MHB Is \(\bigoplus_\Delta A_\alpha\) a Right Ideal of \(\prod_\Delta R_\alpha\)?

  • 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 someone to check my solution to Problem 2(b) of Problem Set 2.1 ...

Problem 2(b) of Problem Set 2.1 reads as follows:
View attachment 8060
My attempt at a solution follows:We claim that $$\bigoplus_\Delta A_\alpha$$ is a right ideal of $$\prod_\Delta R_\alpha$$ Proof ... Let $$(x_\alpha ) , (y_\alpha ) \in \bigoplus_\Delta A_\alpha$$ and let $$(r_\alpha ) \in \prod_\Delta R_\alpha$$Then $$ (x_\alpha ) + (y_\alpha ) = (x_\alpha + y_\alpha )$$ ...

... further ... if $$(x_\alpha )$$ has $$m$$ non-zero components and $$(y_\alpha $$) has $$n$$ non-zero components then $$ (x_\alpha + y_\alpha )$$ has at most $$(m+n)$$ non-zero components ... that is $$ (x_\alpha + y_\alpha )$$ has only a finite number of non-zero components ...

... so ... since each $$x_\alpha + y_\alpha \in A_\alpha$$ we have that $$(x_\alpha + y_\alpha ) \in \bigoplus_\Delta A_\alpha$$ ...

Hence ... $$(x_\alpha ) + (y_\alpha ) \in \bigoplus_\Delta A_\alpha$$ ... ... ... ... ... (1)
Also ... we have ...

$$(x_\alpha ) (r_\alpha ) = (x_\alpha r_\alpha)$$

... and assuming $$x_\alpha$$ has $$m$$ non-zero components, then $$(x_\alpha r_\alpha$$) has at most $$m$$ non-zero components ...... and ...$$x_\alpha r_\alpha \in A_\alpha$$ since $$A_\alpha$$ is a right ideal of $$R_\alpha$$so $$(x_\alpha r_\alpha) \in \bigoplus_\Delta A_\alpha$$and it follows that $$(x_\alpha) ( r_\alpha) \in \bigoplus_\Delta A_\alpha$$ ... ... ... ... ... (2)$$(1) (2) \Longrightarrow \bigoplus_\Delta A_\alpha$$ is a right ideal of $$\prod_\Delta R_\alpha $$
Can someone please critique my proof either by confirming it to be correct and/or pointing out errors and shortcomings ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is correct, Peter.
Why aren't you drinking XXXX in Victoria?
 
steenis said:
This is correct, Peter.
Why aren't you drinking XXXX in Victoria?
THanks Steenis ...

... well, staying with a friend who doesn't drink ...

But had a couple of drinks of whisky and soda last night ... :) ...

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
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K