MHB Finitely Generated Modules and Maximal Submodules

  • 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".

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

I need help with an aspect of Proposition 6.1.2 ... ...

Proposition 6.1.2 relies on Zorn's Lemma and the notion of inductive sets ... ... so I am providing a short note from Bland on Zorn's Lemma and inductive sets ... ... as follows:
View attachment 6304
NOTE: My apologies for the poor quality of the above image - due to some over-enthusiastic highlighting of Bland's text :(Now, Proposition 6.1.2 reads as follows:

View attachment 6305

Now ... in the above proof of Proposition 6.1.2, Bland writes the following:"... ... If $$\mathscr{C}$$ is a chain of submodules of $$\mathscr{S}$$, then $$x_1 \notin \bigcup_\mathscr{C}$$ , so $$\bigcup_\mathscr{C}$$ is a proper submodule of $$M$$ and contains $$N$$. Hence $$\mathscr{S}$$ is inductive ... ... My question is as follows: Why does Bland bother to show that $$\bigcup_\mathscr{C}$$ is a proper submodule of $$M$$ that contains $$N$$ ... presumably he is showing that any chain of submodules in $$\mathscr{S}$$ has an upper bound ... is that right?
... ... but why does he need to do this as the largest submodule in the chain would be an upper bound ... ... ?Hope someone can help ... ...

Peter
NOTE: My apologies for not being able to exactly reproduce Bland's embellished S in the above text ...
 
Last edited:
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 an aspect of Proposition 6.1.2 ... ...

Proposition 6.1.2 relies on Zorn's Lemma and the notion of inductive sets ... ... so I am providing a short note from Bland on Zorn's Lemma and inductive sets ... ... as follows:

NOTE: My apologies for the poor quality of the above image - due to some over-enthusiastic highlighting of Bland's text :(Now, Proposition 6.1.2 reads as follows:

Now ... in the above proof of Proposition 6.1.2, Bland writes the following:"... ... If $$\mathscr{C}$$ is a chain of submodules of $$\mathscr{S}$$, then $$x_1 \notin \bigcup_\mathscr{C}$$ , so $$\bigcup_\mathscr{C}$$ is a proper submodule of $$M$$ and contains $$N$$. Hence $$\mathscr{S}$$ is inductive ... ... My question is as follows: Why does Bland bother to show that $$\bigcup_\mathscr{C}$$ is a proper submodule of $$M$$ that contains $$N$$ ... presumably he is showing that any chain of submodules in $$\mathscr{S}$$ has an upper bound ... is that right?
... ... but why does he need to do this as the largest submodule in the chain would be an upper bound ... ... ?Hope someone can help ... ...

Peter
NOTE: My apologies for not being able to exactly reproduce Bland's embellished S in the above text ...

The poset here is $\mathcal S$, which has only proper submodules of $M$. To apply Zorn's lemma, one needs to exhibit an upper bound of a chain lying in the poset (of course). So to make sure that the union of all the elements in the chain is actually in $\mathcal S$, one needs to check that it is a proper submodule.
 
caffeinemachine said:
The poset here is $\mathcal S$, which has only proper submodules of $M$. To apply Zorn's lemma, one needs to exhibit an upper bound of a chain lying in the poset (of course). So to make sure that the union of all the elements in the chain is actually in $\mathcal S$, one needs to check that it is a proper submodule.
Thanks caffeinemachine

My question was actually to do with why Bland needed $$\bigcup_\mathscr{C} N'$$ as an upper bound for the chain $$\mathscr{C}$$ when it seemed to me (at the time) to be possible to use the largest submodule of the chain as an upper bound ... BUT ... I now think that this does not account for the infinite case where there may be no largest element in the chain ...

My apologies for not making my question really clear ...

Peter
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
Back
Top