0.

MODULES OVER COMMUTATIVE RINGS

E. L. Lady
August 5, 1998

The assumption in this book is that the reader is either a student of abelian group
theory who knows the bare minimum of commutative ring theory or a commutative
ring theorist whose knowledge of abelian group theory is essentially nil. In this chapter
we valiantly attempt to present a quick and dirty summary of the commutative ring
theory which will be relevant for what follows and which might not be included in the
normal basic graduate algebra course, as well as all the abelian group theory (in disguised
form) which is needed to study finite rank torsion free groups and finite rank torsion free
modules over dedekind domains. Although most of the results in this chapter are well
known, your author has found it hard to track some of them down in standard references,
so it seems worthwhile to gather them all together here.
By inference, then, it might seem plausible that this book is accessible to a reader who
knows no abelian group theory and almost no commutative ring theory, provided that he
knows at least a little non-commutative ring theory, at least enough to be comfortable
when encountering the terms left and right. However it is doubtful that this book
would be a good choice of reading matter for such a reader.
proposition 0.1. (1) A vector space over an infinite field cannot be the union of a finite
number of proper subspaces.
(2) If p1S
, . . . , pn are prime ideals in a commutative ring and a is an ideal such that
n
a 1 pi , then a pi for some i.
proof: (1) Suppose that V = V1 Vn with Vi V . We may assume wlog that V
is not a union of any proper subset of {V1 , . . . , Vn } . Thus we may choose v1 V1 with
v1
/ V2 Vn and v2 V2 with v2
/ V1 . Then for any k 6= 0 K , kv1 + v2
/ V1 V2
so kx + y Vi for i 3 . Since K is infinite and there are only finitely many Vi , it
follows that there exist distinct k, k 0 K such that kv1 + v2 , k 0 v1 + v2 Vi for some
i 3 . But it then follows that v1 Vi , a contradiction.
(2) We may assume without loss of generality that a is not contained in the union of
any proper subset of {p1 , . . . , pn } . Thus there exist ai a with ai pi and ai
/ pj for
j 6= i. Then a2 an pi for i > 1 and a2 S an
/ p1 since p1 is prime. If n > 1 ,
n
/ 1 pi , a contradiction. Thus n = 1 and
let x = a1 + a2 an . Then x a but x
a p1 . X

LOCALIZATION AND GLOBALIZATION. If S is a multiplicative set in a

commutative ring R and M is an R-module then S 1 M is defined in a well known
fashion. We will call S 1 M the localization of M with respect to S . If S is the
complement of a prime ideal p, we write Mp = S 1 M . (Some other authors prefer to
reserve the term localization for the case where S is the complement of a prime ideal.)
It is well known that Rp is a local ring (or quasi-local, some would say) whose unique
maximal ideal is pRp . It is also well known that if M is noetherian then S 1 M is
noetherian. There is a canonical map : M S 1 M with (m) = m/1 and (m) = 0 if
and only if sm = 0 for some s S .
proposition 0.2. For any R-module M and multiplicative set S , S 1 M S 1 R R M .
proof: The maps : S 1 R R M S 1 M and : S 1 M S 1 R R M given by
m 1
r
 rm
R m =
and
= m are inverse to each other. X

s
s
s
s

proposition 0.3. If M and N are R-modules and S is a multiplicative set then

(1) HomS 1 R (S 1 M, S 1 N ) = HomR (S 1 M, S 1 N ) = HomR (M, S 1 N ) .
(2) S 1 M S 1 R S 1 N = S 1 M R S 1 N .
Furthermore, HomR (M, S 1 N ) and S 1 M R S 1 N are S 1 R-modules.
proof: (1) For HomR (S 1 M, S 1 N ) , m M , r R , s, s0 S ,

r m
s s0

s  rm  r  sm  r  m 

=
= 0 .
s
ss0
s
ss0
s
s

Thus every R-linear map from S 1 M to S 1 N is in fact S 1 R-linear. Furthermore,

every R-linear map from M to S 1 N extends uniquely to a map from S 1 M to S 1 N .
(2) This follows from the fact that for m S 1 M , n S 1 N , r R and s S , the
following holds in S 1 M R S 1 N :
m

sm rn
rm sn
rm
rn
=

=
n.
s
s
s
s
s
s

proposition 0.4. If M is a finitely generated module over a noetherian ring

R then for every R-module N and multiplicative set S , the obvious map
S 1 HomR (M, N ) HomR (S 1 M, S 1 N ) is an isomorphism.
proof: The obvious map is the one that takes /s S 1 HomR (M, N ) to the
(m)
m
. This is clearly an isomorphism when M = R . It
homomorphism given by 0 7
s
ss0
then follows that it is an isomorphism when M = Rt for t < . Now if M is finitely
generated then there is a surjection : Rt M for some t < . Since R is noetherian,
Ker is also finitely generated and we thus get an exact sequence Rs Rt M 0.

Since localization preserves exactness, applying Hom( , N ) and localizing with respect to
S then yields a commutative diagram
0 HomR (M, N )

S 1 HomR (Rt , N )

S 1 HomR (Rs , N )

0 HomR (S 1 M, S 1 N ) HomR (S 1 Rt , S 1 N ) HomR (S 1 Rs , S 1 N )

where the two right-hand vertical maps are isomorphisms. It follows that the left-hand
vertical map is also an isomorphism, proving the result. X
Note: It is essential here that M be finitely generated and R noetherian (or, more
generally, that M be finitely presented). A lot of things in the chapters that follow would
become trivialized if Proposition 0.4 were true when M is not finitely generated. (See, in
particular, Chapter 9.)
proposition 0.5. Let M, N, P be modules over a commutative ring R .
(1) If m1 , m2 M , then m1 = m2 if and only if m1 /1 = m2 /1 Mm for all maximal
ideals m.
(2) M = 0 if and only if Mm = 0 for all maximal ideals m.
(3) Suppose that N, P M . Then N = P if and only if Nm = Pm for all maximal
ideals m.
(4) If HomR (M, N ) then is monic [epic] if and only if m : Mm Nm is monic
[epic] for all maximal ideals m.
(5) A sequence M N P is exact if and only if the induced sequence
Mm Nm Pm is exact for all maximal ideals m.
(6) If M T
is a submodule of a vector space over the quotient field F of R , then
M = p Mp .
warning. Mm Nm for all maximal ideals m does not, in general, imply that M N .
corollary 0.6. Chinese Remainder Theorem. Let a1 , . . . , an be ideals in a commutative
ring R such that ai + aj = R for all i 6= j . Let M be an R-module. Then
M M
M

.
a
M
ai M
i
1
T
proof: ForTeach k there
L is an obvious map M/ ai M M/ak M and therefore there is
a map M/ ai M
M/ai M . Since ai + aj = R for k 6= j , a prime
Tnideal p can contain
at most one ai , and (ai M )p = Mp if ai 6 p. Thus if ak p then ( 1 ai M )p = ak Mp
and Mp /ai Mp = 0 for i 6= k . Therefore for all p,
!




n
M
M
M
M
M
= Tn

=
ak M p
ai M
ak M p
1 ai M p
1
T

is an isomorphism, so the result follows from Proposition 0.5.

proposition 0.7. A finitely generated projective module M over a local ring R is free.
In fact, if m is the maximal ideal in R and m1 , . . . , mt M are such that the cosets
m
1, . . . , m
t are a basis for M/mM as a vector space over R/m, then m1 , . . . , mt are a
basis for M .
proof: Let m be the unique maximal ideal in R . Choose m1 , . . . , mt M so that
the cosets m
1, . . . , m
t are a basis for the vector
P space M/mM over the field R/m. Let
t
ri mi . It follows easily from Nakayamas
: R M be defined by (r1 , . . . , rt ) =
Lemma that is surjective. Since M is a projective module, splits, so Rt = K L
with K = Ker and L M . Then K is finitely generated. Since induces an
isomorphism from Rt /mRt to M/mM , it follows that K/mK L/mL M/mM . These
are finite dimensional vector spaces over the field R/m and comparing dimensions yields
K/mK = 0 . Thus K = 0 by Nakayamas Lemma. Thus is monic and hence an
isomorphism. X
Projective modules over a local ring are free even if not finitely generated, but the
proof is much more difficult.
proposition 0.8. A finitely generated module M over a noetherian ring is projective if
and only if Mp is a free Rp -module for all prime ideals p.
proof: ( ): Using the criterion that projective modules are just the direct summands
of free modules, it is easy to see that the localization of a projective R-module at p is a
projective module over Rp . It then follows from Proposition 0.7 that this localization is a
free Rp -module.
( ): Suppose now that M is finitely generated and for all p, Mp is a free
Rp -module. To show that M is projective one must show that for every surjection
: X Y , the induced map : HomR (M, X) HomR (M, Y ) is surjective. By
Proposition 0.5, it suffices to prove that for all maximal ideals p, the localized map
(HomR (M, X))p (HomR (M, Y ))p is surjective. But since M is finitely generated, by
Proposition 0.4 and Proposition 0.3 there are natural isomorphisms yielding the following
commutative diagram:
(HomR (M, X))p (HomR (M, Y ))p

y
y
HomRp (Mp , Xp) HomRp (Mp , Yp ) 0
where the bottom map is surjective since Mp is a projective Rp -module . Thus
(HomR (M, X))p
(HomR (M, Y ))p is a surjection, proving the result. X
remark. The hypothesis that M be finitely generated is essential here. In later
chapters we will see many examples of non-finitely generated non-projective modules M
such that Mp is a free Rp -module for all prime ideals p. Such modules will be called
locally free. (See Chapter 9 in particular.)

