2
$\begingroup$

Suppose $M$ is module and $N$ a submodule over some commutative ring $R$. If $x\neq 0$, and $(x)\cap N=0$, why does this imply $(x)$ is isomorphic to some submodule of $M/N$? (Let's also assume that $M\neq 0$ and $N$ is a proper submodule.)

It was a quick detail in a passage I was reading, and I can't recall why it is.

  • 0
    @williamdemeo I recall now, thanks. Feel free to give a proper answer though.2012-02-19

2 Answers 2

0

The general theorem is this (Hungerford p. 179):

If $B$ and $C$ are submodules of a module $A$ over a ring $R$ then there is an $R$-module isomorphism

$B/B\cap C \cong (B+C)/C.$

That $+$ notation looks weird to me, but i'm not a ring theorist :) I would prefer to use $\langle B, C\rangle$ or $B\vee C$ and to view it as the "join" because the theorem is "obvious" if you draw the lattice of submodules, and because the theorem holds more generally, of course (though for groups make sure $C$ is normal in $\langle B, C\rangle$! :)

1

Here's a sketch of a quick proof:

If $\pi: M \to M/N$ denotes the canonical projection and we set $\overline{x} = \pi(x)$, then $\text{im}(\pi|_{(x)}) = (\overline{x})$, and the latter is a submodule of $M/N$. Now, $\text{ker}(\pi|_{(x)}) = \text{ker}(\pi) \cap (x) = N \cap (x) = 0$, so $\pi|_{(x)}: (x) \to (\overline{x})$ is an isomorphism.