MHB How can we conclude from that that I is a principal ideal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
In a commutative ring with unit, an ideal I is a free R-module if and only if it is a principal ideal generated by a non-zero-divisor element a. If I is a free R-module with a basis, having more than one element would contradict linear independence, leading to the conclusion that I must be generated by a single element. Additionally, if I is a principal ideal generated by a non-zero-divisor, it can be shown that I is also a free R-module. The discussion revolves around establishing the equivalence between these two conditions for the ideal I. Thus, the relationship between free R-modules and principal ideals is clarified.
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

Let $R$ be a commutative ring with unit.
I want to show that if $I$ is an ideal of $R$ then $I$ is a free $R$-module iff it is a principal ideal that is generated by an element $a$ that is not a zero-divisor in $R$.

Suppose that $I$ is an ideal of $R$ and it is a free $R$-module.
Then it has a basis, i.e., a generating set consisting of linearly independent elements.
How can we conclude from that that $I$ is a principal ideal? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Suppose that $I$ is a free ideal, so it has a basis, i.e., a generating set consisting of linearly independent elements. Suppose that $I$ is not a principal domain.
Does this mean that the basis has more than one element? (Wondering)
Suppose that it has two elements in the basis, say $x_1,x_2$.
Then $I=\{r_1x_1+r_2x_2\}$.
Do we take $r_1=x_2$ and $r_2=−x_1$ ? (Wondering)
Then we would have $x_2x_1−x_1x_2=0$. But since the set is linearly independent, and $x_1,x_2$ are non-zero, we have a contradiction.
Therefore, it is generated by one element $a$. Can we say also that $a$ is not a zero-divisor in $R$ ? (Wondering)
Is this correct? (Wondering)

For the other direction, suppose that $I$ is a principal ideal, that is generated by an element $a$ that is not a zero-divisor in $R$.
How could we conclude that $I$ is a free $R$-module? (Wondering)
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
883
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
944
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K