completely reducible module iff intersection of maximal submodules is trivial












2












$begingroup$


Let $V$ be a finite dimensional $A$-module where $A$ is a finite dimensional algebra. I want to show that $V$ is completely reducible (semi-simple) if and only the intersection of all the maximal submodules (Jacobson radical?) is trivial.



My Thoughts...



Assuming $V$ is completely reducible we can write $V$ as



$$V=dotsum^n V_i$$



where the $V_i$ are irreducible for all $i$. I was thinking originally that all the maximal submodules could be generated by taking any $n-1$ components of the above sum and looking at their sum. However, this doesn't seem credible to me.



I can conclude that any maximal submodule must either completely contain or trivially intersect any of the irreducible submodules and each irreducible submodule must be contained in some maximal submodule (because duh). I do believe that any $n-1$ of the irreducible submodules must be maximal (as otherwise writing the module as an n-tuple I would find a proper submodule of an irreducible submodule). The intersection of these $n$ maximal submodules must be trivial as it can be written as



$$V_1 cap V_2 cap dots cap V_n cap text{some other stuff} = {0}$$



We can conclude then the intersection of all maximal submodules, which must be contained in the above, must be trivial.



I'm not sure about the converse direction. I'm not really looking for an answer more a kind of a push in the right direction.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    One way to do this is to think about the way to embed V into some semisimple module. (Submodules of semisimple modules are also semisimple!) Let me know if you want another hint.
    $endgroup$
    – ante.ceperic
    Sep 8 '18 at 10:12










  • $begingroup$
    Does what I suggested above not work? I've thought about embedding V in some irreducible module as Isaacs suggests but it's not clicking for me. What I'm thinking is it must be something like looking at the V as the sum of irreducibles which are themselves factor modules (quotients) of the regular algebra $A^circ$.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Zolotor
    Sep 11 '18 at 0:36








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Sorry, your suggestion above is indeed OK. I was talking about the other direction, $J(V) = 0$ implies semisimplicity. Try thinking about irreducible modules of the form $V/M$ where $M$ is a maximal submodule of $V$.
    $endgroup$
    – ante.ceperic
    Sep 11 '18 at 7:15






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you have some finite collection $M_1, ldots, M_n$ of maximal submodules of $V$, when is the natural homomorphism $V to bigoplus_{i=1}^n V/M_i$ a monomorphism? I hope I'm not giving too much away.
    $endgroup$
    – ante.ceperic
    Sep 11 '18 at 7:16












  • $begingroup$
    It's a monomorphism exactly when it is an isomorphism I think. Since the natural homomorphism is already surjective. But can we gaurantee that. Right now, all I see is that the intersection being empty forces that sum to be direct (though I feel shaky on that now)
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Zolotor
    Sep 11 '18 at 17:05
















2












$begingroup$


Let $V$ be a finite dimensional $A$-module where $A$ is a finite dimensional algebra. I want to show that $V$ is completely reducible (semi-simple) if and only the intersection of all the maximal submodules (Jacobson radical?) is trivial.



My Thoughts...



Assuming $V$ is completely reducible we can write $V$ as



$$V=dotsum^n V_i$$



where the $V_i$ are irreducible for all $i$. I was thinking originally that all the maximal submodules could be generated by taking any $n-1$ components of the above sum and looking at their sum. However, this doesn't seem credible to me.



I can conclude that any maximal submodule must either completely contain or trivially intersect any of the irreducible submodules and each irreducible submodule must be contained in some maximal submodule (because duh). I do believe that any $n-1$ of the irreducible submodules must be maximal (as otherwise writing the module as an n-tuple I would find a proper submodule of an irreducible submodule). The intersection of these $n$ maximal submodules must be trivial as it can be written as



$$V_1 cap V_2 cap dots cap V_n cap text{some other stuff} = {0}$$



We can conclude then the intersection of all maximal submodules, which must be contained in the above, must be trivial.



