MHB Bland - Proposition 4.1.1 - (4) => (1)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
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 trying to understand Chapter 4, Section 4.1 on generating and cogenerating classes and need help with the proof of $$(4) \Longrightarrow (1)$$ in Proposition 4.1.1.

Proposition 4.1.1 and its proof read as follows:

https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/3656
View attachment 3657

In the proof of $$(4) \Longrightarrow (1)$$ in the text above, Bland writes:" ... ... Let $$\{ M_\alpha \}_\Delta$$ be a family of submodules of $$M$$ that spans $$M$$. If $$X = \{ x_1, x_2, \ ... \ ... \ , x_n \}$$ is a finite set of generators of $$M$$, then $$M = \sum_{ i = 1}^n x_i R = \sum_\Delta M_\alpha$$.

Thus, for each $$i$$, there is a finite set $$F_i \subseteq \Delta$$ such that $$x_i \in \sum_{F_i} M_\alpha$$. ... ... "My question is as follows:

Why, exactly, does the statement:

... ... for each $$i$$, there is a finite set $$F_i \subseteq \Delta$$ such that $$x_i \in \sum_{F_i} M_\alpha$$

follow from the two previous statements?Hope someone can help ... ...

Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,

The sum of any family of modules is a finitely nonzero sum.
 
Fallen Angel said:
Hi Peter,

The sum of any family of modules is a finitely nonzero sum.
Hi Fallen Angel ... thanks for the help in this matter ... ... however, I am still finding this difficult to follow ... are you able to be more explicit and explain further ...

Peter
 
Hi Peter,

You got the equality $\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n}x_{i}R=\displaystyle\sum_{\Delta}M_{\alpha}$.

So $x_{i}\in \displaystyle\sum_{\Delta}M_{\alpha}$.

Then, in principle $x_{i}=\displaystyle\sum_{\Delta}m_{\alpha}$ with $m_{\alpha}\in M_{\alpha}$.

But this sum is finitely non zero, i.e. $m_{\alpha}=0$ for almost every $\alpha \in \Delta$

So $x_{i}=\displaystyle\sum_{F_{i}\subset \Delta}m_{\alpha}$ where $F_{i}$ is finite.($F_{i}=\{\alpha \in \Delta \ : \ m_{\alpha}\neq 0\}$)
 
Fallen Angel said:
Hi Peter,

You got the equality $\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n}x_{i}R=\displaystyle\sum_{\Delta}M_{\alpha}$.

So $x_{i}\in \displaystyle\sum_{\Delta}M_{\alpha}$.

Then, in principle $x_{i}=\displaystyle\sum_{\Delta}m_{\alpha}$ with $m_{\alpha}\in M_{\alpha}$.

But this sum is finitely non zero, i.e. $m_{\alpha}=0$ for almost every $\alpha \in \Delta$

So $x_{i}=\displaystyle\sum_{F_{i}\subset \Delta}m_{\alpha}$ where $F_{i}$ is finite.($F_{i}=\{\alpha \in \Delta \ : \ m_{\alpha}\neq 0\}$)
Thanks for the help, Fallen Angel ... I can now understand the logic ...

Thanks again,

Peter
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
37
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K