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

If $M$ is an artinian module and $f$ : $M$ $\mapsto$ $M$ is an injective homomorphism, then $f$ is surjective.

I somehow found out that if we consider the module $\mathbb Z_{p^{\infty}}$ denoting the submodule of the $\mathbb{Z}$-module $\mathbb{Q/Z}$ consisting of elements which are annihilated by some power of $p$, then it is artinian, but if we have the homomorphism $f$: $f(\frac{1}{p^{k}})=\frac{1}{p^{k+1}}$, then we get a $\mathbb{Z}$-module homomorphism, but this map is not surjective, because $\frac{1}{p}$ has no preimage.

I would be very grateful if someone can tell me what is wrong with this counterexample? And how to prove the proposition above if it is correct? Thanks.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 9 down vote accepted

There is no well-defined homomorphism $f: \mathbb Z_{p^\infty} \to \mathbb Z_{p^\infty}$ that satisfies $f\left(\frac{1}{p^k}\right) = \frac{1}{p^{k+1}}$. The existence of such an $f$ would imply $$0 = f(0) = f(1) = f\left(p \frac{1}{p}\right) = p f\left(\frac{1}{p}\right) = p \frac{1}{p^2} = \frac{1}{p}$$ which is a contradiction.

To prove the proposition, consider the descending sequence of submodules $$M \supseteq \operatorname{im} f \supseteq \operatorname{im} f^2 \supseteq \operatorname{im} f^3 \supseteq \ldots.$$ Since $M$ is Artinian, the sequence becomes stationary, say $\operatorname{im} f^k = \operatorname{im} f^{n}$ for all $k \geq n$. Then $$M = \operatorname{ker} f^n + \operatorname{im} f^n.$$ Indeed, for $x \in M$ we have $f^n(x) \in \operatorname{im} f^n = \operatorname{im} f^{2n}$, so there is a $y \in M$ s.t. $f^{2n}(y) = f^n(x)$. Then $x = (x-f^n(y)) + f^n(y) \in \operatorname{ker} f^n + \operatorname{im} f^n$. But $f$ is injective, so $f^n$ is injective as well, i.e. $\operatorname{ker} f^n = 0$. Thus $\operatorname{im} f^n = M$, so $f^n$ and hence $f$ is surjective.

share|cite|improve this answer
Perhaps I'm being dense, but why is $f(0)=f(1)$ necessarily? – Alex Becker Jan 9 '13 at 0:49
Because $0=1$ in $\mathbb Q/\mathbb Z$. – marlu Jan 9 '13 at 0:51
Oh, duh. Silly me. – Alex Becker Jan 9 '13 at 0:52
Dear marlu, for the proof of the proposition it might be a bit simpler to notice that from $M \supsetneq \ f(M)$ we get $f(M) \supsetneq \ f^2(M)$ (because injective morphisms preserve strict inclusions) and similarly the artinianity-contradicting infinite chain $M \supsetneq \ f(M) \supsetneq \ f^2(M)\supsetneq f^3(M)\supsetneq ...$ – Georges Elencwajg Jan 9 '13 at 0:53
You are right, that's better. – marlu Jan 9 '13 at 0:57

HINT: $\phi(M) \subseteq M$ and so on (apply $\phi$ again) is a descending chain, so it must terminate. Then, what happens?

HINT 2: By the descending chain condition, we must have $\phi^{n+1}(M)=\phi^n(M)$ for some $n$. Now let $m \in M$. Then $\phi^n(m)=\phi^{n+1}(k)$ for some $k \in M$ since $\phi^{n+1}(M)=\phi^n(M)$. But $\phi$ is injective, so you can cancel to get ...?

share|cite|improve this answer
Hence there exists an index, say $k_0$ such that for every $j \geq k_0: \phi^{j}(M) = \phi^{k_0}(M)$. – gisma Jan 17 '13 at 18:39
So there is a subset $N$ of $M$ such that $\phi(N) = N$. And now? – gisma Jan 17 '13 at 18:49
@veRSAger: I've added a second, more exhaustive, hint. – Fredrik Meyer Jan 17 '13 at 19:29

Take the descending chain:

$$ M\supseteq\phi(M)\supseteq\phi^2(M)\supseteq\dots\supseteq\phi^n(M)=\phi^{n+1}(M)=\dots $$

where you have found $n$ minimal where the chain stabilizes, using the Artinian hypothesis.

If $M\neq\phi(M)$, there is $m\notin\phi(M)$. What can you say about $\phi(m)$? And then what about $\phi^2(m)$? How does this lead to a contradiction?

You can also dualize this proof to show: a surjective endomorphism of a Noetherian module is injective. Thinking along the same lines, examine this chain:

$$ \ker(\phi)\subseteq\ker(\phi^2)\subseteq\dots\subseteq\ker(\phi^n)=\dots $$

Supposing $\ker(\phi)\neq 0$, you will be able to show there is $y\in \ker(\phi^2)\setminus\ker(\phi)$, $z\in \ker(\phi^3)\setminus\ker(\phi^2)$... etc.

share|cite|improve this answer
Regarding to your assumption with the descending chain: $$M\supseteq\phi(M)\supseteq\phi^2(M)\supseteq\dots\supseteq\phi^n(M)=\phi^{n+1}‌​(M)=\dots$$ Like you said there exists such a $m \not \in \phi(M)$, it follows that $\phi(m) \in \phi(M)$ and $\phi^2(m) \in \phi^2(M)$ till $\phi^n(m) \in \phi^n(M) = \phi^{n+1}(M)$ which is a contradiction to $m \not \in \phi(M)$. Is that right? – gisma Jan 17 '13 at 19:12
I don't see a contradiction in what you wrote, but it is close. The line of thought I had in mind is that $\phi(m)\notin \phi^2(M)$, etc. – rschwieb Jan 17 '13 at 19:15
Ah, yeah. I meant $m \not \in \phi(M) \Rightarrow \phi(m) \not \in \phi^2(M) \Rightarrow \dots \Rightarrow \phi^{n}(m) \not \in \phi^{n+1}(M) = \phi^{n}(M)$ which is a contradiction to the obvious fact $\phi^n(m) \in \phi^n(M)$. So I could deduce that $\phi(M) = M$, hence $\phi$ is surjective. Correct? – gisma Jan 17 '13 at 19:29
Sounds good! :) – rschwieb Jan 17 '13 at 19:29

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.