Composition Series and Noetherian and Artinian Modules ....

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of Noetherian and Artinian modules, specifically in the context of a proof from Paul E. Bland's book "Rings and Their Modules." Participants are examining the implications of a simple R-module being both Artinian and Noetherian.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asks for clarification on why a simple R-module implies that it is Artinian and Noetherian.
  • Another participant suggests that since a simple module has only the trivial submodules, any ascending or descending chain of submodules must terminate, leading to the conclusion that it is both Artinian and Noetherian.
  • Some participants agree with the reasoning provided, affirming that every simple module is finitely generated.
  • However, a distinction is made that this property does not hold for rings.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is agreement among some participants regarding the implications of a simple module being finitely generated. However, the discussion does not reach a consensus on the broader applicability of these properties to rings.

Contextual Notes

The discussion does not resolve the implications of the properties of rings in relation to the properties of modules, leaving some assumptions and definitions potentially unaddressed.

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
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K