Help with Paul E. Bland's Division Rings and IBN-rings Prop 2.2.10 Proof

In summary, the conversation revolves around understanding Section 2.2 on free modules, specifically the proof of Proposition 2.2.10 in Paul E. Bland's book. The main issue is the relevance and necessity of the construction process used in the proof, which involves starting with one basis and replacing elements to reach another basis. The relevance of this process is questioned, as it seems that the proof can be derived directly from the fact that both bases are maximal sets of linearly independent vectors. However, the construction process is necessary to prove that the two bases have the same cardinality, which is not always true for general modules.
  • #1
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
3,998
48
I am reading Paul E. Bland's book, "Rings and Their Modules".

I am trying to understand Section 2.2 on free modules and need help with the proof of Proposition 2.2.10.

Proposition 2.2.10 and its proof read as follows:View attachment 3587My question/problem is concerned with Bland's proof of Proposition 2.2.10 above.

Bland asks us to consider two bases \(\displaystyle \mathscr{B}\) and \(\displaystyle \mathscr{B}'\) where

\(\displaystyle \mathscr{B} = \{ x_1,x_2, \ ... \ ... \ x_n \} \)

and

\(\displaystyle \mathscr{B}' = \{ y_1,y_2, \ ... \ ... \ y_m \} \) Bland then goes through a process whereby he starts with the basis

\(\displaystyle \mathscr{B} = \{ x_1,x_2, \ ... \ ... \ x_n \} \)

and replaces various \(\displaystyle x_i\) with \(\displaystyle y_i\) until he reaches the basis

\(\displaystyle \{ \text{ the } x_i \text{ not eliminated } \} \cup \{ y_1,y_2, \ ... \ ... \ y_m \}\)THEN ... ... Bland argues as follows:

" ... ... But \(\displaystyle \mathscr{B}'\) is a maximal set of linearly independent vectors of V, so it cannot be the case the \(\displaystyle n \lt m\). Hence \(\displaystyle n \ge m\). Interchanging \(\displaystyle \mathscr{B}\) and \(\displaystyle \mathscr{B}'\) in the argument gives \(\displaystyle m \ge n\) and this completes the proof. ... ... "HOWEVER ... ... we know (straight away, without going through the construction process), that since \(\displaystyle \mathscr{B}\) and \(\displaystyle \mathscr{B}'\) are both maximal sets of linearly independent vectors that we cannot have \(\displaystyle n \lt m\), nor can we have \(\displaystyle m \gt n\), so we must have \(\displaystyle m = n\).My question is as follows:

What is the relevance of the construction process above that results in the basis:

\(\displaystyle \{ \text{ the } x_i \text{ not eliminated } \} \cup \{ y_1,y_2, \ ... \ ... \ y_m \}\)?

Why do we need this process/construction?

Indeed, the argument for the Proposition seems to follow straight from the fact that both \(\displaystyle \mathscr{B}\) and \(\displaystyle \mathscr{B}'\) are both maximal sets of linearly independent vectors ... ... ?

Can someone please clarify the above issue?

Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hi Peter,

First, I don't have this book so I have no idea what it says at Prop 2.2.8

But, being a maximal set of linearly independent vectors means that every other vector that you could add will be linearly dependent, not that it's maximal in the number of elements.

In the case we are working, with vector spaces, the fact that given two bases, both have the same cardinality needs a prove.
He assumes that \(\displaystyle n >m\) and then adds some linearly indepent vectors to one of the basis, what is a contradiction with the fact to be maximal, and the other inequality holds just by the symmetry of the proof.

Actually, this is not true for general modules.
 

FAQ: Help with Paul E. Bland's Division Rings and IBN-rings Prop 2.2.10 Proof

What is the significance of Paul E. Bland's Division Rings and IBN-rings Prop 2.2.10 Proof?

The proof in Prop 2.2.10 is significant because it provides a necessary and sufficient condition for a ring to be a division ring, also known as a skew field. This condition is called the Invariant Basis Number (IBN) property and is an important concept in abstract algebra.

What is the Invariant Basis Number property?

The Invariant Basis Number property states that if a ring R is a free left R-module with a finite basis, then any other basis for R must also have the same number of elements. In other words, the cardinality of a basis for R is uniquely determined, or invariant, regardless of the choice of basis.

What is the difference between a division ring and a field?

A division ring is a ring in which every nonzero element has a multiplicative inverse. This means that every element can be divided by any other element. A field is a commutative division ring, meaning that the multiplication operation is also commutative. In other words, a field is a division ring with the additional property of commutativity.

What is the significance of the IBN property in abstract algebra?

The IBN property is significant because it is a key property in determining the structure and properties of rings. It allows us to classify rings into different categories, such as division rings or non-division rings, and to identify important structural properties of rings, such as the number of basis elements.

How does Prop 2.2.10 prove the IBN property for division rings?

Prop 2.2.10 proves the IBN property for division rings by showing that if a ring R is a left free R-module with a finite basis, then any other basis for R must have the same number of elements. This means that the cardinality of the basis is uniquely determined, or invariant, regardless of the choice of basis. Since every nonzero element in a division ring has a multiplicative inverse, this property holds for all nonzero elements in R, proving that R is a division ring.

Back
Top