MHB Infinite Direct Sums and Standard Inclusions and Projections

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the challenges of defining infinite direct sums of maps, as highlighted in Berrick and Keating's text. While it is possible to assign meaning to an infinite set of modules or submodules, the same cannot be said for an infinite set of maps, which raises questions about the nature of summation in this context. The distinction is made between having a collection of maps versus attempting to sum their outputs, which complicates the interpretation. The participants seek clarification on B&K's remarks regarding the impossibility of attaching meaning to infinite sums of maps, despite the text indicating that an infinite set of maps can be defined. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the abstract difficulties in dealing with infinite operations in module theory.
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 Chapter2: Direct Sums and Short Exact Sequences in Sections 2.1.11 and 2.1.12 B&K deal with infinite direct products and infinite direct sums (external and internal).

In Section "2.1.13 Remarks", B&K comment on the implications of Sections 2.1.11 and 2.1.12.

Remark (ii) reads as follows:View attachment 3355My question related to B&K's remark above is as follows:

Why is it impossible to attach a meaning to an infinite set of maps (standard inclusions and projections that is ...)? We can attach meaning to an infinite set of modules or submodules ... ... Why is it more abstract or difficult (in fact, impossible!) to attach meaning to an infinite set of maps?

Could someone please clarify and explain B&Ks remark.

Peter***NOTE***

I am aware that in the text displayed above, B&K talk about an infinite 'sum' of maps saying ..." ... ... since it is impossible to attach a meaning to an infinite sum of maps ... ... "

BUT ... ... as far as I can see, the proposition to which they refer (Proposition 2.1.7) only seems to involve a list, not a sum of maps ...

Section 2.1.7 reads as follows:View attachment 3356
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is no problem with assigning meaning to an infinite SET of maps.

But if we try to add the images of each map together, we have to wait an awfully long time for the "result".
 
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
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K