MHB Understanding Proposition 2.1.1 in Paul E. Bland's Rings & Modules

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Modules Rings
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Paul E. Bland's book: Rings and Their Modules and am currently focused on Section 2.1 Direct Products and Direct Sums ... ...

I need help with another aspect of the proof of Proposition 2.1.1 ...

Proposition 2.1.1 and its proof read as follows:
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/8032In the above proof by Paul Bland we read the following:

" ... ... suppose that $$g \ : \ N \rightarrow \prod_\Delta M_\alpha$$ is also an $$R$$-linear mapping such that $$\pi_\alpha g = f_\alpha$$ for each $$\alpha \in \Delta$$. If g(x) = ( x_\alpha ) ... ... "When Bland puts $$g(x) = ( x_\alpha )$$ he seems to be specifying a particular $$g$$ and then proves $$f = g$$ ... ... I thought he was proving that for any g such that $$\pi_\alpha g = f_\alpha$$ we have $$f = g$$ ... can someone please clarify ... ?Help will be much appreciated ... ...Peter
======================================================================================The above post mentions but does not define $$f$$ ... Bland's definition of $$f$$ is as follows:
View attachment 8033
Hope that helps ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Bland is saying that any $g$ that satisfies the condition $\pi_\alpha \circ g = f_\alpha$ must be equal to $f$.
So take a $g$ that satisfies the condition and prove that $g=f$, that’s all.

So take such a $g$ then $g$ is an R-map $g:N \longrightarrow \prod_\Delta M_\alpha$, take $x\in N$, then $g(x) \in \prod_\Delta M_\alpha$.
This means that $g(x)$ has the form $g(x)=(x_\alpha)$, where $x_\alpha$ is the coordinate of $g(x)$ in $M_\alpha$, for all $\alpha \in \Delta$, and so on.
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top