MHB Modules Generated by Sets of Submodules .... .... Bland Problem 2, Problem Set 4.1 .... ....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Modules Set Sets
  • #51
Sorry I overlooked the g, I thought you were using s
No comment on h and f in #46

Like you said in post #49, we want to declare that unknown $\phi_g$ to be a member of $\text{Hom }(M, N)$, that is what we want to do, you said it yourself. In that case $\phi_g$ is defined.
To make the assignment easy, we define $\phi_g = g \in \text{Hom }(M, N)$
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
steenis said:
Sorry I overlooked the g, I thought you were using s
No comment on h and f in #46

Like you said in post #49, we want to declare that unknown $\phi_g$ to be a member of $\text{Hom }(M, N)$, that is what we want to do, you said it yourself. In that case $\phi_g$ is defined.
To make the assignment easy, we define $\phi_g = g \in \text{Hom }(M, N)$
I was using s ... but changed it to g based on your remarks ..
 
  • #53
Hi Peter,

Do you want to continue this exercise ? If you want we can start from the beginning to get you on track.

Do not give up.
 
  • #54
steenis said:
Hi Peter,

Do you want to continue this exercise ? If you want we can start from the beginning to get you on track.

Do not give up.
Hi steenis ... yes of course ...

... good idea ... I value your help and assistance ...

Peter
 
  • #55
Good, you are not angry at me.
We will make a fresh atart.
Give me some time.
I,ll be back very soon.
 
  • #56
steenis said:
Good, you are not angry at me.
We will make a fresh atart.
Give me some time.
I,ll be back very soon.
OK ... great ...

Thanks steenis ...

Peter
 
  • #57
Bland - Rings and Their Modules (2011)
Exercise 2 of Problem Set 4.1

$\Leftarrow)$ $M$ and $N$ are right $R$-modules.
For each nonzero R-linear mapping $f:N \to N’$ (for any $R$-module $N'$) there is an R-linear mapping $h:M \to N$ such that $fh \neq 0$. Prove that $M$ generates $N$.

According to definition 4.1.2. we have to find an epimorpism $\phi:M^{(\Delta)} \to N$ for some index-set $\Delta$.

$M^{(\Delta)} = \bigoplus_\Delta M_\alpha$, where $M_\alpha = M$, for all $\alpha \in \Delta$.

I suggested to take $\Delta = \text{Hom }(M,N)$ as our index-set. Why? Our hypothesis says that we can get an $R$-map $h:M \to N$ such that $fh \neq 0$, for every nonzero R-map $f:N \to N’$, that map $h$ has to come from somewhere. Sometimes you have to except something and see at the end why.

Every set can be taken as an index-set, see post #45. At this moment I could not find more information on index-sets, maybe you can find something.

We have to find an $R$-map $\phi:\bigoplus_\Delta M_\alpha \to N$. I suggested to use proposition 2.1.5. to construct $\phi$. I think it is the only tool we have to do that. (After we have found $\phi$, we will prove that it is surjective)Proposition 2.1.5
If $\{M_\alpha | \alpha \in \Delta\}$ is a family of R-modules, then the direct sum $(\bigoplus_\Delta M_\alpha, i_\alpha)$,
has the property that for every $R$-module $N$ and every family $\{\phi_\alpha:M_\alpha \to N | \alpha \in \Delta\}$
there is a unique R-map $\phi:\bigoplus_\Delta M_\alpha \to N$
such that $\phi \circ i_\alpha = \phi_\alpha$, for all $\alpha \in \Delta$,
where the $i_\alpha$ are the canonical injections $i_\alpha:M_\alpha \to \bigoplus_\Delta M_\alpha$ for $\alpha \in \Delta$,

The $R$-map $\phi$ is defined on $\bigoplus_\Delta M_\alpha$ in this way:

$\phi((x_\alpha)_\Delta) = \Sigma_\Delta \text{ } \phi_\alpha (x_\alpha)$ for $((x_\alpha)_\Delta) \in \bigoplus_\Delta M_\alpha$Now I want you to write down the premises or conditions of this theorem and translate them into the premises in our case. For instance: the $\Delta$ in the theorem, becomes $\text{Hom }(M,N)$ in our case, and so on. (see post #35). Use a better index-variable than $\alpha$ ...
Good luck.
 
