Skip to main content
added 106 characters in body
Source Link
Jeremy Rickard
  • 35.2k
  • 2
  • 110
  • 151

Eric's result for commutative rings, that an example must have the ring no bigger than the continuum and the maximal ideal infinitely generated, extends to left ideals for non-commutative rings, assuming that by "not a direct summand" you mean "not a direct summand as a left ideal".

Let $A$ be the ring, $I$ the countable maximal left ideal, and $S$ the simple left module $A/I$. Considering these all as left $A$-modules, there can be no non-zero maps $S\to I$ or $I\to S$. It follows that there can be no non-zero map $S\to A$, since if there were, then composing with the natural epimorphism $A\to S$ would give a non-zero map $S\to S$, which must be invertible since $S$ is simple, and so $A\cong I\oplus S$ as left $A$-modules.

Hence the map $A\to A$ given by right multiplication by any $0\neq a\in A$ must restrict to a non-zero map $I\to A$, and therefore to a non-zero map $I\to I$, since there are no non-zero maps $I\to S$.

So, as in Eric's argument, $A$ acts faithfully on $I$.

EDIT: By the way, this shows that $I$ is a two-sided ideal. The quotient ring $S=A/I$ must then be a skew field, since it is simple as a left module for itself. Also, $I/I^2$ is an $S$-module, but is at most countable, so must be zero. So $I$ is an idempotent ideal.

Eric's result for commutative rings, that an example must have the ring no bigger than the continuum and the maximal ideal infinitely generated, extends to left ideals for non-commutative rings, assuming that by "not a direct summand" you mean "not a direct summand as a left ideal".

Let $A$ be the ring, $I$ the countable maximal left ideal, and $S$ the simple left module $A/I$. Considering these all as left $A$-modules, there can be no non-zero maps $S\to I$ or $I\to S$. It follows that there can be no non-zero map $S\to A$, since if there were, then composing with the natural epimorphism $A\to S$ would give a non-zero map $S\to S$, which must be invertible since $S$ is simple, and so $A\cong I\oplus S$ as left $A$-modules.

Hence the map $A\to A$ given by right multiplication by any $0\neq a\in A$ must restrict to a non-zero map $I\to A$, and therefore to a non-zero map $I\to I$, since there are no non-zero maps $I\to S$.

So, as in Eric's argument, $A$ acts faithfully on $I$.

EDIT: By the way, this shows that $I$ is a two-sided ideal. The quotient ring $S=A/I$ must then be a skew field, since it is simple as a left module for itself.

Eric's result for commutative rings, that an example must have the ring no bigger than the continuum and the maximal ideal infinitely generated, extends to left ideals for non-commutative rings, assuming that by "not a direct summand" you mean "not a direct summand as a left ideal".

Let $A$ be the ring, $I$ the countable maximal left ideal, and $S$ the simple left module $A/I$. Considering these all as left $A$-modules, there can be no non-zero maps $S\to I$ or $I\to S$. It follows that there can be no non-zero map $S\to A$, since if there were, then composing with the natural epimorphism $A\to S$ would give a non-zero map $S\to S$, which must be invertible since $S$ is simple, and so $A\cong I\oplus S$ as left $A$-modules.

Hence the map $A\to A$ given by right multiplication by any $0\neq a\in A$ must restrict to a non-zero map $I\to A$, and therefore to a non-zero map $I\to I$, since there are no non-zero maps $I\to S$.

So, as in Eric's argument, $A$ acts faithfully on $I$.

EDIT: By the way, this shows that $I$ is a two-sided ideal. The quotient ring $S=A/I$ must then be a skew field, since it is simple as a left module for itself. Also, $I/I^2$ is an $S$-module, but is at most countable, so must be zero. So $I$ is an idempotent ideal.

added 168 characters in body
Source Link
Jeremy Rickard
  • 35.2k
  • 2
  • 110
  • 151

Eric's result for commutative rings, that an example must have the ring no bigger than the continuum and the maximal ideal infinitely generated, extends to left ideals for non-commutative rings, assuming that by "not a direct summand" you mean "not a direct summand as a left ideal".

Let $A$ be the ring, $I$ the countable maximal left ideal, and $S$ the simple left module $A/I$. Considering these all as left $A$-modules, there can be no non-zero maps $S\to I$ or $I\to S$. It follows that there can be no non-zero map $S\to A$, since if there were, then composing with the natural epimorphism $A\to S$ would give a non-zero map $S\to S$, which must be invertible since $S$ is simple, and so $A\cong I\oplus S$ as left $A$-modules.

Hence the map $A\to A$ given by right multiplication by any $0\neq a\in A$ must restrict to a non-zero map $I\to A$, and therefore to a non-zero map $I\to I$, since there are no non-zero maps $I\to S$.

So, as in Eric's argument, $A$ acts faithfully on $I$.

EDIT: By the way, this shows that $I$ is a two-sided ideal. The quotient ring $S=A/I$ must then be a skew field, since it is simple as a left module for itself.

