Proof of Bland's Example 13: Simple Modules and Quotients of Maximal Modules

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

The discussion centers on proving a statement from Paul E. Bland's "Rings and Their Modules," specifically Example 13, which asserts that if $$N$$ is a maximal submodule of $$M$$, then the quotient module $$M/N$$ is a simple $$R$$-module. The proof involves demonstrating that any submodule $$\Sigma$$ of $$M/N$$ must be either zero or the entire module $$M/N$$. This is established by examining the pre-image $$S$$ under the natural projection $$M \to M/N$$, which must contain $$N$$ due to the maximality of $$N$$.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of module theory and submodules
  • Familiarity with quotient modules and their properties
  • Knowledge of the lattice isomorphism theorem
  • Basic grasp of natural projections in algebra
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of simple modules in module theory
  • Explore the lattice isomorphism theorem in detail
  • Learn about maximal submodules and their implications
  • Review natural projections and their role in module homomorphisms
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, particularly those specializing in algebra and module theory, as well as students studying advanced topics in ring theory and module structures.

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 focused on Chapter 1, Section 1.4 Modules ... ...

I need help with the proving a statement Bland makes in Example 13 ... ...

Example 13 reads as follows:View attachment 6387In the above text from Bland, we read the following:

" ... If $$N$$ is a maximal submodule of $$M$$, then it follows that $$M/N$$ is a simple $$R$$-module ... ... "I do not understand why this is true ... can anyone help with a formal proof of this statement ...
Hope someone can help ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let $\Sigma$ be a submodule of $M/N$. It must be shown that $\Sigma$ is either zero or the whole module $M/N$. Its pre-image $S$ under the natural projection $M\to M/N$ is a submodule of $M$ containing $N$. Maximality of $N$ implies $S = N$ or $S = M$. If $S = N$, then $\Sigma$ is zero; if $S = M$, then $\Sigma = M/N$.
 
Euge said:
Let $\Sigma$ be a submodule of $M/N$. It must be shown that $\Sigma$ is either zero or the whole module $M/N$. Its pre-image $S$ under the natural projection $M\to M/N$ is a submodule of $M$ containing $N$. Maximality of $N$ implies $S = N$ or $S = M$. If $S = N$, then $\Sigma$ is zero; if $S = M$, then $\Sigma = M/N$.

Thanks for the help, Euge ...

But ... can you help a bit further ...

You write:

" ... ... Its pre-image $S$ under the natural projection $M\to M/N$ is a submodule of $M$ containing $N$. ... ... "Can you explain why this is true ... can you indicate how this is proved ...

Peter
 
You actually learned this already from the lattice isomorphism theorem. Let $\pi$ denote the natural projection. The module $N$ is contained in $S$, for if $n\in N$, then $\pi(n) = 0\in \Sigma$. Therefore $n\in \pi^{-1}(\Sigma) = S$. Since $n$ was arbitrary, $S$ contains $N$.
 
[TIKZ]n[/TIKZ]
Euge said:
You actually learned this already from the lattice isomorphism theorem. Let $\pi$ denote the natural projection. The module $N$ is contained in $S$, for if $n\in N$, then $\pi(n) = 0\in \Sigma$. Therefore $n\in \pi^{-1}(\Sigma) = S$. Since $n$ was arbitrary, $S$ contains $N$.
Thanks Euge ... appreciate your help ...

Peter
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
37
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K