MHB Finitely Generated Modules and Their Submodules .... Berrick and Keating ....

  • 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 An Introduction to Rings and Modules With K-Theory in View by A.J. Berrick and M.E. Keating (B&K).

I need help with the proof of Lemma 1.2.21 ...

Lemma 1.2.21 and its proof reads as follows:
View attachment 6037Question 1In the above text by Berrick and Keating, we read the following:"... ... Since $$M$$ is finitely generated, there is a minimal subset $$\{ x_0, \ ... \ ... \ , x_s \}$$ of $$M$$ such that

$$x_0 R + \ ... \ ... \ , x_s R + L = M. \ ... \ ... \ ... $$" My problem is as follows:

I cannot see exactly why there exists a minimal subset $$\{ x_0, \ ... \ ... \ , x_s \}$$ of $$M$$ such that

$$x_0 R + \ ... \ ... \ , x_s R + L = M$$. ... ... ... Can someone please demonstrate, rigorously and formally, that there exists a minimal subset $$\{ x_0, \ ... \ ... \ , x_s \}$$ of $$M$$ such that

$$x_0 R + \ ... \ ... \ , x_s R + L = M$$?

Question 2In the above text by Berrick and Keating, we read the following:"... ... Let $$S$$ be the set of submodules $$X$$ of $$M$$ that contain $$x_1 R + \ ... \ ... \ , x_s R + L$$ but do not contain $$x_0$$. It is obvious that $$S$$ is inductive ... ..." Can someone please explain exactly why $$S$$ is inductive ... ... ?Hope someone can help ...

Peter========================================================================B&K's definition of "inductive" is contained in section 1.2.18 ... ... . which reads as follows:https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/6038
View attachment 6039
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
I am reading An Introduction to Rings and Modules With K-Theory in View by A.J. Berrick and M.E. Keating (B&K).

I need help with the proof of Lemma 1.2.21 ...

Lemma 1.2.21 and its proof reads as follows:
Question 1In the above text by Berrick and Keating, we read the following:"... ... Since $$M$$ is finitely generated, there is a minimal subset $$\{ x_0, \ ... \ ... \ , x_s \}$$ of $$M$$ such that

$$x_0 R + \ ... \ ... \ , x_s R + L = M. \ ... \ ... \ ... $$" My problem is as follows:

I cannot see exactly why there exists a minimal subset $$\{ x_0, \ ... \ ... \ , x_s \}$$ of $$M$$ such that

$$x_0 R + \ ... \ ... \ , x_s R + L = M$$. ... ... ... Can someone please demonstrate, rigorously and formally, that there exists a minimal subset $$\{ x_0, \ ... \ ... \ , x_s \}$$ of $$M$$ such that

$$x_0 R + \ ... \ ... \ , x_s R + L = M$$?

Question 2In the above text by Berrick and Keating, we read the following:"... ... Let $$S$$ be the set of submodules $$X$$ of $$M$$ that contain $$x_1 R + \ ... \ ... \ , x_s R + L$$ but do not contain $$x_0$$. It is obvious that $$S$$ is inductive ... ..." Can someone please explain exactly why $$S$$ is inductive ... ... ?Hope someone can help ...

Peter========================================================================B&K's definition of "inductive" is contained in section 1.2.18 ... ... . which reads as follows:
The existence of a minimal $S$ is rather obvious. Since $M$ is finitely generated, one can find a finite set $S$ such that $L+\langle S\rangle =M$. Take a smallest subset of $S$ which generates the same submodule as $S$. This is a required minimial subset.

I will post about the inductiveness of $S$ when I have some more time. But at first look it semmed like this too follows immediately from the definitions.
 
caffeinemachine said:
The existence of a minimal $S$ is rather obvious. Since $M$ is finitely generated, one can find a finite set $S$ such that $L+\langle S\rangle =M$. Take a smallest subset of $S$ which generates the same submodule as $S$. This is a required minimial subset.

I will post about the inductiveness of $S$ when I have some more time. But at first look it semmed like this too follows immediately from the definitions.
Thanks for the help, caffeinemachine BUT ... I do not follow ...

You write:"... ... Since $M$ is finitely generated, one can find a finite set $S$ such that $L+\langle S\rangle =M$ ... ... BUT ... why exactly is this true ... can you be more explicit ...

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...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top