Last edited:
  • #58
steenis said:
Bland - Rings and Their Modules (2011)
Exercise 2 of Problem Set 4.1

$\Leftarrow)$ $M$ and $N$ are right $R$-modules.
For each nonzero R-linear mapping $f:N \to N’$ (for each $R$-module $N'$) there is an R-linear mapping $h:M \to N$ such that $fh \neq 0$. Prove that $M$ generates $N$.

According to definition 4.1.2. we have to find an epimorpism $\phi:M^{(\Delta)} \to N$ for some index-set $\Delta$.

$M^{(\Delta)} = \bigoplus_\Delta M_\alpha$, where $M_\alpha = M$, for all $\alpha \in \Delta$.

I suggested to take $\Delta = \text{Hom }(M,N)$ as our index-set. Why? Our hypothesis says that we can get an $R$-map $h:M \to N$ such that $fh \neq 0$, for every nonzero R-map $f:N \to N’$, that map $h$ has to come from somewhere. Sometimes you have to except something and see at the end why.

Every set can be taken as an index-set, see post #45. At this moment I could not find more information on index-sets, maybe you can find something.

We have to find an $R$-map $\phi:\bigoplus_\Delta M_\alpha \to N$. I suggested to use proposition 2.1.5. to construct $\phi$. I think it is the only tool we have to do that. (After we have found $\phi$, we will prove that it is surjective)Proposition 2.1.5
If $\{M_\alpha | \alpha \in \Delta\}$ is a family of R-modules, then the direct sum $(\bigoplus_\Delta M_\alpha, i_\alpha)$,
has the property that for every $R$-module $N$ and every family $\{\phi_\alpha:M_\alpha \to N | \alpha \in \Delta\}$
there is a unique R-map $\phi:\bigoplus_\Delta M_\alpha \to N$
such that $\phi \circ i_\alpha = \phi_\alpha$, for all $\alpha \in \Delta$,
where the $i_\alpha$ are the canonical injections $i_\alpha:M_\alpha \to \bigoplus_\Delta M_\alpha$ for $\alpha \in \Delta$,

The $R$-map $\phi$ is defined on $\bigoplus_\Delta M_\alpha$ in this way:

$\phi((x_\alpha)_\Delta) = \Sigma_\Delta \text{ } \phi_\alpha (x_\alpha)$ for $((x_\alpha)_\Delta) \in \bigoplus_\Delta M_\alpha$Now I want you to write down the premises or conditions of this theorem and translate them into the premises in our case. For instance: the $\Delta$ in the theorem, becomes $\text{Hom }(M,N)$ in our case, and so on. (see post #35). Use a better index-variable than $\alpha$ ...
Good luck.
Hi steenis ...

Will now try to write down the premises or conditions of this theorem and translate them into the premises in our case. We set up the premises of Proposition 2,1,5 if we accept the existence of a family of modules $\{M_\alpha \mid \alpha \in \Delta\}$ and define or specify (in some way) an R-module N and a family of R-maps $\{\phi_\alpha:M_\alpha \to N | \alpha \in \Delta\}$ ... ... For our problem we define $$\Delta = \text{ Hom } (M, N)$$ ...

... and the family of modules is $$\{ M_g \mid g \in \text{ Hom } (M, N) \} $$

The $$M_\alpha = M_g = M$$ for all $$g \in \text{ Hom } (M, N)$$ ...

We further specify $$\phi_\alpha = \phi_g = g \in \text{ Hom } (M, N)$$ ...

