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
 
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
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
Views
2K