COMAXIMAL IDEALS.
definition 0.9. Local Property.
proposition 0.10. Let a, b, c R .
(1) If a + b = R then a b = ab .
(2) If a + b = R and a + c = R , then a + (b c) = R .
(3) If a + b = R then for any n 1 , an + bn = R .
proof: In each case the hypothesis and conclusion are local properties, i. e. it suffices
to prove in (1) that ap bp = ap bp for all prime ideals p. Thus wlog we may assume
that R is a local ring.
(1) & (3) Since a + b = R , if R is a local ring it follows that a = R or b = R , If, say,
b = R then a b = a R = a = aR = ab. Furthermore an + bn = an + R = R .
(2) Assuming again that R is a local ring, either a = R or b = c = R . Both cases are
trivial. X
proposition 0.11. If a + b = R then a b R ab.
proof: By Lemma 0.10 the usual short exact sequence
0ababa+b 0
becomes
0 ab a b R 0,
which splits because R is free. Thus a b R ab.

ASSOCIATED PRIMES. One of the most basic concepts in abelian group theory
is that of the order of an element. And for any abelian group G, one is particularly
interested in the set of prime numbers p such that G contains an element of order p.
For modules over a commutative ring, the analogous concepts are the annihilator of an
element and the set of associated primes of a module.
If M is an R-module and m M we will write ann M for the annihilator of M and
ann m for the annihilator of m. I. e.
ann m = {r R | rm = 0}
ann M = {r R | (m M ) rm = 0} =

ann m.

mM

.
lemma 0.12. Let m M and let p be a prime ideal. Then m/1 6= 0 Mp if and only if
ann m p.
proof: In fact, m/1 = 0 if and only if sm = 0 for some s
/ p, i. e. if and only if
ann m 6 p. X

definition 0.13. We say that a prime ideal p is an associated prime for M if there
exists m M such that p = ann m.
We write Ass M (sometimes called the assassinator of M ) for the set of associated
primes for M .
The French call Ass M lassassin de M . A literal translation of this would be
the murderer of M , or the killer of M . Since this sounds much more violent in
English than it does in French, English speaking mathematicians have invented the word
assassinator to translate the French.
lemma 0.14. A prime ideal p is an associated prime for M if and only if M contains a
submodule isomorphic to R/p.
proof: For m M , if p = ann(m) then R/p is isomorphic to the cyclic
submodule Rm. X
proposition 0.15. If p is a prime ideal then Ass R/p = {p} .
proof: Clearly p Ass R/p. If q Ass R/p then R/p contains a submodule X
isomorphic to R/q . But then X is cyclic, i. e. is a principal ideal in the integral domain
R/p. Hence X R/p and q = ann X = ann R/p = p. X
For p to be an associated prime of M it is important that we have p = ann m for
some m, not merely p ann m. It is also important that p be a prime ideal. It is not
obvious, however, that there always exist ideals satisfying both of these requirements. In
other words, it is not a priori obvious that if M 6= 0 then Ass M will be non-empty. For
noetherian rings, however, this does turn out to be the case. (See Proposition ** below.)
example 0.16. Let R = Z.
(1) If p is a non-zero prime number, then (p) Ass M if and only if M contains an
element of order p.
(2) 0 Ass M if and only if M contains a torsion free element, i. e. an element m
with rm 6= 0 for all r 6= 0 Z.
We say that a module M over an integral domain R is torsion if for every m M
there exists r 6= 0 R such that rm = 0 . We say that M is torsion free if no
non-trivial submodule of M is torsion, or, equivalently,
(m M ) (r R) m 6= 0 & r 6= 0 rm 6= 0 .
proposition 0.17. Let M be a non-trivial module over a noetherian integral domain R .
Then
(1) M is torsion if and only if 0
/ Ass M .
(2) M is torsion free if and only if Ass M = {0} .

proof: (1) M is torsion if and only if there does not exist an element m M whose
annihilator is the zero ideal.
(2) M is torsion free if and only if the annihilator of every non-trivial element is the
zero ideal. X
If ann M = 0 then we say that M is faithful. In abelian group theory, a group G
which is not faithful as a Z-module is called bounded.
Clearly a module which is not faithful is torsion, however the converse is far from true.
For instance, with R = Z, the module Q/Z is torsion but also faithful.
A classical theorem in abelian group theory implies that every module over a dedekind
domain which is not faithful is a direct sum of cyclic modules. Therefore it is only the
faithful torsion modules which have any real interest in abelian group theory.
The following theorem is known as the Krull Intersection Theorem. In abelian group
theory terms, it says that a finitely generated torsion free module has no (non-trivial)
elements of infinite p-height , for any prime ideal p.
proposition 0.18. If M is a finitely generated
free module over a noetherian
T torsion
k
integral domain and p is any prime ideal then 1 p M = 0 .
note: Counter-examples abound when M is not finitely generated. For
if
T instance,
k
R = Z, M = Q, and p is any non-trivial prime ideal then pM = M so p M = M 6= 0 .
lemma 0.19. Suppose that M is a module over a commutative noetherian ring R and
let m 6= 0 M . Let S be a multiplicative set in R such that S ann m = . Then there
exists p Ass M such that ann m p and S p = . In fact, if q is any prime ideal
such that ann m q then there exists p Ass M with ann m p q .
proof: Since ann m 6= R then by Zorns Lemma there exist ideals q maximal with
respect to the properties ann m q and q S = . We claim that any such ideal must
be prime. In fact, if r, s
/ q then S (r) + q 6= and S (s) + q 6= . Thus there exist
rx + q1 , sy + q2 S , with x, y R , q1 , q2 q . Then rsxy + rxq2 + syq1 + q1 q2 S and
since S q = it follows that rs
/ q.
Let q be such a prime ideal. Since R is noetherian, among the ideals p such that
p q and p = ann rm for r R and rm 6= 0 , there exist ones maximal with
this property. Let p = ann rm be such an ideal. Clearly ann m ann rm = p.
/ p then r2 rm 6= 0 and
We claim that p is prime. In fact, if r1 r2 p and r2
p p + (r1 ) ann(r2 rm) q (why?). By the maximality of p we conclude that
p + (r1 ) = p, i. e. r1 p. This shows that p is prime and since p = ann rm, thus
p Ass M . X

corollary 0.20. If R is noetherian then

Ass M = M = 0.
proof: If M = 0 then clearly Ass M = . Conversely, if M 6= 0 then there exists
m 6= 0 M . Thus by Lemma 0.19 there exists p Ass M . X
There are actually occasions when the most economical way of proving that a module
M over a noetherian ring is trivial is by proving that Ass M = .
proposition 0.21. If m M then m = 0 if and only if m/1 = 0 Mp for all p Ass M .
proof: If m 6= 0 then by Lemma 0.19 there exists p Ass M with ann m p. By
Lemma 0.12, m/1 6= 0 Mp . X
definition 0.22. The support of an R-module M is defined to be
Supp M = {p | Mp 6= 0} .
proposition 0.23. If M is finitely generated then
Supp M = {p | p is prime and p ann M }.
proof: If ann M 6 p then sM = 0 for some s
/ p so Mp = 0 , i. e. p
/ Supp M .
Now suppose that Tm1 , . . . , mt is a finite set of generators for M . Let p be a prime
t
ideal with ann M = 1 ann mi p. Since p is prime, ann mi p for some i. Thus
for all s
/ p, s
/ ann mi so smi 6= 0 . Hence mi /1 6= 0 Mp so that Mp 6= 0 and
p Supp M . X
example 0.24. Let R = Z and M = Q/Z. M is not a finitely generated module. The
ideal 0 is prime and ann M = 0 but 0
/ Supp M . In fact, for every m M there exists
s
/ (0) such that sm = 0 . Thus the localization of M at the zero ideal is trivial.
note. By the Localization-Globalization Theorem (Theorem 0.5),
M = 0 Supp M = .
We have the following variation on Nakayamas Lemma.
proposition 0.25. If M is a finitely generated R-module and p Supp M then
pM 6= M .
proof: If pM = M then pMp = Mp . Considering M as an Rp -module (necessarily
/ Supp M . X
finitely generated), Nakayamas Lemma then implies Mp = 0 , i. e. p

corollary 0.26. Ass M Supp M . Conversely, if q Supp M then there exists

p Ass M with p q .
proof: If p Ass M then M contains a submodule M1 isomorphic to R/p and so
0 6= (M1 )p Mp , so p Supp M .
Now suppose that q Supp M . Then there exists m M such that m/1 6= 0 Mq .
Thus by Lemma 0.12, ann m q . Therefore by Lemma 0.19, there exists p Ass M with
p q. X
corollary 0.27. If Ass M consists of maximal ideals then Supp M = Ass M .
In particular, if G is a bounded (i. e. not faithful) abelian group, then Corollary 0.27
combined with Proposition FinGenSupp says that Ass G consists of the prime divisors
of the smallest positive integer n such that nG = 0 . From this we easily derive the fact
that if G is finite, then Ass G consists of those primes dividing the order of G. (This is
essentially just Cauchys Theorem.)
proposition 0.28. (1) SuppS 1 R S 1 M = { pS 1 R | p Supp M
(2) AssS 1 R S 1 M = { pS 1 R | p Ass M & p S = }
(3) AssR S 1 M = { p | p Ass M & p S = } .

