INTRODUCTORY NOTES ON MODULES

KEITH CONRAD

1. Introduction

One of the most basic concepts in linear algebra is linear combinations: of vectors, of polynomials,
of functions, and so on. For example, the polynomial 7 − 2T + 3T 2 is a linear combination of 1, T ,
and T 2 : 7 · 1 − 2 · T + 3 · T 2 . The coefficients used for linear combinations in a vector space are in
a field, but there are many places where we meet linear combinations with coefficients in a ring.
√ √
Example 1.1. In the ring Z[ −5] let p be the ideal (2, 1 + −5), so by definition
 √ √ √ √ √
p = 2x + (1 + −5)y : x, y ∈ Z[ −5] = Z[ −5] · 2 + Z[ −5] · (1 + −5),
√ √
which is the set of all linear combinations of 2 and 1 + −5 with coefficients in Z[ −5].
√
Such linear combinations do not provide unique representation: for x and y in Z[ −5],
√ √ √
x · 2 + y · (1 + −5) = (x − (1 + −5)) · 2 + (y − 2) · (1 + −5).
√
So x and y can’t be “coordinates” of 2x+(1+ −5)y. In a vector space, when there is a duplication of
representations with a spanning set we can remove a vector from the spanning set, but in p we can’t:
√ √
if we could shrink the spanning set {2, 1 + −5} of p to one element α, then p = Z[ −5]α = (α)
√
would be a principal ideal in Z[ −5], but it can be shown that p is not principal.
√ √
Instead of reducing the size of {2, 1 + −5} to get a nice spanning set for p with Z[ −5]-
coefficients, we can do something else to standardize the representation of elements of p as linear
combinations: restrict coefficients to Z. That works in this case because
 √ √
p = 2x + (1 + −5)y : x, y ∈ Z[ −5]
 √ √ √
= 2(a + b −5) + (1 + −5)(c + d −5) : a, b, c, d ∈ Z
 √ √ √
= 2a + 2 −5b + (1 + −5)c + (−5 + −5)d : a, b, c, d ∈ Z
√ √ √
= Z · 2 + Z · 2 −5 + Z · (1 + −5) + Z · (−5 + −5).

Describing p in terms of linear combinations with integral coefficients made our spanning set
√
grow. We can shrink the spanning set back to {2, 1 + −5} because two new members of this
√ √
spanning set, 2 −5 and −5 + −5, are redundant due to being Z-linear combinations of the rest:
√ √ √ √ √ √
2 −5 = (−1)2 + 2(1 + −5) and −5 + −5 = (−3)2 + (1 + −5) (so 2 −5 and −5 + −5 are
√
in Z · 2 + Z · (1 + −5)). Therefore
√  √
p = Z · 2 + Z · (1 + −5) = 2m + (1 + −5)n : m, n ∈ Z .
1
2 KEITH CONRAD
√ √
Using coefficients in Z rather than in Z[ −5], there is unique representation: if 2m + (1 + −5)n =
√
2m0 + (1 + −5)n0 then
√
(2(m − m0 ) + (n − n0 )) + (n − n0 ) −5 = 0.

The real and imaginary parts are 0, so n = n0 and then m = m0 . Thus, we can regard m and n as
√
“coordinates” for 2m + (1 + −5)n, and the situation looks a lot closer to ordinary linear algebra.
√ √
Warning. That the set {2, 1 + −5} has its Z[ −5]-linear combinations coincide with its Z-
√
linear combinations is something of a fluke. In the ring Z[ d], the set of Z-linear combinations of
√
two elements generally does not coincide with the set of their Z[ d]-linear combinations.
The use of linear combinations with coefficients coming from a ring rather than a field suggests
the concept of “vector space over a ring,” which for historical reasons is not called a vector space
but instead a module.

Definition 1.2. For a commutative ring R, an R-module M is an abelian group on which R acts
by additive maps: there is a scalar multiplication function R × M → M denoted by (r, m) 7→ rm
such that
(1) 1m = m for all m ∈ M .
(2) r(m + m0 ) = rm + rm0 for all r ∈ R and m, m0 ∈ M .
(3) (r + r0 )m = rm + r0 m and (rr0 )m = r(r0 m) for all r, r0 ∈ R and m ∈ M .

In the special case where R = F is a field, an F -module is an F -vector space by another name.

Example 1.3. The set Rn of ordered n-tuples in R is an R-module where addition and scalar
multiplication by R are the obvious componentwise operations as in linear algebra.

Example 1.4. Any ideal I in R is an R-module with addition and scalar multiplication being the
operations in R.

Example 1.5. A quotient ring R/I for any ideal I is an R-module where r(x mod I) := rx mod I
for r ∈ R and x ∈ R. (It is easy to check that this is well-defined and satisfies the axioms.) So
I and R/I are both R-modules, whereas in the language of ring theory ideals and quotient rings
don’t serve the same role.

Example 1.6. The ring R[T ] is an R-module using obvious addition and scalar multiplication.

Example 1.7. The set Map(R, R) of functions f : R → R under pointwise addition of functions
and the scalar multiplication (rf )(x) = r(f (x)) is an R-module.