I'm not sure about the converse direction. I'm not really looking for an answer more a kind of a push in the right direction.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    One way to do this is to think about the way to embed V into some semisimple module. (Submodules of semisimple modules are also semisimple!) Let me know if you want another hint.
    $endgroup$
    – ante.ceperic
    Sep 8 '18 at 10:12










  • $begingroup$
    Does what I suggested above not work? I've thought about embedding V in some irreducible module as Isaacs suggests but it's not clicking for me. What I'm thinking is it must be something like looking at the V as the sum of irreducibles which are themselves factor modules (quotients) of the regular algebra $A^circ$.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Zolotor
    Sep 11 '18 at 0:36








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Sorry, your suggestion above is indeed OK. I was talking about the other direction, $J(V) = 0$ implies semisimplicity. Try thinking about irreducible modules of the form $V/M$ where $M$ is a maximal submodule of $V$.
    $endgroup$
    – ante.ceperic
    Sep 11 '18 at 7:15






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you have some finite collection $M_1, ldots, M_n$ of maximal submodules of $V$, when is the natural homomorphism $V to bigoplus_{i=1}^n V/M_i$ a monomorphism? I hope I'm not giving too much away.
    $endgroup$
    – ante.ceperic
    Sep 11 '18 at 7:16












  • $begingroup$
    It's a monomorphism exactly when it is an isomorphism I think. Since the natural homomorphism is already surjective. But can we gaurantee that. Right now, all I see is that the intersection being empty forces that sum to be direct (though I feel shaky on that now)
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Zolotor
    Sep 11 '18 at 17:05














2












2








2





$begingroup$


Let $V$ be a finite dimensional $A$-module where $A$ is a finite dimensional algebra. I want to show that $V$ is completely reducible (semi-simple) if and only the intersection of all the maximal submodules (Jacobson radical?) is trivial.



My Thoughts...



Assuming $V$ is completely reducible we can write $V$ as



$$V=dotsum^n V_i$$



where the $V_i$ are irreducible for all $i$. I was thinking originally that all the maximal submodules could be generated by taking any $n-1$ components of the above sum and looking at their sum. However, this doesn't seem credible to me.



I can conclude that any maximal submodule must either completely contain or trivially intersect any of the irreducible submodules and each irreducible submodule must be contained in some maximal submodule (because duh). I do believe that any $n-1$ of the irreducible submodules must be maximal (as otherwise writing the module as an n-tuple I would find a proper submodule of an irreducible submodule). The intersection of these $n$ maximal submodules must be trivial as it can be written as



$$V_1 cap V_2 cap dots cap V_n cap text{some other stuff} = {0}$$



We can conclude then the intersection of all maximal submodules, which must be contained in the above, must be trivial.



I'm not sure about the converse direction. I'm not really looking for an answer more a kind of a push in the right direction.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




Let $V$ be a finite dimensional $A$-module where $A$ is a finite dimensional algebra. I want to show that $V$ is completely reducible (semi-simple) if and only the intersection of all the maximal submodules (Jacobson radical?) is trivial.



My Thoughts...



Assuming $V$ is completely reducible we can write $V$ as



$$V=dotsum^n V_i$$



where the $V_i$ are irreducible for all $i$. I was thinking originally that all the maximal submodules could be generated by taking any $n-1$ components of the above sum and looking at their sum. However, this doesn't seem credible to me.



I can conclude that any maximal submodule must either completely contain or trivially intersect any of the irreducible submodules and each irreducible submodule must be contained in some maximal submodule (because duh). I do believe that any $n-1$ of the irreducible submodules must be maximal (as otherwise writing the module as an n-tuple I would find a proper submodule of an irreducible submodule). The intersection of these $n$ maximal submodules must be trivial as it can be written as



$$V_1 cap V_2 cap dots cap V_n cap text{some other stuff} = {0}$$



We can conclude then the intersection of all maximal submodules, which must be contained in the above, must be trivial.



I'm not sure about the converse direction. I'm not really looking for an answer more a kind of a push in the right direction.







abstract-algebra finite-groups representation-theory






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Sep 8 '18 at 1:00









Aaron ZolotorAaron Zolotor

1,656525




1,656525








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    One way to do this is to think about the way to embed V into some semisimple module. (Submodules of semisimple modules are also semisimple!) Let me know if you want another hint.
    $endgroup$
    – ante.ceperic
    Sep 8 '18 at 10:12










  • $begingroup$
    Does what I suggested above not work? I've thought about embedding V in some irreducible module as Isaacs suggests but it's not clicking for me. What I'm thinking is it must be something like looking at the V as the sum of irreducibles which are themselves factor modules (quotients) of the regular algebra $A^circ$.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Zolotor
    Sep 11 '18 at 0:36








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Sorry, your suggestion above is indeed OK. I was talking about the other direction, $J(V) = 0$ implies semisimplicity. Try thinking about irreducible modules of the form $V/M$ where $M$ is a maximal submodule of $V$.
    $endgroup$
    – ante.ceperic
    Sep 11 '18 at 7:15






