Finitely Generated Modules .... another question

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Modules
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of Lemma 1.2.21 from "An Introduction to Rings and Modules With K-Theory in View" by A.J. Berrick and M.E. Keating. Participants seek clarification on the conditions under which a submodule is considered maximal, specifically regarding the inclusion of certain elements within submodules and the implications of these inclusions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why any submodule properly containing ##X'## must also contain ##x_0##.
  • Another participant argues that if a submodule ##N## properly contains ##X'## and does not include ##x_0##, it leads to a contradiction regarding the maximality of ##X'##.
  • A further elaboration suggests that if ##X'## is a maximal element of a specific set of submodules, then any submodule between ##X'## and ##M## must either equal ##X'## or ##M##.
  • Participants discuss the implications of having ##x_0## in or out of a submodule ##P##, noting that if ##x_0## is included, then ##P## must equal ##M##.
  • One participant acknowledges a mistake in their reasoning regarding the inclusion of ##x_0## in submodules, highlighting the need to distinguish between cases where ##x_0## is or is not in ##P##.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and agreement on the implications of the proof, with some clarifying points and others reflecting on the subtleties involved. The discussion remains somewhat unresolved as participants refine their arguments and acknowledge mistakes without reaching a consensus.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of distinguishing between cases regarding the inclusion of ##x_0## in submodules, which affects the conclusions drawn about maximality. There is also mention of the limitations of the text in conveying these concepts clearly.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and researchers studying modules and submodules in algebra, particularly those grappling with concepts of maximality and the structure of finitely generated 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:
?temp_hash=686be1ce874012e5acd1f87513653b2c.png


In the above text (in the proof) by Berrick and Keating we read the following:"... ... Any submodule properly containing ##X'## must contain ##x_0##, also, so ##X'## is maximal among all the proper submodules of ##M##. ... ... My first question is ... why must any submodule containing ##X'## also contain ##x_0## ... ?

My second question is ... why does ##X##' containing ##x_0## allow us to conclude that
##X'## is maximal among all the proper submodules of ##M##. ... ... ?Hope someone can help ...

Peter
 

Attachments

  • B&K - Lemma 1.2.21 ... ....png
    B&K - Lemma 1.2.21 ... ....png
    62.3 KB · Views: 721
Physics news on Phys.org
Let ##N## be a submodule of ##M## that properly contains ##X'##.
Then we have ##x_1R+...+x_sR+L\subseteq X'\subsetneq N##
So if ##x_0\notin N##, we have ##N\in S##, which contradicts our assumption that ##X'## is maximal in ##S##.

Hence we must have ##x_0\in N##.

But that means that ##N\supseteq x_0R+(x_1R+...+x_sR+L)=M##. So ##M## is maximal because any submodule ##N## of ##M## that properly contains it must be equal to ##M##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Math Amateur
Math Amateur said:
"... ... Any submodule properly containing ##X'## must contain ##x_0##, also, so ##X'## is maximal among all the proper submodules of ##M##. ... ...My first question is ... why must any submodule containing ##X′## also contain ##x_0## ... ?

My second question is ... why does ##X'## containing ##x_0## allow us to conclude that
##X'## is maximal among all the proper submodules of ##M##. ... ... ?

Let us proceed by the pattern I told you.

Firstly ##X'## is chosen as a maximal element of the set
$$S := \{ N \,\vert \, N\subsetneq M \text{ submodule and } x_1R+\dots +x_sR+L \subseteq N \text{ and } x_0 \notin N \}$$
Secondly, we know that ##M## is finitely generated by ##\{x_0,x_1, \dots , x_s\}##.

Now the pattern goes:

Assume we have a submodule ##P##, which lies between ##X'## and ##M##, that is ##X' \subseteq P \subseteq M##.
We have to show that either ##P=X'## or ##P=M##.

1.) If ##X' \subsetneq P## is a proper inclusion, then ##x_0## has to be in ##P## because all other generators are already in ##X'## and ##x_0## is the only one which is left and can be added to create a proper inclusion. But then ##P=M##. *)

2.) If ##X' \subseteq P## and ##P \subsetneq M## is a proper submodule of ##M##, then ##P## belongs to ##S##. But ##X'## is a maximal element of ##S##. So the only way out is ##P=X'##.

Thus we have shown that there cannot be a submodule ##P## between ##X'## and ##M##, which makes ##X'## a maximal submodule.

*) Edit: In contrast to the example with the integers, you can't escape by taking elements like ##x_0^2## or similar instead of ##x_0##, because ##x_0## belongs to ##M## and there is no multiplication within ##M## and ##x_0## is not in ##R##.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Math Amateur
Thanks ... very clear and very helpful ...

Pity the text couldn't be as clear ...

Peter
 
Math Amateur said:
Thanks ... very clear and very helpful ...

Pity the text couldn't be as clear ...

Peter
I'm afraid I made a little mistake in my cases. Given ##X' \subseteq P \subseteq M## then one has to distinguish
1.) ##x_0 \in P## and
2.) ##x_0 \notin P##.

##X' \subsetneq P## being a proper submodule does not imply ##x_0 \in P##. E.g. ##2x_0## could be a generator of ##P## which is not ##x_0## ; and ##2## might not be a unit of ##R##, so it cannot be divided.

However, the cases above work. And one of them has to be true: ##x_0## is either in ##P## or it is not.
So if 1.) ##x_0 \in P## then ##M = X' + x_0R \subseteq P## and ##P=M##,
and if 2.) ##x_0 \notin P## then ##P \in S## and ##X' \subseteq P## implies ##P=X' ## by the maximality of ##X'## in ##S##.

Thus we have ##X' \subseteq P \subseteq M\, \Longrightarrow \, P=X' \text{ or } P=M##, i.e. ##X' \subseteq M## is maximal.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Math Amateur
Well ... have to confess ... I did not notice that subtlety ...

... ... hmmm ... still reflecting on it ...

... well ... learning quite a lot from you ...

Thanks so much for your help and insights ...

Peter
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K