4
$\begingroup$

Prove or Disprove: Finitely generated Artinian module is Noetherian.

I think it is true and I am trying to prove it. I am considering reducing the case to Artinian rings. Say $M$ is finitely generated Artinian $R$-module. Then $R/\mathrm{Ann}(M)$ is an Artinian $R$-module. Thus $R/\mathrm{Ann}(M)$ is Artinian as an $R/\mathrm{Ann}(M)$-module. That is, $R/\mathrm{Ann}(M)$ is an Artinian ring. We know that by Hopkins, $R/\mathrm{Ann}(M)$ is a Noetherian ring. Thus $M$ when seen as an $R/\mathrm{Ann}(M)$-module is Noetherian. I wonder how I can prove that $M$ is Noetherian as an $R$-module?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ See here for perhaps a partial answer. Not clear that the full answer is known. $\endgroup$ – rogerl Mar 18 '15 at 0:48
  • $\begingroup$ In short: induct on the number of generators, and for cyclic modules use a simpler version of the argument given here. $\endgroup$ – Slade Mar 18 '15 at 0:52
  • $\begingroup$ Can you elaborate? $\endgroup$ – user_m Mar 18 '15 at 1:02
2
$\begingroup$

The answer is trivially yes: If $M$ is finitely generated and artinian, then $R/\mathrm{Ann}(M)$ is an artinian ring, hence noetherian. Now just notice that the $R/\mathrm{Ann}(M)$-submodules of $M$ coincide with the $R$-submodules of $M$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Is that for the reason why we can treat any $R$-module M as an $R/Ann(M)$-module by defining $\bar{r}m=rm$? $\endgroup$ – user_m Mar 18 '15 at 2:15
1
$\begingroup$

Note that for any module element $m \in M$, there is an injection of $R$ modules $R/\operatorname{Ann}(m) \hookrightarrow M: r \mapsto r \cdot m$. If $M$ is finitely generated, I have the map $$R/\operatorname{Ann}(m_1) \oplus \dotsb \oplus R/\operatorname{Ann}(m_n) \twoheadrightarrow M$$ which is the sum of the inclusions. If $M$ is Artinian, then each $R/\operatorname{Ann}(m_i)$ is Artinian because it's a submodule. The structure of $R/\operatorname{Ann}(m_i)$ as an $R$ module is the same as its structure as an $R/\operatorname{Ann}(m_i)$ module, so we can say that $R/\operatorname{Ann}(m_i)$ is an Artinian ring, so a Noetherian ring, so a Noetherian $R$ module.

Now $M$ receives a surjection from a Noetherian module, so it is Noetherian.

I'm not really sure why you'd use $R/\operatorname{Ann}(M)$ here. Perhaps someone could enlighten me.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe since $\mathrm{Ann}(M)=\bigcap_{i=1}^n\mathrm{Ann}(m_i)$, and $R/\mathrm{Ann}(M)\hookrightarrow R/\operatorname{Ann}(m_1) \oplus \dotsb \oplus R/\operatorname{Ann}(m_n)$? $\endgroup$ – user26857 Jul 5 '17 at 21:54
  • $\begingroup$ @user26857 Yes, but why is that necessary to the proof? And why is it easy to see that $R/\operatorname{Ann}(M)$ is Artinian, unless you set up the above map? $\endgroup$ – Eric Auld Jul 5 '17 at 21:57
  • $\begingroup$ Who said it's necessary? It's convenient since the module structures are the same and then $M$ can be supposed faithful. $\endgroup$ – user26857 Jul 5 '17 at 21:57
  • $\begingroup$ Assume $M$ is faithful. @user26857 left the proof of the fact that $R$ is artinian to the reader. The proof that came to my mind was to observe that $R$ embeds in $M^n$ for $n$ large enough. I don't know if it's the proof user26857 had in mind, or if there are simpler arguments... $\endgroup$ – Pierre-Yves Gaillard Jul 5 '17 at 22:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @EricAuld - Map $r$ to $(rg_1,\dots,rg_n)$ where $g_1,\dots,g_n$ are generators. $\endgroup$ – Pierre-Yves Gaillard Jul 6 '17 at 9:51

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.