Facebook Page
Twitter
RSS
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. MHB Master
    Peter's Avatar
    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Hobart, Tasmania
    Posts
    1,772
    Thanks
    1,710 time
    Thanked
    677 times
    Awards
    MHB Model User Award (2015)  

MHB Model User Award (Jul-Dec 2013)
    #1
    I am reading Paul E. Bland's book, "Rings and Their Modules".

    I am focused on Section 6.1 The Jacobson Radical ... ...

    I need help with the proof of Corollary 6.1.3 ...


    Corollary 6.1.3 (including the preceding Proposition) reads as follows:









    My questions are as follows:



    Question 1

    In the proof of Corollary 6.1.3 above we read:

    "... ... Since $ \displaystyle R$ is generated by $ \displaystyle 1, J(R) \neq R$. ... ...



    My question is as follows: why, given that $ \displaystyle R$ is generated by $ \displaystyle 1$, is it true that $ \displaystyle J(R) \neq R$ ... ... ?





    Question 2

    Bland seems to argue that if we accept that $ \displaystyle J(R) \neq R$, then the Corollary is proved ... ... that is that

    $ \displaystyle J(R) \neq R \Longrightarrow \text{ Rad}(M) \neq M$ ... ...

    But ... why would this be true ...?


    Hope someone can help ... ...


    Peter



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


    In order to give forum readers the notations, definitions and context of the above post, I am providing the first two pages of Chapter 6 of Bland ... ... as follows ... ... :





  2. MHB Master
    MHB Global Moderator
    MHB Math Scholar
    MHB POTW Director
    Euge's Avatar
    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,306
    Thanks
    1,276 time
    Thanked
    3,313 times
    Thank/Post
    2.537
    Awards
    MHB Advanced Algebra Award (2016)  

MHB Topology and Advanced Geometry Award (2015)  

MHB Analysis Award (2015)  

Graduate POTW Award (2014)  

MHB Advanced Algebra Award (2014)
    #2
    Happy New Year, Peter!


    Quote Originally Posted by Peter View Post
    Question 1

    In the proof of Corollary 6.1.3 above we read:

    "... ... Since $ \displaystyle R$ is generated by $ \displaystyle 1, J(R) \neq R$. ... ...



    My question is as follows: why, given that $ \displaystyle R$ is generated by $ \displaystyle 1$, is it true that $ \displaystyle J(R) \neq R$ ... ... ?

    Since maximal right ideals of $R$ don't contain $1$ by definition, then $J(R)$, the intersection of all maximal right deals, cannot contain $1$. That's why $J(R) \neq R$.


    Quote Originally Posted by Peter View Post
    Question 2

    Bland seems to argue that if we accept that $ \displaystyle J(R) \neq R$, then the Corollary is proved ... ... that is that

    $ \displaystyle J(R) \neq R \Longrightarrow \text{ Rad}(M) \neq M$ ... ...

    But ... why would this be true ...?

    The paragraph proceeding Corollary 6.1.3 is not a proof of the Corollary.

  3. MHB Master
    Peter's Avatar
    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Hobart, Tasmania
    Posts
    1,772
    Thanks
    1,710 time
    Thanked
    677 times
    Awards
    MHB Model User Award (2015)  

MHB Model User Award (Jul-Dec 2013)
    #3 Thread Author
    Quote Originally Posted by Euge View Post
    Happy New Year, Peter!





    Since maximal right ideals of $R$ don't contain $1$ by definition, then $J(R)$, the intersection of all maximal right deals, cannot contain $1$. That's why $J(R) \neq R$.





    The paragraph proceeding Corollary 6.1.3 is not a proof of the Corollary.




    Thanks for clearing up my confusion, Euge ... yes, obvious now ...


    Presumably the proof of Corollary 6.1.3 is simply that M, being finitely generated, has at least one maximal submodule, which is a proper submodule (as would any other submodules that exist in $ \displaystyle M$) ... and so ... the intersection of the maximal submodules of $ \displaystyle M$ would again be a proper submodule ... ... so $ \displaystyle \text{ Rad}(M) \neq M$ ... ...

    Is that correct?

  4. MHB Master
    Peter's Avatar
    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Hobart, Tasmania
    Posts
    1,772
    Thanks
    1,710 time
    Thanked
    677 times
    Awards
    MHB Model User Award (2015)  

MHB Model User Award (Jul-Dec 2013)
    #4 Thread Author
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter View Post
    Thanks for clearing up my confusion, Euge ... yes, obvious now ...


