Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Does a module (over a commutative ring) always possess a minimal generating set? When the module is not finitely generated, the typical Zorn's lemma type argument doesn't seem to work. More precisely, if $(S_{\alpha})_{\alpha}$ is a chain of generating subsets of a module $M$, $M=\cap _ {\alpha}(S _ {\alpha})\supset (\cap_{\alpha}S_{\alpha})$ is not in general (I think) equality (the parentheses in the last equation indicate submodule generated by).

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 6 down vote accepted

$\mathbb{Q}$, as a $\mathbb{Z}$-module, has no minimal generating set.

By the way, in the paper "A characterization of left perfect rings" by Yiqiang Zhou, it is proven that a ring $R$ is left perfect if and only if every generating set of some $R$-module contains a minimal generating set.

share|improve this answer
Wouldn't {$\frac{1}{p} \ $|$\ p \mbox{ a positive prime integer }$ } be a minimal generating set of $\mathbb{Q}$? –  ashpool Jul 27 '10 at 16:49
@kwan: No; e.g., $\frac{1}{4}$ is not in the subgroup generated by your system of elements. Note that a somewhat easier example to think about is $\mathbb{Q}_p$ as a $\mathbb{Z}_p$-module: in this case, a generating set is a collection of elements of arbitrarily small $p$-adic valuation, but given any such set, any finite number of elements may be removed while retaining a generating set. –  Pete L. Clark Jul 27 '10 at 17:08
Your remark about perfect rings is interesting! Thanks. –  user717 Jul 27 '10 at 17:33
Or take $\mathbb{Q}_p/\mathbb{Z}_p$ as a $\mathbb{Z}$-module: every proper submodule is cyclic, but the module itself is not finitely generated. –  Victor Protsak Jul 27 '10 at 18:19

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.