2. Basic definitions

In linear algebra the concepts of linear combination, linear transformation, isomorphism, sub-
space, and quotient space all make sense when the coefficients are in a ring, not just a field, so they
can all be adapted to the setting of modules with no real changes.
 INTRODUCTORY NOTES ON MODULES 3

Definition 2.1. In an R-module M , an R-linear combination of elements m1 , . . . , mk ∈ M is

an expression
r1 m1 + · · · + rk mk
where the ri ’s are in R. If every element of M is a linear combination of m1 , . . . , mk , we call
{m1 , . . . , mk } a spanning set or generating set of M or say the mi ’s span (or generate) M .

Linear combinations are the basic way to create new elements of a module from old ones, just
as in linear algebra in Rn . For instance, a finitely generated ideal in R is nothing other than the
set of R-linear combinations of a finite set of elements of R.

Example 2.2. We can view the ideal I = (1 + 2i) in Z[i] as both a Z[i]-module and as a Z-module
in a natural way. As a Z[i]-module, we can get everywhere in I from 1+2i: I = Z[i](1+2i). As a Z-
module, we can get everywhere in I from 1+2i and i(1+2i) = −2+i since I = Z(1+2i)+Zi(1+2i) =
Z(1 + 2i) + Z(−2 + i).

Mostly we will be interested in modules with finite spanning sets, but there are some important
examples of modules that require infinite spanning sets. So let’s give the general definition of
spanning set, allowing infinite ones.
A spanning set of an R-module M is a subset {mi }i∈I of M such that every m ∈ M is a finite
R-linear combination of the mi ’s: X
m= ri mi ,
i∈I
where ri ∈ R for all i and ri = 0 for all but finitely many i. Notice we require each linear
combination of the mi ’s to have only finitely many nonzero coefficients. (Of course, if there are
only finitely many mi ’s to begin with then this is no constraint at all.) In analysis, vector spaces
may be equipped with a topology and we can talk about truly infinite linear combinations using
a notion of convergence. The preceding purely algebraic concept of spanning set only makes sense
with finite sums in the linear combinations.

Example 2.3. The powers 1, T, T 2 , . . . span R[T ] as an R-module, since every polynomial is an
R-linear combination of finitely many powers of T . There is no finite spanning set for R[T ] as an R-
module since the R-linear combinations of a finite set of polynomials will only produce polynomials
of degree bounded by the largest degree of the polynomial in the finite set.
This is the simplest example of an R-module mathematicians care about that doesn’t have a
finite spanning set. Notice that as an R[T ]-module rather than as an R-module, R[T ] has a finite
spanning set, namely the element 1, since we can write f (T ) = f (T ) · 1.

Example 2.4. Let

R∞ = {(r1 , r2 , r3 , . . .) : rn ∈ R}
be the set of all sequences in R, with componentwise addition and the natural scalar multiplication.
This makes R∞ an R-module, and as in the previous example R∞ doesn’t have a finite spanning
4 KEITH CONRAD

set. But also the first guess for an infinite spanning set doesn’t work: the sequences

ei = (0, 0, . . . , |{z}
1 , 0, 0, . . .)
i

for i ≥ 1 do not span R∞

since any finite linear combination of the ei ’s is a sequence with all terms
beyond some point equal to 0 and that doesn’t describe most elements of R∞ .1 For instance, the
constant sequence (1, 1, 1, . . . ) is not in the R-span of the ei ’s.
While the ei ’s are not a spanning set for R∞ as an R-module, is there some spanning set for
R∞ as an R-module? Sure: use every element of R∞ . That is rather dumb, but it shows (for silly
reasons) that R∞ has a spanning set. Whether it has a “nice” spanning set (in some reasonable
sense of “nice”) is a question for another day.

Definition 2.5. A R-linear transformation (or R-linear map) from an R-module M to an

R-module N is a function ϕ : M → N that is additive and commutes with scaling: ϕ(m + m0 ) =
ϕ(m) + ϕ(m0 ) and ϕ(rm) = rϕ(m) for all m, m0 ∈ M and r ∈ R. These can be combined into the
single condition
ϕ(rm + r0 m0 ) = rϕ(m) + r0 ϕ(m0 ),
for all m, m0 ∈ M and r, r0 ∈ R.

In words, this says ϕ sends R-linear combinations to R-linear combinations with the same
coefficients. (Taking r = r0 = 1 makes this the additive condition and taking r0 = 0 makes
this the scaling condition.) We can also characterize a linear transformation as one satisfying
ϕ(rm + m0 ) = rϕ(m) + ϕ(m0 ), but that description is asymmetric while the concept of linear
transformation is not, so don’t use that description!

