Need help with this question:
Let $R$ be a PID, and let $\pi\in R$ be prime. Is it ever the case that $$R/\langle\pi\rangle \times R/\langle \pi\rangle$$ is cyclic as $R$-module?
So my attempt is horrible, here it goes
Proof: Since $\langle\pi\rangle$ is a prime ideal, $R/\langle\pi\rangle$ is either isomorphic to R or $0$ (Since every prime ideal is either zero or maximal in a PID.) If it is 0, this is trivially cylcic. However if it was R, then $R \times R$ is cylic if and only if R is cyclic.
So this is my horrible attempt, I just need help getting pointed to the right direction.
First: if the ideal is prime, then by definition it cannot equal the whole ring. So it is not true that $R/\langle \pi\rangle$ would be trivial; it can never be trivial. A maximal ideal, by definition, is not equal to the whole ring, so you will not get zero.
I mean, look at $R=\mathbb{Z}$. The prime ideals are $(p)$ with $p$ a prime and $(0)$. Is $\mathbb{Z}/(p)$ the zero ring? No.
As to your question... no, it is never cyclic.
For simplicity, I will write $P=\langle \pi\rangle$.
Suppose that $M=(R/P)\times (R/P)$ is cyclic. Then there exist $a,b\in R$ such that $(a+P,b+P)$ generates $M$ as a module. In particular, there exists $r\in R$ such that $r(a+P,b+P) = (1+P,0+P)$; hence $ra-1\in P$ and $rb\in P$. Because $P$ is a prime ideal, that means that either $r\in P$ or $b\in P$. But we cannot have $r\in P$, because then $ra\in P$, so $ra-1\in P$ implies $1\in P$, which is impossible for a prime ideal (because it cannot equal the whole ring). Thus, $b\in P$, so $b+P = 0+P$. But then $\langle (a+P,b+P)\rangle = \langle (a+P,0+P)\rangle$ cannot contain the element $(0+P,1+P)$ (because the second component is always $0+P$), a contradiction. The contradiction arises from the assumption that $M$ is cyclic, so we conclude that $M$ is not cyclic.