4
$\begingroup$

Suppose we want to prove a stronger form of Nakayama's Lemma, which goes as follows: Let $M$ be a finitely-generated $A$-module, and let $B$ be a (non-unital) subring of $A$ with $BM=M$ (here, $BM$ denotes the set of $B$-linear combinations of $M$). Then there exists $b\in B$ with $(1+b)M=0$. This Nakayama's Lemma is used in the answer here, motivated by an attempt to prove the Cayley-Hamilton theorem avoiding determinants. How can we prove this? Each of my attempts have led to the negative requirement that $AB\subseteq B$, i.e., that $B$ be an ideal, i.e., that $B$ be a submodule of $A$. Does anyone have any pointers or proofs?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I've added a comment in the linked thread which corrects the proof. $\endgroup$
    – user26857
    Jan 18, 2017 at 10:07

1 Answer 1

7
$\begingroup$

Actually, this statement is not true (I thought I had a proof, but it turns out it used the assumption that $B$ is an ideal in a sneaky way). The counterexample I gave to your previous question gives a counterexample here as well: let $A=\mathbb{Z}_{(2)}$ (or actually just $A=\mathbb{Z}[1/3]$ would work) and $B=3\mathbb{Z}$. Then $BM=M$ for any $M$, since the element $3\in B$ is a unit in $A$. But for instance, if $M=A$, then there is no element of the form $1+b$ that annihilates $M$, since the only element of $A$ that annihilates $M$ is $0$ and $-1\not\in B$.

$\endgroup$
0

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.