Example 2.6. Complex conjugation τ : C → C, where τ (z) = z, is an R-linear transformation

from C to C. It is not C-linear since cz is equal to c z rather than equal to cz.
√ √ √
Example 2.7. For α ∈ Z[ 2], let mα : Z[ 2] → Z[ 2] be mα (x) = αx. This is multiplication on
√
Z[ 2] by a fixed number α. It is Z-linear, since

mα (x + x0 ) = α(x + x0 ) = αx + αx0 = mα (x) + mα (x0 )

√
for any x and x0 in Z[ 2] and

mα (cx) = α(cx) = c(αx) = cmα (x)

√ √
for any c ∈ Z and x ∈ Z[ 2]. Actually, if c is in Z[ 2] then the last equation still holds, so mα is
√
also Z[ 2]-linear, but more often it is viewed as being Z-linear.

Example 2.8. For A ∈ Matn×m (R), we have the function A : Rm → Rn given by matrix multipli-
cation v 7→ Av (the usual product of a matrix and a vector). This is an R-linear transformation.
Note the flip in the order of m and n in the size of the matrix and in the domain and target of A.
1Unless R is the zero ring, but let’s not be ridiculous.
 INTRODUCTORY NOTES ON MODULES 5

Definition 2.9. An isomorphism of R-modules M and N is a bijective R-linear transformation

ϕ : M → N . If there is an isomorphism M → N we call M and N isomorphic and write M ' N .

The inverse of an isomorphism is also R-linear and thus is an isomorphism too.

√ √
Example 2.10. Consider Z[i] = Z + Zi and Z[ 2] = Z + Z 2. They are rings and Z-modules.
As rings they are not isomorphic, because isomorphic rings have isomorphic unit groups and Z[i]×
√ √ √
is finite while Z[ 2]× is infinite (e.g., (1 + 2)n has multiplicative inverse (−1 + 2)n for all
n > 0). But as Z-modules they’re isomorphic to Z2 and thus are isomorphic to each other. Indeed,
√ √
Z2 → Z[i] by (a, b) 7→ a + bi and Z2 → Z[ 2] by (a, b) 7→ a + b 2 are Z-module isomorphisms, and
√ √
a direct Z-module isomorphism from Z[i] to Z[ 2] is a + bi 7→ a + b 2.

Definition 2.11. For an R-linear transformation ϕ : M → N , its kernel is {m ∈ M : ϕ(m) = 0}

and is denoted ker ϕ, and its image is {ϕ(m) : m ∈ M }, denoted im ϕ.

Like group homomorphisms, an R-linear transformation ϕ is injective if and only if ker ϕ = {0}.

Definition 2.12. If M is an R-module, a submodule of M is a subgroup N ⊂ M such that

Rn ⊂ N for all n ∈ N .

Example 2.13. Viewing R as an R-module, its submodules are precisely its ideals. This is very
important!

Whenever we have an R-module M and R contains a subring R0 , we can think about M as an

√
R0 -module too, in a natural way. We did this in Example 1.1 with the ideal p = (2, 1 + −5) inside
√ √
R = Z[ −5], viewing it first as a Z[ −5]-module and then as a Z-module. Its representation as a
Z-module was nicer (leading to coordinates).

Example 2.14. In Z[i] the Z[i]-submodules all have the form Z[i]α since all ideals in Z[i] are prin-
cipal. In Z[i] its Z[i]-submodules (ideals) are also Z-submodules, but there are more Z-submodules
in Z[i] than ideals. For example, Z + Z · 2i = {a + 2bi : a, b ∈ Z} is a Z-submodule of Z[i] that is
not an ideal (it isn’t preserved under multiplication by i).

Definition 2.15. If N ⊂ M is a submodule, then the quotient group M/N has the natural scalar
multiplication r(m mod N ) := rm mod N (easily checked to be well-defined and satisfy the axioms
to be an R-module). We call M/N a quotient module.

In particular, for ideals J ⊂ I ⊂ R, we can say that I/J is an ideal in R/J or (without making
any reference to R/J) that I/J is an R-module.
It is straightforward to check that if ϕ : M → N is an R-linear transformation, the kernel and
image of ϕ are both R-modules, and the homomorphism theorems for groups carry over to theorems
about linear transformations of R-modules. For example, an R-linear map ϕ : M → N induces an
injective R-linear map ϕ : M/ ker ϕ → N that is an isomorphism of M/ ker ϕ with im ϕ.
6 KEITH CONRAD

Definition 2.16. For R-modules M and N , their direct sum is

M ⊕ N = {(m, n) : m ∈ M, n ∈ N }

with componentwise addition and with scaling defined by

r(m, n) = (rm, rn).

More generally, for any collection of R-modules {Mi }i∈I , their direct sum is the R-module
M
Mi = {(mi )i∈I : mi ∈ Mi and all but finitely many mi are 0}
i∈I

and their direct product is the R-module

Y
Mi = {(mi )i∈I : mi ∈ Mi } .
i∈I

The construction of the direct sum and direct product of R-modules appears different only when
the index set I is infinite. In particular, we may write M ⊕ N or M × N for this common notion
when given just two R-modules M and N .
Note M ' M ⊕ {0} and N ' {0} ⊕ N inside M ⊕ N .
As in group theory, there is a criterion for a module to be isomorphic to the direct product of two
submodules by addition: if L is an R-module with submodules M and N , we have M ⊕ N ' L by
(m, n) 7→ m+n if and only if M +N = L and M ∩N = {0}. (Addition from M ⊕N to L is R-linear
by the way the R-module structure on M ⊕ N is defined. Then the property M + N = L makes
the addition map surjective and the property M ∩ N = {0} makes the addition map injective.)

