10
$\begingroup$

In my few years of studying abstract algebra I've always seen vector spaces over fields, rather than other weaker structures. What are the differences of having a vector space (or whatever the analogous structure is called[module?]) defined over a principal ideal domain which is not also a field? What properties of vector spaces break down when defining it over a PID? Please give an example (apart from letting the vector space be the field/PID itself) where the vector space over a field has properties that the module over a PID does not.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Basically you are asking which properties for vector spaces break down for modules. Well, open any book on algebra which treats modules. Hundreds of examples (torsion, non-split sequences, non-injectivity, non-projectivity, etc.). I won't reproduce it in detail here, because it is contained in every book on module theory (but others will do, of course). $\endgroup$ May 25 '13 at 14:14
10
$\begingroup$

There is a very nice structure theory for finitely generated modules over a PID, which is frequently discussed here at MSE.

However, the general theory is much more complicated already in the case of (not finitely generated) abelian groups, i.e., $\Bbb{Z}$-modules.

The first thing that's missing is that not all modules over a PID will have a base. Take for instance the $\Bbb{Z}$-module $\Bbb{Z}/2\Bbb{Z}$. When dealing with vector spaces, the only invariant is the dimension. With modules over a PID, this is not the case anymore..

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinBrandenburg, thanks for the edit, it's better this way. $\endgroup$ May 25 '13 at 14:18
2
$\begingroup$

It is not just one way. Modules over $\mathbb Z$ are abelian groups, and have a rich structure theory, involving the existence of finite modules, and prime factorisation.

Passing to $\mathbb Q$ as field of fractions we find that every scalar is a unit and every non-trivial vector space is infinite.

So modules can have properties which vector spaces don't share.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Actually, someone has already asked a question about Pathologies in module theory, whose solutions will show you a lot about how module theory differs (in interesting ways) from vector space theory. In short, when you begin to lose nice properties, you begin to appreciate them more :)

After learning about vector spaces and their usefulness in linear algebra, they serve as a baseline for intuition about module theory. When you pass from a field to a less-nice ring, things begin to break down. This isn't really a bad thing: we just learn more about how the nice properties come about.

$\Bbb F[x]$ is an important principal ideal domain, and it turns out a lot of linear algebra can be recovered from module theory over these polynomial rings.

$\Bbb Z$ is also an important PID, and the study of its modules is the study of abelian groups.

But there are still lots of other questions to ask. For example: What rings have modules who are isomorphic to copies of the ring? (answer: division rings.)

For what rings are the modules direct sums of simple modules? (answer semisimple rings.

For what rings are the modules all flat? (answer: von Neumann regular rings)

So you can see that moving from fields to PIDs is just one step in a big web of moving outward from fields, exploring what their modules look like. You don't have to stop at PID's!

$\endgroup$

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.