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you have some finite collection $M_1, ldots, M_n$ of maximal submodules of $V$, when is the natural homomorphism $V to bigoplus_{i=1}^n V/M_i$ a monomorphism? I hope I'm not giving too much away.
    $endgroup$
    – ante.ceperic
    Sep 11 '18 at 7:16












  • $begingroup$
    It's a monomorphism exactly when it is an isomorphism I think. Since the natural homomorphism is already surjective. But can we gaurantee that. Right now, all I see is that the intersection being empty forces that sum to be direct (though I feel shaky on that now)
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Zolotor
    Sep 11 '18 at 17:05














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    One way to do this is to think about the way to embed V into some semisimple module. (Submodules of semisimple modules are also semisimple!) Let me know if you want another hint.
    $endgroup$
    – ante.ceperic
    Sep 8 '18 at 10:12










  • $begingroup$
    Does what I suggested above not work? I've thought about embedding V in some irreducible module as Isaacs suggests but it's not clicking for me. What I'm thinking is it must be something like looking at the V as the sum of irreducibles which are themselves factor modules (quotients) of the regular algebra $A^circ$.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Zolotor
    Sep 11 '18 at 0:36








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Sorry, your suggestion above is indeed OK. I was talking about the other direction, $J(V) = 0$ implies semisimplicity. Try thinking about irreducible modules of the form $V/M$ where $M$ is a maximal submodule of $V$.
    $endgroup$
    – ante.ceperic
    Sep 11 '18 at 7:15






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you have some finite collection $M_1, ldots, M_n$ of maximal submodules of $V$, when is the natural homomorphism $V to bigoplus_{i=1}^n V/M_i$ a monomorphism? I hope I'm not giving too much away.
    $endgroup$
    – ante.ceperic
    Sep 11 '18 at 7:16












  • $begingroup$
    It's a monomorphism exactly when it is an isomorphism I think. Since the natural homomorphism is already surjective. But can we gaurantee that. Right now, all I see is that the intersection being empty forces that sum to be direct (though I feel shaky on that now)
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Zolotor
    Sep 11 '18 at 17:05








1




1




$begingroup$
One way to do this is to think about the way to embed V into some semisimple module. (Submodules of semisimple modules are also semisimple!) Let me know if you want another hint.
$endgroup$
– ante.ceperic
Sep 8 '18 at 10:12




$begingroup$
One way to do this is to think about the way to embed V into some semisimple module. (Submodules of semisimple modules are also semisimple!) Let me know if you want another hint.
$endgroup$
– ante.ceperic
Sep 8 '18 at 10:12












$begingroup$
Does what I suggested above not work? I've thought about embedding V in some irreducible module as Isaacs suggests but it's not clicking for me. What I'm thinking is it must be something like looking at the V as the sum of irreducibles which are themselves factor modules (quotients) of the regular algebra $A^circ$.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Zolotor
Sep 11 '18 at 0:36






$begingroup$
Does what I suggested above not work? I've thought about embedding V in some irreducible module as Isaacs suggests but it's not clicking for me. What I'm thinking is it must be something like looking at the V as the sum of irreducibles which are themselves factor modules (quotients) of the regular algebra $A^circ$.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Zolotor
Sep 11 '18 at 0:36






1




1




$begingroup$
Sorry, your suggestion above is indeed OK. I was talking about the other direction, $J(V) = 0$ implies semisimplicity. Try thinking about irreducible modules of the form $V/M$ where $M$ is a maximal submodule of $V$.
$endgroup$
– ante.ceperic
Sep 11 '18 at 7:15




$begingroup$
Sorry, your suggestion above is indeed OK. I was talking about the other direction, $J(V) = 0$ implies semisimplicity. Try thinking about irreducible modules of the form $V/M$ where $M$ is a maximal submodule of $V$.
$endgroup$
– ante.ceperic
Sep 11 '18 at 7:15




2




2




$begingroup$
If you have some finite collection $M_1, ldots, M_n$ of maximal submodules of $V$, when is the natural homomorphism $V to bigoplus_{i=1}^n V/M_i$ a monomorphism? I hope I'm not giving too much away.
$endgroup$
– ante.ceperic
Sep 11 '18 at 7:16






$begingroup$
If you have some finite collection $M_1, ldots, M_n$ of maximal submodules of $V$, when is the natural homomorphism $V to bigoplus_{i=1}^n V/M_i$ a monomorphism? I hope I'm not giving too much away.
$endgroup$
– ante.ceperic
Sep 11 '18 at 7:16