... (that is the premises) ...
... then ...... there is a unique R-map $$\phi \ : \ \bigoplus_{\text{ Hom } (M, N)} M_g \to N$$

such that ...

$$\phi \circ i_g = \phi_g = g$$ for all $$g \in \text{ Hom } (M, N)$$ ...

where the $$i_g$$ are the canonical injections $$i_g \ : \ M_g \to \bigoplus_{\text{ Hom } (M, N)} M_g$$ for all $$g \in \text{ Hom } (M, N)$$ ...then the R-map $$\phi$$ is defined on $$\bigoplus_{\text{ Hom } (M, N)} M_g$$ as follows:$$\phi ( ( x_g)_{\text{ Hom } (M, N)} ) = \sum_{\text{ Hom } (M, N)} \phi_g ( x_g )$$ for $$( x_g)_{\text{ Hom } (M, N)} \in \bigoplus_{\text{ Hom } (M, N)} M_g $$... and then ... by the hypothesis of the problem we are given an R-module $$N'$$ and an R-map $$f \ : \ N \to N$$' and an R-map $$h \ : \ M \to N$$ such that $$f \circ h \ne 0$$ ...
Hope the above is basically correct ...

Peter
 
  • #59
Very good.

Notice that $\{\phi_g = g : M_g = M \to N\} = \text{Hom }(M, N)$, so you translate $\{\phi_\alpha:M_\alpha \to N | \alpha \in \Delta\}$ in the theory to
$\text{Hom }(M, N) $ in our case. If you replace $\phi_g$ by $g$ in your last formula, it will even more clear.
It then becomes:
$\phi((x_g)_{\text{Hom }(M, N)}) = \Sigma_{\text{Hom }(M, N)} \text{ } g(x_g)$ for $((x_g)_ {\text{Hom }(M, N)}) \in \bigoplus_{\text{Hom }(M, N)} M_g$

$g(x_g)$: notice that g acts on the $g$-th coordinate of $((x_g)_ {\text{Hom }(M, N)})$

The hypothesis does not give a $N'$, no we can apply the hypothesis using any appropriate $N'$, (I made an edit in post #57), we use that in the foloowing

Now prove that $\phi$ is surjective. Suppose $\phi$ is not surjective and work to a contradaction.

- - - Updated - - -

I have made an edit in #57, see #59.
 
  • #60
You should now have this diagram:

\begin{tikzpicture}[>=stealth]
\node (A) at (1,0) {$M_g= M$};
\node (B) at (1,-5) {$\bigoplus_{Hom (M, N)} M_g$};
\node (C) at (6,-5) {$N$};
\draw[->] (A) -- node
{$i_g$} (B);
\draw[->] (A) -- node
{$g$} (C);
\draw[->] (B) -- node [below] {$\phi$} (C);
\end{tikzpicture}

I have made an edit in #57, see #59.​
 
  • #61
steenis said:
Very good.

Notice that $\{\phi_g = g : M_g = M \to N\} = \text{Hom }(M, N)$, so you translate $\{\phi_\alpha:M_\alpha \to N | \alpha \in \Delta\}$ in the theory to
$\text{Hom }(M, N) $ in our case. If you replace $\phi_g$ by $g$ in your last formula, it will even more clear.
It then becomes:
$\phi((x_g)_{\text{Hom }(M, N)}) = \Sigma_{\text{Hom }(M, N)} \text{ } g(x_g)$ for $((x_g)_ {\text{Hom }(M, N)}) \in \bigoplus_{\text{Hom }(M, N)} M_g$

$g(x_g)$: notice that g acts on the $g$-th coordinate of $((x_g)_ {\text{Hom }(M, N)})$

The hypothesis does not give a $N'$, no we can apply the hypothesis using any appropriate $N'$, (I made an edit in post #57), we use that in the foloowing

Now prove that $\phi$ is surjective. Suppose $\phi$ is not surjective and work to a contradaction.

- - - Updated - - -

I have made an edit in #57, see #59.
Hi steenis ...

You write:

" ... ... Now prove that $\phi$ is surjective. Suppose $\phi$ is not surjective and work to a contradiction. ... ... "


So we proceed as follows:

Assume that $$\phi$$ is not surjective ...

... then $$\text{ I am } \phi \ne N$$ ... indeed $$\text{ I am } \phi \subset N$$ ... that is a proper subset ...

Now define $$v \ : \ N \to N/ \text{ I am } \phi$$ where $$v(n) = n + \text{ I am } \phi$$ ... and hence $$v \ne 0 $$ ...But then ... since we have a non-zero mapping $$f = v$$ ... by the hypothesis of the converse problem we have that there exists a non-zero R-linear mapping $$h \ : \ M \to N$$ such that $$f \circ h = v \circ h \ne 0$$ ...

