MHB Simple Modules and Maximal Right Ideals .... Bland, Proposition 6.1.7 ....

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Modules
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 Section 6.1 The Jacobson Radical ... ...

I need help with the proof of Proposition 6.1.7 ... Proposition 6.1.7 and its proof read as follows:https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/6388
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/6389In the above text from Bland, in the proof of (1) we read the following:

" ... ... Since $$S$$ is a simple $$R$$-module if and only if there is a maximal ideal $$\mathfrak{m}$$ of $$R$$ such that $$R / \mathfrak{m} \cong S$$ ... ... "I do not follow exactly why the above statement is true ...

Can someone help me to see why and how, exactly, the above statement is true ...
Hope someone can help ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
I am reading Paul E. Bland's book, "Rings and Their Modules".

I am focused on Section 6.1 The Jacobson Radical ... ...

I need help with the proof of Proposition 6.1.7 ... Proposition 6.1.7 and its proof read as follows:
In the above text from Bland, in the proof of (1) we read the following:

" ... ... Since $$S$$ is a simple $$R$$-module if and only if there is a maximal ideal $$\mathfrak{m}$$ of $$R$$ such that $$R / \mathfrak{m} \cong S$$ ... ... "I do not follow exactly why the above statement is true ...

Can someone help me to see why and how, exactly, the above statement is true ...
Hope someone can help ...

Peter

Just trying to clarify a few things regarding my question ...

We have from a previous post on which I received help ... ... that if $$\mathfrak{m}$$ is a maximal submodule of a module $$M$$ then $$M / \mathfrak{m}$$ is a simple module ... ... BUT ... ... we can view a maximal right ideal as a maximal submodule of a ring $$R$$ viewed as a right module over itself ... thus $$\mathfrak{m}$$ is a maximal right ideal then $$R / \mathfrak{m}$$ is a simple module ... is that correct?

Not sure how to piece together the rest of the proof of the statement above ... but we know that a maximal right ideal exists in $$R$$ because of Bland's Corollary 1.2.4 which states that every ring $$R$$ has at least one maximal right idea (maximal left ideal, maximal ideal).

A lingering question for me is ... why does Bland bother with $$S$$ in the above proof ...

Hope someone can help ...

Peter
 
Hi Peter,

Suppose $S$ is a simple $R$-module. To avoid trivialities we assume $S$ is nonzero. Let $x$ be a nonzero element of $S$. The module $Rx = S$ by simplicity of $S$. The $R$-mapping $R \to S$ given by $r \mapsto rx$ is surjective with kernel $\operatorname{Ann}(x)$, so by the first isomorphism theorem, $R/\operatorname{Ann}(x) \approx S$.

Now it suffices to prove that $\mathfrak{m}:=\operatorname{Ann}(x)$ is a maximal ideal of $R$. Since $x \neq 0$, $1\notin \mathfrak{m}.$ Let $J$ be an ideal of $R$ such that $\mathfrak{m}\subset J \subsetneq R$. It must be shown that $J = \mathfrak{m}$. Let $r\in J$. If $r\notin \mathfrak{m}$, then $rx \neq 0$, whence $R(rx) = S$ by simplicity of $S$. Since $x\in S$, then $R(rx) = S$ implies $r'(rx) = x$ for some $r'\in R.$ Hence, $(1 - r'r)x = 0$, i.e., $1 - r'r\in \mathfrak{m}$. So $1 - r'r\in J$, and as $r\in J$, then $r'r\in J$. Closure under addition in $J$ yields $1\in J$, contradicting the assumption that $J\subsetneq R$. This proves $J = \mathfrak{m}$ and $\mathfrak{m}$ is maximal.

Conversely, suppose such a maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ exists. Then $R/\mathfrak{m}$ is a field, so it is a simple $R$-module. Since $S$ is isomorphic to the simple $R$-module $R/\mathfrak{m}$, then $S$ is simple.
 
Euge said:
Hi Peter,

Suppose $S$ is a simple $R$-module. To avoid trivialities we assume $S$ is nonzero. Let $x$ be a nonzero element of $S$. The module $Rx = S$ by simplicity of $S$. The $R$-mapping $R \to S$ given by $r \mapsto rx$ is surjective with kernel $\operatorname{Ann}(x)$, so by the first isomorphism theorem, $R/\operatorname{Ann}(x) \approx S$.

Now it suffices to prove that $\mathfrak{m}:=\operatorname{Ann}(x)$ is a maximal ideal of $R$. Since $x \neq 0$, $1\notin \mathfrak{m}.$ Let $J$ be an ideal of $R$ such that $\mathfrak{m}\subset J \subsetneq R$. It must be shown that $J = \mathfrak{m}$. Let $r\in J$. If $r\notin \mathfrak{m}$, then $rx \neq 0$, whence $R(rx) = S$ by simplicity of $S$. Since $x\in S$, then $R(rx) = S$ implies $r'(rx) = x$ for some $r'\in R.$ Hence, $(1 - r'r)x = 0$, i.e., $1 - r'r\in \mathfrak{m}$. So $1 - r'r\in J$, and as $r\in J$, then $r'r\in J$. Closure under addition in $J$ yields $1\in J$, contradicting the assumption that $J\subsetneq R$. This proves $J = \mathfrak{m}$ and $\mathfrak{m}$ is maximal.

Conversely, suppose such a maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ exists. Then $R/\mathfrak{m}$ is a field, so it is a simple $R$-module. Since $S$ is isomorphic to the simple $R$-module $R/\mathfrak{m}$, then $S$ is simple.

Thanks for the help Euge ... much appreciated ...

But ... need a clarification ...

You write:

" ... ... Now it suffices to prove that $\mathfrak{m}:=\operatorname{Ann}(x)$ is a maximal ideal of $R$. Since $x \neq 0$, $1\notin \mathfrak{m}$ ... ... "

Can you explain why if $x \neq 0$ then we have that $1\notin \mathfrak{m}$ ...Hope you can help with this point ...

Peter
 
It's because $1x = x$.
 
Euge said:
It's because $1x = x$.
oh! of course ...

... thanks Euge

Peter
 
Euge said:
Conversely, suppose such a maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ exists. Then $R/\mathfrak{m}$ is a field, so it is a simple $R$-module.

This is not true for noncommutative rings, see Rotman -Advanced Modern Algebra, part 1, 3rd edition 2017, page 280. To prove this statement, you need the Correspondence Theorem for Rings / Modules.
 
Last edited:
steenis said:
This is not true for noncommutative rings, see Rotman -Advanced Modern Algebra, part 1, 3rd edition 2017, page 280. To prove this statement, you need the Correspondence Theorem for Rings.

An old post, but I was only referring to commutative rings, not noncommutative rings.
 
Ok, but Peter was referring to right $R$-modules over a ring $R$, not necessarily commutatutive.
 
Back
Top