& p S = }

proposition 0.29. If N M then Ass N Ass M Ass N Ass M/N .

proof: If p Ass N then p = ann n for n N and clearly p Ass M . Now suppose
that p Ass M . Then M contains a submodule M1 isomorphic to R/p. If M1 N 6= 0
then p Ass M1 N Ass N since Ass M1 = {p} by Proposition 0.15. On the other
hand, if M1 N = 0 then M/N contains the submodule (M1 + N )/N M1 R/p, so
p Ass M/N . X
proposition 0.30. If M is a finitely generated module over a commutative noetherian
ring then Ass M is a finite set. ( note: In general, Supp M will not be finite.)
proof: M is noetherian, thus there exists a submodule N of M maximal with respect
to the property that Ass N is finite. Furthermore N 6= 0 since if p Ass M then M
contains a submodule N 0 isomorphic to R/p and by Proposition 0.15, Ass R/p = {p} .
If N
M applying this reasoning to M/N shows that there is a submodule N 00 of M
with N
N 00 such that Ass N 00 /N is finite and non-empty. But by Proposition 0.29,
00
Ass N Ass N Ass N 00 /N , contradicting the maximality of N . Therefore N = M and
Ass M is finite. X
A module M is called p-primary if Ass M = {p} . (Somewhat inconsistently, a
submodule N of M is sometimes called a p-primary submodule if M/N is p-primary .
This is a historical accident due to the fact that the term p-primary comes both from
abelian group theory and ideal theory. The second usage will not occur in this book.)

10

Proposition 0.15 shows that for any prime ideal p, R/p is p-primary . The following
proposition shows how to generalize in case p is maximal.
proposition 0.31. If p is a maximal ideal then for all n > 0 the cyclic module R/pn is
p-primary .
proof: If p0 is any prime then by Proposition 0.23, p0 Supp R/pn if and only if pn p0
i. e. if and only if p p0 . Since p is maximal it then follows that Supp R/pn = {p} . Since
6= Ass R/pn Supp R/pn it follows that Ass R/pn = {p} . X
If p is not maximal then R/pn need not be p-primary . For dedekind domains,
however, which are the rings of interest in this book, all non-trivial prime ideals are
maximal.
proposition 0.32. If p is minimal in Ass M then Mp is p-primary .
proof: By Proposition 0.28, Ass Mp = {p0 Ass M | p0 p} = {p} .

In abelian group theory, we know that an abelian group G is p-primary for some
prime number p if and only if the order of every element of G is a power of p. The
analogous characterization for modules over a commutative ring is the following:
proposition 0.33. If R is noetherian and M is an R-module and p is a prime ideal,
the following conditions are equivalent:
(1) M is p-primary.
(2) The natural map : M Mp is monic and
(m M ) (k 1) pk m = 0.
proof: (1) (2): Suppose that M is p-primary , i. e. Ass M = {p} . Then by
Lemma 0.12, if m 6= 0 M , then m/1 6= 0 Mp . Therefore : M Mp is monic. Now
/ Ass S 1 M {p} .
let r 6= 0 p and let S = {r k | k 1} . By Proposition 0.28, p
Therefore Ass S 1 M = and so S 1 M = 0 . This means that for each m M there
exists rk S such that r k m = 0 . Since this is true for all r p and p is finitely
0
generated (because R is noetherian) it then follows easily that pk m = 0 for some k 0 .
(2) (1): Now suppose the stated conditions hold. Since M Mp is monic, by
Proposition 0.29, Ass M Ass Mp , so it suffices to prove that Ass Mp = {p} . Therefore
we may assume wlog that M = Mp . Now let q Ass M . Then q p and q = ann m
for some m. By assumption, for some k , pk ann m = q Then p q since q is prime.
Therefore q = p, showing that M is p-primary . X

definition 0.34. We say that r R is a zero divisor on M if rm = 0 for some

m 6= 0 M .

11

S
proposition 0.35. If R is noetherian then {p | p Ass M } is the set of elements in R
which are zero divisors on M .
proof: By definition, r R is a zero divisor on M if and only if r ann m for some
m 6= 0 M . If this is the case then by Lemma 0.19, r p for some p Ass M .
Conversely, if p Ass M then pm = 0 for some m 6= 0 M , so p consists of zero divisors
on M . X
corollary 0.36. If R is noetherian then
in R .

{p | p Ass R} equals the set of zero divisors

MODULES WITH FINITE LENGTH. Henceforth we will assume that the ring R
is noetherian.
In abelian group theory, an important role is played by the finite groups. A number of
important definitions and theorems in the theory of finite rank torsion free groups have to
do with the condition that a certain quotient G/H is finite. (For instance, if G is a finite
rank torsion free group and H G, then H is quasi-equal to G if and only if G/H is
finite.)
For many commutative rings R , there do not exist non-trivial R-modules which are
finite as sets. Instead, the appropriate condition is that a module have finite length.
definition 0.37. A module M over a ring R is said to have finite length if and only if
it has a composition series
0 = M0

M1

...

M` = M

where each quotient Mi /Mi1 is a simple module, and in this case we define length M to
be the length ` of this composition series. The Jordan-H
older Theorem asserts that
length M is independent of the particular composition series.
A module has finite length if and only if it is both noetherian and artinian.
theorem 0.38. If R is a noetherian ring and M is an R-module such that all the
associated primes of M are maximal, then Ass M = Supp M and for each p Ass M , the
canonical map M Mp is surjective and Mp is isomorphic to the p-primary component
of M , i. e. to {m M | (n) pn m = 0} . Furthermore M is the direct sum of its
p-primary components.
proof: By Theorem 0.5, to show that M Mp is surjective, it suffices to prove
that for every maximal ideal m, the induced map Mm (Mp )m is surjective. But
since p is maximal, if m 6= p then m
/ Ass Mp = Supp Mp so that (Mp )m = 0 so
Mm (Mp )m is surely surjective. And if m = p then Mm (Mp )m is essentially
the identity
this shows that for each maximal ideal m, the obvious map

L map. Likewise
L
Mm
is an isomorphism, showing that M
pAss M Mp
Ass M Mp is an
m
isomorphism.

12

Now for given p Ass M , define a functor F by F(X) = {x X | (n) pn x = 0} .

(Later, we will frequently write X[p ] = F(X) .) Since p is maximal, by Proposition 0.28,
Mp is p-primary , so by Proposition 0.33, F(Mp ) = Mp . On the other hand,
for p 6= q Ass M then F(Mq ) = 0 since if x F(Mq ) then (n) pn x = 0
and by Proposition 0.33, (n) q n x = 0 . Taking n as the larger of these two, by
Proposition L
0.10 pn + q n = R and Rx = (pn + q n )x = 0 so x = 0 . It follows that
F(M ) = F ( Ass M Mp ) = Mp . X
note: When R = Z the preceding theorem simply gives us the familiar result that
every torsion abelian group (finitely generated or not) is a direct sum of its p-primary
components.
Recall that in general, one cannot conclude that two modules M and N are
isomorphic from the fact that Mp Np for every prime ideal p. However it follows
from Theorem 0.38 that this is the case if Ass M (and consequently Ass N ) consists of
maximal ideals.
corollary 0.39. If Ass M consists of maximal ideals and Mp Np for every maximal
ideal p, then M N .
proof: If Mp Np for every maximal ideal p then this will in fact be true for
every L
prime ideal p. It thenLfollows that Ass N = Ass M . But by Theorem 0.38,
M Ass M Mp and N Ass N Np . It follows that M N . X
proposition 0.40. If M is an artinian module then Ass M is finite and consists of
maximal ideals.
proof: If p Ass M then M contains a submodule isomorphic to R/p. Thus if M is
artinian then R/p is artinian. But an artinian integral domain is a field. Thus p is a
maximal ideal.
L
It now follows from Theorem 0.38 that M Ass M Mp , and that Mp 6= 0 for all
p Ass M . Since M is artinian, this direct sum can have only finitely many components.
Thus Ass M is finite. X
theorem 0.41. A module M over a noetherian ring R has finite length if and only if it
is finitely generated and Ass M consists of only maximal ideals.
proof: ( ): If M has finite length then it is certainly noetherian, hence finitely
generated. It is also artinian so by Proposition 0.40, all its associated primes are maximal.
( ): If M is finitely generated then it is noetherian, so there exists a submodule
N of M which is maximal with respect to the property of having finite length. Now
if Ass M consists of maximal ideals then by Proposition 0.27, Ass M = Supp M .
Since Supp M/N Supp M , then Supp M/N consists of maximal ideals and so
Supp M/N = Ass M/N . If p Ass M/N then M/N contains a submodule N1 /N

