MHB Direct Products of Modules .... Bland Proposition 2.1.1 .... ....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Modules
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Paul E. Bland's book: Rings and Their Modules and am currently focused on Section 2.1 Direct Products and Direct Sums ... ...

I need help with some aspects of the proof of Proposition 2.1.1 ...

Proposition 2.1.1 and its proof read as follows:
View attachment 8030

In the statement of the above proposition we read the following:

" ... ... for every $$R$$-module $$N$$ and every family $$\{ f_\alpha \ : \ N \rightarrow M_\alpha \}_\Delta$$ of $$R$$-linear mappings there is a unique $$R$$-linear mapping $$f \ : \ N \rightarrow \prod_\Delta M_\alpha$$ ... ... "The proposition declares the family of mappings $$\{ f_\alpha \ : \ N \rightarrow M_\alpha \}_\Delta$$ as $$R$$-linear mappings and also declares that $$f$$ (see below for definition of $$f$$!) is an $$R$$-linear mapping ...

... BUT ...

I cannot see where in the proof the fact that they are $$R$$-linear mappings is used ...

Can someone please explain where in the proof the fact that the family of mappings $$\{ f_\alpha \ : \ N \rightarrow M_\alpha \}_\Delta$$ and $$f$$ are $$R$$-linear mappings is used ... basically ... why do these mappings have to be $$R$$-linear ... ?
Help will be much appreciated ...

Peter======================================================================================The above post mentions but does not define $$f$$ ... Bland's definition of $$f$$ is as follows:
View attachment 8031Hope that helps ...

Peter***EDIT***

In respect of $$f$$ it seems we have to prove $$f$$ is an $$R$$-linear mapping ... but then ... where is this done ...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Bland defines the map $f:N \longrightarrow \prod_\Delta M_\alpha$ by saying that $f$ is product of the family of mappings $f_\alpha:N \longrightarrow M_\alpha$. YOU have to fill in the proof that $f$ is an R-linear map, by using the fact that $f_\alpha$ is a R-linear maps for all $\alpha \in \Delta$.

The mappings $f_\alpha:N \longrightarrow M_\alpha$ have to be R-maps, because $f$ has to become an R-map and because $\pi_\alpha \circ f = f_\alpha$ for all α∈Δ.
 
Last edited:
steenis said:
Bland defines the map $f:N \longrightarrow \prod_\Delta M_\alpha$ by saying that $f$ is product of the family of mappings $f_\alpha:N \longrightarrow M_\alpha$. YOU have to fill in the proof that $f$ is an R-linear map, by using the fact that $f_\alpha$ is a R-linear maps for all $\alpha \in \Delta$.

The mappings $f_\alpha:N \longrightarrow M_\alpha$ have to be R-maps, because $f$ has to become an R-map and because $\pi_\alpha \circ f = f_\alpha$ for all α∈Δ.
Hi Steenis ... thanks for your help ...

You write:

" ... ... YOU have to fill in the proof that $f$ is an R-linear map, by using the fact that $f_\alpha$ is a R-linear maps for all $\alpha \in \Delta$. ... ... "

Yes ... of course you're right ...

BUT ... need some help ...We need to show $$f$$ is an $$R$$-linear map (homomorphism) ...

We are given that the $$f_\alpha$$ are $$R$$-linear maps, and we know that the projections $$\pi_\alpha$$ are $$R$$-linear maps ...

We also know that $$\pi_\alpha f = f_\alpha$$ for each $$\alpha \in \Delta$$ ... ... ... ... ... (1)

Now ... we know that if $$f$$ is an $$R$$-linear mapping then (1) holds true but ...

... how do you prove that f must necessarily be an $$R$$-linear map ... ...... can you help ... ... ?

Peter
 
To show that $f:N \longrightarrow \prod_\Delta M_\alpha$ is an R-linear map, use the definition of R-linear map. So you have to show that:

$f(x+y) = f(x) + f(y)$ for $x, y \in N$ and
$f(xr) = f(x)r$ for $x \in N$ and $r \in R$ (in case of a right R-module).

$f$ is defined as the product of the family of mappings $f_\alpha:N \longrightarrow M_\alpha$. So $f(x)=(f_\alpha(x))_{\alpha \in \Delta}$ and $f(y)=(f_\alpha(y))_{\alpha \in \Delta}$ for $x, y \in N$ by definition.

Thus $f(x+y) = (f_\alpha(x+y))=(f_\alpha(x)+f_\alpha(y))=(f_\alpha(x))+(f_\alpha(y))=f(x)+f(y)$.

You can do the second part.
 
I am sorry, Peter, did NOT ask me to prove that $f$ is R-linear, you DID ask me why $f$ is necessarily R-linear, given that $\pi_\alpha \circ f = f_\alpha$ in which $\pi_\alpha$ and $f_\alpha$ are R-linear.

I think this is why, take $x, y \in N$ then $\pi_\alpha f(x+y) = \pi_\alpha (f_\alpha(x+y)) = f_\alpha(x+y) = f_\alpha(x) + f_\alpha(y)$.

From this it follows $(f_\alpha(x+y)) = (f_\alpha(x)) + (f_\alpha(y))$ and $f(x+y)=f(x)+f(y)$. (you can do the second rule).
 
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
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K