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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Modules Theorem
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
 
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 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
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