13

isomorphic to R/p (where N N1 ). Since p is maximal, N1 /N is simple and since N

has finite length it follows that N1 has finite length, contradicting the maximality of N .
ThusAss M/N = so M/N = 0 and M has finite length. X
proposition 0.42. Let M have finite length and I = ann M . Then Ass M consists of
the prime ideals containing I . Furthermore length M length R/I .
proof: By Corollary 0.27 and Proposition 0.23, Ass M = Supp M and Supp M consists
of those prime ideals containing ann R/I = I .
Thus Ass M = Ass R/I
L and so by Theorem
L 0.41, R/I has finite length. By
Proposition 0.38, M
Mp and R/I (R/I)p . It thus suffices to prove that for each
p Ass M , length Mp length(R/I)p . In other words, we may suppose that R is a local
ring and I = pk , where pk1 M 6= 0 . Then for i < k , applying Nakayamas Lemma to
pi M shows that pi+1 M pi M . Then the series
0 = pk M

pk1 M

...

pM

with length k can be refined to a composition series, so that

k = length R/I length M . X
lemma 0.43. Let R be a noetherian local ring with maximal ideal m. Let E be the
injective envelope of R/m. Then the functor HomR ( , E) restricted to the category of
finite-length R-modules preserves length. Conversely, if M is an R-module such that
HomR (M, E) has finite length, then M has finite length.
proof: Consider first a module S with length 1 (i. e. a simple module). Then S R/m
(so E is isomorphic to the injective envelope of S ). Now if HomR (S, E) , then
(S) is simple (unless trivial) and (S) (R/m) 6= 0 since E is an essential extension
of R/m. Thus (S) = R/m, since both these modules are simple. From this we see
that HomR (S, E) HomR (R/m, R/m) R/m, so that length HomR (S, E) = 1 .
Since the functor HomR ( , E) preserves (or, more precisely, reverses) short exact
sequences, it now follows by induction that for all R-modules M with finite length,
length HomR (M, E) = length M .
Now suppose that M is an R-module such that HomR (M, E) has finite length.
Consider first the case where M is finitely generated. M contains submodules N such
that M/N has finite length (for instance, N = M ). By the preceding, for such an N ,
HomR (M/N, E) has the same length as M/N . But the surjection M M/N induces a
monomorphism HomR (M/N, E) HomR (M, E) , so length M/N length HomR (M, E) .
Thus there is a bound on the length of M/N for those N such that M/N has finite
length. But if M/N has finite length and N 6= 0 , then since N is noetherian, it contains
a maximal proper submodule N 0 and length M/N 0 = 1 + length M/N . Therefore
eventually we must have N = 0 , so that M has finite length.
If M is not finitely generated and HomR (M, E) has finite length, consider a
finitely generated submodule M 0 of M . The inclusion map from M 0 to M induces

14

a surjection HomR (M, E) HomR (M 0 , E) (because E is injective). Therefore

HomR (M 0 , E) has finite length and so M 0 has finite length by the preceding paragraph,
and in fact the lengths of the finitely generated submodules of M are all bounded by
length HomR (M, E) . Furthermore, if M 00 is also finitely generated and M 0 M 00 then
length M 00 > length M 0 . It follows that there exists a maximally finitely generated
submodule of M . But clearly this is only possible if this submodule is M itself.
Therefore M is finitely generated and hence, by the preceding paragraph, has finite
length. X
theorem 0.44. Let R be a commutative noetherian local ring and let m be its unique
maximal prime ideal. The following conditions are equivalent:
(1) R is artinian.
(2) R has finite length (as an R-module).
(3) m is the only prime ideal in R .
(4) Ass R = {m} .
(5) mk = 0 for some positive integer k .
(6) The injective envelope E of R/m is finitely generated.
(7) There exists a finitely generated injective R-module.
proof: (2) (1): Clear.
(1) (4): By Proposition 0.40.
(4) (5): If Ass M = {m} then for some k , mk 1 = 0 R so mk = 0 .
(5) (2): For each i from 0 to k , mi /mi+1 is finitely generated and a vector space
over the field R/m, hence is a finite-length R-module. Thus by induction, R/mi has
finite length. If mk = 0 , this shows that R has finite length.
(5) (3): If mk = 0 and p is a prime ideal, then mk p so m p. Since m is
maximal, p = m.
(3) (4): Clear since Ass R 6= .
(2) (6): If E = E(R/m) is finitely generated, then it has finite length, since all its
associated primes are maximal. And conversely, if it has finite length then it is certainly
finitely generated. But E HomR (R, E) . Therefore the preceding lemma implies that E
has finite length if and only if R has finite length.
(6) (7): Clear.
(7) (6): Let M be a non-trivial finitely generated injective module and let
p Ass M . Then M contains a copy of R/p. Since R/p is an essential submodule of
Rp /pRp , M therefore contains a submodule isomorphic to Rp /pRp . Therefore Rp /pRp
is finitely generated. Now let x
/ p. Then multiplication by x is an isomorphism on
/ m and we
Rp /pRp . If x m, this contradicts Nakayamas Lemma. Therefore x
conclude that p = m. This shows that m Ass M , and so M contains a submodule
isomorphic to R/m. Since M is injective, it thus contains a copy of E = E(R/m) .
Therefore E is finitely generated.
(6) (4) [Alternate proof]: Since Ass E = {m} , it follows that for each e E ,
k
m e = 0 for some k . Thus if E is finitely generated, then mk E = 0 for some k . It

15

now suffices to show that E is faithful in order to conclude that mk = 0 . Suppose

in fact, by way of contradiction, that rE = 0 for some r 6= 0 R . The principal
ideal (r) is isomorphic to R/a , where a = ann r . Since a m, there is a surjection
: (r) R/m (so (r) 6= 0 ). Since E = E(R/m) , this extends to a map : R E .
Then (r) = r(1) = 0 since rE = 0 . This is a contradiction, showing that no such r
exists and therefore E is faithful. Since mk E = 0 , it follows that mk = 0 . X
corollary 0.45. A commutative noetherian ring is artinian if and only if every prime
ideal is maximal (including the zero ideal, if applicable). If this is the case, then R is a
finite product of local rings each of which has a unique prime ideal.
RANK-ONE PROJECTIVE MODULES.
proposition 0.46. Let R be an integral domain with quotient field F and let P be as
R-submodule of F . Then the following conditions are equivalent:
(1) P is projective.
(2) There P
exist elements p1 , . . . , pn P and f1 , . . . , fn F such that fi P R for all
i and
fi pi = 1 .
(3) There exists a submodule M of F such that M P = R .
Furthermore in this case P is generated by p1 , . . . , pn .
proof: (1) (2): If P is projective then it is a summand of a free module R(I) . Then
there exist maps : P R(I) and : R(I) P such that = 1P . Localizing at the
zero ideal, extends to a map 0 : F F (I) and to a map 0 : F (I) F . For each
i I let fi be the ith coordinate of 0 (1) and let pi = 0 (ei ) , where ei is the canonical
ith basis vector of F (I) . Then the composition of 0 with the projection of F (I) onto
the ith coordinate is given by x 7 fi x . Since this
Pcomposition
P maps P into R it follows
yi ei 7
yi pi . Then the equation
that fi P R . Furthermore
P since is given by
0 0 (1) = 1 translates to
fi pi = 1 . This sum can have only finitely many non-trivial
terms, and at this point we can replace I by the finite set of i I such that fi pi 6= 0 .
(2) (3): Given fi and pi as indicated, P
let M be the submodule of F generated by
fi pi P
M P so M
f1 , . . . , fn . Then clearly M P R . But 1 =
PP = R . Note also that
p1 , . . . , pn generate P since for p P , we have p = p fi pi = (fi p)pi and all
P fi p R .
fi pi = 1 .
(3) (2): If M P = R then 1 M P so there exist fi M , pi P with
Furthermore for all i, fi P M P = R .
(2) (1): Given fi F and pi P with the indicated property, map
P P into
n
n
: p 7 (f1 p, . . . , fn p) and map R to P by : (r1 , . . . , rn ) 7
ri pi . Then
R by P
(p) =
pfi pi = p1 = p. Thus is a split monomorphism and P is a summand of a
free module, hence is projective. X
Note that the module M above is uniquely determined by P . In fact, if
M P = M 0 P = R then M = M R = M P M 0 = RM 0 = M 0 . We write M = P 1 and say
that the rank-one module P is invertible.

