Chapter 3

Modules and Vector Spaces

3.1 Definitions and Examples

Modules are a generalization of the vector spaces of linear algebra in which

the “scalars” are allowed to be from an arbitrary ring, rather than a field.
This rather modest weakening of the axioms is quite far reaching, including,
for example, the theory of rings and ideals and the theory of abelian groups
as special cases.

(1.1) Definition. Let R be an arbitrary ring with identity (not necessarily

commutative).
(1) A left R-module (or left module over R) is an abelian group M together
with a scalar multiplication map

·:R×M →M

that satisfy the following axioms (as is customary we will write am in

place of ·(a, m) for the scalar multiplication of m ∈ M by a ∈ R). In
these axioms, a, b are arbitrary elements of R and m, n are arbitrary
elements of M .
(al )a(m + n) = am + an.
(bl )(a + b)m = am + bm.
(cl ) (ab)m = a(bm).
(dl )1m = m.
(2) A right R-module (or right module over R) is an abelian group M
together with a scalar multiplication map

·:M ×R→M

that satisfy the following axioms (again a, b are arbitrary elements of

R and m, n are arbitrary elements of M ).
(ar )(m + n)a = ma + na.
(br )m(a + b) = ma + mb.
108 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

(cr )m(ab) = (ma)b.

(dr )m1 = m.

(1.2) Remarks.
(1) If R is a commutative ring then any left R-module also has the struc-
ture of a right R-module by defining mr = rm. The only axiom that
requires a check is axiom (cr ). But
m(ab) = (ab)m = (ba)m = b(am) = b(ma) = (ma)b.
(2) More generally, if the ring R has an antiautomorphism (that is, an
additive homomorphism φ : R → R such that φ(ab) = φ(b)φ(a)) then
any left R-module has the structure of a right R-module by defining
ma = φ(a)m. Again, the only axiom that needs checking is axiom (cr ):
(ma)b = φ(b)(ma)
= φ(b)(φ(a)m)
= (φ(b)φ(a))m
= φ(ab)m
= m(ab).
An example of this situation occurs for the group ring R(G) where R
is a ring with identity and G is a group (see Example 2.1.10 (15)). In
this case the antiautomorphism is given by
³X ´ X
φ ag g = ag g −1 .
g∈G g∈G

We leave it as an exercise to check that φ : R(G) → R(G) is an

antiautomorphism. Thus any left R(G)-module M is automatically a
right R(G)-module.
(3) Let R be an arbitrary ring and let Rop (“op” for opposite) be the
ring whose elements are the elements of R, whose addition agrees with
that of R, but whose multiplication · is given by a · b = ba (where
the multiplication on the right-hand side of this equation is that of
R). Then any left R-module is naturally a right Rop -module (and vice-
versa). In fact, if M is a left R-module, define a right multiplication
of elements of Rop (which are the same as elements of R) on M by
m·a = am. As in Remark 1.2 (1), the only axiom that requires checking
is axiom (cr ). But
m · (a · b) = (a · b)m = (ba)m = b(am) = b(m · a) = (m · a) · b.

The theories of left R-modules and right R-modules are entirely par-
allel, and so, to avoid doing everything twice, we must choose to work on
 3.1 Definitions and Examples 109

one side or the other. Thus, we shall work primarily with left R-modules
unless explicitly indicated otherwise and we will define an R-module (or
module over R) to be a left R-module. (Of course, if R is commutative, Re-
mark 1.2 (1) shows there is no difference between left and right R-modules.)
Applications of module theory to the theory of group representations will,
however, necessitate the use of both left and right modules over noncommu-
tative rings. Before presenting a collection of examples some more notation
will be introduced.

(1.3) Definition. Let R be a ring and let M, N be R-modules. A function

f : M → N is an R-module homomorphism if
(1) f (m1 + m2 ) = f (m1 ) + f (m2 ) for all m1 , m2 ∈ M , and
(2) f (am) = af (m) for all a ∈ R and m ∈ M .

The set of all R-module homomorphisms from M to N will be de-

noted HomR (M, N ). In case M = N we will usually write EndR (M ) rather
than HomR (M, M ); elements of EndR (M ) are called endomorphisms. If
f ∈ EndR (M ) is invertible, then it is called an automorphism of M . The
group of all R-module automorphisms of M is denoted AutR (M ) (Aut(M )
if R is implicit). If f ∈ HomR (M, N ) then we define Ker(f ) ⊆ M and
Im(f ) ⊆ N to be the kernel and image of f considered as an abelian group
homomorphism.

(1.4) Definition.
(1) Let F be a field. Then an F -module V is called a vector space over F .
(2) If V and W are vector spaces over the field F then a linear transfor-
mation from V to W is an F -module homomorphism from V to W .

(1.5) Examples.
(1) Let G be any abelian group and let g ∈ G. If n ∈ Z then define the
scalar multiplication ng by

 g + ··· + g (n terms) if n > 0,



ng = 0 if n = 0,




(−g) + · · · + (−g) (−n terms) if n < 0.

Using this scalar multiplication G is a Z-module. Furthermore, if G

and H are abelian groups and f : G → H is a group homomorphism,
then f is also a Z-module homomorphism since (if n > 0)

f (ng) = f (g + · · · + g) = f (g) + · · · + f (g) = nf (g)

110 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

and f (−g) = −f (g).

(2) Let R be an arbitrary ring. Then Rn is both a left and a right R-module
via the scalar multiplications

a(b1 , . . . , bn ) = (ab1 , . . . , abn )

and
(b1 , . . . , bn )a = (b1 a, . . . , bn a).
(3) Let R be an arbitrary ring. Then the set of matrices Mm,n (R) is both
a left and a right R-module via left and right scalar multiplication of
matrices, i.e.,
entij (aA) = a entij (A)
and
entij (Aa) = (entij (A))a.
(4) As a generalization of the above example, the matrix multiplication
maps

Mm (R) × Mm,n (R) −→ Mm,n (R)

(A, B) 7−→ AB
and
Mm,n (R) × Mn (R) −→ Mm,n (R)
(A, B) 7−→ AB

make Mm,n (R) into a left Mm (R)-module and a right Mn (R)-module.

(5) If R is a ring then a left ideal I ⊆ R is a left R-module, while a right
ideal J ⊆ R is a right R-module. In both cases the scalar multiplication
is just the multiplication of the ring R.
(6) If R is a ring and I ⊆ R is an ideal then the quotient ring R/I is both
a left R-module and a right R-module via the multiplication maps

R × R/I −→ R/I
(a, b + I) 7−→ ab + I
and
R/I × R −→ R/I
(a + I, b) 7−→ ab + I.

(7) M is defined to be an R-algebra if M is both an R-module and a ring,

with the ring addition being the same as the module addition, and the
multiplication on M and the scalar multiplication by R satisfying the
following identity: For every r ∈ R, m1 , m2 ∈ M ,

(1.1) r(m1 m2 ) = (rm1 )m2 = m1 (rm2 ).

 3.1 Definitions and Examples 111

For example, every ring is a Z-algebra, and if R is a commutative ring,

then R is an R-algebra. Let R and S be rings and let φ : R → S
be a ring homomorphism with Im(φ) ⊆ C(S) = {a ∈ S : ab = ba
for all b ∈ S}, the center of S. If M is an S-module, then M is also
an R-module using the scalar multiplication am = (φ(a))m for all
a ∈ R and m ∈ M . Since S itself is an S-module, it follows that S
is an R-module, and moreover, since Im(φ) ⊆ C(S), we conclude that
S is an R-algebra. As particular cases of this construction, if R is a
commutative ring, then the polynomial ring R[X] and the matrix ring
Mn (R) are both R-algebras.
(8) If M and N are R-modules then HomR (M, N ) is an abelian group via
the operation (f + g)(m) = f (m) + g(m). However, if we try to make
HomR (M, N ) into an R-module in the natural way by defining af by
the formula (af )(m) = a(f (m)) we find that the function af need not
be an R-module homomorphism unless R is a commutative ring. To
see this, note that

(af )(rm) = a(f (rm)) = a(r(f (m))) = arf (m).

This last expression is equal to r(af )(m) = raf (m) if R is a commu-

tative ring, but not necessarily otherwise. Thus, if R is a commutative
ring, then we may consider HomR (M, N ) as an R-module for all M ,
N , while if R is not commutative then HomR (M, N ) is only an abelian
group. Since EndR (M ) is also a ring using composition of R-module
homomorphisms as the multiplication, and since there is a ring ho-
momorphism φ : R → EndR (M ) defined by φ(a) = a 1M where 1M
denotes the identity homomorphism of M , it follows from Example 1.5
(7) that EndR (M ) is an R-algebra if R is a commutative ring.
(9) If G is an abelian group, then HomZ (Z, G) ∼ = G. To see this, define
Φ : HomZ (Z, G) → G by Φ(f ) = f (1). We leave it as an exercise to
check that Φ is an isomorphism of Z-modules.
(10) Generalizing Example 1.5 (9), if M is an R-module then

HomR (R, M ) ∼
=M

as Z-modules via the map Φ : HomR (R, M ) → M where Φ(f ) = f (1).

(11) Let R be a commutative ring, let M be an R-module, and let S ⊂
EndR (M ) be a subring. (Recall from Example 1.5 (8) that EndR (M )
is a ring, in fact, an R algebra.) Then M is an S-module by means of
the scalar multiplication map S × M → M defined by (f, m) 7→ f (m).
(12) As an important special case of Example 1.5 (11), let T ∈ EndR (M )
and define a ring homomorphism φ : R[X] → EndR (M ) by sending
X to T and a ∈ R to a1M . (See the polynomial substitution theorem
(Theorem 2.4.1).) Thus, if

f (X) = a0 + a1 X + · · · + an X n
112 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

then
φ(f (X)) = a0 1M + a1 T + · · · + an T n .
We will denote φ(f (X)) by the symbol f (T ) and we let Im(φ) = R[T ].
That is, R[T ] is the subring of EndR (M ) consisting of “polynomials”
in T . Then M is an R[T ] module by means of the multiplication

f (T )m = f (T )(m).

Using the homomorphism φ : R[X] → R[T ] we see that M is an R[X]-

module using the scalar multiplication

f (X)m = f (T )(m).

This example is an extremely important one. It provides the basis for

applying the theory of modules over principal ideal domains to the
study of linear transformations; it will be developed fully in Section
4.4.
(13) We will present a concrete example of the situation presented in Ex-
ample 1.5 (12). Let F be a field and define a linear transformation
T : F 2 → F 2 by T (u1 , u2 ) = (u2 , 0). Then T 2 = 0, so if f (X) =
a0 + a1 X + · · · + am X m ∈ F [X], it follows that f (T ) = a0 1F 2 + a1 T .
Therefore the scalar multiplication f (X)u for u ∈ F 2 is given by

f (X) · (u1 , u2 ) = f (T )(u1 , u2 )

= (a0 1F 2 + a1 T )(u1 , u2 )
= (a0 u1 + a1 u2 , a0 u2 ).

3.2 Submodules and Quotient Modules

Let R be a ring and M an R-module. A subset N ⊆ M is said to be

a submodule (or R-submodule) of M if N is a subgroup of the additive
group of M that is also an R-module using the scalar multiplication on
M . What this means, of course, is that N is a submodule of M if it is a
subgroup of M that is closed under scalar multiplication. These conditions
can be expressed as follows.

(2.1) Lemma. If M is an R-module and N is a nonempty subset of M ,

then N is an R-submodule of M if and only if am1 + bm2 ∈ N for all
m1 , m2 ∈ N and a, b ∈ R.
Proof. Exercise. u
t
 3.2 Submodules and Quotient Modules 113

If F is a field and V is a vector space over F , then an F -submodule of

V is called a linear subspace of V .

(2.2) Examples.
(1) If R is any ring then the R-submodules of the R-module R are precisely
the left ideals of the ring R.
(2) If G is any abelian group then G is a Z-module and the Z-submodules
of G are just the subgroups of G.
(3) Let f : M → N be an R-module homomorphism. Then Ker(f ) ⊆ M
and Im(f ) ⊆ N are R-submodules (exercise).
(4) Continuing with Example 1.5 (12), let V be a vector space over a
field F and let T ∈ EndF (V ) be a fixed linear transformation. Let VT
denote V with the F [X]-module structure determined by the linear
transformation T . Then a subset W ⊆ V is an F [X]-submodule of the
module VT if and only if W is a linear subspace of V and T (W ) ⊆ W ,
i.e., W must be a T -invariant subspace of V . To see this, note that
X · w = T (w), and if a ∈ F , then a · w = aw—that is to say, the
action of the constant polynomial a ∈ F [X] on V is just ordinary
scalar multiplication, while the action of the polynomial X on V is
the action of T on V . Thus, an F [X]-submodule of VT must be a T -
invariant subspace of V . Conversely, if W is a linear subspace of V
such that T (W ) ⊆ W then T m (W ) ⊆ W for all m ≥ 1. Hence, if
f (X) ∈ F [X] and w ∈ W then f (X) · w = f (T )(w) ∈ W so that W is
closed under scalar multiplication and thus W is an F [X]-submodule
of V .

(2.3) Lemma. Let M be anTR-module and let {Nα }α∈A be a family of sub-
modules of M . Then N = α∈A Nα is a submodule of M .
Proof. Exercise. u
t

We now consider quotient modules and the noether isomorphism the-

orems. Let M be an R-module and let N ⊆ M be a submodule. Then N
is a subgroup of the abelian group M , so we can form the quotient group
M/N . Define a scalar multiplication map on the abelian group M/N by
a(m + N ) = am + N for all a ∈ R, m + N ∈ M/N . Since N is an R-
submodule of M , this map is well defined. Indeed, if m + N = m0 + N then
m−m0 ∈ N so that am−am0 = a(m−m0 ) ∈ N so that am+N = am0 +N .
The resulting R-module M/N is called the quotient module of M with re-
spect to the submodule N . The noether isomorphism theorems, which we
have seen previously for groups and rings, then have direct analogues for
R-modules.

(2.4) Theorem. (First isomorphism theorem) Let M and N be modules

over the ring R and let f : M → N be an R-module homomorphism. Then
114 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

M/ Ker(f ) ∼
= Im(f ).
Proof. Let K = Ker(f ). From Theorem 1.3.10 we know that f : M/K →
Im(f ) defined by f (m+K) = f (m) is a well-defined isomorphism of abelian
groups. It only remains to check that f is an R-module homomorphism. But
f (a(m + K)) = f (am + K) = f (am) = af (m) = af (m + K) for all m ∈ M
and a ∈ R, so we are done. u
t

(2.5) Theorem. (Second isomorphism theorem) Let M be an R-module and

let N and P be submodules. Then there is an isomorphism of R-modules

(N + P ) /P ∼
= N/ (N ∩ P ) .

Proof. Let π : M → M/P be the natural projection map and let π0 be

the restriction of π to N . Then π0 is an R-module homomorphism with
Ker(π0 ) = N ∩ P and Im(π0 ) = (N + P )/P . The result then follows from
the first isomorphism theorem. u
t

(2.6) Theorem. (Third isomorphism theorem) Let M be an R-module and

let N and P be submodules of M with P ⊆ N . Then

M/N ∼
= (M/P )/(N/P ).

Proof. Define f : M/P → M/N by f (m+P ) = m+N . This is a well-defined

R-module homomorphism and

Ker(f ) = {m + P : m + N = N } = {m + P : m ∈ N } = N/P.

The result then follows from the first isomorphism theorem (Theorem 2.4).
u
t

(2.7) Theorem. (Correspondence theorem) Let M be an R-module, N a

submodule, and π : M → M/N the natural projection map. Then the func-
tion P 7→ P/N defines a one-to-one correspondence between the set of all
submodules of M that contain N and the set of all submodules of M/N .
Proof. Exercise. u
t

(2.8) Definition. If S is a subset of an R-module M then hSi will denote

the intersection of all the submodules of M that contain S. This is called
the submodule of M generated by S, while the elements of S are called
generators of hSi.

Thus, hSi is a submodule of M that contains S and it is contained in

every submodule of M that contains S, i.e., hSi is the smallest submodule
of M containing S. If S = {x1 , . . . , xn } we will usually write hx1 , . . . , xn i
 3.2 Submodules and Quotient Modules 115

rather than h{x1 , . . . , xn }i for the submodule generated by S. There is the

following simple description of hSi.

(2.9) Lemma. Let M be an R-module and let S ⊆ M .

(1) If S = ∅ then hSi = {0}.
(2) If S 6= ∅ then
( n )
X
hSi = ai si : n ∈ N, a1 , . . . , an ∈ R, s1 , . . . , sn ∈ S .
i=1

Proof. Exercise. u
t

(2.10) Definition. We say that the R-module M is finitely generated if

M = hSi for some finite subset S of M . M is cyclic if M = hmi for
some element m ∈ M . If M is finitely generated then let µ(M ) denote the
minimal number of generators of M . If M is not finitely generated, then
we will define µ(M ) = ∞. We will call µ(M ) the rank of M .

(2.11) Remarks.
(1) We have µ({0}) = 0 by Lemma 2.9 (1), and M 6= {0} is cyclic if and
only if µ(M ) = 1.
(2) The concept of cyclic R-module generalizes the concept of cyclic group.
Thus an abelian group G is cyclic (as an abelian group) if and only if
it is a cyclic Z-module.
(3) If R is a PID, then any R-submodule M of R is an ideal, so µ(M ) = 1.

If M is a finitely generated R-module and N is any submodule, then

M/N is clearly finitely generated, and in fact, µ(M/N ) ≤ µ(M ) since
the image in M/N of any generating set of M is a generating set of M/N .
There is also the following result, which is frequently useful for constructing
arguments using induction on µ(M ).

(2.12) Proposition. Suppose M is an R-module and N is a submodule. If

N and M/N are finitely generated, then so is M and

µ(M ) ≤ µ(N ) + µ(M/N ).

Proof. Let S = {x1 , . . . , xk } ⊆ N be a minimal generating set for N and if

π : M → M/N is the natural projection map, choose T = {y1 , . . . , y` } ⊆ M
so that {π(y1 ), . . . , π(y` )} is a minimal generating set for M/N . We claim
that S ∪ T generates M so that µ(M ) ≤ k + ` = µ(N ) + µ(M/N ). To see
this suppose that x ∈ M . Then π(x) = a1 π(y1 ) + · · · + a` π(y` ). Let y =
116 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

a1 y1 +· · ·+a` y` ∈ hT i. Then π(x−y) = 0 so that x−y ∈ Ker(π) = N = hSi.

It follows that x = (x − y) + y ∈ hS ∪ T i, and the proof is complete. u
t

(2.13) Definition. If {Nα }α∈A is a family

­S of R-submodules
® of M , then the
submodule generated by {Nα }α∈A is α∈A N α . This
­S is just
® the set of all
sums nα1 + · ·P· + nαk where nαi ∈ Nαi . Instead of α∈A α , we will use
N
the notation α∈A Nα ; if the index set A is finite, e.g., A = {1, . . . , m},
we will write N1 + · · · + Nm for the submodule generated by N1 , . . . , Nm .

(2.14) Definition. If R is a ring, M is an R-module, and X is a subset of

M , then the annihilator of X, denoted Ann(X), is defined by
Ann(X) = {a ∈ R : ax = 0 for all x ∈ X}.

It is easy to check that Ann(X) is a left ideal of R, and furthermore,

if X = N is a submodule of M , then Ann(N ) is an ideal of R. If R is
commutative and N = hxi is a cyclic submodule of M with generator x,
then
Ann(N ) = {a ∈ R : ax = 0}.
This fact is not true if the ring R is not commutative. As an example, let
R = Mn (R) = M and let x = E11 be the matrix with a 1 in the 1 1 position
and 0 elsewhere. It is a simple exercise to check that Ann(E11 ) consists of
all matrices with first column 0, while Ann(hE11 i) = h0i.
If R is commutative and N is cyclic with generator x then we will
usually write Ann(x) rather than Ann(hxi). In this situation, the ideal
Ann(x) is frequently called the order ideal of x. To see why, consider the
example of an abelian group G and an element g ∈ G. Then G is a Z-module
and
Ann(g) = {n ∈ Z : ng = 0}
= hpi
where p = o(g) if o(g) < ∞ and p = 0 if hgi is infinite cyclic.

Example. Let F be a field, V a vector space, T ∈ EndF (V ) a linear trans-

formation, and let VT be the F [X] module determined by T (Example 1.5
(12)). If v ∈ V then
Ann(v) = {f (X) ∈ F [X] : f (T )(v) = 0}.
Note that this is a principal ideal hg(X)i since F [X] is a PID.

(2.15) Proposition. Let R be a ring and let M = hmi be a cyclic R-module.

Then M ∼ = R/ Ann(m).
Proof. The function f : R → M defined by f (a) = am is a surjective R-
module homomorphism with Ker(f ) = Ann(m). The result follows by the
first isomorphism theorem. u
t
 3.2 Submodules and Quotient Modules 117

(2.16) Corollary. If F is a field and M is a nonzero cyclic F -module then

M∼ = F.
Proof. A field has only the ideals {0} and F , and 1 · m = m 6= 0 if m =
6 0
is a generator for M . Thus, Ann(m) 6= F , so it must be {0}. u
t

If M is an R-module and I ⊆ R is an ideal then we can define the

product of I and M by
( n )
X
IM = ai mi : n ∈ N, ai ∈ I, mi ∈ M .
i=1

The set IM is easily checked to be a submodule of M . The product IM

is a generalization of the concept of product of ideals. If R is commutative
and I ⊆ Ann(M ) then there is a map

R/I × M → M

defined by (a + I)m = am. To see that this map is well defined, suppose
that a + I = b + I. Then a − b ∈ I ⊆ Ann(M ) so that (a − b)m = 0, i.e.,
am = bm. Therefore, whenever an ideal I ⊆ Ann(M ), M is also an R/I
module. A particular case where this occurs is if N = M/IM where I is any
ideal of R. Then certainly I ⊆ Ann(N ) so that M/IM is an R/I-module.

