Jacobson Radical and Direct Sums - Bland, Proposition 6.1.4 ....

  • MHB
  • Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Radical Sums
In summary, the conversation discusses a proof in Section 6.1 of Paul E. Bland's book, "Rings and Their Modules." The proof involves Proposition 6.1.4 and its relation to Exercise 3, which shows that the canonical injections $i_k$ map $\operatorname{Rad}(M_k)$ into $\operatorname{Rad}(M_1 \oplus M_2)$. This means that if an element $x$ is in $\operatorname{Rad}(M_k)$, then $i_k(x)$ is also in $\operatorname{Rad}(M_1 \oplus M_2)$. This fact is used in the proof to show that $\operatorname{
  • #1
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
3,998
48
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 Proposition 6.1.4 ... Proposition 6.1.4 and its proof read as follows:
View attachment 6363
View attachment 6364
In the above proof from Bland we read:"... ... If \(\displaystyle i_1 \ : \ M_1 \longrightarrow M_1 \oplus M_2\) and \(\displaystyle i_2 \ : \ M_2 \longrightarrow M_1 \oplus M_2\) are the canonical injections, then (a) of Exercise 3 shows that

\(\displaystyle i_k \ : \ \text{ Rad}(M_k) \longrightarrow \text{ Rad}(M_1 \oplus M_2) \)... ...

... ... ... "

My question/problem/issue is that I cannot understand the meaning of the statement that (a) of Exercise 3 shows that

\(\displaystyle i_k \ : \ \text{ Rad}(M_k) \longrightarrow \text{ Rad}(M_1 \oplus M_2)\) ... ...
How do the canonical injections \(\displaystyle i_k\) apply to \(\displaystyle \text{ Rad}(M_k)\) and \(\displaystyle \text{ Rad}(M_1 \oplus M_2)\) ... ...Is it trivially simple in that \(\displaystyle \text{ Rad}(M_k) \) is a set of elements of \(\displaystyle M_k\) and so the canonical injection operates as usual? But then... why, exactly, do we need Exercise 3? Can someone explain in simple terms ... ... exactly what is going on ...

Peter
=============================================================================
NOTE ... ... The above post refers to Exercise 3 of Bland, Section 6.1 so I am providing the text of that example ... as follows:
View attachment 6365
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hi Peter,

The Exercise was needed in order to establish $\operatorname{Rad}(M_1) \oplus \operatorname{Rad}(M_2) \subset \operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$. Let $(x,y)$ be an element of $\operatorname{Rad}(M_1) \oplus \operatorname{Rad}(M_2)$. Then $(x,y) = (x,0) + (0,y) = i_1(x) + i_2(y)$. We want to get $i_1(x), i_2(y)\in \operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$, for then the sum $i_1(x) + i_2(y)\in \operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$. By the Exercise, $i_1$ maps $\operatorname{Rad}(M_1)$ into $\operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$; since $x\in \operatorname{Rad}(M_1)$, then $i_1(x)\in \operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$. Similarly, $i_2(y)\in \operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$, as desired. As $(x,y)$ was arbitrary, $\operatorname{Rad}(M_1) \oplus \operatorname{Rad}(M_2) \subset \operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$.
 
  • #3
Euge said:
Hi Peter,

The Exercise was needed in order to establish $\operatorname{Rad}(M_1) \oplus \operatorname{Rad}(M_2) \subset \operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$. Let $(x,y)$ be an element of $\operatorname{Rad}(M_1) \oplus \operatorname{Rad}(M_2)$. Then $(x,y) = (x,0) + (0,y) = i_1(x) + i_2(y)$. We want to get $i_1(x), i_2(y)\in \operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$, for then the sum $i_1(x) + i_2(y)\in \operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$. By the Exercise, $i_1$ maps $\operatorname{Rad}(M_1)$ into $\operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$; since $x\in \operatorname{Rad}(M_1)$, then $i_1(x)\in \operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$. Similarly, $i_2(y)\in \operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$, as desired. As $(x,y)$ was arbitrary, $\operatorname{Rad}(M_1) \oplus \operatorname{Rad}(M_2) \subset \operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$.
Thanks Euge ... really appreciate your help ...

just reflecting on the proof and what what you have said ...

Peter
 
  • #4
Euge said:
Hi Peter,

The Exercise was needed in order to establish $\operatorname{Rad}(M_1) \oplus \operatorname{Rad}(M_2) \subset \operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$. Let $(x,y)$ be an element of $\operatorname{Rad}(M_1) \oplus \operatorname{Rad}(M_2)$. Then $(x,y) = (x,0) + (0,y) = i_1(x) + i_2(y)$. We want to get $i_1(x), i_2(y)\in \operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$, for then the sum $i_1(x) + i_2(y)\in \operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$. By the Exercise, $i_1$ maps $\operatorname{Rad}(M_1)$ into $\operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$; since $x\in \operatorname{Rad}(M_1)$, then $i_1(x)\in \operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$. Similarly, $i_2(y)\in \operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$, as desired. As $(x,y)$ was arbitrary, $\operatorname{Rad}(M_1) \oplus \operatorname{Rad}(M_2) \subset \operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$.
Hi Euge,

Thanks for the post ... but I need some further help ... sorry if i am not following you exactly ...

