Submodule Generated by Family of Submodules -Simple Question

  • I
  • Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses a question about Theorem 2.3 in T. S. Blyth's book "Module Theory: An Approach to Linear Algebra". The question relates to the assumption made in the theorem about taking one element from each submodule in forming the sum. The response clarifies that the sums involved are finite and explains the key concept of theorem 2.2. The conversation ends with a thank you from Peter for the help.
  • #1
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
3,998
48
I am reading T. S. Blyth's book "Module Theory: An Approach to Linear Algebra" ... ... and am currently focussed on Chapter 1: Modules, Vector Spaces and Algebras ... ...

I need help with a basic and possibly simple aspect of Theorem 2.3 ...

Since the answer to my question may depend on Blyth's previous definitions and theorems I am providing some relevant text from Blyth prior to Theorem 2.3 ... but those confident with the theory obviously can go straight to the theorem at the bottom of the scanned text ...

Theorem 2.3 together with some relevant prior definitions and theorems reads as follows: (Theorem 2,3 at end of text fragment)
?temp_hash=5f3e424c93906713f608b06c9a1b5136.png

?temp_hash=5f3e424c93906713f608b06c9a1b5136.png

?temp_hash=5f3e424c93906713f608b06c9a1b5136.png
In the above text (near the end) we read, in the statement of Theorem 2.3:

" ... ... then the submodule generated by ##\bigcup_{ i \in I } M_i## consists of all finite sums of the form ##\sum_{ j \in J } m_j## ... ... "The above statement seems to assume we take one element from each ##M_j## in forming the sum ##\sum_{ j \in J } m_j## ... ... but how do we know a linear combination does not take more than one element from a particular ##M_j##, say ##M_{ j_0 }## ... ... or indeed all elements from one particular ##M_j## ... rather than one element from each submodule in the family ##\{ M_i \}_{ i \in I}## ...

Hope someone can clarify this ...

Peter
 

Attachments

  • Blyth - 1 - Theorem 2.3 plus relevant theory ... Page 1  ....png
    Blyth - 1 - Theorem 2.3 plus relevant theory ... Page 1 ....png
    51.8 KB · Views: 758
  • Blyth - 2 - Theorem 2.3 plus relevant theory ... Page 2  ....png
    Blyth - 2 - Theorem 2.3 plus relevant theory ... Page 2 ....png
    51.2 KB · Views: 607
  • Blyth - 3 - Theorem 2.3 plus relevant theory ... Page 3  ....png
    Blyth - 3 - Theorem 2.3 plus relevant theory ... Page 3 ....png
    55.9 KB · Views: 816
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Math Amateur said:
" ... ... then the submodule generated by ##\bigcup_{ i \in I } M_i## consists of all finite sums of the form ##∑_{j∈J} m_j## ... ... "The above statement seems to assume we take one element from each ##M_j## in forming the sum ##\sum_{ j \in J } m_j## ... ... but how do we know a linear combination does not take more than one element from a particular ##M_j##, say ##M_{ j_0 }## ... ... or indeed all elements from one particular ##M_j## ... rather than one element from each submodule in the family ## \{ M_i \}_{ i \in I}## ...

With ##S=\bigcup_{ i \in I } M_i## we get ##<S> =<\bigcup_{ i \in I } M_i> = LC(\bigcup_{ i \in I } M_i)=LC(S)## by theorem 2.2.
This means that one element ##x## of ##<S>=LC(S)## is a finite sum of any elements ##m_i##. ##LC(S)## allows only finitely many summands ##\neq 0## by definition. A(n) (again finite) linear combination of those elements is still finite. So we may choose a maximal, yet finite subset ##J \subseteq I## such that all summands are ##m_j \in M_j \; (j \in J)## and ##J \in \mathbb{P}^*(I)##. All different (but still finitely many) ##m_j \, , \, m_j^{'}\, , \, m_j^{''}\, , \dots## of a single submodule ##M_j## can be added within ##M_j## and then be called, e.g. ##\overline{m}_j \in M_j##. The union ##J## of all indices whose elements ##\overline{m}_j## take part in the sum that defines ##x## will do the job.