(2.17) Definition. Let R be an integral domain and let M be an R-module.

We say that an element x ∈ M is a torsion element if Ann(x) 6= {0}. Thus
an element x ∈ M is torsion if and only if there is an a 6= 0 ∈ R such
that ax = 0. Let Mτ be the set of torsion elements of M . M is said to be
torsion-free if Mτ = {0}, and M is a torsion module if M = Mτ .

(2.18) Proposition. Let R be an integral domain and let M be an R-module.

(1) Mτ is a submodule of M , called the torsion submodule.
(2) M/Mτ is torsion-free.

Proof. (1) Let x, y ∈ Mτ and let c, d ∈ R. There are a 6= 0, b 6= 0 ∈ R such

that ax = 0 and by = 0. Since R is an integral domain, ab 6= 0. Therefore,
ab(cx + dy) = bc(ax) + ad(by) = 0 so that cx + dy ∈ Mτ .
(2) Suppose that a 6= 0 ∈ R and a(x + Mτ ) = 0 ∈ (M/Mτ )τ . Then
ax ∈ Mτ , so there is a b 6= 0 ∈ R with (ba)x = b(ax) = 0. Since ba 6= 0, it
follows that x ∈ Mτ , i.e., x + Mτ = 0 ∈ M/Mτ . u
t

(2.19) Examples.
(1) If G is an abelian group then the torsion Z-submodule of G is the
set of all elements of G of finite order. Thus, G = Gτ means that
every element of G is of finite order. In particular, any finite abelian
118 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

group is torsion. The converse is not true. For a concrete example, take
G = Q/Z. Then |G| = ∞, but every element of Q/Z has finite order
since q(p/q + Z) = p + Z = 0 ∈ Q/Z. Thus (Q/Z)τ = Q/Z.
(2) An abelian group is torsion-free if it has no elements of finite order
other than 0. As an example, take G = Zn for any natural number n.
Another useful example to keep in mind is the additive group Q.
(3) Let V = F 2 and consider the linear transformation T : F 2 → F 2
defined by T (u1 , u2 ) = (u2 , 0). See Example 1.5 (13). Then the F [X]
module VT determined by T is a torsion module. In fact Ann(VT ) =
hX 2 i. To see this, note that T 2 = 0, so X 2 · u = 0 for all u ∈ V . Thus,
hX 2 i ⊆ Ann(VT ). The only ideals of F [X] properly containing hX 2 i
are hXi and the whole ring F [X], but X ∈ / Ann(VT ) since X · (0, 1) =
(1, 0) 6= (0, 0). Therefore, Ann(VT ) = hX 2 i.

The following two observations are frequently useful; the proofs are left
as exercises:

(2.20) Proposition. Let R be an integral domain and let M be a finitely gen-

erated torsion R-module. Then Ann(M ) 6= (0). In fact, if M = hx1 , . . . , xn i
then
Ann(M ) = Ann(x1 ) ∩ · · · ∩ Ann(xn ) 6= (0).

Proof. Exercise. u
t

(2.21) Proposition. Let F be a field and let V be a vector space over F , i.e.,
an F -module. Then V is torsion-free.
Proof. Exercise. u
t

3.3 Direct Sums, Exact Sequences, and Hom

Let M1 , . . . , Mn be a finite collection of R-modules. Then the cartesian

product set M1 ×· · ·×Mn can be made into an R-module by the operations

(x1 , . . . , xn ) + (y1 , . . . , yn ) = (x1 + y1 , . . . , xn + yn )

a(x1 , . . . , xn ) = (ax1 , . . . , axn )

where the 0 element is, of course, (0, . . . , 0). The R-module thus con-
structed is called the direct sum of M1 , . . . , Mn and is denoted
³ n
M ´
M1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Mn or Mi .
i=1
 3.3 Direct Sums, Exact Sequences, and Hom 119

The direct sum has an important homomorphism property, which, in

fact, can be used to characterize direct sums. To describe this, suppose that
fi : Mi → N are R-module homomorphisms. Then there is a map

f : M1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Mn → N

defined by
n
X
f (x1 , . . . , xn ) = fi (xi ).
i=1

We leave it as an exercise to check that f is an R-module homomorphism.

Now consider the question of when a module M is isomorphic to the
direct sum of finitely many submodules. This result should be compared
with Proposition 1.6.3 concerning internal direct products of groups.

(3.1) Theorem. Let M be an R-module and let M1 , . . . , Mn be submodules

of M such that
(1) M = M1 + · · · + Mn , and
(2) for 1 ≤ i ≤ n,

Mi ∩ (M1 + · · · + Mi−1 + Mi+1 + · · · + Mn ) = 0.

Then
M∼
= M1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Mn .

Proof. Let fi : Mi → M be the inclusion map, that is, fi (x) = x for all
x ∈ Mi and define
f : M1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Mn → M
by
f (x1 , . . . , xn ) = x1 + · · · + xn .
f is an R-module homomorphism and it follows from condition (1) that f is
surjective. Now suppose that (x1 , . . . , xn ) ∈ Ker(f ). Then x1 +· · ·+xn = 0
so that for 1 ≤ i ≤ n we have

xi = −(x1 + · · · + xi−1 + xi+1 + · · · + xn ).

Therefore,

xi ∈ Mi ∩ (M1 + · · · + Mi−1 + Mi+1 + · · · + Mn ) = 0

so that (x1 , . . . , xn ) = 0 and f is an isomorphism. u

t

Our primary emphasis will be on the finite direct sums of modules just
constructed, but for the purpose of allowing for potentially infinite rank
free modules, it is convenient to have available the concept of an arbitrary
direct sum of R-modules. This is described as follows. Let {Mj }j∈J be
120 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

a family of R-modulesQindexed by the (possibly infinite) set J. Then the

cartesian product set j∈J Mj is the set of all the indexed sets of elements
(xj )j∈J where xj is chosen from Mj . This set is made into an R-module by
the coordinate-wise addition and scalar multiplication of elements. More
precisely, we define

(xj )j∈J + (yj )j∈J = (xj + yj )j∈J

a(xj )j∈J = (axj )j∈J .
Q
For each k ∈ J there is an R-module homomorphism πk : j∈J → Mk
defined by πk ((xj )j∈J ) = xj , that is, πk picks out the element of the indexed
set (xj )j∈J that is indexed by k. We define the direct sum of L the indexed
family
Q {M }
j j∈J of R-modules to be the following submodule j∈J Mj of
j∈J M j :
M
Mj = {(xj )j∈J : xj = 0 except for finitely many indices j ∈ J}.
j∈J
Q
It is easy to check that ⊕j∈J Mj is a submodule of j∈J Mj .
To get a feeling for the difference between direct sums and direct prod-
ucts when the index set is infinite, note that the polynomial ring R[X], as an
R-module (ignoring the multiplicative structure), is just a countable direct
sum of copies of R, in fact, the nth copy of R is indexed by the monomial
X n . However, the formal power series ring R[[X]], as an R-module, is just a
countable direct product of copies of R. Again, the nth copy of R is indexed
by the monomial X n . Each element of the polynomial ring has only finitely
many monomials with nonzero coefficients, while an element of the formal
power series ring may have all coefficients nonzero.
The homomorphism property of the finite direct sum of R-modules
extends in a natural way to arbitrary direct sums. That is, suppose that
N is an arbitrary R-module and that for each j ∈ J there is an R-module
homomorphism fj : MjP→ N . Then there is a map f : ⊕j∈J Mj → N
defined by f ((xj )j∈J ) = j∈J fj (xj ). Note that this sum can be considered
as a well-defined finite sum since xj = 0 except for finitely many indices j ∈
J. (Note that this construction does not work for infinite direct products.)
We leave it as an exercise to check that f is an R-module homomorphism.
The characterization of when an R-module M is isomorphic to the
direct sum of submodules is essentially the same as the characterization
provided in Theorem 3.1. We state the result, but the verification is left as
an exercise.

(3.2) Theorem. Let M be an R-module and let {Mj }j∈J be a family of

submodules such that
P S
(1) M = T Pj∈J Mj = h j∈J Mj i, and
(2) Mk j∈J\{k} Mj = {0} for every k ∈ J.
 3.3 Direct Sums, Exact Sequences, and Hom 121

Then M
M∼
= Mj .
j∈J

Proof. Exercise. u
t

(3.3) Definition. If M is an R-module and M1 ⊆ M is a submodule, we say

that M1 is a direct summand of M , or is complemented in M , if there is
a submodule M2 ⊆ M such that M ∼ = M1 ⊕ M2 .

(3.4) Example. Let R = Z and M = Zp2 . If M1 = hpi then M1 is not

complemented since M1 is the only subgroup of M of order p, so condition
(2) of Theorem 3.1 is impossible to satisfy.

The concept of exact sequences of R-modules and R-module homo-

morphisms and their relation to direct summands is a useful tool to have
available in the study of modules. We start by defining exact sequences of
R-modules.

(3.5) Definition. Let R be a ring. A sequence of R-modules and R-module

homomorphisms
fi fi+1
· · · −→ Mi−1 −→ Mi −→ Mi+1 −→ · · ·

is said to be exact at Mi if Im(fi ) = Ker(fi+1 ). The sequence is said to be

exact if it is exact at each Mi .

As particular cases of this definition note that

f
(1) 0 −→ M1 −→ M is exact if and only if f is injective,
g
(2) M −→ M2 −→ 0 is exact if and only if g is surjective, and
(3) the sequence

f g
(3.1) 0 −→ M1 −→ M −→ M2 −→ 0

is exact if and only if f is injective, g is surjective, and Im(f ) = Ker(g).

Note that the first isomorphism theorem (Theorem 2.4) then shows
that M2 ∼ = M/ Im(f ). M/ Im(f ) is called the cokernel of f and it is
denoted Coker(f ).

(3.6) Definition.
(1) The sequence (3.1), if exact, is said to be a short exact sequence.
(2) The sequence (3.1) is said to be a split exact sequence (or just split)
if it is exact and if Im(f ) = Ker(g) is a direct summand of M .
122 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

In the language of exact sequences, Proposition 2.12 can be stated as

follows:

(3.7) Proposition. Let 0 −→ M1 −→ M −→ M2 −→ 0 be a short exact

sequence of R-modules. If M1 and M2 are finitely generated, then so is M ,
and moreover,
µ(M ) ≤ µ(M1 ) + µ(M2 ).

Proof. u
t

(3.8) Example. Let p and q be distinct primes. Then we have short exact
sequences
φ ψ
(3.2) 0 −→ Zp −→ Zpq −→ Zq −→ 0

and
f g
(3.3) 0 −→ Zp −→ Zp2 −→ Zp −→ 0

where φ(m) = qm ∈ Zpq , f (m) = pm ∈ Zp2 , and ψ and g are the canonical
projection maps. Exact sequence (3.2) is split exact while exact sequence
(3.3) is not split exact. Both of these observations are easy consequences of
the material on cyclic groups from Chapter 1; details are left as an exercise.

There is the following useful criterion for a short exact sequence to be

split exact.

(3.9) Theorem. If
f g
(3.4) 0 −→ M1 −→ M −→ M2 −→ 0

is a short exact sequence of R-modules, then the following are equivalent:

(1) There exists a homomorphism α : M → M1 such that α ◦ f = 1M1 .
(2) There exists a homomorphism β : M2 → M such that g ◦ β = 1M2 .
(3) The sequence (3.4) is split exact and

M∼
= Im(f ) ⊕ Ker(α)
∼
= Ker(g) ⊕ Im(β)
∼
= M1 ⊕ M2 .

The homomorphisms α and β are said to split the exact sequence (3.4)
or be a splitting.
Proof. Suppose that (1) is satisfied and let x ∈ M . Then

α(x − f (α(x))) = α(x) − (α ◦ f )(α(x)) = 0

 3.3 Direct Sums, Exact Sequences, and Hom 123

since α ◦ f = 1M1 . Therefore, x − f (α(x)) ∈ Ker(α) so that

M = Ker(α) + Im(f ).
Now suppose that f (y) = x ∈ Ker(α) ∩ Im(f ). Then
0 = α(x) = α(f (y)) = y,
and therefore, x = f (y) = 0. Theorem 3.1 then shows that
M∼
= Im(f ) ⊕ Ker(α).
Define β : M2 → M by
(3.5) β(u) = v − f (α(v))
where g(v) = u. Since g is surjective, there is such a v ∈ M , but it may
be possible to write u = g(v) for more than one choice of v. Therefore, we
must verify that β is well defined. Suppose that g(v) = u = g(v 0 ). Then
v − v 0 ∈ Ker(g) = Im(f ) so that
(v − f (α(v))) − (v 0 − f (α(v 0 ))) = (v − v 0 ) + (f (α(v 0 ) − f (α(v)))
∈ Im(f ) ∩ Ker(α)
= {0}.
We conclude that β is well defined. Since it is clear from the construction
of β that g ◦ β = 1M2 , we have verified that (1) implies (2) and that
M∼ = Im(f ) ⊕ Ker(α), i.e., that (3) holds.
The proof that (2) implies (1) and (3) is similar and is left as an
exercise.
Suppose that (3) holds, that is, M ∼ = M1 ⊕ M2 . Then the projection
α : M → M1 satisfies α ◦ f = 1M1 , and the inclusion β : M2 → M satisfies
g ◦ β = 1M2 , so (1) and (2) hold. u
t

If M and N are R-modules, then the set HomR (M, N ) of all R-module
homomorphisms f : M → N is an abelian group under function addition.
According to Example 1.5 (8), HomR (M, N ) is also an R-module provided
that R is a commutative ring. Recall that EndR (M ) = HomR (M ) denotes
the endomorphism ring of the R-module M , and the ring multiplication is
composition of homomorphisms. Example 1.5 (8) shows that EndR (M ) is
an R-algebra if the ring R is commutative. Example 1.5 (10) shows that
HomR (R, M ) ∼= M for any R-module M .
Now consider R-modules M , M1 , N , and N1 , and let φ : N → N1 ,
ψ : M → M1 be R-module homomorphisms. Then there are functions
φ∗ : HomR (M, N ) → HomR (M, N1 )
and
ψ ∗ : HomR (M1 , N ) → HomR (M, N )
124 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

defined by
φ∗ (f ) = φ ◦ f for all f ∈ HomR (M, N )
and
ψ ∗ (g) = g ◦ ψ for all g ∈ HomR (M1 , N ).
It is straightforward to check that φ∗ (f +g) = φ∗ (f )+φ∗ (g) and ψ ∗ (f +g) =
ψ ∗ (f ) + ψ ∗ (g) for appropriate f and g. That is, φ∗ and ψ ∗ are homomor-
phisms of abelian groups, and if R is commutative, then they are also
R-module homomorphisms.
Given a sequence of R-modules and R-module homomorphisms
φi φi+1
(3.6) · · · −→ Mi−1 −→ Mi −→ Mi+1 −→ · · ·

and an R-module N , then HomR ( , N ) and HomR (N, ) produce two

sequences of abelian groups (R-modules if R is commutative):
(φi )∗
(3.7) · · · −→ HomR (N, Mi−1 ) −→ HomR (N, Mi )
(φi+1 )∗
−→ HomR (N, Mi+1 ) −→ · · ·

and
(φi )∗
(3.8) · · · ←− HomR (Mi−1 , N ) ←− HomR (Mi , N )
(φi+1 )∗
←− HomR (Mi+1 , N ) ←− · · · .

A natural question is to what extent does exactness of sequence (3.6)

imply exactness of sequences (3.7) and (3.8). One result along these lines
is the following.

(3.10) Theorem. Let

φ ψ
(3.9) 0 −→ M1 −→ M −→ M2

be a sequence of R-modules and R-module homomorphisms. Then the se-

quence (3.9) is exact if and only if the sequence
φ∗ ψ∗
(3.10) 0 −→ HomR (N, M1 ) −→ HomR (N, M ) −→ HomR (N, M2 )

is an exact sequence of Z-modules for all R-modules N .

If
φ ψ
(3.11) M1 −→ M −→ M2 −→ 0

is a sequence of R-modules and R-module homomorphisms, then the se-

quence (3.11) is exact if and only if the sequence
ψ∗ φ∗
(3.12) 0 −→ HomR (M2 , N ) −→ HomR (M, N ) −→ HomR (M1 , N )
 3.3 Direct Sums, Exact Sequences, and Hom 125

is an exact sequence of Z-modules for all R-modules N .

Proof. Assume that sequence (3.9) is exact and let N be an arbitrary R-
module. Suppose that f ∈ HomR (N, M ) and φ∗ (f ) = 0. Then

0 = φ ◦ f (x) = φ(f (x))

for all x ∈ N . But φ is injective, so f (x) = 0 for all x ∈ N . That is, f = 0,

and hence, φ∗ is injective.
Since ψ ◦ φ = 0 (because sequence (3.9) is exact at M ), it follows that

ψ∗ (φ∗ (f )) = ψ ◦ φ∗ (f ) = ψ ◦ φ ◦ f = 0

for all f ∈ HomR (N, M ). Thus Im(φ∗ ) ⊆ Ker(ψ∗ ). It remains to check

the other inclusion. Suppose that g ∈ HomR (N, M ) with ψ∗ (g) = 0, i.e.,
ψ(g(x)) = 0 for all x ∈ N . Since Ker(ψ) = Im(φ), for each x ∈ N , we
may write g(x) = φ(y) with y ∈ M1 . Since φ is injective, y is uniquely
determined by the equation g(x) = φ(y). Thus it is possible to define a
function f : N → M1 by f (x) = y whenever g(x) = φ(y). We leave it as an
exercise to check that f is an R-module homomorphism. Since φ∗ (f ) = g,
we conclude that Ker(ψ∗ ) = Im(φ∗ ) so that sequence (3.10) is exact.
Exactness of sequence (3.12) is a similar argument, which is left as an
exercise.
Conversely, assume that sequence (3.10) is exact for all R-modules
N . Then φ∗ is injective for all R-modules N . Then letting N = Ker(φ)
and ι : N → M1 be the inclusion, we see that φ∗ (ι) = φ ◦ ι = 0. Since
φ∗ : HomR (N, M1 ) → HomR (N, M ) is injective, we see that ι = 0, i.e.,
N = h0i. Thus, φ is injective.
Now letting N = M1 we see that

0 = (ψ∗ ◦ φ∗ )(1M1 ) = ψ ◦ φ.

Thus Im(φ) ⊆ Ker(ψ). Now let N = Ker(ψ) and let ι : N → M be the

inclusion. Since ψ∗ (ι) = ψ ◦ ι = 0, exactness of Equation (3.10) implies that
ι = φ∗ (α) for some α ∈ HomR (N, M1 ). Thus,

Im(φ) ⊇ Im(ι) = N = Ker(ψ),

and we conclude that sequence (3.9) is exact.

Again, exactness of sequence (3.11) is left as an exercise. u
t

Note that, even if

φ ψ
0 −→ M1 −→ M −→ M2 −→ 0

is a short exact sequence, the sequences (3.10) and (3.12) need not be short
exact, i.e., neither ψ∗ or φ∗ need be surjective. Following are some examples
to illustrate this.
126 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

(3.11) Example. Consider the following short exact sequence of Z-modules:

φ ψ
(3.13) 0 −→ Z −→ Z −→ Zm −→ 0

where φ(i) = mi and ψ is the canonical projection map. If N = Zn then

sequence (3.12) becomes
φ∗
0 −→ HomZ (Zm , Zn ) −→ HomZ (Z, Zn ) −→ HomZ (Z, Zn ),

which, by Example 1.5 (10), becomes

φ∗
0 −→ HomZ (Zm , Zn ) −→ Zn −→ Zn

so that
HomZ (Zm , Zn ) = Ker(φ∗ ).
Let d = gcd(m, n), and write m = m0 d, n = n0 d. Let f ∈ HomZ (Z, Zn ).
Then, clearly, φ∗ (f ) = 0 if and only if φ∗ (f )(1) = 0. But

φ∗ (f )(1) = f (m · 1) = mf (1) = m0 df (1).

Since m0 is relatively prime to n, we have m0 df (1) = 0 if and only if df (1) =

0, and this is true if and only if f (1) ∈ n0 Zn . Hence, Ker(φ∗ ) = n0 Zn ∼
= Zd ,
i.e.,

(3.14) HomZ (Zm , Zn ) ∼

= Zd .
This example also shows that even if

0 −→ M1 −→ M −→ M2 −→ 0

is exact, the sequences (3.10) and (3.12) are not, in general, part of short
exact sequences. For simplicity, take m = n. Then sequence (3.12) becomes
φ∗
(3.15) 0 −→ Zn −→ Zn −→ Zn

with φ∗ = 0 so that φ∗ is not surjective, while sequence (3.10) becomes

ψ∗
(3.16) 0 −→ HomZ (Zn , Z) −→ HomZ (Zn , Z) −→ HomZ (Zn , Zn ).

