Peter Ayre z3290981 : Modules and Representation Theory : Assignment 2

1. (a) Firstly note that Z is a PID and so is noetherian, then by Hilberts Basis
Theorem Z[x] is a noetherian ring. As AR is finitely generated, we then have
by Prop13.1.1 that AR is noetherian.
(b) Take A1 E A, then AA1 = A1 A = A1 RA1 = A1 R = A1 and so A1 is an ideal
in AR . As AR is finitely generated
P and R is noetherian, we have that
P L A
with |L| < such that A1 = lL lR. We then have that A1 = lL lA, i.e.
A1 is finitely generated and so by Prop12.2, AA is noetherian.
(c) It is obvious from the definitions that a module M is of finite length if and
only if it is both noetherian and artinian. If we then combine this result with
Prop12.1, for N M , we have that
M of finite length N and M/N of finite length.
Before proceeding, I firstly note that it has been shown in class that any Q M
N
0
is of the form Q = NN for some N N 0 M . Thus, we may take the two
composition series
0 < N1 < N2 < < Na = N
and,
0<

M1
M2
Mb
M
<
< <
=
N
N
N
N

where N Mj M.

Further, these composition series are such that

Nk+1
Nk

and

Mj+1 /N TIT
Mj+1

=
Mj /N
Mj

are simple

for k = 1, 2 . . . , a 1, j = 1, 2, . . . , b 1. We now consider the chain

0 < N1 < N2 < < Na = N < M1 < M2 < < Mb = M
where strictness in the equality N < M1 follows from that of 0 < MN1 . By the
above arguement this in fact forms a composition series of length a + b for M.
Thus we have that the length of N plus the length of M
is equal to the length
N
of M .
(d) Let us assume that MR , MA have finite lengths of t, s respectively. We then
take a composition series for MA , i.e.
0 < M1 < M2 < < Ms = MA

(1)

and note that we may view this as a chain of submodules of MR . We then

M
M
proceed by construction. For each 1 j s, we know that Mj+1
< M
is
j
j
1

finitely generated by the argument in (c). Thus, if it is not simple we get a

new composition series
Mj,nj
Mj,2
Mj+1
Mj,1
<
< <
=
0<
Mj
Mj
Mj
Mj
M

/M

j
where Mj,k+1
, 1 k nj is simple and of course Mj < Mj,k < Mj+1 . Then
j ,k/Mj
we may extend the composition series (1) to

0 < M1 < < Mj < Mj,1 < Mj,2 < < Mj,nj = Mj+1 < < Ms = MA
TIT

M
/Mj
M

and where Mj,k+1

is simple. Using this method over each step in
= Mj,k+1
j ,k/Mj
j,k
the composition series (1), we will arrive at a chain of for MR of length greater
or equal to that of MA .

2. (a)
k
0 0 1
( k ) := 0 1 0 ,
1 0 1

then we get
2

0 0 1
1 0 1
( 2 ) := 0 1 0 = 0 1 0 ,
1 0 1
1 0 0

and
3

0 0 1
1 0 0
(1G ) = ( 3 ) := 0 1 0 = 0 1 0 .
1 0 1
0 0 1

Then it is clear that is a group homomorphism; and so it is an R-linear

representation of G.
(b) We have that



1
2
0
0
1
0
1
1


2 2 2 = 0 2 0 0 1 0 2
3
0 0 2
1 0 0
3

3 0 1
1
0
= 0 1 0 2 = 2
1 0 2
3
7
(c) By definition,

1 0 0
0 0 1
1 0 1
1
1
e = (1 + + 2 ) = 0 1 0 + 0 1 0 + 0 1 0
3
3
0 0 1
1 0 1
1 0 0

0 0 0
0 0 0
1

0 3 0
0 1 0
=
=
3
0 0 0
0 0 0
and so the Reynolds operator ()\ : (r1 , r2 , r3 )T 7 (0, r2 , 0)T for r1 , r2 , r3 R.
2

(d) Thus, it is a trivial observation that

0
g
\

M = im() = R
0
(e) We will describe the Wedderburn components of RG by applying the Chinese
Remainder Theorem. We firstly see that
RG
=

