Factor of a product ring can not be free The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InTorsion-free module morphismThe quotient of product of ringsRank of Free Module over a Noncommutative RingProve that a ring R having the property that every finitely generated R-module is free is either a field or the zero ring.If $F_1$ and $F_2$ are free modules on the same set $A$, then $F_1 cong F_2$Given a ring homomorphism and a unital module, make another moduleFactor of the product of rings cannot be free module?Is the “basis” of a free module linearly independent?finite product of artinian rings is artinianEvery projective module is a submodule of a free module?

Am I thawing this London Broil safely?

Reference request: Oldest number theory books with (unsolved) exercises?

A poker game description that does not feel gimmicky

Are spiders unable to hurt humans, especially very small spiders?

Origin of "cooter" meaning "vagina"

Why not take a picture of a closer black hole?

Is there any way to tell whether the shot is going to hit you or not?

Why was M87 targetted for the Event Horizon Telescope instead of Sagittarius A*?

What do hard-Brexiteers want with respect to the Irish border?

Why do we hear so much about the Trump administration deciding to impose and then remove tariffs?

What is the meaning of the verb "bear" in this context?

When should I buy a clipper card after flying to OAK?

Multiply Two Integer Polynomials

Why hard-Brexiteers don't insist on a hard border to prevent illegal immigration after Brexit?

How can I autofill dates in Excel excluding Sunday?

Why is the Constellation's nose gear so long?

One word riddle: Vowel in the middle

How come people say “Would of”?

How to support a colleague who finds meetings extremely tiring?

Why didn't the Event Horizon Telescope team mention Sagittarius A*?

Which Sci-Fi work first showed weapon of galactic-scale mass destruction?

What does Linus Torvalds mean when he says that Git "never ever" tracks a file?

What is the motivation for a law requiring 2 parties to consent for recording a conversation

Is a "Democratic" Oligarchy-Style System Possible?



Factor of a product ring can not be free



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InTorsion-free module morphismThe quotient of product of ringsRank of Free Module over a Noncommutative RingProve that a ring R having the property that every finitely generated R-module is free is either a field or the zero ring.If $F_1$ and $F_2$ are free modules on the same set $A$, then $F_1 cong F_2$Given a ring homomorphism and a unital module, make another moduleFactor of the product of rings cannot be free module?Is the “basis” of a free module linearly independent?finite product of artinian rings is artinianEvery projective module is a submodule of a free module?










0












$begingroup$


I have seen the following property in my class note but I don´t know how to prove, could someone help me?



If we consider the product ring $R=R_1timesR_2$, then $R_1$ can not be a free right $R$-module



I think that it must have a simple proof, but I don't get it.



Thanks










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Do you want a proof that this is always the case, or simply that $R_1$ need not be a free $R$-module? If it is the latter, then a cardinality argument would work: suppose $R_1congBbbF_2$ and $R_2congBbbF_3.$ In this case, $# R = 6.$ As any [finite] free $R$-module $M$ satisfies $Mcong bigoplus_i = 1^n R$ for some $n,$ we have $# M = 6^n.$ But $2neq 6^n$ for any integer $n.$
    $endgroup$
    – Stahl
    Mar 23 at 20:47











  • $begingroup$
    Yes, I want to prove that in every product ring $R=R_1times R_2$ (with $R_1$ and $R_2$ non trivial) we have that $R_1$ is not free
    $endgroup$
    – mejopa
    Mar 23 at 22:16
















0












$begingroup$


I have seen the following property in my class note but I don´t know how to prove, could someone help me?



If we consider the product ring $R=R_1timesR_2$, then $R_1$ can not be a free right $R$-module



I think that it must have a simple proof, but I don't get it.



Thanks










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Do you want a proof that this is always the case, or simply that $R_1$ need not be a free $R$-module? If it is the latter, then a cardinality argument would work: suppose $R_1congBbbF_2$ and $R_2congBbbF_3.$ In this case, $# R = 6.$ As any [finite] free $R$-module $M$ satisfies $Mcong bigoplus_i = 1^n R$ for some $n,$ we have $# M = 6^n.$ But $2neq 6^n$ for any integer $n.$
    $endgroup$
    – Stahl
    Mar 23 at 20:47











  • $begingroup$
    Yes, I want to prove that in every product ring $R=R_1times R_2$ (with $R_1$ and $R_2$ non trivial) we have that $R_1$ is not free
    $endgroup$
    – mejopa
    Mar 23 at 22:16














0












0








0





$begingroup$


I have seen the following property in my class note but I don´t know how to prove, could someone help me?



