3
$\begingroup$

While doing exercise 4 of Chapter 6 in Atiyah & Macdonald's Introduction to Commutative Algebra, I got stuck at this step:

I have shown that $R/I$ is a Noetherian $R$-module. Here $R$ is a commutative ring with $1$ and $I$ is some ideal of $R$. How can I (no pun intended) conclude from here that $R/I$ is a Noetherian $R/I$-module?

Well, in the exercise $I$ is actually the annihilator of $R$-module $M$, but the argument above probably works for all ideals $I$.

Thanks!

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ @BenjaLim: That's excellent! I think that is exactly what I was looking for. If you post that as answer, I will be happy to upvote and accept it. $\endgroup$ – Prism Jul 9 '13 at 5:58
4
$\begingroup$

If you already know that $R/I$ is a Noetherian $R$ - module this solves your problem. Namely because of the following. What is an $R$ - submodule of $R/I$? Well it's just an ideal of $R/I$! So to say that $R/I$ satisfies the ACC on $R$ - submodules is the same as saying it satisfies the ACC on ideals, or that $R/I$ is a Noetherian ring.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think you deserve "Atiyah-Macdonald" badge :) $\endgroup$ – Prism Jul 9 '13 at 6:01
3
$\begingroup$

An ascending chain of $R/I$-submodules of $R/I$ can be viewed as an ascending chain of $R$-submodules of $R/I$. Then use the fact that $R/I$ is a Noetherian $R$-module.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Dear Kevin, thanks for very fast answer! I just want to make this "viewing" precise. So, $R/I$ becomes $R/I$-module because we define $(r+I)(s+I)$ to be $r(s+I)$ where we use the old action of $R/I$ as an $R$-module. Is this correct? $\endgroup$ – Prism Jul 9 '13 at 5:54
  • $\begingroup$ @Prism Any commutative ring is tautologically a module over itself. $\endgroup$ – user38268 Jul 9 '13 at 5:56
  • $\begingroup$ To complement: a ring, viewed as a module over itself has as the action, the ring multiplication. And I think your action is just the ring multiplication, right? $\endgroup$ – awllower Jul 9 '13 at 5:58
  • $\begingroup$ @BenjaLim: You are right, of course. I just wanted to use the information I had already (which was $R/I$ is an Noetherian $R$-module), and I ended up confusing myself... $\endgroup$ – Prism Jul 9 '13 at 5:59
  • $\begingroup$ @Kevin Lin: I have accepted BenjaLim's answer. I hope you don't mind :) I have given my (+1) to you as well :) $\endgroup$ – Prism Jul 9 '13 at 6:01

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.