MHB Finitely Generated Ideals and Noetherian Rings

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rings
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the proof of Proposition 5.33 from Rotman's "Advanced Modern Algebra," specifically regarding the finitely generated ideal J. The confusion arises from the assertion that J is finitely generated despite M potentially being infinite. It is clarified that since M is finitely generated, there exist finitely many elements that can generate all elements of M, allowing J to be expressed as a linear combination of these elements and an additional element a. This insight resolves the initial confusion and highlights the distinction between the finiteness of generating sets and the infinitude of the elements they can generate. The explanation provided is deemed clearer than Rotman's original text.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Joseph J. Rotman's book: Advanced Modern Algebra (AMA) and I am currently focused on Section 5.3 Noetherian Rings ...I need some help with understanding the proof of Proposition 5.33 ... ...Proposition 5.33 reads as follows:View attachment 6008
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/6009
In the above text from Rotman, in the proof of (ii) $$\Longrightarrow$$ (iii) we read the following ..."... ... The ideal

$$J = \{ m + ra \ : \ m \in M \text{ and } r \in R \} \subseteq I$$is finitely generated. ... ...
Can someone please explain to me why it follows that $$J$$ is finitely generated ... ...... ... Rotman's assertion that $$J$$ is finitely generated puzzles me since, although $$M$$ is finitely generated it may have an infinite number of elements each of which is necessary to generate $$J $$ as they appear in the formula above ... so how can we argue that $$J$$ is finitely generated ... it seems it may not be if $$M$$ is an infinite set ...Hope someone can help ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,

Peter said:
... ... Rotman's assertion that $$J$$ is finitely generated puzzles me since, although $$M$$ is finitely generated it may have an infinite number of elements each of which is necessary to generate $$J $$ as they appear in the formula above ... so how can we argue that $$J$$ is finitely generated ... it seems it may not be if $$M$$ is an infinite set ...
Peter

To help with the intuition as to how an infinite set is finitely generated, think about the Cartesian plane. There are infinitely many points (x,y) in this set, but it is finitely generated by all possible linear combinations of (1,0) & (0,1).

To answer your question specific to the text, since $M$ is finitely generated there are finitely many elements $m_{1},\ldots, m_{n}$ in $M$ such that every element of $M$ can be written as a linear combination of these elements whose coefficients come from the ring. Now add to this finite list the single element $a$. Then every element in $J$ can be expressed as a linear combination of $a,m_{1},\ldots,m_{n}.$
 
GJA said:
Hi Peter,
To help with the intuition as to how an infinite set is finitely generated, think about the Cartesian plane. There are infinitely many points (x,y) in this set, but it is finitely generated by all possible linear combinations of (1,0) & (0,1).

To answer your question specific to the text, since $M$ is finitely generated there are finitely many elements $m_{1},\ldots, m_{n}$ in $M$ such that every element of $M$ can be written as a linear combination of these elements whose coefficients come from the ring. Now add to this finite list the single element $a$. Then every element in $J$ can be expressed as a linear combination of $a,m_{1},\ldots,m_{n}.$
Hi GJA ... thanks for the help ...

I must say that your explanation is many times clearer than Rotman's explanation which is somewhat misleading ...

Thanks again ... appreciate your assistance ...

Peter
 
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 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
926