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.

I don't understand the second part of the proof of Corollary 4.8 (Nakayama's Lemma) in Eisenbud's Commutative Algebra.

Let $I$ be an ideal contained in the Jacobson radical of a ring $R$, and let $M$ be a finitely generated $R$-module.

(a) If $IM=M$, then $M=0$.

(b) If $m_1,\dots,m_n\in M$ have images in $M/IM$ that generate it as an $R$-module, the $m_1,\dots,m_n$ generate $M$ as an $R$-module.

Proof of (b): Let $N=M/(\sum_i Rm_i)$. We have $$ N/IN=M/(IM+(\sum_i Rm_i))=M/M=0, $$ so $IN=N$ and $N=0$ by part (a), and the conclusion follows.

I don't understand why the first two equalities of the displayed line above are immediate. Could someone please explain why they hold? Thank you.

share|improve this question
    
By the isomorphisms theorems you always have canonical isomorphisms $$\frac{\frac{M}{P}}{I\frac{M}{P}}=\frac{\frac{M}{P}}{\frac{IM}{IM\cap P}}=\frac{\frac{M}{P}}{\frac{IM+P}{P}}=\frac{M}{IM+P}=\frac{P}{IM\cap P}\quad.$$ In your case, $$\frac{P}{IM\cap P}=0\quad.$$ +1 to your question and to Georges's answer! –  Pierre-Yves Gaillard Dec 11 '11 at 16:23
    
@Pierre: Why does $I\frac{M}{P}=\frac{IM}{IM\cap P}$, and how does $\frac{P}{IM\cap P}=0$? I guess that would follow if $P\subseteq IM$, but I don't see that containment since $P$ is sums of elements of $M$ with coefficients in $R$, not $I$. –  nknx Dec 11 '11 at 16:47
    
By (implicit) definition: $P:=\sum_i Rm_i$. The submodule $$I\ \frac{M}{P}$$ is the image of $IM$ under the canonical projection $M\to M/P$, image which is $$\frac{IM}{IM\cap P}\quad.$$ Similarly, $$\frac{P}{IM\cap P}$$ is the image of $P$ under the canonical projection $M\to M/IM$, image which is $0$ by assumption. –  Pierre-Yves Gaillard Dec 11 '11 at 17:46
    
@Pierre-YvesGaillard Thanks for clarifying. I suppose I just don't see the assumption that the image of $P$ under the canonical projection into $M/IM$ is $0$. Is it stated implicitly somewhere? –  nknx Dec 11 '11 at 18:00
    
You're right! Let me try again: By the isomorphisms theorems you always have canonical isomorphisms $$\frac{\frac{M}{P}}{I\frac{M}{P}}=\frac{\frac{M}{P}}{\frac{IM}{IM\cap P}}=\frac{\frac{M}{P}}{\frac{IM+P}{P}}=\frac{M}{IM+P}\quad.$$ In your case, $$\frac{M}{IM+P}=0$$ because $M=IM+P$ since "$m_1,\dots,m_n\in M$ have images in $M/IM$ that generate it as an $R$-module". –  Pierre-Yves Gaillard Dec 11 '11 at 18:34

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

The key point is to understand the $R$-submodule $IN\subset N$.
(For an element $m\in M$, I'll denote by $\bar m$ its image in $N$ in what follows.)

i) How do you write a typical element of that submodule $IN$ ?
Answer : $\Sigma i_k\bar p_k $ with $i_k\in I$ and $p_k\in M$.

ii) And how do you write a typical element of $N$ ?
Answer : $\bar m $ with $m\in M$ .
But the hypothesis of (b) says that you can write $m=\Sigma r_l m_l+\Sigma j_tm_t'$ (with $r_l\in R, m'_t\in M , j_t\in I$), so that $\bar m =\Sigma j_t\overline {m_t'}$, an element in $IN$ according to i).

So indeed $N=IN $ , as claimed.

By the way, you can find a mnemonic for Nakayama's lemma here.

share|improve this answer
    
I was getting lost jumping back and forth from $M$ to $IM$ and the like. A warm thanks for your help, dear Georges Elencwajg! –  nknx Dec 11 '11 at 15:49

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.