Suppose I have an $R$-module $M$ and an onto ring homomorphism $\varphi:S\rightarrow R$. This homomorphism induces an $S$-module structure on $M$ by the action: $$s\cdot m := \varphi(s)\cdot m $$ As far as I understand, there can be no module isomorphism between $M$ as an $R$-module and $M$ as an $S$-module since they are over different rings, but is there some other sense in which it is possible to show that both structures are 'equivalent'? e.g. that one of them is a (semi)simple module if and only if the other is?
2026-04-12 06:40:27.1775976027
Equivalence of modules over different rings
283 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in RING-THEORY
- Jacobson radical = nilradical iff every open set of $\text{Spec}A$ contains a closed point.
- A commutative ring is prime if and only if it is a domain.
- Find gcd and invertible elements of a ring.
- Prove that $R[x]$ is an integral domain if and only if $R$ is an integral domain.
- Prove that $Z[i]/(5)$ is not a field. Check proof?
- If $P$ is a prime ideal of $R[x;\delta]$ such as $P\cap R=\{0\}$, is $P(Q[x;\delta])$ also prime?
- Let $R$ be a simple ring having a minimal left ideal $L$. Then every simple $R$-module is isomorphic to $L$.
- A quotient of a polynomial ring
- Does a ring isomorphism between two $F$-algebras must be a $F$-linear transformation
- Prove that a ring of fractions is a local ring
Related Questions in MODULES
- Idea to make tensor product of two module a module structure
- $(2,1+\sqrt{-5}) \not \cong \mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}]$ as $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}]$-module
- Example of simple modules
- $R$ a domain subset of a field $K$. $I\trianglelefteq R$, show $I$ is a projective $R$-module
- $S_3$ action on the splitting field of $\mathbb{Q}[x]/(x^3 - x - 1)$
- idempotent in quiver theory
- Isomorphism of irreducible R-modules
- projective module which is a submodule of a finitely generated free module
- Exercise 15.10 in Cox's Book (first part)
- direct sum of injective hull of two modules is equal to the injective hull of direct sum of those modules
Related Questions in REPRESENTATION-THEORY
- How does $\operatorname{Ind}^G_H$ behave with respect to $\bigoplus$?
- Minimal dimension needed for linearization of group action
- How do you prove that category of representations of $G_m$ is equivalent to the category of finite dimensional graded vector spaces?
- Assuming unitarity of arbitrary representations in proof of Schur's lemma
- Are representation isomorphisms of permutation representations necessarily permutation matrices?
- idempotent in quiver theory
- Help with a definition in Serre's Linear Representations of Finite Groups
- Are there special advantages in this representation of sl2?
- Properties of symmetric and alternating characters
- Representation theory of $S_3$
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
It would be nice if you learned some category theory since these are the sort of things for which it is particularly useful.
However it is not too hard to prove this by hand.
First note that $R\cong S/I$ for some ideal $I$. So the question of whether $M$ being simple as an $R$ module iff simple as an $S$ module translates to asking whether every $S/I$ submodule of $M$ is an $S$ submodule and vice versa. This is sort of obvious since the $S/I$ action on $M$ is defined via equivalence classes in $S/I$.
Now the question of semi-simplicity is the same as asking whether if $M\cong M_1\oplus M_2$ as an $S/I$ module, then the same isomorphism holds as $S$ modules and vice versa.
Well first note that the splitting is as abelian groups. No in particular $M_1\cap M_2=\{0\}$ and every element of $m\in M$ can be written $m=m_1+m_2$ for $m_1\in M_1$ and $m_2\in M_2$.
So if the splitting occurs as $S/I$ (resp. $S$) modules, then you only need to check that the $S$ (resp. $S/I$) action preserves the submodules $M_1$ and $M_2$, but this was checked previously.
Edit: If you were to think about this categorically, then you would be showing something much stronger.
For example if $M$ to $N$ are $S$ modules which are annihilated by $I$ i.e. $IM=0=IN$ then we see that any morphism $S$ modules between them gives a morphism of $S/I$ modules. Then we also note that any morphism of $S/I$-modules lifts to a morphism of $S$ modules. In particular $M\cong N$ as $S$-modules if and only if congruent as $S/I$ modules.
This is what Stephens comment above about fully faithful embedding means.
At the level of modules, you can prove most properties in a piecemeal fashion, but a categorical approach gives a much more powerful perspective.