I have to give examples for modules such that

$1.$ There's a linearly independent set with more elements than a generator set.

$2.$ There's a linearly independent set with the same cardinal than a basis, but is not a basis.

$3.$ Exists a generator with the same cardinal than a basis, but is not a basis.

$4.$ The module is finitely generated and have a submodule that is not finitely generated.

I've made a few:

$(1)$ Seems wrong to me, or at least very counter-intuitive. An idea I got was using a finite dimensional vector space like $\mathbb{R^²}$ and consider a ser of vectors $\{v_1,v_2,\dots\}$ where every $v_i$ has only rational entries. I don't know how to proceed formally to do the proof. A second idea: $\mathbb{Z}$ as a $\mathbb{Z}-$module has basis $\{1\}$ while the set {2,3} is linearly independent and with a greater cardinbal.

$(2)$ $\mathbb{Z}$ as a $\mathbb{Z}-$module have as basis the set $\{1\}$, and the set $\{2\}$ have the same cardinal as $\{1\}$ but is not a basis because only even elements are generated by it.

$(3)$ My candidate was the vector space $\{f:f:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}\}$ over $\mathbb{Q}$, but I was unable to prove it.

$(4)$ If $M$ were a cyclic $R-$module where $R$ is the polynomial ring of variables $x_1,x_2,\dots$ and coefficients in a field $\mathbb{K}$. The set $\{x_1,x_2,\dots\}$ generates a submodule, but it can't be generated by a finite set.

  • $\begingroup$ I am pretty sure that all this has been asked on math.SE before (in separate threads). $\endgroup$ – Martin Brandenburg Nov 18 '14 at 7:12
  • $\begingroup$ @user26857 Finiteness is not a necessary condition, comnutativy of the ring neither, is possible to make uses of different rings in different cases. $\endgroup$ – Cure Nov 18 '14 at 21:15

For (1), if you think back to linear algebra you'll remember that you can't do this in a vector space. So, it's good that it seems wrong! But it's not. The easiest examples here are noncommutative: for instance, in the ring of linear operators on an infinite-dimensional vector space with basis $e_1,e_2,...$ (as a left module over itself,) the operators $(e_i\mapsto e_{2i})$ and $(e_i\mapsto e_{2i+1})$ are linearly independent even though of course the ring is a cyclic left module for itself. $\{2,3\}$ is not linearly independent over $\mathbb{Z},$ because $3\times 2+(-2)\times 3=0$. You're right on (2). Your massive vector space in (3) will work, as it happens, because the whole space has the same cardinality as a basis, but it's perhaps not the easiest example. Just think of any infinite-dimensional vector space at all. (4) is also correct.

EDIT: My example for (1) is backwards. We need to either look at these two operators as linearly independent for the right module structure, or at the operators $(e_{2i+1}\mapsto e_i, e_{2i}\mapsto 0)$ and $(e_{2i}\mapsto e_i,e_{2i+1}\mapsto 0)$ as left linearly independent. I'll explain the first choice. So let $A$ be the ring of linear operators on a real vector space spanned by $(e_i)_{i\in \mathbb{N}}$. The ring operations here are just like the matrix operations in the finite dimensional case. Let $T_e$ be the operator defined on a basis by $e_i\mapsto e_{2i}$ and $T_o$, similarly, $e_i\mapsto e_{2i+1}$. I claim $T_e$ and $T_o$ are linearly independent for the right $A$-module structure on $A$ given by right multiplication. Indeed suppose $U,V\in A$ and $T_eU+T_oV=0$. If $Ue_i=\sum u_{ij}e_j$ then $T_eU e_i=\sum u_{ij}e_{2j}$ and similarly if $Ve_i=\sum v_{ij} e_j$ then $T_o Ve_i=\sum v_{ij}e_{2j+1}$.

If you think of elements of $A$ as "$\mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{N}$ matrices", then this just says that the even rows of $T_e U$ are the rows of $U$ and the odd rows of $T_e U$ are $0$, and similarly for $T_o V$ (hence the names of $T_e$ and $T_o$.) So, no entries can cancel each other in the sum $T_eU+T_oV$-we've split a single matrix in halves to get all the information from $U$ and of $V$ into it! Thus this sum can only vanish if both $U$ and $V$ do, and $T_e$ and $T_o$ are linearly independent as claimed. Observe that there's nothing special about having chosen $2$, here: I can easily get any finite number of linearly independent elements, or even a countable number, basically just because there's a decomposition of $\mathbb{N}$ into countably many copies of itself. And all this is done in a free module $A$ which can be generated by a single element!

  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure if I get your example for $(1)$ using linear operators, could you explain it a bit more? $-$ And regarding $(3)$, maybe an alternative could be $\mathbb{R}_{[x]}$? A basis would be $\{1,x,x^2,x^3,\dots\}$ and a set that generate this space and is not a basis could be $\{1,x,x^2,2x^2,x^3,2x^3,3x^3,\dots,x^n,2x^n,\dots,nx^n,x^{n+1}\dots\}$. $\endgroup$ – Cure Nov 18 '14 at 7:33
  • $\begingroup$ Sure, that works for (3). Let me think about a better example for (1). $\endgroup$ – Kevin Carlson Nov 18 '14 at 19:01

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.