Are Hom_R(R, M) and M Isomorphic?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the isomorphism between the Hom functor applied to a commutative ring and its modules, specifically examining whether $\text{Hom}_R(R, M) \cong M$ and extending this to $\text{Hom}_R(R^n, M) \cong \prod_{i=1}^n \text{Hom}_R(R, M)$. The scope includes theoretical exploration and mathematical reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a mapping $\phi : \text{Hom}_R(R,M) \rightarrow M$ defined by $f \mapsto f(1_R)$ to demonstrate the isomorphism $\text{Hom}_R(R,M) \cong M$.
  • Another participant confirms the correctness of the initial proof provided by the first participant.
  • A later post raises a question about the isomorphism $\text{Hom}_R(R^n,M) \cong \prod_{i=0}^n \text{Hom}_R(R,M)$, suggesting a correction to change the index from $I=0$ to $I=1$.
  • The same participant provides a detailed explanation of the mappings involved, including the definitions of $\Phi$ and $\Psi$, and claims that $\Psi$ serves as the inverse of $\Phi$, establishing an $R$-module isomorphism.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the correctness of the initial isomorphism $\text{Hom}_R(R,M) \cong M$, but there is a correction regarding the indexing in the second isomorphism, indicating some disagreement on that point.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the properties of the mappings and the nature of the modules involved, which are not fully detailed. The dependence on the definitions of the mappings and the specific structure of the modules may affect the conclusions drawn.

mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

Let $R$ be a commutative ring and $M$ be a $R$-module.
I want to show that $\text{Hom}_R(R,M)\cong M$.

I have done the following:

We consider the mapping $\phi : \text{Hom}_R(R,M)\rightarrow M$ with $f\mapsto f(1_R)$.

Let $f,g\in \text{Hom}_R(R,M)$.
We have that
$$\Phi (f+g)=(g+g)(1_R)=f(1_R)+g(1_R)=\Phi (f)+\Phi (g) \\ \Phi (af)=(af)(1_R)=af(1_R)=a\phi (f)$$
So, $\Phi$ is an homomorphism.

Let $\Phi (f)=\Phi (g)$. Then $f(1_R)=g(1_R)$.
So, $f(r)=rf(1_R)=rg(1_R)=g(r), \forall r\in R$.
Therefore, $\phi$ is 1-1.

For each $y\in M$ we define $f$ as follows:
$f: R\rightarrow M$ with $f(r)=ry$
So, for each $y\in M$ we have that $\Phi (f)=f(1_R)=y$.
Therefgore, $\Phi$ is onto.

Is everything correct? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's all correct! (Nod)
 
Great! (Smile)

I have also an other question... Does it stand that $$\text{Hom}_R(R^n,M)\cong \prod_{I=0}^n \text{Hom}_R(R,M)$$ ? (Wondering)
 
Almost. You need to change $I = 0$ to $I = 1$.

I will use the symbol $\operatorname{Hom}_R(R,M)^n$ to represent $\prod_{i = 1}^n \operatorname{Hom}_R(R,M)$. For $1 \le j \le n$, let $e_j\in R^n$ be the element with $1$ in the $j$th coordinate and zeros elsewhere; let $i_j : R \to R^n$ be the $j$th inclusion mapping $r \mapsto re_j$. Since the inclusion mappings are $R$-linear, there is an $R$-linear mapping

$$\Phi : \operatorname{Hom}_R(R^n,M) \to \operatorname{Hom}_R(R,M)^n$$

given by $\Phi(f) = (f\circ i_1,\ldots, f\circ i_n)$. I claim that the mapping

$$\Psi : \operatorname{Hom}_R(R,M)^n \to \operatorname{Hom}_R(R^n,M)$$

defined by the equation $\Psi(g_1,\ldots, g_n) = g_1\circ \pi_1 + \cdots +g_n\circ \pi_n$ is the inverse of $\Psi$. Here, $\pi_i : R^n \to R$ ($1 \le i \le n$) is the projection mapping $\pi_i(r_1,\ldots, r_n) = r_i$. It's important to note that $\pi_i \circ i_j$ is zero for $i \neq j$ and $\operatorname{id}_R$ for $i = j$. Indeed, for all $r\in R$, $(\pi_i \circ i_j)(r) = \pi_i(re_j) = r\delta_{ij}$, which is equal to $0$ if $i \neq j$ and $r$ when $i = j$. Now

$$\Phi(\Psi(g_1,\ldots, g_n)) = \Phi(g_1 + \cdots + g_n) = \left(\sum_{k = 1}^n g_k \circ i_1 \circ \pi_k, \ldots, \sum_{k = 1}^n g_k \circ i_n \circ \pi_k\right) = \left(\sum_{k = 1}^n g_k\delta_{1k},\ldots, \sum_{k = 1}^n g_n \delta_{nk}\right) = (g_1,\ldots, g_n)$$

and

$$\Psi(\Phi(f)) = \Psi(f\circ i_1,\ldots, f\circ i_n) = f\circ i_1\circ \pi_1 + \cdots + f\circ i_n \circ \pi_n = f\circ (i_1 \circ \pi_1 + \cdots + i_n \circ \pi_n) = f$$

where the last identity follows from the fact that $i_1 \circ \pi_1 + \cdots + i_n \circ \pi_n$ is the identity on $R$:

$$(i_1 \circ \pi_1 + \cdots + i_n \circ \pi_n)(r_1,\ldots r_n) = i_1(r_1) + \cdots + i_n(r_n) = r_1 e_1 + \cdots + r_n e_n = (r_1,\ldots, r_n)$$

Therefore $\Psi$ is the inverse of $\Phi$ and $\Phi$ is a bijection. Since $\Phi$ is also $R$-linear, it is an $R$-module isomorphism.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K