Since HomZ (Zn , Z) = 0 and HomZ (Zn , Zn ) ∼

= Zn , sequence (3.16) becomes
ψ∗
0 −→ 0 −→ 0 −→ Zn

and ψ∗ is certainly not surjective.

These examples show that Theorem 3.10 is the best statement that
can be made in complete generality concerning preservation of exactness
under application of HomR . There is, however, the following criterion for
the preservation of short exact sequences under Hom:
 3.3 Direct Sums, Exact Sequences, and Hom 127

(3.12) Theorem. Let N be an arbitrary R-module. If

φ ψ
(3.17) 0 −→ M1 −→ M −→ M2 −→ 0

is a split short exact sequence of R-modules, then

φ∗ ψ∗
(3.18) 0 −→ HomR (N, M1 ) −→ HomR (N, M ) −→ HomR (N, M2 ) −→ 0

and
ψ∗ φ∗
(3.19) 0 −→ HomR (M2 , N ) −→ HomR (M, N ) −→ HomR (M1 , N ) −→ 0

are split short exact sequences of abelian groups (R-modules if R is com-

mutative).
Proof. We will prove the split exactness of sequence (3.18); (3.19) is similar
and it is left as an exercise. Given Theorem 3.10, it is only necessary to
show that ψ∗ is surjective and that there is a splitting for sequence (3.18).
Let β : M2 → M split the exact sequence (3.17) and let f ∈ HomR (N, M2 ).
Then

ψ∗ ◦ β∗ (f ) = ψ∗ (β ◦ f )
= (ψ ◦ β) ◦ f
= (1M2 ) ◦ f
¡ ¢
= 1HomR (N,M2 ) (f ).

Thus, ψ∗ ◦ β∗ = 1HomR (N,M2 ) so that ψ∗ is surjective and β∗ is a splitting

of exact sequence (3.18). u
t

(3.13) Corollary. Let M1 , M2 , and N be R-modules. Then

(3.20) HomR (N, M1 ⊕ M2 ) ∼

= HomR (N, M1 ) ⊕ HomR (N, M2 )

and

(3.21) HomR (M1 ⊕ M2 , N ) ∼

= HomR (M1 , N ) ⊕ HomR (M2 , N ).

The isomorphisms are Z-module isomorphisms (R-module isomorphisms if

R is commutative).
Proof. Both isomorphisms follow by applying Theorems 3.12 and 3.9 to the
split exact sequence
ι π
0 −→ M1 −→ M1 ⊕ M2 −→ M2 −→ 0

where ι(m) = (m, 0) is the canonical injection and π(m1 , m2 ) = m2 is the

canonical projection. u
t
128 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

(3.14) Remarks.
(1) Notice that isomorphism (3.20) is given explicitly by

Φ(f ) = (π1 ◦ f, π2 ◦ f )

where f ∈ HomR (N, M1 ⊕ M2 ) and πi (m1 , m2 ) = mi (for i = 1, 2);

while isomorphism (3.21) is given explicitly by

Ψ(f ) = (f ◦ ι1 , f ◦ ι2 )

where f ∈ HomR (M1 ⊕ M2 , N ), ι1 : M1 → M1 ⊕ M2 is given by

ι1 (m) = (m, 0) and ι2 : M2 → M1 ⊕ M2 is given by ι2 (m) = (0, m).
(2) Corollary 3.13 actually has a natural extension to arbitrary (not nec-
essarily finite) direct sums. We conclude this section by stating this
extension. The proof is left as an exercise for the reader.

(3.15) Proposition. Let {Mi }i∈I and {Nj }j∈J be indexed families (not nec-
essarily finite) of R-modules, and let M = ⊕i∈I , N = ⊕j∈J . Then
Y³M ´
HomR (M, N ) ∼= HomR (Mi , Nj ) .
i∈I j∈J

Proof. Exercise. u
t

3.4 Free Modules

(4.1) Definition. Let R be a ring and let M be an R-module. A subset S ⊆ M

is said to be R-linearly dependent if there exist distinct x1 , . . . , xn in S and
elements a1 , . . . , an of R, not all of which are 0, such that

a1 x1 + · · · + an xn = 0.

A set that is not R-linearly dependent is said to be R-linearly independent.

When the ring R is implicit from the context, we will sometimes write
linearly dependent (or just dependent) and linearly independent (or just
independent) in place of the more cumbersome R-linearly dependent or
R-linearly independent. In case S contains only finitely many elements
x1 , x2 , . . . , xn , we will sometimes say that x1 , x2 , . . . , xn are R-linearly de-
pendent or R-linearly independent instead of saying that S = {x1 , . . . , xn }
is R-linearly dependent or R-linearly independent.
 3.4 Free Modules 129

(4.2) Remarks.
(1) To say that S ⊆ M is R-linearly independent means that whenever
there is an equation

a1 x1 + · · · + an xn = 0

where x1 , . . . , xn are distinct elements of S and a1 , . . . , an are in R,

then
a1 = · · · = an = 0.
(2) Any set S that contains a linearly dependent set is linearly dependent.
(3) Any subset of a linearly independent set S is linearly independent.
(4) Any set that contains 0 is linearly dependent since 1 · 0 = 0.
(5) A set S ⊆ M is linearly independent if and only if every finite subset
of S is linearly independent.

(4.3) Definition. Let M be an R-module. A subset S of M is a basis of M

if S generates M as an R-module and if S is R-linearly independent. That
is, S ⊆ M is a basis if and only if M = {0}, in which case S = ∅ is a basis,
or M 6= {0} and
(1) every x ∈ M can be written as

x = a1 x1 + · · · + an xn

for some x1 , . . . , xn ∈ S and a1 , . . . , an ∈ R, and

(2) whenever there is an equation

a1 x1 + · · · + an xn = 0

where x1 , . . . , xn are distinct elements of S and a1 , . . . , an are in R,

then
a1 = · · · = an = 0.

It is clear that conditions (1) and (2) in the definition of basis can be
replaced by the single condition:
(10 ) S ⊆ M is a basis of M 6= {0} if and only if every x ∈ M can be written
uniquely as
x = a1 x1 + · · · + an xn
for a1 , . . . , an ∈ R and x1 , . . . , xn ∈ S.

(4.4) Definition. An R-module M is a free R-module if it has a basis.

(4.5) Remark. According to Theorem 3.2, to say that S = {xj }j∈J is a

basis of M is equivalent to M being the direct sum of the family {Rxj }j∈J
130 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

of submodules of M , where Ann(xj ) = {0} for all j ∈ J. Moreover, if J is

any index set, then N = ⊕j∈J Rj , where Rj = R for all j ∈ J, is a free R-
module with basis S = {ej }j∈J , where ej ∈ N is defined by ej = (δjk )k∈J .
Here, δjk is the kronecker delta function, i.e., δjk = 1 ∈ R whenever j = k
and δjk = 0 ∈ R otherwise. N is said to be free on the index set J.

(4.6) Examples.
(1) If R is a field then R-linear independence and R-linear dependence in
a vector space V over R are the same concepts used in linear algebra.
(2) Rn is a free module with basis S = {e1 , . . . , en } where

ei = (0, . . . , 0, 1, 0, . . . , 0)

with a 1 in the ith position.

(3) Mm,n (R) is a free R-module with basis

S = {Eij : 1 ≤ i ≤ m, 1 ≤ j ≤ n}.

(4) The ring R[X] is a free R-module with basis {X n : n ∈ Z+ }. As in

Example 4.6 (2), R[X] is also a free R[X]-module with basis {1}.
(5) If G is a finite abelian group then G is a Z-module, but no nonempty
subset of G is Z-linearly independent. Indeed, if g ∈ G then |G| · g = 0
but |G| 6= 0. Therefore, finite abelian groups can never be free Z-
modules, except in the trivial case G = {0} when ∅ is a basis.
(6) If R is a commutative ring and I ⊆ R is an ideal, then I is an R-
module. However, if I is not a principal ideal, then I is not free as an
R-module. Indeed, no generating set of I can be linearly independent
since the equation (−a2 )a1 + a1 a2 = 0 is valid for any a1 , a2 ∈ R.
(7) If M1 and M2 are free R-modules with bases S1 and S2 respectively,
then M1 ⊕ M2 is a free R-module with basis S10 ∪ S20 , where

S10 = {(x, 0) : x ∈ S1 } and S20 = {(0, y) : y ∈ S2 }.

(8) More generally, if {Mj }j∈J is a family of free R-modules and Sj ⊆ Mj

is a basis of Mj for each j ∈ J, then M = ⊕j∈J Mj is a free R-module
and S = ∪j∈J Sj0 is a basis of M , where Sj0 ⊆ M is defined by

Sj0 = {s0jα = (δjk sjα )k∈J : sjα ∈ Sj }.

Informally, Sj0 consists of all elements of M that contain an element of

Sj in the j th component and 0 in all other components. This example
incorporates both Example 4.6 (7) and Example 4.6 (2).

Example 4.6 (5) can be generalized to the following fact.

 3.4 Free Modules 131

(4.7) Lemma. Let M be an R-module where R is a commutative ring. Then

an element x ∈ M is R-independent if and only if Ann(x) = {0}. In par-
ticular, an element a ∈ R is an R-independent subset of the R-module R if
and only if a is not a zero divisor.
Proof. Exercise. u
t

(4.8) Proposition. Let R be an integral domain and let M be a free R-

module. Then M is torsion-free.
Proof. Let M have a basis SP= {xj }j∈J and let x ∈ Mτ . Then ax = 0 for
some a 6= 0 ∈ R. Write x = j∈J aj xj . Then
X
0 = ax = (aaj )xj .
j∈J

Since S is a basis of M , it follows that aaj = 0 for all j ∈ J, and since

a 6= 0 and R is an integral domain, we conclude that aj = 0 for all j ∈ J.
Therefore, x = 0, and hence, Mτ = h0i so that M is torsion-free. u
t

The existence of a basis for an R-module M greatly facilitates the

construction of R-module homomorphisms from M to another R-module
N . In fact, there is the following important observation.

(4.9) Proposition. Let M be a free R-module with basis S, let N be any

R-module, and let h : S → N be any function. Then there is a unique
f ∈ HomR (M, N ) such that f |S = h.
Proof.
P Let S = {xj }j∈J . Then any x ∈ M can be written uniquely as
x = j∈J aj xj where at most finitely many aj are not 0. Define f : M → N
by
X
f (x) = aj h(xj ).
j∈J

It is straightforward to check that f ∈ HomR (M, N ) and that f |S = h. u

t

Remark. The content of Proposition 4.9 is usually expressed as saying that

the value of a homomorphism can be arbitrarily assigned on a basis.

(4.10) Corollary. Suppose that M is a free R-module with basis S = {xj }j∈J .
Then Y
HomR (M, N ) ∼ = Nj
j∈J

where Nj = N for all j ∈ J.

Q
Proof. Define Φ : HomR (M, N ) → j∈J Nj by Φ(f ) = (f (xj ))j∈J . Then Φ
is an isomorphism of abelian groups (R-modules if R is commutative). u t
132 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

(4.11) Theorem. Let R be a commutative ring and let M and N be finitely

generated free R-modules. Then HomR (M, N ) is a finitely generated free
R-module.
Proof. Let B = {v1 , . . . , vm } be a basis of M and C = {w1 , . . . , wn } a basis
of N . Define fij ∈ HomR (M, N ) for 1 ≤ i ≤ m and 1 ≤ j ≤ n by
½
wj if k = i,
fij (vk ) =
0 if k 6= i.

fij is a uniquely defined element of HomR (M, N ) by Proposition 4.9.

We claim that {fij : 1 ≤ i ≤ m; 1 ≤ j ≤ n} is a basis of HomR (M, N ).
To see this suppose that f ∈ HomR (M, N ) and for 1 ≤ i ≤ m write

f (vi ) = ai1 w1 + · · · + ain wn .

Let
m X
X n
g= aij fij .
i=1 j=1

Then
g(vk ) = ak1 w1 + · · · + akn wn = f (vk )
for 1 ≤ k ≤ m, so g = f since the two homomorphisms agree on a basis
of M . Thus, {fij : 1 ≤ i ≤ m; 1 ≤ j ≤ n} generates HomR (M, N ), and
we leave it as an exercise to check that this set is linearly independent and,
hence, a basis. u
t

(4.12) Remarks.
(1) A second (essentially equivalent) way to see the same thing is to write
M∼ = ⊕m ∼ n
i=1 R and N = ⊕j=1 R. Then, Corollary 3.13 shows that

m M
M n
HomR (M, N ) ∼
= HomR (R, R).
i=1 j=1

But any f ∈ HomR (R, R) can be written as f = f (1) · 1R . Thus

HomR (R, R) ∼
= R so that
m M
M n
HomR (M, N ) ∼
= R.
i=1 j=1

(2) The hypothesis of finite generation of M and N is crucial for the va-
lidity of Theorem 4.11. For example, if R = Z and M = ⊕∞ 1 Z is the
free Z-module on the index set N, then Corollary 4.10 shows that
∞
Y
HomZ (M, Z) ∼
= Z.
1
 3.4 Free Modules 133
Q∞
But the Z-module 1 Z is not a free Z-module. (For a proof of this fact
(which uses cardinality arguments), see I. Kaplansky, Infinite Abelian
Groups, University of Michigan Press, (1968) p. 48.)

(4.13) Proposition. Let M be a free R-module with basis S = {xj }j∈J . If

I is an ideal of R, then IM is a submodule of M and the quotient module
M/IM is an R/I-module. Let π : M → M/IM be the projection map.
Then M/IM is a free R/I-module with basis π(S) = {π(xj )}j∈J .
Proof. Exercise. u
t

(4.14) Proposition. Every R-module M is the quotient of a free module and

if M is finitely generated, then M is the quotient of a finitely generated free
R-module. In fact, we may take µ(F ) = µ(M ).
Proof. Let S = {xj }j∈J be a generating set for the R-module M and let
F = ⊕j∈J Rj where Rj = R be the free R-module on the index set J. Define
the homomorphism ψ : F → M by
X
ψ((aj )j∈J ) = aj xj .
j∈J

∼ F/ Ker(ψ).
Since S is a generating set for M , ψ is surjective and hence M =
Note that if |S| < ∞ then F is finitely generated. (Note that every module
has a generating set S since we may take S = M .) Since M is a quotient of
F , we have µ(M ) ≤ µ(F ). But F is free on the index set J (Remark 4.5),
so µ(F ) ≤ |J|, and since J indexes a generating set of M , it follows that
µ(F ) ≤ µ(M ) if S is a minimal generating set of M . Hence we may take F
with µ(F ) = µ(M ). u
t

(4.15) Definition. If M is an R-module then a short exact sequence

0 −→ K −→ F −→ M −→ 0

where F is a free R-module is called a free presentation of M .

Thus, Proposition 4.14 states that every module has a free presenta-
tion.

(4.16) Proposition. If F is a free R-module then every short exact sequence

f
0 −→ M1 −→ M −→ F −→ 0

of R-modules is split exact.

Proof. Let S = {xj }j∈J be a basis of the free module F . Since f is surjective,
for each j ∈ J there is an element yj ∈ M such that f (yj ) = xj . Define
h : S → M by h(xj ) = yj . By Proposition 4.9, there is a unique β ∈
134 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

HomR (F, M ) such that β|S = h. Since f ◦ β(xj ) = xj = 1F (xj ) for all
j ∈ J, it follows that f ◦ β = 1F , and the result follows from Theorem
3.9. u
t

(4.17) Corollary.
(1) Let M be an R-module and N ⊆ M a submodule with M/N free. Then
M∼ = N ⊕ (M/N ).
(2) If M is an R-module and F is a free R-module, then M ∼
= Ker(f ) ⊕ F
for every surjective homomorphism f : M → F .
Proof. (1) Since M/N is free, the short exact sequence

0 −→ N −→ M −→ M/N −→ 0

is split exact by Proposition 4.16 Therefore, M ∼

= N ⊕ (M/N ) by Theorem
3.9.
(2) Take N = Ker(f ) in part (1). u
t

(4.18) Corollary. Let N be an arbitrary R-module and F a free R-module.

If
φ ψ
(4.1) 0 −→ M1 −→ M −→ F −→ 0

is a short exact sequence of R-modules, then

φ∗ ψ∗
0 −→ HomR (N, M1 ) −→ HomR (N, M ) −→ HomR (N, F ) −→ 0

is a (split) short exact sequence of abelian groups (R-modules if R is com-

mutative).
Proof. By Proposition 4.16, the sequence (4.1) is split exact, so the corollary
follows immediately from Theorem 3.12. u
t

(4.19) Remark. It is a theorem that any two bases of a free module over
a commutative ring R have the same cardinality. This result is proved
for finite-dimensional vector spaces by showing that any set of vectors of
cardinality larger than that of a basis must be linearly dependent. The
same procedure works for free modules over any commutative ring R, but
it does require the theory of solvability of homogeneous linear equations
over a commutative ring. However, the result can be proved for R a PID
without the theory of solvability of homogeneous linear equations over R;
we prove this result in Section 3.6. The result for general commutative rings
then follows by an application of Proposition 4.13.

The question of existence of a basis of a module, that is, to ask if a

given module is free, is a delicate question for a general commutative ring R.
We have seen examples of Z-modules, namely, finite abelian groups, which
 3.4 Free Modules 135

are not free. We will conclude this section with the fact that all modules
over division rings, in particular, vector spaces, are free modules. In Section
3.6 we will study in detail the theory of free modules over a PID.

(4.20) Theorem. Let D be a division ring and let V be a D-module. Then

V is a free D-module. In particular, every vector space V has a basis.
Proof. The proof is an application of Zorn’s lemma.
Let S be a generating set for V and let B0 ⊆ S be any linearly in-
dependent subset of S (we allow B0 = ∅). Let T be the set of all linearly
independent subsets of S containing B0 and partially order T by inclusion.
If {Bi } is a chain in T , then ∪Bi is a linearly independent subset of S
that contains B0 ; thus, every chain in T has an upper bound. By Zorn’s
lemma, there is a maximal element in T , so let B be a maximal linearly
independent subset of S containing B0 . We claim that S ⊆ hBi so that
V = hSi ⊆ hBi. Let v ∈ S. Then the maximality of B implies that V ∪ {v}
is linearly dependent so that there is an equation
m
X
ai vi + bv = 0
i=1

where v1 , . . . , vm are distinct elements

Pmof B and a1 , . . . , am , b ∈ D are not
all 0. If b = 0 it would follow that i=1 ai vi = 0 with not all the scalars
ai = 0. But this contradicts the linear independence of B. Therefore, b 6= 0
and we conclude
m
X
v = b−1 (bv) = (−b−1 ai )vi ∈ hBi.
i=1

Therefore, S ⊆ hBi, and as observed above, this implies that B is a basis

of V . u
t

The proof of Theorem 4.20 actually proved more than the existence of
a basis of V . Specifically, the following more precise result was proved.

(4.21) Theorem. Let D be a division ring and let V be a D-module. If S

spans V and B0 ⊆ S is a linearly independent subset, then there is a basis
B of V such that B0 ⊆ B ⊆ S.
Proof. u
t

(4.22) Corollary. Let D be a division ring, and let V be a D-module.

(1) Any linearly independent subset of V can be extended to a basis of V .
(2) A maximal linearly independent subset of V is a basis.
(3) A minimal generating set of V is a basis.

Proof. Exercise. u
t
136 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

Notice that the above proof used the existence of inverses in the division
ring D in a crucial way. We will return in Section 3.6 to study criteria that
ensure that a module is free if the ring R is assumed to be a PID. Even
when R is a PID, e.g., R = Z, we have seen examples of R modules that
are not free, so we will still be required to put restrictions on the module
M to ensure that it is free.

3.5 Projective Modules

The property of free modules given in Proposition 4.16 is a very useful one,
and it is worth investigating the class of those modules that satisfy this
condition. Such modules are characterized in the following theorem.

(5.1) Theorem. The following conditions on an R-module P are equivalent.

(1) Every short exact sequence of R-modules

0 −→ M1 −→ M −→ P −→ 0

splits.
(2) There is an R-module P 0 such that P ⊕ P 0 is a free R-module.
(3) For any R-module N and any surjective R-module homomorphism ψ :
M → P , the homomorphism

ψ∗ : HomR (N, M ) → HomR (N, P )

is surjective.
(4) For any surjective R-module homomorphism φ : M → N , the homo-
morphism
φ∗ : HomR (P, M ) → HomR (P, N )
is surjective.

Proof. (1) ⇒ (2). Let 0 −→ K −→ F −→ P −→ 0 be a free presentation of

P . Then this short exact sequence splits so that F ∼= P ⊕ K by Theorem
3.9.
(2) ⇒ (3). Suppose that F = P ⊕ P 0 is free. Given a surjective R-
module homomorphism ψ : M → P , let ψ 0 = ψ ⊕ 1P 0 : M ⊕ P 0 → P ⊕ P 0 =
F ; this is also a surjective homomorphism, so there is an exact sequence
ψ0
0 −→ Ker(ψ 0 ) −→ M ⊕ P 0 −→ F −→ 0.

