The following definitions are straightforward generalisations from linear algebra. We begin by repeating a definition we already saw in chapter 6.
Definition 6.1 (generators of modules):
Let be a module over the ring . A generating set of is a subset such that
- .
We also have:
Definition 11.1:
Let be an -module. A subset of is called linearly independent if and only if, whenever , we have
- .
Theorem 11.3:
Let be free modules. Then the direct sum
is free.
Proof:
Let bases of the be given. We claim that
is a basis of
- .
Indeed, let an arbitrary element be given. Then by assumption, each of the has a decomposition
for suitable . By summing this, we get a decomposition of in the aforementioned basis. Furthermore, this decomposition must be unique, for otherwise projecting gives a new composition of one of the particular .
The converse is not true in general!
Theorem 11.4:
Let be free -modules, with bases and respectively. Then
is a free module, with basis
- ,
where we wrote for short
(note that it is quite customary to use this notation).
Proof:
We first prove that our supposed basis forms a generating system. Clearly, by summation it suffices to show that elements of the form
- ,
can be written in terms of the . Thus, write
- and ,
and obtain by the rules of computing within the tensor product, that
- .
On the other hand, if
is a linear combination (i.e. all but finitely many summands are zero), then all the must be zero. The argument is this: Fix and define a bilinear function
- ,
where , are the coefficients of , in the decomposition of and respectively. According to the universal property of the tensor product, we obtain a linear map
- with ,
where is the canonical projection on the quotient space. We have the equations
- ,
and inserting the given linear combination into this map therefore yields the desired result.
The following is a generalisation of free modules:
Theorem 11.6:
Every free module is projective.
Proof:
Pick a basis of , let be surjective and let be some morphism. For each pick with . Define
- where .
This is well-defined since the linear combination describing is unique. Furthermore, it is linear, since we have
- ,
where the right hand side is the sum of the linear combinations coinciding with and respectively, which is why . By linearity of and definition of the , it has the desired property.
There are a couple equivalent definitions of projective modules.
Theorem 11.7:
A module is projective if and only if there exists a module such that is free.
Proof:
: Define the module
(this obviously is a free module) and the function
- .
is a surjective morphism, whence we obtain a commutative diagram
- ;
that is, .
We claim that the map
is an isomorphism. Indeed, if , then and thus also (injectivity) and further , where , which is why
(surjectivity).
: Assume is a free module. Assume is a surjective morphism, and let be any morphism. We extend to via
- .
This is still linear as the composition of the linear map and the linear inclusion . Now is projective since it's free. Hence, we get a commutative diagram
where satisfies . Projecting to gives the desired diagram for .
Definition 11.8:
An exact sequence of modules
is called split exact iff we can augment it by three isomorphisms such that
commutes.
Theorem 11.9:
A module is projective iff every exact sequence
is split exact.
Proof:
: The morphism is surjective, and thus every other morphism with codomain lifts to . In particular, so does the projection . Thus, we obtain a commutative diagram
where we don't know yet whether is an isomorphism, but we can use to define the function
- ,
which is an isomorphism due to injectivity:
Let , that is . Then first
and therefore second
- .
And surjectivity:
Let . Set . Then
and hence for a suitable , thus
- .
We thus obtain the commutative diagram
and have proven what we wanted.
: We prove that is free for a suitable .
We set
- ,
where is defined as in the proof of theorem 11.7 . We obtain an exact sequence
which by assumption splits as
which is why is isomorphic to the free module and hence itself free.
Theorem 11.10:
Let and be projective -modules. Then is projective.
Proof:
We choose -modules such that and are free. Since the tensor product of free modules is free, is free. But
- ,
and thus occurs as the summand of a free module and is thus projective.
Theorem 11.11:
Let be -modules. Then is projective if and only if each is projective.
Proof:
Let first each of the be projective. Then each of the occurs as the direct summand of a free module, and summing all these free modules proves that is the direct summand of free modules.
On the other hand, if is the summand of a free module, then so are all the s.
The following is a generalisation of projective modules:
The morphisms in the right sequence induced by any morphism are given by the bilinear map
- .
Theorem 11.13:
The module is a flat -module.
Proof: This follows from theorems 9.10 and 10.?.
Theorem 11.14:
Flatness is a local property.
Proof: Exactness is a local property. Furthermore, for any multiplicatively closed
by theorem 9.11. Since every -module is the localisation of an -module (for instance itself as an -module via ), the theorem follows.
Theorem 11.15:
A projective module is flat.
Proof:
We first prove that every free module is flat. This will enable us to prove that every projective module is flat.
Indeed, if is a free module and a basis of , we have
via
- ,
where all but finitely many of the summands on the left are nonzero. Hence, by distributivity of direct sum over tensor product, if we are given any exact sequence
- ,
to show that the sequence
is exact, all we have to do is to prove that
is exact, since we may then augment the latter sequence by suitable isomorphisms
Theorem 11.16:
direct sum flat iff all summands are
Theorem 11.17:
If are flat -modules, then is as well.
Proof:
Let
be an exact sequence of modules.
The following is a generalisation of flat modules:
Lemma 11.19:
The torsion of a module is a submodule of that module.
Proof:
Let , . Obviously (just multiply the two annihilating elements together), and further if (we used commutativity here).
We may now define torsion-free modules. They are exactly what you think they are.
Definition 11.20:
Let be a module. is called torsion-free if and only if
- .
Theorem 11.21:
A flat module is torsion-free.
To get a feeling for the theory, we define -torsion for a multiplicatively closed subset .
Definition 11.22:
Let be a multiplicatively closed subset of a ring , and let be an -module. Then the -torsion of is defined to be
- .
Theorem 11.23:
Let be a multiplicatively closed subset of a ring , and let be an -module. Then the -torsion of is precisely the kernel of the canonical map .