Section 10.1.

Homework #1 Masaya Sato

Let R be a ring with 1 and M a left (unital) R-module.

1. Prove that 0R m = 0M and (−1)m = −m for all m ∈ M .

Proof. Since 0R is the additive identity of the ring R, 0R = 0R + 0R . So for all m ∈ M
0R m = (0R + 0R )m ⇒ 0R m = 0R m + 0R m
⇒ 0R m + (−0R m) = 0R m + 0R m + (−0R m)
⇒ 0M = 0R m.
Next for all m ∈ M
0M = 0R m = ((−1) + 1)m = (−1)m + 1m = (−1)m + m
since M is a unital R-module and thus
0M + (−m) = (−1)m + m + (−m) ⇒ −m = (−1)m
as desired.
3. Prove that R× and M satisfy the two axioms in Section 1.7 for a group action of the
multiplicative group R× on the set M .
Proof. Recall that R is a unital ring and thus M is a unital R-module. Therefore, according
to the definition of a module discussed on page 337 of the textbook, for all r, s ∈ R× and
m∈M
(rs)m = r(sm)
by part (b) of (2) and
1m = m
part (d) of (2) as desired.
4. Let M be the module Rn described in Example 3 and let I1 , I2 , · · · , In be left ideals of
R. Prove that the following are submodules of M :
(a) A = {(x1 , x2 , · · · , xn )|xi ∈ Ii }
(b) B = {(x1 , x2 , · · · , xn )|xi ∈ R and x1 + x2 + · · · + xn = 0}.
Proof. (a) We first claim that {(x1 , x2 , · · · , xn )|xi ∈ Ii } is a subgroup of M = Rn . Then for
all (x1 , x2 , · · · , xn ) and (y1 , y2 , · · · , yn ) in A
(x1 , x2 , · · · , xn ) + (y1 , y2 , · · · , yn ) = (x1 + y1 , x2 + y2 , · · · , xn + yn )
is included in A since each Ii is an ideal of R, i.e. xi + yi ∈ Ii . In addition 0 ∈ Ii
and (0, 0, · · · , 0) ∈ A, and associativity of the operation is inherited from the one of M .
Moreover for all (x1 , x2 , · · · , xn ) ∈ A and r ∈ R
r(x1 , x2 , · · · , xn ) = (rx1 , rx2 , · · · , rxn ) ∈ A

Abstract Algebra by Dummit and Foote 1

Section 10.1. Homework #1 Masaya Sato

again because each Ii is a left ideal, i.e. rxi ∈ Ii . Therefore {(x1 , x2 , · · · , xn )|xi ∈ Ii } is an
R-submodule of M .
(b) Similarly observe that B is a subgroup of M . For all (x1 , x2 , · · · , xn ) and (y1 , y2 , · · · , yn )
in B
(x1 , x2 , · · · , xn ) + (y1 , y2 , · · · , yn ) = (x1 + y1 , x2 + y2 , · · · , xn + yn ) ∈ B
since

(x1 + y1 ) + (x2 + y2 ) + · · · + (xn + yn ) = (x1 + x2 + · · · + xn ) + (y1 + y2 + · · · + yn ) = 0 + 0 = 0,

and 0 ∈ B since 0 ∈ R and 0 + 0 + · · · + 0 = 0. Associativity of the binary operation

+ : B × B → B is inherited from the one of M . Moreover for all (x1 , x2 , · · · , xn ) ∈ B and
r∈R
r(x1 , x2 , · · · , xn ) = (rx1 , rx2 , · · · , rxn ) ∈ B
because rxi ∈ R and

rx1 + rx2 + · · · + rxn = r(x1 + x2 + · · · + xn ) = r0 = 0.

Therefore {(x1 , x2 , · · · , xn )|xi ∈ R and x1 + x2 + · · · + xn = 0} is an R-submodule of M .

