MHB Commutative rings are IBN-rings - Bland Proposition 2.2.11

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rings
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 Section 2.2 on free modules and need help with the proof of Proposition 2.2.11.

Proposition 2.2.11 and its proof read as follows:View attachment 3588
Proposition 2.2.11 relies on the definition of an IBN-ring so I am providing Bland's definition of an IBN-ring which reads as follows:
View attachment 3589
Now in the proof of Proposition 2.2.11, Bland defines $$R$$ as a commutative ring ... ... and then has to show (see above definition of an IBN-ring) that for every free $$R$$-module $$F$$, any two bases of $$F$$ have the same cardinality.Bland then considers a free module $$F$$ ... ... ... ... BUT ... instead of considering bases of $$F$$ ... ... ... ... Bland, instead, shows that $$\{ x_\alpha + F \mathscr{m} \}_\Delta$$ is a basis for the vector space $$F/F \mathscr{m}$$ ... ... and also shows that $$\text{dim}_{R/ \mathscr{m}} ( F/F \mathscr{m} ) = \text{ card } ( \Delta )$$

... ... and then shows that

$$\text{ card } ( \Delta ) = \text{ card } ( \Gamma )$$

for any other basis $$\Gamma$$ of the vector space $$F/F \mathscr{m}$$
BUT ... ... we should be showing that all bases of $$F$$ (and NOT $$F/F \mathscr{m}$$ ) have the same cardinality ? !... ... so then ... ... how has Bland shown that every free $$R$$-module $$F$$ of the ring $$R$$ has bases of the same cardinality?Could someone explain the logic of Bland's proof of Proposition 2.2.11 ...

I would really appreciate help ...

Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,Bland considers two bases with set of indices $$\nabla, \Gamma $$ of the free module $$F$$ and then , in order to show they have the same cardinality, he constructs a vector space over $$R$$ in such a way that two basis of the vector space has cardinality $$card(\nabla),card(\Gamma)$$.
Hence $$card(\nabla)=card(\Gamma)$$ (Becasuse it is proved that two bases of a vector space has the same cardinality) and then the cardinality of the two initial bases of $F$ is the same.
 
Fallen Angel said:
Hi Peter,Bland considers two bases with set of indices $$\nabla, \Gamma $$ of the free module $$F$$ and then , in order to show they have the same cardinality, he constructs a vector space over $$R$$ in such a way that two basis of the vector space has cardinality $$card(\nabla),card(\Gamma)$$.
Hence $$card(\nabla)=card(\Gamma)$$ (Becasuse it is proved that two bases of a vector space has the same cardinality) and then the cardinality of the two initial bases of $F$ is the same.

Hi Fallen Angel,

Thanks so much for your help ... really appreciate it ...

Now ... ... just reflecting on your argument ...

So you are saying that $$\{ x_\alpha + F \mathfrak{m} \}_{ \Delta }$$ and $$\{ x_\beta + F \mathfrak{m} \}_{ \Gamma }$$ are not only bases for the vector space $$F/ F \mathfrak{m}$$ ... ... BUT ... are also bases for $$F$$ as well?

But I do not see how they are bases for $$F$$.

Are you able to explain how they are bases for $$F$$ ... ?

Sorry to be slow ... and not follow you exactly ...

PeterPS By the way, thanks for you help with the symbol $$\mathfrak{m}$$***EDIT*** ***EDIT*** ***EDIT***oh! thanks to you, I think I now see the logic ... I was not reading the proof carefully enough ...

We start with a basis $$ \{x_\alpha \}_\Delta $$of cardinality $$\Delta$$ and then construct a basis (of the same cardinality) $$\{ x_\alpha + F \mathfrak{m} \}_{ \Delta }$$ of the vector space $$F/ F \mathfrak{m}$$.Then we consider another basis $$ \{ \overline{ x}_\beta \}_\Gamma $$ ... ... and through the same argument show that

$$\{ \overline{x}_\beta + F \mathfrak{m} \}_{ \Gamma }$$

is also a basis of the vector space $$F/ F \mathfrak{m}$$

Then since the dimension of a vector space is unique, we have

$$\text{ card } ( \Delta ) = \text{ card } ( \Gamma )$$

Is that correct?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, you got it! :D
 
Fallen Angel said:
Yeah, you got it! :D
Yes, thanks to you!

Peter
 
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...
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...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top