MHB Can Submodules of a Noetherian Module Fail to Intersect with a Given Submodule?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    module Modules
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 4.2.5 ... ...

Proposition 4.2.5 reads as follows:
View attachment 8188
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/8189My questions are as follows:Question 1

In the above text from Bland we read the following:

" ... ... Conversely, suppose that $$N$$ and $$M/N$$ are noetherian. Let$$M_1 \subseteq M_2 \subseteq M_3 \subseteq \ ... \ ... $$be an ascending chain of submodules of $$M$$. Then $$M_1 \cap N \subseteq M_2 \cap N \subseteq M_3 \cap N \subseteq \ ... \ ...$$ ... ... "My question is ... what about the case where all the $$M_i$$ fail to intersect with $$N$$ ... is this possible ... if so how does the proof read then ...?
Question 2

In the above text from Bland we read the following:

" ... ... If $$i \ge n$$ and $$x \in M_i$$ then $$x + N \in (M_i + N)/N = (M_n + N)/N$$ ... ... "My question is ... why does $$x \in M_i \Longrightarrow x + N \in (M_i + N)/N$$ ... ... is it because ...

$$x \in M_i \Longrightarrow x + 0_N + N \in (M_i + N)/N$$ ...

... and $$x + 0_N + N = x + N$$ ... ... ?
Hope someone can help ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Q1: $M_i$ and $N$ are both submodules of $M$, therefore $M_i \cap N$ can never be empty.

If $M_n \cap N = 0$ then of course $M_i \cap N = 0$ for $i \leq n$. ($0 = \{ 0 \}$ is the zero-module.)

The proof, however, remains the same.

Q2: if $x \in M_i$ then $x \in M_i + N$ and. because $N \leq M_i + N$, we have $x + N \in (M_i + N)/N$
 
steenis said:
Q1: $M_i$ and $N$ are both submodules of $M$, therefore $M_i \cap N$ can never be empty.

If $M_n \cap N = 0$ then of course $M_i \cap N = 0$ for $i \leq n$. ($0 = \{ 0 \}$ is the zero-module.)

The proof, however, remains the same.

Q2: if $x \in M_i$ then $x \in M_i + N$ and. because $N \leq M_i + N$, we have $x + N \in (M_i + N)/N$
Thanks for thr help Steenis ...

Peter
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top