3. Linear independence, bases, and free modules

Let M be an R-module. Recall a spanning set {mi }i∈I is a subset such that for each m ∈ M ,
X
m= ri mi
i∈I

where ri ∈ R and ri = 0 for all but finitely many i.

Definition 3.1. In an R-module M , a subset {mi }i∈I is called linearly independent if the only
P
relation i ri mi = 0 is the one where all ri are 0, and linearly dependent otherwise: there is
P
a relation i ri mi = 0 where some ri is not 0. A subset of M is called a basis if it is a linearly
independent spanning set. A module that has a basis is called a free module, and if the basis is
finite then M is called a finite-free module.

Example 3.2. The R-module Rn = {(r1 , . . . , rn ) : ri ∈ R} has basis {e1 , . . . , en } where

ei = (0, . . . , 0, |{z}
1 , 0, . . . , 0).
i

Example 3.3. The R-module R[T ] has basis 1, T, T 2 , T 3 , . . . .


 INTRODUCTORY NOTES ON MODULES 7

It is not hard to check that in a module every subset of a linearly independent subset is linearly
independent and every superset of a linearly dependent set is linearly dependent (the calculation
goes exactly as in linear algebra), but beware that a lot of the geometric intuition we develop about
linear independence and bases of vector spaces in linear algebra over fields breaks down for modules
over rings. The reason is that rings in general behave differently from fields: two nonzero elements
need not be multiples of each other and some nonzero elements are zero divisors.
Perhaps the most basic intuition about linear independence in vector spaces that has to be used
with caution in a module is the meaning of linear independence. In a module, linear independence
is defined to mean “no nontrivial linear relations,” but in a vector space linear independence
has an entirely different-looking but equivalent formulation: no member of the subset is a linear
combination of the other members in the subset. This latter condition is a valid property of linearly
independent subsets in a module (check!) but it is not a characterization of linear independence in
modules in general:

Example 3.4. In M := Z as a Z-module, we cannot write either of the elements 2, 3 ∈ M as a

Z-multiple of the other (only integer coefficients allowed!), but the subset {2, 3} in M is linearly
dependent: a · 2 + b · 3 = 0 using a = 3 and b = −2.
P
So the key point is that in a module, if we have a linear dependence relation ri mi = 0 with
P
some ri0 6= 0 and we rewrite this as an equality ri0 mi0 = i6=i0 (−ri )mi , in order to “divide out”
the ri0 -multiplier on the left side as we would do in linear algebra we need a multiplicative inverse
ri−1
0
∈ R. Indeed, with such an inverse available we could multiply throughout by ri−1 0
to turn the
P −1
left side into 1 · mi0 = mi0 and the right side into i6=i0 (−ri ri0 )mi , thereby expressing mi0 as an
R-linear combination of the other mi ’s.
Overall, when R is not a field, there must exist some nonzero r ∈ R that is not a unit (by definition
of “field”!) and so passing from a non-trivial linear dependence relation to an expression of some
mi0 in terms of the others really runs into difficulties. This may seem like a minor issue but it
makes a huge difference, and causes the general structure of modules to be vastly more complicated
that that of vector spaces. Informally speaking, as the ideal theory of R gets more complicated it
becomes more difficult to describe the structure of typical (even just finitely generated) R-modules.
The concept of linear independence as defined above, rather than the more intuitive idea of no
element being a linear combination of others, turns out to be the right one to use for modules over
general rings.
Another surprise with modules is that, although every (nonzero) finitely generated vector space
has a basis, a nonzero finitely generated module need not have a basis: non-free modules exist in
great abundance over rings that are not fields. We’ve actually already seen an example, and here
it is again.
√
Example 3.5. Let R = Z[ −5] and let
√ √
p = (2, 1 + −5) = 2R + (1 + −5)R.
8 KEITH CONRAD
 √
So 2, 1 + −5 spans p as an R-module (by definition) but this subset is linearly dependent:
√
2a + b(1 + −5) = 0
√
using a = 1 + −5 and b = −2. More generally, any two x, y ∈ p are linearly dependent over
R: ax + by = 0 using a = y and b = −x and one of these coefficients a and b is nonzero unless
x = y = 0, in which case we can use a = b = 1. So a linearly independent subset of p has only one
member, which means a basis of p, if one exists, must have size 1. But if {α} were an R-basis for
p then p = Rα = (α), yet it is a fact that p is not principal. So p is an R-module without a basis.2