But ... all the R-linear mappings from $$M$$ to $$N$$ belong to $$\text{ Hom } (M, N)$$ ...

So ... that is ... $$\exists \ g^\star \ne 0$$ in $$\text{ Hom } (M, N)$$ such that $$v \circ g^\star \ne 0$$ ...But ... $$v \circ g^\star \ne 0 \Longrightarrow \exists \ x_{g^\star } \in M_{g^\star } = M$$ such that $$v( g^\star ( x_{g^\star } ) ) \ne 0$$ ...

Therefore $$g^\star (x_{g^\star}) \notin \text{ I am } \phi$$ ... ... ... ... ... (*)But $$\phi (( x_g) = \sum g ( x_g )$$ ... and this sum includes $$g^\star (x_{g^\star })$$ ... and this in turn implies $$g^\star ( x_{g^\star }) \in \text{ I am } \phi$$ ... but this contradicts (*) above ...Thus our assumption that $$\phi$$ is not surjective must be wrong ..

So we conclude that $$\phi$$ is surjective and hence M generates N ...
Is that correct ...?

Peter
 
Last edited:
  • #62
I am sorry, I have no time today, I have other things to do, sorry.
 
  • #63
steenis said:
I am sorry, I have no time today, I have other things to do, sorry.
Sure ... fine steenis ... no worries ...

Talk to you when you're back ...

Hope all goes well ...

Peter
 
  • #64
Well done, Peter, that is correct.
But I will rewrite it for you, because you have a tendency to make things too complicated.

There is an R-mao $h:M \to N$ such that $v \circ h \neq 0$.

So there is an $x \in M$ such that $v(h(x)) \neq 0$, this means $h(x) \notin \text{ I am } \phi$.

Take $((x_g)_ {\text{Hom }(M, N)}) \in \bigoplus_{\text{Hom }(M, N)} M_g$ such that $x_h = x$ and $x_g = 0$ for $g \neq h$.

Then $\phi((x_g)_{\text{Hom }(M, N)}) = \Sigma_{\text{Hom }(M, N)} \text{ } g(x_g) = h(x_h) = h(x) \in \text{ I am } \phi $, that is a contradiction.

So we conclude that $\phi$ is surjective and $\phi$ is a generator of M.
 
  • #65
steenis said:
Well done, Peter, that is correct.
But I will rewrite it for you, because you have a tendency to make things too complicated.

There is an R-mao $h:M \to N$ such that $v \circ h \neq 0$.

So there is an $x \in M$ such that $v(h(x)) \neq 0$, this means $h(x) \notin \text{ I am } \phi$.

Take $((x_g)_ {\text{Hom }(M, N)}) \in \bigoplus_{\text{Hom }(M, N)} M_g$ such that $x_h = x$ and $x_g = 0$ for $g \neq h$.

Then $\phi((x_g)_{\text{Hom }(M, N)}) = \Sigma_{\text{Hom }(M, N)} \text{ } g(x_g) = h(x_h) = h(x) \in \text{ I am } \phi $, that is a contradiction.

So we conclude that $\phi$ is surjective and $\phi$ is a generator of M.
Hi steenis ...Sorry to be late in replying but had to watch Australia play the Czech Republic in Austria ... Australia won 4-0 :) ... Australia's new coach is Bert van Marwijk from the Netherlands!

Thanks for improvements to proof ... I will work through them carefully tomorrow morning (Tasmanian time) ..

Thanks again ...

Peter
 
  • #66
Of course, do not forget the important things ...(Smile)
 
  • #67
steenis said:
Of course, do not forget the important things ...(Smile)
Thanks again for all your help on this problem ...

Now going on to work on Bland Section 4.2 Noetherian and Artinian Modules ...

Am revising Propositions 4.2.3 and 4.24 ... and then moving on to other Propositions I have not worked on before ...

Also hoping before long to cover classical ring theory (Chapter 6) ...

Peter
 
Back
Top