$begingroup$
It's a monomorphism exactly when it is an isomorphism I think. Since the natural homomorphism is already surjective. But can we gaurantee that. Right now, all I see is that the intersection being empty forces that sum to be direct (though I feel shaky on that now)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Zolotor
Sep 11 '18 at 17:05




$begingroup$
It's a monomorphism exactly when it is an isomorphism I think. Since the natural homomorphism is already surjective. But can we gaurantee that. Right now, all I see is that the intersection being empty forces that sum to be direct (though I feel shaky on that now)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Zolotor
Sep 11 '18 at 17:05










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

Suppose that $V$ is completely reducible and $0neq W$ be the intersection of all of the maximal submodules of $V$. Then let $Woplus U=V$, from $Wcap U=0$ we know that $Wnotsubset U$ hence $U$ is not maximal. So $U$ is contained in a maximal submodule by finite dimensionality, namely $Usubset V'$, hence $Woplus V'subsetneq V$, contradiction.

Conversely, suppose that the intersection of all of the maximal submodule of $V$ is trivial, then the natural homomorphism $Vrightarrow oplus_{i=1}^nV/M_i$ is injective where $V/M_i$ is irreducible. So $V$ is completely reducible, as a submodule of a completely reducible module.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    How did you conclude that a finite collection of maximal submodules suffices to intersect to ${0}$? This deserves a comment. (I know an easy way, I'm just asking to draw attention to the situation.) It is necessary to establish this to conclude that the suggested homomorphism (into the product of $V/M$'s) is also into the direct sum.
    $endgroup$
    – rschwieb
    Jan 11 at 17:59












  • $begingroup$
    Sorry, I don't know how to conclude this. Could you tell me?
    $endgroup$
    – Hugo
    Jan 14 at 3:26






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Since $V$ is finite dimensional, it's Artinian, and Artinian modules have that property.
    $endgroup$
    – rschwieb
    Jan 14 at 11:56



















0












$begingroup$

If $V$ is irreducible, we are done. Otherwise, let $W_1$ be a non-zero proper irreducible submodule of $V$. Since the intersection of all maximal submodules is zero, there must exist a maximal submodule $V_1$ such that $W_1 not subset V_1$. Then $V = W_1 oplus V_1$.



If $V_1$ is irreducible, we are done. Otherwise, repeat the above process as follows: let $W_2$ be a non-zero proper irreducible submodule of $V_1$, and choose a maximal $U_2$ such that $W_2 not subset U_2$. Then check that $V_1 = W_2 oplus V_2$ where $V_2 = U_2 cap V_1$.



If $V_2$ is irreducible, we are done, else repeat as above. Since $V$ is finite dimensional, this process terminates and we conclude that $V$ is completely reducible.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$














    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2909182%2fcompletely-reducible-module-iff-intersection-of-maximal-submodules-is-trivial%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    1












    $begingroup$

    Suppose that $V$ is completely reducible and $0neq W$ be the intersection of all of the maximal submodules of $V$. Then let $Woplus U=V$, from $Wcap U=0$ we know that $Wnotsubset U$ hence $U$ is not maximal. So $U$ is contained in a maximal submodule by finite dimensionality, namely $Usubset V'$, hence $Woplus V'subsetneq V$, contradiction.

    Conversely, suppose that the intersection of all of the maximal submodule of $V$ is trivial, then the natural homomorphism $Vrightarrow oplus_{i=1}^nV/M_i$ is injective where $V/M_i$ is irreducible. So $V$ is completely reducible, as a submodule of a completely reducible module.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      How did you conclude that a finite collection of maximal submodules suffices to intersect to ${0}$? This deserves a comment. (I know an easy way, I'm just asking to draw attention to the situation.) It is necessary to establish this to conclude that the suggested homomorphism (into the product of $V/M$'s) is also into the direct sum.
      $endgroup$
      – rschwieb
      Jan 11 at 17:59












    • $begingroup$
      Sorry, I don't know how to conclude this. Could you tell me?
      $endgroup$
      – Hugo
      Jan 14 at 3:26






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Since $V$ is finite dimensional, it's Artinian, and Artinian modules have that property.
      $endgroup$
      – rschwieb
      Jan 14 at 11:56
















    1












    $begingroup$

    Suppose that $V$ is completely reducible and $0neq W$ be the intersection of all of the maximal submodules of $V$. Then let $Woplus U=V$, from $Wcap U=0$ we know that $Wnotsubset U$ hence $U$ is not maximal. So $U$ is contained in a maximal submodule by finite dimensionality, namely $Usubset V'$, hence $Woplus V'subsetneq V$, contradiction.

