MHB Jordan-Holder Theorem for Modules .... .... Another Two Questions ....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Modules Theorem
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Jordan-Hölder theorem as presented in Paul E. Bland's book "Rings and Their Modules," specifically Proposition 4.2.16 regarding Noetherian and Artinian modules. Participants clarify that the simplicity of the modules \(M/M_1\) and \(M/N_1\) indicates that \(M_1 \cap N_1\) is a maximal submodule of both \(M_1\) and \(N_1\). Additionally, Proposition 4.2.5 confirms that since \(M\) is Noetherian and Artinian, the intersection \(M_1 \cap N_1\) inherits these properties, thus establishing its Noetherian and Artinian nature.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Noetherian and Artinian modules
  • Familiarity with the Jordan-Hölder theorem
  • Knowledge of maximal submodules in module theory
  • Proficiency in interpreting mathematical propositions and proofs
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of the Jordan-Hölder theorem in module theory
  • Review Proposition 4.2.14 for its role in establishing module properties
  • Examine the definitions and examples of Noetherian and Artinian modules
  • Explore the concept of maximal submodules and their significance in algebra
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, graduate students in algebra, and anyone studying module theory who seeks to deepen their understanding of the Jordan-Hölder theorem and its applications in Noetherian and Artinian contexts.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Paul E. Bland's book, "Rings and Their Modules".

I am focused on Section 4.2: Noetherian and Artinian Modules and need some further help to fully understand the proof of part of Proposition 4.2.16 (Jordan-Holder) ... ...

Proposition 4.2.16 reads as follows:
View attachment 8243
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/8244
Question 1Near the middle of the above proof (top of page 116) we read the following:

"... ... so $$M_1 \cap N_1$$ is a maximal submodule of $$M_1$$ and $$N_1$$, since $$M/M_1$$ and $$M/N_1$$ are simple modules. ... ... "Can someone please explain why $$M/M_1$$ and $$M/N_1$$ being simple modules implies that $$M_1 \cap N_1$$ is a maximal submodule of $$M_1$$ and $$N_1$$ ... ... ?( ***NOTE*** : I can see that $$M/M_1$$ and $$M/N_1$$ being simple modules implies that $$M_1$$ and $$N_1$$ are maximal ... but how does that imply that $$M_1 \cap N_1$$ is a maximal submodule of $$M_1$$ and $$N_1$$ ... ... ? ... ... )
Question 2Near the middle of the above proof (top of page 116) we read the following:

"... ... Using Proposition 4.2.14 we see that $$M $$ is artinian and noetherian and Proposition 4.2.5 indicates that $$M_1 \cap N_1$$ is artinian and noetherian ... ... "Can someone please explain how/why Proposition 4.2.5 indicates that $$M_1 \cap N_1$$ is artinian and noetherian ... ...
Help will be appreciated ...

Peter
====================================================================================
The above post refers to Propositions 4.2.14 and 4.2.5 ... so I am providing text of the statements of the propositions as follows:View attachment 8245https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/8246
Hope access to the above helps ...

Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
(4.3) and (4.4) are compostion series of $M$, by definition $M_i$ is a maximal submodules of $M_{i-1}$, that is $ M_{i-1}/M_i$ is simple.
Therefore $M/M_1$ and $M/N_1$ are simple because $M = M_0 = N_0$.

In (4.7), since $M/M_1$ is simple, the isomorphic $N_1/(M_1 \cap N_1)$ must be simple, therefore $(M_1 \cap N_1)$ is maximal in $N_1$, idem $(M_1 \cap N_1)$ is maximal in $M_1$, using (4.8).

$(M_1 \cap N_1)$ is a submodule of $M$, and prop.4.2.5 says that submodules of noetherian modules are noetherian, idem arterian.
 
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 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K