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
 
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 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K