Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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 $M$ be a Noetherian and Artinian module. Suppose that: $$\bigoplus_{i=1}^{q} A_{i} \oplus \bigoplus_{i=1}^{t} B_{i} \cong \bigoplus_{i=1}^{q} A_{i} \oplus \bigoplus_{i=1}^{r} C_{i}$$

where all $A_{i},B_{i},C_{i}$ are indecomposable submodules of $M$.

Can we always guarantee that $B_{i} \cong C_{i}$ for all $i \in \{1,2,...,t\}$? That is, can we "cancel" the term $\displaystyle\bigoplus_{i=1}^{q} A_{i}$?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 4 down vote accepted

Cancellation means that for modules $M,N,P$ over a ring $R$ (not assumed commutative) we have the implication

$$M\oplus N\cong M\oplus P \implies N\cong P$$
Cancellation holds for modules that are only assumed artinian (which of course answers your question in the affirmative) thanks to a theorem by Camps and Dicks.

This is quite astonishing, since Krull-Schmidt does not hold for modules that are just supposed artinian.
And, again astonishingly, a counter-example was found only in 1995 .

Finally, let me point out that a very general Krull-Schmidt theorem was proved in a categorical setting by Atiyah. The main application of his results is to coherent sheaves in algebraic geometry .

share|cite|improve this answer
Dear @user, the reference is: Camps and Dicks, Israel Journal of Mathematics Volume 81, Numbers 1-2, 203-211. And, no, "just taking quotients" won't work in general: check the concept "stably isomorphic but not isomorphic". – Georges Elencwajg Apr 2 '12 at 11:17
The flaw is that you may not quotient common summands in isomorphisms: else you would have cancellation for all modules over all rings! – Georges Elencwajg Apr 2 '12 at 18:10
Dear user, the (admittedly subtle) point is that if $M=A_1\oplus A_2$ (i.e. $A_i\subset M $) , you may deduce that $M/A_1\cong A_2$ but you may not if you only have $M\cong A_1\oplus A_2$. Think it over! If you still have difficulties, ask a new question: this thread is already very long... – Georges Elencwajg Apr 3 '12 at 23:23

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.