MHB What is the Proof for the Nonempty Intersection of Submodules Being a Submodule?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
In Paul Bland's book: Rings and Their Modules, we read the following text at the start of Section 2.2 Free Modules:View attachment 3385In the above text we read the following:

" ... ... if $$N$$ is generated by $$X$$ and if $$\{ N_\alpha \}_\Delta$$ is the family of submodules of $$M$$ that contain $$X$$, ... ...

then

... ... $$N = \ \bigcap \nolimits_\Delta N_\alpha \ = \ \sum \nolimits_X xR$$ ... ... "In order to fully understand this statement I would like to prove it ... but I am unable to get started on a proof ...

Can someone please help ...

Peter***NOTE***

To ensure that MHB members reading this post can follow Bland's notation I am providing the relevant text from page 1 of his text, as follows:View attachment 3386
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What Bland is saying is that $N$ is the smallest submodule of $M$ that contains $X$ (which is $\cap_{\Delta} N_\alpha$). Let $N' := \cap_\Delta N_\alpha$. Since $N$ is a submodule of $N$ that contains $X$ and $N'$ is the smallest such submodule, $N \supseteq N'$. On the other hand, since $X \subseteq N'$, $xR \in N'$ for all $x \in X$ and hence $\sum_X xR \subseteq N'$, i.e., $N \subseteq N'$. So $N = N'$.
 
Euge said:
What Bland is saying is that $N$ is the smallest submodule of $M$ that contains $X$ (which is $\cap_{\Delta} N_\alpha$). Let $N' := \cap_\Delta N_\alpha$. Since $N$ is a submodule of $N$ that contains $X$ and $N'$ is the smallest such submodule, $N \supseteq N'$. On the other hand, since $X \subseteq N'$, $xR \in N'$ for all $x \in X$ and hence $\sum_X xR \subseteq N'$, i.e., $N \subseteq N'$. So $N = N'$.
Thanks Euge ... that post was VERY helpful ... BUT reflecting on it ...

You write:

" ... ... Let $N' := \cap_\Delta N_\alpha$. ... ..."

How do we know that N' is actually a submodule?

Peter
 
Peter said:
How do we know that N' is actually a submodule?

Nonempty intersection of submodules is always a submodule. As $0 \in N_\alpha$, $0 \in \cap N_\alpha$. For $x, y \in \cap N_\alpha$, $x + ry \in N_\alpha$ (submodules) for $r \in R$, which implies $x + ry \in \cap N_\alpha$. As $\cap N_\alpha \subseteq N$, this completes the proof.
 
Last edited:
mathbalarka said:
Nonempty intersection of submodules is always a submodule. As $0 \in N_\alpha$, $0 \in \cap N_\alpha$. For $x, y \in \cap N_\alpha$, $x + ry \in N_\alpha$ (submodules) for $r \in R$, which implies $x + ry \in \cap N_\alpha$. As $\cap N_\alpha \subseteq N$, this completes the proof.
Thanks Mathbalarka ... Appreciate your help!

Peter
 
Thread 'How to define 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
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K