    Conversely, suppose that the intersection of all of the maximal submodule of $V$ is trivial, then the natural homomorphism $Vrightarrow oplus_{i=1}^nV/M_i$ is injective where $V/M_i$ is irreducible. So $V$ is completely reducible, as a submodule of a completely reducible module.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      How did you conclude that a finite collection of maximal submodules suffices to intersect to ${0}$? This deserves a comment. (I know an easy way, I'm just asking to draw attention to the situation.) It is necessary to establish this to conclude that the suggested homomorphism (into the product of $V/M$'s) is also into the direct sum.
      $endgroup$
      – rschwieb
      Jan 11 at 17:59












    • $begingroup$
      Sorry, I don't know how to conclude this. Could you tell me?
      $endgroup$
      – Hugo
      Jan 14 at 3:26






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Since $V$ is finite dimensional, it's Artinian, and Artinian modules have that property.
      $endgroup$
      – rschwieb
      Jan 14 at 11:56














    1












    1








    1





    $begingroup$

    Suppose that $V$ is completely reducible and $0neq W$ be the intersection of all of the maximal submodules of $V$. Then let $Woplus U=V$, from $Wcap U=0$ we know that $Wnotsubset U$ hence $U$ is not maximal. So $U$ is contained in a maximal submodule by finite dimensionality, namely $Usubset V'$, hence $Woplus V'subsetneq V$, contradiction.

    Conversely, suppose that the intersection of all of the maximal submodule of $V$ is trivial, then the natural homomorphism $Vrightarrow oplus_{i=1}^nV/M_i$ is injective where $V/M_i$ is irreducible. So $V$ is completely reducible, as a submodule of a completely reducible module.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    Suppose that $V$ is completely reducible and $0neq W$ be the intersection of all of the maximal submodules of $V$. Then let $Woplus U=V$, from $Wcap U=0$ we know that $Wnotsubset U$ hence $U$ is not maximal. So $U$ is contained in a maximal submodule by finite dimensionality, namely $Usubset V'$, hence $Woplus V'subsetneq V$, contradiction.

    Conversely, suppose that the intersection of all of the maximal submodule of $V$ is trivial, then the natural homomorphism $Vrightarrow oplus_{i=1}^nV/M_i$ is injective where $V/M_i$ is irreducible. So $V$ is completely reducible, as a submodule of a completely reducible module.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Jan 11 at 14:12









    HugoHugo

    30819




    30819












    • $begingroup$
      How did you conclude that a finite collection of maximal submodules suffices to intersect to ${0}$? This deserves a comment. (I know an easy way, I'm just asking to draw attention to the situation.) It is necessary to establish this to conclude that the suggested homomorphism (into the product of $V/M$'s) is also into the direct sum.
      $endgroup$
      – rschwieb
      Jan 11 at 17:59












    • $begingroup$
      Sorry, I don't know how to conclude this. Could you tell me?
      $endgroup$
      – Hugo
      Jan 14 at 3:26






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Since $V$ is finite dimensional, it's Artinian, and Artinian modules have that property.
      $endgroup$
      – rschwieb
      Jan 14 at 11:56


















    • $begingroup$
      How did you conclude that a finite collection of maximal submodules suffices to intersect to ${0}$? This deserves a comment. (I know an easy way, I'm just asking to draw attention to the situation.) It is necessary to establish this to conclude that the suggested homomorphism (into the product of $V/M$'s) is also into the direct sum.
      $endgroup$
      – rschwieb
      Jan 11 at 17:59












    • $begingroup$
      Sorry, I don't know how to conclude this. Could you tell me?
      $endgroup$
      – Hugo
      Jan 14 at 3:26






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Since $V$ is finite dimensional, it's Artinian, and Artinian modules have that property.
      $endgroup$
      – rschwieb
      Jan 14 at 11:56
















    $begingroup$
    How did you conclude that a finite collection of maximal submodules suffices to intersect to ${0}$? This deserves a comment. (I know an easy way, I'm just asking to draw attention to the situation.) It is necessary to establish this to conclude that the suggested homomorphism (into the product of $V/M$'s) is also into the direct sum.
    $endgroup$
    – rschwieb
    Jan 11 at 17:59






