Why is \{ x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_{n-1}, x \} a basis for F in Proposition 4.3.14?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Modules
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on understanding why the set \{ x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_{n-1}, x \} is considered a basis for the module F in the context of Proposition 4.3.14 from Paul E. Bland's "Rings and Their Modules." Participants explore the implications of the proof and the definitions involved, particularly focusing on the concept of a primitive element in modules over principal ideal domains.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Peter seeks clarification on the proof of Proposition 4.3.14, specifically regarding the basis \{ x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_{n-1}, x \}.
  • Some participants reference linear algebra principles, suggesting that if \{x_1, \cdots, x_n\} is a basis, then scaling one element by a non-zero factor preserves the basis property.
  • One participant notes that since \(x = x_n a_n\) and \(a_n\) is a unit, it follows that \(a_n \neq 0\), which supports the claim that \{x_1, \cdots, x_{n-1}, x\} is also a basis.
  • Another participant revises their earlier response, acknowledging that R is a commutative ring rather than a field, and attempts to clarify the basis structure of F using direct sums.
  • There are repeated assertions that \{x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_n\} being a basis leads to \{x_1, x_2, \ldots, x\} being a basis, but the reasoning remains under discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of the definitions and the structure of the module F. There is no clear consensus on the correctness of the arguments presented, and some participants revise their positions based on further reflection.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in understanding arise from the definitions of primitive elements and the nature of the ring R, which is acknowledged as a commutative ring rather than a field. The discussion reflects ongoing uncertainty regarding the application of linear algebra concepts to module theory.

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 yet further help in order to fully understand the proof of Proposition 4.3.14 ... ...

Proposition 4.3.14 reads as follows:

View attachment 8323
View attachment 8324

In the above proof by Bland we read the following:

" ... ... If $$a_n \neq 0$$, let $$y = x_1 a_1 + x_2 a_2 + \ ... \ ... \ + x_{n-1} a_{n-1}$$, so that $$x = y + x_n a_n$$. If $$y = 0$$, then $$x = x_n a_n$$, so $$a_n$$ is a unit since $$x$$ is primitive. Thus $$\{ x_1, x_2, \ ... \ ... \ , x_{n-1}, x \}$$ is a basis for $$F$$. ... ..."Can someone please explain exactly why/how $$\{ x_1, x_2, \ ... \ ... \ , x_{n-1}, x \}$$ is a basis for $$F$$ ... ...
Help will be much appreciated ... ...

Peter==========================================================================================

It may help MHB
members reading this post to have access to Bland's definition of 'primitive element of a module' ... especially as it seems to me that the definition is a bit unusual ... so I am providing the same as follows:
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/8325
Hope that helps ...

Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Remember from linear algebra, that if
$$\{x_1, \cdots, x_i, \cdots, x_n \}$$
is a basis of F, then, if $c \neq 0$ then
$$\{x_1, \cdots, cx_i, \cdots, x_n \}$$
is also a basis of F.

Here we have that $x=x_n a_n$ and $a_n$ is a unit, thus $a_n \neq 0$ and if
$$\{x_1, \cdots, x_{n-1},x_n \}$$
is a basis of F, so
$$\{x_1, \cdots, x_{n-1}, x \}$$
is also a basis of F
 
steenis said:
Remember from linear algebra, that if
$$\{x_1, \cdots, x_i, \cdots, x_n \}$$
is a basis of F, then, if $c \neq 0$ then
$$\{x_1, \cdots, cx_i, \cdots, x_n \}$$
is also a basis of F.

Here we have that $x=x_n a_n$ and $a_n$ is a unit, thus $a_n \neq 0$ and if
$$\{x_1, \cdots, x_{n-1},x_n \}$$
is a basis of F, so
$$\{x_1, \cdots, x_{n-1}, x \}$$
is also a basis of F
Thanks Steenis ...

Appreciate your help...

Peter
 
On second thoughts, my answer is nor correct, because R is not a field, but a commutative ring.

Correct answer, I hope:

$\{x_1,x_2, \cdots, x_n \}$ is a basis for F, thus

$F=x_1R \oplus x_2R \oplus \cdots \oplus x_nR$

we have: $x=x_n a_n$ and $a_n$ is a unit

then $R=a_nR$ and $x_nR=xR$

thus $F=x_1R \oplus x_2R \oplus \cdots \oplus xR$

thus $\{x_1,x_2, \cdots, x \}$ is a basis for F
 
Last edited:
steenis said:
On second thoughts, my answer is nor correct, because R is not a field, but a commutative ring.

Correct answer, I hope:

$\{x_1,x_2, \cdots, x_n \}$ is a basis for F, thus

$F=x_1R \oplus x_2R \oplus \cdots \oplus x_nR$

we have: $x=x_n a_n$ and $a_n$ is a unit

then $R=a_nR$ and $x_nR=xR$

thus $F=x_1R \oplus x_2R \oplus \cdots \oplus xR$

thus $\{x_1,x_2, \cdots, x \}$ is a basis for F

Thanks for clarifying that Steenis ...

Peter
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K