If we consider the product ring $R=R_1timesR_2$, then $R_1$ can not be a free right $R$-module



I think that it must have a simple proof, but I don't get it.



Thanks










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




I have seen the following property in my class note but I don´t know how to prove, could someone help me?



If we consider the product ring $R=R_1timesR_2$, then $R_1$ can not be a free right $R$-module



I think that it must have a simple proof, but I don't get it.



Thanks







abstract-algebra ring-theory modules free-modules






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Mar 23 at 17:48









mejopamejopa

111




111











  • $begingroup$
    Do you want a proof that this is always the case, or simply that $R_1$ need not be a free $R$-module? If it is the latter, then a cardinality argument would work: suppose $R_1congBbbF_2$ and $R_2congBbbF_3.$ In this case, $# R = 6.$ As any [finite] free $R$-module $M$ satisfies $Mcong bigoplus_i = 1^n R$ for some $n,$ we have $# M = 6^n.$ But $2neq 6^n$ for any integer $n.$
    $endgroup$
    – Stahl
    Mar 23 at 20:47











  • $begingroup$
    Yes, I want to prove that in every product ring $R=R_1times R_2$ (with $R_1$ and $R_2$ non trivial) we have that $R_1$ is not free
    $endgroup$
    – mejopa
    Mar 23 at 22:16

















  • $begingroup$
    Do you want a proof that this is always the case, or simply that $R_1$ need not be a free $R$-module? If it is the latter, then a cardinality argument would work: suppose $R_1congBbbF_2$ and $R_2congBbbF_3.$ In this case, $# R = 6.$ As any [finite] free $R$-module $M$ satisfies $Mcong bigoplus_i = 1^n R$ for some $n,$ we have $# M = 6^n.$ But $2neq 6^n$ for any integer $n.$
    $endgroup$
    – Stahl
    Mar 23 at 20:47











  • $begingroup$
    Yes, I want to prove that in every product ring $R=R_1times R_2$ (with $R_1$ and $R_2$ non trivial) we have that $R_1$ is not free
    $endgroup$
    – mejopa
    Mar 23 at 22:16
















$begingroup$
Do you want a proof that this is always the case, or simply that $R_1$ need not be a free $R$-module? If it is the latter, then a cardinality argument would work: suppose $R_1congBbbF_2$ and $R_2congBbbF_3.$ In this case, $# R = 6.$ As any [finite] free $R$-module $M$ satisfies $Mcong bigoplus_i = 1^n R$ for some $n,$ we have $# M = 6^n.$ But $2neq 6^n$ for any integer $n.$
$endgroup$
– Stahl
Mar 23 at 20:47





$begingroup$
Do you want a proof that this is always the case, or simply that $R_1$ need not be a free $R$-module? If it is the latter, then a cardinality argument would work: suppose $R_1congBbbF_2$ and $R_2congBbbF_3.$ In this case, $# R = 6.$ As any [finite] free $R$-module $M$ satisfies $Mcong bigoplus_i = 1^n R$ for some $n,$ we have $# M = 6^n.$ But $2neq 6^n$ for any integer $n.$
$endgroup$
– Stahl
Mar 23 at 20:47













$begingroup$
Yes, I want to prove that in every product ring $R=R_1times R_2$ (with $R_1$ and $R_2$ non trivial) we have that $R_1$ is not free
$endgroup$
– mejopa
Mar 23 at 22:16





$begingroup$
Yes, I want to prove that in every product ring $R=R_1times R_2$ (with $R_1$ and $R_2$ non trivial) we have that $R_1$ is not free
$endgroup$
– mejopa
Mar 23 at 22:16











3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

Let $F$ be a nonzero free left $R$-module. Then $operatornameAnn_R(F)=rin R:rF=0=0$.



This is essentially obvious, because $F$ is a direct sum of copies of $R$.