The crucial part of all is, that the sums involved are finite: linear combinations of elements in ##\bigcup_{ i \in I } M_i##, and index sets ##J \in \mathbb{P}^*(I)##. So finite times finite is still finite. Therefore the essential part is to understand theorem 2.2. Esp. that there cannot show up infinite sums out of nowhere.

Remark: There are concepts that deal with infinity here. But these are not meant by the above. (Just in case you might meet those later on.)
 
  • Like
Likes Math Amateur
  • #3
No
fresh_42 said:
With ##S=\bigcup_{ i \in I } M_i## we get ##<S> =<\bigcup_{ i \in I } M_i> = LC(\bigcup_{ i \in I } M_i)=LC(S)## by theorem 2.2.
This means that one element ##x## of ##<S>=LC(S)## is a finite sum of any elements ##m_i##. ##LC(S)## allows only finitely many summands ##\neq 0## by definition. A(n) (again finite) linear combination of those elements is still finite. So we may choose a maximal, yet finite subset ##J \subseteq I## such that all summands are ##m_j \in M_j \; (j \in J)## and ##J \in \mathbb{P}^*(I)##. All different (but still finitely many) ##m_j \, , \, m_j^{'}\, , \, m_j^{''}\, , \dots## of a single submodule ##M_j## can be added within ##M_j## and then be called, e.g. ##\overline{m}_j \in M_j##. The union ##J## of all indices whose elements ##\overline{m}_j## take part in the sum that defines ##x## will do the job.

The crucial part of all is, that the sums involved are finite: linear combinations of elements in ##\bigcup_{ i \in I } M_i##, and index sets ##J \in \mathbb{P}^*(I)##. So finite times finite is still finite. Therefore the essential part is to understand theorem 2.2. Esp. that there cannot show up infinite sums out of nowhere.

Remark: There are concepts that deal with infinity here. But these are not meant by the above. (Just in case you might meet those later on.)
Thanks for the help, fresh_42 ... the matter is now clear thanks to you ...

Appreciate the help ...

Peter
 

Related to Submodule Generated by Family of Submodules -Simple Question

1. What is a submodule generated by a family of submodules?

A submodule generated by a family of submodules is the smallest submodule that contains all the submodules in the given family. It is the intersection of all submodules that contain the given family.

2. How is a submodule generated by a family of submodules different from a direct sum of submodules?

A submodule generated by a family of submodules is the intersection of all submodules containing the given family, while a direct sum of submodules is the sum of all submodules in the given family. In other words, the submodule generated by a family of submodules contains all the elements that can be written as a linear combination of elements from the given family, while the direct sum only contains elements that can be written as a finite sum of elements from the given family.

3. Can a submodule generated by a family of submodules be equal to the entire module?

Yes, it is possible for a submodule generated by a family of submodules to be equal to the entire module. This can happen if the given family contains all the elements in the module, or if the given module is a simple module and the submodule generated by the family contains the entire simple module.

4. How can we determine the submodule generated by a family of submodules?

We can determine the submodule generated by a family of submodules by finding the intersection of all submodules containing the given family. This can be done by writing down the elements in the given family and using linear combinations to find all possible elements that can be written using these elements. The submodule generated by the family will be the set of all these elements.

5. What is the significance of a submodule generated by a family of submodules in scientific research?

The submodule generated by a family of submodules is an important concept in the field of abstract algebra, specifically in the study of modules. It allows us to understand the structure of a module by breaking it down into smaller, more manageable submodules. This concept has applications in many areas of science, such as in the study of vector spaces, group representations, and homological algebra.

Similar threads

  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
913
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
1
Views
984
  • Linear and Abstract Algebra
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top