MHB Proposition 3.1.2 in B&K: Help Needed on Exact Sequences/Noetherian Rings

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Rings
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading the book "An Introduction to Rings and Modules with K-theory in View" by A.J. Berrick and M.E. Keating ... ...

I am currently focused on Chapter 3; Noetherian Rings and Polynomial Rings.

I need help with yet another aspect of the proof of Proposition 3.1.2.

The statement and proof of Proposition 3.1.2 reads as follows (pages 109-110):https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/4873
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/4874I need help with an aspect of the above proof ... indeed, I have two questions ...Question 1

In the above text from B&K write the following:

" ... ... Conversely, consider a submodule $$N$$ of $$M$$. Let $$N' = N \cap \alpha M'$$ and let $$N''$$ be the image of $$N$$ in $$M''$$, so that there is an exact sequence ... ... "

My question is as follows:

How do we know such an exact sequence exists ... that is, how do we demonstrate, formally and rigorously, that such a sequence exists ... ... ?Question 2

In the above text we read:

" ... ... Since both $$N'$$ and $$N''$$ are finitely generated, so also is $$N$$. ... ... "

How can we demonstrate, formally and rigorously that $$N'$$ and $$N''$$ being finitely generated, imply that $$N$$ is finitely generated ... ...Hope someone can help with these two questions ... ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
$N\cap \alpha M'$ is a submodule of $N$ so we have an injective homomorphism:

$i: N' \to N$ given by $i(n') = n'$.

So let $\beta' = \beta|_N$.

Then $\beta'(i(n')) = \beta(n') = \beta(\alpha(m')) = 0_{M''}$ for some $m' \in M'$ since $N' = N \cap \alpha M' \subseteq \text{im }\alpha $, by the exactness of our original sequence.

This shows that $\text{im }i \subseteq \text{ker }\beta'$.

On the other hand, if, for $n \in N$, we have $\beta'(n) = 0_{M''}$, then since $\beta'$ is just a restriction of $\beta$, it follows that $\beta(n) = 0_{M''}$, and by the exactness of our original sequence $n \in \text{im }\alpha$.

Hence $n \in N \cap \alpha M' = \text{im }i$, so $\text{im } i = \text{ker }\beta'$.

Now $N'' = \beta'(N) = \beta(N)$ so it is immediate that $\beta':N \to N''$ is surjective and our sequence is short exact.

*******************

I'll work on question 2, later.
 
Deveno said:
$N\cap \alpha M'$ is a submodule of $N$ so we have an injective homomorphism:

$i: N' \to N$ given by $i(n') = n'$.

So let $\beta' = \beta|_N$.

Then $\beta'(i(n')) = \beta(n') = \beta(\alpha(m')) = 0_{M''}$ for some $m' \in M'$ since $N' = N \cap \alpha M' \subseteq \text{im }\alpha $, by the exactness of our original sequence.

This shows that $\text{im }i \subseteq \text{ker }\beta'$.

On the other hand, if, for $n \in N$, we have $\beta'(n) = 0_{M''}$, then since $\beta'$ is just a restriction of $\beta$, it follows that $\beta(n) = 0_{M''}$, and by the exactness of our original sequence $n \in \text{im }\alpha$.

Hence $n \in N \cap \alpha M' = \text{im }i$, so $\text{im } i = \text{ker }\beta'$.

Now $N'' = \beta'(N) = \beta(N)$ so it is immediate that $\beta':N \to N''$ is surjective and our sequence is short exact.

*******************

I'll work on question 2, later.
Thanks Deveno ... appreciate your help ...

Will be working through your post shortly ...

Thanks again,

Peter
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
Back
Top