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 an integral domain with the quotient field $K$.

Let $M$ be a finitely generated $R$-submodule in $K^n$.

Is it true that $M$ is free $R$-module?

share|cite|improve this question
Well, it seems to be that nice implies integral domain, which is a rather heavy assumption for a (general) ring: unitary, commutative without non-trivial zero divisors. – DonAntonio Oct 7 '12 at 13:27
I just need to work in integral domain. Is this statement true? – Submodule Oct 7 '12 at 13:29
Your question is true if there exists a unique homomorphism $\hat f:M\to N $ such that $\hat f \circ i= f:S \to N$, where $S$ is a set and $i$ is a set map $i: S \to M$. – Jaivir Baweja Oct 7 '12 at 13:32

Non, it is almost never true. E.g. an finitely generated ideal $M$ in $R$ is free only if it is generated by one element because two elements $x_1, x_2\in M$ are always related by the linear relation $x_1.x_2+(-x_2).x_1=0$, thus any basis of $M$ can only have one element.

Example: $R=\mathbb C[X, Y]$, $M=XR+YR$. If $M$ was free, it would be generated by one element $P(X,Y)$. Then $P(X,Y)$ divides $X$ and $Y$,so $P(X,Y)$ is constant and generates the unit ideal $R$. But $M\ne R$.

share|cite|improve this answer
@navigetor23: you are right, $M$ don't have to be finitely generated. But I don't see why my argument would imply $M$ has only element ? It says two elements in $M$ are never linearly independent. – user18119 Oct 7 '12 at 18:56

Let $\,M=\langle\,m_1,...,m_s\,\rangle_R\leq K^n\,$ be a finitely generated $\,R-\,$submodule of $\,K^n\,$. Assuming the above is a minimal generating set for $\,M\,$, we thus clearly have $(1)\,\,\,s\leq n\,$ (why?) and also $(2)\,\,\,\{m_1,...,m_s\}\,$ are $\,K-\,$ linearly independent (why?). Thus

$$r_1m_1+...+r_sm_s=0\,\,,\,\,r_i\in R\Longrightarrow r_i=0\,\,\forall\,i$$

since otherwise we get a contradiction to (2) above.

share|cite|improve this answer
Why should one state (1) before (2)? – Marc van Leeuwen Oct 7 '12 at 13:56
@DonAntonio, what's your conclusion? – user26857 Oct 7 '12 at 19:03

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.