5. For any left ideal I of R define
X
IM = ai mi |ai ∈ I, mi ∈ M
f inite

to be the collection of all finite sums of elements of the form am where a ∈ I and m ∈ M .
Prove that IM is a submodule of M .
Proof. First observe the IM is nonempty since 0M ∈ IM , i.e. 0M = 0R m ∈ IM for any
m ∈ M . Then for all m, n ∈ IM

m = ai1 mi1 + · · · + aik mik and n = aj1 mj1 + · · · + ajl mjl .

and for all r ∈ I

m + rn = (ai1 mi1 + · · · + aik mik ) + r(aj1 mj1 + · · · + ajl mjl )

= ai1 mi1 + · · · + aik mik + (raj1 )mj1 + · · · + (rajl )mjl .

Therefore m + rn can be expressed as the finite sum of elements of the form am, where
m ∈ M and a ∈ I since I is a left ideal. Hence m + rn ∈ IM and thus IM is a submodule
of M as desired.
6. Show that the intersection of any nonempty collection of submodules of an R-module is
a submodule.

Abstract Algebra by Dummit and Foote 2

Section 10.1. Homework #1 Masaya Sato

Proof. For an arbitrary index set Λ, let {Nλ |∅  Nλ ≤ M ∀λ ∈TΛ} be the collection of
nonempty submodules of an T R-module M . Then we claim that λ∈Λ Nλ is a submodule
of M . Observe first thatT λ∈Λ Nλ is not empty since each Nλ has the additive identity
0M . Then for all m, n ∈ λ∈Λ Nλ m and n are in Nλ for every λ ∈ Λ. This implies that
rm + n ∈ Nλ for all r ∈ R since each
T Nλ is a submodule.
T Therefore rm + n is an element of
Nλ for all λ ∈ Λ and included in λ∈Λ Nλ . Hence λ∈Λ Nλ is a submodule as desired.
8. An element m of the R-module M is called a torsion element if rm = 0 for some nonzero
element r ∈ R. The set of torsion elements is denoted

T or(M ) = {m ∈ M |rm = 0 for some nonzero r ∈ R}.

(a) Prove that if R is an integral domain then T or(M ) is a submodule.

(c) If R has zero divisors show that every nonzero R-module has nonzero torsion elements.
Proof. (a) Recall that an integral domain R is a commutative ring with the unity 1 6= 0
without any zero divisors. Since 0 = r0 for every r ∈ R, T or(M ) is not empty. Then for all
m, n ∈ T or(M ) there are nonzero s, t ∈ R so that sm = 0, tn = 0, and st 6= 0 since R is an
integral domain. Moreover for all r ∈ R

(st)(m + rn) = (st)m + (st)rn = (ts)m + r(st)n = t(sm) + (rs)(tn) = 0 + 0 = 0.

Therefore m + rn ∈ T or(M ) and thus T or(M ) is a submodule of M .

(c) Suppose that R has zero divisors. So there exist some r 6= 0 and s 6= 0 in R such that
rs = 0. Then for an arbitrary nonzero R-module M , choose a nonzero m ∈ M and consider
sm ∈ M . If sm = 0, then m is an torsion elements. Otherwise if sm 6= 0, then

r(sm) = (rs)m = 0R m = 0M

and therefore m is a torsion element. Hence M has nonzero torsion elements.

9. If N is a submodule of M , the annihilator of N in R is defined to be {r ∈ R|rn =
0 for all n ∈ N }. Prove that the annihilator of N in R is a 2-sided ideal of R.
Proof. Let A = {r ∈ R|rn = 0 for all n ∈ N }. Then for all r, s ∈ A r − s ∈ R and

(r − s)n = rn + (−s)n = rn − sn = 0 − 0 = 0.

So A is a subgroup of R under addition. Then, for all r ∈ A and s ∈ R, sr ∈ R and

(sr)n = s(rn) = s0 = 0

and thus A is a left ideal of R. Moreover sn ∈ N because N is a submodule and

(rs)n = r(sn) = 0.

This implies that A is a right ideal and therefore A is a 2-sided ideal of R.

Abstract Algebra by Dummit and Foote 3

Section 10.1. Homework #1 Masaya Sato

15. If M is a finite abelian group then M is naturally a Z-module. Can this action be
extended to make M into a Q-module?
Solution: No. Suppse M = Z2 . Then M is a finite abelian group under ordinary addition
+ and moreover Z-module by the action ×, ordinary multiplication. However, the action of
Z cannot be extended to Q since for 1/2 ∈ Q
1/2 × 1 = 1/2 ∈
/ M = {0, 1}.

