8
$\begingroup$

Let $0 \to M' \xrightarrow{\alpha} M \xrightarrow{\beta} M'' \to 0$ be an exact sequence of $A$-modules. Then $M$ is Noetherian is equivalent to $M'$ and $M''$ are Noetherian.

For the ''$\Leftarrow$'' case: I guess if we let $(L_n)_{n\geq 1}$ be an ascending chain of submodules of $M$, then $(\alpha ^{-1}(L_n))_{n\geq 1}$ is a chain in $M'$, and $(\beta(L_n))_{n\geq 1}$ is a chain in $M''$. For large $n$ both these chains are stationary. Then why we know the chain $(L_n)$ is stationary?

Thanks!

$\endgroup$
0
14
$\begingroup$

Let $x\in L_{n+1}$. Then $\beta(x)\in\beta(L_{n+1})$ and let's suppose that $\beta(L_n)=\beta(L_{n+1})$. We have $\beta(x)\in\beta(L_n)$, so there is $y\in L_n$ such that $\beta(x)=\beta(y)$ hence $x-y\in\ker\beta$. From $\ker\beta=\operatorname{im}\alpha$ we get $x-y=\alpha(z)$ for some $z\in M'$. Since $x-y\in L_{n+1}$ we have $z\in\alpha^{-1}(L_{n+1})=\alpha^{-1}(L_{n})$, so $x-y=\alpha(z)\in L_n$ and therefore $x\in L_n$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Interestingly enough, there seems to be only one solution to this problem! $\endgroup$ – TidSchmod Apr 7 '19 at 21:42
20
$\begingroup$

This follows immediately from the Five Lemma applied to $$\begin{array}{c} 0 & \longrightarrow & \alpha^{-1}(L_n) & \longrightarrow & L_n & \longrightarrow & \beta(L_n) & \longrightarrow & 0 \\ & & \downarrow && \downarrow && \downarrow & \\ 0 & \longrightarrow & \alpha^{-1}(L_{n+1}) & \longrightarrow & L_{n+1} & \longrightarrow & \beta(L_{n+1}) & \longrightarrow & 0.\end{array}$$

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yeah, you are right. $\endgroup$ – user146507 Nov 30 '14 at 22:03

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.