Proving R is a Field: Finitely Generated R-Modules

  • Thread starter sanctifier
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Field
In summary: For every x∈I there's a unique y∈I such that xy = 1. So, we have y=x+1, which is the solution to the left equation.The right equation can be solved by multiplying both sides by s and adding 1 to both sides. So, the right equation becomes s(v+iy)=1. This proves that s1=v, and so s is the multiplicative inverse of v.
  • #1
sanctifier
58
0
Notations:
R denotes a commutative ring with identity

Terms:
R-module: a module whose base ring is R

Question:
Prove that if a nonzero commutative ring R with identity has the property that every finitely generated R-module is free then R is a field.

Idon't know how to complete the proof. The only thing I know is that if every finitely generated R-module is free then R-module R is also free, since it's generated by {1}.

Thanks for any help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hint: If I is an ideal of R, then R/I is a cyclic (in particular, finitely generated) R-module. If R/I is free, what does this tell you about I?
 
  • #3
Thanks for reply! VKint

What exactly does the term cyclic mean here? I am not familar with some terms.

There may be some grammatical mistakes above, sorry for that, I've done my best to express what I want to say.
 
  • #4
By cyclic, I mean that the module [tex] R/I [/tex] can be generated by just one element (i.e., the coset [tex] 1 + I [/tex]) over [tex] R [/tex]. Thus, since [tex] R/I [/tex] is finitely generated, you can apply your assumption to the [tex] R [/tex]-module [tex] R/I [/tex] to conclude that [tex] R/I [/tex] must be free.

One way of defining a field is as a ring with no nontrivial ideals. Thus, all you need to show is that [tex] R [/tex] can't have any nonzero ideals (besides itself, of course). Can you see why it would be contradictory for [tex] R/I [/tex] to be free if [tex] I [/tex] were not either [tex] 0 [/tex] or [tex] R [/tex]?
 
  • #5
VKint, I had some trouble in my work recently, so I didn't reply in time, I'm sorry.

I don't kown whether the following is right, may you can help me again, thanks a lot!

If v∈M\I and i∈I, then v and any i are relatively prime, if not, then there's a scalar s which divides both v and i, then s is contained in I, otherwise the scalar i divided by s doesn't belong to I.

So, there exist scalars s1 and s2 for which s1v + s2i = 1,
then s1v + s2i + I = 1 + I → s1v + I = 1 + I
since s2i∈I, so s1v=1, that is to say s1 IS the multiplicative inverse of v.

The left could be solved by induction.
 
Last edited:

FAQ: Proving R is a Field: Finitely Generated R-Modules

What is the definition of a field?

A field is a mathematical structure that consists of a set of elements, along with two operations (usually addition and multiplication) that satisfy certain properties. These properties include closure, associativity, commutativity, existence of identity elements, and existence of inverses.

How does a finitely generated R-module relate to a field?

A finitely generated R-module is a module over a ring R that is generated by a finite set of elements. If R is a field, then every finitely generated R-module is a vector space over that field. This means that the module inherits many of the properties of a field, such as having a well-defined notion of addition and multiplication.

What is the significance of proving that R is a field in the context of finitely generated R-modules?

Proving that R is a field is important because it guarantees that every finitely generated R-module has a well-defined notion of multiplication and inverses. This allows us to perform operations such as division, which are essential for many applications in mathematics and other fields.

What are some examples of finitely generated R-modules over a field?

Some examples include: the polynomial ring R[x], the ring of n-by-n matrices with entries in R, and the ring of formal power series with coefficients in R. In each of these cases, R is a field and the module is generated by a finite set of elements.

Are there any other conditions that must be met in order to prove that R is a field?

Yes, in addition to satisfying the properties of a field, R must also be commutative and have a multiplicative identity element. If R does not have these properties, then it cannot be considered a field and the proof will not hold.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top