Example on Triangular Rings - Lam, Example 1.14

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Example Rings
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Example 1.14 from T. Y. Lam's "A First Course in Noncommutative Rings," specifically focusing on the results presented in Table 1.16. Participants are exploring the implications of matrix multiplication in the context of bimodules and the structure of the ring.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Peter expresses confusion regarding the interpretation of elements $$M$$ and $$R$$ as matrices versus sets of elements, questioning how the multiplication in the table is derived.
  • Deveno provides a matrix multiplication example, illustrating how $$mr = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & m \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} r & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}$$, but Peter remains unclear about this interpretation.
  • Participants discuss the structure of the matrix $$A = \begin{pmatrix} R & M \\ 0 & S \end{pmatrix}$$ and the isomorphism to the direct sum of abelian groups, noting the need to understand the multiplication of various terms to fully grasp the multiplication in $$A$$.
  • There is mention of the entries in the matrix corresponding to specific operations within the bimodule, particularly $$RM \subseteq M$$ and $$MS \subseteq M$$, but the implications of these relationships are not fully resolved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not appear to reach a consensus on the interpretation of the elements and their multiplication. There are competing views on how to understand the structure and operations within the context of the example.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the ambiguity in interpreting the elements of $$M$$ and $$R$$, as well as the unresolved mathematical steps regarding the multiplication in the table and its relation to the structure of the bimodule.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading T. Y. Lam's book, "A First Course in Noncommutative Rings" (Second Edition) and am currently focussed on Section 1:Basic Terminology and Examples ...

I need help with an aspect of Example 1.14 ... ...

Example 1.14 reads as follows: https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/5984
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/5985I cannot follow why the results in Table 1.16 follow ...

For example, according to Table 1.16 ...

$$mr = 0$$ for all $$m \in M$$ and $$r \in R$$ ... but why

Similarly I don't follow the other entries in the Table ...

Can someone please help ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We have:

$\begin{pmatrix}0&m\\0&0\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}r&0\\0&0\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}0&0\\0&0\end{pmatrix}$
 
Deveno said:
We have:

$\begin{pmatrix}0&m\\0&0\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}r&0\\0&0\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix}0&0\\0&0\end{pmatrix}$
Hi Deveno,

Thanks for the help ... but I do not follow you ...

We have $$A = \begin{pmatrix} R & M \\ 0 & S \end{pmatrix}$$

where I have been thinking that $$M$$ and $$R$$ are a set of elements (actually a bimodule and left $$R$$-module) that we select elements from ... and then multiply ... that is, M and R are sets not actually matrices themselves ...

... ... BUT ... you seem to have interpreted $$M$$ and $$R$$ as matrices ... so you select $$m$$ from $$M$$ and $$r$$ from $$R$$ and write:

$$mr = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & m \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} r & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}$$ ...

I do not understand how $$MR$$ in the table becomes a matrix multiplication ...Can you please clarify ...?

Peter
 
Peter said:
Hi Deveno,

Thanks for the help ... but I do not follow you ...

We have $$A = \begin{pmatrix} R & M \\ 0 & S \end{pmatrix}$$

where I have been thinking that $$M$$ and $$R$$ are a set of elements (actually a bimodule and left $$R$$-module) that we select elements from ... and then multiply ... that is, M and R are sets not actually matrices themselves ...

... ... BUT ... you seem to have interpreted $$M$$ and $$R$$ as matrices ... so you select $$m$$ from $$M$$ and $$r$$ from $$R$$ and write:

$$mr = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & m \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} r & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 \end{pmatrix}$$ ...

I do not understand how $$MR$$ in the table becomes a matrix multiplication ...Can you please clarify ...?

Peter

$R$ is a ring, $S$ is a ring, and $M$ is an $(R,S)$-bimodule. A typical element of $A$ is:

$\begin{pmatrix}r&m\\0&s\end{pmatrix}$ with $r\in R, m\in M$, and $s\in S$.

We have an isomorphism (of abelian groups): $A \to R \oplus M \oplus S$ given by:

$\begin{pmatrix}r&m\\0&s\end{pmatrix} \mapsto (r,m,s)$.

We can thus regard our matrices as $\Bbb Z$-linear combinations of $(r,0,0),(0,m,0)$ and $(0,0,s)$ or equivalently as $\Bbb Z$-linear combinations of the matrices:

$\begin{pmatrix}r&0\\0&0\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix}0&m\\0&0\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix}0&0\\0&s\end{pmatrix}$

Formally, then, using the distributive law of matrices, we have:

$(r,m,s)(r',m',s') = [(r,0,0) + (0,m,0) + (0,0,s)][(r',0,0) + (0,m'0) + (0,0,s')]$

$=(r,0,0)(r',0,0) + (r,0,0)(0,m',0) + (r,0,0)(0,0,s') + (0,m,0)(r',0,0) + (0,m,0)(0,m',0) + (0,m,0)(0,0,s') + (0,0,s)(r',0,0) + (0,0,s)(0,m',0) + (0,0,s)(0,0,s')$

so in order to completely determine the multiplication in $A$, we need to know what these 9 terms are. The 3x3 table is a mnemonic SCHEMATIC, to remember which abelian subgroup ($R,M$ or $S$) each term is.

Note that the $1,2$ entry in the matrix is: $rm' + ms'$, which is in $M$ since $M$ is an $(R,S)$-bimodule.

That is, $RM \subseteq M$, and $MS \subseteq M$, as (left or right) scalar product sets; for example:

$RM = \{rm\mid r\in R, M \in M\} \subseteq M$, since $M$ is a (left) $R$-module.
 
Deveno said:
$R$ is a ring, $S$ is a ring, and $M$ is an $(R,S)$-bimodule. A typical element of $A$ is:

$\begin{pmatrix}r&m\\0&s\end{pmatrix}$ with $r\in R, m\in M$, and $s\in S$.

We have an isomorphism (of abelian groups): $A \to R \oplus M \oplus S$ given by:

$\begin{pmatrix}r&m\\0&s\end{pmatrix} \mapsto (r,m,s)$.

We can thus regard our matrices as $\Bbb Z$-linear combinations of $(r,0,0),(0,m,0)$ and $(0,0,s)$ or equivalently as $\Bbb Z$-linear combinations of the matrices:

$\begin{pmatrix}r&0\\0&0\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix}0&m\\0&0\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix}0&0\\0&s\end{pmatrix}$

Formally, then, using the distributive law of matrices, we have:

$(r,m,s)(r',m',s') = [(r,0,0) + (0,m,0) + (0,0,s)][(r',0,0) + (0,m'0) + (0,0,s')]$

$=(r,0,0)(r',0,0) + (r,0,0)(0,m',0) + (r,0,0)(0,0,s') + (0,m,0)(r',0,0) + (0,m,0)(0,m',0) + (0,m,0)(0,0,s') + (0,0,s)(r',0,0) + (0,0,s)(0,m',0) + (0,0,s)(0,0,s')$

so in order to completely determine the multiplication in $A$, we need to know what these 9 terms are. The 3x3 table is a mnemonic SCHEMATIC, to remember which abelian subgroup ($R,M$ or $S$) each term is.

Note that the $1,2$ entry in the matrix is: $rm' + ms'$, which is in $M$ since $M$ is an $(R,S)$-bimodule.

That is, $RM \subseteq M$, and $MS \subseteq M$, as (left or right) scalar product sets; for example:

$RM = \{rm\mid r\in R, M \in M\} \subseteq M$, since $M$ is a (left) $R$-module.
Thanks for for the help, Deveno ...

Just working through your post and reflecting on what you have said ...

Thanks again ...

Peter
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K