16

SUBMODULES OF DIRECT SUMS. If W is a dedekind domain (see below) with

quotient field Q , then every torsion free W -module with rank at most r is isomorphic
to a submodule of Qr . Thus if we had a good theory for submodules of direct sums
K1 Kr , we would completely understand finite torsion torsion free W -modules .
When the direct sum has only two factors, we have the following theorem:
theorem 0.47. Let K and N be R-modules , let and be the projections of K N
onto K and N , and let K1 K2 K and N1 N2 N . Then the submodules M of
K N such that M K = K1 and M N = N1 and (M ) = K2 and (M ) = N2 are in
one-to-one correspondance with the isomorphisms from K2 /K1 to N2 /N1 . Specifically,
such an isomorphism corresponds to the inverse image in K N of the submodule
{(x, (x) | x K/K1 }
of K/K1 N/N1 .
proof: ****
Unfortunately, the value of this theorem is drastically limited because it does not
provide us a good way of determining whether or not two submodules of K N are
isomorphic.
DEDEKIND DOMAINS.
For my own perverse reasons, I will generally use the symbol W rather than R when
referring to a dedekind domain. As I now start to develop the concepts needed to define
a dedekind domain, I will now start calling my commutative ring W . The quotient field
of W will be denoted by Q .
proposition 0.48. Let W be an integral domain with quotient field Q . The following
conditions are equivalent:
(1) If q Q and q satisfies a monic polynomial f (X) W [X] , then q W .
(2) If W 0 is a subring of Q with W W 0 and W 0 is a finitely generated W -module,
then W 0 = W .
(3) if W 0 is a subring of Q with W W 0 and wW 0 W for some w 6= 0 W , then
W0 = W .
proof: **** (This is a very standard result.)

definition 0.49. An integral domain satisfying the conditions of Proposition 0.49 is called
integrally closed (in its quotient field).
Using the terminology we will introduce in Chapter 3, condition (3) in Proposition 0.48
says that W is not quasi-equal to any subring of Q properly containing it.

17

lemma 0.50. If W is integrally closed then so is S 1 W for every multiplicative set S .

proof: Let Q denote the quotient field of W and let q Q be integral over S 1 W and
let f S 1 W [X] be a monic polynomial satisfied by q . Let d be the degree of f and let
s S be a common denominator for the coefficients of f . Then sd f (q) = 0 and one sees
that sq satisfies a monic polynomial in W [X] . Thus if W is integrally closed, sq W . It
follows that q S 1 W . Thus S 1 W is integrally closed. X
lemma 0.51. A commutative ring W is integrally closed if and only if Wp is integrally
closed for all prime ideals p.
proof: ( ): By Lemma 0.50.
( ): Let q Q be integral over
T W . Then a fortiori q is integral over each Wp . If all
Wp are integrally closed, then q Wp = W (c. f. Proposition 0.*). X
proposition 0.52. Unique factorization domains are integrally closed. In particular,
principal ideal domains are integrally closed.
proof: If W is a UFD with quotient field Q and q Q and f (q) = 0 where f is
monic in W [X] , then X q divides f in Q[X] . By Gausss Lemma, X q W [X] , so
q W. X
definition 0.53. A local principal ideal domain is called a discrete valuation ring.
proposition 0.54. A discrete valuation ring is a maximal proper subring of its quotient
field.
proof: Let W be a discrete
ring and let (p) be the unique maximal ideal in
T valuation
k
W . By Proposition 0.18, 1 (p ) = 0 so for each r 6= 0 W there exists a largest k with
/ (p) , so u is invertible since (p) is the unique
r (pk ) . Thus r = upk with k 0 and u
maximal ideal in W . From this we see easily that each non-trivial element of the quotient
/W
field Q has the form x = upk where u is invertible in W and k is an integer. If x
then k < 0 .
It now follows that any subring of Q strictly containing W must contain pk for some
k < 0 , and hence contains pnk for all n 1 . We then see that it contains all elements
upm for any integer m and invertible element u of W . In other words, the subring
contains all of Q . X
proposition 0.55. A local integral domain with only one non-trivial prime ideal is
integrally closed if and only if it is a discrete valuation ring.
proof: ( ): A discrete valuation ring is a principal ideal domain hence a unique
factorization domain, hence by Proposition 0.52 is integrally closed.
( ): **** X

18

proposition 0.56. An integral domain W is integrally closed if and only if it is the

intersection of all the valuation rings on its quotient field which contain it.
proof: ( ):
( ): This follows from a more general result that the intersection of any family
of integrally
closed subrings of a field Q is integrally closed. In fact, suppose that
T
W = Wi and each Wi is integrally closed. Let q Q be integral over W . Then it
is integral over each Wi . Hence q Wi for all i since each Wi is integrally closed.
Therefore q W , showing that W is integrally closed. X
proposition 0.57. If Q0 is a separable extension of Q and W is integrally closed, then
the integral closure W 0 of W in Q0 is a finitely generated W -module.
proof: ****

proposition 0.58. Let W be an integral domain. The following conditions are

equivalent:
(1) W is a principal ideal domain.
(2) All ideals in W are free W -modules .
(3) All finitely generated torsion free W -modules are free.
proof: (3) (2): Clear.
(2) (1): If r 6= s W then r and s are linearly dependent since sr rs = 0 . Thus
an ideal in W which is free must have a basis consisting of at most one element, hence be
principal.
(1) (3): **** X

theorem 0.59. Let W be an integral domain with quotient field Q . The following
conditions are equivalent:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

Every ideal in W is projective.

Every non-trivial ideal of W is invertible.
W is noetherian, integrally closed, and all non-trivial prime ideals are maximal.
W is noetherian and Wp is a discrete valuation ring for every non-trivial prime
ideal p.

proof: (1) (2): By Proposition 0.46 ideals are projective if and only if they are
invertible.
Note now that by Proposition 0.46, projective ideals are finitely generated. Hence (1)
implies that W is noetherian.
(1) (4): The ideals in Wp have the form ap , where a is an ideal in W . By
hypothesis a is projective, so by Proposition 0.8 ap is a free Wp -module. Thus all ideals
of Wp are free, so that Wp is a local principal ideal domain, i. e. a discrete valuation ring.

19

(4) (3): To see that W is integrally closed, it suffices by Lemma 0.51 to see that
Wp is integrally closed for all primes p. But this is true if Wp is a discrete valuation ring,
since principal ideal domains are integrally closed. Now let p be a prime ideal in W . The
prime ideals contained in p correspond to the prime ideals of Wp . Since Wp is a discrete
valuation ring, its only prime ideals are pWp and 0. Thus there are no non-trivial prime
ideals strictly contained in p, so p has height one. It follows that all prime ideals of W
are maximal.
(3) (1): Let a be an ideal in W . Since W is noetherian, a is finitely generated.
Hence by Proposition 0.8, to prove a projective it suffices to prove that ap is a free
Wp -module for all primes p. But since Wp is a principal ideal domain, ap is in fact
free. X

definition 0.60. An integral domain W satisfying the equivalent properties of

Theorem 0.59 is called a dedekind domain.
proposition 0.61. If W is a dedekind domain and S a multiplicative set in W , then
S 1 W is a dedekind domain.
proof: ****
proposition 0.62. If a is a non-trivial ideal in a dedekind domain W then there are
only finitely many prime ideals containing a and W/a has finite length.
proof: Since a = ann W/a 6= 0 , 0
/ Ass W/a . Thus by Theorem 0.59, all the associated
primes of W/a are maximal. Thus by Proposition 0.23 the prime ideals containing a are
precisely those in Supp W/a = Ass W/a . Hence there are only finitely many of them.
Since W/a is finitely generated (in fact cyclic), it thus follows from Theorem 0.41 that
W/a has finite length. X
For the remainder of this book, W will denote a dedekind domain and Q
will denote its quotient field. Furthermore the term prime ideal will be used
henceforth to mean a non-trivial prime.
The following proposition is crucial to the study of finite rank torsion free modules over
dedekind domains. It is curiously hard to track down in standard references.
proposition 0.63. If W 0 is an integral domain and W W 0 Q , then W 0 is a
dedekind domain and is the localization of W with respect to some multiplicative set S .
proof: Let X be the set of prime ideals p of W which survive in W 0 , i. e. such that
pW 0 6= W 0 or, equivalently, Wp0 6= Q . Let S be the set-theoretic complement in W of
S
0
0
0
/ W p0
X p. Now if s S and p is a prime ideal in W then W p X so s
so s
/ p0 since s W . Thus s does not belong to any prime ideal of W 0 and hence is
invertible in W 0 . Therefore S 1 W W 0 .

