MHB Is φ a bijective homomorphism between simple $R$-modules?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Isomorphism
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

Let $R$ be a commutative ring with unit and $M$ be a $R$-module.

Let $\phi : M\rightarrow M'$ be a non-zero homomorphism of simple $R$-module.
I want to show that $\phi$ is an isomorphism.

To show that we have to show that $\phi$ is bijective, right? (Wondering)

What exactly is the definition of $M'$ ? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
mathmari said:
To show that we have to show that $\phi$ is bijective, right? (Wondering)

Yes, that's right.

What exactly is the definition of $M'$ ? (Wondering)
$M'$ is a simple $R$-module.
 
We have that $\text{Im}\phi $ is a $R$-submodule of $M'$. Since $M'$ is simple, it follows that $\text{Im}\phi=O$ or $\text{Im}\phi=M'$.
Since $\phi$ is a non-zero homomorphism, it must be $\text{Im}\phi=M'$, right? (Wondering)
If this is correct, it follows that $\phi$ is onto, or not? (Wondering)

We also have that $\ker\phi $ is a $R$-submodule of $M$. Since $M$ is simple, it follows that $\ker\phi=O$ or $\ker\phi=M$.
The kernel is equal to the set of elements mapped to $0$. Since $\phi$ is non-zero, it must be that $\ker\phi=O$, right? (Wondering)
If this is correct, it follows that $\phi$ is 1-1, or not? (Wondering) Therefore, $\phi$ is bijective.
 
You are correct on all points. (Nod)
 
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...
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...
##\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...

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
567
Replies
4
Views
725
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
433
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Back
Top