2
$\begingroup$

Suppose $d\mid m$. Show that $\mathbb{Z}/d\mathbb{Z}$ is not an injective $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$-module when $\exists p$ prime with $p\mid d$ and $p\mid \frac{m}{d}$.

$\textbf{My attempt:}$

We have that $(a+m\mathbb{Z})(b+d\mathbb{Z}) \mapsto ab + d\mathbb{Z}$ defines $\mathbb{Z}/d\mathbb{Z}$ as a $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$-module as usual.

Using Baer's criterion I want to show that there exists an ideal of $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z},$ say $J$, and an $R$-module map $f:J \to \mathbb{Z}/d\mathbb{Z}$ which $\textbf{cannot}$ be extended to a map $f_*:\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z} \to \mathbb{Z}/d\mathbb{Z}$.

Take the ideal $\langle \frac{m}{d} \rangle$ in $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$ and map $$f:\left\langle \frac{m}{d} \right\rangle \xrightarrow{\simeq} \mathbb{Z}/d\mathbb{Z}$$ $$ a\frac{m}{d} + m\mathbb{Z} \mapsto a + d\mathbb{Z}$$

Then this is a module isomorphism.

If we could extend this to a map $f_*$ then as $f$ is surjective we'd get the following short exact sequence: $$ 0 \rightarrow ker(f_*) \xrightarrow{i} \mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z} \xrightarrow{f_*} \mathbb{Z}/d\mathbb{Z} \rightarrow 0$$

This sequence splits because $f$ was an isomorphism (so $f_*\circ f^{-1} = f\circ f^{-1} = id$ witnesses the splitting) [$\textbf{is this logic valid?}$].

So $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}=ker(f_*)\oplus\mathbb{Z}/d\mathbb{Z}$ and $ker(f_*)$ as a submodule of $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$ is of the form $\mathbb{Z}/e\mathbb{Z}$ for some $e.$ [$\textbf{Is this true?}$]
So that $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}=\mathbb{Z}/e\mathbb{Z}\oplus\mathbb{Z}/d\mathbb{Z}$. I want to show that this is the desired contradiction.

Now I want to use the condition $p\mid d$ and $p\mid\frac{m}{d}$ to show that $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z} \ne \mathbb{Z}/e\mathbb{Z}\oplus\mathbb{Z}/d\mathbb{Z}$ but I'm not sure how. Tried using orders of elements but got a little muddled...

If I can do this (and I think it can be done), is this approach all ok, or have I made a mistake?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ $\Bbb Z/e\Bbb Z\oplus\Bbb Z/d\Bbb Z$ has $p^2$ elements with $px=0$. $\endgroup$ – Lord Shark the Unknown May 10 '18 at 16:43
  • $\begingroup$ I think an easier approach is to find an exact sequence $0\to\Bbb Z/d\Bbb Z\to M\to N\to0$ which doesn't split. $\endgroup$ – Lord Shark the Unknown May 10 '18 at 16:44
  • $\begingroup$ I see, and that is equivalent to not being injective? (Just met this concept today). Is this approach valid even if slightly heavy handed? $\endgroup$ – SEWillB May 10 '18 at 16:46
  • $\begingroup$ See also this question. $\endgroup$ – Arnaud D. Oct 18 '18 at 12:05
1
$\begingroup$

I think the logic of your argument is correct. The first of your questioned logic is a straightforward computation, which you have written in your post. To elaborate the second of your question (the "Is this true?" part), note that $\ker(f_*)$ is a subgroup of the cyclic group $\mathbb Z/m\mathbb Z$ and it is also a cyclic group. Taking Lagrange theorem into account we'll see $\ker(f_*)=\mathbb Z/e\mathbb Z$ and $e\mid m$. Since $\mathbb Z/m\mathbb Z\simeq\mathbb Z/e\mathbb Z\oplus \mathbb Z/d\mathbb Z$, the cardinality forces $e=\frac{m}{d}$. Note that $(d,\frac{m}{d})>1$ and thus the direct sum is not a cyclic group, a contradiction.


If you are allowed to use more homological-algebraic arguments, there is another approach to this problem. Firstly if we observe that $\mathbb Z/m\mathbb Z$ is quasi-Frobenius whenever $m>0$, then this problem is reduced to an equivalent form: if $d\mid m$ and $(d,\frac{m}{d})>1$, then $\mathbb Z/d\mathbb Z$ is not a projective $\mathbb Z/m\mathbb Z$-module. If $m$ is square-free, the problem is verified trivially. If $m$ is not square-free, it can be shown that for any decomposition $m=rs$, $$\operatorname{proj. dim}_{\mathbb Z/m\mathbb Z}(\mathbb Z/r\mathbb Z)=\operatorname{proj. dim}_{\mathbb Z/m\mathbb Z}(\mathbb Z/s\mathbb Z)-1$$ whenever $(r,s)>1$. Then the problem is clear: if $\mathbb Z/d\mathbb Z$ is an injective (namely projective) $\mathbb Z/m\mathbb Z$-module, then we have $$0=\operatorname{proj. dim}_{\mathbb Z/m\mathbb Z}(\mathbb Z/d\mathbb Z)=\operatorname{proj. dim}_{\mathbb Z/m\mathbb Z}(\mathbb Z/\frac{m}{d}\mathbb Z)-1$$ and $$\operatorname{proj. dim}_{\mathbb Z/m\mathbb Z}(\mathbb Z/\frac{m}{d}\mathbb Z)=\operatorname{proj. dim}_{\mathbb Z/m\mathbb Z}(\mathbb Z/d\mathbb Z)-1=-1,$$ which leads to an obvious contradiction $\operatorname{proj. dim}_{\mathbb Z/m\mathbb Z}(\mathbb Z/\frac{m}{d}\mathbb Z)=1=-1$.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks so much for this; currently working through a homological algebra course so hopefully will meet these concepts soon! $\endgroup$ – SEWillB May 11 '18 at 12:02
2
$\begingroup$

maybe we can calculate the injective:

First,we can show a fact: if $R$ is PID,then for any non-zero ideal $I$,$R/I$ is self-injective.and in this case $R/I$ is injective cogenerator of $R/I$ and every finite generated module canbe embedded into $\coprod_{i=1}^{s}R_i$ where $R_i=R$.

Second,if $m=p^lp_1^{l_1}…p_k^{l_k}$,where $p,p_1,…p_k$ are coprime ,then $\mathbb Z_m\cong \mathbb{Z}_{p^l}\coprod \mathbb Z_{p_1^{l_1}}\coprod …\coprod \mathbb Z_{p_k^{l_k}}$.

Remark that all $\mathbb Z_{p^l},…\mathbb Z_{p_k^{l_k}}$ are indecomposable since they have maximal submodule.

Hence,the summand given above are all indecomposable injective module.so all finite generated injective is finite direct sum of these indecomposable injective.

Since $p\mid d$ and $p\mid m/d$ we know it can't be injective.

$\endgroup$

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.