20

To prove that S 1 W = W 0 it suffices to prove that S 1 Wp = Wp0 for all prime ideals p
of W . If p
/ X then S 1 Wp = Q = Wp0 . But if p X then Wp S 1 Wp Wp0 Q .
Since Wp is a discrete valuation ring, by Proposition 0.54 it is a maximal subring of Q , so
S 1 Wp = Wp0 . It follows that S 1 W = W 0 . X
corollary 0.64. If W 0 is a subring of Q containing W and M, N are W 0 -modules ,
then HomW 0 (M, N ) = HomW (M, N ) and M W 0 N = M W N .
proof: By Proposition 0.63, W 0 = S 1 W for some multiplicative set S . Thus the result
reduces to Proposition 0.3. X

proposition 0.65. If G is a torsion module over a dedekind domain, then for every prime
p the p-primary component
of G can be canonically identified with the localization Gp .
L
Furthermore G =
Gp .
proof: Immediate from 0.38 since all primes in Ass G are necessarily maximal.

proposition 0.66. If every p-primary component of a finitely generated torsion

W -module G is cyclic, then G is cyclic.
L
proof: By Proposition 0.65, if G is torsion then G
Gp and if G is finitely
generated then there can be only finitely many non-trivial summands in this expression.
Now if each Gp is cyclic, choose
P a generator gp for each Gp . Then gp /1 = 0 Gq for
q 6= p. It follows that if g =
gp , then the image of g in Gp is a generator for all p. It
then follows from Proposition 0.5 that g generates G, so G is cyclic. X

proposition 0.67. A finitely generated torsion module over a dedekind domain W has
finite length and is a finite direct sum of cyclic modules of the form W/pk , for various
prime ideals p.
proof: If G is torsion then 0
/ Ass G. Since all non-trivial primes in a dedekind
domain are maximal, it follows from Theorem 0.41 that G has finite length. Furthermore,
since L
all the associated primes of G are necessarily maximal, by Proposition 0.38,
G Ass G Gp . It thus suffices to prove that each Gp is a direct sum of cyclic modules
W/pk . But we may think of Gp as a Wp -module, and by Proposition 0.59 Wp is a
principal ideal domain, so this is a standard result. X
We will prove in Chapter 1 that every finitely generated torsion free module over
a dedekind domain is a direct sum of ideals, hence in particular is projective. It then
follows immediately that the torsion submodule of any W -module is a direct summand of
that module.

21

proposition 0.68. Every non-trivial ideal in a dedekind domain W can be uniquely

written as a finite product of prime ideals.
proof: Let a be a non-trivial ideal in W . Then by Proposition 0.62, W/a has finite
length, so Supp W/a is finite, which means simply that there are only finite many prime
ideals containing a . Furthermore if p is one of these primes then by Proposition 0.*
aWp = pep Wp for some positive integer ep . If we now write a0 = pe11 penn , where
p1 , . . . , pn are the primes containing a then for every prime p, aWp = a0 Wp since
pi Wpj = Wpj for j 6= i. Thus by Proposition 0.5, a = a0 . X
proposition 0.69. If 0 6= b a W then a/b W/a1 b b1 a/W . In particular, a/b
is a cyclic W -module.
proof: At first sight, this result seems self-evident. For instance, one simply multiplies
both the numerator and denominator of a/b by a1 to get W/a1 b. This is not quite
valid, however, mostly because a1 is a set and not an element. This reasoning does
work, however, if a is a principal
L ideal.
By Theorem 0.38, a/b (a/b)p . Thus to see that a/b W/a1 b it suffices to
see that (a/b)p (W/a1 b)p for all prime ideals p. Therefore we may localize at p.
Hence we may suppose that W is a local dedekind domain, and therefore a principal ideal
domain. But then the result is easy, as indicated above. X
proposition 0.70. A semi-local dedekind domain W is a principal ideal domain.
proof: It suffices to see that every prime ideal p is principal. Let p1 , . . . , pn be
the finite set of non-trivial prime ideals in W . Since these are maximal ideals,
pi Wpj = Wpj and also pi + pj = W for i 6= j . It follows that the Jacobson radical
T
/ p21 . By
of W is J = pi = p1 pn (c. f. Proposition 0.10). Let x p1 with x
L
the Chinese Remainder Theorem, the canonical surjection W
W/p2i mapping
an element w onto the sum of its respective residue classes induces an isomorphism
L
W/p2i . Thus there exists w W such that (w) = (x, 1, . . . , 1) . Then
: W/J 2
wWpi = Wi = p1 Wpi for i 6= 1 and since Wp1 is a principal ideal domain one sees that
wWp1 = p1 Wp1 . Thus by Proposition 0.5, p1 = (w) . X
proposition 0.71. If a is a non-trivial ideal in W and w1 6= 0 a then there exists
w2 a such that a is generated by w1 and w2 . Furthermore there exists q Q such
that a1 is generated by 1 and q .
proof: Let b = (w1 ) a . Then by Proposition 0.69, a/b is cyclic. If w1 a is a
representative for a generator of a/b, then a is generated by w1 and w2 .
Likewise, a1 /W W/a is cyclic, and if q a1 is a representative for a generator of
a1 /W , then a1 is generated by 1 and q . X

22

proposition 0.72. If a and b are non-trivial ideals in a dedekind domain W then there
exists an ideal a0 with a0 a such that a0 + b = W .
proof: Choose a 6= 0 a . Let c = aa1 W . Now by Proposition 0.71, c is generated
by bc together with an additional element x . Now multiplying the equation
c = xW + bc
by c1 = a/a yields
W = c1 c = xc1 + b =
But clearly ax/a a .

xa
+ b.
a

proposition 0.73. If a and b are ideals in a dedekind domain W then

(1) a b W ab .
(2) a a1 W W .
proof: (1) Let c = a + b. Then c1 a, c1 b c1 (a + b) = W and c1 a + c1 b = W .
Thus by Proposition 0.11, c1 a c1 b W c2 ab. Thus a b c c1 ab. ****
proposition 0.74. If a is an ideal in a dedekind domain W , then there exists an ideal b
such that a b = W W .
proof: By Proposition 0.71, a is generated by two elements. Hence there exists a
surjection W W a . Since a is projective this must split, so that W W a b
for some W -module b, which is necessarily projective. Localizing at the zero ideal yields
Q Q = a0 b0 , so that b is isomorphic to a non-trivial projective submodule of Q .
Then if d is a common denominator for a set of generators for b, then b db R , so b
is isomorphic to an ideal. X
We say that G is divisible if wG = G for every w 6= 0 W . (In other words, one
can divide an element in G by any non-zero element of W : If g G and w 6= 0 W ,
then there exists x G such that wx = g . Note however that x is not necessarily unique
unless G is torsion free.)
proposition 0.75. A W -module G is flat if and only if it is torsion free and injective if
and only if it is divisible.
proof: Over any integral domain, a flat module is torsion free since ****. On the other
hand, any module G is the direct union of its finitely generated submodules and if G is
torsion free then by Proposition 0.** these finitely generated submodules are projective.
Hence a torsion free module G is a direct union of flat submodules, hence is flat.
Now over any integral domain, an injective module is divisible since ****. On the other
hand, to say that G is divisible is to say that ****. X
If a is an ideal of W we will denote the module W/a by W (a) . For any W -module G
we will write
S G[a]nto denote {g G | a g = 0} . For a prime ideal p we will write

G[p ] = 1 G[p ] . This is simply the p-primary component of G as defined in

Theorem 0.38.

23

proposition 0.76. If p is a prime ideal, then there is an embedding

k : W (pk ) W (pk+1 ) such that the image of k is then W (pk+1 )[pk ] = pW (pk+1 ) .
proof: By Proposition 0.**, W (pk ) pk /W and W (pl+1 ) pk1 /W . Now
pk pk1 , and this inclusion then induces an embedding pk /W pk1 /W .
The image of this embedding is p(pk1 /W ) , and this can also be seen to be
(pk1 /W )[pk ] . X
For us, the significance of Proposition 0.76 is that it provides a chain of
monomorphisms
W (p)  W (p2 )  W (p3 )  .
We can then take the direct limit, which we denote by W (p ) :
W (p ) = lim W (pk ).

proposition 0.77. The following three modules are isomorphic:

(1) W (p )
(2) The p-primary component of Q/W .
(3) Q/Wp .
S
proof: The p-primary component of Q/W is equal to 1 pk /W and by
Proposition 0.69, pk /W W (pk ) . Furthermore, the inclusion pk /W pk1 /W
corresponds precisely to the embedding W (pk ) W (pk+1 ) indicated above. Thus the
p-primary component of Q/W is isomorphic to W (p ) .
On the other hand, by Proposition 0.**, the p-primary component of Q/W is
isomorphic to (Q/W )p = Qp /Wp = Q/Wp . X
proposition 0.78. For each prime p, W (p ) is isomorphic to the injective envelope
of W (p) . Every injective W -module is a direct sum of modules isomorphic to W (p )
(for various p) and to Q .
proof: ****
proposition 0.79. If G is a p-primary module, where p is a non-zero prime ideal, and if
length G[p] = 1 , then either G W (pk ) for some k < or G W (p ) .
proof: We claim first that G is an essential extension of G[p] . In fact, if N is a
non-zero submodule of G then 6= Ass N Ass G = {p} . Thus there exists n N with
ann n = p. Then 0 6= n N G[p] .
It follows that the injective envelope of G is the same as the injective envelope of G[p] .
But since length G[p] = 1 , G[p] W (p) . Thus the injective envelope of G is isomorphic
to W (p ) .
To finish, it suffices to prove that every non-trivial proper submodule of W (p ) is
isomorphic to W (pk ) for some k . In fact, **** X

