- #1

- 45

- 1

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- I
- Thread starter TMO
- Start date

- #1

- 45

- 1

- #2

Infrared

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 927

- 517

- #3

mathwonk

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

2020 Award

- 11,183

- 1,378

thus it will be exactly what is called an ideal of the ring. in my opinion it is probably better pedadogically, to study ideals first, and then after defining modules to remark that an ideal is just a submodule when the ring is considered a module over itself.

- #4

lavinia

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 3,248

- 631

Formally, a ring can be thought of as a generalization of a number system such as the the integers. It has a commutative law of addition and a multiplication that distributes over addition.

A module generalizes the idea of a vector space. It has a commutative law of addition and a multiplication by "scalars" which are elements of a ring (not necessarily a field as in a vector space) and which distributes over addition. However, the elements of the ring may not be elements of the module. For instance any abelian group is a module over the ring of integers.

As @mathwonk points out, modules naturally arise as "ideals" in rings. An ideal is a subgroup of a ring in which the scalars are the ring itself. For example if the ring is the integers, then the even integers are an ideal. Multiplication of an even integer by an arbitrary integer is still even, so the even integers are a module over all of the integers. If the ring is not commutative multiplication by scalars can be different if one multiplies on the right or on the left. One gets the idea of a "left ideal" and a "right ideal" or a "two sided ideal" if multiplication on the left and right both work as scalar multiplication.

Last edited:

Share: