Noetherian Modules .... Cohn Theorem 2.2 .... ....

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Modules Theorem
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on understanding Theorem 2.2 from P.M. Cohn's "Introduction to Ring Theory," specifically regarding the implications of elements belonging to Noetherian modules. The proof indicates that if elements \( a_j \) belong to \( N_{i_j} \) and \( k \) is the maximum index of these elements, then equality holds in the chain from \( N_k \) onwards. This is established by showing that \( N_k \) contains all \( a_j \), leading to the conclusion that \( N_k = N \) and consequently \( N_i = N_k = N \) for all \( i \geq k \.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Noetherian and Artinian rings and modules
  • Familiarity with the concepts of chain conditions in ring theory
  • Basic knowledge of set theory and unions
  • Ability to interpret mathematical proofs and definitions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the definitions and properties of Noetherian and Artinian modules
  • Explore the implications of chain conditions in ring theory
  • Review additional examples of proofs in Cohn's "Introduction to Ring Theory"
  • Learn about the applications of Noetherian modules in algebra
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of abstract algebra, and anyone studying ring theory, particularly those focusing on Noetherian and Artinian properties in modules.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading P.M. Cohn's book: Introduction to Ring Theory (Springer Undergraduate Mathematics Series) ... ...

I am currently focused on Section 2.2: Chain Conditions ... which deals with Artinian and Noetherian rings and modules ... ...

I need help with understanding an aspect of the proof of Theorem 2.2 ... ...Theorem 2.2 and its proof (including some preliminary relevant definitions) read as follows:
View attachment 8003
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/8004

At the end of the above proof by Cohn we read the following:

" ... ... If $$a_j \in N_{i_j} $$ and $$k = \text{ max} \{ i_1, \ ... \ ... \ , i_r \}$$, then equality holds in our chain from N_k onwards. ... ... "
Can someone please explain how/why $$a_j \in N_{i_j} $$ and $$k = \text{ max} \{ i_1, \ ... \ ... \ , i_r \}$$ implies that equality holds in our chain from $$N_k$$ onwards. ... ... ?Help will be appreciated ...

Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,

Each $a_j$ is an element of $N=\bigcup N_i$, and therefore an element of some $N_i$, say $N_{i_j}$. If $k = \max \{ i_1, \ldots, i_r \}$, then $N_k$ contains all the $a_j$; as these elements generate $N$ and $N_k\subset N$, we have $N_k=N$.

Now, for any $i\ge k$, we have $N_k=N \subset N_i\subset N$, and therefore $N_i=N_k=N$.
 
castor28 said:
Hi Peter,

Each $a_j$ is an element of $N=\bigcup N_i$, and therefore an element of some $N_i$, say $N_{i_j}$. If $k = \max \{ i_1, \ldots, i_r \}$, then $N_k$ contains all the $a_j$; as these elements generate $N$ and $N_k\subset N$, we have $N_k=N$.

Now, for any $i\ge k$, we have $N_k=N \subset N_i\subset N$, and therefore $N_i=N_k=N$.
Thanks castor28 ...

Think I follow that argument ...

Just reflecting further to make sure I fully understand ...

Thanks again,

Peter
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K