where @xmath95 is the top summand of @xmath5 . by virtue of the equivalence of this category with the module category
@xmath97 , we know that this will be the quiver with relations for the tilted algebra @xmath269
.    by lemma [ lem : tsubwingtmaps ] part ( i ) , for each non - degenerate @xmath5-subwing triple @xmath235 there exist @xmath17-maps @xmath270 and @xmath271 which are irreducible in @xmath238 and hence correspond to arrows @xmath272 and @xmath273 in @xmath114 .
similarly , by part ( ii ) , for each degenerate @xmath5-subwing triple @xmath239 there is an arrow @xmath272 , and for a @xmath5-subwing triple @xmath241 there is an arrow @xmath273 .
moreover , by part ( iii ) of the same lemma , these are the only arrows in @xmath114 coming from @xmath17-maps . assuming that the triple is non - degenerate , by part ( iv ) , the composition @xmath274 is zero , and
hence @xmath275 is a zero relation for the quiver .
it follows from lemma [ lem : tmapsonrays ] that there are no other minimal relations on the arrows coming from @xmath17-maps , since a path @xmath276 such that no @xmath277 comes from a composition @xmath278 from a non - degenerate @xmath5-subwing triple @xmath279 corresponds to a map following a ray or a coray .
so the above gives a description of the tilted algebra @xmath269 .
see figure [ fig : example ] b ) for an example .    now consider the @xmath18-maps , and postpone for a moment the situation with maps to or from the top summand @xmath95 . by lemma [ lem : subwingmaps ] part ( iii ) , for each non - degenerate @xmath5-subwing triple @xmath235 there is a @xmath18-map @xmath280 .
we claim that this map is irreducible in @xmath238 .
so assume that there exists a summand @xmath219 , not isomorphic to @xmath174 or @xmath213 , and a @xmath18-map @xmath281 such that @xmath282 where @xmath283 .
since the composition of two @xmath18-maps is zero , @xmath284 must be a @xmath17-map .
so by lemma [ lem : tmapsonrays ] we either have that @xmath219 is on @xmath285 , or that @xmath174 is on @xmath286 .
the former case contradicts lemma [ lem : subwingintersection ] , since @xmath174 is on the right side of @xmath224 and on the left side of @xmath260 .
the latter case contradicts lemma [ lem : subwingmaps ] , since @xmath219 is on the right edge of @xmath177 .
a similar argument shows that we can not have a factorisation @xmath287 where @xmath288 is a @xmath17-map and @xmath289 is a @xmath18-map .
thus @xmath290 is irreducible and corresponds to an arrow @xmath291 in @xmath114 .    for the non - degenerate @xmath5-subwing triple @xmath235 ,
the composition @xmath292 is a @xmath18-map .
we claim that it must be zero .
assume therefore that there is a @xmath17-map from @xmath213 to @xmath293 .
then , since @xmath230 sits on @xmath294 and there is no @xmath17-map @xmath295 by the ext - orthogonality of @xmath230 and @xmath213 , there must be @xmath17-maps from @xmath213 to _ all _ indecomposables of quasilength @xmath296 , _ except _ @xmath297 . but
this would require @xmath298 , and this is impossible , since @xmath299 .
we conclude that there is no @xmath18-map @xmath231 , and the composition is zero .    similarly , the composition @xmath300 is also zero , since there is no @xmath17-map from @xmath230 to @xmath301 .
it follows that the paths @xmath302 and @xmath303 are zero relations on the quiver @xmath114 .    by lemma [ lem : dendo ]
, there is a @xmath18-map @xmath304 which is an endomorphism of the top summand @xmath95 .
this map must be irreducible in @xmath238 , for the only objects in @xmath94 to which there are maps from @xmath95 are the ones on the right edge of @xmath94 , but there are no maps from any of these to @xmath95 . thus there is a loop @xmath116 on the vertex corresponding to the top summand .
the composition @xmath305 is zero , since any composition of two @xmath18-maps is the image of a map @xmath306 $ ] in @xmath18 , which must necessarily be zero since @xmath17 is hereditary .
so @xmath118 is a zero relation on the quiver of @xmath267 .    by lemmas [ lem : subwingmaps ] and [ lem : tsubwingdmaps ] , there are no other irreducible @xmath18-maps between summands of @xmath5 , and also no other minimal relations involving arrows from @xmath18-maps : let @xmath307 be an arrow corresponding to a @xmath18-map @xmath308 where @xmath235 is a non - degenerate subwing triangle
. then if @xmath309 is a path in @xmath114 such that @xmath310 and @xmath311 do not traverse any relations , then necessarily @xmath312 are arrows coming from maps on the left edge of @xmath177 and @xmath313 are arrows coming from the right edge of @xmath225 . then this path corresponds to a non - zero map by lemma [ lem : tsubwingdmaps ] .
we now see that the arrows @xmath314 are in bijection with the zero relations for the quiver of @xmath315 , and complete the relation paths to oriented cycles , so by @xcite or @xcite the arrows @xmath316 and @xmath314 form the quiver of @xmath317 .
furthermore , the relations imposed on this quiver coincide with the relations defining @xmath115 .
so the quiver of @xmath267 is obtained from the quiver of @xmath115 by adjoining the loop @xmath116 at the loop corresponding to the top summand , which again corresponds to the projective - injective @xmath315-module . also , the relations for @xmath267 are the relations for @xmath115 and in addition @xmath318
.    see figure [ fig : example ] for an example of a maximal rigid object @xmath5 and the tilted algebra @xmath315 , the cluster - tilted algebra @xmath115 and the endomorphism ring @xmath267 .
example of a maximal rigid object @xmath5 and the associated algebras @xmath315 , @xmath115 and @xmath267.,width=529 ]    an explicit description of the quivers for cluster - tilted algebras of type @xmath109 was given in @xcite , and also in @xcite .
it can be deduced from the type @xmath109 cluster category model from @xcite .
