Understanding Algebras: The Relationship Between Rings and Modules

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Artusartos
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Algebra Definition
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the definition of an R-algebra, specifically the relationship between rings and modules within the context of commutative rings. Participants explore the implications of the definition regarding commutativity and the operations of R-modules.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the validity of the equality r(xy) = (rx)y = x(ry) in the context of R-modules, suggesting it implies commutativity.
  • Another participant asserts that the equality does not imply commutativity, clarifying that it indicates the order of multiplication of r with x or y does not affect the outcome of the product xy.
  • A later reply expresses confusion about how the basic operations of associativity and distributivity relate to the equality in question, seeking further clarification.
  • Some participants emphasize that the definition allows for rx = xr for r in R and x in M, but it does not imply that xy = yx for x and y in M, indicating that M is not commutative in that sense.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the definition regarding commutativity, with no consensus reached on the interpretation of the equality in question.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that while associativity and distributivity are established properties, the specific implications of the equality r(xy) = (rx)y = x(ry) remain unclear and are debated.

Artusartos
Messages
236
Reaction score
0
"Let R be a commutative ring. We say that M is an algebra over R, or that M is an R-algebra if M is an R-module that is also a ring (not necessarily commutative), and the ring and module operations are compatible, i.e., [tex]r(xy) = (rx)y = x(ry)[/tex] for all [itex]x, y \in M[/itex] and [itex]r \in R[/itex]."

I'm not really sure why the second equality is true, because it implies commutativity and the definition tells us that an R-module is not necessarily commutative, right?

Thank you in advance
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, it does NOT imply commutativity because x and y are not commuted. What is says is that it doesn't matter if you multiply the real number "r" by x or by y before you multiply the two module members.
 
HallsofIvy said:
No, it does NOT imply commutativity because x and y are not commuted. What is says is that it doesn't matter if you multiply the real number "r" by x or by y before you multiply the two module members.

Thanks, but I cannot see any ring/module operation that would permit that. We know that associativity and distributivity hold (and of course others too, but they aren't related to this case). But I can't see how these basic operations would imply what you said.
 
The definition does that ##rx = xr##, but that's for ##r\in R## and ##x\in M##. The definition does not state that ##xy = yx## for ##x,y\in M##. So ##M## is not commutative in that sense.
 
micromass said:
The definition does that ##rx = xr##, but that's for ##r\in R## and ##x\in M##. The definition does not state that ##xy = yx## for ##x,y\in M##. So ##M## is not commutative in that sense.

Thanks a lot.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K