Difference between revisions of "Semisimple module"
(→Classification of semisimple modules) |
(→Classification of semisimple modules: bad proof) |
||
Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
# <math>M</math> is isomorphic to an (internal) sum of <math>R</math>-modules. | # <math>M</math> is isomorphic to an (internal) sum of <math>R</math>-modules. | ||
− | ''Proof.'' To prove that 2 implies 1, we suppose without loss of generality | + | <!--''Proof.'' To prove that 2 implies 1, we suppose without loss of generality |
that <math>M</math> is a direct sum <math>\bigoplus_{i \in I} M_i</math> of simple left <math>R</math>-modules | that <math>M</math> is a direct sum <math>\bigoplus_{i \in I} M_i</math> of simple left <math>R</math>-modules | ||
<math>M_i</math>. If <math>N</math> is a submodule of <math>M</math>, then for each <math>i \in I</math>, | <math>M_i</math>. If <math>N</math> is a submodule of <math>M</math>, then for each <math>i \in I</math>, | ||
Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
<math>\langle \alpha \rangle</math> is semisimple, so by Lemma 2, it has a | <math>\langle \alpha \rangle</math> is semisimple, so by Lemma 2, it has a | ||
simple submodule that is a subset of <math>M</math>, a contradiction. | simple submodule that is a subset of <math>M</math>, a contradiction. | ||
− | Therefore <math>N' = 0</math>, so <math>M = N</math>. <math>\blacksquare</math> | + | Therefore <math>N' = 0</math>, so <math>M = N</math>. <math>\blacksquare</math> --> |
== See also == | == See also == |
Latest revision as of 14:02, 18 August 2009
A semisimple module is, informally, a module that is not far removed from simple modules. Specifically, it is a module with the following property: for every submodule , there exists a submodule such that and , where by 0 we mean the zero module.
Classification of semisimple modules
It happens that semisimple modules have a convenient classification (assuming the axiom of choice). To prove this classification, we first state some intermediate results.
Proposition. Let be a semisimple left -module. Then every submodule and quotient module of is also simple.
Proof. First, suppose that is a submodule of . Let be a submodule of , and let be a submodule of such that and . We note that if and are elements such that , then . It follows that Since , it follows that is semisimple.
Now let us consider a quotient module of , with the canonical homomorphism . Let be a submodule of . Then is a submodule of , so there exists a submodule such that and . Then in , since is surjective, Therefore is semisimple as well.
Lemma 1. Let be a ring, and let be a nonzero cyclic left -module. Then contains a maximal proper submodule.
Proof. Let be a generator of . Let be the set of submodules that avoid , ordered by inclusion. Then is nonempty, as . Also, if is a nonempty chain in , then is an element of , as this is a submodule of that does not contain . Then is an upper bound on the chain ; thus every chain has an upper bound. Then by Zorn's Lemma, has a maximal element.
Lemma 2. Every cyclic semisimple module has a simple submodule.
Proof. Let be a cyclic semisimple module, and let be a generator for . Let be a maximal proper submodule of (as given in Lemma 1), and let be a submodule such that and . We claim that is simple.
Indeed, suppose that is a nonzero submodule of . Since the sum is direct, it follows that the sum is direct. Since strictly contains , it follows that , so ; it follows that ; thus is simple.
Theorem. Let be a left -module, for a ring . The following are equivalent:
- is a semisimple -module;
- is isomorphic to a direct sum of simple left -modules;
- is isomorphic to an (internal) sum of -modules.