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

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on Theorem 2.3 from T. S. Blyth's "Module Theory: An Approach to Linear Algebra," specifically addressing the generation of submodules by a family of submodules. The theorem states that the submodule generated by the union of submodules consists of all finite sums of elements from these submodules. A key clarification provided is that due to the commutative and associative properties of module addition, elements from a single submodule can be combined into one term in the sum, resolving concerns about the selection of elements from each submodule.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of module theory and its definitions as presented in Blyth's text.
  • Familiarity with linear combinations and their properties in the context of modules.
  • Knowledge of commutative and associative properties of addition in algebraic structures.
  • Basic concepts of submodules and their generation in module theory.
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the definitions and theorems leading up to Theorem 2.3 in Blyth's "Module Theory: An Approach to Linear Algebra."
  • Study the properties of module addition, focusing on commutativity and associativity.
  • Explore examples of submodule generation to solidify understanding of finite sums in module theory.
  • Investigate related theorems in module theory that discuss linear combinations and their implications.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of algebra, and anyone studying module theory who seeks clarity on submodule generation and the properties of linear combinations within modules.

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
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K