I need help to resolve an apparent contradiction between part of a Proposition proved by Paul Bland in his book "Rings and Their Modules" and an Example provided by Joseph Rotman in his book "An Introduction to Homological Algebra" (Second Edition).(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

One element of Bland's Proposition 3.2.7 is the assertion (and proof) that

##M \cong M_1 \oplus M_2## ... ...

##\Longrightarrow##

... the short exact sequence

##0 \to M_1 \stackrel{f}{\to} M \stackrel{g}{\to} M_2 \to 0##

is split

However ... ...

Rotman in Example 2.29 (page 54) constructs a sequence

##0 \to A \stackrel{i'}{\to} A \oplus M \stackrel{p'}{\to} M \to 0##

which is not split ... ...

Thus Rotman appears to construct a counterexample to Bland's Theorem ...

BUT ...

how can this be ... ... ???

Can someone please resolve this issue ... ?

Help will be very much appreciated ... ...

Peter

Bland's Proposition 3.2.7 reads as follows:

Rotman's Example 2.29 reads as follows:

To give readers the necessary Definitions and Propositions on exact sequences in Bland I am providing the following relevant text from Bland ... ...

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# I Split Exact Sequences ... Bland, Proposition 3.2.7

Have something to add?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

Loading...

Similar Threads - Split Exact Sequences | Date |
---|---|

I Splitting ring of polynomials - why is this result unfindable? | Feb 11, 2018 |

I Splitting Fields: Anderson and Feil, Theorem 45.6 ... | Jun 23, 2017 |

I Splitting Fields: Anderson and Feil, Theorem 45.5 ... | Jun 22, 2017 |

I Splitting Fields: Anderson and Feil, Theorem 45.4 ... | Jun 21, 2017 |

Short Exact Sequences: Splitting | Mar 29, 2012 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**