Since F is free, Proposition 4.16 implies that this sequence is split exact;
Theorem 3.12 then shows that

ψ∗0 : HomR (N, M ⊕ P 0 ) → HomR (N, P ⊕ P 0 )

 3.5 Projective Modules 137

is a surjective homomorphism. Now let f ∈ HomR (N, P ) be arbitrary and

let f 0 = ι ◦ f , where ι : P → P ⊕ P 0 is the inclusion map. Then there
is an fe ∈ HomR (N, M ⊕ P 0 ) with ψ∗0 (fe) = f 0 . Let π : M ⊕ P 0 → M
and π 0 : P ⊕ P 0 → P be the projection maps. Note that π 0 ◦ ι = 1P and
ψ ◦ π = π 0 ◦ ψ 0 . Then

ψ∗ (π ◦ fe) = ψ ◦ (π ◦ fe)
= π 0 ◦ ψ 0 ◦ fe
= π0 ◦ f 0
= (π 0 ◦ ι) ◦ f
= f.

Therefore, ψ∗ is surjective.
ψ
(3) ⇒ (4). Let 0 −→ K −→ F −→ P −→ 0 be a free presentation of
P . By property (3), there is a β ∈ HomR (P, F ) such that ψ∗ (β) = 1P , i.e.,
ψ◦β = 1P . Let φ : M → N be any surjective R-module homomorphism and
let f ∈ HomR (P, N ). Then there is a commutative diagram of R-module
homomorphisms
ψ
F −→ P −→ 0

f
y
φ
M −→ N −→ 0
with exact rows. Let S = {xj }j∈J be a basis of F . Since φ is surjective,
we may choose yj ∈ M such that φ(yj ) = f ◦ ψ(xj ) for all j ∈ J. By
Proposition 4.9, there is an R-module homomorphism g : F → M such
that g(xj ) = yj for all j ∈ J. Since φ ◦ g(xj ) = φ(yj ) = f ◦ ψ(xj ), it follows
that φ ◦ g = f ◦ ψ. Define fe ∈ HomR (P, M ) by fe = g ◦ β and observe that

φ∗ (fe) = φ ◦ (g ◦ β)
=f ◦ψ◦β
= f ◦ 1P
= f.

Hence, φ∗ : HomR (P, M ) → HomR (P, N ) is surjective.

(4) ⇒ (1). A short exact sequence
ψ
0 −→ M1 −→ M −→ P −→ 0,

in particular, includes a surjection ψ : M → P . Now take N = P in part

(4). Thus,
ψ∗ : HomR (P, M ) → HomR (P, P )
is surjective. Choose β : P → M with ψ∗ (β) = 1P . Then β splits the short
exact sequence and the result is proved. u
t
138 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

(5.2) Definition. An R-module P satisfying any of the equivalent conditions

of Theorem 5.1 is called projective.

As noted before Theorem 5.1, projective modules are introduced as the

class of modules possessing the property that free modules were shown to
possess in Proposition 4.16. Therefore, we have the following fact:

(5.3) Proposition. Free R-modules are projective.

Proof. u
t

(5.4) Corollary. Let R be an integral domain. If P is a projective R-module,

then P is torsion-free.
Proof. By Theorem 5.1 (2), P is a submodule of a free module F over R.
According to Proposition 4.8, every free module over an integral domain is
torsion-free, and every submodule of a torsion-free module is torsion-free.
u
t

(5.5) Corollary. An R-module P is a finitely generated projective R-module

if and only if P is a direct summand of a finitely generated free R-module.
Proof. Suppose that P is finitely generated and projective. By Proposition
4.14, there is a free presentation

0 −→ K −→ F −→ P −→ 0

such that F is free and µ(F ) = µ(P ) < ∞. By Theorem 5.1, P is a direct
summand of F .
Conversely, assume that P is a direct summand of a finitely generated
free R-module F . Then P is projective, and moreover, if P ⊕ P 0 ∼
= F then
F/P 0 ∼
= P so that P is finitely generated. u
t

(5.6) Examples.
(1) Every free module is projective.
(2) Suppose that m and n are relatively prime natural numbers. Then
as abelian groups Zmn ∼ = Zm ⊕ Zn . It is easy to check that this iso-
morphism is also an isomorphism of Zmn -modules. Therefore, Zm is
a direct summand of a free Zmn -module, and hence it is a projective
Zmn -module. However, Zm is not a free Zmn module since it has fewer
than mn elements.
(3) Example 5.6 (2) shows that projective modules need not be free. We
will present another example of this phenomenon in which the ring R is
an integral √
domain so that simple cardinality arguments
√ do not suffice.
Let R = Z[ −5] and let I be the ideal I = h2, 1 + −5i = ha1 , a2 i. It
is easily shown that I is not a principal ideal, and hence by Example
4.6 (6), we see that I cannot be free as an R-module. We claim that I
 3.5 Projective Modules 139
√
is a projective R-module. To see this, let b = 1 − −5 ∈ R, let F be a
free R-module with basis {s1 , s2 }, and let φ : F → I be the R-module
homomorphism defined by

φ(r1 s1 + r2 s2 ) = r1 a1 + r2 a2 .

Now define an R-module homomorphism α : I → F by

α(a) = −as1 + ((ab)/2)s2 .

Note that this makes sense because 2 divides ab for every a ∈ I. Now
for a ∈ I,

φ ◦ α(a) = φ(−as1 + ((ab)/2)s2 )

= −aa1 + ((ab)/2)a2
= −aa1 + aa2 b/2
= −2a + 3a
=a

so that α is a splitting of the surjective map φ. Hence, F ∼

= Ker(φ) ⊕ I
and by Theorem 5.1, I is a projective R-module.

Concerning the construction of new projective modules from old ones,

there are the following two simple facts:

(5.7) Proposition. Let {Pj }j∈J be a family of R-modules, and let P =

⊕j∈J Pj . Then P is projective if and only if Pj is projective for each j ∈ J.
Proof. Suppose that P is projective. Then by Theorem 5.1, there is an
R-module P 0 such that P ⊕ P 0 = F is a free R-module. Then
³M ´
F = P ⊕ P0 = Pj ⊕ P 0 ,
j∈J

and hence, each Pj is also a direct summand of the free R-module F . Thus,
Pj is projective.
Conversely, suppose that Pj is projective for every j ∈ J and let Pj0 be
an R-module such that Pj ⊕ Pj0 = Fj is free. Then
³M ´ M¡ ¢
P⊕ Pj0 ∼
= Pj ⊕ Pj0
j∈J j∈J
M
∼
= Fj .
j∈J

Since the direct sum of free modules is free (Example 4.6 (8)), it follows
that P is a direct summand of a free module, and hence P is projective. ut
140 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

(5.8) Proposition. Let R be a commutative ring and let P and Q be finitely

generated projective R-modules. Then HomR (P, Q) is a finitely generated
projective R-module.
Proof. Since P and Q are finitely generated projective R-modules, there are
R-modules P 0 and Q0 such that P ⊕P 0 and Q⊕Q0 are finitely generated free
modules. Therefore, by Theorem 4.11, HomR (P ⊕ P 0 , Q ⊕ Q0 ) is a finitely
generated free R-module. But
HomR (P ⊕ P 0 , Q ⊕ Q0 ) ∼
= HomR (P, Q) ⊕ HomR (P, Q0 )
⊕ HomR (P 0 , Q) ⊕ HomR (P 0 , Q0 )
so that HomR (P, Q) is a direct summand of a finitely generated free R-
module, and therefore, it is projective and finitely generated by Corollary
5.5. u
t

Example 5.6 (3) was an example of an ideal in a ring R that was

projective as an R-module, but not free. According to Example 4.6 (6), an
ideal I in a ring R is free as an R-module if and only if the ideal is principal.
It is a natural question to ask which ideals in a ring R are projective as
R-modules. Since this turns out to be an important question in number
theory, we will conclude our brief introduction to the theory of projective
modules by answering this question for integral domains R.

(5.9) Definition. Let R be an integral domain and let K be the quotient

field of R. An ideal I ⊆ R is said to be invertible if there are elements
a1 , . . . , an ∈ I and b1 , . . . , bn ∈ K such that
(5.1) bi I ⊆ R for 1 ≤ i ≤ n, and
(5.2) a1 b1 + · · · + an bn = 1.

(5.10) Examples.
(1) If I ⊆ R is the principal ideal I = hai where a 6= 0, then I is an
invertible ideal. Indeed, let b = 1/a ∈ K. Then any x ∈ I is divisible
by a in R so√that bx = (1/a)x ∈ R, while
√ a(1/a) = 1.
(2) Let R = Z[ −5] and let I = h2, 1 + −5i. Then it is easily checked
that I is not principal,
√ but I is an invertible √ideal. To see this, let
a1 = 2, a2 = 1 + −5, b1 = −1, and b2 = (1 − −5)/2. Then
a1 b1 + a2 b2 = −2 + 3 = 1.
Furthermore, a1 b2 and a2 b2 are in R, so it follows that b2 I ⊆ R, and
we conclude that I is an invertible ideal.

The following result characterizes which ideals in an integral domain

R are projective modules. Note that the theorem is a generalization of
Example 5.6 (3):
 3.5 Projective Modules 141

(5.11) Theorem. Let R be an integral domain and let I ⊆ R be an ideal.

Then I is a projective R-module if and only if I is an invertible ideal.
Proof. Suppose that I is invertible and choose a1 , . . . , an ∈ I and b1 , . . . , bn
in the quotient field K of R so that Equations (5.1) and (5.2) are satisfied.
Let φ : Rn → I be defined by

φ(x1 , . . . , xn ) = a1 x1 + · · · + an xn ,

and define β : I → Rn by

β(a) = (ab1 , . . . , abn ).

Note that abi ∈ R for all i by Equation (5.1). Equation (5.2) shows that
n
à n !
X X
φ ◦ β(a) = ai (abi ) = a ai bi = a
i=1 i=1

for every a ∈ I. Therefore φ ◦ β = 1P and Theorem 3.9 implies that I is a

direct summand of the free R-module Rn , so I is a projective R-module.
Conversely, assume that the ideal I ⊆ R is projective as an R-module.
Then I is a direct summand of a free R-module F , so there are R-module
homomorphisms φ : F → I and β : I → F such that φ ◦ β = 1I . Let
S = {xj }j∈J be a basis of F . Given x ∈ I, β(x) ∈ F can be written
uniquely as
X
(5.3) β(x) = cj xj .
j∈J

For each j ∈ J, let ψj (x) = cj . This gives a function ψj : I → R, which is

easily checked to be an R-module homomorphism. If aj = φ(xj ) ∈ I, note
that
(5.4) for each x ∈ I, ψj (x) = 0 except for at most finitely many j ∈ J;
(5.5) for each x ∈ I, Equation (5.3) shows that
X
x = φ(β(x)) = ψj (x)aj .
j∈J

Given x 6= 0 ∈ I and j ∈ J, define bj ∈ K (K is the quotient field of

R) by
ψj (x)
(5.6) bj = .
x
The element bj ∈ K depends on j ∈ J but not on the element x 6= 0 ∈ I.
To see this, suppose that x0 6= 0 ∈ I is another element of I. Then

x0 ψj (x) = ψj (x0 x) = ψj (xx0 ) = xψj (x0 )

142 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

so that ψj (x)/x = ψj (x0 )/x0 . Therefore, for each j ∈ J we get a uniquely

defined bj ∈ K. By property (5.4), at most finitely many of the bj are not
0. Label the nonzero bj by b1 , . . . , bn . By property (5.5), if x 6= 0 ∈ I then
 
Xn X n n
X
x= ψj (x)aj = (bj x)aj = x  bj aj  .
j=1 j=1 j=1

Cancelling x 6= 0 from this equation gives

a1 b1 + · · · + an bn = 1

where a1 , . . . , an ∈ I and b1 · · · , bn ∈ K. It remains to check that bj I ⊆ R

for 1 ≤ j ≤ n. But if x 6= 0 ∈ I then bj = ψj (x)/x so that bj x = ψj (x) ∈ R.
Therefore, I is an invertible ideal and the theorem is proved. u
t

(5.12) Remark. Integral domains in which every ideal is invertible are known
as Dedekind domains, and they are important in number theory. For ex-
ample, the ring of integers in any algebraic number field is a Dedekind
domain.

3.6 Free Modules over a PID

In this section we will continue the study of free modules started in Sec-
tion 3.4, with special emphasis upon theorems relating to conditions which
ensure that a module over a PID R is free. As examples of the types of
theorems to be considered, we will prove that all submodules of a free R-
module are free and all finitely generated torsion-free R-modules are free,
provided that the ring R is a PID. Both of these results are false without
the assumption that R is a PID, as one can see very easily by consider-
ing an integral domain R that is not a PID, e.g., R = Z[X], and an ideal
I ⊆ R that is not principal, e.g., h2, Xi ⊆ Z[X]. Then I is a torsion-free
submodule of R that is not free (see Example 4.6 (6)).
Our analysis of free modules over PIDs will also include an analysis of
which elements in a free module M can be included in a basis and a criterion
for when a linearly independent subset can be included in a basis. Again,
these are basic results in the theory of finite-dimensional vector spaces, but
the case of free modules over a PID provides extra subtleties that must be
carefully analyzed.
We will conclude our treatment of free modules over PIDs with a fun-
damental result known as the invariant factor theorem for finite rank sub-
modules of free modules over a PID R. This result is a far-reaching gener-
alization of the freeness of submodules of free modules, and it is the basis
 3.6 Free Modules over a PID 143

for the fundamental structure theorem for finitely generated modules over
PIDs which will be developed in Section 3.7.
We start with the following definition:

(6.1) Definition. Let M be a free R-module. Then the free rank of M ,

denoted free-rankR (M ), is the minimal cardinality of a basis of M .

Since we will not be concerned with the fine points of cardinal arith-
metic, we shall not distinguish among infinite cardinals so that

free-rankR (M ) ∈ Z+ ∪ {∞}.

Since a basis is a generating set of M , we have the inequality µ(M ) ≤

free-rankR (M ). We will see in Corollary 6.18 that for an arbitrary commu-
tative ring R and for every free R-module, free-rankR (M ) = µ(M ) and all
bases of M have this cardinality.

(6.2) Theorem. Let R be a PID, and let M be a free R-module. If N ⊆ M

is a submodule, then N is a free R-module, and

free-rankR (N ) ≤ free-rankR (M ).

Proof. Since h0i is free with basis ∅, we may assume that N 6= h0i. Let
S = {xj }j∈J be a basis of M . For any subset K ⊆ J let MK = h{xk }k∈K i
and let NK = N ∩ MK . Let T be the set of all triples (K, K 0 , f ) where
K 0 ⊆ K ⊆ J and f : K 0 → NK is a function such that {f (k)}k∈K 0 is a
basis of NK .

Claim. T 6= ∅.

Since N 6= h0i there is an x 6= 0 ∈ N , so we may write x = a1 xj1 +

· · · + ak xjk . Hence x ∈ NK where K = {j1 , . . . , jk }. Thus, there are finite
subsets K ⊆ J such that NK 6= h0i. Choose a finite set

K = {j1 , . . . , jk } ⊆ J

such that NK 6= h0i, but NK 0 = h0i for all sets K 0 ⊆ J with |K 0 | < k.
Choose any nonzero x ∈ NK and write

x = a1 xj1 + · · · + ak xjk .

Let d = gcd{a1 , . . . , ak }, and if ai = dbi , let

x0 = b1 xj1 + · · · + bk xjk .

Now consider I = {a ∈ R : ax0 ∈ N }. Then I is an ideal, so I = hai since R

is a PID. Let y = ax0 . We claim that NK = hyi so that {y} will be a basis
of NK . Let z 6= 0 ∈ NK be arbitrary. Then
144 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

z = c1 xj1 + · · · + ck xjk
and ci 6= 0 since otherwise a linear combination of fewer than k elements of
the basis S will be in N , which contradicts the choice of K. Since
ab1 z − c1 y = 0 · xj1 + · · · + αk xjk ,
it follows that ab1 z − c1 y ∈ NK is a linear combination of fewer than k
elements of the basis S, and hence we must have ab1 z −c1 y = 0. Dividing by
a gives b1 z = c1 x0 so that b1 cj = c1 bj for 1 ≤ j ≤ k. But gcd{b1 , . . . , bk } =
1, so we conclude that b1 divides c1 , and hence z = e c1 x0 . From the definition
of the ideal I, we conclude that a divides e c1 , i.e.,
z = c01 ax0 = c01 y.
Therefore, we have shown that {y} is a basis of NK . Let K 0 = {j1 } and
define f : K 0 → N by f (j1 ) = y. Then (K, K 0 , f ) ∈ T so that T 6= ∅, as
claimed.
Now define a partial order on T by setting (K, K 0 , f ) ≤ (L, L0 , g) if
0 0 0
¡KS⊆ L, K ⊆ SL , and g|K¢0 = f . If {(Kα , Kα , fα )}α∈A ⊆ T is a chain, then
α∈A Kα , α∈A Kα , F where F |Kα = fα is an upper bound in T for
0

the chain. Therefore, Zorn’s lemma applies and there is a maximal element
(K, K 0 , f ) of T .

Claim. K = J.

Assuming the claim is true, it follows that MK = M , NK = N ∩MK =

N , and {f (k)}k∈K 0 is a basis of N . Thus, N is a free module (since it has
a basis), and since S was an arbitrary basis of M , we conclude that N has
a basis of cardinality ≤ free-rankR (M ), which is what we wished to prove.
It remains to verify the claim. Suppose that K 6= J and choose j ∈
J \ K. Let L = K ∪ {j}. If NK = NL then (K, K 0 , f ) < 0
6= (L, K , f ),
contradicting the maximality of (K, K 0 , f ) in T . If
NK 6= NL = (MK + hxj i) ∩ N,
let
I = {a ∈ R : axj + v ∈ N for some v ∈ MK }.
I is an ideal of R and, since NK 6= NL , we must have I 6= h0i. But R is a
PID, so I = hai for some a 6= 0 ∈ R. Thus there is a w ∈ MK such that
z = axj + w ∈ N . Now let L0 = K 0 ∪ {j} and define f 0 : L0 → NL by
½
f (k) if k ∈ K 0 ,
f 0 (k) =
z if k = j.
We need to show that {f 0 (k)}k∈L0 is a basis of NL . But if x ∈ NL then
x = bxj + v for some v ∈ MK . Thus, b ∈ I, so b = ac for some c ∈ R, and
hence,
 3.6 Free Modules over a PID 145

x = acxj + v = c(axj ) + v = cz + (v − cw).

But x − cz = v − cw ∈ MK ∩ N = NK so that
X
x − cz = bk f (k)
k∈K 0

where bk ∈ R. Thus,
P {f (k)}k∈L0 generates NL .
Now suppose k∈L0 bk f 0 (k) = 0. Then
X
bj z + bk f (k) = 0
k∈K 0

so that X
abj xj + bj w + bk f (k) = 0.
k∈K 0

That is, abj xj ∈ MK ∩ hxj i = h0i, and since S = {x` }`∈J is a basis of M ,
we must have abj = 0. P
But a 6= 0, so bj = 0. This implies that k∈K 0 bk f (k) = 0. But
{f (k)}k∈K 0 is a basis of NK , so we must have bk = 0 for all k ∈ K 0 . Thus
{f 0 (k)}k∈L0 is a basis of NL . We conclude that (K, K 0 , f ) < 0 0
6= (L, L , f ),
which contradicts the maximality of (K, K 0 , f ). Therefore, the claim is
verified, and the proof of the theorem is complete. u
t

(6.3) Corollary. Let R be a PID and let P be a projective R-module. Then

P is free.
Proof. By Proposition 4.14, P has a free presentation

0 −→ K −→ F −→ P −→ 0.

Since P is projective, this exact sequence splits and hence F ∼

= P ⊕ K.
Therefore, P is isomorphic to a submodule of F , and Theorem 6.2 then
shows that P is free. u
t

(6.4) Corollary. Let M be a finitely generated module over the PID R and
let N ⊆ M be a submodule. Then N is finitely generated and

µ(N ) ≤ µ(M ).

Proof. Let
φ
0 −→ K −→ F −→ M −→ 0
be a free presentation of M such that free-rank(F ) = µ(M ) < ∞, and let
N1 = φ−1 (N ). By Theorem 6.2, N1 is free with

µ(N1 ) ≤ free-rank(N1 ) ≤ free-rank(F ) = µ(M ).

Since N = φ(N1 ), we have µ(N ) ≤ µ(N1 ), and the result is proved. u

t
146 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

(6.5) Remark. The hypothesis that R be a PID in Theorem 6.2 and Corol-
laries 6.3 and 6.4 is crucial. For example, consider the ring R = Z[X] and
let M = R and N = h2, Xi. Then M is a free R-module and N is a√sub-
module of M √that is not free (Example 4.6 (6)). Moreover, R = Z[ −5],
P = h2, 1 + −5i gives an example of a projective R-module P that is
not free (Example 5.6 (3)). Also note that 2 = µ(N ) > µ(M ) = 1 and
2 = µ(P ) > 1 = µ(R).

Recall that if M is a free module over an integral domain R, then M is

torsion-free (Proposition 4.8). The converse of this statement is false even
under the restriction that R be a PID. As an example, consider the Z-
module Q. It is clear that Q is a torsion-free Z-module, and it is a simple
exercise to show that it is not free. There is, however, a converse if the
module is assumed to be finitely generated (and the ring R is a PID).

(6.6) Theorem. If R is a PID and M is a finitely generated torsion-free

R-module, then M is free and
free-rankR (M ) = µ(M ).

