MHB Matrix rings acting on right R-modules - Dauns - Exercises 1-5 no 2

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
In Exercise 2 of Exercises 1-5 of John Dauns' book "Modules and Rings" we are given

R = \begin{pmatrix} \mathbb{Z}_4 & \mathbb{Z}_4 \\ \mathbb{Z}_4 & \mathbb{Z}_4 \end{pmatrix} and M = \overline{2} \mathbb{Z}_4 \times \overline{2} \mathbb{Z}_4

where the matrix ring R acts on a right R-module whose elements are row vectors.

Find all submodules of M

Helped by Evgeny's post (See Math Help Boards) I commenced this problem as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Typical elements of R are R = \begin{pmatrix} r_1 & r_2 \\r_3 & r_4 \end{pmatrix}

where r_1, r_2, r_3, r_4 \in \mathbb{Z}_4 = \{ \overline{0}, \overline{1}, \overline{2}, \overline{3} \}

Typical elements of M are (x,y) where x, y \in \overline{2} Z_4

Now the elements of \overline{2} Z_4 = \overline{2} \times \{ \overline{0}, \overline{1}, \overline{2}, \overline{3} \} = \{ \overline{0}, \overline{2}, \overline{4}, \overline{6} \} = \{ \overline{0}, \overline{2}, \overline{0}, \overline{2} \} = \{ \overline{0}, \overline{2} \}

Now to find submodules! (Approach is by trial and error - but surely there is a better way!)

Consider a set of the form N_1 = \{ (x, 0) | \in \overline{2} |mathbb{Z}_4 - that is x \in \{ 0, 2 \}

Let r \in R and then test the action of R on M i.e. N_1 \times R \rightarrow N_1 - that is test if n_1r |in N_1

Now (x, 0) \begin{pmatrix} r_1 & r_2 \\r_3 & r_4 \end{pmatrix} = (r_1x, r_2x )

But now a problem I hope someone can help with!

How do we (rigorously) evaluate r_1x and r_2x and hence check whether (r_1x, r_2x) is of the form (x, 0) [certainly does not look like it but formally and rigorously ...?]

An example of my thinking here

If r_1 = \overline{3} and x = \overline{2} then (roughly speaking!) r_1 x = \overline{3} \overline{2} = \overline{6} = \overline{2}

In the above I am assuming that in \overline{2} \mathbb{Z}_4 that that \overline{0}, \overline{4}, \overline{8}, ... = \overline{0}

and that

that \overline{2}, \overline{6}, \overline{10}, ... = \overline{2}

but I am not sure what I am doing here!

Can someone please clarify this situation?

Further, can someone please comment on my overall approach to the Exercise - I am not at all sure regarding how to check for submodules and certainly lack a systematic approach ...

Be grateful for some help ...


Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Where are all algebraists on this forum? Yes, algebra and logic (my specialty), somehow along with number theory, constitute a single "specialty" for the purpose of a Ph.D. thesis in Russia, but this is a relict from a former era.

Peter said:
Consider a set of the form N_1 = \{ (x, 0)\mid x \in \overline{2} \mathbb{Z}_4\} - that is x \in \{ 0, 2 \}

Let r \in R and then test the action of R on M i.e. N_1 \times R \rightarrow N_1 - that is test if n_1r |in N_1

Now (x, 0) \begin{pmatrix} r_1 & r_2 \\r_3 & r_4 \end{pmatrix} = (r_1x, r_2x )

Peter said:
If r_1 = \overline{3} and x = \overline{2} then (roughly speaking!) r_1 x = \overline{3} \overline{2} = \overline{6} = \overline{2}
I agree with your approach. If $r_2=3$ and $x=2$, then the second component of the resulting pair is $r_2x=2$. But we assumed that the submodule was $\{(0,0),(2,0)\}$. Therefore, it is not a submodule. Similarly, $\{(0,0),(0,2)\}$ is not a submodule, either. The only submodules I see are the trivial one and $M$ itself.
 
Evgeny.Makarov said:
Where are all algebraists on this forum? Yes, algebra and logic (my specialty), somehow along with number theory, constitute a single "specialty" for the purpose of a Ph.D. thesis in Russia, but this is a relict from a former era.
I agree with your approach. If $r_2=3$ and $x=2$, then the second component of the resulting pair is $r_2x=2$. But we assumed that the submodule was $\{(0,0),(2,0)\}$. Therefore, it is not a submodule. Similarly, $\{(0,0),(0,2)\}$ is not a submodule, either. The only submodules I see are the trivial one and $M$ itself.
Thanks Evgeny, really appreciate your help.Peter
 
The first thing that pops out at me is that [math]M[/math] is finite, it only has 4 elements:

(0,0), (0,2), (2,0) and (2,2).

Such a finite set has only 16 possible subsets, and we can eliminate 8 of these straight-away because they do not include the additive identity (0,0).

Now, suppose we have a submodule [math]N[/math] containing (0,2). Taking:

[math]a = \begin{pmatrix}0&1\\1&0 \end{pmatrix} \in R[/math],

we find that [math](0,2)a = (2,0) \in N[/math] and thus:

[math](2,2) = (0,2) + (2,0) \in N[/math], hence [math]N = M[/math].

Similar reasoning shows that if a submodule contains (2,0) it likewise is all of [math]M[/math].

Finally, if a submodule contains (2,2), then taking:

[math]a' = \begin{pmatrix}0&0\\0&1 \end{pmatrix} \in R[/math],

we find (0,2) is in this submodule and thus (by above) it is all of [math]M[/math] as well.

So there are NO submodules (which are, after all, subsets) of cardinality 2, and also (by Lagrange, since submodules must also be abelian subgroups), there can be no submodules of cardinality 3.

This leaves just the trivial submodule, and all of [math]M[/math], and nothing remains to be shown, as these are trivially submodules.
 
Deveno said:
The first thing that pops out at me is that [math]M[/math] is finite, it only has 4 elements:

(0,0), (0,2), (2,0) and (2,2).

Such a finite set has only 16 possible subsets, and we can eliminate 8 of these straight-away because they do not include the additive identity (0,0).

Now, suppose we have a submodule [math]N[/math] containing (0,2). Taking:

[math]a = \begin{pmatrix}0&1\\1&0 \end{pmatrix} \in R[/math],

we find that [math](0,2)a = (2,0) \in N[/math] and thus:

[math](2,2) = (0,2) + (2,0) \in N[/math], hence [math]N = M[/math].

Similar reasoning shows that if a submodule contains (2,0) it likewise is all of [math]M[/math].

Finally, if a submodule contains (2,2), then taking:

[math]a' = \begin{pmatrix}0&0\\0&1 \end{pmatrix} \in R[/math],

we find (0,2) is in this submodule and thus (by above) it is all of [math]M[/math] as well.

So there are NO submodules (which are, after all, subsets) of cardinality 2, and also (by Lagrange, since submodules must also be abelian subgroups), there can be no submodules of cardinality 3.

This leaves just the trivial submodule, and all of [math]M[/math], and nothing remains to be shown, as these are trivially submodules.

Thanks Deveno ... most helpful ...

Peter
 
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...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top