Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
- 3,920
- 48
I am reading Paul E. Bland's book, "Rings and Their Modules".
I am trying to understand Section 1.4 which introduces modules.
I need help with one of the definitions included in the statement of Proposition 1.4.4.
Proposition 1.4.4 reads as follows:
View attachment 3648
In (2) in the above Proposition Bland implicitly defines the sum of a family of submodules as follows:
$$\sum_{\Delta} M_\alpha \ = \ \{ \sum_{\Delta} x_\alpha \ | \ x_\alpha \in M_\alpha \text{ for all } \alpha \in \Delta \}$$Now the definition leaves open the possibility that the family $$\Delta$$ is infinite, so shouldn't the definition include the statement:
" ... ... where $$x_\alpha = 0$$ for almost all $$\alpha \in \Delta$$ ... ... "... ... so as to effectively ensure that when the family $$\Delta$$ is infinite that each sum $$\sum_{\Delta} x_\alpha$$ is meaningful ... ...?
Can someone please help with this matter?
Peter
I am trying to understand Section 1.4 which introduces modules.
I need help with one of the definitions included in the statement of Proposition 1.4.4.
Proposition 1.4.4 reads as follows:
View attachment 3648
In (2) in the above Proposition Bland implicitly defines the sum of a family of submodules as follows:
$$\sum_{\Delta} M_\alpha \ = \ \{ \sum_{\Delta} x_\alpha \ | \ x_\alpha \in M_\alpha \text{ for all } \alpha \in \Delta \}$$Now the definition leaves open the possibility that the family $$\Delta$$ is infinite, so shouldn't the definition include the statement:
" ... ... where $$x_\alpha = 0$$ for almost all $$\alpha \in \Delta$$ ... ... "... ... so as to effectively ensure that when the family $$\Delta$$ is infinite that each sum $$\sum_{\Delta} x_\alpha$$ is meaningful ... ...?
Can someone please help with this matter?
Peter