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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Modules
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
 
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
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K