they are exactly the quivers satisfying the following :    * all non - trivial minimal cycles are oriented and of length 3 * any vertex has valency at most four * if a vertex has valency four , then two of its adjacent arrows belong to one 3-cycle , and the other two belong to another 3-cycle * if a vertex has valency three , then two of its adjacent arrows belong to a 3-cycle , and the third does not belong to any 3-cycle    in the first condition , a _ cycle _
means a cycle in the underlying graph .
a _ connecting vertex _ for such a quiver , as defined in @xcite , is a vertex which either has valency one , or has valency two and is traversed by a 3-cycle .
note that for the endomorphism ring @xmath267 of a maximal rigid @xmath5 , the loop vertex is connecting for the quiver of @xmath115 .
there is a sort of converse to theorem [ theorem : endoring ] , so we have the full description of the algebras which can arise :    let @xmath319 be a cluster - tilted algebra of type @xmath93 , and let @xmath320 be a connecting vertex for @xmath321
. then there exists a maximal rigid object @xmath5 of @xmath2 such that @xmath322 is obtained from @xmath321 by adjoining a loop at @xmath320 .
we do induction on @xmath10 .
the claim is easily verified for small values .    given a cluster - tilted algebra @xmath319 of type @xmath93 ,
let @xmath114 be its quiver and let @xmath320 be some connecting vertex of @xmath114 .
then @xmath320 has valency 1 or 2 in @xmath114 .
consider first the case where @xmath320 has valency 2 .
then @xmath320 is traversed by a 3-cycle @xmath323 in @xmath114 .
the quiver @xmath324 has two disconnected components @xmath325 and @xmath326 , where @xmath327 is connecting for @xmath328 . also , @xmath328 is the quiver of some cluster - tilted algebra @xmath329 of type @xmath330 , where @xmath331 .    by induction
we can assume that for each @xmath332 there exists a maximal rigid object @xmath230 in @xmath333 such that the endomorphism ring of @xmath230 is obtained from the quiver of @xmath329 by adjoining a loop at @xmath327 .
let @xmath334 be the corresponding tilting @xmath335-module .
we have a natural embedding of the module category @xmath336 into the wing @xmath337 , and of @xmath338 into @xmath339 .
it is now easily seen that the images of the indecomposable summands of @xmath340 and @xmath341 under these embeddings are all compatible , and that the direct sum of these can be completed to a maximal rigid object @xmath5 by adding the object @xmath190 .
then the quiver of @xmath5 is obtained from @xmath114 by adding a loop at @xmath320 .    the case where @xmath320 has valency one in @xmath114 is easier ; one considers @xmath342 which is cluster - tilted of type @xmath343 , and uses induction similarly as above .
there are in fact exactly @xmath10 maximal rigid objects in @xmath2 with the prescribed endomorphism algebra , and these form a @xmath16-orbit .
in this section we show that the endomorphism rings under discussion are gentle .
we use this to determine their gorenstein dimension .
a finite - dimensional algebra @xmath113 where @xmath114 is a finite quiver is called _ special biserial _
@xcite if    * for all vertices @xmath344 in @xmath114 , there are at most two arrows starting in @xmath344 and at most two arrows ending in @xmath344 * for every arrow @xmath345 in @xmath114 , there is at most one arrow @xmath346 in @xmath114 with @xmath347 and at most one arrow @xmath348 with @xmath349 .
a special biserial algebra @xmath113 is _ gentle _
@xcite if moreover    * @xmath117 is generated by paths of length 2 * for every arrow @xmath345 in @xmath114 there is at most one arrow @xmath350 such that @xmath351 is a path and @xmath352 , and at most one arrow @xmath353 such that @xmath354 is a path and @xmath355 .
[ theorem : gentle ] if @xmath5 is a maximal rigid object in the cluster tube @xmath19 , then the endomorphism ring @xmath356 is gentle .
it follows from the description of cluster - tilted algebras of type @xmath109 , and theorem [ theorem : endoring ] , that condition ( i ) is satisfied whenever @xmath344 is not the loop vertex .
if @xmath344 is the loop vertex , the quiver generally looks locally like this : @xmath357{loopvertex.eps}\ ] ] where the relations are indicated by dashed lines and it may also happen that one of the two other vertices pictured and consequently the adjacent arrows are not there .
we see that also for this vertex ( i ) is fulfilled .
as proved in @xcite , any cluster - tilted algebra of type @xmath109 is gentle , and therefore if @xmath345 is not an arrow incident with the loop vertex , ( ii ) and ( iv ) are satisfied .
if @xmath345 is incident with the loop vertex , ( ii ) and ( iv ) follow from the local description pictured above , with the observation that by the description of the cluster - tilted algebras there are no minimal relations involving both an arrow in the picture and an arrow outside the picture .
moreover , by theorem [ theorem : endoring ] , the ideal @xmath117 is generated by paths of length two , so ( iii ) is fulfilled , and the algebra is gentle .
it is known from @xcite that all gentle algebras are gorenstein , that is , a gentle algebra @xmath358 has finite injective dimension as both a left and a right @xmath358-module .
this dimension is then called the gorenstein dimension of @xmath358 .    in order to prove the next result , we need to recall the main result in @xcite in more detail .
let @xmath359 be a gentle algebra .
an arrow @xmath360 in @xmath114 is said to be _ gentle _ if there is no arrow @xmath361 such that @xmath362 is a non - zero element of @xmath117 .
a _ critical path _ in @xmath114 is a path @xmath363 such that @xmath364 for all @xmath365 .
[ theorem : gr ] let @xmath359 be a gentle algebra , and let @xmath366 be the supremum of the lengths of critical paths starting with a gentle arrow .
