Bland - Rings and their Modules 2011

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter steenis
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Modules Rings
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on Bland's "Rings and their Modules" (2011), specifically Example 1 from section 1.5, which claims that $\mbox{Hom}_R(M,N)$ is a left R-module under the action defined by $[r\bullet f](x)=f(xr)$. Participants debate the validity of this claim, particularly in the context of non-commutative rings. A counterexample is provided demonstrating that if $R$ is non-commutative, the assertion does not hold, as shown with the mapping $i \in \mbox{Hom}_R(R,R)$ where $[b\cdot i](1)a \neq [b\cdot i](a)$. The discussion highlights the necessity of proving that $[r\bullet f]$ remains an R-map for $f \in \mbox{Hom}_R(M,N)$.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of left and right R-modules
  • Familiarity with the concept of R-module homomorphisms
  • Knowledge of non-commutative rings and their properties
  • Ability to interpret mathematical notation and definitions from abstract algebra
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of R-modules in non-commutative settings
  • Learn about the implications of homomorphisms in module theory
  • Explore counterexamples in abstract algebra to solidify understanding
  • Review Bland's "Rings and their Modules" for deeper insights into module actions
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, algebraists, and students studying module theory, particularly those interested in the nuances of homomorphisms and the behavior of modules over non-commutative rings.

steenis
Messages
312
Reaction score
18
If the moderators agree, I have made a thread on the book of Bland - Rings and their Modules 2011.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I want to take you to Example 1 of section 1.5 p.33: "$\mbox{Hom} _R (M,N)$ as a left R-module.

Let $M$ and $N$ be two right R-modules. R is not necessarely commutative.
On 9th line of this example, Bland claims that $\mbox{Hom} _R (M,N)$ is a left R-module if we define $[r\bullet f](x)=f(xr)$ for $r\in R$ and $x\in M$. To prove that $\mbox{Hom} _R (M,N)$ is a left R-module, we have to prove conditions (1), (2), (3) and (4) of Definition 1.4.1 p.26 (adapted for left R-modules). Bland proves (3) as follows, $r\in R$, $s\in R$, $x\in M$:

$[s\bullet (r\bullet f)[(x)$ = $[r\bullet f](xs)$ = $[f]((xs)r)$ = $[f](x(sr))$ = $[(sr)\bullet f](x)$

To prove conditions (1), (2), and (4) is easy.

However, he omits to prove that if $f$ is an R-map then $[r\bullet f]$ is an R-map for $r\in R$, i.e., if $f\in \mbox{Hom} _R (M,N)$ then $[r\bullet f] \in \mbox{Hom} _R (M,N)$.

And that is my problem.

Given for $r\in R$, $a\in R$, and $x\in M$ is $[r\bullet f](x)=f(xr)$ and $f(xa)=f(x)a$, we have to prove that $[r\bullet f](xa)$ = $[r\bullet f](x)a$. Here is a start:

$[r\bullet f](xa)$ = $[f]((xa)r)$ = $[f](x(ar))$ = ? = $[r\bullet f](x)a$

Who can fill in the missing steps ?
 
Hi steenis,

If the given conditions are correct, then there is problem with Bland's claim here. If $R$ is commutative, then indeed $\operatorname{Hom}_R(M,N)$ is a left $R$-module with the given $R$-action. However, if $R$ is non-commutative, then the result need not hold. For suppose $R$ is a non-commutative, unital ring. We may view $R$ as a right $R$-module in the usual way. Consider the element $i \in \operatorname{Hom}_R(R,R)$ given by $i(r) = r$. Then $[b\cdot i](a) = i(ab) = ab$, but $[b\cdot i](1)a = i(1b)a = i(b)a = ba\neq ab = [b\cdot i](a)$. Hence, $[b\cdot i]\notin \operatorname{Hom}_R(R,R)$.

By the way, I've noticed that you and Peter are working on issues between Bland's and Rotman's texts. I will address some of those questions if I have time.
 
steenis said:
I want to take you to Example 1 of section 1.5 p.33: "$\mbox{Hom} _R (M,N)$ as a left R-module.

Let $M$ and $N$ be two right R-modules. R is not necessarely commutative.
On 9th line of this example, Bland claims that $\mbox{Hom} _R (M,N)$ is a left R-module if we define $[r\bullet f](x)=f(xr)$ for $r\in R$ and $x\in M$. To prove that $\mbox{Hom} _R (M,N)$ is a left R-module, we have to prove conditions (1), (2), (3) and (4) of Definition 1.4.1 p.26 (adapted for left R-modules). Bland proves (3) as follows, $r\in R$, $s\in R$, $x\in M$:

$[s\bullet (r\bullet f)[(x)$ = $[r\bullet f](xs)$ = $[f]((xs)r)$ = $[f](x(sr))$ = $[(sr)\bullet f](x)$

To prove conditions (1), (2), and (4) is easy.

However, he omits to prove that if $f$ is an R-map then $[r\bullet f]$ is an R-map for $r\in R$, i.e., if $f\in \mbox{Hom} _R (M,N)$ then $[r\bullet f] \in \mbox{Hom} _R (M,N)$.

And that is my problem.

Given for $r\in R$, $a\in R$, and $x\in M$ is $[r\bullet f](x)=f(xr)$ and $f(xa)=f(x)a$, we have to prove that $[r\bullet f](xa)$ = $[r\bullet f](x)a$. Here is a start:

$[r\bullet f](xa)$ = $[f]((xa)r)$ = $[f](x(ar))$ = ? = $[r\bullet f](x)a$

Who can fill in the missing steps ?
Hi Steenis,

Just working through your post and checking Bland, Example 1 of section 1.5 p.33 ... ...

I can see why you want to prove if $f$ is an R-map then $[r\bullet f]$ is an R-map for $r\in R$ ... but I am having trouble completely following you ... ...

Perhaps you can help ...

I understand we have the given condition $[r\bullet f](x)=f(xr)$ ...

... BUT ...

where exactly does $f(xa)=f(x)a$ come from ... how does this arise exactly ... ?(presumably from $$f \in \mbox{Hom} _R (M,N)$$ ... somehow ...? )Hope you can help ...

Peter
*** EDIT ***

Oh God! it is probably one of the conditions on f being an R-module homomorphism (R-Linear map) ... is that right ... ?
 
Last edited:
Yes, you are right. By definition $f : M \longrightarrow N$ is an R-module homomorphism or R-linear map or R-map between right R-modules, if for all $x, y \in M$ and $r \in R$:
$f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y)$
and
$f(xr)=f(x)r$
 
Euge said:
Hi steenis,

If the given conditions are correct, then there is problem with Bland's claim here. If $R$ is commutative, then indeed $\operatorname{Hom}_R(M,N)$ is a left $R$-module with the given $R$-action. However, if $R$ is non-commutative, then the result need not hold. For suppose $R$ is a non-commutative, unital ring. We may view $R$ as a right $R$-module in the usual way. Consider the element $i \in \operatorname{Hom}_R(R,R)$ given by $i(r) = r$. Then $[b\cdot i](a) = i(ab) = ab$, but $[b\cdot i](1)a = i(1b)a = i(b)a = ba\neq ab = [b\cdot i](a)$. Hence, $[b\cdot i]\notin \operatorname{Hom}_R(R,R)$.

By the way, I've noticed that you and Peter are working on issues between Bland's and Rotman's texts. I will address some of those questions if I have time.

Thank you, Euge, for your counterexample, very good. I am not good with examples and counterexamples. And of course, the more input the better.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
66
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K