4
$\begingroup$

I want to determine whether the following statement is true:

Let $R$ be any ring, and $V$ an $R$-module that is a union $V=\bigcup_{n=1}^\infty V_n$ of submodules $V_1 \subseteq V_2 \subseteq \dots$. If each $V_i$ is projective, then so is $V$.

My attempt at a proof is to use Zorn's lemma as follows: let $g : M \twoheadrightarrow N$ be a surjective $R$-module homomorphism. Let $f: V \to N$ be a module homomorphism. Consider the set $S$ of pairs $(V_i,f_i)$, where $f_i : V_i \to M$ is such that $g\circ f_i = f\big|_{V_i}$. Define a partial order on $S$ by $(V_i,f_i)\leq (V_j,f_j)$ if and only if $V_i \subseteq V_j$ and $f_j\big|_{V_i} = f_i$. The union of any chain gives an upper bound, so by Zorn's lemma, there is a maximal element $(V_m,f_m)$ of $S$. The problem here is that I don't think $V_m = V$ necessarily, since we may not be able to extend this particular $f_m$ to a larger $V_i$.

A possible counterexample to the statement is as follows: Let $p_1,p_2,p_3,\dots$ be the distinct prime numbers of $\mathbb{Z}^{>0}$. Set $V_i = \left(\prod_{k=1}^i p_k^i\right)^{-1}\mathbb{Z}$. Then each $V_i$ is a free $\mathbb{Z}$-module, hence projective. We have $\mathbb{Q} = \bigcup_{i=1}^\infty V_i$, and $V_1 \subseteq V_2 \subseteq \dots$, but $\mathbb{Q}$ is not a projective $\mathbb{Z}$-module.

Does this counterexample work? Is there an easier counterexample?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Your counterexample works fine.

A couple other counterexamples that might be a little simpler are $V_i=(i!)^{-1}\mathbb{Z}$ (here the union is $\mathbb{Q}$), or $V_i = n^{-i}\mathbb{Z}$ where $n\geq 2$ is fixed (here the union is the ring $\mathbb{Z}[n^{-1}]$).

$\endgroup$

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.