Proof. The proof is by induction on µ(M ). If µ(M ) = 1 then M is cyclic

with generator {x}. Since M is torsion-free, Ann(x) = {0}, so the set {x}
is linearly independent and, hence, is a basis of M .
Now suppose that µ(M ) = k > 0 and assume that the result is true
for all finitely generated torsion-free R-modules M 0 with µ(M 0 ) < k. Let
{x1 , . . . , xk } be a minimal generating set for M , and let
M1 = {x ∈ M : ax ∈ hx1 i for some a 6= 0 ∈ R}.
Then M/M1 is generated by {x2 + M1 , . . . , xk + M1 } so that µ(M/M1 ) =
j ≤ k − 1. If ax ∈ M1 for some a 6= 0 ∈ R, then from the definition of M1 ,
b(ax) ∈ hx1 i for some b 6= 0. Hence x ∈ M1 and we conclude that M/M1
is torsion-free. By the induction hypothesis, M/M1 is free of free-rank j.
Then Corollary 4.17 shows that M ∼ = M1 ⊕ (M/M1 ). We will show that M1
is free of free-rank 1. It will then follow that
k = µ(M ) ≤ µ(M1 ) + µ(M/M1 ) = 1 + j,
and since j ≤ k −1, it will follow that j = k −1 and M is free of free-rank =
k.
It remains to show that M1 is free of rank 1. Note that if R is a field
then M1 = R · x1 and we are done. In the general case, M1 is a submodule
of M , so it is finitely generated by ` ≤ k elements. Let {y1 , . . . , y` } be
a generating set for M1 and suppose that ai yi = bi x1 with ai 6= 0 for
1 ≤ i ≤ `. Let q0 = a1 · · · a` .

Claim. If ax = bx1 with a 6= 0 then a | bq0 .

 3.6 Free Modules over a PID 147
P`
To see this note that x = i=1 ci yi so that

X̀
q0 x = ci q0 yi
i=1
X̀
= ci (q0 /ai )ai yi
i=1
X̀
= ci (q0 /ai )bi x1
i=1
à !
X̀
= ci (q0 /ai )bi x1 .
i=1

Therefore. Ã !
X̀
bq0 x1 = aq0 x = a ci (q0 /ai )bi x1 .
i=1

Since M1 is torsion-free, it follows that

à !
X̀
bq0 = a ci (q0 /ai )bi ,
i=1

and the claim is proved.

Using this claim we can define a function φ : M1 → R by φ(x) =
(bq0 )/a whenever ax = bx1 for a 6= 0. We must show that φ is well defined.
That is, if ax = bx1 and a0 x = b0 x, then (bq0 )/a = (b0 q0 )/a0 . But ax = bx1
and a0 x = b0 x1 implies that a0 bx1 = a0 ax = ab0 x1 so that a0 b = ab0 because
M is torsion-free. Thus a0 bq0 = ab0 q0 so that (bq0 )/a = (b0 q0 )/a0 and φ is
well defined. Furthermore, it is easy to see that φ is an R-module homo-
morphism so that Im(φ) is an R-submodule of R, i.e., an ideal. Suppose
that φ(x) = 0. Then ax = bx1 with a 6= 0 and φ(x) = (bq0 )/a = 0 ∈ R.
Since R is an integral domain, it follows that b = 0 and hence ax = 0. Since
M is torsion-free we conclude that x = 0. Therefore, Ker(φ) = {0} and

M1 ∼
= Im(φ) = Rc.
Hence, M1 is free of rank 1, and the proof is complete. u
t

(6.7) Corollary. If M is a finitely generated module over a field F , then M

is free.
Proof. Every module over a field is torsion-free (Proposition 2.20). u
t

(6.8) Remark. We have already given an independent proof (based on Zorn’s

lemma) for Corollary 6.7, even without the finitely generated assumption
(Theorem 4.20). We have included Corollary 6.7 here as an observation that
148 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

it follows as a special case of the general theory developed for torsion-free

finitely generated modules over a PID.

(6.9) Corollary. If M is a finitely generated module over a PID R, then

M∼ = Mτ ⊕ (M/Mτ ).
Proof. There is an exact sequence of R-modules

0 −→ Mτ −→ M −→ M/Mτ −→ 0.

Hence, M/Mτ is finitely generated and by Proposition 2.18, it is torsion-

free, so Theorem 6.6 shows that M/Mτ is free. Then Corollary 4.17 shows
that M ∼ = Mτ ⊕ (M/Mτ ). u
t

The main point of Corollary 6.9 is that any finitely generated module
over a PID can be written as a direct sum of its torsion submodule and
a free submodule. Thus an analysis of these modules is reduced to study-
ing the torsion submodule, once we have completed our analysis of free
modules. We will now continue the analysis of free modules over a PID R
by studying when an element in a free module can be included in a basis.
As a corollary of this result we will be able to show that any two bases
of a finitely generated free R-module (R a PID) have the same number of
elements.

(6.10) Example. Let R be a PID and view R as an R-module. Then an

element a ∈ R forms a basis of R if and only if a is a unit. Thus if R is
a field, then every nonzero element is a basis of the R-module R, while if
R = Z then the only elements of Z that form a basis of Z are 1 and −1.
As a somewhat more substantial example, consider the Z-module Z2 . Then
the element u = (2, 0) ∈ Z2 cannot be extended to a basis of Z2 since if v
is any element of Z2 with {u, v} linearly independent, the equation

αu + βv = (1, 0)

is easily seen to have no solution α, β ∈ Z. Therefore, some restriction on

elements of an R-module that can be included in a basis is necessary. The
above examples suggest the following definition.

(6.11) Definition. Let M be an R-module. A torsion-free element x 6= 0 ∈ M

is said to be primitive if x = ay for some y ∈ M and a ∈ R implies that a
is a unit of R.

(6.12) Remarks.
(1) If R is a field, then every nonzero x ∈ M is primitive.
(2) The element x ∈ R is a primitive element of the R-module R if and
only if x is a unit.
 3.6 Free Modules over a PID 149

(3) The element (2, 0) ∈ Z2 is not primitive since (2, 0) = 2 · (1, 0).
(4) If R = Z and M = Q, then no element of M is primitive.

(6.13) Lemma. Let R P be a PID and let M be a free R-module with basis
S = {xj }j∈J . If x = j∈J aj xj ∈ M , then x is primitive if and only if
gcd ({aj }j∈J ) = 1.
P
Proof. Let d = gcd ({aj }j∈J ). Then x = d( j∈J (aj /d)xj ), so if d is not a
unit then x is not primitive. Conversely, if d = 1 and x = ay then
X
aj xj = x
j∈J
= ay
³X ´
=a bj xj
j∈J
X
= abj xj .
j∈J

Since S = {xj }j∈J is a basis, it follows that aj = abj for all j ∈ J. That
is, a is a common divisor of the set {aj }j∈J so that a | d = 1. Hence a is a
unit and x is primitive. u
t

(6.14) Lemma. Let R be a PID and let M be a finitely generated R-module.

If x ∈ M has Ann(x) = h0i, then we may write x = ax0 where a ∈ R and
x0 is primitive. (In particular, if M is not a torsion module, then M has a
primitive element.)
Proof. Let x0 = x. If x0 is primitive we are done. Otherwise, write x0 = a1 x1
where a1 ∈ R is not a unit. Then hx0 i ⊂ 6= hx1 i. To see this, it is certainly
true that hx0 i ⊆ hx1 i. If the two submodules are equal then we may write
x1 = bx0 so that x0 = a1 x1 = a1 bx0 , i.e., (1 − a1 b) ∈ Ann(x0 ) = h0i.
Therefore, 1 = a1 b and a1 is a unit, which contradicts the choice of a1 .
Now consider x1 . If x1 is primitive, we are done. Otherwise, x1 =
a2 x2 where a2 is not a unit, and as above we conclude that hx1 i ⊂ 6= hx2 i.
Continuing in this way we obtain a chain of submodules

(6.1) hx0 i ⊂ ⊂ ⊂
6= hx1 i 6= hx2 i 6= · · · .

Either this chain stops at some i, which means that xi is primitive, or (6.1)
is an infinite properly ascending chain of submodules of S M . We claim that
∞
the latter possibility cannot occur. To see this, let N = i=1 hxi i. Then N
is a submodule of the finitely generated module M over the PID R so that
N is also finitely generated by {y1 , . . . , yk } (Corollary 6.5). Since hx0 i ⊆
hx1 i ⊆ · · ·, there is an i such that {y1 , . . . , yk } ⊆ hxi i. Thus N = hxi i and
hence hxi i = hxi+1 i = · · ·, which contradicts having an infinite properly
150 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

ascending chain. Therefore, xi is primitive for some i, and if we let x0 = xi

we conclude that x = ax0 where a = a1 a2 · · · ai . u
t

(6.15) Remark. Suppose that M is a free R-module, where R is a PID, and

x ∈ M . Then Ann(x) = h0i, so x = ax0 where x0 is a primitive
P element of
M . If S = {xj }j∈J is a basis of M , then we may write x0 = j∈J bj xj so
that X X
x = ax0 = abj xj = cj xj .
j∈J j∈J

Since gcd ({bj }j∈J ) = 1 (by Lemma 6.13) we see that a = gcd ({cj }j∈J ).
The element a ∈ R, which is uniquely determined by x up to multiplication
by a unit of R, is called the content of x ∈ M and is denoted c(x). (Compare
with the concept of content of polynomials (Definition 2.6.3).) Thus, any
x ∈ M can be written

(6.2) x = c(x) · x0

where x0 is primitive.

(6.16) Theorem. Let R be a PID and let M be a free R-module with

rank(M ) = k = µ(M ) = free-rank(M ).

If x ∈ M is primitive, then M has a basis of k elements containing x.

Proof. Assume first that k < ∞ and proceed by induction on k. Suppose
k = 1 and let M have a basis {x1 }. Then x = ax1 for some a ∈ R. Since x
is primitive, it follows that a is a unit so that hxi = hx1 i = M , hence {x}
is a basis of M .
The case k = 2 will be needed in the general induction step, so we
present it separately. Thus suppose that M has a basis {x1 , x2 } and let
x = rx1 + sx2 where r, s ∈ R. Since x is primitive, gcd{r, s} = 1, so we
may write ru + sv = 1. Let x02 = −vx1 + ux2 . Then

x1 = ux − sx02

and
x2 = vx + rx02 .
Hence, hx, x02 i = M . It remains to show that {x, x02 } is linearly indepen-
dent. Suppose that ax + bx02 = 0. Then

a(rx1 + sx2 ) + b(−vx1 + ux2 ) = 0.

Since {x1 , x2 } is a basis of M , it follows that

ar − bv = 0

and
 3.6 Free Modules over a PID 151

as + bu = 0.
Multiplying the first equation by u, multiplying the second by v, and adding
shows that a = 0, while multiplying the first by −s, multiplying the second
by r, and adding shows that b = 0. Hence, {x, x02 } is linearly independent
and, therefore, a basis of M .
Now suppose that µ(M ) = k > 2 and that the result is true for all free
R-modules of rank < k. By Theorem 6.6 there is a basis {x1 , . . . , xk } of M .
Pk
Let x = i=1 ai xi . If ak = 0 then x ∈ M1 = hx1 , . . . , xk−1 i, so by induc-
tion there is a basis {x, x02 , . . . , x0k−1 } of M1 . Then {x, x02 , . . . , x0k−1 , xk } is
Pk−1
a basis of M containing x. Now suppose that ak 6= 0 and let y = i=1 ai xi .
If y = 0 then x = ak xk , and since x is primitive, it follows that ak is a unit
of R and {x1 , . . . , xk−1 , x} is a basis of M containing x in this case. If
y 6= 0 then there is a primitive y 0 such that y = by 0 for some b ∈ R. In
particular, y 0 ∈ M1 so that M1 has a basis {y 0 , x02 , . . . , x0k−1 } and hence
M has a basis {y 0 , x2 , . . . , x0k−1 , xk }. But x = ak xk + y = ak xk + by 0 and
gcd(ak , b) = 1 since x is primitive. By the previous case (k = 2) we conclude
that the submodule hxk , y 0 i has a basis {x, y 00 }. Therefore, M has a basis
{x, x02 , . . . , x0k−1 , y 00 } and the argument is complete when k P = µ(M ) < ∞.
n
If k = ∞ let {xj }j∈J be a basis of M and let x = i=1 ai xji for
some finite subset I = {j1 , . . . , jn } ⊆ J. If N = hxj1 , . . . , xjn i then x is
a primitive element in the finitely generated module N , so the previous
argument applies to show that there is a basis {x, x02 , . . . , x0n } of N . Then
{x, x02 , . . . , x0n } ∪ {xj }j∈J\I is a basis of M containing x. u
t

(6.17) Corollary. If M is a free module over a PID R, then every basis of

M contains µ(M ) elements.
Proof. In case µ(M ) < ∞, the proof is by induction on µ(M ). If µ(M ) = 1
then M = hxi. If {x1 , x2 } ⊆ M then x1 = a1 x and and x2 = a2 x so that
a2 x1 − a1 x2 = 0, and we conclude that no subset of M with more than one
element is linearly independent.
Now suppose that µ(M ) = k > 1 and assume the result is true for all
free R-modules N with µ(N ) < k. Let S = {xj }j∈J ⊆ M be any basis of
M and choose x ∈ S. Since x is primitive (being an element of a basis),
Theorem 6.16 applies to give a basis {x, y2 , . . . , yk } of M with precisely
µ(M ) = k elements. Let N = M/hxi and let π : M → N be the projection
map. It is clear that N is a free R-module with basis π(S) \ {π(x)}. By
Proposition 2.12 it follows that µ(N ) ≥ k − 1, and since {π(y2 ), . . . , π(yk )}
generates N , we conclude that µ(N ) = k − 1. By induction, it follows that
|S| − 1 < ∞ and |S| − 1 = k − 1, i.e., |S| = k, and the proof is complete in
case µ(M ) < ∞.
In case µ(M ) = ∞, we are claiming that no basis of M can contain a
finite number k ∈ Z+ of elements. This is proved by induction on k, the
proof being similar to the case µ(M ) finite, which we have just done. We
leave the details to the reader. u
t
152 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

(6.18) Corollary. Let R be any commutative ring with identity and let M be
a free R-module. Then every basis of M contains µ(M ) elements.
Proof. Let I be any maximal ideal of R (recall that maximal ideals exist
by Theorem 2.2.16). Since R is commutative, the quotient ring R/I = K
is a field (Theorem 2.2.18), and hence it is a PID. By Proposition 4.13,
the quotient module M/IM is a finitely generated free K-module so that
Corollary 6.17 applies to show that every basis of M/IM has µ(M/IM )
elements. Let S = {xj }j∈J be an arbitrary basis of the free R-module M
and let π : M → M/IM be the projection map. According to Proposition
4.13, the set π(S) = {π(xj )}j∈J is a basis of M/IM over K, and therefore,

µ(M ) ≤ |J| = µ(M/IM ) ≤ µ(M ).

Thus, µ(M ) = |J|, and the corollary is proved. u

t

(6.19) Remarks.
(1) If M is a free R-module over a commutative ring R, then we have
proved that free-rank(M ) = µ(M ) = the number of elements in any
basis of M . This common number we shall refer to simply as the rank
of M , denoted rankR (M ) or rank(M ) if the ring R is implicit. If R is
a field we shall sometimes write dimR (M ) (the dimension of M over
R) in place of rankR (M )). Thus, a vector space M (over R) is finite
dimensional if and only if dimR (M ) = rankR (M ) < ∞.
(2) Corollary 6.18 is the invariance of rank theorem for finitely generated
free modules over an arbitrary commutative ring R. The invariance of
rank theorem is not valid for an arbitrary (possibly noncommutative)
ring R. As an example, consider the Z-module M = ⊕n∈N Z, which
is the direct sum of countably many copies of Z. It is simple to check
that M ∼ = M ⊕ M . Thus, if we define R = EndZ (M ), then R is a
noncommutative ring, and Corollary 3.13 shows that

R = EndZ (M )
= HomZ (M, M )
∼
= HomZ (M, M ⊕ M )
∼
= HomZ (M, M ) ⊕ HomZ (M, M )
∼
= R ⊕ R.

The isomorphisms are isomorphisms of Z-modules. We leave it as an

exercise to check that the isomorphisms are also isomorphisms of R-
modules, so that R ∼ = R2 , and hence, the invariance of rank does
not hold for the ring R. There is, however, one important class of
noncommutative rings for which the invariance of rank theorem holds,
namely, division rings. This will be proved in Proposition 7.1.14.
 3.6 Free Modules over a PID 153

(6.20) Corollary. If M and N are free modules over a PID R, at least one of
which is finitely generated, then M ∼
= N if and only if rank(M ) = rank(N ).
Proof. If M and N are isomorphic, then µ(M ) = µ(N ) so that rank(M ) =
rank(N ). Conversely, if rank(M ) = rank(N ), then Proposition 4.9 gives a
homomorphism f : M → N , which takes a basis of M to a basis of N . It is
easy to see that f must be an isomorphism. u
t

(6.21) Remark. One of the standard results concerning bases of finite-

dimensional vector spaces is the statement that a subset S = {x1 , . . . , xn }
of a vector space V of dimension n is a basis provided that S is either a
spanning set or linearly independent. Half of this result is valid in the cur-
rent context of finitely generated free modules over a PID. The set {2} ⊆ Z
is linearly independent, but it is not a basis of the rank 1 Z-module Z.
There is, however, the following result.

(6.22) Proposition. Let M be a finitely generated free R-module of rank = k

where R is a PID. If S = {x1 , . . . , xk } generates M , then S is a basis.
Proof. Let T = {ej }kj=1 be the standard basis of Rk . Then there is a homo-
morphism φ : Rk → M determined by φ(ej ) = xj . Since hSi = M , there is
a short exact sequence
φ
0 −→ K −→ Rk −→ M −→ 0

where K = Ker(φ). Since M is free, Corollary 4.16 gives Rk =∼ M ⊕ K, and

according to Theorem 6.2, K is also free of finite rank. Therefore,

k = rank(M ) + rank(K) = k + rank(K)

and we conclude that rank(K) = 0. Hence φ is an isomorphism and S is a

basis. u
t

We will conclude this section with a substantial generalization of The-

orem 6.2. This result is the crucial result needed for the structure theorem
for finitely generated modules over a PID.

(6.23) Theorem. (Invariant factor theorem for submodules) Let R be a

PID, let M be a free R-module, and let N ⊆ M be a submodule (which is
automatically free by Theorem 6.2) of rank n < ∞. Then there is a basis
S of M , a subset {x1 , . . . , xn } ⊆ S, and nonzero elements s1 , . . ., sn ∈ R
such that

(6.3) {s1 x1 , . . . , sn xn } is a basis of N

and
(6.4) si | si+1 for 1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1.
154 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

Proof. If N = h0i, there is nothing to prove, so we may assume that N 6= h0i

and proceed by induction on n = rank(N ). If n = 1, then N = hyi and {y}
is a basis of N . By Lemma 6.14, we may write y = c(y)x where x ∈ M is a
primitive element and c(y) ∈ R is the content of y. By Theorem 6.16, there
is a basis S of M containing the primitive element x. If we let x1 = x and
s1 = c(y), then s1 x1 = y is a basis of N , so condition (6.3) is satisfied; (6.4)
is vacuous for n = 1. Therefore, the theorem is proved for n = 1.
Now assume that n > 1. By Lemma 6.14, each y ∈ N can be written as
y = c(y) · y 0 where c(y) ∈ R is the content of y (Remark 6.15) and y 0 ∈ M
is primitive. Let
S = {hc(y)i : y ∈ N }.
This is a nonempty collection of ideals of R. Since R is Noetherian, Propo-
sition 2.5.10 implies that there is a maximal element of S. Let hc(y)i be
such a maximal element. Thus, y ∈ N and y = c(y) · x, where x ∈ M is
primitive. Let s1 = c(y). Choose any basis T of M that contains x. This is
possible by Theorem 6.16 since x ∈ M is primitive. Let x1 = x and write
T = {x1 }∪T 0 = {x1 }∪{x0j }j∈J 0 . Let M1 = h{x0j }j∈J 0 i and let N1 = M1 ∩N .

Claim. N = hs1 x1 i ⊕ N1 .

To see this, note that hs1 x1 i ∩ N1 ⊆ hx1 i ∩ M1 = h0i because T is a

basis of M . Let z ∈ N . Then, with respect to the basis T , we may write
X
(6.5) z = a1 x 1 + bj x0j .
j∈J 0

Let d = (s1 , a1 ) = gcd{s1 , a1 }. Then we may write d = us1 + va1 where u,

v ∈ R. If w = uy + vz, then Equation (6.5) shows that
w = uy + vz
X
= (us1 + va1 )x1 + vbj x0j
j∈J 0
X
= dx1 + vbj x0j .
j∈J 0

Writing w = c(w) · w0 where c(w) is the content of w and w0 ∈ M is

primitive, it follows from Lemma 6.13 that c(w) | d (because c(w) is the
greatest common divisor of all coefficients of w when expressed as a linear
combination of any basis of M ). Thus we have a chain of ideals
hs1 i ⊆ hdi ⊆ hc(w)i,
and the maximality of hs1 i in S shows that hs1 i = hc(w)i = hdi. In partic-
ular, hs1 i = hdi so that s1 | a1 , and we conclude that
X
z = b1 (s1 x1 ) + bj x0j .
j∈J 0
 3.6 Free Modules over a PID 155

That is, z ∈ hs1 x1 i + N1 . Theorem 3.1 then shows that

N∼
= hs1 x1 i ⊕ N1 ,
and the claim is proved.
By Theorem 6.2, N1 is a free R-module since it is a submodule of the
free R-module M . Furthermore, by the claim we see that

rank(N1 ) = rank(N ) − 1 = n − 1.

