4
$\begingroup$

I tried to search for a similar problem on the site, but none appear.

Definition 1 : Let $A$ be a commuting ring with identity. If $M = \sum_{i \in I } Ax_i$ then $x_i$ are said to be a set of generators of $M$. An $A$-Module is said to be finitely generated if it has a finite set of generators.

Definition 2 : A free $A$-module is one which is isomoprhic to an $A$-module of the form $\bigoplus_{i \in I } M_i$ where each $M_i \cong A$.

Statement : A finitely generated free $A$-module is therefore isomorphic to $A \oplus \cdots \oplus A$ for some $n > 0 $.


What I attempted: I tried constructing an explicit isomorphism. By Def 1. There exists a minimal finite set $\{x_1, \ldots, x_k \} \subseteq M$ such that it generates $M = \bigoplus_{i \in I } A_i$. Hence, consider $$ \phi: A^k \rightarrow M, \quad (a_1, a_2, \ldots a_k ) \mapsto a_1x_1 + \cdots a_kx_k $$ $\phi$ is a homomorphism, and is surjective by definition 1. Suppose exists non zero $(b_1, \cdots, b_k) \in A^k$ such that $b_1 x_1 + \cdots b_k x_k = 0_M$...

but unlike vector space we cannot replace $x_1$ to contradict minimality...

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ @Hermès, that's where I couldn't prove, as the usual method in vector spaces in reducing a spanning set to a basis require the inverse property of the scalar field :( $\endgroup$ – Bryan Shih Feb 1 '17 at 11:03
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry I got confused :|, see answer. $\endgroup$ – Hermès Feb 1 '17 at 12:20
4
$\begingroup$

Suppose $M=\bigoplus _{j\in I} A$ is finitely generated by $\{x_i\mid i=1\ldots n\}\subseteq M$. We always keep in mind that the definition of the direct sum means that each element is uniquely expressed as a finite sum of elements from different coordinates.

Consider one of the $x_i$: when expressed as a tuple in $M$, it is nonzero only on finitely many indices in $I$, as are all its $A$-multiples.

It is possible, then, to take the union each of these finite sets over all the generators, and still have a finite set $F$. Clearly if you take a linear combination of the generators, the indices on which the combination is nonzero is contained in $F$. But that means the span of the generators (all of $M$) is contained there, so that $M\subseteq \bigoplus _{j\in F}A$.

This shows why it is not possible for $I$ to be infinite.

$\endgroup$
10
  • $\begingroup$ I'm very new to module theory, and am trying to understand the same thing. Your answer is almost precisely what I looked for; But, would you specify more explicitly what you mean by: "the definition of the direct sum means that each element is uniquely expressed as a finite sum of elements from different coordinates" ? $\endgroup$ – Christopher.L Nov 18 '18 at 14:30
  • $\begingroup$ ps. And is this enough then? Because then the unique representation of $0\in M$ is just $0=0(x_1,x_2,\dots,x_n)=\phi(0)$, so the map $\phi$ defined by the OP would be injective and thus an isomorphism? So, I guess what I mean is, what and how (a bit more explicitly) does uniqueness of the sum-representation come from? $\endgroup$ – Christopher.L Nov 18 '18 at 14:59
  • $\begingroup$ @Christopher.L I would have to know what your definition of direct sum is to begin. $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Nov 18 '18 at 16:14
  • $\begingroup$ @Christopher.L Knowing that $0$ has a unique representation isn't enough. You need to know that everything else has a representation that shares a common finite support within the (potentially infinite) direct sum. $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Nov 18 '18 at 19:21
  • $\begingroup$ Excuse my confusion; I'm defining the direct sum $\bigoplus_{i\in I} A$ as a set of sequences $(a_i)_{i\in I}$, with pointwise add/mul. I guess I was also just trying to see the explicit isomorphism $\phi: A^k\to M$, like the OP was trying to do. I guess the $\phi$ def. by the OP is the natural one, but how can I see that it is injective? We cant directly say that the given gen. set $\{x_i\}\subset M$ is independent. I managed to see how 'M free' in def2 -> exist independent gen. set X; But, how do I go from there to $|X|=n$, and $M\cong A^k$? Do I have to show two gen. set are of equal size? $\endgroup$ – Christopher.L Nov 18 '18 at 23:52

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.