    Presumably the proof of Corollary 6.1.3 is simply that M, being finitely generated, has at least one maximal submodule, which is a proper submodule (as would any other submodules that exist in $ \displaystyle M$) ... and so ... the intersection of the maximal submodules of $ \displaystyle M$ would again be a proper submodule ... ... so $ \displaystyle \text{ Rad}(M) \neq M$ ... ...

    Is that correct?

    Peter


    Hopefully someone can clarify the following:



    Regarding the conditions $ \displaystyle J(R) = R$ and $ \displaystyle J(R) = 0$ ... ... ... ... I am still a little confused ...


    Now, regarding $ \displaystyle \text{ Rad}(M)$ ... Bland is clear when it comes to $ \displaystyle \text{ Rad}(M) = M$ ... indeed Bland's definition of $ \displaystyle \text{ Rad}(M)$ is as follows:


    "... ... If $ \displaystyle M$ is an $ \displaystyle R$-module, then the radical of $ \displaystyle M$, denoted by $ \displaystyle \text{ Rad}(M)$, is the intersection of the maximal submodules of $ \displaystyle M$. If $ \displaystyle M$ fails to have maximal submodules, then we set $ \displaystyle \text{ Rad}(M) = M$. ... ...



    Presumably $ \displaystyle \text{ Rad}(M) = \{ 0 \}$ when there exist maximal submodules in $ \displaystyle M$, but their intersection is $ \displaystyle \{ 0 \}$



    Now with $ \displaystyle J(R)$ Bland does not explicitly give a condition for which $ \displaystyle J(R) = R$ ... indeed his definition of the Jacobson radical is as follows:


    "... ... The Jacobson radical of $ \displaystyle R$, denoted $ \displaystyle J(R)$, is the intersection of maximal right ideals of $ \displaystyle R$. If $ \displaystyle J(R) = 0$, then R is said to be a Jacobson semisimple ring ... ..."


    Is it correct to assume that if there are no maximal right ideals in $ \displaystyle R$, then $ \displaystyle J(R) = R$ ... ...

    ... ... and $ \displaystyle J(R) = 0$ if there do exist maximum right ideals but their intersection is $ \displaystyle \{ 0 \}$



    Can someone please confirm that my thinking is correct and/or point out any shortcomings or errors ...

    Hope someone can help ...

    Peter
    Last edited by Peter; January 1st, 2017 at 22:28.

  5. MHB Journeyman
    MHB Math Helper
    mathbalarka's Avatar
    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    West Bengal, India
    Posts
    573
    Thanks
    699 times
    Thanked
    1,378 time
    Thank/Post
    2.405
    Trophies
    7 Highscores
    Awards
    Graduate POTW Award (Jul-Dec 2013)
    #5
    The point is unital rings always have maximal ideals, so you can always take intersection amongst them and $J(R)$ would be well-defined. In fact $J(R)$ is always a proper ideal (because maximal ideals are proper and intersection of a bunch of proper things is always going to give you a proper thing).

  6. MHB Master
    Peter's Avatar
    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Hobart, Tasmania
    Posts
    1,772
    Thanks
    1,710 time
    Thanked
    677 times
    Awards
    MHB Model User Award (2015)  

MHB Model User Award (Jul-Dec 2013)
    #6 Thread Author
    Quote Originally Posted by mathbalarka View Post
    The point is unital rings always have maximal ideals, so you can always take intersection amongst them and $J(R)$ would be well-defined. In fact $J(R)$ is always a proper ideal (because maximal ideals are proper and intersection of a bunch of proper things is always going to give you a proper thing).


    Thanks for the help, mathbalarka ...

    Appreciate your guidance and help

    Peter

  7. MHB Master
    MHB Global Moderator
    MHB Math Scholar
    MHB POTW Director
    Euge's Avatar
    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,306
    Thanks
    1,276 time
    Thanked
    3,313 times
    Thank/Post
    2.537
    Awards
    MHB Advanced Algebra Award (2016)  

MHB Topology and Advanced Geometry Award (2015)  

MHB Analysis Award (2015)  

Graduate POTW Award (2014)  

MHB Advanced Algebra Award (2014)
    #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter View Post
    Thanks for clearing up my confusion, Euge ... yes, obvious now ...


