MHB Noetherian Modules and Submodules - J A Beachy, Proposition 2.4.5 .... ....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Modules
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading J A Beachy's Book, Introductory Lectures on Rings and Modules"... ...

I am currently focused on Chapter 2: Modules ... and in particular Section 2.4: Chain Conditions ...

I need help with the proof of Proposition 2.4.5 ...Proposition 2.4.5 reads as follows:
View attachment 6041
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/6042
In the above text by Beachy ... in the proof of part (a) ... we read the following:"... ... ... Conversely, assume that $$N$$ and $$M/N$$ are Noetherian, and let $$M_0$$ be a submodule of $$M$$. Then $$M_0 \cap N$$ and $$M_0 / ( M_0 \cap N ) \cong (M_0 + N) / N$$ are both finitely generated, so $$M_0$$ is finitely generated ... ... ... "

I am very unsure of this part of the proof ... but overall Beachy seems to be trying to prove that an arbitrary submodule of $$M$$, namely $$M_0$$, is finitely generated ... ... and this means that M is Noetherian ... (Beachy, in his Proposition 2.4.3 has shown that every submodule of $$M$$ being finitely generated is equivalent to M being Noetherian ... ... )BUT ... I do not see how it follows in the above that ... ... $$M_0 \cap N$$ and $$M_0 / ( M_0 \cap N ) \cong (M_0 + N) / N$$ are both finitely generated ... ... AND ... exactly why it then follows that $$M_0$$ is finitely generated ... ...
Hope someone can help ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
I am reading J A Beachy's Book, Introductory Lectures on Rings and Modules"... ...

I am currently focused on Chapter 2: Modules ... and in particular Section 2.4: Chain Conditions ...

I need help with the proof of Proposition 2.4.5 ...Proposition 2.4.5 reads as follows:
In the above text by Beachy ... in the proof of part (a) ... we read the following:"... ... ... Conversely, assume that $$N$$ and $$M/N$$ are Noetherian, and let $$M_0$$ be a submodule of $$M$$. Then $$M_0 \cap N$$ and $$M_0 / ( M_0 \cap N ) \cong (M_0 + N) / N$$ are both finitely generated, so $$M_0$$ is finitely generated ... ... ... "

I am very unsure of this part of the proof ... but overall Beachy seems to be trying to prove that an arbitrary submodule of $$M$$, namely $$M_0$$, is finitely generated ... ... and this means that M is Noetherian ... (Beachy, in his Proposition 2.4.3 has shown that every submodule of $$M$$ being finitely generated is equivalent to M being Noetherian ... ... )BUT ... I do not see how it follows in the above that ... ... $$M_0 \cap N$$ and $$M_0 / ( M_0 \cap N ) \cong (M_0 + N) / N$$ are both finitely generated ... ... AND ... exactly why it then follows that $$M_0$$ is finitely generated ... ...
Hope someone can help ...

Peter
the following is begin used:

Let $M$ be an $R$-module and $S$ be a submodule of $M$. Suppose $S$ and $M/S$ are both finitely generated. Then $M$ to is finitely generated.

This is easy to show. Let $\{s_1, \ldots, s_k\}$ be a generating set of $S$ and $\{\bar m_1, \ldots, \bar m_l\}$ be a generating set for $M/S$. Then $\{s_1, \ldots, s_k, m_1, \ldots, m_l\}$ is a generating set for $M$ (why?)

Can you see how this shows that $M_0$ is finitely generated?
 
caffeinemachine said:
the following is begin used:

Let $M$ be an $R$-module and $S$ be a submodule of $M$. Suppose $S$ and $M/S$ are both finitely generated. Then $M$ to is finitely generated.

This is easy to show. Let $\{s_1, \ldots, s_k\}$ be a generating set of $S$ and $\{\bar m_1, \ldots, \bar m_l\}$ be a generating set for $M/S$. Then $\{s_1, \ldots, s_k, m_1, \ldots, m_l\}$ is a generating set for $M$ (why?)

Can you see how this shows that $M_0$ is finitely generated?
Hi caffeinemachine ... thanks fpr the reply ...

You write:

"... ... This is easy to show. Let $\{s_1, \ldots, s_k\}$ be a generating set of $S$ and $\{\bar m_1, \ldots, \bar m_l\}$ be a generating set for $M/S$. Then $\{s_1, \ldots, s_k, m_1, \ldots, m_l\}$ is a generating set for $M$ (why?) ... ... I cannot see why this follows ... can you help further ...

Peter
 
Peter said:
Hi caffeinemachine ... thanks fpr the reply ...

You write:

"... ... This is easy to show. Let $\{s_1, \ldots, s_k\}$ be a generating set of $S$ and $\{\bar m_1, \ldots, \bar m_l\}$ be a generating set for $M/S$. Then $\{s_1, \ldots, s_k, m_1, \ldots, m_l\}$ is a generating set for $M$ (why?) ... ... I cannot see why this follows ... can you help further ...

Peter

Let $m$ be arbitrarily chosen in $M$. Then there exist $r_1, \dots, r_l\in R$ such that $\bar m= r_1\bar m_1+\cdots +r_l\bar m_l$. Thus $m-(r_1m_1+\cdots+r_lm_l)\in S$. So there are $a_1, \ldots, a_k\in S$ such that
$$m-(r_1m_1+\cdots+r_lm_l)= a_1s_1+\cdots +a_ks_k$$
This gives
$$m = r_1m_1+\cdots+r_lm_l + a_1s_1+\cdots +a_ks_k$$
Is this clear now?
 
caffeinemachine said:
Let $m$ be arbitrarily chosen in $M$. Then there exist $r_1, \dots, r_l\in R$ such that $\bar m= r_1\bar m_1+\cdots +r_l\bar m_l$. Thus $m-(r_1m_1+\cdots+r_lm_l)\in S$. So there are $a_1, \ldots, a_k\in S$ such that
$$m-(r_1m_1+\cdots+r_lm_l)= a_1s_1+\cdots +a_ks_k$$
This gives
$$m = r_1m_1+\cdots+r_lm_l + a_1s_1+\cdots +a_ks_k$$
Is this clear now?

Yes, thanks caffeinemachine ... appreciate your help ...

Peter
 
Thread 'Determine whether ##125## is a unit in ##\mathbb{Z_471}##'
This is the question, I understand the concept, in ##\mathbb{Z_n}## an element is a is a unit if and only if gcd( a,n) =1. My understanding of backwards substitution, ... i have using Euclidean algorithm, ##471 = 3⋅121 + 108## ##121 = 1⋅108 + 13## ##108 =8⋅13+4## ##13=3⋅4+1## ##4=4⋅1+0## using back-substitution, ##1=13-3⋅4## ##=(121-1⋅108)-3(108-8⋅13)## ... ##= 121-(471-3⋅121)-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24(471-3⋅121## ##=121-471+3⋅121-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24⋅471+72⋅121##...
Back
Top