Now note that, when $R=R_1times R_2$, $operatornameAnn_R(R_1times0)=0times R_2$. If neither $R_1$ nor $R_2$ is the trivial ring, we're done.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    0












    $begingroup$

    Let's assume that things are non-trivial, that is, both $R_1$ and $R_2$ are not the zero ring.



    Now, multiplication in the product ring $R_1 times R_2$ is coordinate-wise, that is, for an element $(a_1, a_2) in R_1 times R_2$ with $a_1 in R_1$ and $a_2 in R_2$, and another element $(b_1, b_2) in R_1 times R_2$ with $b_1 in R_1$ and $b_2 in R_2$, we have
    $$
    (a_1, a_2) cdot (b_1, b_2) = (a_1 cdot a_2, b_1 cdot b_2).
    $$



    Moreover, we can identify the ring $R_1$ with the subring $R_1 times 0_R_2 subseteq R_1 times R_2$ where $0_R_2$ denotes the zero element of $R_2$. The identification map is
    $$
    iota_1 : R_1 rightarrow R_1 times R_2,quad a mapsto (a, 0_R_2).
    $$

    Now, $R_1 times 0_R_2$, being a subring of $R_1 times R_2$, is a right $(R_1 times R_2)$-module, where the module operation is given by ring multiplication. That is, if we have a "module element" $(a_1, 0_R_2) in R_1 times 0_R_2$ and a "coefficiont ring element" $(a_2, b_2) in R_1 times R_2$, then the product is
    $$
    (a_1, 0_R_2) cdot (a_2, b_2) = (a_1 cdot a_2, 0_R_2).
    $$

    Now, since both $R_1$ and $R_2$ are not the zero ring, we can pick $a_3 in R_1 setminus 0_R_1$ and $b_3 in R_2 setminus 0_R_2$. With these, we construct a nonzero "module element" $(a_3, 0_R_2) in R_1 times 0_R_2$ and a nonzero "coefficient ring element" $(0_R_1, b_3) in in R_1 times R_2$. Their product is then
    $$
    (a_3, 0_R_2) cdot (0_R_1, b_3) = (0_R_1, 0_R_2).
    $$

    That is, the product of a nonzero module element and a nonzero coefficient ring element is the zero module element.
    This does not happen in a free module.



    So we have shown that $R_1 times 0_R_2$ is not a free right $(R_1 times R_2)$-module.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Suppose $R = BbbC[x]/(x^2).$ Then $M = R$ is certainly a free $R$-module, and $xin R$ is a nonzero ring (and module) element. However, $xcdot x = 0$ in $R.$ You need to ensure that the elements you choose are not only nonzero, but non-zero divisors (and of course, elements of the form $(0,r)$ and $(r,0)$ are always zero divisors in a product ring).
      $endgroup$
      – Stahl
      Mar 23 at 21:07











    • $begingroup$
      Another counterexample to the claim that "the product of a nonzero module element and a nonzero coefficient ring element is never the zero module element in a free module" is the following: let $R$ be a nonzero ring, and consider the free rank one $Rtimes R$-module $M = Rtimes R.$ Then $(1,0)cdot(0,1) = (0,0),$ but $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$ are nonzero ring/module elements.
      $endgroup$
      – Stahl
      Mar 23 at 21:13











    • $begingroup$
      So, is not this proof right?
      $endgroup$
      – mejopa
      Mar 23 at 22:17






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @mejopa no, this argument is incorrect - the same logic would imply that $R_1times R_2$ is not free over itself, which is absurd.
      $endgroup$
      – Stahl
      Mar 23 at 22:18


















    0












    $begingroup$

    Suppose $R_1$ and $R_2$ are nontrivial, and consider $R_1 = M$ as a right $R = R_1times R_2$-module via the natural action
    beginalign*
    Mtimes R&to M\
    (m,(r,s))&mapsto mr.
    endalign*



    To show that $M$ is not free over $R,$ we must show that there is no basis of $M.$ Recall that a basis of $M$ is a subset $B = e_imid iin Isubseteq M$ such that the following two conditions hold:



    1. For any $min M,$ there exists a finite subset $Jsubseteq I$ and collection of elements $r_jmid jin Jsubseteq R$ such that $$m = sum_jin J e_j r_j,$$ and