You write:

" ... ... By the Exercise, $i_1$ maps $\operatorname{Rad}(M_1)$ into $\operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$; since $x\in \operatorname{Rad}(M_1)$, then $i_1(x)\in \operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$. Similarly, $i_2(y)\in \operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$, as desired. ... ... ""I am unsure how exactly Exercise 1 shows that $i_1$ maps $\operatorname{Rad}(M_1)$ into $\operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$ ... ... what part of Exercise 3 shows this ...??In particular I am unsure regarding exactly why $x\in \operatorname{Rad}(M_1)$ implies that $i_1(x)\in \operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$ ... ... can you show me why this is true ... ? I mean, obviously if \(\displaystyle x \in M_1\) then \(\displaystyle i_1(x) \in M_1 \oplus M_2\) ... ... but why does it also follow for the radicals of \(\displaystyle M_1\) and \(\displaystyle M_1 \oplus M_2\) ... ?Hope you can help ...

Peter
 
Last edited:
  • #5
Peter said:
Hi Euge,

Thanks for the post ... but I need some further help ... sorry if i am not following you exactly ...

You write:

" ... ... By the Exercise, $i_1$ maps $\operatorname{Rad}(M_1)$ into $\operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$; since $x\in \operatorname{Rad}(M_1)$, then $i_1(x)\in \operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$. Similarly, $i_2(y)\in \operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$, as desired. ... ... ""I am unsure how exactly Exercise 1 shows that $i_1$ maps $\operatorname{Rad}(M_1)$ into $\operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$ ... ... what part of Exercise 3 shows this ...??In particular I am unsure regarding exactly why $x\in \operatorname{Rad}(M_1)$ implies that $i_1(x)\in \operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$ ... ... can you show me why this is true ... ? I mean, obviously if \(\displaystyle x \in M_1\) then \(\displaystyle i_1(x) \in M_1 \oplus M_2\) ... ... but why does it also follow for the radicals of \(\displaystyle M_1\) and \(\displaystyle M_1 \oplus M_2\) ... ?Hope you can help ...

Peter

Based on your reply, it would seem that you don't know what the $i_k$. In case you don't, $i_1 : M_1\to M_1 \oplus M_2$ is given by $i_1(x) = (x,0)$, and $i_2 : M_2 \to M_1 \oplus M_2$ is given by $i_2(y) = (0,y)$. The part I used from Exercise 3(a) was just the result in its first sentence.

Take $f = i_k$, $M = M_k$, and $N = M_1 \oplus M_2$ in the first sentence of Exercise 3(a). The result gives $i_k(\operatorname{Rad}(M_k)) \subset \operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$. In other words, $i_k$ maps $\operatorname{Rad}(M_k)$ into $\operatorname{Rad}(M_1 \oplus M_2)$. So you can see that if $x\in \operatorname{Rad}(M_k)$, then $i_k(x) \in \operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$, by the very condition that $i_k(\operatorname{Rad}(M_k)) \subset \operatorname{Rad}(M_1\oplus M_2)$.
 

Related to Jacobson Radical and Direct Sums - Bland, Proposition 6.1.4 ....

1. What is the Jacobson Radical?

The Jacobson Radical of a ring is defined as the intersection of all left and right ideals that do not contain any non-zero divisors. It can also be thought of as the set of all elements that are annihilated by every possible element in the ring.

2. How is the Jacobson Radical related to the Direct Sum of rings?

In Proposition 6.1.4 of Bland's book, it is shown that the Jacobson Radical of the direct sum of two rings is equal to the direct sum of the Jacobson Radicals of each individual ring. In other words, the Jacobson Radical "distributes" over the direct sum operation.

3. Why is the Jacobson Radical important in ring theory?

The Jacobson Radical plays a crucial role in understanding the structure of rings. It helps to identify and characterize maximal ideals, which are important for constructing quotient rings. It also has connections to other important concepts in ring theory, such as the prime radical and the nilradical.

4. Can the Jacobson Radical be equal to the entire ring?

No, the Jacobson Radical is always a proper subset of the ring. This is because the definition of the Jacobson Radical excludes any element that is a non-zero divisor, and a ring cannot be entirely composed of non-zero divisors.

5. How is the Jacobson Radical related to the radical of a ring?

The Jacobson Radical and the radical of a ring are two different concepts. The radical of a ring is defined as the intersection of all prime ideals in the ring, whereas the Jacobson Radical is the intersection of all maximal ideals. However, there is a connection between the two, as the Jacobson Radical is contained within the radical of a ring.

Similar threads

  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
7
Views
2K
Back
Top