MHB Surjectivity of a Free Module Homomorphism implies injectivity

  • Thread starter Thread starter caffeinemachine
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    module
caffeinemachine
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
799
Reaction score
15
I am trying to prove the following:Let $R$ be a commutative ring and $M$ be a free $R$-module having a finite basis of $n$ elements.
Let $T:M\to M$ be a surjective $R$-module homomorphism.
Then $T$ is injective.Let $I$ be a maximal ideal of $R$.
Note that $I$ annihilates $\widehat M:=M/IM$ and thus $\widehat M$ is an $\bar (R/I)$-module.
Write $\bar R=R/I$.For each $r\in R$, write $\bar r$ to denote $r+I$ and for each $m\in M$ write $\widehat m$ to denote $m+IM$.Define $\widetilde T:\widehat M\to \widehat M$ as
$$\widetilde T(\widehat m)=\widehat{Tm},\quad \forall \widehat m\in \widehat M$$
It is easy to see that $\widetilde T$ is well defined.
Note that $\widetilde T$ is a surjective linear operator on a vector space and hence is also injective.Note that if $\mathcal B=\{e_1,\ldots,e_n\}$ is a basis of $M$, then $\widehat B=\{\widehat e_1,\ldots,\widehat e_n\}$ is a basis for $\widehat M$.Now suppose $T(r_1e_1+\cdots+r_ne_n)=0$. Then we get $\widetilde T(\bar r_1\widehat e_1+\cdots+\bar r_n\widehat e_n)=\widehat 0$.
Since $\widetilde T$ is injective, we get $\bar r_i=\bar 0$ for all $i$.
But this doesn't lead to $r_i=0$.Can anybody see how to complete the proof from here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi caffeinemachine,

Let's start from the beginning, with your basis $\mathcal{B} = \{e_1,e_2,\ldots, e_n\}$. There are unique $R$ - scalars $a_{ij}$ ($i,j = 1,2,\ldots, n$) such that

$$ T(e_i) = \sum_{j = 1}^n a_{ij}e_j.$$

Since $T$ is surjective, there exist $R$-scalars $b_{ki}$ ($i, k = 1, 2,\ldots, n$) such that

$$e_k = T\Bigl(\sum_{i = 1}^n b_{ki} e_i\Bigr).$$

Hence, for all $k$,

$$e_k = \sum_{i = 1}^n b_{ki} T(e_i) = \sum_{i = 1}^n \sum_{j = 1}^n b_{ki}a_{ij} e_j = \sum_{j = 1}^n c_{kj} e_j,$$

where the constants $c_{kj}$ are defined by the equation

$$ c_{kj} = \sum_{i = 1}^n b_{ki}a_{ij}.$$

Since $\mathcal{B}$ is an $R$-basis for $M$, it follows that $c_{kj} = \delta_{kj}$, i.e.,

$$(*)\quad \sum_{i = 1}^n b_{ki}a_{ij} = \delta_{kj} \quad (k, j = 1, 2,\ldots, n)$$

Use the orthogonality relations $(*)$ to show that $T$ is injective.
 
Euge said:
Hi caffeinemachine,

Let's start from the beginning, with your basis $\mathcal{B} = \{e_1,e_2,\ldots, e_n\}$. There are unique $R$ - scalars $a_{ij}$ ($i,j = 1,2,\ldots, n$) such that

$$ T(e_i) = \sum_{j = 1}^n a_{ij}e_j.$$

Since $T$ is surjective, there exist $R$-scalars $b_{ki}$ ($i, k = 1, 2,\ldots, n$) such that

$$e_k = T\Bigl(\sum_{i = 1}^n b_{ki} e_i\Bigr).$$

Hence, for all $k$,

$$e_k = \sum_{i = 1}^n b_{ki} T(e_i) = \sum_{i = 1}^n \sum_{j = 1}^n b_{ki}a_{ij} e_j = \sum_{j = 1}^n c_{kj} e_j,$$

where the constants $c_{kj}$ are defined by the equation

$$ c_{kj} = \sum_{i = 1}^n b_{ki}a_{ij}.$$

Since $\mathcal{B}$ is an $R$-basis for $M$, it follows that $c_{kj} = \delta_{kj}$, i.e.,

$$(*)\quad \sum_{i = 1}^n b_{ki}a_{ij} = \delta_{kj} \quad (k, j = 1, 2,\ldots, n)$$

Use the orthogonality relations $(*)$ to show that $T$ is injective.

Hey Euge!

What you have done is absolutely correct and I thank you for helping out.

But the thing is, the equation $(*)$ is where I had started.

I am a beginner in module theory and yesterday I learned the fact that if $A$ and $B$ are square matrices with entries from a commutative ring $R$, then $AB=I$ if and only if $BA=I$.

If I use this fact then the equation $(*)$ does my job and solves the question I posted.

But the proof of the above which I know uses determinants quite extensively.
I do not want to use determinants.

This may seem unreasonable. But I think determinant-free proofs are much more elegant and enlightening.

So I was trying to prove that if you have a commutative ring $R$, and $R$-linear maps $T,S:R^n\to R^n$ such that $TS=\text{id}$, then $ST=\text{id}$.

From here it was a natural question that if $T:R^n\to R^n$ is surjective then it is also injective.

A determinant-free proof of this in the case where $R$ is a field is well-known. It uses rank-nullity theorem.

I doubt if there is an analog of the rank nullity theorem in the context of free modules of finite rank over a commutative ring without imposing some extra condition on the ring.
 
You do not need determinants to prove either injectivity of $T$ using $(*)$, or the statement $AB = I$ if and only if $BA = I$.

There are different, non-determinantal methods to prove injectivity of $T$. One way is to define a map $S : M \to M$ by the equation

$$S\Bigl(\sum_{i = 1}^n x_i e_i\Bigr) = \sum_{i = 1}^n \sum_{k = 1}^n x_k b_{ki}e_i$$

and show that $ST(e_i) = e_i$ for all $i$.

To show that $AB = I$ if and only if $BA = I$, first suppose $AB = I$. We want to show that $A$ is invertible. Suppose $A$ is not invertible. Then there is a sequence $\{E_i\}_{i = 1}^r$ of elementary matrices such that $E_1 E_2\cdots E_r A$ has a row of zeros. Then $E_1 E_2\cdots E_r AB$ has a row of zeros. Since $AB = I$, we deduce that the invertible matrix $E_1 E_2 \cdots E_r$ has a row of zeros, a contradiction. Therefore $BA = I$. A symmetric argument proves the converse.
 
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 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
748
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
812
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K