24

proposition 0.80. If p is a non-trivial prime ideal and G is a reduced p-primary module

such that G/pG has finite length, then G has finite length.
proof: ****
THE p-ADIC COMPLETION. One of the most useful tools for understanding the
deep structure of finite rank torsion free modules is the concept of completion. If M is
a finite rank torsion free module and p is a prime ideal, then we can define the p-adic
completion either as the inverse limit of the quotient modules M/pn M or as the set
of Cauchy sequences from M with respect to the p-adic topology. Really there is no
difference between the two constructions. Since most readers will be familiar with the
concept in any case, we give a quick and dirty construction:
For any prime ideal (or even any non-trivial ideal) p of R and any R-module M
there exists the p-adic filtration on M : M pM p2 M . . . . By taking this
family of submodules as a neighborhood basis at 0, M becomes a topological module.
(A neighborhood basis at a point m M consists of the family of cosets m + pn M ,
n = 1, 2, . . . .) This topology
T k is called the p-adic topology on M .

We write p M = 1 p M and note that p M is the closure of 0 in M with respect

to the p-adic topology.
For convenience, I will choose definition of the completion which is quick and dirty,
although its not the most useful way to think about it.
definition 0.81. Let M be a finite rank torsionQfree W -module. We define the p-adic
of M/pk M consisting of those sequences
completion
of M to be the submodule M
1
Q

M/p
M
such
that
(k)
m

m
(mod pk M ) .
(mk )
k+1
k
1
1
The p-adic completion will be important in this book because of its algebraic
properties. The topology will not be of any real relevance. However, for the record, we
will give a few topological properties.
Q
If we give each module M/pk M the discrete topology, then 1 M/pk M has an
inherits is called the inverse
induced product topology. The relative topology that M
converges to an element x M
with respect
limit topology. A sequence {xt } in M
to the inverse limit topology if and only if the sequence converges in each separate
coordinate. Since the topology on the modules M/pk M is descrete, this means that
if where xt = {mtk }
1 and x = {mk } , then limt xt = x if and only if for each k ,
mtk = mk for sufficiently large t .
(This is related to the finite topology on EndR M as defined by Jacobson if we think
of EndR M as a submodule of M M .)
is the same as the p-adic topology.
proposition 0.82. The inverse limit topology on M
is a complete topological module in this topology. If : M M
is the canonical map,
M
.
then (M ) is topologically dense in M

25

proof: The neighborhood system at 0 in the inverse limit topology has a basis consisting
of those submodules Un consisting of elements whose first n coordinates are zero. Now
Un . On
since the first n coordinates live in M/pk M for k n , it follows that pn M
satisfy the condition mn+k mk (mod pn ) ,
the other hand, since the sequences in M
for all r . Thus Un pk M
, so the
it follows that if mr = 0 for r n then mr pn M
inverse limit topology and the p-adic topology are the same.
It seems clear that the p-adic completion is a contrived device to simplify the proofs
of certain theorems rather than a concept of intrinsic interest in its own right. There is
no natural geometric way of visualizing the p-adic numbers intuitively, and there are no
natural real-world applications which can be naturally represented by p-adic numbers.
However in terms of ring theory, there is one way in which the p-adic completion arises
in a fairly intrinsic way.
proposition 0.83. If p is a (non-zero) prime in a dedekind domain, then
p.
EndW W (p ) W
proof: *****
As an important application of this, we can construct the famous Pontraygin
module.
For convenience, suppose that W is a discrete valuation ring and let p be it unique
non-trivial prime. We will construct a submodule M of Q Q containing W W
such that M (Q 0) = W 0 and M (0 Q) = 0 W , and i (M ) = Q . By
Theorem 0.47, such a submodule will be given by an isomorphism from Q/W to itself.
By Proposition 0.77, Q/W W (p ) , and therefore by Proposition 0.83, corresponds
p.
to an invertible element W
More specifically, M will be the inverse image in Q Q of the module
{(x, (x)) | x Q/W } = {(x, x) | x Q/W } Q/W Q/W .
w
Now x Q/W can be written as a coset k + W for some w W and k 0 . Using
p
this, we will describe M in the following way:
(w, w)
M ={
| w W, k 0 } .
pk
p and so w
/ W.
We need to make sense of this, since W
p ) . It follows that
For given k , there exists ak W such that ak (mod pk W
pk
ak
and k have the same image in Q/W . Now if is the automorphism of Q/W given
p
w
ak w
w
by (x) = x , then ( k + W ) = k + W = k + W . Thus we can describe the
p
p
p

Pontryagin module corresponding to Wp as

{

(w, ak w)
| w W, k 0 } .
pk

26

is a torsion free Rp -module.

proposition 0.84. (1) M
/pM
M/pM .
(2) M
is reduced but is q -divisible for every prime ideal q 6= p.
(3) M
is the same as the topology it inherits as a subspace
(4) TheQp-adic topology on M

k
of 1 M/p M if the modules M/pn M are considered discrete spaces and
Q

k
topology.
1 M/p M is given the product
Q

is a closed subspace of
(5) M
M/pk M .
1 Q

(6) The diagonal map from M to 1 M/pk M embeds M/p M as a pure dense
.
submodule of M
Q
proof: Q
(1) The factors M/pk M are all Rp -modules , hence so is 1 M/pk M . And if

(mk ) 1 M/pk M satisfies the compatibility conditions mn+1 mk (mod pk M ) and

. Then
r Rp , then (rmk ) will also satisfy these conditions. Now suppose (mk ) 6= 0 M
for some n , mk 6= 0 M/pk M . ****
Q
Q
(2) For k 1 identify k M/pk M with the submodule of 1 M/pk M consisting
such that mk = 0 for n k . Then the family of subsets
of sequences (mk ) M
Q
Q

basis at 0 for 1 M/pk M . Thus it will suffice to

k M/pk M forms a neighborhood
=M
Q M/pk M . ****
show that pk M
k
satisfying mk+1 mk
(3) It suffices to see that for any fixed k , the set of (mk ) M
. But this set is the kernel of a continuous map from
(mod pk M ) is a closed subset of M
k
into the discrete module M/p M .
M
(4) The diagonal map sends m M to the constant sequence (mk ) where for all n ,
mk is the coset m + M/pk M M/pk M . Clearly this is a homomorphism and we see
immediately that its kernel is p M . X

proposition 0.85. If 0 M1 M2 M3 0 is exact then so is

1 M
2 M
3 0.
0M
proof: ****
can be represented as an infinite
It follows from Proposition 0.85 that an element of M
series . . . .
In order to say wear and tear on your authors brain, for the remainder of this section
we will restrict attention to modules over a dedekind domain W . As before, Q will
denote its quotient field.
p is a field.
p is a commutative ring and QW
proposition 0.86. W
p -module
proposition 0.87. If M is a p-primary W -module , then M has a unique W
structure compatible with its W -module structure.

27

proof: The crucial fact here is that if M is p-primary then for every m M there
exists n (dependent on m, of course) such that pn m = 0 . Now consider a sequence
Q
R/pk R .; We will define rm = rn m. This is actually independent of n ,
r = {rk } R
provided that pn m = 0 because of the condition that rn+k rn (mod pn ) . From this, it

is easy to see that all the conditions are satisfied for M to be an R-module.
If W is the ring of integers and M has finite rank, then all M/pn M are finite and so
is compact by Tychonofs Theorem. In general, if p is a maximal ideal we can only
M

say that the M/pn M have finite length. But it still seems intuitively plausible that M
would have all the algebraic properties that one would expect of a compact module. In
belongs to the class of algebraically
fact, abelian group theorists will recognize that M
compact modules, which are characterized by the following Proposition 0.* below. The
p is the inverse limit of the family of
proof is a simple consequence of the fact that W
modules W/pk W . What this means is given by the following proposition:
p W/pk W and
proposition 0.88. Let n : W
n : W/pn+1 W W/pk W be the
canonical maps. Let M be a W -module and for each n 1 let n : M R/pk W .
p such
Suppose that for every n ,
n n+1 = n . Then there exists a unique : M W
that n = n for all n .
proof: ****
p ) Hom(M, W/pW ) given by 7 1 is
corollary 0.89. The map Hom(M, W
surjective.
proof: ****
is a pure submodule of any (not
proposition 0.90. If p is a maximal ideal and M
is a summand of X .
necessarily torsion free) W -module X , then M
proof: ****
is a finite rank W -module, except in the trivial case
One should not expect that M

R = R . However we have the following:

is a finite rank
proposition 0.91. If M is a finite rank torsion free W -module then M

p -module .
torsion free Wp -module . Furthermore, if p is maximal then M is a free W
proof: ****
ADDITIVE FUNCTORS. It is an absolute prerequisite for much of this book that
the reader be comfortable with the ideas of categories and natural transformations. All
that your author can do to help with this is to present here a few topics which may seem,
from the prospective of a standard graduate algebra course, a bit specialized.

