MHB Help with Problem 2(a), Rings & Modules, Paul E. Bland

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rings Section
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 2.1 Direct Products and Direct Sums ... ...

I need help with Problem 2(a) of Problem Set 2.1 ...

Problem 2(a) of Problem Set 2.1 reads as follows:
View attachment 8049I am unsure of my solution to problem 2(a) and need help in the following way ...

... could someone please confirm my solution is correct and/or point out errors and shortcomings ...

... indeed I would be grateful if someone could critique my solution ...
My attempted solution to problem 2(a) is as follows:... we have to show that $$\prod_\Delta A_\alpha$$ is a right ideal of $$\prod_\Delta R_\alpha$$ ...

To demonstrate this we have to show that $$\prod_\Delta A_\alpha$$ is closed under addition and closed under multiplication on the right by an element of $$\prod_\Delta R_\alpha$$ ...So ... let $$(x_\alpha), (y_\alpha) \in \prod_\Delta A_\alpha$$ and $$(r_\alpha) \in \prod_\Delta R_\alpha$$

Then $$x_\alpha, y_\alpha \in A_\alpha$$ for all $$\alpha \in \Delta$$

$$\Longrightarrow x_\alpha + y_\alpha \in A_\alpha$$ since $$A_\alpha$$ is a right ideal of $$R_\alpha$$ for all $$\alpha \in \Delta$$ ...

$$\Longrightarrow (x_\alpha) + (y_\alpha) \in \prod_\Delta A_\alpha$$

$$\Longrightarrow \prod_\Delta A_\alpha$$ is closed under addition ...
Now ... $$(x_\alpha) \in \prod_\Delta A_\alpha , (r_\alpha) \in \prod_\Delta R_\alpha$$

$$\Longrightarrow x_\alpha \in A_\alpha , r_\alpha \in R_\alpha$$ for all $$\alpha \in \Delta$$ ...

$$\Longrightarrow x_\alpha r_\alpha \in A_\alpha$$ since $$A_\alpha$$ is a right ideal of $$R_\alpha$$ ...

$$\Longrightarrow ( x_\alpha r_\alpha ) \in \prod_\Delta A_\alpha$$Thus $$\prod_\Delta A_\alpha$$ is a right ideal of $$\prod_\Delta R_\alpha$$ ...

Hope the above is correct ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Correct, but one remark:

Because $x_\alpha + y_\alpha \in A_\alpha$

we have $(x_\alpha + y_\alpha) \in \prod_\Delta A_\alpha$

and $(x_\alpha + y_\alpha) = (x_\alpha) + (y_\alpha)$

and therefore, and so on
 
Last edited:
steenis said:
Correct, but one remark:

Because $x_\alpha + y_\alpha \in A_\alpha$

we have $(x_\alpha + y_\alpha) \in \prod_\Delta A_\alpha$

and $(x_\alpha + y_\alpha) = (x_\alpha) + (y_\alpha)$

and therefore, and so on
Thanks steenis ... appreciate the help and guidance ...

Peter
 
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
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K