Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Noncommutative Algebra / Farb & Dennis defines the Jacobson Radical $J(R)$ of a ring $R$ as the intersection of all annihilators of simple $R$-modules (page 58).

It is then claimed that $J(R)$ is also the intersection of all maximal left ideals in $R$.

The given explanation is that "simple $R$-modules are precisely $R/I$ for maximal left ideals $I$".

I've been thinking about it and I'm confused. I do believe that a simple $R$-module is isomorphic to $R/I$ for some maximal ideal $I$, but it doesn't mean that it actually is $R/I$.

Is there really a problem here? If so, how can it be fixed?

share|improve this question
5  
Yes, but you'll notice that isomorphic $R$-modules have equal annihilators. –  Miha Habič Feb 8 '12 at 11:04

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Corrected with thanks to Cihan for the pertinent comments to this question.

It should have said "the annihilators of simple $R$ modules are precisely the annihilators of modules $R/I$ for maximal left ideals $I$, and these annihilators are intersections of the annihilators of their individual nonzero elements; the latter annihilators are all maximal left ideals, among which $I$ itself as the annihilator of the element $1+I\in R/I$". The first part is because every simple module is isomorphic to some $R/I$, and isomorphic modules have identical annihilators.

I would also like to note that the definition "the intersection of all annihilators of simple $R$-modules" is unnecessarily referring to the class of all simple $R$-modules, which is too large to be called a set. Strictly speaking this is forming a class of sets, whose intersection is taken. One can indeed define the intersection of any non-empty class of sets, but in this context this seems set-theoretic overkill to me: for one thing the annihilators being intersected actually form a set, because of the above equivalence and also because they are all subsets of $R$ (the set of annihilators is a subset of the powerset of $R$). Saying "the intersection of all maximal left ideals in $R$" would be a much clearer as definition to me (and is heavy enough definitional artillery as it stands).

However as Cihan noted, this description does not make it obvious that the radical is a two-sided ideal, whereas the annihilator description does make this obvious (to those who, unlike I did when I first wrote this answer, know enough about such matters).

share|improve this answer
    
"any maximal left ideal $I$ is the annihilator of the particular simple $R$ module $R/I$": That's not true, annihilators of modules are always two sided ideals. (Actually given a left ideal $I$ the annihilator of the left $R$-module $R/I$ is the largest ideal that's contained in $I$) That's why the "intersection of annihilators" definition is useful, the fact that $J(R)$ is an ideal (not only a left ideal) is immediate from there. –  Cihan Apr 17 '12 at 23:38
    
@Cihan: You are right, the annihilator of a module is a two-sided ideal. And I'm somewhat embarassed because I have difficulty correcting the answer. Given a maximal left ideal $I$, its annihilator of $R/I$ is the largest two-sided ideal that is contained in $I$. I'll admit that that is a maximal two-sided ideal, but how do I see it is an intersection of maximal left-ideals? I'd like to say the intersection of all conjugates of $I$, but that does not makes sense, I think. And without it, the "given explanation" doesn't explain all that much. –  Marc van Leeuwen Apr 18 '12 at 17:11
    
$ann(R/I)$ may not be a maximal two-sided ideal even if $I$ is a maximal left ideal. There exist left primitive rings (rings which has a faithful simple left module) which are not simple. That is, there is a non-simple ring $R$ with a maximal left ideal $I$ such that $ann(R/I) = 0$. To see the annihilator of a simple left module as an intersection of maximal left ideals, observe that for any left $R$-module $M$ we have $$ ann(M) = \bigcap_{x \in M - \{ 0 \} }ann(x) $$ Now if $M$ is simple $ann(x)$'s above are maximal left ideals. –  Cihan Apr 18 '12 at 21:21

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.