MHB Jordan-Holder Theorem for Modules .... ....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Modules Theorem
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding a specific part of Proposition 4.2.16 from Paul E. Bland's "Rings and Their Modules," specifically regarding the implications of a maximal submodule. It clarifies that if two submodules, M1 and N1, are not equal, then their sum must equal the entire module M because N1 is maximal. This conclusion follows from the properties of maximal submodules, which cannot be properly contained within a larger submodule. Participants seek clarity on the proof's reasoning, emphasizing the relationship between maximality and the structure of submodules. The conversation highlights the importance of these concepts in the context of Noetherian and Artinian modules.
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 help to fully understand the proof of part of Proposition 4.2.16 (Jordan-Holder) ... ...

Proposition 4.2.16 reads as follows:
View attachment 8240
View attachment 8241

Near the middle of the above proof (top of page 116) we read the following:

"... ... If $$M_1 \neq N_1$$ then $$M_1 + N_1 = M$$ since $$N_1$$ is a maximal submodule of $$M$$. ... ... "

Can someone please explain exactly how $$N_1$$ being a maximal submodule of $$M$$ implies that $$M_1 + N_1 = M$$ ... ... ?

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,

Peter said:
Near the middle of the above proof (top of page 116) we read the following:

"... ... If $$M_1 \neq N_1$$ then $$M_1 + N_1 = M$$ since $$N_1$$ is a maximal submodule of $$M$$. ... ... "

Since $M_{1}\neq N_{1}$, $M_{1}+N_{1}$ is a submodule of $M$ containing the maximal submodule $N_{1}$ and so must be $M$.
 
GJA said:
Hi Peter,
Since $M_{1}\neq N_{1}$, $M_{1}+N_{1}$ is a submodule of $M$ containing the maximal submodule $N_{1}$ and so must be $M$.
Thanks for the help, GJA ...

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
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K