Applying the induction hypothesis to the pair N1 ⊆ M1 , we conclude that

there is a basis S 0 of M1 and a subset {x2 , . . . , xn } of S 0 , together with
nonzero elements s2 , . . . , sn of R, such that

(6.6) {s2 x2 , . . . , sn xn } is a basis of N1

and
(6.7) si | si+1 for 2 ≤ i ≤ n − 1.

Let S = S 0 ∪ {x1 }. Then the theorem is proved once we have shown that
s1 | s2 .
To verify that s1 | s2 , consider the element s2 x2 ∈ N1 ⊆ N and
let z = s1 x1 + s2 x2 ∈ N . When we write z = c(z) · z 0 where z 0 ∈ M
is primitive and c(z) ∈ R is the content of z, Remark 6.15 shows that
c(z) = (s1 , s2 ). Thus, hs1 i ⊆ hc(z)i and the maximality of hs1 i in S shows
that hc(z)i = hs1 i, i.e., s1 | s2 , and the proof of the theorem is complete. u
t

(6.24) Example. Let N ⊆ Z2 be the submodule generated by y1 = (2, 4),

y2 = (2, −2), and y3 = (2, 10). Then c(y1 ) = c(y2 ) = c(y3 ) = 2. Further-
more, 2 divides every component of any linear combination of y1 , y2 , and
y3 , so the maximal content of any element of N is 2. Let v1 = (1, 2). Then
y1 = 2v1 . Extend v1 to a basis of Z2 by taking v2 = (0, 1). Then

(6.8) N1 = N ∩ h(0, 1)i = h(0, 6)i.

To see this note that every z ∈ N1 can be written as

z = a1 y1 + a2 y2 + a3 y3

where a1 , a3 , a3 ∈ Z satisfy the equation

2a1 + 2a2 + 2a3 = 0.

Thus, 4a1 = −4a2 − 4a3 , and considering the second coordinate of z, we

see that z = (z1 , z2 ) where

z2 = 4a1 − 2a2 + 10a3 = −6a2 + 6a3 = 6(a3 − a2 ).

Therefore, {v1 , v2 } is a basis of Z2 , while {2v1 , 6v2 } is a basis of N . To

check, note that y1 = 2v1 , y2 = 2v1 − 6v2 , and y3 = 2v1 + 6v2 .
156 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

(6.25) Remark. In Section 3.7, we will prove that the elements {s1 , . . . , sn }
are determined just by the rank n submodule N and not by the particular
choice of a basis S of M . These elements are called the invariant factors of
the submodule N in the free module M .

3.7 Finitely Generated Modules over PIDs

The invariant factor theorem for submodules (Theorem 6.24) gives a com-
plete description of a submodule N of a finitely generated free R-module
M over a PID R. Specifically, it states that a basis of M can be chosen so
that the first n = rank(N ) elements of the basis, multiplied by elements
of R, provide a basis of N . Note that this result is a substantial general-
ization of the result from vector space theory, which states that any basis
of a subspace of a vector space can be extended to a basis of the ambient
space. We will now complete the analysis of finitely generated R-modules
(R a PID) by considering modules that need not be free. If the module M
is not free, then, of course, it is not possible to find a basis, but we will
still be able to express M as a finite direct sum of cyclic submodules; the
cyclic submodules may, however, have nontrivial annihilator. The following
result constitutes the fundamental structure theorem for finitely generated
modules over principal ideal domains.

(7.1) Theorem. Let M 6= 0 be a finitely generated module over the PID R.

If µ(M ) = n, then M is isomorphic to a direct sum of cyclic submodules

M∼
= Rw1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Rwn

such that

(7.1) R 6= Ann(w1 ) ⊇ Ann(w2 ) ⊇ · · · ⊇ Ann(wn ) = Ann(M ).

Moreover, for 1 ≤ i < n

(7.2) Ann(wi ) = Ann (M/(Rwi+1 + · · · + Rwn )) .

Proof. Since µ(M ) = n, let {v1 , . . . , vn } be a generating set of M and

define an R-module homomorphism φ : Rn → M by
n
X
φ(a1 , . . . , an ) = ai vi .
i=1

Let K = Ker(φ). Since K is a submodule of Rn , it follows from Theorem

6.2 that K is a free R-module of rank m ≤ n. By Theorem 6.23, there is a
basis {y1 , . . . , yn } of Rn and nonzero elements s1 , . . . , sm ∈ R such that
 3.7 Finitely Generated Modules over PIDs 157

(7.3) {s1 y1 , . . . , sm ym } is a basis for K

and
(7.4) si | si+1 for 1 ≤ i ≤ m − 1.

Let wi = φ(yi ) ∈ M for 1 ≤ i ≤ n. Then {w1 , . . . , wn } generates M

since φ is surjective and {y1 , . . . , yn } is a basis of Rn . We claim that

M∼
= Rw1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Rwn .
By the characterization of direct sum modules (Theorem 3.1), it is sufficient
to check that if

(7.5) a1 w1 + · · · + an wn = 0

where ai ∈ R, then ai wi = 0 for all i. Thus suppose that Equation (7.5) is

satisfied. Then

0 = a1 w1 + · · · + an wn
= a1 φ(y1 ) + · · · + an φ(yn )
= φ(a1 y1 + · · · + an yn )

so that

a1 y1 + · · · + an yn ∈ Ker(φ) = K = hs1 y1 , . . . , sm ym i.

Therefore,
a1 y1 + · · · + an yn = b1 s1 y1 + · · · + bm sm ym
for some b1 , . . . , bm ∈ R. But {y1 , . . . , yn } is a basis of Rn , so we conclude
that ai = bi si for 1 ≤ i ≤ m while ai = 0 for m + 1 ≤ i ≤ n. Thus,

ai wi = bi si φ(yi ) = bi φ(si yi ) = 0

for 1 ≤ i ≤ m because si yi ∈ K = Ker(φ), while ai wi = 0 for m + 1 ≤ i ≤ n

since ai = 0 in this case. Hence

M∼
= Rw1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Rwn .
Note that Ann(wi ) = hsi i for 1 ≤ i ≤ m, and since si | si+1 , it follows
that
Ann(w1 ) ⊇ Ann(w2 ) ⊇ · · · ⊇ Ann(wm ),
while for i > m, since hyi i ∩ Ker(φ) = h0i, it follows that Ann(wi ) = h0i.
Since si | sn for all i and since Ann(wi ) = hsi i, we conclude that sn M = 0.
Hence, Ann(wn ) = hsn i = Ann(M ) and Equation (7.1) is satisfied. Since

M/(Rwi+1 + · · · + Rwn ) ∼
= Rw1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Rwi ,
Equation (7.2) follows from Equation (7.1). The proof is now completed
by observing that Ann(wi ) 6= R for any i since, if Ann(wi ) = R, then
158 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

Rwi = h0i, and hence, M could be generated by fewer than n elements.

But n = µ(M ), so this is impossible because µ(M ) is the minimal number
of generators of M . u
t

A natural question to ask is to what extent is the cyclic decomposition

provided by Theorem 7.1 unique. Certainly, the factors themselves are not
unique as one can see from the example

Z2 ∼
= Z · (1, 0) ⊕ Z · (0, 1)
∼
= Z · (1, 0) ⊕ Z · (1, 1).

More generally, if M is a free R-module of rank n, then any choice of basis

{v1 , . . . , vn } provides a cyclic decomposition

M∼
= Rv1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Rvn

with Ann(vi ) = 0 for all i. Therefore, there is no hope that the cyclic factors
themselves are uniquely determined. What does turn out to be unique,
however, is the chain of annihilator ideals

Ann(w1 ) ⊇ · · · ⊇ Ann(wn )

where we require that Ann(wi ) 6= R, which simply means that we do not

allow copies of h0i in our direct sums of cyclic submodules. We reduce the
uniqueness of the annihilator ideals to the case of finitely generated torsion
R-modules by means of the following result. If M is an R-module, recall
that the torsion submodule Mτ of M is defined by

Mτ = {x ∈ M : Ann(x) 6= h0i}.

(7.2) Proposition. If M and N are finitely generated modules over a PID

R, then M ∼= N if and only if Mτ ∼
= Nτ and rank M/Mτ = rank N/Nτ .
Proof. Let φ : M → N be an isomorphism. Then if x ∈ Mτ , there is
an a 6= 0 ∈ R with ax = 0. Then aφ(x) = φ(ax) = φ(0) = 0 so that
φ(x) ∈ Nτ . Therefore, φ(Mτ ) ⊆ Nτ . Applying the same observation to φ−1
shows that φ(Mτ ) = Nτ . Thus, φ|Mτ : Mτ → Nτ is an isomorphism; if π :
N → Nτ is the natural projection, it follows that Ker(π ◦φ) = Mτ . The first
isomorphism theorem then gives an isomorphism M/Mτ ∼ = N/Nτ . Since
M/Mτ and N/Nτ are free R-modules of finite rank, they are isomorphic if
and only if they have the same rank.
The converse follows from Corollary 6.20. u
t

Therefore, our analysis of finitely generated R-modules over a PID R is

reduced to studying finitely generated torsion modules M ; the uniqueness
of the cyclic submodule decomposition of finitely generated torsion modules
is the following result.
 3.7 Finitely Generated Modules over PIDs 159

(7.3) Theorem. Let M be a finitely generated torsion module over a PID R,

and suppose that there are cyclic submodule decompositions
(7.6) M∼
= Rw1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Rwk
and
(7.7) M∼
= Rz1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Rzr
where
(7.8) Ann(w1 ) ⊇ · · · ⊇ Ann(wk ) 6= h0i with Ann(w1 ) 6= R
and
(7.9) Ann(z1 ) ⊇ · · · ⊇ Ann(zr ) 6= h0i with Ann(z1 ) 6= R.
Then k = r and Ann(wi ) = Ann(zi ) for 1 ≤ i ≤ k.
Proof. Note that Ann(M ) = Ann(wk ) = Ann(zr ). Indeed,
Ann(M ) = Ann(Rw1 + · · · + Rwk )
= Ann(w1 ) ∩ · · · ∩ Ann(wk )
= Ann(wk )
since Ann(w1 ) ⊇ · · · ⊇ Ann(wk ). The equality Ann(M ) = Ann(zr ) is the
same argument.
We will first show that k = r. Suppose without loss of generality that
k ≥ r. Choose a prime p ∈ R such that hpi ⊇ Ann(w1 ), i.e., p divides the
generator of Ann(w1 ). Then hpi ⊇ Ann(wi ) for all i. Since p ∈ Ann(M/pM ),
it follows that M/pM is an R/pR-module and Equations (7.6) and (7.7)
imply
(7.10) M/pM ∼
= Rw1 /(pRw1 ) ⊕ · · · ⊕ Rwk /(pRwk )
and
(7.11) M/pM ∼
= Rz1 /(pRz1 ) ⊕ · · · ⊕ Rzr /(pRzr ).
Suppose that pRwi = Rwi . Then we can write apwi = wi for some a ∈ R.
Hence, ap − 1 ∈ Ann(wi ) ⊆ hpi by our choice of p, so 1 ∈ hpi, which
contradicts the fact that p is a prime. Therefore, pRwi 6= Rwi for all i
and Equation (7.10) expresses the R/pR-module M/pM as a direct sum of
cyclic R/pR-modules, none of which is h0i. Since R/pR is a field (in a PID
prime ideals are maximal), all R/pR-modules are free, so we conclude that
M/pM is free of rank k. Moreover, Equation (7.11) expresses M/pM as a
direct sum of r cyclic submodules, so it follows that k = µ(M/pM ) ≤ r.
Thus, r = k, and in particular, Rzi /(pRzi ) 6= 0 since, otherwise, M/pM
could be generated by fewer than k elements. Thus, hpi ⊇ Ann(zi ) for all
i; if not, then hpi + Ann(zi ) = R, so there are a ∈ R and c ∈ Ann(zi ) such
that ap + c = 1. Then zi = apzi + czi = apzi ∈ pRzi , so Rzi /(pRzi ) = 0,
and we just observed that Rzi /(pRzi ) 6= 0.
160 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

We are now ready to complete the proof. We will work by induction

on `(Ann(M )) where, if I = hai is an ideal of R, then `(I) is the number
of elements (counted with multiplicity) in a prime factorization of a. This
number is well defined by the fundamental theorem of arithmetic for PIDs.
Suppose that `(Ann(M )) = 1. Then Ann(M ) = hpi where p ∈ R is prime.
Since Ann(M ) = Ann(wk ) = Ann(zk ) = hpi and since hpi is a maximal
ideal, Equations (7.8) and (7.9) imply that Ann(wi ) = hpi = Ann(zi ) for
all i, and the theorem is proved in the case `(Ann(M )) = 1.
Now suppose the theorem is true for all finitely generated torsion R-
modules N with `(Ann(N )) < `(Ann(M )), and consider the isomorphisms
(7.12) pM ∼
= pRw1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ pRwk ∼
= pRws+1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ pRwk
and
(7.13) pM ∼
= pRz1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ pRzk ∼
= pRzt+1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ pRzk
where Ann(w1 ) = · · · = Ann(ws ) = Ann(z1 ) = · · · = Ann(zt ) = hpi and
Ann(ws+1 ) 6= hpi, Ann(zt+1 ) 6= hpi (s and t may be 0). Then Ann(pM ) =
ha/pi where Ann(M ) = hai, so `(Ann(pM )) = `(Ann(M ))−1. By induction
we conclude that k − s = k − t, i.e., s = t, and Ann(pwi ) = Ann(pzi ) for
s < i ≤ k. But Ann(pwi ) = hai /pi where Ann(wi ) = hai i. Thus Ann(wi ) =
Ann(zi ) for all i and we are done. u
t

Since Rwi ∼
= R/ Ann(wi ) and since R/I and R/J are isomorphic R-
modules if and only if I = J (Exercise 10), we may rephrase our results as
follows.

(7.4) Corollary. Finitely generated modules over a PID R are in one-to-one

correspondence with finite nonincreasing chains of ideals

R 6= I1 ⊇ I2 ⊇ · · · ⊇ In .
Such a chain of ideals corresponds to the module
M = R/I1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ R/In .

Note that µ(M ) = n and if Ik+1 = · · · = In = h0i but Ik 6= h0i, then

M∼
= R/I1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ R/Ik ⊕ Rn−k .
We will use the convention that the empty sequence of ideals (n = 0) cor-
responds to M = h0i.
Proof. u
t

(7.5) Definition. If M is a finitely generated torsion module over a PID R

and M ∼ = Rw1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Rwn with Ann(wi ) ⊇ Ann(wi+1 ) (1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1)
and Ann(wi ) 6= R, then the chain of ideals Ii = Ann(wi ) is called the chain
of invariant ideals of M .
 3.7 Finitely Generated Modules over PIDs 161

Using this language, we can express our results as follows:

(7.6) Corollary. Two finitely generated torsion modules over a PID are iso-
morphic if and only if they have the same chain of invariant ideals.
Proof. u
t

(7.7) Remark. In some cases the principal ideals Ann(wj ) have a preferred
generator aj . In this case the generators {aj }nj=1 are called the invariant
factors of M .

The common examples are R = Z, in which case we choose aj > 0 so

that aj = |Z/ Ann(wj )|, and R = F [X], where we take monic polynomials
as the preferred generators of ideals.

(7.8) Definition. Let R be a PID, and let M be a finitely generated torsion

R-module with chain of invariant ideals

hs1 i ⊇ hs2 i ⊇ · · · ⊇ hsn i.

We define me(M ) = sn and co(M ) = s1 · · · sn .

Note that me(M ) and co(M ) are only defined up to multiplication by a

unit, but in some cases (R = Z or R = F [X]) we have a preferred choice of
generators of ideals. In these cases me(M ) and co(M ) are uniquely defined.
Concerning the invariants me(M ) and co(M ), there is the following trivial
but useful corollary of our structure theorems.

(7.9) Corollary. Let M be a finitely generated torsion module over a PID

R.
(1) If a ∈ R with aM = 0, then me(M ) | a.
(2) me(M ) divides co(M ).
(3) If p ∈ R is a prime dividing co(M ), then p divides me(M ).

Proof. (1) Since Ann(M ) = hsn i = hme(M )i by Theorem 7.1 and the
defintion of me(M ), it follows that if aM = 0, i.e., a ∈ Ann(M ), then
me(M ) | a.
(2) Clearly sn divides s1 · · · sn .
(3) Suppose that p | s1 · · · sn = co(M ). Then p divides some si , but
hsi i ⊇ hsn i, so si | sn . Hence, p | sn = me(M ). u
t

(7.10) Remark. There are, unfortunately, no standard names for these in-
variants. The notation we have chosen reflects the common terminology in
the two cases R = Z and R = F [X]. In the case R = Z, me(M ) is the
exponent and co(M ) is the order of the finitely generated torsion Z-module
162 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

(= finite abelian group) M . In the case R = F [X] of applications to lin-

ear algebra to be considered in Chapter 4, me(VT ) will be the minimal
polynomial and co(VT ) will be the characteristic polynomial of the linear
transformation T ∈ HomF (V ) where V is a finite-dimensional vector space
over the field F and VT is the F [X]-module determined by T (see Example
1.5 (12)).

There is another decomposition of a torsion R-module M into a direct

sum of cyclic submodules which takes advantage of the prime factorization
of any generator of Ann(M ). To describe this decomposition we need the
following definition.

(7.11) Definition. Let M be a module over the PID R and let p ∈ R be a

prime. Define the p-component Mp of M by

Mp = {x ∈ M : Ann(x) = hpn i for some n ∈ Z+ }.

If M = Mp , then M is said to be p-primary, and M is primary if it is

p-primary for some prime p ∈ R.

It is a simple exercise to check that submodules, quotient modules, and

direct sums of p-primary modules are p-primary (Exercise 54).

(7.12) Theorem. If M is a finitely generated torsion module over a PID R,

then M is a direct sum of primary submodules.
Proof. Since M is a direct sum of cyclic submodules by Theorem 7.1, it
is sufficient to assume that M is cyclic. Thus suppose that M = hxi and
suppose that
Ann(x) = hai = hpr11 · · · prnn i
where p1 , . . . , pn are the distinct prime divisors of a. Let qi = a/pri i . Then
1 = (q1 , . . . , qn ) = gcd{q1 , . . . , qn }, so there are b1 , . . . , bn ∈ R such that

(7.14) 1 = b1 q1 + · · · + bn qn .

Let xi = bi qi x. Then Equation (7.14) implies that

x = x1 + · · · + xn

so that
M = hxi = hx1 i + · · · + hxn i.
Suppose that y ∈ hx1 i ∩ (hx2 i + · · · + hxn i). Then

y = c1 x1 = c2 x2 + · · · + cn xn

and hence, pr11 y = c1 b1 pr11 q1 x = c1 b1 ax = 0 and

q1 y = c2 qe2 pr22 x2 + · · · + cn qen prnn xn = 0,

 3.7 Finitely Generated Modules over PIDs 163

r
where qej = q1 /pj j . Therefore, {pr11 , q1 } ⊆ Ann(y), but (pr11 , q1 ) = 1 so that
Ann(y) = R. Therefore, y = 0. A similar calculation shows that
³ ´
hxi i ∩ hx1 i + · · · + hxd i i + · · · + hxn i = h0i,

so by Theorem 3.1, M ∼
= hx1 i ⊕ · · · ⊕ hxn i. u
t

Combining Theorems 7.1 and 7.12, we obtain the following result:

(7.13) Theorem. Any finitely generated torsion module M over a PID R is

a direct sum of primary cyclic submodules.
Proof. Suppose M ∼ = Rw1 ⊕· · ·⊕Rwn as in Theorem 7.1. Then if Ann(wi ) =
hsi i, we have si | si+1 for 1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1 with s1 6= 1 and sn 6= 0 (since M
is torsion). Let p1 , . . . , pk be the set of distinct nonassociate primes that
occur as a prime divisor of some invariant factor of M . Then

s1 = u1 pe111 · · · pek1k
..
.
sn = un pe1n1 · · · peknk

where the divisibility conditions imply that

0 ≤ e1j ≤ e2j ≤ · · · ≤ enj for 1 ≤ j ≤ k.

Then the proof of Theorem 7.12 shows that M is the direct sum of cyclic
e
submodules with annihilators {pj ij : eij > 0}, and the theorem is proved.
u
t
e
(7.14) Definition. The prime powers {pj ij : eij > 0, 1 ≤ j ≤ k} are called
the elementary divisors of M .

(7.15) Theorem. If M and N are finitely generated torsion modules over a

PID R, then M ∼ = N if and only if M and N have the same elementary
divisors.
Proof. Since M is uniquely determined up to isomorphism from the invari-
ant factors, it is sufficient to show that the invariant factors of M can be
recovered from a knowledge of the elementary divisors. Thus suppose that

hs1 i ⊇ hs2 i ⊇ · · · ⊇ hsn i

is the chain of invariant ideals of the finitely generated torsion module M .

This means that si | si+1 for 1 ≤ i < n. Let p1 , . . . , pk be the set of distinct
nonassociate primes that occur as a prime divisor of some invariant factor
of M . Then
164 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

s1 = u1 pe111 · · · pek1k
..
(7.15) .
sn = un pe1n1 · · · peknk

where the divisibility conditions imply that

(7.16) 0 ≤ e1j ≤ e2j ≤ · · · ≤ enj for 1 ≤ j ≤ k.