( @xmath366 is taken to be zero if there are no gentle arrows . )
* @xmath366 is bounded by the number of arrows in @xmath114 . * if @xmath367 , then @xmath358 is gorenstein of gorenstein dimension @xmath366 . * if @xmath368 , then @xmath358 is gorenstein of gorenstein dimension at most one .
we can use this to find the gorenstein dimension of our algebras :    [ prop : gorenstein ] let @xmath5 be a maximal rigid object in @xmath19 . if @xmath4 , the gorenstein dimension of @xmath369 is zero , and if @xmath370 , the gorenstein dimension is one .    by theorem [ theorem : gentle ] , the algebra @xmath267 is gentle , and we can apply theorem [ theorem : gr ] .    if @xmath4 , then @xmath5 has only one summand , and the endomorphism algebra @xmath267 is isomorphic to the self - injective algebra @xmath371/(x^2)$ ] , so in this case the gorenstein dimension is zero .    assume therefore that @xmath370 .
the gentle arrows are exactly the arrows which are not traversed by any minimal oriented cycle .
( in particular , the loop is not gentle . )
but if @xmath360 is any such arrow , then @xmath372 is a path for at most one arrow @xmath345 , and @xmath372 can never be a zero relation , since it is not a part of a 3-cycle .
so if gentle arrows exist , the maximal length @xmath373 of critical paths starting in gentle arrows is 1 , and therefore the gorenstein dimension of @xmath267 is also 1 . if gentle arrows do not exist , we have @xmath374 , and the gorenstein dimension is at most 1 .
it remains to be shown that @xmath267 can not be self - injective for @xmath375 .
for this , consider the indecomposable projective associated with the loop vertex .
it is easily seen that it is not injective .
since @xmath376 is gentle , it is in particular a string algebra .
we will use this to show that @xmath267 has finite representation type . for this
, we will recall some basic facts about representations of string algebras .
more details on this can be found e.g. in @xcite .
let @xmath113 be a string algebra .
we consider words from the alphabet formed by arrows in @xmath114 and their formal inverses .
inverse words are defined in the obvious way . for an inverted arrow
@xmath377 we set the end vertex @xmath378 equal to the start vertex @xmath379 of the original arrow and vice versa . a word @xmath380 , where no two consecutive @xmath381 are inverses of each other , is called a _ string _
if @xmath382 for @xmath383 and moreover no subword of @xmath384 or its inverse is a zero relation .
in addition , there is a trivial string of length zero for each vertex of @xmath114 .
we say that the start- and end vertices of the @xmath381 which appear in the strings are the vertices _ traversed _ by the string . for technical purposes
, we also consider a unique zero ( or empty ) string of length @xmath385 .    to any string @xmath386 of length @xmath387 in @xmath114
there is an associated indecomposable @xmath388-dimensional representation @xmath389 of @xmath113 given by one - dimensional vector spaces in each vertex traversed by the string ( with multiplicity ) and one - dimensional identity maps for each of the arrows ( and inverted arrows ) appearing in @xmath390 .
we have that @xmath391 if and only if @xmath392 or @xmath393 .
the @xmath113-modules given by such representations are called _
string modules_. if there exist closed strings @xmath394 ( i.e. strings starting and ending in the same vertex ) such that @xmath395 and powers of the string are strings as well , there will also be infinite families of indecomposables called _ band modules_. the string modules and band modules constitute a complete set of representatives of isoclasses of indecomposable modules over @xmath113 .
now some remarks on the strings in the quiver of @xmath267 , which will be useful in the proof of theorem [ thm : finitetype ] and in section [ sec : homfunctor ] . in what follows , an arrow @xmath360 that arises from an irreducible @xmath17-map in @xmath238 will be called a @xmath17-arrow , and similarly an arrow that arises from a @xmath18-map will be called a @xmath18-arrow .
since the vertices of the quiver are in a natural bijection with the indecomposable summands of @xmath5 , we will transfer some terminology about the summands to the vertices .
so the quasilength of a vertex is the quasilength of the corresponding summand , and vertices ( also arrows , strings ) are said to be in a wing if the corresponding summands are in the wing .
[ lem : stringsandcycles ] let @xmath235 be a non - degenerate @xmath5-subwing triple , and @xmath396 and @xmath307 the corresponding arrows . then    * if @xmath397 is a string , then @xmath398 is not of the form @xmath399 . * if @xmath400 is a string , then @xmath401 is not of the form @xmath402 .
the analogous statements hold for the inverses of the arrows .
the assertions follow from the fact that @xmath302 and @xmath303 are both zero relations .    *
if @xmath403 is a @xmath18-arrow , and @xmath404 is a string , then @xmath401 is in the wing of @xmath405 and @xmath398 is in the wing of @xmath204 , and similarly for inverses of @xmath18-arrows . *
a string in the quiver of @xmath267 contains at most one @xmath18-arrow or inverse of such .    * ( i ) : * let @xmath404 be a string , where @xmath403 is a @xmath18-arrow corresponding to a @xmath18-map @xmath406 .
suppose first that @xmath407 .
then there is a subwing triple @xmath408 . now
if the string @xmath401 which starts in @xmath405 is the trivial string for vertex @xmath405 , then there is nothing to show , since @xmath405 is definitely in the wing of itself .
assume therefore that @xmath401 has length at least one .
then @xmath409 , where @xmath410 is either an arrow starting in @xmath405 or the inverse of an arrow ending in @xmath405 . by lemma [ lem : stringsandcycles ]
we know that @xmath410 can not be the arrow @xmath411 which connects @xmath405 to the vertex @xmath8 associated with @xmath174 .
now the remaining possibilities for @xmath410 are contained in the wing of @xmath405 .
by lemma [ lem : stringsandcycles ] again , it follows that none of the @xmath412 can be @xmath18-arrows ( or inverse @xmath18-arrows ) .
so @xmath401 traverses vertices of successively smaller quasilength and can not return to @xmath405 .
so @xmath401 is in the wing of @xmath405 .    if @xmath413 , then @xmath230 is the top summand and @xmath345 is the loop , in which case the claim follows by the fact that @xmath414 is a zero relation , and a similar argument as above .
the statement for @xmath398 and @xmath204 is proved analogously , and also the statements for inverses of @xmath18-arrows .    *
( ii ) : * this follows from ( i ) .
if @xmath415 and @xmath416 are two @xmath18-arrows , then clearly @xmath417 can not be in the wing of @xmath204 or @xmath405 when at the same time @xmath418 is in the wing of @xmath8 or @xmath419 .
so they can not both appear in the same string .
the same goes if one ( or both ) of @xmath418 and @xmath417 is the inverse of a @xmath18-arrow .
