Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

I Finitely Generated Modules and Maximal Submodules

  1. Dec 31, 2016 #1
    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:



    ?temp_hash=9ae88151a81f41f5b8cb4e744b816927.png



    NOTE: My apologies for the poor quality of the above image - due to some over-enthusiastic highlighting of Bland's text frown.png



    Now, Proposition 6.1.2 reads as follows:




    ?temp_hash=9ae88151a81f41f5b8cb4e744b816927.png



    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 ...
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Dec 31, 2016
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 31, 2016 #2

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Why would there be a largest one?
     
  4. Dec 31, 2016 #3

    Well I was thinking of the finite case ... e.g. where for example, \mathcal{C} might be

    ##N'_1 \subseteq N'_2 \subseteq N'_3##

    so ... ##N'_3## in this case is an upper bound on the chain ##\mathcal{C}## ...


    BUT ... your question me me think that my thinking does not cover the case of an infinite chain ...

    In the case of an infinite chain there may be no largest submodule and so we need to have ##\bigcup_\mathcal{C} N'## as an upper bound ...


    Can you confirm that my thinking is now correct ...

    Peter
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Finitely Generated Modules and Maximal Submodules
Loading...