MHB Finitely Generated Modules - Bland Problem 1(a), Problem Set 2.2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Modules Set
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Paul E. Bland's book: Rings and Their Modules and am currently focused on Section 2.2 Free Modules ... ...

I need someone to check my solution to the first part of Problem 1(a) of Problem Set 2.2 ...

Problem 1(a) of Problem Set 2.2 reads as follows:
View attachment 8067
My solution/proof of the first part of Problem 1(a) is as follows:
We claim that $$M \bigoplus N$$ is finitely generated ... Now ...

$$M \bigoplus N$$ = the direct product $$M \times N$$ since we are dealing with the external direct sum of a finite number of modules ...

$$M$$ finitely generated $$\Longrightarrow \exists$$ a finite subset $$X \subseteq M$$ such that

$$M = \sum_X x_i R = \{x_1 r_1 + \ ... \ ... \ x_m r_m \mid x_i \in X, r_i \in R \}$$ ... ... ... ... (1)
$$N$$ finitely generated $$\Longrightarrow \exists$$ a finite subset $$Y \subseteq N$$ such that

$$N = \sum_Y y_i R = \{y_1 r_1 + \ ... \ ... \ y_n r_n \mid y_i \in Y, r_i \in R \}$$ ... ... ... ... (2)
$$M \bigoplus N$$ finitely generated $$\Longrightarrow \exists$$ a finite subset $$S \subseteq M \bigoplus N$$ such that

$$M \bigoplus N = \sum_S ( x_i, y_i ) R = \{ (x_1, y_1) r_1 + \ ... \ ... \ ( x_s, y_s) r_s \mid (x_i, y_i) \in S , r_i \in R \} $$$$= \{ (x_1 r_1, y_1 r_1) + \ ... \ ... \ + ( x_s r_s, y_s r_s) \} $$$$= \{ (x_1 r_1 + \ ... \ ... \ + x_s r_s , y_1 r_1 + \ ... \ ... \ + y_s r_s \}$$ ... ... ... ... ... (3)
Now if we take $$s \ge m, n $$ in (3) ... ...Then the sum $$x_1 r_1 + \ ... \ ... \ + x_s r_s$$ ranging over all $$x_i$$ and $$ r_i$$ will generate all the elements in $$ M$$ as the first variable in $$M \bigoplus N $$

... and the sum $$y_1 r_1 + \ ... \ ... \ + y_s r_s$$ ranging over all $$y_i $$and $$r_i $$ will generate all the elements in $$N$$ as the second variable in $$M \bigoplus N $$

Since $$s$$ is finite ... $$M \bigoplus N $$ is finitely generated ...
Can someone please critique my proof and either confirm it to be correct and/or point out the errors and shortcomings ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
We claim that $$M \bigoplus N$$ is finitely generated ...

$$M \bigoplus N$$ = the direct product $$M \times N$$ since we are dealing with the external direct sum of a finite number of modules ...
$$M$$ finitely generated $$\Longrightarrow \exists$$ a finite subset $$X \subseteq M$$ such that
$$M = \sum_X x_i R = \{x_1 r_1 + \ ... \ ... \ x_m r_m \mid x_i \in X, r_i \in R \}$$ ... ... ... ... (1)

$$N$$ finitely generated $$\Longrightarrow \exists$$ a finite subset $$Y \subseteq N$$ such that
$$N = \sum_Y y_i R = \{y_1 r_1 + \ ... \ ... \ y_n r_n \mid y_i \in Y, r_i \in R \}$$ ... ... ... ... (2)
So each $x \in M$ can be written as a finite sum $x = \sum_X x_i r_i$ ($r_i \in R$).
So each $y \in N$ can be written as a finite sum $y = \sum_Y y_i s_i$ ($s_i \in R$).
Peter said:
$$M \bigoplus N$$ finitely generated $$\Longrightarrow \exists$$ a finite subset $$S \subseteq M \bigoplus N$$ such that

This must be: To prove that $M \bigoplus N$ is finitely generated, so we have to prove that there exists a finite subset $S \subseteq M \bigoplus N$ such that $M \bigoplus N = \sum_S z_i R$.

I think it has to be this way:
Define $X'=\{ (x_i, 0) | x_i \in X \}$ and $Y'=\{ (0, y_i) | y_i \in Y \}$ and $Z=X' \cup Y'$. Then $Z \subset M \bigoplus N$ and $Z$ is finite.

Take $z \in M \bigoplus N$, then $z=(m,n)$ with $m \in M$ and $n \in N$.
$m$ can be written as $m = \sum_X x_i r_i$ and $n$ can be written as $n = \sum_Y y_i s_i$.

Then $z = (m,n) = (\sum_X x_i r_i, \sum_Y y_i s_i) = (\sum_X x_i r_i, 0) + (0, \sum_Y y_i s_i) = \sum_X (x_i, 0)r_i + \sum_Y (0, y_i)s_i = \sum_{X'} x'_i r_i +\sum_{Y'} y'_i s_i = \sum_Z z_i t_i$

in which $x'_i=(x_i, 0) \in X'$ and $y'_i=(0, y_i) \in Y'$ and $t_i \in R$.

This proves that $M \bigoplus N$ is finitely generated.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
37
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
21
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K