0
$\begingroup$

Let $A$ be a finitely generated right $R$-module which is not cyclic. Prove that there exist $B \le A_R$ maximal with respect to the property that $A/B$ is not cyclic.

help please and thank you for your helping.

since $A$ is finitely generated, then every proper submodule of $A$ is contained in a maximal submodule of $A$. (because of Zorn's Lemma) so there is a maxsimal submodule of $A$ ..

no i have not tried . thank you but if Module $A$ is not Cylic, is $A/B$ is not cyclic ? why ?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What have you come up with so far? What approach would you like to try? $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Mar 31 '14 at 17:31
  • $\begingroup$ Edited sentence is much clearer: thank you! $\endgroup$ – rschwieb Mar 31 '14 at 17:53
  • $\begingroup$ @user104847: you should answer to comments as comment, not in question section.please edit! $\endgroup$ – user 1 Mar 31 '14 at 18:47
0
$\begingroup$

I'm gonna go ahead and make my comment a leading answer.

If we let the set of submodules $\mathcal{S}=\{B\subseteq A\mid A/B \text{ not cyclic } \}$ be partially ordered by inclusion, we should try to see if Zorn's lemma applies, so that we can extract maximal elements.

First of all, the statement "$A$ is not cyclic" just means that $\mathcal{S}$ contains at least $\{0\}$, so this poset is nonempty. Score one for Zorn's lemma!

Now to see if chains in $\mathcal{S}$ have upper bounds in $\mathcal{S}$.

Consider an increasing chain of indexed submodules $B_i$. If $\cup_i B_i\in \mathcal{S}$, then we are done, because Zorn's lemma will tell us there is a maximal element in the poset.

Suppose to the contrary that $\cup_i B_i\notin \mathcal{S}$, and so $\cup_i B_i$ is cyclic and generated by an element, call it $x+\cup_i B_i$. Let's also label the generators $g_1,\ldots g_n$ for $A$. We now know we can find $r_i$ such that $xr_i\equiv g_i$ mod $\cup_iB_i$. This means that $xr_i-g_i\in \cup_iB_i$ for $1\leq i\leq n$. Now just pick an $j$ sufficiently large such that $xr_i-g_i\in B_j$ for $1\leq i\leq n$. (This is possible since there are only finitely many generators, and the $B_i$ are linearly ordered.)

Now you can take it from here. Prove that this implies $A/B_j$ is cyclic, which is a contradiction. Thus the assumption that $\cup_iB_i\notin \mathcal{S}$ was incorrect, and Zorn's lemma applies.

$\endgroup$

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.