[ rem : closed ] it follows from this lemma that if @xmath390 is a closed string , then either @xmath390 is a trivial string , or @xmath390 contains the loop as the only @xmath18-arrow .    [ lem : stringsubwing ] in the following , we consider strings only up to orientation .    * the strings of length @xmath420 in the quiver of @xmath267 which do not contain a @xmath18-arrow or inverse of such are in bijection with sequences @xmath421 such that there are subwing triples @xmath422 or @xmath423 for @xmath424 . * the strings in the quiver of @xmath267 that do not contain a @xmath18-arrow or inverse of such are in bijection with pairs @xmath221 of summands of @xmath5 such that @xmath259 .    *
( i ) : * let @xmath390 be a string without a @xmath18-arrow or inverse @xmath18-arrow . if @xmath390 is trivial , the claim is obviously true , so assume @xmath390 has length @xmath425 .
choose @xmath426 to be an indecomposable summand of @xmath5 which corresponds to a vertex @xmath427 traversed by @xmath390 such that no of the other vertices traversed by @xmath390 have higher quasilength .
assume @xmath428 .
then there is some @xmath5-subwing triple @xmath429 .
let @xmath430 and @xmath431 be the corresponding arrows .
now since there are no @xmath18-arrows , and @xmath427 has maximal quasilength among the vertices traversed by @xmath390 , the string @xmath390 must be of the form @xmath432 where @xmath398 , if it is non - trivial , is of the form @xmath433 or @xmath434 , and similarly @xmath435 or @xmath436 if it is non - trivial .
so for @xmath437 to be a string , one of these has to be the trivial string associated with @xmath427 , since the composition @xmath438 is zero .
so @xmath427 is the start- or end vertex of @xmath390 , and the first arrow ( or inverse arrow ) connects @xmath427 to one of the vertices from the @xmath5-subwing triple with @xmath427 on top . by repeating the process with the string @xmath439 or @xmath440 , we get the desired chain of subwing triples .    *
( ii ) : * follows directly from ( i ) .
see figure [ fig : stringexample ] for an example of strings in the quiver of @xmath267 .    , where @xmath441 is the only @xmath18-arrow , starts in the vertex corresponding to @xmath219 and ends in the vertex corresponding to @xmath245 .
note how a path like @xmath442 ( or its inverse ) can not be in a string , since it is a zero relation .
also , the path @xmath443 is not a string , while both @xmath444 and @xmath445 are.,width=415 ]    [ thm : finitetype ] for a maximal rigid object @xmath5 in @xmath2 , the endomorphism ring @xmath267 is of finite type , and the number of indecomposable representations is @xmath446    let @xmath114 be the quiver of @xmath267 and @xmath117 the relation ideal . moreover ,
let @xmath419 denote the loop vertex , and @xmath116 the loop itself . for a string @xmath390
we will denote the associated indecomposable representation by @xmath389 .
first consider strings which do not involve the loop .
these are in bijection with ordered pairs of vertices : for each pair @xmath447 from @xmath448 , let @xmath221 be the associated summands of @xmath5 . if @xmath259 or vice versa , there is , as in lemma [ lem : stringsubwing ] , a string without a @xmath18-arrow connecting @xmath204 and @xmath405 .
so suppose this is not the case .
consider the ( unique ) summand @xmath174 which is of minimal quasilength such that @xmath230 and @xmath213 are both in @xmath177 .
then there is some @xmath5-subwing triple @xmath449 where @xmath450 and @xmath451 or the other way around .
now use lemma [ lem : stringsubwing ] again to find strings connecting @xmath204 with the vertex @xmath452 associated with @xmath453 and @xmath405 with the vertex @xmath454 associated with @xmath455 .
now there is a @xmath18-arrow @xmath456 .
connecting the two string by way of @xmath457 yields the desired string , and we can choose the orientation , so this is up to ordered pairs of vertices .    in particular , by remark [ rem : closed ] , any non - loop string starting and ending in the same vertex is a trivial string .
denote by @xmath458 the unique non - loop string starting in @xmath204 and ending in @xmath405 , so @xmath459 . for the corresponding indecomposable representations we have isomorphisms @xmath460 .
the simple representations are the @xmath461 .
the total number of representations corresponding to non - loop strings is therefore @xmath462 where the first term is the number of simple representations and the second is the number of strings of length @xmath425 up to orientation .
now for the strings passing through the loop . for each pair @xmath447 of vertices , there are two strings from @xmath204 to @xmath405 passing through the loop @xmath116 : @xmath463 and these are all possible loop strings .
we see that @xmath464 , so @xmath465 for any choice of @xmath447 , in particular for @xmath466 .
we deduce that the indecomposable representations associated with loop strings are in bijection with ordered pairs of vertices , and the number of such representations is @xmath467 .
these are all the strings there are .
since ( by remark [ rem : closed ] and lemma [ lem : stringsubwing ] ) the only closed strings are either trivial , @xmath116 or of the form @xmath468 for some arrow ( or inverse arrow ) @xmath360 and some string @xmath390 , it follows that there are no band modules .
so the string modules we have presented form a complete set of isomorphism classes of @xmath267-modules .
summarising , we find that the total number of representations is @xmath469
for a cluster - tilted algebra @xmath470 arising from the cluster category @xmath21 of some hereditary algebra @xmath20 , there is a close connection between the module category of @xmath471 and the cluster category itself .
