2
$\begingroup$

I'm having a doubt in the proof of Corollary 2.5 from Atiyah-Macdonald's Introduction to Commutative Algebra (page 21).

The proof is simple: apply Proposition 2.4 (basically a version of Cayley-Hamilton's theorem) with the identity module homomorphism: from $$ \phi^n+a_1\phi^{n-1}+...+a_n \text{ and } \phi(x)=x, $$ we get $$ x + a_1 x + a_2 x + ... + a_{n-1}x+a_n = x(1+a_1+...+a_{n-1})+a_n. $$

Proof follows by picking $x=1+a_1+...+a_n$ as if you could put in evidence the factor $x$ from the previous expression. But you can't. There is no $x$ multiplying the last $a_n$.

Can someone go through some trouble and explain what I'm missing? Thanks in advance.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Sorry, what is the statement of corollary 2.5? $\endgroup$ – jgon Mar 5 '20 at 3:02
  • $\begingroup$ "If M is a finitely generated A-module, I an ideal of A such that $I.M=M$, then there exists $x\in A$ such that $x-1 \in I$ and $xM=0$" $\endgroup$ – Marra Mar 5 '20 at 3:11
3
$\begingroup$

I'm having a bit of trouble parsing what you're saying. I did look up the version in A-M. in A-M, $x$ is an element of $A$, defined to be the sum of the coefficients of the characteristic polynomial of $\phi=\textrm{id}_M$.

In detail the proof goes as follows:

Let $A$ be a commutative ring, $M$ a finitely generated $A$ module. If $I\subseteq A$ is an ideal such that $IM=M$, then there exists $x\in A$, $x\equiv 1 \pmod{I}$ such that $xM=0$.

Proof

Let $\phi=\textrm{id}_M$. $\phi(M)=M=IM$, so $\phi(M)\subseteq IM$. Then by 2.4 (generalized Cayley-Hamilton kinda) $\phi$ satisfies a polynomial equation $$\phi^n + a_1\phi^{n-1}+\cdots + a_n=0,$$ with $a_j\in I^j$. Let $x=1+a_1+\cdots + a_n$. Certainly $x\equiv 1\pmod{I}$. Then if $m\in M$, $$xm = (1+a_1+\cdots a_n)m = m + a_1m + \cdots a_nm = \phi^n(m) + a_1\phi^{n-1}(m)+\cdots a_nm=0.$$ Hence $x$ annihilates $M$, as desired.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Exactly. You first equation with $\phi$ should be equal to zero. The last element $a_n$ has no $x$ multiplying it. Now you need to compare this equation to your last one, but in the last one there is $m$ times $a_n$ . Why can you use the first to reduce that the second is zero if they have this difference? $\endgroup$ – Marra Mar 5 '20 at 9:40
  • $\begingroup$ @Marra, please try to use $x$ to mean what it means in A-M and my answer. I suspect what you're asking about now has to do with $a_n$ being the constant term of the polynomial equation. The point then is the mapping into the endomorphism ring sends an element $a$ of $A$ to the endomorphism $\phi(m)=am$. Thus $a_n$ is acting as it should. I'll try to come back and edit my answer later, to add this explanation in and expand on it, but hopefully this is helpful. $\endgroup$ – jgon Mar 5 '20 at 15:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think I got it. Each $a_n$ is actually the A-module homomorfism $x\mapsto a_n\cdot x$ is that right? $\endgroup$ – Marra Mar 6 '20 at 12:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Marra Sorry for the slow reply, but yes, exactly. $\endgroup$ – jgon Mar 9 '20 at 3:51

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.