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 $R$ be a commutative ring with only finitely many maximal ideals $\mathfrak m_1,\ldots,\mathfrak m_r$. Let $M$ be a finitely generated $R$-module. Then $$\mu_R(M)=\max\{\dim_{R/\mathfrak m_i}M/\mathfrak m_iM\mid 1\leq i\leq r\},$$ where $\mu_R(M)$ is the minimum number of generators of $M$ as $R$-module.

How can I prove this?

Of course the inequality $\geq$ is trivial; what I want to prove is that $\dim_{R/\mathfrak m_i}M/\mathfrak m_iM\leq\mu_R(M)$.

I was trying to prove it first if $R$ is a finite product of fields but I wasn't succesful; any help?

share|cite|improve this question
I have a strong feeling wxu's answer in your previous problem might hold the key, although I have not checked. – rschwieb May 29 '12 at 0:29
I change \mathrm{dim} to \dim and \mathrm{max} to \max. Both are standard usage. One of the differences in the outcome is that in a "displayed" setting, \max_{x\in S} will look like this: $\displaystyle\max_{x\in S}$, with the subscript directly below $\max$ (that last feature doesn't work in an "inline" setting). Another difference is that in things like $a\max b$, you automatically get proper spacing before and after $\max$, so you don't need to add spacing by hand. – Michael Hardy May 29 '12 at 2:07

Well, for simplicity of writing, we assume $r=2$, that is, $R$ has only two maximal ideals. Pick $x_i,y_j\in M$ and assume the images of $x_1,\ldots, x_n$ is a basis of $M/\mathfrak{m}_1M$, and the images of $y_1,\ldots,y_m$ is a basis of $M/\mathfrak{m}_2M$, and assume $n\leq m$. Now consider the map $$(R/\mathfrak{m}_1\mathfrak{m}_2R)^m\to M/\mathfrak{m}_1M\times M/\mathfrak{m}_2M$$ sending $e_i$ to $(x_i,y_i)$ for $i=1,\ldots,n$, and $e_{k}\to (x_1,y_k)$ for $k\geq n+1$ if it exists, where $e_l$ is a basis of LHS. This map is surjective. Now lifting this map gives a map $R^m\to M$, and by Nakayma's lemma, $R^m\to M$ is surjective.

Maybe we should think about the baby case: $R=k_1\times k_2$, $M=k_1\times k^2_2$, what is a generating set of $M$ as $R$-module?

share|cite|improve this answer
How can you prove that $(x_i,y_j)$, with $i\neq j$, belongs to the image of the defined map? – user26857 Jan 6 '13 at 17:07
@YACP, by Chinese remainder theorem, $R/\mathfrak{m}_1\mathfrak{m}_2\cong R/\mathfrak{m}_1\times R/\mathfrak{m}_2$ as $R$-modules. I just pick a surjective $R$-morphism $ (R/\mathfrak{m}_1)^l\times (R/\mathfrak{m}_2)^l\to M/\mathfrak{m}_1\times M/\mathfrak{m}_2$. – wxu Jan 26 '13 at 16:56

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.