Scribd
Upload
35 views

Math 8202 Homework 3 Spring 2015: Tianyu Tao February 11, 2015

This document contains solutions to 7 problems from a homework assignment on abstract algebra. Problem 1 proves that a module M cannot be generated by a single element or decomposed into a direct sum of cyclic modules. Problem 2 finds the elementary divisors and invariant factors of a module. Problem 3 shows that a cyclic module over a principal ideal domain is irreducible if and only if its annihilator is prime.

Uploaded by

Tianyu Tao
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
35 views

Math 8202 Homework 3 Spring 2015: Tianyu Tao February 11, 2015

This document contains solutions to 7 problems from a homework assignment on abstract algebra. Problem 1 proves that a module M cannot be generated by a single element or decomposed into a direct sum of cyclic modules. Problem 2 finds the elementary divisors and invariant factors of a module. Problem 3 shows that a cyclic module over a principal ideal domain is irreducible if and only if its annihilator is prime.

Uploaded by

Tianyu Tao
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Math 8202 Homework 3 Spring 2015

Tianyu Tao
February 11, 2015
Problem 1:

p. 188 Exx 3.

Proof: First we show M = (2, x) cannot be generated by a single element: indeed,


if M = Zp for some polynomial p = p(x), then 2 = p(x)q(x) and x = p(x)r(x)
comparing degree, one sees p(x) has to be 1, but 1
/ M.
Now if M is generated by two cyclic Z[x] modules, say M = Z[x]a + Z[x]b
where a, b Z[x], then ab Za Zb already shows the sum cannot be direct. If
M cannot be written as direct sum of two cyclic modules, it cannot be written as
direct sum of any number of cyclic modules.
Problem 2:

p.193 Exx 1.

Proof. The elementary divisors are:


( 1)3 , (2 + 1)2 , ( 1), (2 + 1)4 , ( + 2), (2 + 1)2 ,
the invariant factors are: (1)3 (2 +1)4 (+2), (2 +1)2 (1), and (2 +1)2 .

Problem 3:

p.193 Exx 2.

Proof: We shall use exercise 8 on page 170: M is irreducible if and only if M ' D/I
where I is a maximal ideal in D. If p is a prime and annz = (p), then M ' D/(p)
by definition of cyclic module, since p is prime and D is p.i.d. we know (p) is
maximal, hence M is irreducible; conversely, if M is irreducible, then M ' D/I
for some I D maximal, since D is p.i.d we know I = (p), and we know (p) is
prime.
To show exercise 8, first suppose M is irreducible, let : R M be the map
r 7 rm for some m 6= 0 fixed, this is surjective since (m) = M by irreduciblity. By first isomorphism theorem we see M ' R/ ker , by the correspondence
1

Math 8202 Homework 3

Tianyu Tao

theorem (4th isomorphism theorem/Lattice theorem for modules on e.g. Dummit


and Foote), ker is maximal ideal, since any submodule of M will corresponds to
R/I 0 for some I 0 containing I; conversely, if M ' R/I for some I maximal, then
correspondence theorem shows M contains no submodule.
Now suppose M is indecomposable, by structure theorem M is not direct sum
of more than 1 element, so either M ' D/(0) = D (which is free of rank 1) or
M ' D/(pe ) for some prime p; conversely, if M = Dz ' D/(0), clearly M is
not direct sum of two non-zero submodules because nothing annilates z except 0,
otherwise if M ' D/(pe ), then by correspondence theorem, any submodule of M
corresponds to D/I where I contains (pe ), hence I = (pl ) where l < m (since I is
p.i.d. so I = (k), since pe I we see k divides pe , but p is prime). But then the
sum of any two submodules of M cannot be direct, so M is indecomposable.

Problem 4:

p.194 Exx 5.

Proof: I can
P only think of the following approach: grant we have the formula
[AB]i,j = [A]i,k [B]k,j where [A]i,j denotes the i, jth minor of the matrix A, we
can then use the formula on page 185 to compute the diagonal entries and notice
a1 = gcd(aij ) and b1 = gcd(bi j), then clearly a1 divides the g.c.d of (AB)ij since the
entries are sums and products each involves a factor from aij , similar considerations
holds since the are computed using g.c.ds.

Problem 5:

p.201 Exx 1.

Proof: Note 360 = 23 32 5. By the structure theorem the number of nonisomorphic abelian groups of order 360 equals the number of ways we can write
23 , 32 , 5 as product of different prime powers, there are the following cases: 3 =
1 + 2 = 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 + 0, 2 = 1 + 1 = 2 + 0, 5 = 5 + 0, so there are 3 2 1 = 6
different abelian groups of order 360, these are:
Z/(23 ) Z/(32 ) Z/(5);
Z/(2) Z/(22 ) Z/(32 ) Z/(5);
Z/(2) Z/(2) Z/(2) Z/(32 ) Z/(5);
Z/(23 ) Z/(3) Z/(3) Z/(5);
2

Math 8202 Homework 3

Tianyu Tao

Z/(2) Z/(22 ) Z/(3) Z/(3) Z/(5);


Z/(2) Z/(2) Z/(2) Z/(3) Z/(3) Z/(5).

Problem 6:

p.201 Exx 2.

Proof: By a standard algorithm we convert A = {aij } to its Smith normal form


S, and we note all the elementary matrix in MZ has determinant 1 because they
are invertible and 1 are the only units in Z. So | det A| = | det S|. Now say
S =diag(1, . . . , 1, d1 , . . . , ds ) where the di s are the invariant
factors, we know by
Ls
(n)
the structure theorem M = Z /K is isomorphic to i=1 Zzi where ann zi = (di ).
Each Zzi is isomorphic to Z/(di ), so has order |di |, the order of M is thus the
product of the absolute value of di s, which is equal to | det S| since S is diagonal,
which in turn equals |d| = | det A|.
Problem 7:

p.202 Exx 5.

Proof: Let V = F (n) which is both a F vector space and a F []module.


Suppose I A = A and I B = B are equivalent, that is, there exist
P1 , Q1 invertible matrix in Mn (F []) such that P1 A Q1 = B , then in particular,
they can be converted to the same diagonal matrix D =diag(1, . . . , 1, d1 , . . . , ds )
where di s are the invariant factors of V seen as a F []module, this is easy to see
since if P, Q are such that P B Q = D, then P P1 A Q1 Q = D and P P1 , Q1 Q are
invertible. Having this in mind, let us review the description on page 198, which
says we can transform A to its rational canonical form via a matrix which is the
relation matrix between the F vector basis and the F []module basis of V , but
the rational canonical form only depends on the set of invariant factors, since A
and B are equivalent, this say A and B can be converted to the same rational
canonical form C via similarity: A = PA CPA1 and B = PB CPB1 for some PA , PB
invertible, then clearly A and B are similar.
Conversely, if A and B are similar, then in particular they are both similar
to a common rational canonical form, hence they have the same invariant factors,
then, applying the algorithm of converting a matrix to its Smith normal form will
leads A and B to be equivalent to the same diagonal form, which says A is
equivalent to B .

You might also like