I have a ring $R$, an ideal $I$ of $R$ and an $R$-module $M$. How does one define $IM$. Is it the set $\{im\ \vert\ i\in I, m\in M\}$ or is it the smallest module containing these elements?

  • $\begingroup$ According to this website (first page), it is indeed the latter one (the module generated by these elements). $\endgroup$ – Kenny Lau Dec 24 '17 at 13:52
  • $\begingroup$ Is multiplication in $R$ commutative? If not then you need to be more careful about how things are defined (left/right/two-sided stuff). You want a submodule, and the mere set of products $im$ is usually not a submodule, but the set of finite sums $i_1m_1+\ldots+i_km_k$ is a submodule of $M$ if $R$ is commutative, so that set is defined to be $IM$. Note: if $I = (x)$ is a principal ideal then $IM = xM = \{xm : m \in M\}$. $\endgroup$ – KCd Dec 24 '17 at 14:08
  • $\begingroup$ Note the set $\{im \ | \ i \in I, m \in M\}$ is usually not closed under addition and hence is not a module. For example if you look at the polynomial ring $P = \mathbb R[w, x, y, z]$ and $I = (w, x)$ and $M = (y, z)$ (an ideal treated as a submodule of the free module $P$) then $wy$ and $xz$ are of the required form but $wy + xz$ is an irreducible polynomial so it can only be written as a product if one of the two elements is a unit, and $I$ and $M$ don't contain units so $wy + xz$ is not an element of the form $im$. $\endgroup$ – Jim Dec 28 '17 at 15:34
  • $\begingroup$ So the correct definition of $IM$ is the one given by Narcissus jewel in their answer. $\endgroup$ – Jim Dec 28 '17 at 15:36

Assuming that $R$ is commutative, then we can proceed as in A&M page 19.

Let $I\subset R$ be an ideal, and let $M$ be an $R$-module. Then, $IM$ is the set of all finite sums $\sum r_ix_i$ where $r_i\in I$ and $x_i\in M$. This is of course a submodule of $M$.


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.