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
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding Proposition 6.1.7 from Paul E. Bland's "Rings and Their Modules," specifically the implications of the right annihilator in the context of the Jacobson radical. It clarifies that if an element \( a \) belongs to the right annihilator \( \text{ann}_r(R/\mathfrak{m}) \), it leads to the equation \( a + \mathfrak{m} = (1 + \mathfrak{m})a = 0 \), indicating that \( a \) must be in the maximal ideal \( \mathfrak{m} \). Additionally, the discussion touches on the structure of quotient rings, emphasizing that for any element \( a \) in a ring \( R \), \( a + I = 0 + I \) implies \( a \in I \). The conversation also raises a question about the necessity of maximal two-sided ideals for the quotient \( R/M \) to form a ring. Overall, the thread seeks clarification on these foundational concepts in ring theory.
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 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K