Simple Modules and Right Annihilator Ideals ....

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of Proposition 6.1.7 from Paul E. Bland's book "Rings and Their Modules," specifically focusing on the Jacobson Radical and the implications of elements belonging to the right annihilator of a quotient ring.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Peter seeks clarification on why an element ##a \in \text{ann}_r( R / \mathfrak{m} )## leads to the conclusion that ##a + \mathfrak{m} = ( 1 + \mathfrak{m} ) a = 0##.
  • Andrew explains that if ##a \in \text{ann}_r( R / \mathfrak{m} )##, then for any element ##s + \mathfrak{m}## in the quotient, the product ##(s + \mathfrak{m})a = 0_{R/\mathfrak{m}}## holds, particularly for ##s = 1##, leading to ##(1 + \mathfrak{m})a = 0_{R/\mathfrak{m}}##.
  • Andrew further clarifies that by the definition of multiplication in a quotient, this implies ##a + \mathfrak{m} = \mathfrak{m}##, which means ##a \in \mathfrak{m}##.
  • Peter expresses gratitude for Andrew's explanation, indicating it was helpful.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants appear to agree on the reasoning provided by Andrew regarding the implications of the definitions involved, but the initial question posed by Peter indicates a need for clarification rather than a consensus on the proof itself.

Contextual Notes

The discussion is limited to the specific context of Proposition 6.1.7 and does not address broader implications or applications of the Jacobson Radical beyond the immediate proof.

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: 690
  • Bland - 2 - Proposition 6.1.7 ... ... PART 2.png
    Bland - 2 - Proposition 6.1.7 ... ... PART 2.png
    42.9 KB · Views: 663
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
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K