MHB Sum of Submodules - infinite family case

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Infinite Sum
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 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
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,

We've discussed this before, but those sums $\sum_{\Delta} x_{\alpha}$ are assumed to have all but finitely many terms equal to $0$. I don't have the book on me but the meaning of the notation should be explained somewhere in Chapter 0.
 
Euge said:
Hi Peter,

We've discussed this before, but those sums $\sum_{\Delta} x_{\alpha}$ are assumed to have all but finitely many terms equal to $0$. I don't have the book on me but the meaning of the notation should be explained somewhere in Chapter 0.
Thanks Euge ... yes, forgot that we had discussed the issue ... indeed, just checked and saw the explanation on page 5 ...

Occasionally Bland does explicitly mention that "$$x_\alpha = 0$$ for almost all $$\alpha \in \Delta$$" ... such as on page 43 when Bland defines an external direct sum .. ... which put me off guard a bit ...

Thanks again for your help ...

Peter
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top