When do maximal submodules force linearity?
ascending chain condition on annihilator idealsendomorphismsinjectivitylocal ringslocalizationsmaximal submodulessimple submodules
General module theory in associative algebras (16D10) Injective modules, self-injective associative rings (16D50) Simple and semisimple modules, primitive rings and ideals in associative algebras (16D60) Localization and associative Noetherian rings (16P50) Chain conditions on annihilators and summands: Goldie-type conditions (16P60) Automorphisms and endomorphisms (16W20)
All rings \(R\) considered have an identity and are not division rings, while all \(R\)-modules considered are left \(R\)-modules which are unitary, faithful and not cyclic. Maximal submodules of \(R\)-modules are assumed to be non-zero modules and if \(X\) is a subset of an \(R\)-module \(V\) and \(v\in V\), then the notation \((X:v)=\{r\in R:rv\in X\}\) is used. Further, \(\text{Soc}(V)\) denotes the socle, i.e. the sum of all simple submodules, of \(V\). Let \(R\) be a ring and \(M\) a maximal submodule of an \(R\)-module \(V\). Then \(M\) is said to force linearity on \(V\) if every map \(f\colon V\to V\) with \(f(rv)=rf(v)\) for all \(r\in R\) and all \(v\in V\) and \(f(m+n)=f(m)+f(n)\) for all \(m,n\in M\) is an \(R\)-endomorphism of \(V\). First, a rather technical but general characterization of maximal submodules that force linearity is given (Theorem 2.2). For special types of rings this characterization leads to several results such as the following ones. If \(R\) is a local ring and \(V\) is an \(R\)-module, then every maximal submodule forces linearity on \(V\) if \(\text{Soc}(V)=\{0\}\) while otherwise no maximal submodule forces linearity on \(V\) (Theorem 3.1). If \(R\) is a commutative ring, \(V\) is an \(R\)-module, \(M\) a maximal submodule of \(V\), and \(V=M+Rv\) for some \(v\in V-M\), then the following statements are equivalent: (i) \(M\) does not force linearity on \(V\), (ii) there exists \(w\in V\) such that \(\text{Ann}_R(w)=(M:v)\), and there exists \(m\in M\) such that \((Rv:m)\subseteq(M:v)\) (Theorem 3.2). If \(R\) is a commutative ring, \(P\) a prime ideal of \(R\) and \(V\) is an \(R\)-module, then \(V_P\) denotes the localization of \(V\) by the prime \(P\). Suppose \(R\) has the ascending chain condition on annihilator ideals, \(V\) is an \(R\)-module and \(M\) a maximal submodule of \(V\). Then the following statements are equivalent: (i) \(M\) forces linearity on \(V\), (ii) for every prime ideal \(P\) of \(R\), \(M_P\) forces linearity on \(V_P\), (iii) for every prime ideal \(P\) of \(R\), \(V_P\) is cyclic or \(V_P=M_P\) or \(\text{Soc}(V_P)=\{0\}\) (Theorem 3.8). In a final section, results are obtained under restrictions on the modules rather than on the rings.
- Forcing linearity numbers of semisimple modules over integral domains.
- Forcing linearity numbers of semicyclic modules over commutative Noetherian rings
- Forcing linearity numbers
- When will every maximal \(F\)-free subposet contain a maximal element?
- Forcing linearity numbers for finitely generated modules
- How Many Subspaces Force Linearity?
- The super order dual of an ordered vector space and the Riesz-Kantorovich formula
- scientific article; zbMATH DE number 2196196 (Why is no real title available?)
This page was built for publication: When do maximal submodules force linearity?
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q1304900)