Thus, the elementary divisors of M are

e
(7.17) {pj ij : eij > 0}.

We show that the set of invariant factors (Equation (7.15)) can be recon-
structed from the set of prime powers in Equation (7.17). Indeed, if

ej = max eij , 1 ≤ j ≤ k,
1≤i≤n

then the inequalities (7.16) imply that sn is an associate of pe11 · · · pekk . Delete

{pe11 , . . . , pekk }

from the set of prime powers in set (7.17), and repeat the process with
the set of remaining elementary divisors to obtain sn−1 . Continue until all
prime powers have been used. At this point, all invariant factors have been
recovered. Notice that the number n of invariant factors is easily recovered
from the set of elementary divisors of M . Since s1 divides every si , it follows
that every prime dividing s1 must also be a prime divisor of every si .
Therefore, in the set of elementary divisors, n is the maximum number of
occurrences of peij for a single prime p. u
t

(7.16) Example. Suppose that M is the Z-module

M = Z22 × Z22 × Z3 × Z32 × Z5 × Z7 × Z72 .

Then the elementary divisors of M are 22 , 22 , 3, 32 , 5, 7, 72 . Using the

algorithm from Theorem 7.15, we can recover the invariant factor descrip-
tion of M as follows. The largest invariant factor is the product of the
highest power of each prime occurring in the set of elementary divisors,
i.e., the least common multiple of the set of elementary divisors. That is,
s2 = 72 · 5 · 32 · 22 = 8820. Note that the number of invariant factors of
M is 2 since powers of the primes 2, 3, and 7 occur twice in the set of ele-
mentary divisors, while no prime has three powers among this set. Deleting
72 , 5, 32 , 22 from the set of elementary divisors, we obtain s1 = 7·3·22 = 84.
This uses all the elementary divisors, so we obtain

M∼
= Z84 × Z8820 .
 3.7 Finitely Generated Modules over PIDs 165

We now present some useful observations concerning the invariants

me(M ) and co(M ) where M is a torsion R-module (R a PID). See Definition
7.9 for the definition of these invariants. The verification of the results that
we wish to prove require some preliminary results on torsion R-modules,
which are of interest in their own right. We start with the following lemmas.

(7.17) Lemma. Let M be a module over a PID R and suppose that x ∈ Mτ .

If Ann(x) = hri and a ∈ R with (a, r) = d (recall that (a, r) = gcd{a, r}),
then Ann(ax) = hr/di.
Proof. Since (r/d)(ax) = (a/d)(rx) = 0, it follows that hr/di ⊆ Ann(ax).
If b(ax) = 0, then r | (ba), so ba = rc for some c ∈ R. But (a, r) = d, so
there are s, t ∈ R with rs + at = d. Then rct = bat = b(d − rs) and we see
that bd = r(ct + bs). Therefore, b ∈ hr/di and hence Ann(ax) = hr/di. u t

(7.18) Lemma. Let M be a module over a PID R, and let x1 , . . . , xn ∈ Mτ

with Ann(xi ) = hri i for 1 ≤ i ≤ n. If {r1 , . . . , rn } is a pairwise­Q
relatively
®
n
prime subset of R and x = x1 + · · · + xn , then Ann(x) = hai = ­ i=1 ri ®.
Qn
Conversely, if y ∈ Mτ is an element such that Ann(y) = hbi = i=1 si
where {s1 , . . . , sn } is a relatively prime subset of R, then we may write
y = y1 + · · · + yn where Ann(yi ) = hsi i for all i.
Qn
Proof. Let x = x1 + · · · + xn . Then a = i=1 ri ∈ Ann(x) so that hai ⊆
Ann(x). It remains to check that Ann(x) ⊆ hai. Thus, suppose that bx = 0.
By the Chinese remainder theorem (Theorem 2.2.24), there are c1 , . . . , cn ∈
R such that ½
1 (mod hri i),
ci ≡
0 (mod hrj i), if j 6= i.
Then, since hrj i = Ann(xj ), we conclude that ci xj = 0 if i 6= j, so for each
i with 1 ≤ i ≤ n

0 = ci bx = ci b(x1 + · · · + xn ) = bci xi .

Therefore, bci ∈ Ann(xi ) = hri i, and since ci ≡ 1 (mod hri i), it follows that
ri | b for 1 ≤ i ≤ n. But {r1 , . . . , rn } is pairwise relatively prime and thus
a is the least common multiple of the set {r1 , . . . , rn }. We conclude that
a | b, and hence, Ann(x) = hai. ­Qn ®
Conversely, suppose that y ∈ M satisfies Ann(y) = hbi = i=1 si
where the set {s1 , . . . , sn } is pairwise relatively prime. As in the above
paragraph, apply the Chinese remainder theorem to get c1 , . . . , cn ∈ R
such that ½
1 (mod hsi i),
ci ≡
0 (mod hsj i), if j 6= i.
Since b is the least common multiple of {s1 , . . . , sn }, it follows that

1 ≡ c1 + · · · + cn (mod hbi),
166 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

and hence, if we set yi = ci y, we have

y1 + · · · + yn = (c1 + · · · + cn )y = y.
­Q ®
Since hb, ci i = j6=i sj , Lemma 7.17 shows that Ann(yi ) = Ann(ci y) =
hsi i. u
t

(7.19) Proposition. Let R be a PID and suppose that M is a torsion R-

module such that
M∼ = Rw1 ⊕ · · · Rwn
with Ann(wi ) = hti i. Then the prime power factors of the ti (1 ≤ i ≤ n)
are the elementary divisors of M .
Proof. Let p1 , . . . , pk be the set of distinct nonassociate primes that occur
as a prime divisor of some ti . Then we may write

t1 = u1 pe111 · · · pek1k
..
(7.18) .
tn = un pe1n1 · · · peknk

where u1 , . . . , un are units in R and some of the exponents eij may be 0.

The proof of Theorem 7.12 shows that

Rwi ∼
= Rzi1 ⊕ · · · Rzik
e
where Ann(zij ) = hpj ij i. For notational convenience we are allowing zij = 0
for those (i, j) with eij = 0. Therefore,
M
(7.19) M∼
= Rzij
i,j

e e
where Ann(zij ) = hpj ij i. Let S = {pj ij } where we allow multiple occur-
rences of a prime power pe , and let

Se = {zij }.

Let m be the maximum number of occurrences of positive powers of a single

prime in S. If

(7.20) fmj = max eij for 1 ≤ j ≤ k,

1≤i≤n

we define

(7.21) sm = pf1m1 · · · pfkmk .

Note that fmj > 0 for 1 ≤ j ≤ k.

Delete {pf1m1 , . . . , pfkmk } from the set S and repeat the above process
with the remaining prime powers until no further positive prime powers are
 3.7 Finitely Generated Modules over PIDs 167

available. Since a prime power for a particular prime p is used only once at
each step, this will produce elements s1 , . . . , sm ∈ R. From the inductive
description of the construction of si , it is clear that every prime dividing si
also divides si+1 to at least as high a power (because of Equation (7.21)).
Thus,
si | si+1 for 1 ≤ i < m.
Therefore, we may write
s1 = u1 pf111 · · · pkf1k
..
(7.22) .
sm = um pf1m1 · · · pfkmk
where
f e
(7.23) {pj ij : fij > 0} = {pβαβ : eαβ > 0}
where repetitions of prime powers are allowed and where
(7.24) 0 ≤ f1j ≤ f2j ≤ · · · ≤ fmj for 1≤j≤k
by Equation (7.20).
f f
For each pj ij (1 ≤ i ≤ m), choose wij ∈ Se with Ann(wij ) = hpj ij i
and let xi = wi1 + · · · + wik . Lemma 7.18 shows that Ann(xi ) = hsi i for
1 ≤ i ≤ m, and thus,
k
M k
M
f
Rxi ∼
= R/hsi i ∼
= R/hpj ij i ∼
= Rwij .
j=1 j=1

Equation (7.19) then shows that

M
M∼ = Rzαβ
α,β
 
m
M Mk
∼
=  Rwij 
i=1 j=1
∼
= Rx1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Rxm
where Ann(xi ) = hsi i. Since si | si+1 for 1 ≤ i < m, it follows that
{s1 , . . . , sm } are the invariant factors of M , and since the set of prime
power factors of {s1 , . . . , sm } (counting multiplicities) is the same as the
set of prime power factors of {t1 , . . . , tn } (see Equation (7.23)), the proof
is complete. u
t

(7.20) Corollary. Let R be a PID, let M1 , . . . , Mk be finitely generated

torsion R-modules, and let M = ⊕ki=1 Mi . If {di1 , . . . , di`i } is the set of
elementary divisors of Mi , then
168 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

S = {dij : 1 ≤ i ≤ k; 1 ≤ j ≤ `i }

is the set of elementary divisors of M .

Proof. By Theorem 7.1,

Mi ∼
= Rwi1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Rwiri

where Ann(wij ) = hsij i and sij | si,j+1 for 1 ≤ j ≤ ri . The elementary

divisors of Mi are the prime power factors of {si1 , . . . , siri }. Then
k
M M
M= Mi ∼
= Rwij
i=1 i,j

where Ann(wij ) = hsij i. The result now follows from Proposition 7.19. u
t

(7.21) Proposition. Let R be a PID, let M1 , . . . , Mk be finitely generated

torsion R-modules, and let M = ⊕ki=1 Mi . Then

(7.25) me(M ) = lcm{me(M1 ), . . . , me(Mk )}

k
Y
(7.26) co(M ) = co(Mi ).
i=1

Tk
Proof. Since Ann(M ) = i=1 Ann(Mi ), Equation (7.25) follows since
hme(Mi )i = Ann(Mi ). Since co(M ) is the product of all invariant factors of
M , which is also the product of all the elementary divisors of M , Equation
(7.26) follows from Corollary 7.20. u
t

The special case R = Z is important enough to emphasize what the

results mean in this case. Suppose that M is an abelian group, i.e., a Z-
module. Then an element x ∈ M is torsion if and only if nx = 0 for
some n > 0. That is to say, x ∈ Mτ if and only if o(x) < ∞. Moreover,
Ann(x) = hni means that o(x) = n. Thus the torsion submodule of M
consists of the set of elements of finite order. Furthermore, M is finitely
generated and torsion if and only if M is a finite abelian group. Indeed, if
M = hx1 , . . . , xk i then any x ∈ M can be written x = n1 x1 + · · · + nk xk
Qk
where 0 ≤ ni ≤ o(xi ) < ∞ for 1 ≤ i ≤ k. Therefore, |M | ≤ i=1 o(xi ).
Hence, the fundamental structure theorem for finitely generated abelian
groups takes the following form.

(7.22) Theorem. Any finitely generated abelian group M is isomorphic to

Zr ⊕ M1 where |M1 | < ∞. The integer r is an invariant of M . Any finite
abelian group is a direct sum of cyclic groups of prime power order and
these prime power orders, counted with multiplicity, completely characterize
 3.7 Finitely Generated Modules over PIDs 169

the finite abelian group up to isomorpism. Also any finite abelian group is
uniquely isomorphic to a group

Zs 1 × · · · × Zs k

where si | si+1 for all i.

Proof. u
t

Given a natural number n it is possible to give a complete list of all

abelian groups of order n, up to isomorphism, by writing n = pr11 · · · prkk
where p1 , . . . , pk are the distinct prime divisors of n. Let M be an abelian
group of order n. Then we may write M as a direct sum of its primary
components
M∼ = Mp1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Mpk
where |Mpi | = pri i . Then each primary component Mpi can be written as a
direct sum
Mpi ∼= Zpei i1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ Zpei i`
where
1 ≤ ei1 ≤ · · · ≤ ei` ≤ ri
and
ei1 + · · · + ei` = ri .
Furthermore, the main structure theorems state that M is determined up
to isomorphism by the primes p1 , . . . , pk and the partitions ei1 , . . . , ei` of
the exponents ri . This is simply the statement that M is determined up to
isomorphism by its elementary divisors. Therefore, to identify all abelian
groups of order n, it is sufficient to identify all partitions of ri , i.e., all ways
to write ri = ei1 + · · · + ei` as a sum of natural numbers.

(7.23) Example. We will carry out the above procedure for n = 600 =
23 · 3 · 52 . There are three primes, namely, 2, 3, and 5. The exponent of 2
is 3 and we can write 3 = 1 + 1 + 1, 3 = 1 + 2, and 3 = 3. Thus there are
three partitions of 3. The exponent of 3 is 1, so there is only one partition,
while the exponent of 5 is 2, which has two partitions, namely, 2 = 1 + 1
and 2 = 2. Thus there are 3 · 1 · 2 = 6 distinct, abelian groups of order 600.
They are

Z2 × Z2 × Z2 × Z3 × Z5 × Z5 ∼
= Z2 × Z10 × Z30

Z2 × Z2 × Z2 × Z3 × Z25 ∼
= Z2 × Z2 × Z150

Z2 × Z4 × Z3 × Z5 × Z5 ∼
= Z10 × Z60
170 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

Z2 × Z4 × Z3 × Z25 ∼
= Z2 × Z300

Z8 × Z3 × Z5 × Z5 ∼
= Z5 × Z120

Z8 × Z3 × Z25 ∼
= Z600

where the groups on the right are expressed in invariant factor form and
those on the left are decomposed following the elementary divisors.

We will conclude this section with the following result concerning the
structure of finite subgroups of the multiplicative group of a field. This
is an important result, which combines the structure theorem for finite
abelian groups with a bound on the number of roots of a polynomial with
coefficients in a field.

(7.24) Theorem. Let F be a field and let G ⊆ F ∗ = F \ {0} be a finite

subgroup of the multiplicative group F ∗ . Then G is a cyclic group.
Proof. According to Theorem 7.1, G is isomorphic to a direct sum

G∼
= hz1 i ⊕ · · · ⊕ hzn i

where, if we let ki = o(zi ) = order of zi , then ki | ki+1 for 1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1

and
Ann(G) = Ann(zn ) = (kn )Z.
In the language of Definition 7.8, me(G) = kn . This means that z kn = 1
for all z ∈ G. Now consider the polynomial

(7.27) P (X) = X kn − 1.

Since F is a field, the polynomial P (X) has at most kn roots, because degree
P (X) = kn (Corollary 2.4.7). But, as we have observed, every element of
G is a root of P (X), and

|G| = k1 k2 · · · kn .

Thus, we must have n = 1 and G ∼

= hz1 i is cyclic. u
t

(7.25) Corollary. Suppose that F is a finite field with q elements. Then F ∗

is a cyclic group with q − 1 elements, and every element of F is a root of
the polynomial X q − X.
Proof. Exercise. u
t

(7.26) Corollary. Let

Gn = {e2πi(k/n) : 0 ≤ k ≤ n − 1} ⊆ C∗ .
 3.8 Complemented Submodules 171

Then Gn is the only subgroup of C∗ of order n.

Proof. Let H be a finite subgroup of C∗ with |H| = n. Then every element
z of H has the property that z n = 1. In other words, z is a root of the
equation X n = 1. Since this equation has at most n roots in C and since
every element of Gn is a root of this equation, we have z ∈ Gn . Thus, we
conclude that H ⊆ Gn and hence H = Gn because n = |H| = |Gn |. u
t

3.8 Complemented Submodules

We will now consider the problem of extending a linearly independent sub-

set of a free R-module to a basis. The example {2} ⊆ Z shows that some
restrictions on the basis are needed, while Theorem 6.16 shows that any
primitive element of a finitely generated free R-module (R a PID) can be
extended to a basis.

(8.1) Definition. Let M be an R-module and S ⊆ M a submodule. Then

S is said to be complemented if there exists a submodule T ⊆ M with
M∼ = S ⊕ T.

Let M be a finitely generated free R-module with basis {v1 , . . . , vn }

and let S = hv1 , . . . , vs i. Then S is complemented by T = hvs+1 , . . . , vn i.
This example shows that if W = {w1 , . . . , wk } is a linearly independent
subset of M , then a necessary condition for W to extend to a basis of M is
that the submodule hW i be complemented. If R is a PID, then the converse
is also true. Indeed, let T be a complement of hW i in M . Since R is a PID,
T is free, so let {x1 , . . . , xr } be a basis of T . Then it is easy to check that
{w1 , . . . , wk , x1 , . . . , xr } is a basis of M .

(8.2) Proposition. Let R be a PID, let M be a free R-module, and let S be

a submodule. Consider the following conditions on S.
(1) S is complemented.
(2) M/S is free.
(3) If x ∈ S and x = ay for some y ∈ M , a 6= 0 ∈ R, then y ∈ S.
Then (1) ⇒ (2) and (2) ⇒ (3), while if M is finitely generated, then
(3) ⇒ (1).
Proof. (1) ⇒ (2). If S is complemented, then there exists T ⊆ M such that
S⊕T ∼ = M . Thus, M/S ∼ = T . But T is a submodule of a free module over
a PID R, so T is free (Theorem 6.2).
(2) ⇒ (3). Suppose M/S is free. If x ∈ S satisfies x = ay for some
y ∈ M , a 6= 0 ∈ R, then a(y + S) = S in M/S. Since free modules are
torsion-free, it follows that y + S = S, i.e., y ∈ S.
172 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

(3) ⇒ (1). Let M be a finite rank free R-module and let S ⊆ M be a

submodule satisfying condition (3). Then there is a short exact sequence
π
(8.1) 0 −→ S −→ M −→ M/S −→ 0
where π is the projection map. Condition (3) is equivalent to the statement
that M/S is torsion-free, so M/S is free by Theorem 6.6. But free modules
are projective, so sequence (8.1) has a splitting α : M/S → M and Theorem
3.9 shows that M ∼ = S ⊕ Im(α), i.e., S is complemented. u
t

(8.3) Remarks.
(1) A submodule S of M that satisfies condition (3) of Proposition 8.2
is called a pure submodule of M . Thus, a submodule of a finitely
generated module over a PID is pure if and only if it is complemented.
(2) If R is a field, then every subspace S ⊆ M satisfies condition (3) so that
every subspace of a finite-dimensional vector space is complemented.
Actually, this is true without the finite dimensionality assumption, but
our argument has only been presented in the more restricted case. The
fact that arbitrary subspaces of vector spaces are complemented follows
from Corollary 4.21.
(3) The implication (3) ⇒ (1) is false without the hypothesis that M be
finitely generated. As an example, consider a free presentation of the
Z-module Q:
0 −→ S −→ M −→ Q −→ 0.
Since M/S ∼ = Q and Q is torsion-free, it follows that S satisfies con-
dition (3) of Proposition 8.1. However, if S is complemented, then a
complement T ∼ = Q; so Q is a submodule of a free Z-module M , and
hence Q would be free, but Q is not a free Z-module.

(8.4) Corollary. If S is a complemented submodule of a finitely generated

R-module (R a PID), then any basis for S extends to a basis for M .
Proof. This was observed prior to Proposition 8.2. u
t

(8.5) Corollary. If S is a complemented submodule of M , then rank S =

rank M if and only if S = M .
Proof. A basis {v1 , . . . , vm } of S extends to a basis {v1 , . . . , vn } of M . But
n = m, so S = hv1 , . . . , vn i = M . u
t

If M = Z and S = h2i, then rank S = rank M but M 6= S. Of course,

S is not complemented.

(8.6) Corollary. If S is a complemented submodule of M , then

rank M = rank S + rank(M/S).
 3.8 Complemented Submodules 173

Proof. Let S = hv1 , . . . , vm i where m = rank S. Extend this to a basis

{v1 , . . . , vn } of M . Then T = hvm+1 , . . . , vn i is a complement of S in M
and T ∼ = M/S. Thus,

rank M = n = m + (n − m) = rank S + rank(M/S).

u
t

(8.7) Proposition. Let R be a PID and let f : M → N be an R-module

homomorphism of finite rank free R-modules. Then
(1) Ker(f ) is a pure submodule, but
(2) Im(f ) need not be pure.

Proof. (1) Suppose x ∈ Ker(f ), a 6= 0 ∈ R, and y ∈ M with x = ay. Then

0 = f (x) = f (ay) = af (y). But N is free and, hence, torsion-free so that
f (y) = 0. Hence, condition (3) of Proposition 8.2 is satisfied, so Ker(f ) is
complemented.
(2) If f : Z → Z is defined by f (x) = 2x, then Im(f ) = 2Z is not a
complemented submodule of Z. u
t

(8.8) Proposition. Let R be a PID and let f : M → N be an R-module

homomorphism of finite rank free R-modules. Then

rank M = rank(Ker(f )) + rank(Im(f )).

Proof. By the first isomorphism theorem, Im(f ) ∼

= M/ Ker(f ). But Ker(f )
is a complemented submodule of M , so the result follows from Corollary
8.6. u
t

(8.9) Corollary. Let R be a PID and let M and N be finite rank free R-
modules with rank(M ) = rank(N ). Let f ∈ HomR (M, N ).
(1) If f is a surjection, then f is an isomorphism.
(2) If f is an injection and Im(f ) is complemented, then f is an isomor-
phism.

Proof. (1) By Proposition 8.8, rank(Ker(f )) = 0, i.e., Ker(f ) = h0i, so f is

an injection.
(2) By Proposition 8.8, rank N = rank M = rank(Im(f )). Since Im(f )
is complemented by hypothesis, f is a surjection by Corollary 8.5. u
t

(8.10) Proposition. Let R be a field and let M and N be R-modules with

rank(M ) = rank(N ) finite. Let f ∈ HomR (M, N ). Then the following are
equivalent.
(1) f is an isomorphism.
174 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

(2) f is an injection.
(3) f is a surjection.