    Presumably the proof of Corollary 6.1.3 is simply that M, being finitely generated, has at least one maximal submodule, which is a proper submodule (as would any other submodules that exist in $ \displaystyle M$) ... and so ... the intersection of the maximal submodules of $ \displaystyle M$ would again be a proper submodule ... ... so $ \displaystyle \text{ Rad}(M) \neq M$ ... ...

    Is that correct?

    Yes, that's correct.



    Quote Originally Posted by Peter View Post
    Hopefully someone can clarify the following:



    Regarding the conditions $ \displaystyle J(R) = R$ and $ \displaystyle J(R) = 0$ ... ... ... ... I am still a little confused ...


    Now, regarding $ \displaystyle \text{ Rad}(M)$ ... Bland is clear when it comes to $ \displaystyle \text{ Rad}(M) = M$ ... indeed Bland's definition of $ \displaystyle \text{ Rad}(M)$ is as follows:


    "... ... If $ \displaystyle M$ is an $ \displaystyle R$-module, then the radical of $ \displaystyle M$, denoted by $ \displaystyle \text{ Rad}(M)$, is the intersection of the maximal submodules of $ \displaystyle M$. If $ \displaystyle M$ fails to have maximal submodules, then we set $ \displaystyle \text{ Rad}(M) = M$. ... ...



    Presumably $ \displaystyle \text{ Rad}(M) = \{ 0 \}$ when there exist maximal submodules in $ \displaystyle M$, but their intersection is $ \displaystyle \{ 0 \}$



    Now with $ \displaystyle J(R)$ Bland does not explicitly give a condition for which $ \displaystyle J(R) = R$ ... indeed his definition of the Jacobson radical is as follows:


    "... ... The Jacobson radical of $ \displaystyle R$, denoted $ \displaystyle J(R)$, is the intersection of maximal right ideals of $ \displaystyle R$. If $ \displaystyle J(R) = 0$, then R is said to be a Jacobson semisimple ring ... ..."


    Is it correct to assume that if there are no maximal right ideals in $ \displaystyle R$, then $ \displaystyle J(R) = R$ ... ...

    ... ... and $ \displaystyle J(R) = 0$ if there do exist maximum right ideals but their intersection is $ \displaystyle \{ 0 \}$



    Can someone please confirm that my thinking is correct and/or point out any shortcomings or errors ...

    Hope someone can help ...

    Peter


    Like I already explained, $J(R) \neq R$ as $R$ is a ring with unity. It is however possible for $J(R) = R$ if $R$ is a ring without unity.

    A theorem of Melvin Henriksen states that a commutative ring has no maximal ideals if and only if $R = J(R)$ and $R^2 + pR = R$ for every integer prime $p$.

    Regardless of whether or not $J(R) = 0$, if $R$ is a nonzero ring with unity, it has a maximal right ideal.

  8. MHB Master
    Peter's Avatar
    Status
    Offline
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Hobart, Tasmania
    Posts
    1,772
    Thanks
    1,710 time
    Thanked
    677 times
    Awards
    MHB Model User Award (2015)  

MHB Model User Award (Jul-Dec 2013)
    #8 Thread Author
    Quote Originally Posted by Euge View Post
    Yes, that's correct.







    Like I already explained, $J(R) \neq R$ as $R$ is a ring with unity. It is however possible for $J(R) = R$ if $R$ is a ring without unity.

    A theorem of Melvin Henriksen states that a commutative ring has no maximal ideals if and only if $R = J(R)$ and $R^2 + pR = R$ for every integer prime $p$.

    Regardless of whether or not $J(R) = 0$, if $R$ is a nonzero ring with unity, it has a maximal right ideal.

    Thanks Euge ...

    Appreciate your help, as always ...

    Peter

Similar Threads

  1. Corollary to Correspondence Theorem for Modules
    By Peter in forum Linear and Abstract Algebra
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 6th, 2015, 20:37
  2. Corollary 3.1.3 - Berrick and Keating - Noetherian Modules
    By Peter in forum Linear and Abstract Algebra
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 20th, 2015, 19:28
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 17th, 2014, 02:42
  4. Quotient Modules and Module Homomorphisms - Cohn - Corollary 1.16
    By Peter in forum Linear and Abstract Algebra
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: September 19th, 2014, 13:24
  5. Proving a corollary
    By bergausstein in forum Pre-Algebra and Algebra
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 14th, 2014, 10:28

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Math Help Boards