MHB Theorem 2.3: Submodule Generation by Family of Submodules - T. S. Blyth

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading T. S. Blyth's book "Module Theory: An Approach to Linear Algebra" ... ... and am currently focussed on Chapter 1: Modules, Vector Spaces and Algebras ... ...

I need help with a basic and possibly simple aspect of Theorem 2.3 ...

Since the answer to my question may depend on Blyth's previous definitions and theorems I am providing some relevant text from Blyth prior to Theorem 2.3 ... but those confident with the theory obviously can go straight to the theorem at the bottom of the scanned text ...

Theorem 2.3 together with some relevant prior definitions and theorems reads as follows: (Theorem 2,3 at end of text fragment)View attachment 5886
View attachment 5887
View attachment 5888
In the above text (near the end) we read, in the statement of Theorem 2.3:

" ... ... then the submodule generated by $$\bigcup_{ i \in I } M_i$$ consists of all finite sums of the form $$\sum_{ j \in J } m_j$$ ... ... "The above statement seems to assume we take one element from each $$M_j$$ in forming the sum $$\sum_{ j \in J } m_j$$ ... ... but how do we know a linear combination does not take more than one element from a particular $$M_j$$ , say $$M_{ j_0 }$$ ... ... or indeed all elements from one particular $$M_j$$ ... rather than one element from each submodule in the family $$\{ M_i \}_{ i \in I }$$ ...

Hope someone can clarify this ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
To briefly address your concerns, recall that module addition is commutative and associative, so we can group all terms in our finite sum from anyone $M_i$ so they are adjacent, and since $M_i$ is closed under module addition and $R$-multiplication, we can "combine" all those terms into a single element $m_i$.

Of course we may have just a single (non-zero) "term" in the sum $\sum\limits_{j \in J} m_j$, because $J$ may be a singleton subset of $I$ (which is non-empty).
 
Deveno said:
To briefly address your concerns, recall that module addition is commutative and associative, so we can group all terms in our finite sum from anyone $M_i$ so they are adjacent, and since $M_i$ is closed under module addition and $R$-multiplication, we can "combine" all those terms into a single element $m_i$.

Of course we may have just a single (non-zero) "term" in the sum $\sum\limits_{j \in J} m_j$, because $J$ may be a singleton subset of $I$ (which is non-empty).
... thanks Deveno ... that clarified the matter ...

... appreciate your help ...

Peter
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
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...
##\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...
Back
Top