MHB Theorem on the Lengths of Modules - Cohn, Theorem 2.5

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Modules Theorem
Click For Summary
Cohn's Theorem 2.5 addresses the lengths of modules in the context of linear algebras and Artinian rings. The discussion highlights the equation relating the lengths of modules, kernels, and cokernels, which is central to understanding the theorem. It explains that if a function is injective, the length of the module is less than or equal to that of another module, while if it is surjective, the length is greater than or equal. The conclusion is that if the function is an isomorphism, the lengths of the modules are equal. Participants are encouraged to explore proving the converse of this theorem for deeper understanding.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading "Introduction to Ring Theory" by P. M. Cohn (Springer Undergraduate Mathematics Series)

In Chapter 2: Linear Algebras and Artinian Rings, on Page 61, Cohn presents Theorem 2,5 concerning the lengths of modules.

Cohn indicates that the proof of this theorem is obvious/trivial ... BUT ... I am having trouble even getting started in formulating an explicit and formal proof ... can someone please help ...

The text of Theorem 2.5 is as follows:
View attachment 3325 Help will be appreciated,

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
I am reading "Introduction to Ring Theory" by P. M. Cohn (Springer Undergraduate Mathematics Series)

In Chapter 2: Linear Algebras and Artinian Rings, on Page 61, Cohn presents Theorem 2,5 concerning the lengths of modules.

Cohn indicates that the proof of this theorem is obvious/trivial ... BUT ... I am having trouble even getting started in formulating an explicit and formal proof ... can someone please help ...

The text of Theorem 2.5 is as follows:
View attachment 3325 Help will be appreciated,

Peter

Hi Peter,

Recall the equation

$$\ell(M) - \ell(\text{ker }f) = \ell(N) - \ell(\text{coker}f) \quad (*)$$

If $f$ is injective, then $\text{ker }f = 0$ and thus $\ell(\text{ker }f) = 0$. So $(*)$ becomes $\ell(M) = \ell(N) - \ell(\text{coker }f)$, which shows that $\ell(M) \le \ell(N)$. If $f$ is surjective, then $\text{coker }f = 0$ and thus $\ell(\text{coker }f) = 0$. The equation $(*)$ reduces to $\ell(M) - \ell(\text{ker }f) = \ell(N)$, which shows that $\ell(M) \ge \ell(N)$.

Finally, suppose $f$ is an isomorphism. Then $f$ is both injective and surjective, so by the previous results, $\ell(M) \le \ell(N)$ and $\ell(M) \ge \ell(N)$. Consequently, $\ell(M) = \ell(N)$. Try proving 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
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K