    2. If $r_jmid jin Jsubseteq Isubseteq R$ is a finite collection of elements of $R$ such that $$sum_jin J e_j r_j = 0,$$ then $r_j = 0$ for all $j.$

    To that end, suppose such a basis $B = e_i_iin Isubseteq M$ exists (as $R_1$ is nontrivial, the set $B$ is necessarily nonempty). Let $r = (0,1),$ and choose any $ein B.$ Then we have
    $$
    er = e(0,1) = ecdot 0 = 0,
    $$

    but $(0,1)in R$ is not zero (as $R_2$ is not the trivial ring). This contradicts our assumption that $B$ was a basis. Therefore, assuming that both $R_1$ and $R_2$ are nontrivial, we have shown $R_1$ cannot be a free right $R_1times R_2$-module via the natural action.






    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%2f3159629%2ffactor-of-a-product-ring-can-not-be-free%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      1












      $begingroup$

      Let $F$ be a nonzero free left $R$-module. Then $operatornameAnn_R(F)=rin R:rF=0=0$.



      This is essentially obvious, because $F$ is a direct sum of copies of $R$.



      Now note that, when $R=R_1times R_2$, $operatornameAnn_R(R_1times0)=0times R_2$. If neither $R_1$ nor $R_2$ is the trivial ring, we're done.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$

















        1












        $begingroup$

        Let $F$ be a nonzero free left $R$-module. Then $operatornameAnn_R(F)=rin R:rF=0=0$.



        This is essentially obvious, because $F$ is a direct sum of copies of $R$.



        Now note that, when $R=R_1times R_2$, $operatornameAnn_R(R_1times0)=0times R_2$. If neither $R_1$ nor $R_2$ is the trivial ring, we're done.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$















          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          Let $F$ be a nonzero free left $R$-module. Then $operatornameAnn_R(F)=rin R:rF=0=0$.



          This is essentially obvious, because $F$ is a direct sum of copies of $R$.



          Now note that, when $R=R_1times R_2$, $operatornameAnn_R(R_1times0)=0times R_2$. If neither $R_1$ nor $R_2$ is the trivial ring, we're done.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Let $F$ be a nonzero free left $R$-module. Then $operatornameAnn_R(F)=rin R:rF=0=0$.



          This is essentially obvious, because $F$ is a direct sum of copies of $R$.



          Now note that, when $R=R_1times R_2$, $operatornameAnn_R(R_1times0)=0times R_2$. If neither $R_1$ nor $R_2$ is the trivial ring, we're done.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Mar 23 at 23:35









          egregegreg

          185k1486208




          185k1486208





















              0












              $begingroup$

              Let's assume that things are non-trivial, that is, both $R_1$ and $R_2$ are not the zero ring.



              Now, multiplication in the product ring $R_1 times R_2$ is coordinate-wise, that is, for an element $(a_1, a_2) in R_1 times R_2$ with $a_1 in R_1$ and $a_2 in R_2$, and another element $(b_1, b_2) in R_1 times R_2$ with $b_1 in R_1$ and $b_2 in R_2$, we have
              $$
              (a_1, a_2) cdot (b_1, b_2) = (a_1 cdot a_2, b_1 cdot b_2).
              $$



              Moreover, we can identify the ring $R_1$ with the subring $R_1 times 0_R_2 subseteq R_1 times R_2$ where $0_R_2$ denotes the zero element of $R_2$. The identification map is
              $$
              iota_1 : R_1 rightarrow R_1 times R_2,quad a mapsto (a, 0_R_2).
              $$

              Now, $R_1 times 0_R_2$, being a subring of $R_1 times R_2$, is a right $(R_1 times R_2)$-module, where the module operation is given by ring multiplication. That is, if we have a "module element" $(a_1, 0_R_2) in R_1 times 0_R_2$ and a "coefficiont ring element" $(a_2, b_2) in R_1 times R_2$, then the product is
              $$
              (a_1, 0_R_2) cdot (a_2, b_2) = (a_1 cdot a_2, 0_R_2).
              $$

              Now, since both $R_1$ and $R_2$ are not the zero ring, we can pick $a_3 in R_1 setminus 0_R_1$ and $b_3 in R_2 setminus 0_R_2$. With these, we construct a nonzero "module element" $(a_3, 0_R_2) in R_1 times 0_R_2$ and a nonzero "coefficient ring element" $(0_R_1, b_3) in in R_1 times R_2$. Their product is then
              $$
              (a_3, 0_R_2) cdot (0_R_1, b_3) = (0_R_1, 0_R_2).
              $$

              That is, the product of a nonzero module element and a nonzero coefficient ring element is the zero module element.
              This does not happen in a free module.