the main theorem from @xcite says that the functor @xmath472 induces an equivalence @xmath473 in particular , the cluster - tilted algebra is of finite representation type if and only if @xmath21 has finitely many objects ( which again happens if and only if @xmath20 is of finite type ) . by theorem [ thm : finitetype ]
, a similar result can not hold for the cluster tubes .
the analogous argument fails because the hom - functor is not full . in this section
, we will study some properties of this functor .
we introduce some notation . for any indecomposable object @xmath7 in @xmath19 ,
let @xmath474 be the hom - hammock of @xmath7 , where @xmath475 is the set of indecomposables to which @xmath7 has @xmath17-maps , and similarly for @xmath476 .
also , consider the _
reverse hom - hammock _ @xmath477 , that is , the support of @xmath478 among the indecomposables . like the ordinary hom - hammock , this has a natural structure as the union of two components , one denoted by @xmath479 containing the indecomposables that have non - zero @xmath17-maps to @xmath7 , and another one denoted by @xmath480 containing those that have @xmath18-maps to @xmath7 .
note that by the description of the hom - hammocks , @xmath481 and @xmath482 .
so the shape of @xmath483 is similar to the shape of @xmath484 ( figure [ figure : homhammock ] ) .    for the remainder of this chapter
, @xmath485 will be a maximal rigid object in @xmath2 , and we assume that the top summand of @xmath5 is @xmath486 . clearly ,
by redefining the coordinates we can use the results for all maximal rigid objects of @xmath19 . as in the preceeding sections , we will denote by @xmath267 the endomorphism ring @xmath376 .
we define @xmath487 to be a certain set of indecomposable objects in @xmath19 : @xmath488 see figure [ fig : fundamentaldomain ] .
the region @xmath487 in the tube consists of the rigid part and in addition a triangle of height @xmath189 in the non - rigid part .
( we have defined wings only for rigid indecomposables , but we can think of @xmath487 as the wing of the object @xmath489 . )     in @xmath490 , below the dashed curve .
@xmath5 is concentrated in the indicated wing.,width=264 ]    the following claims are easily verified :    [ lem : onecomponent ] if @xmath7 is an indecomposable in @xmath94 , then @xmath491 forms one rectangle - shaped subgraph of the tube , and similarly for @xmath492 .
[ lem : revhammquasi ] let @xmath493 be either @xmath17 or @xmath18 . then for an indecomposable @xmath7
, the set @xmath494 contains a unique quasisimple @xmath495 , and a necessary condition for an object @xmath41 to be in @xmath494 is that @xmath496 .
[ lem : t1inr(x ) ] let @xmath497 .
then @xmath498 if and only if @xmath499 .
we now want to assign to each indecomposable in @xmath487 a uniquely defined string in the quiver of @xmath267 . in the main result of this section
we will show that the images under the hom - functor are given by these strings .
the first step is to encode information about @xmath17-maps and @xmath18-maps in separate strings , which will be joined to one string at a later stage .
[ lem : revhamm ] let @xmath493 be either @xmath17 or @xmath18 . for @xmath497
we have the following .
* @xmath500 is empty if and only if @xmath501 .
* for any @xmath5-subwing triple @xmath235 , at most one of @xmath213 and @xmath174 can be in @xmath494 .
* if @xmath502 is non - empty , there is a unique string in the quiver of @xmath267 traversing each of the vertices corresponding to the indecomposables in @xmath502 exactly once ( and no other vertex ) and ending in the vertex corresponding to the summand in @xmath502 of highest quasilength . *
a string of the type in part ( iii ) contains no @xmath18-arrow ( or inverse of such ) .    *
( i ) : * we need to show that @xmath503 if and only if @xmath504 .
if @xmath501 , then there are no non - zero maps from @xmath5 to @xmath7 since @xmath5 is rigid .    for the converse , assume that the intersection is empty . using lemma [ lem : t1inr(x ) ] , we get that @xmath156 . moreover , we have that @xmath505 since @xmath506 , the object @xmath7 , and consequently @xmath507 , is rigid .
so @xmath508 for some @xmath204 since @xmath5 is maximal rigid , and we can conclude that @xmath509 .    *
( ii ) : * we know that @xmath225 and @xmath177 are disjoint .
the claim then follows from lemma [ lem : revhammquasi ] .    *
( iii ) : * assume @xmath502 is non - empty , and let @xmath510 and @xmath511 be elements in this set with minimal and maximal quasilength , respectively . by lemma [ lem : revhammquasi ] ,
the unique quasisimple @xmath495 which is in @xmath494 is now in both @xmath512 and @xmath513 .
so in particular @xmath512 and @xmath513 have non - empty intersection , and therefore by lemma [ lem : subwingintersection ] we know that @xmath514 . also by lemma [ lem : subwingintersection ]
we see that @xmath511 and @xmath510 are uniquely determined .
there is some @xmath5-subwing triple @xmath515 , and it can easily be seen that if @xmath495 were in @xmath516 , say , then also @xmath517 would be in @xmath494 , which would violate the minimality condition on @xmath510 . thus @xmath510 is the summand of smallest quasilength such that @xmath495 is in the corresponding wing .
see figure [ fig : revhammandsubwings ] .     and @xmath511 are the summands of @xmath5 in @xmath494 of lowest and highest quasilength , respectively , then the entire rectangle indicated must be in @xmath494.,width=302 ]    also , for summands @xmath518 we have that @xmath519 if and only if @xmath520 , again by lemma [ lem : subwingintersection ] and the maximality of @xmath511 . now the desired string is a string of the type described in lemma [ lem : stringsubwing ] , oriented in the suitable way .
