Artinian Modules - Bland - Proposition 4.24

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Modules
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
3 replies · 2K views
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Paul E. Bland's book, "Rings and Their Modules".

I am focused on Section 4.2: Noetherian and Artinian Modules and need some help to fully understand the proof of part of Proposition 4.2.4 ... ...

Proposition 4.2.4 reads as follows:
?temp_hash=05dde20a7081ba4eb52a559921ca1799.png

?temp_hash=05dde20a7081ba4eb52a559921ca1799.png


I need help to fully understand Part of the proof proving that ##(2) \Longrightarrow (3)## ...In that part of the proof Bland seems to be assuming that

## \bigcap_F M_\alpha = N ##

if and only if

## \bigcap_F (M_\alpha / N ) = 0 ##
In other words, if ##F = \{ 1, 2, 3 \}## then

##M_1 \cap M_2 \cap M_3##

if and only if

##M_1 / N \cap M_2 / N \cap M_3 / N## But why exactly is this the case ... ...

... ... how do we formally and rigorously demonstrate that this is true ...Hope someone can help ...

Peter
====================================================

Proposition 4.2.4 refers to the (possibly not well known) concept of cogeneration so I am providing Section 4.1 Generating as Cogenerating Classes ... ... as follows ...
?temp_hash=05dde20a7081ba4eb52a559921ca1799.png

?temp_hash=05dde20a7081ba4eb52a559921ca1799.png

?temp_hash=05dde20a7081ba4eb52a559921ca1799.png
 

Attachments

  • Bland - 1 - Proposition 4.2.4 - PART !.png
    Bland - 1 - Proposition 4.2.4 - PART !.png
    71.2 KB · Views: 819
  • Bland - 2 - Proposition 4.2.4 - PART 2.png
    Bland - 2 - Proposition 4.2.4 - PART 2.png
    31.1 KB · Views: 751
  • Bland -1 -  Section 4.1 - PART 1.png
    Bland -1 - Section 4.1 - PART 1.png
    36.1 KB · Views: 751
  • Bland  - 2 - Section 4.1 - PART 2.png
    Bland - 2 - Section 4.1 - PART 2.png
    43.2 KB · Views: 780
  • Bland  - 3 - Section 4.1 - PART 3.png
    Bland - 3 - Section 4.1 - PART 3.png
    45.4 KB · Views: 792
on Phys.org
Start by observing that
$$(\bigcap_{\alpha\in F} M_\alpha)/N=N/N$$
which is the zero element of the module ##M/N##.

So we have to show that
$$\bigcap_{\alpha\in F} (M_\alpha/N)=(\bigcap_{\alpha\in F} M_\alpha)/N\ \ \ \ \ \ \ (1)$$

First observe that if ##m\in \bigcap_{\alpha\in F} M_\alpha## then ##\forall\alpha\in F:\ m\in M_\alpha##
so that ##\forall\alpha\in F:\ m+N \in M_\alpha/N## whence
##m+N \in \bigcap_{\alpha\in F}M_\alpha/N##.

Hence we have
$$(\bigcap_{\alpha\in F} M_\alpha)/N\subseteq \bigcap_{\alpha\in F} (M_\alpha/N)$$

For the other direction of inclusion, consider an arbitrary element ##m+N## of the LHS of (1). That is, ##m+N\in \bigcap_{\alpha\in F} (M_\alpha/N)##. Then for any ##\alpha\in F## we have ##m+N\in M_\alpha/N##, so there exists ##m'\in M_\alpha## and ##n\in N## such that ##m=m'+n##, which is in ##M_\alpha## since ##n\in N\subseteq M_\alpha##. Hence ##m\in \bigcap_{\alpha\in F} M_\alpha## and therefore ##m+N## is an element of the RHS of (1).

This is not as elegant as I would like because it is late at night and I am tired. But hopefully it makes sense.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Math Amateur
Thanks for the help Andrew ... much appreciated...

Will be working through your post very shortly...

Thanks again ...

Peter
 
Thanks Andrew ... found that very clear and convincing ...

Peter