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 a commutative ring with $1$ and let $J$ be a proper ideal of $R$ such that $R/J \cong R^n$ as $R$-modules where $n$ is some natural number. Does this imply that $J$ is the trivial ideal?

Basically I am trying to prove/disprove that if $J$ is a proper ideal of $R$ and $R/J$ is free then $J=0$ and above is my work.

share|cite|improve this question
Just a comment: it was sort of a shame that Zev deleted his answer: it was not correct, but it was not correct in a very instructive way (and coming off of teaching a commutative algebra class, let me say that plenty of graduate students want to answer the way he did). Let me encourage him to parlay his answer into a cautionary tale, if he so chooses... – Pete L. Clark Jun 8 '11 at 14:56
@Pete: You're right, it should be an educational example. I've made it CW to avoid getting any points though. I also clearly need to get some sleep... – Zev Chonoles Jun 8 '11 at 15:18
The essential problem is one of notation: we allow ourselves to talk about isomorphisms without specifying the category (usually this would be a waste of time but sometimes, as here, it is essential). – Qiaochu Yuan Jun 8 '11 at 18:37

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it obvious that if $J \neq 0$, $R/J$ can't be a free $R$-mod because anything in $J$ acts by $0$ on $R/J$? Therefore an equation like $jr = 0$ holds for $j \neq 0$, which can't happen if $R/J$ was free.

share|cite|improve this answer
That is precisely what Pete wrote, no? – Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Jun 8 '11 at 15:01
Well, the words are different. :) Also what I wrote was (intentionally) slightly oblique, and this explains things more plainly. – Pete L. Clark Jun 8 '11 at 15:05
Sorry, I think I was writing up my answer before yours was posted... – qwert Jun 8 '11 at 15:07
You have my sympathy, qwert! It has happened to me quite a few times, because I am rather slow and do a lot of checking before posting. I know too well the feeling of slight embarrassment of discovering one second after having posted that the key idea is already there in another answer! – Georges Elencwajg Jun 8 '11 at 21:00

Yes. A nice way to see this is via the annihilator $\operatorname{ann}(M)$ of a module $M$: it is the set of all $x \in R$ such that $xm = 0$ for all $m \in M$. One shows immediately that $\operatorname{ann}(M)$ is an ideal of $R$ and that isomorphic modules have equal annihilators.

If you take annihilators of both sides of your isomorphism $R/J \cong R^n$, you'll get the desired conclusion. I could say more, but I'll leave it up to you for now because this is a very important and enlightening exercise.

share|cite|improve this answer

You have an epi $f:R\to R^n$. Tensoring it with $k=R/\mathfrak m$ for some maximal ideal $\mathfrak m\subset R$, we get an epi $k\to k^n$, so $n$ must be equal to $1$. Now the short exact sequence $$0\to J\to R\xrightarrow{\;f\;} R\to 0$$ must split, because the rightmost $R$ is projective.

Can you see how to finish this?

share|cite|improve this answer

Here is my original answer:

No; let $R=k[x_1,x_2,\ldots]$ for any field $k$ (a polynomial ring in infinitely many variables). Do you see a non-trivial ideal $J\subset R$ such that $R/J\cong R$? (There are a lot).

What I was aiming at was that, for any infinite set $S\subseteq\mathbb{N}$, choosing $J=(\{x_i\mid i\notin S\})$ gives a ring isomorphism $R/J\cong R$. The problem with my answer was that this is not the same as an isomorphism of $R$-modules. The definition of $R$-module is an abelian group that is acted on by $R$ (by scalar multiplication); the fact that $R/J\cong R$ as rings includes the fact that they are isomorphic as abelian groups (under addition), which is part of what is necessary for an isomorphism of $R$-modules, but as all the other (correct) answers point out, the essential problem lies in the scalar multiplication aspect: $J$ annihilates $R/J$ (i.e., scaling $R/J$ by any element of $J$ gives the zero map), while $R^n$ has trivial annihilator, so $J$ must be trivial.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.