* ( iv ) : * by part ( ii ) , a @xmath18-arrow associated with a non - degenerate @xmath5-subwing triple @xmath235 could not be traversed by a string of the type described in part ( iii ) .
moreover , the loop is disallowed as well , since then the loop vertex would be traversed twice , contrary to the condition in part ( iii ) .    for an indecomposable @xmath497 such that @xmath502 is non - empty , where @xmath493 is either @xmath17 or @xmath18 , we denote the string in lemma [ lem : revhamm ] part ( iii ) by @xmath521 .
if the intersection is empty , we define @xmath521 to be the zero string .
the two next lemmas tell us that different objects in @xmath522 can be distinguished by their associated strings .
[ lem : differentstrings ] let @xmath523 . if @xmath524 and @xmath525 , then @xmath526 .    we note first that for any indecomposable @xmath53
, the unique quasisimple @xmath527 in @xmath528 determines the first coordinate of @xmath53 .
similarly , the unique quasisimple @xmath529 in @xmath530 determines the sum of the coordinates of @xmath53 modulo the rank @xmath10 .
so if the first coordinate of @xmath53 is known , the quasisimple @xmath529 determines the second coordinate _
modulo @xmath10_.    let now @xmath7 and @xmath41 be in @xmath522 such that @xmath531 and @xmath525 .
we aim to show that @xmath7 and @xmath41 must be equal .    by lemma [ lem : revhamm ] part ( i ) ,
at least one of @xmath531 and @xmath525 is non - zero .
assume first that both are non - zero .
we claim that @xmath532 and @xmath533 . as in the proof of lemma [ lem : revhamm ] part ( iii ) , we observe that if @xmath510 is the @xmath5-summand of smallest quasilength in @xmath479 , then @xmath534 is the unique quasisimple which is in @xmath512 but not in the wing of any @xmath5-summand of smaller quasilength . since @xmath510 is also the summand of smallest quasilength in @xmath535 , we must have @xmath532 .
similarly , we deduce that @xmath533 .
thus @xmath7 and @xmath41 have the same first coordinate , and the same second coordinate modulo @xmath10 .
but since @xmath7 and @xmath41 are in @xmath487 , this means that unless @xmath7 and @xmath41 are equal , one of them is in @xmath536 and the other is in the non - rigid part .
if they are not equal , there is then a contradiction to lemma [ lem : t1inr(x ) ] : if @xmath7 is in @xmath536 and @xmath41 is in the non - rigid part , then by lemma [ lem : t1inr(x ) ] @xmath537 but @xmath538 , which is impossible since we have assumed @xmath539 and @xmath540 . we conclude that if both @xmath541 and @xmath542 , then @xmath526 .
assume then that @xmath541 and @xmath543 , and furthermore that @xmath544 .
then @xmath7 and @xmath41 have the same first coordinate .
moreover , at least one of @xmath7 and @xmath41 must be in @xmath536 , since the only other possible positions for an object @xmath545 such that @xmath546 and @xmath547 are on the coray @xmath548 .    suppose ( without loss of generality ) that @xmath7 has smaller quasilength than @xmath41 .
so in particular , @xmath7 is in @xmath536 .
let @xmath511 be the object in @xmath549 with highest quasilength .
since @xmath550 , we have that @xmath551 .
therefore , there is some @xmath5-subwing triple @xmath552 , where @xmath511 is necessarily on the left side since @xmath479 contains whole corays , and so by the maximality of @xmath511 , there can be no more summands of @xmath5 on @xmath553 .
assume first that this triple is non - degenerate .
since @xmath480 does not contain any summands of @xmath5 , there is in particular no @xmath18-map @xmath554 .
so @xmath7 is in @xmath555 but not in @xmath556 .
moreover , we see that @xmath557 , by the maximality of @xmath511
. so @xmath7 must be on the coray @xmath558 .
if the triple is degenerate , then @xmath7 must be on the right edge of @xmath513 , since @xmath559 .
in any of these two cases , we get a contradiction : since @xmath41 and @xmath7 have the same first coordinate , and @xmath41 has higher quasilength , @xmath560 must be in @xmath535 .
this contradicts the equality of @xmath561 and @xmath562 , and our assumption that @xmath544 must be wrong .
see figure [ fig : equalsigmas ] .     and
@xmath563 , then @xmath7 and @xmath41 have the same first coordinate .
if @xmath7 is inside some non - degenerate @xmath5-subwing triple , then @xmath7 must be on the coray @xmath558 , since otherwise @xmath564.,width=340 ]    the situation where @xmath565 and @xmath542 can be proved in a similar manner .
the following lemma is used to show that if two different objects have exactly one associated @xmath566- or @xmath567-string , then the strings are different .
[ lem : tstringisnotdstring ] if @xmath568 , then @xmath562 is non - zero .
suppose that @xmath568 , and let @xmath230 be the summand in @xmath569 which has highest quasilength .
we claim that @xmath256 . to see this ,
assume that @xmath570 .
then there is some ( degenerate or non - degenerate ) @xmath5-subwing triple @xmath571 or @xmath572 .
since @xmath479 contains whole corays , and @xmath573 contains whole rays , the summand @xmath174 must be in one of these two reverse hom - hammocks .
but this contradicts our choice of @xmath230 .
so @xmath256 .
now observe that if @xmath41 is in @xmath487 , and there is a @xmath43-map @xmath574 , then there is also a @xmath17-map @xmath574 , so in particular @xmath575 .
we now show that if both strings associated with an indecomposable in @xmath487 are non - zero , then there is a larger string containing both of them .
