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
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K