1
$\begingroup$

Let $R,S$ be a commutative rings with $1_R,1_S$ respectively. In the most commutative algebra one can find the following proposition.

Proposition. Let $φ:R\twoheadrightarrow S$ be a ring epimorphism. Then, if $R$ is Noetherian/Artinian, $S$ is also Noetherian/Artinian.

I was wondering if this is still valid for $R$-modules.

That is, let $R$ be a commutative ring with $1_R$, $M,N$ two $R$-modules and $φ:M \twoheadrightarrow N$ a module epimorphism. If $R$-module $M$ is Noetherian/Artinian, then $R$-module $N$ is Noetherian/Artinian.

Proof. Trying to follow the steps of the proposition above, we consider an arbitrary ascending chain of $R$-submodules of $N$, $$N_1\subseteq N_2 \subseteq N_3 \subseteq \dotsb.$$ We set $M_i=φ^{-1}(N_i),\ \forall i=1,2,3,\dots.$ The preimage of $R$-module is again an $R$-module. So, taking the preimages on the chain above, we can constract the ascending chain of $R$-submodules of $M$, $$M_1\subseteq M_2 \subseteq M_3 \subseteq \dotsb.$$ But $M$ is Noetherian $R$-module, so there is an index $m\in \Bbb Z^+$ s.t. \begin{alignat*}{2} M_m \quad = & \quad M_k,\ && \forall k\geq m \iff\\ φ^{-1} (N_m) \quad = & \quad φ^{-1} (N_k),\ && \forall k\geq m \implies \\ φ(φ^{-1} (N_m)) \quad = & \quad φ(φ^{-1} (N_k)),\ && \forall k\geq m \iff \\ N_m \quad = & \quad N_k,\ && \forall k\geq m \end{alignat*} and $``\iff"$ is valid because $φ$ is surjective.

Is this proof correct and complete?

Thank you.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Looks ok to me. $\endgroup$ – jgon Mar 8 at 3:27
2
$\begingroup$

Yes it's correct.

I guess most commutative algebra courses/books show that:

Proposition. If $0 \rightarrow M' \rightarrow M \rightarrow M'' \rightarrow 0$ is an exact sequence of $R$-modules, then:

$M$ is artinian/noetherian iff $M',M''$ are artinian/noetherian.

So you might want to try proving this result.

Your proposition is the special case $0 \rightarrow \ker\varphi \rightarrow M \rightarrow N \rightarrow 0$.

Note that being an epimorphism is equivalent to being surjective for modules, but this is not the case for rings, as $\mathbb Z\to\mathbb Q$ is epi - I'm not sure if your version for ring epimorphisms is true, although I don't have a counter-example on hand.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I think for ring epimorphisms the Noetherianity does not behave well. See here. $\endgroup$ – user26857 Mar 8 at 12:50
  • $\begingroup$ Btw, when I read the question I thought the OP refers to ring epimorphisms in the category of commutative rings. $\endgroup$ – user26857 Mar 8 at 12:55
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I thought of commutative rings in my asnwer as well. $\endgroup$ – lush Mar 8 at 13:34

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.