              So we have shown that $R_1 times 0_R_2$ is not a free right $(R_1 times R_2)$-module.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$












              • $begingroup$
                Suppose $R = BbbC[x]/(x^2).$ Then $M = R$ is certainly a free $R$-module, and $xin R$ is a nonzero ring (and module) element. However, $xcdot x = 0$ in $R.$ You need to ensure that the elements you choose are not only nonzero, but non-zero divisors (and of course, elements of the form $(0,r)$ and $(r,0)$ are always zero divisors in a product ring).
                $endgroup$
                – Stahl
                Mar 23 at 21:07











              • $begingroup$
                Another counterexample to the claim that "the product of a nonzero module element and a nonzero coefficient ring element is never the zero module element in a free module" is the following: let $R$ be a nonzero ring, and consider the free rank one $Rtimes R$-module $M = Rtimes R.$ Then $(1,0)cdot(0,1) = (0,0),$ but $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$ are nonzero ring/module elements.
                $endgroup$
                – Stahl
                Mar 23 at 21:13











              • $begingroup$
                So, is not this proof right?
                $endgroup$
                – mejopa
                Mar 23 at 22:17






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                @mejopa no, this argument is incorrect - the same logic would imply that $R_1times R_2$ is not free over itself, which is absurd.
                $endgroup$
                – Stahl
                Mar 23 at 22:18















              0












              $begingroup$

              Let's assume that things are non-trivial, that is, both $R_1$ and $R_2$ are not the zero ring.



              Now, multiplication in the product ring $R_1 times R_2$ is coordinate-wise, that is, for an element $(a_1, a_2) in R_1 times R_2$ with $a_1 in R_1$ and $a_2 in R_2$, and another element $(b_1, b_2) in R_1 times R_2$ with $b_1 in R_1$ and $b_2 in R_2$, we have
              $$
              (a_1, a_2) cdot (b_1, b_2) = (a_1 cdot a_2, b_1 cdot b_2).
              $$



              Moreover, we can identify the ring $R_1$ with the subring $R_1 times 0_R_2 subseteq R_1 times R_2$ where $0_R_2$ denotes the zero element of $R_2$. The identification map is
              $$
              iota_1 : R_1 rightarrow R_1 times R_2,quad a mapsto (a, 0_R_2).
              $$

              Now, $R_1 times 0_R_2$, being a subring of $R_1 times R_2$, is a right $(R_1 times R_2)$-module, where the module operation is given by ring multiplication. That is, if we have a "module element" $(a_1, 0_R_2) in R_1 times 0_R_2$ and a "coefficiont ring element" $(a_2, b_2) in R_1 times R_2$, then the product is
              $$
              (a_1, 0_R_2) cdot (a_2, b_2) = (a_1 cdot a_2, 0_R_2).
              $$

              Now, since both $R_1$ and $R_2$ are not the zero ring, we can pick $a_3 in R_1 setminus 0_R_1$ and $b_3 in R_2 setminus 0_R_2$. With these, we construct a nonzero "module element" $(a_3, 0_R_2) in R_1 times 0_R_2$ and a nonzero "coefficient ring element" $(0_R_1, b_3) in in R_1 times R_2$. Their product is then
              $$
              (a_3, 0_R_2) cdot (0_R_1, b_3) = (0_R_1, 0_R_2).
              $$

              That is, the product of a nonzero module element and a nonzero coefficient ring element is the zero module element.
              This does not happen in a free module.



