Finitely generated modules as free modules

  • Thread starter Kreizhn
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Modules
In summary, the statement "Let M be a finitely generated, free R-module" is not redundant. While it is true that all finitely generated R-modules are free when R is a field, this is not always the case for other rings. For example, the integers modulo 2 (Z_2) is a finitely generated R-module but it is not free. Therefore, the statement "Let M be a finitely generated, free R-module" is necessary to specify that M is both finitely generated and free, as these properties do not always go hand in hand.
  • #1
Kreizhn
743
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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
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.
 
  • #3
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]?
 
  • #4
Kreizhn said:
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]?

Indeed! :smile:
 
  • #5
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.
 
  • #6
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?
 
  • #7
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.
 
  • #8
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.
 
  • #9
Yes, this is true! Two vector spaces are equal if and only if they have the same dimension (=module rank). This holds for infinite cardinalities as well!

So if V and W both have dimension [itex]\aleph_0[/itex], then they are isomorphic!
 
  • #10
Excellent. Thanks so much.
 
  • #11
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.
 

FAQ: Finitely generated modules as free modules

1. What is a finitely generated module?

A finitely generated module is a mathematical structure that consists of a set of elements and certain operations defined on those elements. The elements are generated by a finite set of elements, meaning that they can all be expressed as linear combinations of these generators.

2. How is a finitely generated module different from a free module?

A finitely generated module is a type of free module. The main difference is that a finitely generated module has a finite set of generators, whereas a free module can have an infinite set of generators. This means that every finitely generated module is a free module, but not every free module is finitely generated.

3. How are finitely generated modules used in mathematics?

Finitely generated modules are used in various areas of mathematics, such as linear algebra, abstract algebra, and commutative algebra. They are particularly useful in studying vector spaces, group representations, and algebraic structures. They also have applications in coding theory, cryptography, and other fields.

4. Can every module be expressed as a finitely generated module?

No, not every module can be expressed as a finitely generated module. Some modules, such as infinite-dimensional vector spaces, cannot be generated by a finite set of elements. However, many important and commonly studied modules can be expressed as finitely generated, making this concept an important tool in mathematics.

5. What are some examples of finitely generated modules?

Some common examples of finitely generated modules include finite-dimensional vector spaces, cyclic groups, and polynomial rings. Other examples include modules over a principal ideal domain and modules generated by a finite set of elements in a larger module.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Back
Top