[ lem : dstrings ] let @xmath497 .
if both @xmath561 and @xmath576 are non - zero , there is a @xmath18-arrow @xmath577 from the end vertex of @xmath561 to the end vertex of @xmath576 .
so in particular , @xmath578 is a well - defined string .
we consider four cases , depending on the position of @xmath7 in @xmath487 .
the first case is when there is a @xmath18-map @xmath579 .
one readily verifies that there is then also a @xmath17-map @xmath579 , so in this case @xmath95 is in both @xmath479 and @xmath480 , and the claim holds with the loop as @xmath577 .
the second case is when there is a @xmath17-map @xmath579 , but no @xmath18-map from @xmath95 to @xmath7 .
this happens exactly when @xmath7 is on the coray @xmath548 , and in this case there are no @xmath18-maps from any summands of @xmath5 to @xmath7 , so @xmath580 is empty , and there is nothing to prove .
the third case is when @xmath7 is located on the ray @xmath581 .
then there are no @xmath17-maps from @xmath5 to @xmath7 , so again there is nothing to prove .
the only remaining situation is then when @xmath7 is in the wing @xmath536 . as in the proof of lemma [ lem : differentstrings ] , let @xmath511 be the summand in @xmath582 of highest quasilength . since @xmath551 , there is some @xmath5-subwing triple @xmath552 with @xmath511 necessarily on the left , since @xmath479 contains whole corays .
assume first that this triple is non - degenerate .
then , since @xmath583 and @xmath584 by the maximality property of @xmath511 , we note the following about the position of @xmath7 :    * @xmath585 , but not on the right edge of @xmath586 , since then there would be a @xmath17-map @xmath587 * @xmath588 , where @xmath41 is the object on @xmath589 which has an irreducible map to @xmath590 , since then there would be no @xmath17-map @xmath591 * if @xmath592 , then it is on the right edge , since otherwise there would be no @xmath17-map @xmath591    our aim is to show that @xmath590 is in @xmath480 , and moreover that it is the summand of @xmath5 with highest quasilength appearing in @xmath480 .    with the above remarks about the position of @xmath7 , we see that the only allowed positions such that there is no @xmath18-map @xmath593 are positions on the coray @xmath558 .
but if @xmath7 were on this coray , then @xmath580 would be empty , contrary to our hypothesis : namely , assuming this position for @xmath7 , suppose there was some summand @xmath594 .
an equivalent condition to this ( cf .
lemma [ lem : homspaces ] ) is that there is a non - zero @xmath17-map @xmath595 , which again is equivalent to the existence of a @xmath17-map @xmath596 .
but since @xmath597 , we have that @xmath507 is on the right edge of @xmath586 .
so there would be a non - zero @xmath17-map @xmath598 , which is impossible since @xmath560 and @xmath599 are ext - orthogonal .
so @xmath600 . let @xmath601 be the @xmath5-summand of highest quasilength which appears in @xmath480 . then , since both @xmath602 and @xmath603 contain the quasisimple @xmath604 from lemma [ lem : revhammquasi ] , lemma [ lem : subwingintersection ] tells us that @xmath605 .
but @xmath590 is in @xmath586 as well , so by lemma [ lem : subwingintersection ] again , either @xmath606 or @xmath607 .
the former case is not possible , since it would imply that @xmath608 , which is impossible since @xmath609 .
so the remaining possibility is that @xmath610 , that is , @xmath590 is the @xmath5-summand in @xmath480 of highest quasilength .    by the description of the quiver of @xmath267 in section [ sec : endoring ] , there is a @xmath18-arrow @xmath577 associated with the non - degenerate @xmath5-subwing triple , from the vertex corresponding to @xmath511 to the vertex corresponding to @xmath590 .
since @xmath561 ends in the vertex corresponding to @xmath511 , and @xmath611 starts in the vertex corresponding to @xmath590 , the string @xmath612 is well - defined .
it remains to consider the case where the @xmath5-subwing triple @xmath552 is degenerate , that is , @xmath613 . in this case , since @xmath584 , the only option is that @xmath7 is on the right edge of @xmath513 .
but then @xmath580 is empty : if there was a @xmath18-map @xmath614 for some @xmath5-summand @xmath615 , then @xmath560 and @xmath615 would have an extension , as can be seen from an argument similar to the above .    by virtue of the preceding considerations , we can now associate to each indecomposable object @xmath616 a unique indecomposable @xmath267-module @xmath617 where @xmath618 \sigma^{\d}_x & \textrm{if } \sigma^{\t}_x \textrm { is zero } \\[4pt ] ( \sigma^{\d}_x)^{-1 } \beta_x \sigma^{\t}_x & \textrm{if both } \sigma^{\t}_x \textrm { and } \sigma^{\d}_x \textrm { are non - zero } \end{array } \right.\ ] ]    we can now describe the action of the hom - functor on objects in @xmath487 .    [ thm : actiononf ] let @xmath5 be a maximal rigid object of @xmath19 , and @xmath369 the endomorphism ring .
* let @xmath7 be an object in @xmath619 .
then the @xmath267-module @xmath620 is isomorphic to the string module @xmath617 . *
the functor @xmath621 provides a bijection between @xmath622 and the set of isoclasses of indecomposable @xmath267-modules .    *
( 1 ) * by lemma [ lem : revhamm ] part ( i ) , the module is non - zero .
let @xmath623 be the idempotent corresponding to the indecomposable projective @xmath624 .
let @xmath623 be the idempotent of @xmath267 corresponding to the vertex @xmath204 , which again corresponds to the summand @xmath230 of @xmath5 .
then the vector space @xmath625 decomposes @xmath626 where each vector space @xmath627 and @xmath628 is at most 1-dimensional and is spanned by a @xmath17-map @xmath629 and a @xmath18-map @xmath630 respectively , where these maps are zero if no non - zero such maps exist .    by the definition of @xmath561 , the vertices
for which @xmath631 are exactly the vertices that are traversed by @xmath561 .
similarly , the vertices for which @xmath632 are the ones traversed by @xmath576 .
in particular , there is an equality of dimension vectors @xmath633    we need to establish that the action of @xmath267 on @xmath625 is the same as the action on @xmath617 .
each map which is irreducible in @xmath238 corresponds to an arrow in the quiver of @xmath267 , and the arrow acts by composition with the irreducible map .
unless both the start vertex and the end vertex of this arrow are vertices in the support of @xmath625 , then clearly this map ( equivalently , this arrow ) has a zero action on both the modules @xmath620 and @xmath617 .
so we must show that for each @xmath17-arrow @xmath634 appearing in @xmath561 acts by an isomorphism @xmath635 , and each @xmath17-arrow appearing in @xmath576 acts by an isomorphism @xmath636 , and finally that if @xmath637 is defined , then the action of this is given by an isomorphism @xmath638 .
our first goal is now to show that whenever @xmath639 is a @xmath17-arrow such that @xmath360 itself or @xmath377 appears in @xmath640 , then the action of @xmath360 is given by a pair of linear transformations @xmath641 which are isomorphisms when their domains and codomains are both non - zero .