Here are more contrasts between finitely generated vector spaces and modules.
(1) In a vector space every nonzero element is a linearly independent subset, but in a module
this can be false: in M := Z/6Z viewed as a Z-module the subset {2} in M is Z-linearly
dependent since 3 · 2 = 0.
(2) In a (finitely generated) vector space a maximal linearly independent subset is a spanning
set, but in a module this can be false: in Z as a Z-module the subset {2} is a maximal
linearly independent subset but Z · 2 6= Z.
(3) In a (finitely generated) vector space a minimal spanning set is linearly independent, but
in a module this can be false: in Z as a Z-module {2, 3} is a spanning set (because a =
3a − 2a = a · 3 + (−a) · 2) and is minimal (neither {2} nor {3} spans Z), but it is not linearly
independent since 0 = 2 · 3 + (−3) · 2.
(4) In a vector space every linearly independent subset can be enlarged to a basis and every
spanning set contains a basis, but in a module this can be false since a nonzero module need
not contain a basis (Example 3.5). This property is even false in a module that has a basis.
For example, Z as a Z-module has a basis, namely {1}, but {2} is a linearly independent
subset of Z that can’t be enlarged to a Z-basis of Z and {2, 3} is a spanning set of Z that
does not contain a Z-basis of Z.
(5) If V and W are finite-dimensional vector spaces (over the same field) with the same di-
mension and ϕ : V → W is linear, then injectivity of ϕ is equivalent to surjectivity of ϕ.
This can be false for finite-free modules. View Z as a Z-module (with basis {1}) and let
ϕ : Z → Z by ϕ(m) = 2m. This is injective but not surjective.3
Even if a module has a basis, its submodules don’t have to inherit that property, and if they do
always admit a basis then there are still some contrasts with vector spaces:
√
(1) A submodule of a finite-free R-module need not be free. Let R = Z[ −5], viewed as an
√
R-module, and let p = (2, 1 + −5). Then R has R-basis {1} while p is finitely generated
but has no R-basis since the ideal p is not principal.
(2) A submodule of a finite-free R-module need not have a finite spanning set. An example of
this would be any ring R that has an ideal I that is not finitely generated. Then R has
2The same reasoning shows for any commutative ring R, a nonprincipal ideal in R is an R-module without a basis.
3Perhaps surprisingly, it turns out that in general surjectivity of an R-linear map ϕ : Rn → Rn implies injectivity.
 INTRODUCTORY NOTES ON MODULES 9

R-basis {1} and I is a submodule without a finite spanning set. Such rings do exist (though
they are not as common to encounter in practice as you might expect); perhaps the most
natural example is the ring C ∞ (R) of smooth functions R → R with pointwise operations.
2
The functions in C ∞ (R) whose derivatives of all orders at 0 vanish (it contains e−1/x ) is
an ideal and can be shown not to be finitely generated.
(3) A finite-free R-module can strictly contain a finite-free R-module with bases of the same
size (a phenomenon that never occurs in linear algebra: a subspace with the same finite
dimension must be the entire space). For example, with R = Z we can use M = Zd and
N = (2Z)d with any d > 0. More generally, for any integral domain R that is not a field
and any nonzero non-unit a ∈ R we can use M = Rd and N = (Ra)d .

4. Abelian groups vs. modules

What is a Z-module? It’s an abelian group M equipped with a map Z × M → M such that
1m = m, a(m + m0 ) = am + am0 and (a + a0 )m = am + a0 m. Armed with these conditions, it’s
easy to see by induction that for a ∈ Z+ ,

{z· · · + m}
am = |m + m +
a times

and
(−a)m = a(−m) = |−m − m{z
− · · · − m},
|a| times
so scalar multiplication by Z on a Z-module is nothing other than repeated addition. That is
just the usual concept of integral multiples in an abelian group (or integral powers if we used
multiplicative notation for the group law in M ), so an abelian group M has only one Z-module
structure.
In other words, a Z-module is just another name for an abelian group, and its Z-submodules are
just its subgroups. A Z-linear transformation between two Z-modules is just a group homomor-
phism (“additive map”) between abelian groups, because the scaling condition ϕ(am) = aϕ(m)
with a ∈ Z is true for all group homomorphims ϕ. (Warning. A nonabelian group is not a
Z-module! Modules always have commutative addition by definition.)
There are many concepts related to abelian groups that generalize in a useful way to R-modules.
If the concept can be expressed in terms of Z-linear combinations, then replace Z with R and
presto: you have the concept for R-modules. Below is a table of comparison of such concepts.
In the table what does a cyclic module really mean? Just that there is one element whose
R-multiples give you everything in the module. For example, an ideal in R is a cyclic R-module
precisely when it is a principal ideal. For any ideal I in R, R/I is a cyclic R-module since everything
in R/I is an R-multiple of 1 mod I.
We have seen the fourth item in the table, finitely generated modules, earlier: a finitely generated
ideal is an example.
10 KEITH CONRAD

Abelian Group R-module

Homomorphism R-linear map

Subgroup R-submodule

Cyclic R-module: M = Rm
Cyclic: hgi = {ng : n ∈ Z}
for some m.

Finitely generated R-module:

Finitely generated: G =
M = Rm1 + · · · Rmk for some
hg1 , . . . , gk i = Zg1 + · · · + Zgk .
m1 , . . . , mk .

Torsion element: rm = 0 for

Finite order: ng = 0 for an
an r 6= 0 in R (an integral do-
n 6= 0.
main).

