MHB Composition Series and Noetherian and Artinian 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 4.2.14 ... ...

Proposition 4.2.14 reads as follows:

https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/8237
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/8235
In the above proof by Bland we read the following:

"... ... Since $$M / M_1$$ is a simple R-module, $$M / M_1$$ is artinian and noetherian ... ... Can someone please explain why $$M / M_1$$ being a simple R-module implies that $$M / M_1$$ is artinian and noetherian ... ... ?Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
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 4.2.14 ... ...

Proposition 4.2.14 reads as follows:
In the above proof by Bland we read the following:

"... ... Since $$M / M_1$$ is a simple R-module, $$M / M_1$$ is artinian and noetherian ... ... Can someone please explain why $$M / M_1$$ being a simple R-module implies that $$M / M_1$$ is artinian and noetherian ... ... ?Peter
It now occurs to me that the answer to my question is quite straightforward ... indeed ...$$M / M_1$$ is simple $$\Longrightarrow$$ only submodules of $$M / M_1$$ are $$\{ 0 \}$$ and $$M / M_1$$$$\Longrightarrow$$ only descending and ascending chains of submodules are finite ... that is terminate in a finite number of elements$$\Longrightarrow$$ $$M / M_1$$ is artinian and noetherian ...
Is that correct ... ?

Peter
 
Yes, it is correct. It means that every simple module is fingen.

It is not true for rings, though.
 
steenis said:
Yes, it is correct. It means that every simple module is fingen.

It is not true for rings, though.
Thanks steenis ...

Appreciate your help ...

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...
##\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...
Back
Top