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.

Let $R$ be a ring, $M$ be a finitely generated $R$-module. Let us define $e(M)$ to be the minimal of number of generators of $M$. Clearly, for finitely generated $R$-modules $M,N$ we have

$\mathrm{max}(e(M),e(N)) \leq e(M \oplus N) \leq e(M) + e(N).$

Question A. Are there better bounds, or is every value in between possible for $e(M \oplus N)$?

For example there are rings $R \neq 0$ such that $R \oplus R \cong R$ as $R$-modules, so that $e(R \oplus R)=1$. But for a commutative ring $R \neq 0$, we have $e(R \oplus R)=2$. The following question is more interesting for me:

Question B. Let $R$ be commutative ring, having only trivial idempotents (see the comment by navigetor23). Does it follow that $e(M \oplus N) = e(M) + e(N)$?

If this turns out to be false, which additional conditions should be imposed on $R$? For example, it should suffice that $R$ is a PID, right? But this is quite strong.

share|improve this question
    
If you take $M$ and $N$ two ideals of $R$ such that $I+J=R$ and $I\cap J=(0)$, then $\mu(I)=\mu(J)=1$ and $\mu(R)=1$. –  user26857 Nov 7 '12 at 9:17
    
Thank you. This happens iff $R$ is a non-trivial direct product iff there are non-trivial idempotents. I will edit the question. –  Martin Brandenburg Nov 7 '12 at 11:45
    
Local rings should be also included as "good" examples. –  user26857 Nov 7 '12 at 12:20
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Question B has obviously positive answer if $R$ is local. But otherwise it is far from to be true.

Suppose we have (or rather $R$ has) two distinct maximal ideals $\mathfrak m$ and $\mathfrak n$. Let $m\le n$ be positive integers. Let $M=(R/\mathfrak m)^m$ and $N=(R/\mathfrak n)^n$. Then by Chinese Remainder Theorem, $$ R^n\to (R/\mathfrak m)^n\oplus (R/\mathfrak n)^n \to M\oplus N $$ are surjective. Therefore $e(M\oplus N)=n$ and $e(M)+e(N)=m+n$.

I think that playing with similar construction, everything between the max and the sum should happen for $e(M\oplus N)$.

Edit The above example uses in fact local computations of $e$. Here is an example of different taste. Let $R$ be a non-principal Dedekind domaine, let $L$ be finitely generated projective module over $R$ of rank $\ell$. Then it is known that $L$ can be generated by $\ell+1$ elements (let $a\in R$ be non-zero. Then $L/aL$ is locally free over the semi-local ring $R/aR$, so it is free of rank $\ell$. Lift a basis to $L$ and add $a$ to form a system of generators). If $L$ is not free then $e(L)=\ell+1$. As $R$ is non principal, there is a non principal ideal $I$. So $e(I)=2$. But the above discussions, $$e(I\oplus I)\le 3<e(I)+e(I).$$

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you. Why is B true when $R$ is local? –  Martin Brandenburg Nov 7 '12 at 12:57
1  
Just tensor the direct sum by $R/m$. –  user26857 Nov 7 '12 at 14:18
    
@navigetor23: Ah, Nakayama's lemma implies $e_R(M) = e_{R/m}(M \otimes R/m)$. Thanks. –  Martin Brandenburg Nov 7 '12 at 15:12
add comment

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.