An Embarrassing Question about turning a ring into a module

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter TMO
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    module Ring Turning
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around interpreting a ring as a module over itself, particularly in the context of homework assignments. Participants explore the definitions and implications of modules and ideals, as well as the relationships between these concepts in algebra.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks clarification on how to interpret a ring as a module over itself, indicating confusion stemming from homework assignments.
  • Another participant explains that a module over a ring is an abelian group with a specific map from the ring to the module, using left multiplication as an example.
  • A different viewpoint emphasizes the distinction between submodules and ideals, noting that a submodule need not be a subring and must be closed under multiplication by any element of the ring.
  • One participant suggests that studying ideals first may be pedagogically beneficial, as ideals can be seen as submodules when the ring is treated as a module over itself.
  • Further elaboration is provided on the generalization of rings and modules, comparing modules to vector spaces and discussing the nature of ideals within rings.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various interpretations and clarifications regarding the relationship between rings, modules, and ideals. There is no clear consensus on the best pedagogical approach or the implications of these definitions.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about the definitions of modules and ideals are not fully explored, and the discussion does not resolve the potential complexities involved in distinguishing between submodules and ideals.

TMO
Messages
45
Reaction score
1
Given a ring R, how exactly do I interpret it as a module? A lot of my homework assignments involve treating a ring as "a module over itself" and I don't know precisely what that means.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A module M over a ring R is an abelian group together with a map R\times M\to M satisfying certain axioms. Take M=R and let the map be given by left multiplication (so (r,x) is taken to rx).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: WWGD and fresh_42
the main thing that happens that is different from what you might expect, is to consider the meaning of a submodule of the ring. This will be a subgroup of the ring additively, but will not need to be a subring, so will not need to contain 1. It will however need to be closed not just under multiplication, but also under multiplication by any element of the ring.

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.
 
TMO said:
Given a ring R, how exactly do I interpret it as a module? A lot of my homework assignments involve treating a ring as "a module over itself" and I don't know precisely what that means.

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.

A ring can be thought of as a module over itself by letting the scalars be the elements of the ring.

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:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Math Amateur and mathwonk

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K