MHB Simple Modules and Right Annihilator 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:View attachment 6394
View attachment 6395
In the above text from Bland ... in the proof of (1) we read the following:" ... ... we see that $$\text{ann}_r( R / \mathfrak{m} ) = \text{ann}_r(S)$$. But $$a \in \text{ann}_r( R / \mathfrak{m} )$$ implies that $$a + \mathfrak{m} = ( 1 + \mathfrak{m} ) a = 0$$ , so $$a \in \mathfrak{m}$$. "Can someone please explain exactly why $$a \in \text{ann}_r( R / \mathfrak{m} )$$ implies that $$a + \mathfrak{m} = ( 1 + \mathfrak{m} ) a = 0 $$ ... ... ?

Can someone also explain how this then implies that $$a \in \mathfrak{m}$$ ... ?Hope someone can help ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Q2: If $I$ is a two-sided ideal in a ring $R$, than $R/I$ is also a ring,
with addition $(a+I)+(b+I)=(a+b)+I$,
and multiplication $(a+I)(b+I)=ab+I$.
The zero element of $R/I$ is $0+I=I$, because $(a+I) + (0+I) = (a+I)$.
We have $a+I=b+I \Leftrightarrow a-b \in I$,
so if $a+I=I=0+I$ then $a=a-0 \in I$, i.e., $a+I=\bar{0}$ then $a \in I$

Q1: Let $M$ be a maximal two-sided ideal in a ring $R$ (Bland only speaks of right ideals, but I think $M$ has to be a two-sided ideal in order to $R/M$ be a ring (is this English?)).

$ann_r(R/M) =$
$\{ x \in R \mbox{ } | \mbox{ } \forall \bar{y} \in R/M \mbox{ } \bar{y}x = \bar{0} \} = $
$\{ x \in R \mbox{ } | \mbox{ } \forall \bar{y} \in R/M \mbox{ } (y+M)x = \bar{0} \} $

$Ma = M$

$a \in ann_r(R/M)$ thus
$a+M= a+Ma = (1+M)a = \bar{0}$ thus $a \in M$
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K