( and necessarily zero otherwise . ) let @xmath642 be the irreducible @xmath17-map corresponding to @xmath360 .
then what we need is that if @xmath643 and @xmath644 are both non - zero , then @xmath645 up to a non - zero scalar , and similarly that if @xmath646 and @xmath647 are both non - zero , then @xmath648 .
the first assertion is clearly true by the structure of the tube .
the second assertion holds by an application of lemma [ lem : rayfactoring ] part ( i ) , and remark [ rem : rayfactoring ] , where we use that @xmath649 must be a composition of maps which are irreducible in @xmath650 , and follows a ray or coray ( along the edge of a wing ) , and thus all the indecomposables that @xmath649 factors through are also in @xmath480 .
next let @xmath7 be such that the @xmath18-arrow @xmath651 is defined , and thus appears in the string @xmath640 .
then we know that @xmath627 and @xmath652 are non - zero .
the action of @xmath577 is given by composition with a @xmath18-map @xmath653 .
we wish to show that ( up to multiplication by a non - zero scalar ) this action is given by a linear transformation @xmath654 in other words , it sends @xmath644 to @xmath647 and annihilates @xmath646 .
the composition @xmath655 is clearly zero , as all compositions of two @xmath18-maps are .
consider the image @xmath656 of @xmath644 .
we need that the @xmath17-map @xmath644 does not factor through any indecomposable to which there is no @xmath18-map from @xmath213 .
this holds , since by lemma [ lem : onecomponent ] , @xmath657 forms a rectangle - shaped subgraph of the tube , and the map @xmath644 can not factor through any indecomposable outside this subgraph .
we can then conclude from lemma [ lem : rayfactoring ] part ( ii ) and remark [ rem : rayfactoring ] that @xmath658 , which is what we wanted .
it remains to show that if there exists an arrow which connects two vertices in the support of @xmath620 , but which does nt appear in @xmath640 , then the action of this arrow is zero on @xmath620 . by lemmas [ lem : stringsubwing ] , [ lem : revhamm ] and [ lem : dstrings ]
the only case to consider is when @xmath577 is the loop vertex , and there is a @xmath5-subwing triple @xmath235 such that @xmath659 and @xmath660 or vice versa . since the action of the arrow @xmath661 is given by composition with the @xmath18-map @xmath662 , we only need to study the case where @xmath561 traverses @xmath405 and @xmath576 traverses @xmath8 .
so we need to show that @xmath663 is zero .
but by examining the hom - hammocks of @xmath213 and @xmath174 , we see that if there is a @xmath17-map @xmath664 and a @xmath18-map @xmath665 , then either @xmath7 is in @xmath224 , which contradicts the fact that @xmath204 must be traversed by @xmath640 , or @xmath644 factors through objects on the coray @xmath666 . in the latter case ,
the composition must be zero , since there are no @xmath18-maps from @xmath174 to any objects on this coray .    *
( 2 ) * counting the number of elements of @xmath487 , we find that it contains @xmath667 objects with quasilength less than @xmath10 and @xmath668 with quasilength @xmath10 or more , that is , a total of @xmath669 elements .
since @xmath5 has @xmath189 summands , the cardinality of @xmath670 is @xmath671 which , by theorem [ thm : finitetype ] , is also the number of indecomposables in @xmath672 . by lemmas [ lem : differentstrings ] and [ lem : tstringisnotdstring ] , if @xmath7 and @xmath41 are different objects in @xmath673 , then @xmath674 .
it then follows from part ( 1 ) that @xmath675 .
so we @xmath621 provides a bijection .
we now turn to the indecomposables which are not in @xmath487 .
it is easily seen that lemma [ lem : revhamm ] parts ( ii)-(iv ) hold also for indecomposables which are not in @xmath487 .
so we can define @xmath561 and @xmath576 in this case as well .
the following theorem now completes the description of the action of @xmath621 on objects .
let @xmath7 be an indecomposable object in @xmath19 , where @xmath676 .
then we have the following .
* @xmath503 if and only if @xmath677 , where @xmath678 . * if @xmath7 is not of the type described in @xmath679 , then @xmath680 where @xmath389 is the zero module if @xmath390 is the zero string .    *
( 1 ) : * when @xmath676 we know that @xmath503 if and only if @xmath681 .
there are no @xmath17-maps @xmath579 if and only if @xmath7 is on the ray @xmath581 , that is @xmath682 for some @xmath683 . moreover , there are no @xmath18-maps @xmath579 if and only if @xmath7 is on the coray @xmath684 .
the indecomposables that are in the intersection of @xmath581 and @xmath684 and outside @xmath487 are exactly the ones with coordinates @xmath685 such that @xmath686 .
the claim follows .    * ( 2 ) : * the proof of theorem [ thm : actiononf ] goes through , with the following exception , which is exactly what is needed .
the action of @xmath577 ( which in this case is always the loop , as we see from the argument for ( 1 ) above ) is zero : the @xmath17-map @xmath687 factors through ( at least ) one object on the coray @xmath684 .
we know that there are no @xmath18-maps from @xmath95 to any object on this coray .
it then follows that the composition @xmath688 , where @xmath689 is the @xmath18-endomorphism of @xmath95 , is a zero map .
the result follows .
the author is very grateful to aslak bakke buan for many helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript .
much of the work presented here was carried out during a visit at the school of mathematics , university of leeds .
the author would like to thank robert marsh for his hospitality as well as for many discussions on the subject .