Graduate Construct a unique simple submodule

  • Thread starter Thread starter TMO
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Modules Rings
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving that the set of complex numbers with order ##p^n##, denoted as ##Z_p^\infty##, contains a unique simple submodule. Participants note that the elements of order ##p## form an abelian cyclic group, prompting questions about demonstrating closure under scalar multiplication. Clarification is sought on whether proving this closure is sufficient to establish a submodule. Additionally, there is inquiry into the module structure of ##\mathbb{Z}_p^\infty## and the corresponding ring of scalars. The conversation emphasizes the need for a rigorous approach to these algebraic structures.
TMO
Messages
45
Reaction score
1
Problem. Let ##p## be a prime integer. Let ##Z_p^\infty## be the set of complex numbers having order ##p^n## for some ##n \in \mathbb{N}##, regarded as an abelian group under multiplication. Show that ##Z_p^\infty## has an unique simple submodule.

Attempted solution. The collection of all elements of order ##p## of ##Z_p^\infty## has the structure of an abelian cyclic group. Now how do I also show that it is closed under scalar multiplication? Would showing that it is closed under scalar multiplication suffice to prove that it is a submodule?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
TMO said:
Problem. Let ##p## be a prime integer. Let ##Z_p^\infty## be the set of complex numbers having order ##p^n## for some ##n \in \mathbb{N}##, regarded as an abelian group under multiplication. Show that ##Z_p^\infty## has an unique simple submodule.

Attempted solution. The collection of all elements of order ##p## of ##Z_p^\infty## has the structure of an abelian cyclic group. Now how do I also show that it is closed under scalar multiplication? Would showing that it is closed under scalar multiplication suffice to prove that it is a submodule?
What is the module structure of ##\mathbb{Z}_p^\infty ##, means what is the ring of scalars?
 
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 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
592
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K