Torsion module (for an inte-

Torsion group: every element
gral domain R): every element
of G has finite order.
of M is a torsion element.

Torsion submodule of M (for

Torsion subgroup: {g ∈ G :
an integral domain R): {m ∈
g has finite order}.
M | rm = 0 for some r 6= 0}.

Torsion-free abelian group: no Torsion-free R-module (for an

elements of finite order besides integral domain R): no torsion
0. elements besides 0.

Finite abelian group: finitely

Finitely generated torsion R-
generated torsion abelian
module (for an integral do-
group. (False characterization
main R).
of finite nonabelian groups!)

We require R to be an integral domain when discussing “torsion elements”4 since the set R − {0}
needs to be closed under multiplication in order for the concept of “torsion element” to be useful;
e.g., if rm = 0 with r 6= 0 and r0 m0 = 0 with r0 6= 0 then (rr0 )(m + m0 ) = 0 but we then want
rr0 to be nonzero. (For an example of what goes wrong when R isn’t an integral domain, consider
R = Z/6Z as an R-module, so the set of elements of R annihilated by a nonzero element of R is

4The word “torsion” means “twistiness”. It entered group theory from algebraic topology: the nonorientability of
some spaces is related to the presence of nonzero elements of finite order in a homology group of the space. Then it
was natural to use the term torsion to refer to elements of finite order in any group, and replacing integral multiples
with ring multiples led to the term being used in module theory for the analogous concept.
 INTRODUCTORY NOTES ON MODULES 11

{0, 2, 3, 4, 6}, and this is not closed under addition! If we regard R as a Z-module (just an abelian
group), then every element of R is a Z-torsion element.)

Example 4.1. Let G = C× . This is an abelian group, so a Z-module, but written multiplicatively
(m acts on z as z m ). Its torsion subgroup is all the roots of unity, an infinite subgroup. So the
torsion subgroup of an abelian group need not be finite (unless it is finitely generated).
√ √
Example 4.2. Let U = Z[ 2]× = ±(1 + 2)Z . This is an abelian group, so a Z-module (think
multiplicatively!). Its torsion subgroup is {±1}.

Example 4.3. If I is a nonzero ideal in an integral domain R, then R/I is a torsion R-module:
pick c ∈ I − {0}, and then for all m ∈ R/I we have cm = 0 since Rc ⊂ I. As a special case, Z/kZ
is a torsion abelian group when k is nonzero.

Example 4.4. Any vector space V over a field F is torsion-free as an F -module: if cv = 0 and
c 6= 0 then multiplying by c−1 gives c−1 (cv) = 0, so (c−1 c)v = 0, so v = 0. Thus only 0 ∈ V is an
F -torsion element.

The last entry in our table above says that for an integral domain R, the R-module analogue
of a finite abelian group is a finitely generated torsion R-module. One may think at first that the
module analogue of a finite abelian group should be an R-module that is a finite set, but one hardly
meets such R-modules, so that analogue is much too restrictive to be a useful definition.

5. Isomorphisms of ideals

Let’s take a look at the meaning of isomorphisms of modules in the context of ideals in a ring: for
ideals I, J ⊂ R, when are I and J isomorphic as R-modules (i.e., when does there exist a bijective
R-linear map between I and J)?

Example 5.1. Let I = 2Z and J = 3Z in Z. Let ϕ : I → J by ϕ(x) = (3/2)x. This is an

isomorphism of Z-modules.

Even when two ideals are not principal, the simple scaling idea in the previous example completely
accounts for how two ideals could be isomorphic modules, at least in an integral domain:

Theorem 5.2. If R is an integral domain with fraction field K, then ideals I and J in R are
isomorphic as R-modules if and only if I = cJ for some c ∈ K × . In particular, I ' R as an
R-module if and only if I is a nonzero principal ideal.

Proof. When I ' J or when I = cJ for some c ∈ K × , I = 0 if and only if J = 0, so we may

suppose now that I, J 6= 0.
If I = cJ for some c ∈ K × , then ϕ : I → J by ϕ(x) = 1c x is R-linear: it is obviously additive and
ϕ(rx) = 1c rx = rϕ(x). Also, ϕ is a bijection with inverse ϕ−1 : J → I defined by ϕ−1 (y) = cy. So
I ' J as R-modules.
12 KEITH CONRAD

Now suppose, conversely, there is an R-module isomorphism ϕ : I → J. We seek c ∈ K × such

that ϕ(x) = cx for all x ∈ I. We’ll use the following trick: for any x, x0 ∈ I, they are in R so

ϕ(xx0 ) = xϕ(x0 ) = x0 ϕ(x).

