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.

There is a proof I don't get in Lang's Algebra:

(page 423) Theorem 3.3. Let $M$ be a Noetherian $A$-module. Let $N$ be a submodule. Then N admits primary decomposition.

Proof. We consider the set of submodules that do not admit a primary decomposition. If this set is not empty, then it has a maximal element because M is Noetherian. Let N be this maximal element. Then N is not primary and there exists $a \in A$ such that $a_{M / N}$ (This is $x \mapsto ax$ for $x \in M/N$) is neither injective nor nilpotent. The increasing sequence of modules $$\ker a_{M / N} \subset \ker a^2_{M / N} \subset \ker a^3_{M / N} \subset \cdots$$ stops, say at $a^r_{M / N}$. Let $\phi : M/N \to M/N$ be the endomorphism $\phi = a^r_{M / N}$. Then $\ker \phi = \ker \phi^2$. Hence $0 = \ker \phi \cap \text{im} \phi$ in $M/N$ and neither the kernel nor the image of $\phi$ is $0$. Taking the inverse image in M we see that N is the intersection of two submodules of M, unequal to N. We conclude, from the maximality of N, that each one of these submodules admits a primary decomposition, and therefore N admits one also, contradiction.

The sentence in bold is what I don't understand. The inverse image of what? Is there the canonical homomorphism involved somehow? And how would an inverse image show such a thing at all?

share|improve this question
    
I changed "homeomorphism" to "homomorphism" because "homeomorphism" is a term associated with topology, which is not being used here. –  rschwieb Oct 3 '12 at 12:28
    
I feel silly now. I always thought they were the same thing. They do have the same etymology, don't they? –  Karolis Juodelė Oct 3 '12 at 15:02
    
Very close etymologies: dictionary.com seems to indicate that the Greek "homoios" means "similar" and "homos" means "the same". –  rschwieb Oct 3 '12 at 15:31

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

I'm sure it is a typo, but it's Noetherian first of all.

Second, to answer your question: You have that $$0 = \ker( \phi)\cap \mathrm{im}(\phi)$$ in M/N. The claim that neither the image or the kernel is 0 translates to the fact that, if you consider the canonical homomorphism, $\psi: M \rightarrow M/N$ that $\psi^{-1}(\ker( \phi)) \neq N$. This is since 0 in $M/N$ is represented by the coset $N$.

Now, you do know however that since $0 = \ker( \phi)\cap \mathrm{im}(\phi)$, that taking the inverse image of $\ker( \phi)$ and $\mathrm{im}(\phi)$ under the canonical morphism, that their intersection is equal to N.

The key fact to note here is that the inverse image of 0 in $M/N$ under the quotient map is equal to N. This should make it all clear, I hope.

share|improve this answer

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.