Simple Modules and Right Annihilator Ideals ....

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Modules
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on Proposition 6.1.7 from Paul E. Bland's book "Rings and Their Modules," specifically regarding the Jacobson Radical. The proof establishes that if an element \( a \) belongs to the right annihilator \( \text{ann}_r(R/\mathfrak{m}) \), then it follows that \( a + \mathfrak{m} = (1 + \mathfrak{m})a = 0 \). This leads to the conclusion that \( a \in \mathfrak{m} \). The participants clarify the implications of these relationships within the context of unitary rings.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of ring theory, specifically unitary rings.
  • Familiarity with the concept of annihilators in ring theory.
  • Knowledge of quotient rings and their properties.
  • Basic grasp of the Jacobson Radical and its significance in module theory.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the definition and properties of the Jacobson Radical in more detail.
  • Explore the concept of right annihilators in various types of rings.
  • Learn about the implications of unitary rings in module theory.
  • Review additional examples and proofs related to Proposition 6.1.7 in Bland's text.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, particularly those specializing in abstract algebra, graduate students studying ring theory, and anyone seeking a deeper understanding of module theory and the Jacobson Radical.

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:
?temp_hash=7f07df23b94ee18b2335eb75acdc280b.png

?temp_hash=7f07df23b94ee18b2335eb75acdc280b.png

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
 

Attachments

  • Bland - 1 - Proposition 6.1.7 ... ... PART 1.png
    Bland - 1 - Proposition 6.1.7 ... ... PART 1.png
    79.8 KB · Views: 678
  • Bland - 2 - Proposition 6.1.7 ... ... PART 2.png
    Bland - 2 - Proposition 6.1.7 ... ... PART 2.png
    42.9 KB · Views: 654
Physics news on Phys.org
Assume ##a \in \text{ann}_r( R / \mathfrak{m} )##. That means that, for any element of ##R/\mathfrak m##, say ##s+\mathfrak m##, we have
$$(s+\mathfrak m)a=0_{R/\mathfrak m}\ \ \ \ \ (1)$$
Hence, in particular, we have
$$(1+\mathfrak m)a=0_{R/\mathfrak m}\ \ \ \ (2)$$
(I assume, since the proof refers to ##1##, that ##R## is assumed to contain a multiplicative identity, ie it is a 'unitary ring')

Now by definition of multiplication in a quotient:
$$(1+\mathfrak m)a=1\times a+\mathfrak m=a+\mathfrak m\ \ \ \ (3)$$
and by (2) this is equal to ##0_{R/\mathfrak m}##, which is ##\mathfrak m##.

Thus
$$a+\mathfrak m=\mathfrak m\ \ \ \ (4)$$
which means that ##a\in\mathfrak m##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Math Amateur
Thanks Andrew ... most clear and very helpful ...

Appreciate your help...

Peter
 
Math Amateur 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:
?temp_hash=7f07df23b94ee18b2335eb75acdc280b.png

?temp_hash=7f07df23b94ee18b2335eb75acdc280b.png

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
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
987
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K