In K, if x, x0 6= 0, we get
ϕ(x) ϕ(x0 )
= .
x x0
So set c = ϕ(x)/x ∈ K × for any x ∈ I − {0}; we just saw that this is independent of x. Then
ϕ(x) = cx for all x ∈ I − {0}: this is obvious if x = 0 and holds by design of c if x 6= 0. Thus,
J = ϕ(I) = cI. 
√ √ √
Example 5.3. Let R = Z[ −5], p = (3, 1 + −5) and q = (3, 1 − −5). Complex conjugation is
Z-linear and from the description
 √ √
p = 3α + (1 + −5)β : α, β ∈ Z[ −5]
√
we get p = (3, 1 − −5) = q. So p and q are isomorphic as Z-modules since complex conjugation
is a Z-module isomorphism.
But are p and q isomorphic as R-modules? Complex conjugation on R is not R-linear (since cx
is equal to c x rather than equal to cx), so the isomorphism we gave between p and q as Z-modules
doesn’t tell us how things go as R-modules. In any event, if p and q are to be somehow isomorphic
as R-modules then we definitely need a new bijection between them to show this! The previous
theorem tells us that the only way p and q can be isomorphic R-modules is if there is a nonzero
√
element of the fraction field Q[ −5] that scales p to q, and it is not clear what such an element
might be.
It turns out that p and q are isomorphic as R-modules, with one isomorphism ϕ : p → q being
√
2 + −5
ϕ(x) = x.
3
(Of course this is also a Z-module isomorphism.) The way this example is discovered involves some
concepts in algebraic number theory, and here is a variant, also explained by algebraic number
√
theory, where the opposite conclusion holds: consider R0 = Z[ −14] and the ideals
√ √
p0 = (3, 1 + −14) and q0 = (3, 1 − −14)

that satisfy p0 = q0 , so p0 ' q0 as Z-modules using complex conjugation. It turns out that p0 and q0
are not isomorphic as R0 -modules (but proving this requires some work).

6. Applications to linear algebra

Example 6.1. Let V = R2 . This is an R-vector space. It has a two-element spanning set over R;
e.g., ( 10 ) , ( 01 ). It is torsion-free as an R-module, as are all vector spaces. But when we introduce
a matrix A acting on V , we can turn V into a finitely generated torsion module over the integral
domain R[T ]. Here’s how that works.
 INTRODUCTORY NOTES ON MODULES 13

Let A = ( 35 24 ). The effect of A on R2 lets us put an action of R[T ] on R2 through polynomial

values at A: declare
f (T ) · v = f (A)v.
Concretely, T v = Av, T 2 v = A2 v, and (T 2 − T )v = (A2 − A)v. It is left to the reader to check
this makes V into an R[T ]-module, the key point being not the specific A but that A is R-linear;
the choice of A can be any matrix and we still get an R[T ]-module structure on V , but it might
be a different kind of R[T ]-module for different choices of A.
To get a feel for what making R2 into an R[T ]-module gives us, let’s see that we can get anywhere
in R2 from the single vector ( 10 ) using the scalar multiplication by R[T ] based on making T act
as the preceding explicit A (so R2 becomes a cyclic R[T ]-module, no longer needing a 2-element
spanning set as it did when viewed as a vector space over R). For any vector xy , we will find

a, b ∈ R such that ! !
1 x
(aT + b) = .
0 y
This is the same as requiring
! ! ! !
3a 2a 1 x
+b = ,
5a 4a 0 y
which means ! !
3a + b x
= .
5a y
That is, we want 3a + b = x and 5a = y, which is to say a = y/5 and b = x − 3y/5. So
    !
x y 3 1
= T +x− y .
y 5 5 0

As an R[T ]-module through the action of A on vectors, R2 is a torsion module because of the
Cayley-Hamilton theorem: the matrix A is killed by its characteristic polynomial

χA (T ) = det(T · I2 − A)
! !!
T 0 3 2
= det −
0 T 5 4
!
T − 3 −2
= det
−5 T − 4
= T 2 − 7T + 2.

Since χA (A) = A2 − 7A + 2I2 = ( 00 00 ) (as we verify directly, or by appealing to the general Cayley-
Hamilton Theorem), the nonzero T 2 − 7T + 2 ∈ R[T ] kills everything in V = R2 .
Let’s compare: as an R-vector space, R2 is finitely generated and torsion-free, but as an R[T ]-
module where T acts via A = ( 35 24 ), R2 is a finitely generated (cyclic) torsion module.
14 KEITH CONRAD

Example 6.2. If instead we take A = ( 10 01 ) then we can make R2 into an R[T ]-module by letting
T act as the identity matrix: f (T ) · v = f (I2 )v. Now
!
f (1) 0
f (I2 ) = ,
0 f (1)
so f (I2 )v = f (1)v is just a scalar multiple of v. Thus the only place that the new scalar mul-
tiplication by R[T ] can move a given vector is to an R-multiple of itself. Therefore R2 in this
new R[T ]-module structure is not a cyclic module as it was in the previous example. But R2 is
still finitely generated as an R[T ]-module (the standard basis is a spanning set) and it is a torsion
module since (T − 1)v = I2 v − v = 0 (so all elements are killed by T − 1).