R[x]
R[x]
R[x] CRT

=
hx3 1i
hx 1i hx2 + x + 1i

where we have that hx 1i + hx2 + x + 1i = R[x] as

1 2
x + x + 1 x(x 1) 2(x 1) = 1.
3
Furthermore, we know then that
RG
=

R[x]
R[x]

2
= R R[e2i/3 ]
= R C.
hx 1i hx + x + 1i

where isomorphism follows in the second last step by MATH3711 Prop 31.1.2.
(f) By Corollary 18.2 we have that the isomorphism classes of RG are R and C.
(g) We have shown that ()\ is R-linear; to see that ker(()\ ) is an RG-submodule,
we will simply show that it is RG-linear. By Lemma17.2 it remains to show
that ()\ is G-linear, i.e. for some j , k G,
j ( k )\ = j ( k e) = ( j k )e = ( j k )\
and so ker(()\ ) M .
(h) As ()\ splits the inclusion map we have from Prop 11.1.2 that

0
R
G
\

m = M ker(() ) = R 0 .
0
R
We of course have that M G is simple; to see that ker(()\ ) is simple we observe
that WLOG the only submodule may be of the form
* 0 +
0 .
R
but then

1 0 1
0
R
0 1 0 0 = 0
1 0 0
R
0
and so
* 0 +
0
R

= 0 .
R

Thus, the decomposition given above is in terms of simple modules.

3

3. (a) We know that X satisfies its own minimal polynomial, i.e. mX (X) = 0. Let
: M k[x]/ha1 (x)i k[x]/has (x)i be the k[x]-linear isomorphism
described in the question. Then for any h M we have by the universal
property for direct sums that

1 (h) mX (x)

..
0 = (h mX (x)) = (h) mX (x) =
(2)

.
s (h) mX (x).
As is surjective, we know that j (h) must cover all of the submodule k[x]/haj (x)i.
We have that either
i. j (h) = 0 for all h M , i.e. k[x]/haj (x)i
= 0 aj (x) k aj (x)|mX (x)
ii. mX (x) = 0k[x]/haj (x)i mX (x) haj (x)i aj (x)|mX (x).
and so it follows that mX (x)|aj (x) for all 1 j s. From this argument it is
clear that mX (X) = 0 as (x)|mX (x), then as mX (x) must be of minimal
degree, we of course must take mX (x) = as (x).
(b) Consider the multiplication of k[x]/ha1 (x)i k[x]/has (x)i by x; we may
observe that X must be block diagonal with respect to the decomposition
above, then by PS2Q11 we have that X is similar to a direct sum of blocks.
WLOG let aj (x) = aj,k xk + aj,k1 xk1 + + aj,1 x + aj,0 and let
0 0 0 0
1 0
0 1

..
. . . . . . ..

.
.
Aj = 0
. .
.
..
.. . .
0
0 0 1 k1

be the block in question. Note that we consider this block with respect to the
basis {1, x, x2 , . . . xk1 }. It is clear that in k[x]/aj (x), multiplication by x sends
xk1 7 xk = aj,k1 xk1 aj,1 x aj,0 . Thus, we must have that l = aj,l
for all 0 l k 1. By the given hint, we thenQ
have that det(xI AQ
j ) = aj (x).
Finally, we have that cpX (x) = det(xI X) = sj=1 det(xI Aj ) = sj=1 aj (x)
(c) We have established that cpX (x) = a1 (x)a2 (x) . . . as (x) and mX (x) = as (s).
Thus it is clear that mX (x)|cpX (x). Furthermore, for each 1 j s we know
that aj (x)|mX (x) , i.e. pj (x) such that mX (x) = aj (x)pj (x). Thus we have
that
mX (x)s = mX (x)mX (x) . . . mX (x)
= a1 (x)p1 (x)a2 (x)p2 (x) . . . as (x)ps (x)
= [(a1 (x)a2 (x) . . . as (x)] [p1 (x)p2 (x) . . . ps (x)] = cpX (x) [p1 (x)p2 (x) . . . ps (x)]
and so we are done.