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.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let's consider definition of reduced modules and torsion modules:

A reduced module $C$ is defined by the property that $\mathrm{Hom}(A,C)=0$ for every divisible module $A$.

(see for example A Foundation of Torsion Theory for Modules Over Geeneral Rings by Hattori)

I can not find any example about reduced module in this sense.

Please help me find some. I really appreciate your ideas!

share|cite|improve this question
All caps is considered to be "shouting"; please don't use it. – Arturo Magidin Mar 1 '12 at 4:56

Let $M$ be any module.

If $\{N_i\}_{i\in I}$ is a family of divisible submodules of $M$ (that is, each $N_i$ is a submodule of $M$, and each $N_i$ is divisible), then $N=\langle N_i\rangle$ is also a divisible submodule of $M$: it is a submodulee, and given $n_1+\cdots+n_k\in N$, with $n_j\in N_{i_j}$, and $r\in R$, there exist $m_j\in N_{i_j}$ such that $rm_j = n_j$, and then $r(m_1+\cdots + m_k) = n_1+\cdots + n_k$.

Therefore, if $M$ is any module, then it has a largest divisible submodule (namely, the submodule generated by all divisible submodules; note that the trivial submodule is divisible, so this collection is not empty). Call it $M_d$.

Claim 1. The only divisible submodule of $M/M_d$ is the trivial submodule. that is, $(M/M_d)_d = \{0\}$.

Proof. Let $K$ be a submodule of $M$ that contains $M_d$ such that $K/M_d$ is divisible; let $k\in K$, and let $r\in R$. Then there exists $u+M_d$ such that $r(u+M_d) = (k+M_d)$, so $k = ru+x$ for some $x\in M_d$, with $u\in K$. Since $M_d$ is divisible, there exists $v\in M_d$ (hence in $K$) such that $rv= x$. Thus, $k=r(u+v)$, and $u+v\in K$. Hence $K$ is a divisible submodule of $M$, so $K\subseteq M_d\subseteq K$. That is, $K/M_d$ is the trivial submodule.

Claim 2. $M/M_d$ is reduced.

Proof. Let $A$ be a divisible module, and let $\varphi\colon A\to M/M_d$ be a module homomorphism. Since $\varphi(A)$ is divisible (a quotient of a divisible module is divisible), then by Claim 1 $\varphi(A)=\{0+M_d\}$. Thus, $\varphi$ is the trivial map. Hence, $M/M_d$ is divisible.

This gives you lots of nontrivial reduced modules: just pick any module $M$ that is not divisible, and consider $M/M_d$

share|cite|improve this answer

How about letting the ring be $R=\mathbb Z$ and $C=\mathbb Z$? I claim $\mathbb Z$ is reduced. Suppose $0\neq\varphi\in Hom(A,C)$ where $A$ is divisible. If $\varphi(a)=k$, then $\varphi(-a)=-k$, so I can assume some positive value is achieved by $\varphi$. Let $n$ be the smallest positive integer in the image of $\varphi$. Then $\varphi(a)=n$, and also $2\varphi(a/2)=n$. Thus $0<\varphi(a/2)<n$, which is a contradiction.

share|cite|improve this answer

Jim and Arturo have given you everything you need to see this through. Let me take a slightly different tack. If there is a nonzero $f:A \rightarrow C$, with $A$ divisible, then the image of $f$, which is isomorphic to $A/ker(f)$, is a nonzero divisible subgroup of $C$ (as Arturo pointed out, homomorphic images of divisibles are divisible). This is not hard to show, and you probably already have. In any event, if $C$ is reduced, then $Hom(A,C)$ must be zero. To show the converse, prove that $C$ divisible implies $Hom(A,C)$ is not zero for some divisible module $A$. For this, take $A = C$ and $f$ the identity map on $C$. As Jim points out, $\mathbb{Z}$ is not divisible. The subgroups of $\mathbb{Z}$ are the cyclic subgroups generated by nonnegative integers $a$. Can such a subroup be divisible? If so, the equation $nx = a$ has a solution in $<a>$ for every nonzero integer $n$. But this cannot happen; try $a = 3$ and $n = 2$, or, in general, take $n$ relatively prime to $a$ so that the rational number $a/n$ is not an integer. Put everything together and you have that $Hom(A, \mathbb{Z}) = 0$ for every divisible group $A$. Arturo has given you a nice way to extend things to modules over a general ring $R$. In this context, the usual interpretation of the "divisibility equation" $nx = a$ is that $n$ is a regular element of the ring $R$, so that an $R$-module $A$ is divisible if and only if $nA = A$ for all regular $n$ in $R$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.