MHB Direct Products and Sums of Modules - Notation

[Math Amateur]

I am reading John Dauns book "Modules and Rings". I am having problems understanding the notation in section 1-2 (see attachment)

My issue is understanding the notation on Section 1-2, subsection 1-2.1 (see attachment).

Dauns is dealing with the product \Pi \{ M_i | i \in I \} \equiv \Pi M_i and states in (ii) - see attachment

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatively, the product can be viewed as consisting of all strings or sets

x = \{ x_i | i \in I \} \equiv (x_i)_{i \in I} \equiv (x_i) \equiv ( \_ \_ \_ \ , x_i , \_ \_ \_ ) , x_i \in M_i; i-th

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not sure of the meaning of the above set of equivalences. Can someone briefly elaborate ... preferably with a simple example

If we take the case of I = {1,2,3} and consider the product M_1 \times M_2 \times M_3 then does Dauns notation mean

x = (x_1, x_2, x_3) where order in the triple matters (mind you if it does what are we to make of the statement x = \{ x_i | i \in I \}Can someone confirm that x = (x_1, x_2, x_3) is a correct interpretation of Dauns notation?

===============================================================================================

Dauns then goes on to define the direct sum as follows:

The direct sum \oplus \{ M_i | i \in I \} \equiv \oplus M_i is defined as the submodule \oplus M_i \subseteq \Pi M_i consisting of those elements x = (x_i) \in \Pi M_i having at most a finite number of non-zero coordinates or components. Sometimes \oplus M_i , \Pi M_i are called the external direct sum and the external direct product respectively.================================================================================================

Can someone point out the difference between \oplus M_i , \Pi M_i in the case of the example involving M_1, M_2, M_3 - I cannot really see the difference! For example, what elements exactly are in \Pi M_i that are not in \oplus M_i

I would be grateful if someone can clarify these issues.

Peter

This has also been posted on MHF

 

[Evgeny.Makarov]

If we take the case of I = {1,2,3} and consider the product M_1 \times M_2 \times M_3 then does Dauns notation mean

x = (x_1, x_2, x_3) where order in the triple matters (mind you if it does what are we to make of the statement x = \{ x_i | i \in I \}

Yes, if $x\in M_1 \times M_2 \times M_3$, then $x$ is an ordered triple $(x_1,x_2,x_3)$ such that $x_i\in M_i$ for $i=1,2,3$. The notation $x = \{ x_i\mid i \in I \}$ is perhaps unfortunate. It would be valid if $x_i$ carried the information of the module they came from, e.g., $x = \{ (x_i,i)\mid i \in I \}$. Then it is possible to order such set according to the second component of its elements.

Alternatively, $x$ may be viewed as a function from $\{1,2,3\}$ to $M_1\cup M_2\cup M_3$ with the restriction that $x(i)$ is always in the correct module $M_i$. Such construction is called dependent product in programming (type theory).

Can someone point out the difference between \oplus M_i , \Pi M_i in the case of the example involving M_1, M_2, M_3 - I cannot really see the difference! For example, what elements exactly are in \Pi M_i that are not in \oplus M_i

For finite products and sums (i.e., when the index set is finite), direct product and direct sum are exactly the same. See Wikipedia.

 

[Math Amateur]

Thanks Evgeny ... A most helpful post ...

Peter