Finitely generated modules as free modules

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Kreizhn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Modules
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
10 replies · 8K views
Kreizhn
Messages
714
Reaction score
1
I'm reading up on the classification of finitely generated modules over principal ideal domains. In doing so, I continuously come up on the statement "Let M be a finitely generated, free R-module."

My question is, is this statement redundant? It seems to me that all finitely generated R-modules are necessarily free as R-modules. In particular, if M is an finitely generated R-module with minimal generating set [itex]A \subseteq M[/itex], then isn't the free R-module on A also M? Or am I missing a technical point?
 
on Phys.org
Hi Kreizhn! :smile:

What you say is certainly true if R is a field (thus if we're working with vector spaces), as every module is free there. But R doesn't need to be a field.

For example, let [itex]R=\mathbb{Z}[/itex] here. Then the free modules are all of the form [itex]\mathbb{Z}^n[/itex]. However, there are much more finitely generated modules. For example [itex]\mathbb{Z}_2[/itex] (the integers modulo 2) is certainly finitely generated, but it is not free.
 
Ah yes, because in this instance, 1 generates [itex]\mathbb Z_2[/itex] but the free module on the singleton would be [itex]\mathbb Z[/itex]?
 
I think I know where I made the mistake in my logic. M is finitely generated over R if there is a surjective homomorphism [itex]R^{\oplus A} \to M[/itex] for some finite subset [itex]A \subseteq M[/itex]. On the other hand, M is free if there exists a set B such that [itex]R^{\oplus B} \to M[/itex] is an isomorphism.

So for this example, certainly [itex]\mathbb Z \to \mathbb Z /2\mathbb Z[/itex] is surjective, but there's no way this is could be an isomorphism.
 
On this note, I would be interested in making something clear.

When we think of free modules, does the word "free" essentially characterize the existence of a basis? Or is it possible for some modules to have a basis but not be free.

In the case of our [itex]\mathbb Z_2[/itex] example, I'm trying to think of whether {1} is a basis. Clearly {1} is a minimal generating set, but is it linearly independent? I feel that it isn't, since viewing [itex]\mathbb Z_2[/itex] as a [itex]\mathbb Z[/itex] module, we have [itex]2 \cdot 1 = 0[/itex]. Is this correct?
 
Kreizhn said:
On this note, I would be interested in making something clear.

When we think of free modules, does the word "free" essentially characterize the existence of a basis? Or is it possible for some modules to have a basis but not be free.

In the case of our [itex]\mathbb Z_2[/itex] example, I'm trying to think of whether {1} is a basis. Clearly {1} is a minimal generating set, but is it linearly independent? I feel that it isn't, since viewing [itex]\mathbb Z_2[/itex] as a [itex]\mathbb Z[/itex] module, we have [itex]2 \cdot 1 = 0[/itex]. Is this correct?

Hmm, I don't think we like using the word basis when not working in vector spaces. All free means is that there is an isomorphism [itex]\varphi:R^n\rightarrow M[/itex]. I guess you could see [itex]\varphi(1,0,...,0),...,\varphi(0,0,...,1)[/itex] as a basis of M. But we don't use that terminology (not sure why actually).

Anyway, what you do have is that a module is finitely generated and free if there exists a finite set [itex]\{x_1,...,x_n\}[/itex] that generates the set and such that

[tex]\sum{r_i x_i=0}~\Rightarrow~r_i=0[/tex]

I guess we can call this linearly independent. But it's not standard terminology.
 
I guess maybe the bases thing was a slight abuse of terminology, though I do have a definition of linear independence for general R-mods.

Let [itex]i: I \to M[/itex] be a non-empty mapping from an index set I to an R-module M, and consider the free R-module on I denoted [itex]F^R(I)[/itex]. We know there is a canonical inclusion [itex]\iota: I \to F^R(I)[/itex], and so by the universal property of free R-modules, it follows that there exists an R-module homomorphism [itex]\phi: F^R(I) \to M[/itex], such that [itex]i = \phi \circ \iota[/itex]. If [itex]\phi[/itex] is injective, then [itex]i: I \to M[/itex] is linearly independent.

I guess this answers my question though, since again there's no way that [itex]\mathbb Z \to \mathbb Z_2[/itex] is injective. And I guess in particular, the kernel is the ideal [itex]2 \mathbb Z[/itex].

Okay, maybe a better question then. We know that all finite dimensional k-vector spaces (for k a field) are isomorphic. Does this hold in general for any given cardinals? Namely, let V and W be vector spaces whose module rank is both the cardinal [itex]\omega[/itex], is it necessary that [itex]V \cong_k W[/itex] as k-vector spaces?

I use module rank because I'm not sure if "dimension" is appropriate in this context. I want to say that this is true, since if V and W are free k-modules of rank [itex]\omega[/itex] then there are isomorphisms [itex]k^{\oplus A} \to V, k^{\oplus B} \to W[/itex] where [itex]|A|=|B| = \omega[/itex]. But then there is a set bijection [itex]A \to B[/itex], so I figure this must make [itex]k^{\oplus A} \cong k^{\oplus B}[/itex] making V and W isomorphic as k-vector spaces.

I've never seen this stated though, so I question whether or not I've done something wrong.
 
Excellent. Thanks so much.
 
Kreizhn said:
I'm reading up on the classification of finitely generated modules over principal ideal domains. In doing so, I continuously come up on the statement "Let M be a finitely generated, free R-module."

My question is, is this statement redundant? It seems to me that all finitely generated R-modules are necessarily free as R-modules. In particular, if M is an finitely generated R-module with minimal generating set [itex]A \subseteq M[/itex], then isn't the free R-module on A also M? Or am I missing a technical point?

Here is an important example that you might like to think about.

A linear transformation of a finite dimensional vector space makes the vector space into a module over the ring of polynomials with coefficients in the base field. Since the ring of polynomials over a field is a principal ideal domain, the vector space is now a finitely generated module over a PID.

The module structure is x.v = L(v) then extend by linearity to all of the polynomials.

This module is not free. In fact it is a torsion module.