              So we have shown that $R_1 times 0_R_2$ is not a free right $(R_1 times R_2)$-module.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$












              • $begingroup$
                Suppose $R = BbbC[x]/(x^2).$ Then $M = R$ is certainly a free $R$-module, and $xin R$ is a nonzero ring (and module) element. However, $xcdot x = 0$ in $R.$ You need to ensure that the elements you choose are not only nonzero, but non-zero divisors (and of course, elements of the form $(0,r)$ and $(r,0)$ are always zero divisors in a product ring).
                $endgroup$
                – Stahl
                Mar 23 at 21:07











              • $begingroup$
                Another counterexample to the claim that "the product of a nonzero module element and a nonzero coefficient ring element is never the zero module element in a free module" is the following: let $R$ be a nonzero ring, and consider the free rank one $Rtimes R$-module $M = Rtimes R.$ Then $(1,0)cdot(0,1) = (0,0),$ but $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$ are nonzero ring/module elements.
                $endgroup$
                – Stahl
                Mar 23 at 21:13











              • $begingroup$
                So, is not this proof right?
                $endgroup$
                – mejopa
                Mar 23 at 22:17






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                @mejopa no, this argument is incorrect - the same logic would imply that $R_1times R_2$ is not free over itself, which is absurd.
                $endgroup$
                – Stahl
                Mar 23 at 22:18













              0












              0








              0





              $begingroup$

              Let's assume that things are non-trivial, that is, both $R_1$ and $R_2$ are not the zero ring.



              Now, multiplication in the product ring $R_1 times R_2$ is coordinate-wise, that is, for an element $(a_1, a_2) in R_1 times R_2$ with $a_1 in R_1$ and $a_2 in R_2$, and another element $(b_1, b_2) in R_1 times R_2$ with $b_1 in R_1$ and $b_2 in R_2$, we have
              $$
              (a_1, a_2) cdot (b_1, b_2) = (a_1 cdot a_2, b_1 cdot b_2).
              $$



              Moreover, we can identify the ring $R_1$ with the subring $R_1 times 0_R_2 subseteq R_1 times R_2$ where $0_R_2$ denotes the zero element of $R_2$. The identification map is
              $$
              iota_1 : R_1 rightarrow R_1 times R_2,quad a mapsto (a, 0_R_2).
              $$

              Now, $R_1 times 0_R_2$, being a subring of $R_1 times R_2$, is a right $(R_1 times R_2)$-module, where the module operation is given by ring multiplication. That is, if we have a "module element" $(a_1, 0_R_2) in R_1 times 0_R_2$ and a "coefficiont ring element" $(a_2, b_2) in R_1 times R_2$, then the product is
              $$
              (a_1, 0_R_2) cdot (a_2, b_2) = (a_1 cdot a_2, 0_R_2).
              $$

              Now, since both $R_1$ and $R_2$ are not the zero ring, we can pick $a_3 in R_1 setminus 0_R_1$ and $b_3 in R_2 setminus 0_R_2$. With these, we construct a nonzero "module element" $(a_3, 0_R_2) in R_1 times 0_R_2$ and a nonzero "coefficient ring element" $(0_R_1, b_3) in in R_1 times R_2$. Their product is then
              $$
              (a_3, 0_R_2) cdot (0_R_1, b_3) = (0_R_1, 0_R_2).
              $$

              That is, the product of a nonzero module element and a nonzero coefficient ring element is the zero module element.
              This does not happen in a free module.



              So we have shown that $R_1 times 0_R_2$ is not a free right $(R_1 times R_2)$-module.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$



              Let's assume that things are non-trivial, that is, both $R_1$ and $R_2$ are not the zero ring.



              Now, multiplication in the product ring $R_1 times R_2$ is coordinate-wise, that is, for an element $(a_1, a_2) in R_1 times R_2$ with $a_1 in R_1$ and $a_2 in R_2$, and another element $(b_1, b_2) in R_1 times R_2$ with $b_1 in R_1$ and $b_2 in R_2$, we have
              $$
              (a_1, a_2) cdot (b_1, b_2) = (a_1 cdot a_2, b_1 cdot b_2).
              $$



              Moreover, we can identify the ring $R_1$ with the subring $R_1 times 0_R_2 subseteq R_1 times R_2$ where $0_R_2$ denotes the zero element of $R_2$. The identification map is
              $$
              iota_1 : R_1 rightarrow R_1 times R_2,quad a mapsto (a, 0_R_2).
              $$

