MHB Free modules, M_n(R)-modules and M_N(R)-R-bimodules - 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).

In Chapter 1: Basics under "1.2.3 Bimodules" B&K introduce some modules that they say play a key role in the text.

To ensure I understood these I wrote out some details of each example module (using $$R^2$$ instead of $$R^n$$ for ease of presentation) ... BUT ... I am unsure of my interpretation and need someone to critique my analysis ... and, hopefully confirm it is correct.

Section "1.2.3 Bimodules" in B&K reads as follows:https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/3353In the above text B&K write:

" ... ... Let $$R^n$$ be the free right $$R$$-module of rank $$n$$, that is, the set of $$n \times 1$$ matrices over $$R$$. The usual addition and multiplication of matrices makes $$R^n$$ into a left $$M_n(R)$$-module and an $$M_n(R)-R$$-bimodule ... ... "

I will now write out these examples (cases) for $$R^2$$ ... ...

Case 1 $$R^2$$ as the free right module of rank $$2$$ Now, $$R^2$$ as the free right module of rank $$2$$ consists of the set of $$n \times 1$$ matrices over $$R$$, such as:

$$a = \begin{bmatrix}a_1\\a_2 \end{bmatrix}$$, $$ \ b = \begin{bmatrix}b_1 \\ b_2 \end{bmatrix}$$ where $$a_1, a_2, b_1, b_2 \in R$$

Briefly, addition, as in:

$$a + b = \begin{bmatrix}a_1\\a_2 \end{bmatrix} + \begin{bmatrix}b_1 \\ b_2 \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix}a_1 + b_1 \\a_2 + b_2 \end{bmatrix}$$

gives an additive abelian group and the right module action (scalar multiplication) defined by:

$$ar = \begin{bmatrix}a_1\\a_2 \end{bmatrix} r = \begin{bmatrix}a_1 r \\a_2 r \end{bmatrix}$$ for $$a \in R^2, r \in R$$

creates (together with the above abelian group) a right R-module.
Case 2 Make $$R^2$$ into a left $$M_n(R)$$-module

Define $$a + b$$ as in Case 1 above to make $$R^2$$ an additive abelian group ...

Define a left action $$ra$$, where $$r \in M_2(R)$$ and $$a \in R^2$$ ... so typically, for:

$$a = \begin{bmatrix}a_1\\a_2 \end{bmatrix}$$ and $$ r = \begin{bmatrix}c_{11} & c_{12} \\ c_{21} & c_{22} \end{bmatrix}$$

we have

$$\begin{bmatrix} c_{11} & c_{12} \\ c_{21} & c_{22} \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} a_1 \\a_2 \end{bmatrix} = \begin{bmatrix} c_{11}a_1 + c_{12}a_2 \\ c_{21}a_1 + c_{22}a_2 \end{bmatrix}$$

which creates a left $$M_2(R)$$-module
Case 3 Make $$R^2$$ into an $$M_2(R)-R$$-bimodule Now make $$R^2$$ into an additive abelian group as in case 2.

For this case there are two actions:

(i) a left action $$ma$$ where $$m \in M_2(R)$$ and $$a \in R^2$$ as in Case 2 above

and

(ii) a right action $$ar$$ where $$r \in R$$ and $$a \in R^2$$ as in case 1 above ...

These two actions create a $$M_2(R)-R$$-bimodule where we must have:

$$m(ar) = (ma)r$$

Can someone please critique my analysis and point out any errors or misinterpretations OR confirm that the above analysis is correct ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So far, so good, but you must SHOW:

$(ma)r = m(ar)$.

But this can be deduced from the fact matrix multiplication (where defined) is associative. Or, explicitly, that both products evaluate to:

$\begin{bmatrix}(c_{11}a_1 + c_{12}a_2)r\\(c_{21}a_1 + c_{22}a_2)r\end{bmatrix}$

by invoking right-distributivity of $R$.

We have some interesting parallels vis-a-vis the left/right dilemma:

left/right
domain/co-domain
row/column

various interesting constructions arise in (module) algebra from "swapping" the two. You should try to see these kinds of things as "essentially alike" (for example, in linear algebra ($F$-modules), "dual vectors" are just row-vectors, instead of "column-vectors", and in matrices, we have the transpose of a matrix. Mathematicians like to use the same bag of tricks over and over again: hey, it worked once, why not use it again...?)
 
Last edited:
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
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...
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...
Back
Top