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).


$\mathbb{Q}$, 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.

  • $\begingroup$ Wouldn't {$\frac{1}{p} \ $|$\ p \mbox{ a positive prime integer }$ } be a minimal generating set of $\mathbb{Q}$? $\endgroup$
    – ashpool
    Jul 27 '10 at 16:49
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @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. $\endgroup$ Jul 27 '10 at 17:08
  • $\begingroup$ Your remark about perfect rings is interesting! Thanks. $\endgroup$
    – user717
    Jul 27 '10 at 17:33
  • $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$ Jul 27 '10 at 18:19

There are also simple examples of ideals of commutative rings that have no minimal generating sets, e.g., any nonzero ideal $I$ with $I = J(R)I$. (Adapt the proof of Nakayama's Lemma.) For example, let $K$ be a field, $M$ be the maximal ideal of $K[\{x^s \mid s \in \mathbb{Q}^+\}]$ consisting of the elements with zero constant term, and note that $M_M = (M_M)^2$.

Since I don't have enough points to comment yet, I would also like to point out here that there is an erratum for the paper Martin referenced where the author points out that his proof is flawed. As far as I know, it is known that that condition implies perfect, but whether the converse is true is still open.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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