Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Quotient modules and rings

  1. Sep 10, 2014 #1
    Let [itex]R[/itex] be a local ring with maximal ideal [itex]J[/itex]. Let [itex]M[/itex] be a finitely generated [itex]R[/itex]-module, and let [itex]V=M/JM[/itex]. Then if [itex]\{x_1+JM,...,x_n+JM\}[/itex] is a basis for [itex]V[/itex] over [itex]R/J[/itex], then [itex]\{x_1, ... , x_n\}[/itex] is a minimal set of generators for [itex]M[/itex].


    Let [itex]N=\sum_{i=1}^n Rx_i[/itex]. Since [itex]x_i + JM[/itex] generate [itex]V=M/JM[/itex], we have [itex]M=N+JM[/itex]...(the proof continues)


    Something in this proof is making me feel uncomfortable. Why is it true that [itex]M=N+JM[/itex]? I understand that any element of [itex]N+JM[/itex] is of course an element of [itex]M[/itex]. Also if [itex]m \in M[/itex], we have [itex]m + 0 \in M+JM[/itex]. Since the [itex]x_i +JM[/itex] generate [itex]M/JM[/itex], we (obviously) have [itex]m \in N+JM[/itex].

    But then we also have [itex]M=M+JM[/itex], right? Because for [itex]m \in M[/itex], we have [itex]m + 0 \in JM[/itex]. Since elements of [itex]M[/itex] and [itex]JM[/itex] are obviously contained in [itex]M[/itex], their sum [itex]M+JM[/itex] must also be contained in [itex]M[/itex]. This means that [itex]M = M + JM[/itex]. But does this not imply that [itex]M/JM = M[/itex]? Because elements of [itex]M/JM[/itex] are of the form [itex]m+JM[/itex] for [itex]m \in M[/itex], right?

    This theorem (and proof) is from (0.3.4) Proposition in here [http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~r-ash/ComAlg/ComAlg0.pdf] [Broken][1]

    [1]: http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~r-ash/ComAlg/ComAlg0.pdf
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  2. jcsd
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Can you offer guidance or do you also need help?
Draft saved Draft deleted