MHB Simple Issue of oh symbol - exact sequences

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sequences Symbol
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Adhikari and Adhikari's (A&A) book, "Basic Modern Algebra with Applications".

I am currently focussed on Section 9.7 Exact Sequences. On page 387, A&A give Theorem 9.7.1.

A&A use symbol in the exact sequences that looks like an oh but I think it should be a zero. They continue this 'mistake' or printing error until the end of the page with Example 9.7(d) where the book reverts to a zero symbol in the exact sequence.

I believe the oh symbol is a typo - I think it should be a zero - can someone please confirm that I am correct ...

Page 387 of A&A follows:View attachment 3627

I would very much appreciate someone confirming that the oh symbol (O) in the above text should be a zero (0) ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think that the authors are using $O$ to denote the $R$-module that consists of a single element $0$ (or you could call the element $0_O$, to denote that it is the zero element of the module $O$). But in the first line of the proof of Theorem 9.7.1, "$\ker f = \{O_M\}$" should surely be "$\ker f = \{0_M\}$": the kernel of $f$ is the submodule of $M$ consisting of the zero element of $M$.
 
Opalg said:
I think that the authors are using $O$ to denote the $R$-module that consists of a single element $0$ (or you could call the element $0_O$, to denote that it is the zero element of the module $O$). But in the first line of the proof of Theorem 9.7.1, "$\ker f = \{O_M\}$" should surely be "$\ker f = \{0_M\}$": the kernel of $f$ is the submodule of $M$ consisting of the zero element of $M$.
Thanks so much Opalg ... appreciate the clarification ... most helpful ...

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...
##\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...
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...
Back
Top