Projective, Flat and Multiplication Modules
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS Volume 31 (2002), 115-129 PROJECTIVE, FLAT AND MULTIPLICATION MODULES M a j i d M . A l i a n d D a v i d J. S m i t h (Received December 2001) Abstract. In this note all rings are commutative rings with identity and all modules are unital. We consider the behaviour of projective, flat and multipli cation modules under sums and tensor products. In particular, we prove that the tensor product of two multiplication modules is a multiplication module and under a certain condition the tensor product of a multiplication mod ule with a projective (resp. flat) module is a projective (resp. flat) module. W e investigate a theorem of P.F. Smith concerning the sum of multiplication modules and give a sufficient condition on a sum of a collection of modules to ensure that all these submodules are multiplication. W e then apply our result to give an alternative proof of a result of E l-B ast and Smith on external direct sums of multiplication modules. Introduction Let R be a commutative ring with identity and M a unital i?-module. Then M is called a multiplication module if every submodule N of M has the form IM for some ideal I of R [5]. Recall that an ideal A of R is called a multiplication ideal if for each ideal B of R with B C A there exists an ideal C of R such that B — AC. Thus multiplication ideals are multiplication modules. In particular, invertible ideals of R are multiplication modules. On the other hand cyclic modules are multiplication, and multiplication modules over local rings are cyclic, [4, Theorem 1] and [2, Theorem 2.1]. Let R be a ring and K and L submodules of an /2-module M. The residual of K by L is [K : L], the set of all x in R such that xL C K. The annihilator of M, denoted by ann(M), is [0 : M], and for any m & M the annihilator of m, denoted by ann(m), is [0 : Rm\. For an i?-module M, we put 6 (M ) = • ^1- Let M be a multiplication module and N a submodule of M. There exists an ideal I of R such that N = IM. Note that I C [N : M] and hence N = IM C [N : M ]M C iV, so that N = [N : M]M. Note also that K is a multiplication submodule of M if and only if N D K = [N : K] K for all submodules N of M. In Section 2, we investigate the tensor product of modules. We show that the tensor product of two multiplication i2-modules is a multiplication i?-module, The orem 2.1. We also prove that if M is a multiplication i?-module and P is a projec tive (resp. flat) i?-module such that ann(M) C ann(P), then M ® P is a projective (resp. flat) A-module, Theorems 2.3 and 2.5. We apply Theorem 2.3 to gener alize [18, Theorem 11] and show that multiplication modules whose annihilators are generated by an idempotent are in fact projective modules, Corollary 2.4. As 2000 A M S Mathematics Subject Classification: 13C13, 13A15, 15A69. K ey words and phrases: projective module, flat module, multiplication module, free module, ten sor product, direct sum. 116 MAJID M. ALI AND DAVID J. SMITH a consequence of Theorem 2.5, we give a generalization of [16, Theorem 2.2] and prove that if M is a multiplication i?-module such that ann(M) is a pure ideal, then M is a flat i?-module, Corollary 2.7. Section 3 is concerned with the sum of modules. If N\(X G A) is a collection of submodules of an P-module M such that the sum of any two distinct members is multiplication, then need not be multiplication [18]. Theorem 3.1 gives several equivalent conditions under which this sum is multiplication, generalizing P.F. Smith’s theorems [18, Theorems 2 and 8(i)]. We also consider the following question: Let R be a ring and N\(X G A) a collection of submodules of an i?-module M such that *s multiplication. Is at least one N\ a multiplication module? We show that the answer is no, and we give a sufficient condition on such a collection to ensure that all of these submodules are multiplication, Theorem 3.2. We apply Theorem 3.2 to give an alternative proof to a result of El-Bast and Smith [ 8 , Theorem 2.2]. All rings are commutative with identity and all modules are unital. For the basic concepts used, we refer the reader to [6], [9], [10], [12] and [13]. 