Proof. Since R is a field, Im(f ) is complemented (by Remark 8.3 (2)), so

this is an immediate consequence of Corollary 8.9. u
t

(8.11) Proposition. Let M be a finite rank free R-module (R a PID). If S

and T are pure submodules, then

rank(S + T ) + rank(S ∩ T ) = rank S + rank T.

Proof. Note that if S and T are pure submodules of M , then S ∩ T is also

pure. Indeed, if ay ∈ S ∩ T with a 6= 0 ∈ R, then y ∈ S and y ∈ T since
these submodules are pure. Thus, y ∈ S ∩ T , so S ∩ T is complemented by
Proposition 8.2. Then

(S + T )/T ∼
= S/(S ∩ T ).

By Corollary 8.6, we conclude

rank(S + T ) − rank(T ) = rank(S) − rank(S ∩ T ).

u
t

(8.12) Remark. It need not be true that S + T is pure, even if S and T are
both pure. For example, let S = h(1, 1)i ⊆ Z2 and let T = h(1, −1)i ⊆ Z2 .
Then S and T are both pure, but S + T 6= Z2 , so it cannot be pure. In fact,
2 · (1, 0) = (2, 0) = (1, 1) + (1, −1) ∈ S + T , but (1, 0) ∈
/ S + T.

3.9 Exercises

1. If M is an abelian group, then EndZ (M ), the set of abelian group endomor-

phisms of M , is a ring under addition and composition of functions.
(a) If M is a left R-module, show that the function φ : R → EndZ (M )
defined by φ(r)(m) = rm is a ring homomorphism. Conversely, show
that any ring homomorphism φ : R → EndZ (M ) determines a left R-
module structure on M .
(b) Show that giving a right R-module structure on M is the same as giving
a ring homomorphism φ : Rop → EndZ (M ).
2. Show that an abelian group G admits the structure of a Zn -module if and
only if nG = h0i.
3. Show that the subring Z[ pq ] of Q is not finitely generated as a Z-module if
p
q
∈
/ Z.
4. Let M be an S-module and suppose that R ⊆ S is a subring. Then M is also
an R-module by Example 1.5 (10). Suppose that N ⊆ M is an R-submodule.
Show that the S-submodule of M generated by N is the set
 3.9 Exercises 175

SN = {sn : s ∈ S, n ∈ N }.

5. Let M be an R-module and let A, B, and C be submodules. If C ⊆ A, prove

that
A ∩ (B + C) = (A ∩ B) + C.
This equality is known as the modular law. Show, by example, that this
formula need not hold if C is not contained in A.
6. Let R be a commutative ring and let S ⊆ R be a multiplicatively closed
subset of R containing no zero divisors. Let M be an R-module. Mimicking
the construction of RS (Theorem 2.3.5), we define MS as follows. Define a
relation ∼ on M × S by setting (x, s) ∼ (y, t) if and only if tx = sy. This is
easily seen to be an equivalence relation (as in the proof of Theorem 2.3.5),
and we will denote the equivalence class of (x, s) by the suggestive symbol
x/s.
(a) Prove that MS is an RS -module via the operation (a/s)(x/t) = (ax)/(st).
(b) If f : M → N is an R-module homomorhism, show that
fS : MS → NS
defined by fS (x/s) = f (x)/s is an RS -module homomorphism.
7. Let R ⊆ F [X] be the subring

R = {f (X) ∈ F [X] : f (X) = a0 + a2 X 2 + · · · + an X n }.

Thus, f (X) ∈ R if and only if the coefficient of X is 0. Show that F [X] is a
finitely generated R-module that is torsion-free but not free.
8. Show that Q is a torsion-free Z-module that is not free.
9. (a) Let R be an integral domain, let M be a torsion R-module, and let N
be a torsion-free R-module. Show that HomR (M, N ) = h0i.
(b) According to part (a), HomZ (Zm , Z) = h0i. If n = km, then Zm is a
Zn -module. Show that
HomZn (Zm , Zn ) ∼
= Zm .

10. Let R be a commutative ring with 1 and let I and J be ideals of R. Prove
that R/I ∼
= R/J as R-modules if and only if I = J. Suppose we only ask
that R/I and R/J be isomorphic rings. Is the same conclusion valid? (Hint:
Consider F [X]/(X − a) where a ∈ F and show that F [X]/(X − a) ∼ = F as
rings.)
11. Prove Theorem 2.7.
12. Prove Lemma 2.9.
13. Let M be an R-module and let f ∈ EndR (M ) be an idempotent endomor-
phism of M , i.e., f ◦ f = f . (That is, f is an idempotent element of the ring
EndR (M ).) Show that
M∼
= (Ker(f )) ⊕ (Im(f )).

14. Prove the remaining cases in Theorem 3.10.

15. Let R be a PID and let a and b ∈ R be nonzero elements. Then show
that HomR (R/Ra, R/Rb) ∼ = R/Rd where d = (a, b) is the greatest common
divisor of a and b.
16. Compute HomZ (Q, Z).
17. Give examples of short exact sequences of R-modules
φ φ0
0 −→ M1 −→ M −→ M2 −→ 0
176 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

and
ψ ψ0
0 −→ N1 −→ N −→ N2 −→ 0
such that
(a) M1 ∼= N1 , M ∼
= N , M2 6∼= N2 ;
(b) M1 ∼
= N1 , M 6∼
= N , M2 ∼ = N2 ;
(c) M1 ∼
6 N1 , M ∼
= = N , M2 ∼ = N2 .
18. Show that there is a split exact sequence
0 −→ mZmn −→ Zmn −→ nZmn −→ 0
of Zmn -modules if and only if (m, n) = 1.
19. Let N1 and N2 be submodules of an R-module M . Show that there is an
exact sequence
ψ φ
0 −→ N1 ∩ N2 −→ N1 ⊕ N2 −→ N1 + N2 −→ 0
where ψ(x) = (x, x) and φ(x, y) = x − y.
20. Let R be an integral domain and let a and b be nonzero elements of R. Let
M = R/R(ab) and let N = Ra/R(ab). Then M is an R-module and N is a
submodule. Show that N is a complemented submodule in M if and only if
there are u, v ∈ R such that ua + vb = 1.
21. Let R be a ring, M a finitely generated R-module, and φ : M → Rn a
surjective R-module homomorphism. Show that Ker(φ) is finitely generated.
(Note that this is valid even when M has submodules that are not finitely
generated.) (Hint: Consider the short exact sequence:
φ
0 −→ K −→ M −→ Rn −→ 0. )

22. Suppose that

φ φ0
0 −→ M
1 −→ M
 −→ M
2 −→ 0
f g 
y y yh
ψ ψ0
0 −→ N1 −→ N −→ N2 −→ 0

is a commutative diagram of R-modules and R-module homomorphisms.

Assume that the rows are exact and that f and h are isomorphisms. Then
prove that g is an isomorphism.
23. Let R be a commutative ring and S a multiplicatively closed subset of R
containing no zero divisors. If M is an R-module, then MS was defined in
Exercise 6. Prove that the operation of forming quotients with elements of
S is exact. Precisely:
f g
(a) Suppose that M 0 → M → M 00 is a sequence of R-modules and homo-
morphisms which is exact at M . Show that the sequence
f g
MS0 −→
S S
MS −→ MS00
is an exact sequence of RS -modules and homomorphisms.
(b) As a consequence of part (a), show that if M 0 is a submodule of M , then
MS0 can be identified with an RS -submodule of MS .
(c) If N and P are R-submodules of M , show (under the identification
of part (b)) that (N + P )S = NS + PS and (N ∩ P )S = NS ∩ PS .
(That is, formation of fractions commutes with finite sums and finite
intersections.)
(d) If N is a submodule of M show that
 3.9 Exercises 177

(M/N )S ∼
= (MS )/(NS ).
(That is, formation of fractions commutes with quotients.)
24. Let F be a field and let {fi (X)}∞ i=0 be any subset of F [X] such that
deg fi (X) = i for each i. Show that {fi (X)}∞ i=0 is a basis of F [X] as an
F -module.
25. Let R be a commutative ring and consider M = R[X] as an R-module. Then
N = R[X 2 ] is an R-submodule. Show that M/N is isomorphic to R[X] as
an R-module.
26. Let G be a group and H a subgroup. If F is a field, then we may form the
group ring F(G) (Example 2.1.9 (15)). Since F(G) is a ring and F(H) is
a subring, we may consider F(G) as either a left F(H)-module or a right
F(H)-module. As either a left or right F(H)-module, show that F(G) is free
of rank [G : H]. (Use a complete set {gi } of coset representatives of H as a
basis.)
27. Let R and S be integral domains and let φ1 , . . . , φn be n distinct ring
homomorphisms from R to S. Show that φ1 , . . . , φn are S-linearly indepen-
dent in the S-module F (R, S) of all functions from R to S. (Hint: Argue by
induction on n, using the property φi (ax) = φi (a)φi (x), to reduce from a
dependence relation with n entries to one with n − 1 entries.)
28. Let G be a group, let F be a field, and let φi : G → F ∗ for 1 ≤ i ≤ n
be n distinct group homomorphisms from G into the multiplicative group
F ∗ of F . Show that φ1 , . . . , φn are linearly independent over F (viewed as
elements of the F -module of all functions from G to F ). (Hint: Argue by
induction on n, as in Exercise 27.)
29. Let R = Z30 and let A ∈ M2, 3 (R) be the matrix
h i
A= 1
1 −1 .
0 2 3
Show that the two rows of A are linearly independent over R, but that any
two of the three columns are linearly dependent over R.
30. Let V be a finite-dimensional complex vector space. Then V is also a vector
space over R. Show that dimR V = 2 dimC V . (Hint: If
B = {v1 , . . . , vn }
is a basis of V over C, show that

B0 = {v1 , . . . , vn , iv1 , . . . , ivn }

is a basis of V over R.)
31. Extend Exercise 30 as follows. Let L be a field and let K be a subfield of L.
If V is a vector space over L, then it is also a vector space over K. Prove
that
dimK V = [L : K] dimL V
where [L : K] = dimK L is the dimension of L as a vector space over K.
(Note that we are not assuming that dimK L < ∞.)
32. Let K ⊆ L be fields and let V be a vector space over L. Suppose that
B = {uα }α∈Γ is a basis of V as an L-module, and let W be the K-submodule
of V generated by B. Let U ⊆ W be any K-submodule. Then, by Exercise
2,
LU = {tu : t ∈ L, u ∈ U }
is the L-submodule of V generated by U . Prove that
LU ∩ W = U.
178 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

That is, taking L-linear combinations of elements of U does not produce any
new elements of W .
33. Let K ⊆ L be fields and let A ∈ Mn (K), b ∈ Mn,1 (K). Show that the matrix
equation AX = b has a solution X ∈ Mn,1 (K) if and only if it has a solution
X ∈ Mn,1 (L).
34. Prove that the Lagrange interpolation polynomials (Proposition 2.4.10) and
the Newton interpolation polynomials (Remark 2.4.11) each form a basis of
the vector space Pn (F ) of polynomials of degree ≤ n with coefficients from
F.
35. Let F denote the set of all functions from Z+ to Z+ , and let M be the
free Q-module with basis F . Define a multiplication on M by the formula
(f g)(n) = f (n) + g(n) for all f, g ∈ F and extend this multiplication by
linearity to all of M . Let fm be the function fm (n) = δm,n for all m, n ≥ 0.
Show that each fm is irreducible (in fact, prime) as an element of the ring
R. Now consider the function f (n) = 1 for all n ≥ 0. Show that f does not
have a factorization into irreducible elements in M . (Hint: It may help to
think of f as the “infinite monomial”
f (0) f (1) f (m)
X0 X1 · · · Xm · · · .)

(Compare this exercise with Example 5.13 (4).)

36. Let F be a field, and let
I = {pα (X) : pα (X) is an irreducible monic polynomial in F [X]}.
We will say that a rational function h(X) = f (X)/g(X) ∈ F (X) is proper
if deg(f (X)) < deg(g(X)). Let F (X)pr denote the set of all proper rational
functions in F [X].
(a) Prove that F (X) ∼= F [X] ⊕ F (X)pr as F -modules.
(b) Prove that
n o
Xj
B= : pα (X) ∈ I; 1 ≤ j < k deg(pα (X))
(pα (X))k

is a basis of F (X) as an F -module. The expansion of a rational function

with respect to the basis B is known as the partial fraction expansion; it
should be familiar from elementary calculus.
37. Prove that Q is not a projective Z-module.
38. Let
R = {f : [0, 1] → R : f is continuous and f (0) = f (1)}
and let
M = {f : [0, 1] → R : f is continuous and f (0) = −f (1)}.
Then R is a ring under addition and multiplication of functions, and M is
an R-module. Show that M is a projective R-module that is not free. (Hint:
Show that M ⊕ M ∼ = R ⊕ R.)
39. Show that submodules of projective modules need not be projective. (Hint:
Consider pZp2 ⊆ Zp2 as Zp2 -modules.) Over a PID, show that submodules
of projective modules are projective.
40. (a) If R is a Dedekind domain, prove that R is Noetherian.
(b) If R is an integral domain that is a local ring (i.e., R has a unique
maximal ideal), show that any invertible ideal I of R is principal.
(c) Let R be an integral domain and S ⊆ R \ {0} a multiplicatively closed
subset. If I is an invertible ideal of R, show that IS is an invertible ideal
of RS .
 3.9 Exercises 179

(d) Show that in a Dedekind domain R, every nonzero prime ideal is maxi-
mal. (Hint: Let M be a maximal ideal of R containing a prime ideal P ,
and let S = R \ M . Apply parts (b) and (c).)
√
41. Show that Z[ −3] is not a Dedekind domain.
42. Show that Z[X] is not a Dedekind domain. More generally, let R be any
integral domain that is not a field. Show that R[X] is not a Dedekind domain.
43. Suppose R is a PID and M = Rhxi is a cyclic R-module with Ann M = hai 6=
h0i. Show that if N is a submodule of M , then N is cyclic with Ann N = hbi
where b is a divisor of a. Conversely, show that M has a unique submodule
N with annihilator hbi for each divisor b of a.
44. Let R be a PID, M an R-module, x ∈ M with Ann(x) = hai 6= h0i. Factor
nk
a = upn 1 · · · pk
1
with u a unit and p1 , . . . , pk distinct primes. Let y ∈ M
mk
with Ann(y) = hbi 6= h0i, where b = u0 pm 1 · · · pk
1
with 0 ≤ mi < ni for
1 ≤ i ≤ k. Show that Ann(x + y) = hai.
45. Let R be a PID, let M be a free R-module of finite rank, and let N ⊆ M be a
submodule. If M/N is a torsion R-module, prove that rank(M ) = rank(N ).
46. Let R be a PID and let M and N be free R-modules of the same finite rank.
Then an R-module homomorphism f : M → N is an injection if and only if
N/ Im(f ) is a torsion R-module.
47. Let u = (a, b) ∈ Z2 .
(a) Show that there is a basis of Z2 containing u if and only if a and b are
relatively prime.
(b) Suppose that u = (5, 12). Find a v ∈ Z2 such that {u, v} is a basis of
Z2 .
48. Let M be a torsion module over a PID R and assume Ann(M ) = (a) 6= (0).
r
If a = pr11 · · · pkk where p1 , . . . , pk are the distinct prime factors of a, then
show that Mpi = qi M where qi = a/pri i . Recall that if p ∈ R is a prime,
then Mp denotes the p-primary component of M .
49. Let M be a torsion-free R-module over a PID R, and assume that x ∈ M is
a primitive element. If px = qx0 show that q | p.
50. Find a basis and the invariant factors for the submodule of Z3 generated by
x1 = (1, 0, −1), x2 = (4, 3, −1), x3 = (0, 9, 3), and x4 = (3, 12, 3).
51. Find a basis for the submodule of Q[X]3 generated by

f1 = (2X−1, X, X 2 +3), f2 = (X, X, X 2 ), f3 = (X+1, 2X, 2X 2 −3).

52. Determine the structure of Z3 /K where K is generated by x1 = (2, 1, −3)

and x2 = (1, −1, 2).
53. Let R = R[X] and suppose that M is a direct sum of cyclic R-modules with
annihilators (X − 1)3 , (X 2 + 1)2 , (X − 1)(X 2 + 1)4 , and (X + 2)(X 2 + 1)2 .
Determine the elementary divisors and invariant factors of M .
54. Let R be a PID and let p ∈ R be a prime. Show that submodules, quotient
modules, and direct sums of p-primary modules are p-primary.
55. An R-module M is said to be irreducible if h0i and M are the only sub-
modules of M . Show that a torsion module M over a PID R is irreducible
if and only if M = Rhxi where Ann(x) = hpi where p is prime. Show that
if M is finitely generated, then M is indecomposable in the sense that M is
not a direct sum of two nonzero submodules if and only if M = Rhxi where
Ann(x) = h0i or Ann(z) = hpe i where p is a prime.
56. Let M be an R-module where R is a PID. We say that M is divisible if for
each nonzero a ∈ R, aM = M .
(a) Show that Q is a divisible Z-module.
180 Chapter 3. Modules and Vector Spaces

(b) Show that any quotient of a divisible R-module is divisible. It follows

for example that Q/Z is a divisible Z-module.
(c) If R is not a field, show that no finitely generated R-module is divisible.
57. Determine all nonisomorphic abelian groups of order 360.
58. Use elementary divisors to describe all abelian groups of order 144 and 168.
59. Use invariant factors to describe all abelian groups of orders 144 and 168.
60. If p and q are distinct primes, use invariant factors to describe all abelian
groups of order
(a) p2 q 2 ,
(b) p4 q,
(c) p5 .
61. If p and q are distinct primes, use elementary divisors to describe all abelian
groups of order p3 q 2 .
62. Let G, H, and K be finitely generated abelian groups. If G × K ∼ = H × K,
show that G ∼ = H. Show by example that this need not be true if we do not
assume that the groups are finitely generated.
63. Determine all integers for which there exists a unique abelian group of order
n.
64. Show that two finite abelian groups are isomorphic if and only if they have
the same number of elements of each order.
65. An abelian group G has exactly 3 elements of order 2. Determine the iso-
morphism class of G.
66. Find a generator for the cyclic group F ∗ where F is each of the following
fields (see Example 2.5.15 (3)):
(a) F2 [X]/hX 2 + X + 1i.
(b) F3 [X]/hX 2 + 1i.
67. Let
f1 f2 fn
0 −→ M1 −→ M2 −→ · · · −→ Mn+1 −→ 0
be an exact sequence of finite rank free modules and homomorphisms over a
PID R. That is, f1 is injective, fn is surjective, and Im(fi ) = Ker(fi+1 ) for
1 ≤ i ≤ n − 1. Show that

X
n+1

(−1)i+1 rank(Mi ) = 0.
i=1

68. If f (X1 , . . . , Xn ) ∈ R[X1 , . . . , Xn ], the degree of f is the highest degree of

a monomial in f with nonzero coefficient, where

deg(X1i1 · · · Xnin ) = i1 + · · · + in .

Let F be a field. Given any five points {v1 , . . . , v5 } ⊆ F 2 , show that there
is a quadratic polynomial f (X1 , X2 ) ∈ F [X1 , X2 ] such that f (vi ) = 0 for
1 ≤ i ≤ 5.
69. Let M and N be finite rank R-modules over a PID R and let f ∈
HomR (M, N ). If S ⊆ N is a complemented submodule of N , show that
f −1 (S) is a complemented submodule of M .
70. Let R be a PID, and let f : M → N be an R-module homomorphism of
finite rank free R-modules. If S ⊆ N is a submodule, prove that

rank(f −1 (S)) = rank(S ∩ Im(f )) + rank(Ker(f )).

 3.9 Exercises 181

f g
71. Let M1 −→ M −→ M2 be a sequence of finite rank R-modules and R-module
homomorphisms, where R is a PID.
(a) Show that
rank(Im(g ◦ f )) = rank(Im(f )) − rank(Im(f ) ∩ Ker(g)).
(b) If Im(f ) is a complemented submodule of M , show that
rank(Im(g ◦ f )) = rank(Im(f ) + Ker(g)) − rank(Ker(g)).
If R is a field, then all submodules of R-modules are complemented,
so this formlula is always valid in the case of vector spaces and linear
transformations. Show, by example, that this formula need not be valid
if Im(f ) is not complemented.
72. Let R be a PID, and let M , N , and P be finite rank free R-modules. Let f :
M → N and g : M → P be homomorphisms. Suppose that Ker(f ) ⊆ Ker(g)
and Im(f ) is a complemented submodule of N . Then show that there is a
homomorphism h : N → P such that g = h ◦ f .
73. Let F be a field and let V be a vector space over F . Suppose that f , g ∈
V ∗ = HomF (V, F ) such that Ker(f ) ⊆ Ker(g). Show that there is a ∈ F
such that g = af . Is this same result true if F is replaced by a PID?
74. Let R be a PID and let M be a finite rank free R-module. Let Ck (M ) denote
the set of complemented submodules of M of rank k. Let G be the group of
units of the ring EndR (M ).
(a) Show that (φ, N ) 7→ φ(N ) determines an action of the group G on the
set Ck (M ).
(b) Show that the action defined in part (a) is transitive, i.e., given N1 ,
N2 ∈ Ck (M ) there is φ ∈ G that sends N1 to N2 .