    $begingroup$
    How did you conclude that a finite collection of maximal submodules suffices to intersect to ${0}$? This deserves a comment. (I know an easy way, I'm just asking to draw attention to the situation.) It is necessary to establish this to conclude that the suggested homomorphism (into the product of $V/M$'s) is also into the direct sum.
    $endgroup$
    – rschwieb
    Jan 11 at 17:59














    $begingroup$
    Sorry, I don't know how to conclude this. Could you tell me?
    $endgroup$
    – Hugo
    Jan 14 at 3:26




    $begingroup$
    Sorry, I don't know how to conclude this. Could you tell me?
    $endgroup$
    – Hugo
    Jan 14 at 3:26




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Since $V$ is finite dimensional, it's Artinian, and Artinian modules have that property.
    $endgroup$
    – rschwieb
    Jan 14 at 11:56




    $begingroup$
    Since $V$ is finite dimensional, it's Artinian, and Artinian modules have that property.
    $endgroup$
    – rschwieb
    Jan 14 at 11:56











    0












    $begingroup$

    If $V$ is irreducible, we are done. Otherwise, let $W_1$ be a non-zero proper irreducible submodule of $V$. Since the intersection of all maximal submodules is zero, there must exist a maximal submodule $V_1$ such that $W_1 not subset V_1$. Then $V = W_1 oplus V_1$.



    If $V_1$ is irreducible, we are done. Otherwise, repeat the above process as follows: let $W_2$ be a non-zero proper irreducible submodule of $V_1$, and choose a maximal $U_2$ such that $W_2 not subset U_2$. Then check that $V_1 = W_2 oplus V_2$ where $V_2 = U_2 cap V_1$.



    If $V_2$ is irreducible, we are done, else repeat as above. Since $V$ is finite dimensional, this process terminates and we conclude that $V$ is completely reducible.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      0












      $begingroup$

      If $V$ is irreducible, we are done. Otherwise, let $W_1$ be a non-zero proper irreducible submodule of $V$. Since the intersection of all maximal submodules is zero, there must exist a maximal submodule $V_1$ such that $W_1 not subset V_1$. Then $V = W_1 oplus V_1$.



      If $V_1$ is irreducible, we are done. Otherwise, repeat the above process as follows: let $W_2$ be a non-zero proper irreducible submodule of $V_1$, and choose a maximal $U_2$ such that $W_2 not subset U_2$. Then check that $V_1 = W_2 oplus V_2$ where $V_2 = U_2 cap V_1$.



      If $V_2$ is irreducible, we are done, else repeat as above. Since $V$ is finite dimensional, this process terminates and we conclude that $V$ is completely reducible.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        0












        0








        0





        $begingroup$

        If $V$ is irreducible, we are done. Otherwise, let $W_1$ be a non-zero proper irreducible submodule of $V$. Since the intersection of all maximal submodules is zero, there must exist a maximal submodule $V_1$ such that $W_1 not subset V_1$. Then $V = W_1 oplus V_1$.



        If $V_1$ is irreducible, we are done. Otherwise, repeat the above process as follows: let $W_2$ be a non-zero proper irreducible submodule of $V_1$, and choose a maximal $U_2$ such that $W_2 not subset U_2$. Then check that $V_1 = W_2 oplus V_2$ where $V_2 = U_2 cap V_1$.



        If $V_2$ is irreducible, we are done, else repeat as above. Since $V$ is finite dimensional, this process terminates and we conclude that $V$ is completely reducible.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        If $V$ is irreducible, we are done. Otherwise, let $W_1$ be a non-zero proper irreducible submodule of $V$. Since the intersection of all maximal submodules is zero, there must exist a maximal submodule $V_1$ such that $W_1 not subset V_1$. Then $V = W_1 oplus V_1$.



        If $V_1$ is irreducible, we are done. Otherwise, repeat the above process as follows: let $W_2$ be a non-zero proper irreducible submodule of $V_1$, and choose a maximal $U_2$ such that $W_2 not subset U_2$. Then check that $V_1 = W_2 oplus V_2$ where $V_2 = U_2 cap V_1$.



        If $V_2$ is irreducible, we are done, else repeat as above. Since $V$ is finite dimensional, this process terminates and we conclude that $V$ is completely reducible.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Jan 11 at 17:05

























        answered Jan 11 at 16:43









        TedTed

        22.2k13361




        22.2k13361






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2909182%2fcompletely-reducible-module-iff-intersection-of-maximal-submodules-is-trivial%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Bressuire

            Cabo Verde

            Gyllenstierna