MHB Understanding Lemma 4.3.12 in Paul E. Bland's Book: "Rings and Their Modules"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Book Modules
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding Lemma 4.3.12 from Paul E. Bland's "Rings and Their Modules," specifically regarding the proof's reliance on the properties of Principal Ideal Domains (PIDs). The main inquiry is about identifying where in the proof these PID properties are necessary, as the poster believes the argument could apply to any commutative ring with identity. A key point highlighted is that, unlike general rings, PIDs guarantee the existence of greatest common divisors (gcds) for nonzero elements, which is crucial for the lemma's validity. The reference to page 120 of Bland's book emphasizes that the existence of gcds is a defining characteristic of PIDs. Understanding these distinctions is essential for fully grasping the lemma's proof.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Paul E. Bland's book, "Rings and Their Modules".

I am focused on Section 4.3: Modules Over Principal Ideal Domains ... and I need some further help in order to fully understand the proof of Lemma 4.3.12 ... ...

Lemma 4.3.12 reads as follows:View attachment 8316My question is as follows:

In the Lemma R is a PID ... where in the proof are the special properties of a PID used/needed ... it seems to me that the argument of the proof would hold valid for an ordinary commutative ring with identity ...

Can someone please point out the points in the proof where the special properties of a PID are needed ...

Peter

==============================================================================

It may help MHB
readers of the above post to have access to Bland's definition of a primitive element ... so I am providing the same as follows:View attachment 8317
Hope that helps ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The answer to your question is on page 120 of Bland, quote: "A greatest common divisor of a set of nonzero elements of R may fail to exist. The case is different for a principal ideal ring."
So, if you want existing gcd's, your ring has to be a PID.
 
steenis said:
The answer to your question is on page 120 of Bland, quote: "A greatest common divisor of a set of nonzero elements of R may fail to exist. The case is different for a principal ideal ring."
So, if you want existing gcd's, your ring has to be a PID.
Thanks Steenis ...

I 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 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K