Studying linear operators on Rn from the viewpoint of torsion modules over R[T ] is the key
to unlocking the structure of matrices in a conceptual way because the structure theory for finite
abelian groups carries over to finitely generated torsion modules over any PID (like R[T ]). For
example, any finitely generated torsion module over a PID is a direct sum of cyclic modules,
generalizing the fact that any finite abelian group is a direct sum of cyclic groups.
Let’s now revisit the topic of isomorphisms of modules, this time with vector spaces over a
field F viewed as F [T ]-modules using an F -linear operator in the role of T -multiplication. Say
A, B ∈ Matn (F ) where F is a field and n ≥ 1. Generalizing Examples 6.1 and 6.2, we can view
V = F n as an F [T ]-module in two ways, by letting the action of T on V be A or B:

(6.1) f (T ) · v = f (A)(v)

or

(6.2) f (T ) · v = f (B)(v)

for f (T ) ∈ F [T ]. Let VA be V with scalar multiplication by F [T ] as in (6.1) (so T v = Av) and let
VB be V with scalar multiplication by F [T ] as in (6.2) (T v = Bv). Whether or not VA and VB
are isomorphic F [T ]-modules turns out to be equivalent to whether or not A and B are conjugate
matrices:

Theorem 6.3. As F [T ]-modules, VA ' VB if and only if B = U AU −1 for some U ∈ GLn (F ).

Proof. The proof will be almost entirely a matter of unwinding definitions.

Suppose ϕ : VA → VB is an F [T ]-module isomorphism. This means ϕ is a bijection and

ϕ(v + v0 ) = ϕ(v) + ϕ(v0 ), ϕ(f (T )v) = f (T )ϕ(v)

for all v, v0 ∈ V and f (T ) ∈ F [T ]. Polynomials are sums of monomials and knowing multiplication
by T determines multiplication by T i for all i ≥ 1, so the above conditions on ϕ are equivalent to

ϕ(v + v0 ) = ϕ(v) + ϕ(v0 ), ϕ(cv) = cϕ(v), ϕ(T v) = T ϕ(v)

for all v and v0 in V and c in F . The first two equations say ϕ is F -linear and the last equation
says ϕ(Av) = Bϕ(v) for all v ∈ V . So ϕ : V → V is an F -linear bijection and ϕ(Av) = Bϕ(v)
 INTRODUCTORY NOTES ON MODULES 15

for all v ∈ V . Since V = F n , every F -linear map ϕ : V → V is a matrix transformation: for some
U ∈ Matn (F ),
ϕ(v) = U v.
Indeed, if there were such a matrix U then letting v run over the standard basis e1 , . . . , en tells us the
i-th column of U is ϕ(ei ), so turn around and define U to be the matrix [ϕ(e1 ) · · · ϕ(en )] ∈ Matn (F )
having ith column ϕ(ei ). Then ϕ and U have the same values on the ei ’s and both are linear on
F n , so they have the same value at every vector in F n . Since ϕ is a bijection, U is invertible, i.e.,
U ∈ GLn (F ). Now the condition ϕ(Av) = Bϕ(v) for all v ∈ V means

U (Av) = B(U v) ⇐⇒ Av = U −1 BU v

for all v ∈ V = F n . Letting v = e1 , . . . , en tells us that A and U −1 BU have the same ith column
for all i, so they are the same matrix: A = U −1 BU , so B = U AU −1 .
Conversely, suppose there is an invertible matrix U ∈ GLn (F ) with B = U AU −1 . Define
ϕ : VA → VB by ϕ(v) = U v. This is a bijection since U is invertible. It is also F -linear. To show

ϕ(f (T )v) = f (T )ϕ(v)

for all v ∈ V and f (T ) ∈ F [T ], it suffices by F -linearity to check

ϕ(T i v) = T i ϕ(v)

for all v ∈ V and for i ≥ 0. For this to hold, it suffices to check ϕ(T v) = T ϕ(v) for all v ∈ V .
This last condition just says ϕ(Av) = Bϕ(v) for all v ∈ V . Since B = U AU −1 , U A = BU , so

ϕ(Av) = U (Av) = (U A)v = (BU )v = B(U v) = Bϕ(v)

for all v ∈ V . What we wanted to check is true, so we are done. 

Not only did this proof show an F [T ]-module isomorphism of VA to VB exists exactly when A and
B are conjugate matrices in Matn (F ), but it showed us the isomorphisms are exactly the invertible
matrices that conjugate A to B (solutions U of B = U AU −1 ). The importance of this theorem
is that it places the conjugation problem for matrices in Matn (F ) (decide when two matrices are
conjugate) into the mainstream of abstract algebra as a special case of the isomorphism problem
for modules over F [T ], which is a PID, and this viewpoint leads to a solution (called “rational
canonical form”) of the conjugation problem for matrices over a field.
More generally, for any commutative ring R and A and B in Matn (R), we can make Rn into an
R[T ]-module in two ways (letting f (T ) act on Rn as f (A) or as f (B)) and the preceding calculations
show that these R[T ]-module structures on Rn are isomorphic if and only if B = U AU −1 for some
U ∈ GLn (R).5

5The group GL (R) of invertible matrices consists of exactly those U ∈ Mat (R) where det U ∈ R× , which is not
n n
the condition det U 6= 0 except when R is a field (precisely the case when R× = R − {0}).