MHB Ring Direct Products .... Bland Problem 3(a), Problem Set 2.1, Page 49 ....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ring Set
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around Problem 3(a) from Paul E. Bland's book on rings, specifically focusing on the structure of right ideals in direct products of rings. The user seeks validation for their proof that every right ideal of the ring R_1 × R_2 × ... × R_n can be expressed as a product of right ideals A_1 × A_2 × ... × A_n. Key points of confusion include the justification of a specific equation involving elements of the ideal and how it leads to the conclusion that A_1 × A_2 is a subset of A. The conversation also touches on the nature of right ideals and the implications of their definitions in the context of the proof. Overall, the thread emphasizes the need for clarity in understanding the properties of direct products and their ideals.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Paul E. Bland's book: Rings and Their Modules and am currently focused on Section 2.1 Direct Products and Direct Sums ... ...

I need someone to check my solution to Problem 3(a) of Problem Set 2.1 ...

Problem 3(a) of Problem Set 2.1 reads as follows:https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/8062

My attempt at a solution follows:We claim that every right ideal of the ring $$R_1 \times R_2 \times \ ... \ ... \ \times R_n $$ is of the form $$A_1 \times A_2 \times \ ... \ ... \ \times A_n$$ ...Proof:

Suppose $$A$$ is a right ideal of $$R_1 \times R_2 \times \ ... \ ... \ \times R_n$$ ...

Let $$a \in A$$ and put $$A_1 = \pi_1 (A) , A_2 = \pi_2 (A) , \ ... \ ... \ , A_n = \pi_n (A)$$
Now $$a \in A$$ ...$$\Longrightarrow \pi_1(a) = a_1, \pi_2(a) = a_2, \ ... \ ... \ , \pi_n(a) = a_n$$

for some $$a_1 \in A_1, a_2 \in A_2, \ ... \ ... \ , a_n \in A_n$$Hence ...

$$a = ( i_1 \pi_1 + i_2 \pi_2 + \ ... \ ... \ + i_n \pi_n ) (a) $$$$= (a_1, 0, 0, \ ... \ ... \ , 0) + (0, a_2, 0, \ ... \ ... \ , 0) + \ ... \ ... \ + ( 0, 0, \ ... \ ... \ , a_n ) $$$$= ( a_1, a_2, \ ... \ ... \ , a_n)$$Hence ... $$A \subseteq A_1 \times A_2 \times \ ... \ ... \ \times A_n$$ ... ... ... ... ... (1)
Conversely ... Let $$a_1 \in A_1, a_2 \in A_2, \ ... \ ... \ , a_n \in A_n$$Note that again ... $$A$$ is a right ideal of $$R_1 \times R_2 \times \ ... \ ... \ \times R_n$$ ...

... and $$a \in A$$ and put $$A_1 = \pi_1 (A) , A_2 = \pi_2 (A) , \ ... \ ... \ , A_n = \pi_n (A)$$Then there are $$b_1, b_2, \ ... \ ... \ , b_n \in A$$ such that ...

$$\pi_1 (b_1) = a_1, \pi_2 (b_2) = a_2, \ ... \ ... \ , \pi_n (b_n) = a_n $$ ... Hence ...

$$b_1 ( 1,0,0, \ ... \ ... \ , 0 ) + b_2 ( 0, 1,0, \ ... \ ... \ , 0 ) + \ ... \ ... \ + b_n ( 0, 0,0, \ ... \ ... \ , 1 ) $$$$= ( i_1 \pi_1 + i_2 \pi_2 + \ ... \ ... \ + i_n \pi_n ) ( b_1 ( 1,0,0, \ ... \ ... \ , 0 ) + b_2 ( 0, 1,0, \ ... \ ... \ , 0 ) + \ ... \ ... \ + b_n ( 0, 0,0, \ ... \ ... \ , 1 ) )$$$$= ( a_1, a_2, \ ... \ ... \ , a_n) $$So ...$$ A_1 \times A_2 \times \ ... \ ... \ \times A_n \subseteq A$$ ... ... ... ... ... (2)Now ... $$(1), (2) \Longrightarrow A = A_1 \times A_2 \times \ ... \ ... \ \times A_n$$
Can someone please critique my proof ... and either confirm it is correct or point out the errors and shortcomings ... ...

Problem/Issue ... there is part of the above proof I do not fully understand ... I will relate the issue to text solution for $$n = 2$$ ...In Bland's text on the problem we read the following:

"... ... Hence $$a(1,0) + b(0,1) = ( i_1 \pi_1 + i_2 \pi_2 ) ( a(1,0) + b(0,1) ) = (a_1, a_2)$$, so $$A_1 \times A_2 \subseteq A$$. ... ... "I have two questions regarding the above quote:(1) Exactly why/how is the equation $$a(1,0) + b(0,1) = ( i_1 \pi_1 + i_2 \pi_2 ) ( a(1,0) + b(0,1) ) = (a_1, a_2)$$ ... true?

Can someone please explain in detail why/how this is true ...
(2) Exactly why/how does the above equation being true imply that $$A_1 \times A_2 \subseteq A$$ ... ?
Help with the above will be much appreciated ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Bland uses that $A$ is a right ideal of $R_1 \times R_2$.
So, if $a=(x,y) \in A$ and $u=(r,s) \in R_1 \times R_2$ then $au=(x,y)(r,s)$ exists and belongs to $A$.
Also $a(1,0)$ and $b(0,1)$, where $a,b \in A$, both exist and belong to $A$.
He then proves that $(a_1,a_2)=a(1,0)+b(0,1) \in A$
Now, try it again.
 
steenis said:
Bland uses that $A$ is a right ideal of $R_1 \times R_2$.
So, if $a=(x,y) \in A$ and $u=(r,s) \in R_1 \times R_2$ then $au=(x,y)(r,s)$ exists and belongs to $A$.
Also $a(1,0)$ and $b(0,1)$, where $a,b \in A$, both exist and belong to $A$.
He then proves that $(a_1,a_2)=a(1,0)+b(0,1) \in A$
Now, try it again.
Hi Steenis ... sorry to be slow in responding ...

But Hugo (one of my friends large standard poodles - Hugo and Pierre...) chewed up my glasses ...

Will be back in touch soon ...

Peter
 
No worries, I fill my time with studying.

(Hugo and Pierre ?)
 
steenis said:
No worries, I fill my time with studying.

(Hugo and Pierre ?)
Hugo and Pierre are the names of my friends large standard poodles ...

Peter
 
The point is: Hugo is my first name and Pierre = Peter is your first name ....
 
steenis said:
The point is: Hugo is my first name and Pierre = Peter is your first name ....
Quite a coincidence ... :) ...

Peter
 
Does this make us antipodal poodles ?
 
steenis said:
Does this make us antipodal poodles ?
Well ... the two standard poodles are intelligent... but quite eccentric ... :) ...

Peter
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K