              Now, $R_1 times 0_R_2$, being a subring of $R_1 times R_2$, is a right $(R_1 times R_2)$-module, where the module operation is given by ring multiplication. That is, if we have a "module element" $(a_1, 0_R_2) in R_1 times 0_R_2$ and a "coefficiont ring element" $(a_2, b_2) in R_1 times R_2$, then the product is
              $$
              (a_1, 0_R_2) cdot (a_2, b_2) = (a_1 cdot a_2, 0_R_2).
              $$

              Now, since both $R_1$ and $R_2$ are not the zero ring, we can pick $a_3 in R_1 setminus 0_R_1$ and $b_3 in R_2 setminus 0_R_2$. With these, we construct a nonzero "module element" $(a_3, 0_R_2) in R_1 times 0_R_2$ and a nonzero "coefficient ring element" $(0_R_1, b_3) in in R_1 times R_2$. Their product is then
              $$
              (a_3, 0_R_2) cdot (0_R_1, b_3) = (0_R_1, 0_R_2).
              $$

              That is, the product of a nonzero module element and a nonzero coefficient ring element is the zero module element.
              This does not happen in a free module.



              So we have shown that $R_1 times 0_R_2$ is not a free right $(R_1 times R_2)$-module.







              share|cite|improve this answer












              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer










              answered Mar 23 at 21:00









              jflippjflipp

              3,7511711




              3,7511711











              • $begingroup$
                Suppose $R = BbbC[x]/(x^2).$ Then $M = R$ is certainly a free $R$-module, and $xin R$ is a nonzero ring (and module) element. However, $xcdot x = 0$ in $R.$ You need to ensure that the elements you choose are not only nonzero, but non-zero divisors (and of course, elements of the form $(0,r)$ and $(r,0)$ are always zero divisors in a product ring).
                $endgroup$
                – Stahl
                Mar 23 at 21:07











              • $begingroup$
                Another counterexample to the claim that "the product of a nonzero module element and a nonzero coefficient ring element is never the zero module element in a free module" is the following: let $R$ be a nonzero ring, and consider the free rank one $Rtimes R$-module $M = Rtimes R.$ Then $(1,0)cdot(0,1) = (0,0),$ but $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$ are nonzero ring/module elements.
                $endgroup$
                – Stahl
                Mar 23 at 21:13











              • $begingroup$
                So, is not this proof right?
                $endgroup$
                – mejopa
                Mar 23 at 22:17






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                @mejopa no, this argument is incorrect - the same logic would imply that $R_1times R_2$ is not free over itself, which is absurd.
                $endgroup$
                – Stahl
                Mar 23 at 22:18
















              • $begingroup$
                Suppose $R = BbbC[x]/(x^2).$ Then $M = R$ is certainly a free $R$-module, and $xin R$ is a nonzero ring (and module) element. However, $xcdot x = 0$ in $R.$ You need to ensure that the elements you choose are not only nonzero, but non-zero divisors (and of course, elements of the form $(0,r)$ and $(r,0)$ are always zero divisors in a product ring).
                $endgroup$
                – Stahl
                Mar 23 at 21:07











              • $begingroup$
                Another counterexample to the claim that "the product of a nonzero module element and a nonzero coefficient ring element is never the zero module element in a free module" is the following: let $R$ be a nonzero ring, and consider the free rank one $Rtimes R$-module $M = Rtimes R.$ Then $(1,0)cdot(0,1) = (0,0),$ but $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$ are nonzero ring/module elements.
                $endgroup$
                – Stahl
                Mar 23 at 21:13











              • $begingroup$
                So, is not this proof right?
                $endgroup$
                – mejopa
                Mar 23 at 22:17






              • 1




                $begingroup$
                @mejopa no, this argument is incorrect - the same logic would imply that $R_1times R_2$ is not free over itself, which is absurd.
                $endgroup$
                – Stahl
                Mar 23 at 22:18















