MHB Modules - Generating and Cogenerating Classes - Bland - Chapter 4, Section 4.1

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding Proposition 4.1.1 from Paul E. Bland's "Rings and Their Modules," specifically the proof of the implication from (3) to (4). It clarifies that if a finite set F is chosen from the canonical basis of a free R-module, the images under an epimorphism will generate the module M. Additionally, it addresses the distinction between a homomorphism and an epimorphism, confirming that since every R-module is a homomorphic image of a free R-module, the corresponding homomorphism must indeed be an epimorphism. This understanding reinforces the foundational concepts of generating classes within module theory. The conversation highlights the importance of these proofs in grasping the structure of R-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 trying to understand Chapter 4, Section 4.1 on generating and cogenerating classes and need help with the proof of Proposition 4.1.1.

Proposition 4.1.1 and its proof read as follows:

View attachment 3649
View attachment 3650

I need some help with what seems a fairly intuitive step in the logic of the proof of $$(3) \Longrightarrow (4)$$ - see text above.In the proof of $$(3) \Longrightarrow (4)$$ Bland writes:

" ... ... Thus, by (3) there is a finite set $$F \subseteq \Delta$$ and an epimorphism $$ \phi \ : \ R^{ ( F ) } \longrightarrow M$$.

If we let

$$F = \{ 1,2, \ ... \ ... \ ,n \}$$

and if

$$\{ e_i \}_{i =1}^n$$

is the canonical basis for the free $$R$$-module $$R^{ ( n ) }$$, then the finite set

$$X = \{ \phi (e_i) \}_{i =1}^n$$

will generate $$M$$. ... ... "My question is the following:

Why, exactly, if $$\{ e_i \}_{i =1}^n$$ is the canonical basis for the free $$R$$-module $$R^{ ( n ) }$$, are we guaranteed that $$X$$ will generate $$M$$? [this does seem intuitive - but why EXACTLY! ]I would really appreciate some help with this issue.Peter***EDIT***

I now have a second question:

In the above text, Bland writes:

" ... ... Every R-module is the homomorphic image of a free R-module, ... ... "

So if that is true, then we have a set $$\Delta$$ and a homomorphism $$R^{ ( \Delta ) } \longrightarrow M$$ ... ...

... ... BUT ... ... Bland claims we have an epimorphism $$R^{ ( \Delta ) } \longrightarrow M$$ ...

How do we know that we not only have a homomorphism, but that we have an epimorphism?

Hep will be appreciated ...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Take $m \in M$. Since $\phi : R^{(n)} \to M$ is surjective, there exists an $x \in R^{(n)}$ such that $\phi(x) = m$. Since $\{e_i\}_{i = 1}^n$ is the canonical basis for $R^{(n)}$, there are unique $R$-scalars $r_1,\ldots, r_n$ such that $x = \sum_{i = 1}^n r_i e_i$. Since $\phi$ is an $R$-homomorphism,

$$m = \phi(x) = \sum_{i = 1}^n r_i \phi(e_i).$$

As $m$ is arbitrary, this shows that $\{\phi(e_i)\}_{i = 1}^n$ generates $M$.
 
Euge said:
Take $m \in M$. Since $\phi : R^{(n)} \to M$ is surjective, there exists an $x \in R^{(n)}$ such that $\phi(x) = m$. Since $\{e_i\}_{i = 1}^n$ is the canonical basis for $R^{(n)}$, there are unique $R$-scalars $r_1,\ldots, r_n$ such that $x = \sum_{i = 1}^n r_i e_i$. Since $\phi$ is an $R$-homomorphism,

$$m = \phi(x) = \sum_{i = 1}^n r_i \phi(e_i).$$

As $m$ is arbitrary, this shows that $\{\phi(e_i)\}_{i = 1}^n$ generates $M$.
Thanks for your help, Euge ...

... much appreciated ...Can you please help with the second question ... ... as follows ... ...

In the above text, Bland writes:

" ... ... Every R-module is the homomorphic image of a free R-module, ... ... "

So if that is true, then we have a set Δ and a homomorphism $$R^{ ( \Delta ) } \longrightarrow M$$ ... ...

... ... BUT ... ... Bland claims we have an epimorphism $$R^{ ( \Delta ) } \longrightarrow M$$ ...

How do we know that we not only have a homomorphism, but that we have an epimorphism?

Hope you can help,

Peter
Peter
 
Last edited:
Since $M$ is the homomorphic image of a free $R$-module, $M = \phi(R^{(\Delta)})$ for some set $\Delta$ and some $R$-homomorphism $\phi$. This $\phi$ must then be an epimorphism from $R^{(\Delta)}$ onto $M$.
 
Euge said:
Since $M$ is the homomorphic image of a free $R$-module, $M = \phi(R^{(\Delta)})$ for some set $\Delta$ and some $R$-homomorphism $\phi$. This $\phi$ must then be an epimorphism from $R^{(\Delta)}$ onto $M$.

Thanks Euge ... most helpful ... as usual ...

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
37
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
66
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K