- #1
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
- 3,998
- 48
I am reading Paul E. Bland's book, "Rings and Their Modules".
I am focused on Section 6.1 The Jacobson Radical ... ...
I need help with the proof of Proposition 6.1.4 ... Proposition 6.1.4 and its proof read as follows:
View attachment 6363
View attachment 6364
In the above proof from Bland we read:"... ... If \(\displaystyle i_1 \ : \ M_1 \longrightarrow M_1 \oplus M_2\) and \(\displaystyle i_2 \ : \ M_2 \longrightarrow M_1 \oplus M_2\) are the canonical injections, then (a) of Exercise 3 shows that
\(\displaystyle i_k \ : \ \text{ Rad}(M_k) \longrightarrow \text{ Rad}(M_1 \oplus M_2) \)... ...
... ... ... "
My question/problem/issue is that I cannot understand the meaning of the statement that (a) of Exercise 3 shows that
\(\displaystyle i_k \ : \ \text{ Rad}(M_k) \longrightarrow \text{ Rad}(M_1 \oplus M_2)\) ... ...
How do the canonical injections \(\displaystyle i_k\) apply to \(\displaystyle \text{ Rad}(M_k)\) and \(\displaystyle \text{ Rad}(M_1 \oplus M_2)\) ... ...Is it trivially simple in that \(\displaystyle \text{ Rad}(M_k) \) is a set of elements of \(\displaystyle M_k\) and so the canonical injection operates as usual? But then... why, exactly, do we need Exercise 3? Can someone explain in simple terms ... ... exactly what is going on ...
Peter
=============================================================================
NOTE ... ... The above post refers to Exercise 3 of Bland, Section 6.1 so I am providing the text of that example ... as follows:
View attachment 6365
I am focused on Section 6.1 The Jacobson Radical ... ...
I need help with the proof of Proposition 6.1.4 ... Proposition 6.1.4 and its proof read as follows:
View attachment 6363
View attachment 6364
In the above proof from Bland we read:"... ... If \(\displaystyle i_1 \ : \ M_1 \longrightarrow M_1 \oplus M_2\) and \(\displaystyle i_2 \ : \ M_2 \longrightarrow M_1 \oplus M_2\) are the canonical injections, then (a) of Exercise 3 shows that
\(\displaystyle i_k \ : \ \text{ Rad}(M_k) \longrightarrow \text{ Rad}(M_1 \oplus M_2) \)... ...
... ... ... "
My question/problem/issue is that I cannot understand the meaning of the statement that (a) of Exercise 3 shows that
\(\displaystyle i_k \ : \ \text{ Rad}(M_k) \longrightarrow \text{ Rad}(M_1 \oplus M_2)\) ... ...
How do the canonical injections \(\displaystyle i_k\) apply to \(\displaystyle \text{ Rad}(M_k)\) and \(\displaystyle \text{ Rad}(M_1 \oplus M_2)\) ... ...Is it trivially simple in that \(\displaystyle \text{ Rad}(M_k) \) is a set of elements of \(\displaystyle M_k\) and so the canonical injection operates as usual? But then... why, exactly, do we need Exercise 3? Can someone explain in simple terms ... ... exactly what is going on ...
Peter
=============================================================================
NOTE ... ... The above post refers to Exercise 3 of Bland, Section 6.1 so I am providing the text of that example ... as follows:
View attachment 6365