MHB Exploring Proposition 6.1.7 and its Proof in Bland's "Rings and Their Modules"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Modules Proof
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 6.1 The Jacobson Radical ... ...

I need help with the proof of Proposition 6.1.7 ... Proposition 6.1.7 and its proof read as follows:View attachment 6396
View attachment 6397In the above text from Bland, in the proof of (1), we read the following: " ... ... we see that $$\text{ann}_r( R / \mathfrak{m} ) = \text{ann}_r(S)$$. But $$a \in \text{ann}_r( R / \mathfrak{m} )$$ implies that $$a + \mathfrak{m} = ( 1 + \mathfrak{m} ) a = 0$$ , so $$a \in \mathfrak{m}$$.

So, it follows that $$\bigcap_\mathscr{S} \text{ann}_r(S) \subseteq J(R)$$ ... ... "
Could someone please explain why it follows that $$\bigcap_\mathscr{S} \text{ann}_r(S) \subseteq J(R)$$ ... ... ? Hope someone can help ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
I am reading Paul E. Bland's book, "Rings and Their Modules".

I am focused on Section 6.1 The Jacobson Radical ... ...

I need help with the proof of Proposition 6.1.7 ... Proposition 6.1.7 and its proof read as follows:
In the above text from Bland, in the proof of (1), we read the following: " ... ... we see that $$\text{ann}_r( R / \mathfrak{m} ) = \text{ann}_r(S)$$. But $$a \in \text{ann}_r( R / \mathfrak{m} )$$ implies that $$a + \mathfrak{m} = ( 1 + \mathfrak{m} ) a = 0$$ , so $$a \in \mathfrak{m}$$.

So, it follows that $$\bigcap_\mathscr{S} \text{ann}_r(S) \subseteq J(R)$$ ... ... "
Could someone please explain why it follows that $$\bigcap_\mathscr{S} \text{ann}_r(S) \subseteq J(R)$$ ... ... ? Hope someone can help ...

Peter

Just some thoughts ...

Since $$\text{ann}_r( R / \mathfrak{m} ) = \text{ann}_r(S)$$

we have $$a \in \text{ann}_r( R / \mathfrak{m} )$$ means $$a \in \text{ann}_r(S)$$ ...

thus $$a \in \bigcap_\mathscr{S} \text{ann}_r(S)$$ ... ...

But ... we also have that $$a \in \text{ann}_r( R / \mathfrak{m} )$$ implies that $$a \in \mathfrak{m}$$ ... ...

But this means that $$a \in J(R)$$ ...

Thus $$a \in \bigcap_\mathscr{S} \text{ann}_r(S) \Longrightarrow a \in J(R)$$ ... ...

So $$\bigcap_\mathscr{S} \text{ann}_r(S) \subseteq J(R)$$ ...Is that correct?


Peter
 
Last edited:
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
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
4K