18. Let F = R, let V = R2 and let T be the linear transformation from V to V which
is rotation clockwise about the origin by π/2 radians. Show that V and 0 are the only
F [x]-submodules for this T .
Proof. Note that the linear transformation T is expressed as the 2 × 2 matrix, i.e.
 
0 −1
T = .
1 0
We first claim that both V and {0} are f [x]-submodules. Then both V and {0} are subspaces
of V and T -invariant or T -stable since
T (V ) ⊆ V and T ({0}) = {0}.
Then we show that no other subspace W can be a submodule. So for every proper subspace
W = {(x, y) ∈ R2 |ax + by = 0 for some a and b ∈ R} of V , ax + by represents a straight line
on the xy-plane that passes through the origin (0, 0)T . However T (W ) represents the line
that is perpendicular to W and thus W is not T -invariant.
19. Let F = R, let V = R2 and let T be the linear transformation from V to V which is
projection onto the y-axis. Show that V , 0, the x-axis and the y-axis are the only F [x]-
submodules for this T .
 
0 0
Proof. Observe that T = . Then we first claim that V , 0, the x-axis and the y-axis are
0 1
F [x]-submodules for T . It is immediate to show that V and 0 are submodules as discussed
in problem #18. So let us consider the x- and y-axes. Then observe that both the x-axis
and y-axis are expressed as
Vx = {(x, 0)T ∈ R2 } and Vy = {(0, y)T ∈ R2 },
respectively, and both Vx and Vy are subspaces of V . Moreover they are T -invariant since
T (Vx ) = {0} ⊆ Vx and T (Vy ) = Vy .
Thus Vx and Vy are F [x]-submodules. Now let us consider a proper subspace. W = {(x, y) ∈
R2 |ax + by = 0 for some a and b ∈ R× } distinct from both the x- and y-axes. Then
T (W ) = {(0, y)T ∈ R2 }

Abstract Algebra by Dummit and Foote 4

Section 10.1. Homework #1 Masaya Sato

and thus T (W ) represents the y-axis or each line ax + by = 0 is projected onto the y-axis.
Therefore W is not T -invariant and hence W is not a submodule.
20. Let F = R, let V = R2 and let T be the linear transformation from V to V which
is rotation clockwise about the origin by π radians. Show that every subspace of V is an
F [x]-submodule for this T .
Proof. Again, it is obvious to show that both V and {0} are submodules. So let us think of
a proper subspace W = {(x, y) ∈ R2 |ax + by = 0 for some a and b ∈ R}. Then T (W ) = W
since rotation of each line ax + by = 0 about the origin by π is invariant. Therefore W is
T -invariant and hence every subspace of V is a F [x]-submodule of V .
21. Let n ∈ Z+ , n > 1 and let R be the ring of n × n matrices with entries from a field F .
Let M be the set of n × n matrices with arbitrary elements of F in the first column and
zeros elsewhere. Show that M is a submodule of R when R is considered as a left module
over itself, but M is not a submodule of R when R is considered as a right R-module.
Proof. Note that R = Mn (F ) and
 
a11 0 · · · 0
M =  ... ... . . . ...  ’ (0.1)
 
an1 0 · · · 0
where ai1 ∈ F for i = 1, . . . , n. We first claim that M is a submodule of the left module R
over itself. Since F is not empty, M is not empty. Then for all m, n ∈ M and for all r ∈ R
rm + n = r[ai , 0, . . . , 0] + [a0i , 0, . . . , 0]
= [rai + a0i , 0, . . . , 0],
where ai , a0i , and 0 are column vectors in F n . Therefore M is a submodule of R if R is
considered as the left module over itself. However if R is the right module over itself, then
M is not a submodule. The following is a counterexample. Let m ∈ M be
 
1 0 ··· 0
m =  ... ... . . . ...  ,
 
1 0 ··· 0
where 1 ∈ F is the multiplicative identity, and let r ∈ R be
 
1 1 ··· 1
 .. .. . . .. 
r = . . . . .
0 0 ··· 0
Then  
1 1 ··· 1
 .. .. . . .. 
mr =  . . . .
1 1 ··· 1
and thus mr ∈
/ M.

Abstract Algebra by Dummit and Foote 5