My lecture notes gives the following definition of a $G$-module:
Let $V$ be a vector space over $F$ and let $G$ be a group. Then $V$ is a $G$-module if there is a multiplication of elements of $V$ by elements of $G$ such that for any $u,v\in V$, $a\in F$ and $h,g\in G$ the following holds:
- $(au)g=a(ug)$,
- $(u+v)g=ug+vg$,
- $v(gh)=(vg)h$,
- $ve=v$.
Later the notes gives the definition of a $G$-submodule as a subspace $W$ of $V$ which is itself a $G$-module. It states that this definition is the same as saying that $W$ is closed under the action of $G$. Now, I understand that if $W$ is a $G$-module, then it is closed under the action of $G$. But how come the other direction is true? In other words, why is the action of $G$ on $W$ necessarily linear and associative (points 1-3 in the definition of a $G$-module)?
Let $u,v\in W$, $a\in F$, and $g,h\in G$ as in the definition you provide. Since $W\subset V$, in particular we know that $u,v\in V$, making points 1-4 hold. As Matthew Leingang pointed out in the comments, this relies on the fact that the submodules inherit the structure of their ambient module, allowing us to define all operations regarding $W$ to be the same as those in $V$ restricted to $W$.