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.

In the following, let "ring" be a synonym for "commutative ring with identity". In the book on Commutative Algebra by Atiyah and MacDonald, I read:

Let $A$ be a local ring, $\mathfrak{m}$ its maximal ideal, $k = A / \mathfrak{m}$ its residue field. Let $M$ be a finitely generated $A$-module. $M / \mathfrak{m}M$ is annihilated by $\mathfrak{m}$, hence is naturally an $A/\mathfrak{m}$-module, i.e. a $k$-vector space, and as such finite-dimensional.

Proposition 2.8: Let $x_i$ $(1 \leq i \leq n)$ be elements of $M$ whose images in $M / \mathfrak{m}M$ form a basis of this vector space. Then the $x_i$ generate $M$.

In the proof, the fact that $A$ is local is not used explicitely. I suspect that this holds for any non-trivial ring $A$ and some maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ of $A$. However, I might overlook something.

Question: Does Proposition 2.8 hold for any non-trivial ring $A$ with maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$? If no, why is it important for $A$ to be local?

share|improve this question
4  
The implication $N+\mathfrak mM=M\implies N=M$ requires $\mathfrak m$ to be contained in the Jacobson radical of $A$. –  Karl Kronenfeld Apr 22 '13 at 3:30
3  
Dear Corsin, Did you consider the case $A =\mathbb Z$, $\mathfrak m = 2\mathbb Z$, and $M = \mathbb Z/3\mathbb Z$? Then $M/\mathfrak m M$ is generated by zero elements (i.e. is the trivial module), but this is not true of $M$ itself. Regards, –  Matt E Apr 22 '13 at 3:34
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 5 down vote accepted

If $A$ is a ring (commutative with identity), $I$ an ideal of $A$, and $M$ a finitely generated $A$-module, then $M/IM$ is a finitely generated $(A/I)$-module. In fact, if $m_1,\ldots,m_r$ generate $M$ as an $A$-module, then there images in $M/IM$ generate it as an $(A/I)$-module. If $I$ is contained in the Jacobson radical of $A$ (meaning $I$ is contained in every maximal ideal of $A$) and $m_1+IM,\ldots,m_r+IM$ generate $M/IM$ as an $(A/I)$-module, then $m_1,\ldots,m_r$ generate $M$ as an $A$-module (assuming $M$ is finitely generated as an $A$-module). This is an application of a general form of Nakayama's lemma, which is also used to prove the special case where $A$ is local and $I=\mathfrak{m}$ is the unique maximal ideal (for $A$ local, its Jacobson radical is the maximal ideal).

Namely, let $N$ be the $A$-submodule of $M$ generated by $m_1,\ldots,m_r$. We then have $I(M/N)=M/N$. Indeed, given $m\in M$, by assumption, we have $m+IM=\sum_{i=1}^ra_im_i$ for some $a_i\in A$. Thus $m-\sum_{i=1}^ra_im_i\in IM$. This gives the non-trivial inclusion $M/N\subseteq I(M/N)$. By Nakayama, there is $a\in A$ with $a\equiv 1\pmod{I}$ such that $a(M/N)=0$. But because $I$ is contained in the Jacobson radical of $A$, $a$ must be a unit, and therefore $M=N$.

share|improve this answer
    
The special case of Nakayama can be proven directly. –  Martin Brandenburg Apr 22 '13 at 7:42
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.