28

The categories of modules (whether right or left) over a commutative ring, along
with almost all of the other categories used in this book, are what are called additive
categories. This means that if , Hom(X, Y ) then + and are defined,
and these operators make Hom(X, Y ) into an abelian group. Furthermore, it is required
that composition of functors be bilinear, i. e. in the same notation if Hom(W, X) and
Hom(Y, Z) then ( + ) = + and ( + ) = + . Furthermore, any two
objects X and Y in these categories have a direct sum X Y , which is simultaneously
a product and a coproduct. Finally, an additive category always has a zero object 0 ,
analogous to the trivial module in the category of modules over a ring and characterized
by the property that Hom(0, X) = Hom(X, 0) = 0 for all objects X .
Essentially, the point of an additive category is that one may use all of the instincts
and habits one has learned from working with modules over a ring without getting
into trouble. The one exception is that for some of the categories used in this book
statements that involve kernels or cokernels, or the word epimorphism, may not work
exactly the way one thinks they should. This does not cause problems if one simply uses
common sense. However for technical reasons it has seemed better to avoid the term
epimorphism in favor of the safer term surjection.
The following examples may be skipped for now by anyone who is confused rather than
enlightened by them.
examples 0.92.
(1) For an integral domain R , we can consider the category of
torsion free R-modules, i. e. those modules M such that
(r R)(m M ) r 6= 0 & m 6= 0 rm 6= 0 . This is an additive category
and it causes no special problems unless one has been trained so thoroughly in
category theory that one no longer has common sense. For instance if K is the
quotient field of R and : R K is the inclusion map, then within the category
in question (assuming K 6= R ) it would not make sense to talk about the cokernel
of , since the cokernel in the usual sense, i. e. K/R , is not torsion free and hence
does not exist within the category. Now it turns out that within the category
of torsion free modules over R does indeed have a cokernel, namely the zero
module, and that is an epimorphism. However only a bloody-minded fool
would think in those terms. Which is why in this book we will avoid the word
epimorphism.
(2) In Chapter 3 we will introduce a category which is absolutely fundamental to
the study of torsion free modules. Namely the category of torsion free modules
under quasi-homomorphisms. The objects in this category are simply the
torsion free modules, but instead of using ordinary homomorphisms we define
the morphisms from M to N to be the elements of KHom(M, N ) , where
KHom(M, N ) denotes the localization of Hom(M, N ) at the zero ideal (or, if one
prefers, K R Hom(M, N ) ). Thus morphisms in this category are not (usually)
homomorphisms from M to N in the customary sense. Nonetheless, the set of
morphisms KHom(M, N ) is an abelian group, and this is an additive category,

29

with the direct sum of two modules being simply their ordinary direct sum. We
will see in Chapter 3 that this category presents no particular problems, and that
the way to approach it is simply to forget that theres anything strange about it
and pretend that one is actually in the category from part (1) above.
Unlike epimorphism, the word exact is too important for us to be able to live
without. Fortunately, exactness poses no real conflict here between category theory and
common sense. Exactness in the category of torsion free R-modules (Example 0.92 (1))
means exactly what is does for the category of all R-modules . (So that for what its
worth although as noted above the inclusion map R K is an epimorphism in the
category of torsion free modules, the sequence R K 0 is not exact in the category.)
And we can avoid confusion when working in the category of torsion free modules under
quasi-homomorphisms (Example 0.92 (2)) by the simple expedient of using the term
quasi-exact rather than exact.
As Peter Freyd has pointed out, the whole reason one defines categories in the first
place is in order to define functors. And the reason that we have made a fuss about the
concept of an additive category is not because it itself has any crucial importance in what
follows, but because we want to be able to define the concept of an additive functor.
definition 0.93. A functor F between additive categories C and D is called an additive
functor if the function it induces from HomC (C1 , C2 ) to HomD (F (C1 ), F (C2 )) is a
homomorphism. In other words F ( + ) = F () + F () .
Additive functors are to additive categories what continuous maps are to topological
spaces, or what homomorphisms are to modules. In other words, just about any functor
that anyone ever uses between two additive categories and in particular virtually any
functor used in this book, is additive. The concept is worth noting, however, because of a
couple of useful propositions.
proposition 0.94. An additive functor preserves direct sums.
proof: ****
Actually, the converse is also true: A functor between additive categories is additive if
and only if it preserves direct sums (see [Freyd], for instance). However this converse is
not especially useful, at least not for us.
proposition 0.95. If R is a commutative ring and F is an additive functor from the
category of R-modules into the category of abelian groups, then for every R-module M ,
the abelian group F (M ) has a canonical R-module structure, so that from practical
purposes one may as well think of F as a functor from the category of R-modules into
itself.
proof: ****

30

There is a wonderful bit of black magic which is probably the main reason for
discussing all of this at all.
proposition 0.96. If S and T are additive functors from the category of R-modules
to some other additive category, and if : S T is a natural transformation, and if
R : S(R) T (R) is an isomorphism, then P : S(P ) T (P ) is an isomorphism for
every finitely generated projective module P . Furthermore if S and T preserve arbitrary
(i. e. infinite) coproducts, then P is an isomorphism for all projective modules P .
proof: ****
definition 0.97. If C and D are categories and if F : C D and G : D C
are functors, then we say that F is a left adjoint to G and that G is a right
adjoint to F is HomD (F (C), D) is naturally isomorphic to HomC (C, G(D)) for
pair of objects C C and D D . In other words, there exists an isomorphism

: HomD (F (C), D) HomC (C, G(D)) such that whenever : C C 0 and : D D0

are morphisms in C and D then the following diagrams commute:
F ()

HomD (F (C 0 ), D) HomD (F (C), D)

y
y

HomC (C 0 , G(D)) HomC (C, G(D))

HomD (F (C), D) HomD (F (C), D0 )

y
y
G( )

HomC (C, G(D)) HomC (C, G(D0 )).

The concept of a pair of adjoint functors seems initially mysterious and technical.
However adjoint pairs are actually quite pervasive in module theory. The best way
of understanding the concept is by thinking of the pair of functors F = R M and
G = HomR (M, ) where M is a module over a commutative ring R .
proposition 0.98. Let R be a commutative ring and M an R-module. Let F and G
be the functors from the category of R-modules into itself given by F (X) = X R M
and G(Y ) = HomR (M, Y ) . Then F is a left adjoint to G, i. e. there exist a natural
HomR (X, HomR (M, Y )) .
isomorphisms : HomR (X R M, Y )
proof: For HomR (X R M, Y ) define () : X HomR (M, Y ) by
()(x) : m 7 (x m) . It is left to the intrepid reader to check that (1) () thus
defined is an R-linear homomorphism; (2) itself is an R-linear map, in particular that
(r) = r() ; (3) that is an isomorphism, i. e. one-to-one and surjective; and (4) that
is natural in the sense described above. X

31

corollary 0.99. If R0 is an overring of R and P is an R0 -module then

HomR0 (R0 R M, P ) HomR (M, P ) .
(This is used in Chapter 4.)
proof: ****
If F is a left adjoint to G, then in particular for any X in C and Y

in D we get isomorphisms : Hom(F (X), F (X)) Hom(X, GF (X))

and 1 : Hom(G(X), G(X)) Hom(F G(Y ), Y ) . We thus get maps

= (1F (X) ) : X GF (X) and = 1 (1G(X) ) : F G(Y ) Y . It is easy
to check that and are in fact natural transformations. They are usually not
isomorphisms.
Just about the only time we will use and is in the case of the tensor product
and Hom functors. They are natural not only in the technical sense, but also in the
ordinary usage of the word. The map
: X HomR (M, M R X)
is given by (x)(m) = m x and
: M R HomR (M, Y ) Y
is given by (m ) = (m) . We sometimes refer to here as the evaluation map.
These two innocent little natural transformations will play a crucial role in Chapter 9,
after making a brief appearance in Chapter 4. One can easily check that the isomorphism
: HomR (X R M, Y ) HomR (X, HomR (M, Y )) described in the proof of
Proposition 0.99 sends HomR (X R M, Y ) to the map given by the composition

X
HomR (M, M R X) HomR (M, Y )
and that 1 sends HomR (X, HomR (M, Y )) to the map given by the composition
R 1M

X R M HomR (M, Y ) R M
Y.