1. Preliminaries P.F. Smith gave necessary and sufficient conditions for the sum of a collection of multiplication modules to be a multiplication module [18, Theorem 2]. We inves tigate this theorem and prove a strengthened version using alternative methods. Lemma 1.1. Let R be a ring and N\(A G A) a collection of submodules of an R-module M, let N = X^AeA and let A = ^2\eA[N\ : N]. Consider the following statements: (i) N is a multiplication module. (ii) H = A H for all submodules H of N . (iii) R = A + ann(n) for all n G N. (iv) [N : K] + ann(n) = X^agA^* : + ann(n) for all submodules K of M and all n G N. (v) K H N — J^AeA K ^ A^a for all submodules K of M . Then (i) => (ii) <^> (iii) <^> (iv) => (v). If all N\ are multiplication modules, then the first four conditions are equivalent. Proof, (i) => (ii). As N is multiplication, N\ = [N\ : N]N for all A G A, and hence N = A N . Let H be any submodule of N. Then H = IN for some ideal I of R , and hence H = I N = I (AN ) = A(IN) = AH. (ii) => (iii). Let n G N. Then Rn = An, and hence R = A + ann(n). (iii) => (ii) is obvious. (iii) => (iv). Let K be any submodule of M. Let n G N. Clearly ^^[Ar> : K] + ann(n) C [N : K] + ann(n). a <ea PROJECTIVE, FLAT AND MULTIPLICATION MODULES 117 Conversely, there exist a finite subset A' of A and elements x\ G [N\ : N](A G A') and z G ann(n) such that 1 = J^xeA' x A + w G [N : K] + ann(n). Then w = wi + W2 where W\K C N and W2 G ann(n), and hence w ~ wix x + [w\z + W2) G : K] -I- ann(n) AeA' AeA so that (iv) is satisfied, (iv) =>■ (iii) is clear by taking K = N. To complete the proof of the first assertion of the Lemma, it is enough to show that (iii) => (v). We do this locally. Thus we may assume that R is a local ring. If N = 0, the result is trivial. Thus we may suppose that N ^ 0. There exists 0 ^ n G N so that ann(n) 7^ R , and hence A = R. There exists fi G A such that [N^ : N] = R and hence N = N^. This implies that KHN = KnN^Q^KnNxCKnN, AeA so that K fl N = X^AeA N\K fl N\, and the proof of the first part of the lemma is complete. For the last assertion, it is enough to show that (ii)=>- (i). We first prove that N\ = [iV* : N]N for all A G A. We do this locally. Suppose that P is a maximal ideal of R. We discuss two cases. Case 1: A C P. Then for all n G N , Rn = An C Pn, and hence (Rn)p = P p(R n)p, and by Nakayama’s Lemma we have that ( Rn)p = Op, It follows that Np = Op, and hence (N\)p = Op for all A G A. Both sides of the equality N\ = [N\ : N ]N collapse to Op. Case 2: A <£. P. There exists /i G A and p G P such that (1 — p)N C N^. It follows that Np = (NfL)p, and hence for all A G A, [Nx-.N^p C [N\ : (1 — p)N]p = [[JV\:jV]:fl(l-p)]p = [[ATaN]p : : (R(l - p))P] = [iVAN]P : Q {Nx -.NJp , so that [N\ : N^\p = [N\ : N ]p. This implies that [Nx :N ]p N p = [N x -.N ^ p N p = [Nx:Nf,]p(NfM)p = (NxnN^)p = {N\)p n {Nfj,)p = (N\)P f l Np = (N\)p. From the two cases, we infer that the equation N\ = [N\ : N ]N is true locally and hence globally. Now assume that K is a submodule of M. Then by (v) of the lemma, KnN = Y.K nN x = ’£[K :NX]N,, AeA AeA = : N *\iN * : N]N C [K : N}N C K n N, AeA so that A 'fliV = [ K : N ]N , and hence N is a multiplication module. □ 118 MAJID M. ALI AND DAVID J. SMITH Note that the implication (v) =^> (iii) in the above Lemma is not true. Let R be a Priifer domain but not Noetherian. For example, take any non Noetherian valuation domain. There is a maximal ideal P of R which is not finitely generated. P is not multiplication, and hence 0(P) ^ R , [2, Theorem 2.1] and [3, Theorem 1]. However, for every non-zero ideal / of R, i n P = ^2peP In R p . The same example shows that (iii) does not imply (i), by taking Ni = N 2 = P.