Eric's result for commutative rings, that an example must have the ring no bigger than the continuum and the maximal ideal infinitely generated, extends to left ideals for non-commutative rings, assuming that by "not a direct summand" you mean "not a direct summand as a left ideal".

Let $A$ be the ring, $I$ the countable maximal left ideal, and $S$ the simple left module $A/I$. Considering these all as left $A$-modules, there can be no non-zero maps $S\to I$ or $I\to S$. It follows that there can be no non-zero map $S\to A$, since if there were, then composing with the natural epimorphism $A\to S$ would give a non-zero map $S\to S$, which must be invertible since $S$ is simple, and so $A\cong I\oplus S$ as left $A$-modules.

Hence the map $A\to A$ given by right multiplication by any $0\neq a\in A$ must restrict to a non-zero map $I\to A$, and therefore to a non-zero map $I\to I$, since there are no non-zero maps $I\to S$.

So, as in Eric's argument, $A$ acts faithfully on $I$.

Eric's result for commutative rings, that an example must have the ring no bigger than the continuum and the maximal ideal infinitely generated, extends to left ideals for non-commutative rings, assuming that by "not a direct summand" you mean "not a direct summand as a left ideal".

Let $A$ be the ring, $I$ the countable maximal left ideal, and $S$ the simple left module $A/I$. Considering these all as left $A$-modules, there can be no non-zero maps $S\to I$ or $I\to S$. It follows that there can be no non-zero map $S\to A$, since if there were, then composing with the natural epimorphism $A\to S$ would give a non-zero map $S\to S$, which must be invertible since $S$ is simple, and so $A\cong I\oplus S$ as left $A$-modules.

Hence the map $A\to A$ given by right multiplication by any $0\neq a\in A$ must restrict to a non-zero map $I\to A$, and therefore to a non-zero map $I\to I$, since there are no non-zero maps $I\to S$.

So, as in Eric's argument, $A$ acts faithfully on $I$.

EDIT: By the way, this shows that $I$ is a two-sided ideal. The quotient ring $S=A/I$ must then be a skew field, since it is simple as a left module for itself.

added 5 characters in body
Source Link
Jeremy Rickard
  • 35.2k
  • 2
  • 110
  • 151

Eric's result for commutative rings, that an example must have the ring no bigger than the continuum and the maximal ideal infinitely generated, extends to left ideals for non-commutative rings, assuming that by "not a direct summand" you mean "not a direct summand as a left ideal".

Let $A$ be the ring, $I$ the countable maximal left ideal, and $S$ the simple left module $A/I$. Considering these all as left $A$-modules, there can be no non-zero maps $S\to I$ or $I\to S$. It follows that there can be no non-zero map $S\to A$, since if there were, then composing with the natural epimorphism $A\to S$ would give a non-zero map $S\to S$, which must be invertible since $S$ is simple, and so $A\cong I\oplus S$ as left $A$-modules.

Hence the map $A\to A$ given by right multiplication by any $0\neq a\in A$ must restrict to a non-zero map $I\to A$, and therefore to a non-zero map $I\to I$, since there are no non-zero maps $I\to S$.

So, as in Eric's argument, $A$ acts faithfully on $I$.

Eric's result for commutative rings, that an example must have the ring no bigger than the continuum and the maximal ideal infinitely generated, extends to left ideals for non-commutative rings, assuming that by "not a direct summand" you mean "not a direct summand as a left ideal".

Let $A$ be the ring, $I$ the countable maximal ideal, and $S$ the simple left module $A/I$. Considering these all as left $A$-modules, there can be no non-zero maps $S\to I$ or $I\to S$. It follows that there can be no non-zero map $S\to A$, since if there were, then composing with the natural epimorphism $A\to S$ would give a non-zero map $S\to S$, which must be invertible since $S$ is simple, and so $A\cong I\oplus S$ as left $A$-modules.

Hence the map $A\to A$ given by right multiplication by any $0\neq a\in A$ must restrict to a non-zero map $I\to A$, and therefore to a non-zero map $I\to I$, since there are no non-zero maps $I\to S$.

So, as in Eric's argument, $A$ acts faithfully on $I$.

Eric's result for commutative rings, that an example must have the ring no bigger than the continuum and the maximal ideal infinitely generated, extends to left ideals for non-commutative rings, assuming that by "not a direct summand" you mean "not a direct summand as a left ideal".

Let $A$ be the ring, $I$ the countable maximal left ideal, and $S$ the simple left module $A/I$. Considering these all as left $A$-modules, there can be no non-zero maps $S\to I$ or $I\to S$. It follows that there can be no non-zero map $S\to A$, since if there were, then composing with the natural epimorphism $A\to S$ would give a non-zero map $S\to S$, which must be invertible since $S$ is simple, and so $A\cong I\oplus S$ as left $A$-modules.

Hence the map $A\to A$ given by right multiplication by any $0\neq a\in A$ must restrict to a non-zero map $I\to A$, and therefore to a non-zero map $I\to I$, since there are no non-zero maps $I\to S$.

So, as in Eric's argument, $A$ acts faithfully on $I$.

Source Link
Jeremy Rickard
  • 35.2k
  • 2
  • 110
  • 151
Loading