              $begingroup$
              Suppose $R = BbbC[x]/(x^2).$ Then $M = R$ is certainly a free $R$-module, and $xin R$ is a nonzero ring (and module) element. However, $xcdot x = 0$ in $R.$ You need to ensure that the elements you choose are not only nonzero, but non-zero divisors (and of course, elements of the form $(0,r)$ and $(r,0)$ are always zero divisors in a product ring).
              $endgroup$
              – Stahl
              Mar 23 at 21:07





              $begingroup$
              Suppose $R = BbbC[x]/(x^2).$ Then $M = R$ is certainly a free $R$-module, and $xin R$ is a nonzero ring (and module) element. However, $xcdot x = 0$ in $R.$ You need to ensure that the elements you choose are not only nonzero, but non-zero divisors (and of course, elements of the form $(0,r)$ and $(r,0)$ are always zero divisors in a product ring).
              $endgroup$
              – Stahl
              Mar 23 at 21:07













              $begingroup$
              Another counterexample to the claim that "the product of a nonzero module element and a nonzero coefficient ring element is never the zero module element in a free module" is the following: let $R$ be a nonzero ring, and consider the free rank one $Rtimes R$-module $M = Rtimes R.$ Then $(1,0)cdot(0,1) = (0,0),$ but $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$ are nonzero ring/module elements.
              $endgroup$
              – Stahl
              Mar 23 at 21:13





              $begingroup$
              Another counterexample to the claim that "the product of a nonzero module element and a nonzero coefficient ring element is never the zero module element in a free module" is the following: let $R$ be a nonzero ring, and consider the free rank one $Rtimes R$-module $M = Rtimes R.$ Then $(1,0)cdot(0,1) = (0,0),$ but $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$ are nonzero ring/module elements.
              $endgroup$
              – Stahl
              Mar 23 at 21:13













              $begingroup$
              So, is not this proof right?
              $endgroup$
              – mejopa
              Mar 23 at 22:17




              $begingroup$
              So, is not this proof right?
              $endgroup$
              – mejopa
              Mar 23 at 22:17




              1




              1




              $begingroup$
              @mejopa no, this argument is incorrect - the same logic would imply that $R_1times R_2$ is not free over itself, which is absurd.
              $endgroup$
              – Stahl
              Mar 23 at 22:18




              $begingroup$
              @mejopa no, this argument is incorrect - the same logic would imply that $R_1times R_2$ is not free over itself, which is absurd.
              $endgroup$
              – Stahl
              Mar 23 at 22:18











              0












              $begingroup$

              Suppose $R_1$ and $R_2$ are nontrivial, and consider $R_1 = M$ as a right $R = R_1times R_2$-module via the natural action
              beginalign*
              Mtimes R&to M\
              (m,(r,s))&mapsto mr.
              endalign*



              To show that $M$ is not free over $R,$ we must show that there is no basis of $M.$ Recall that a basis of $M$ is a subset $B = e_imid iin Isubseteq M$ such that the following two conditions hold:



              1. For any $min M,$ there exists a finite subset $Jsubseteq I$ and collection of elements $r_jmid jin Jsubseteq R$ such that $$m = sum_jin J e_j r_j,$$ and

              2. If $r_jmid jin Jsubseteq Isubseteq R$ is a finite collection of elements of $R$ such that $$sum_jin J e_j r_j = 0,$$ then $r_j = 0$ for all $j.$

              To that end, suppose such a basis $B = e_i_iin Isubseteq M$ exists (as $R_1$ is nontrivial, the set $B$ is necessarily nonempty). Let $r = (0,1),$ and choose any $ein B.$ Then we have
              $$
              er = e(0,1) = ecdot 0 = 0,
              $$

              but $(0,1)in R$ is not zero (as $R_2$ is not the trivial ring). This contradicts our assumption that $B$ was a basis. Therefore, assuming that both $R_1$ and $R_2$ are nontrivial, we have shown $R_1$ cannot be a free right $R_1times R_2$-module via the natural action.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$

















                0












                $begingroup$

                Suppose $R_1$ and $R_2$ are nontrivial, and consider $R_1 = M$ as a right $R = R_1times R_2$-module via the natural action
                beginalign*
                Mtimes R&to M\
                (m,(r,s))&mapsto mr.
                endalign*



                To show that $M$ is not free over $R,$ we must show that there is no basis of $M.$ Recall that a basis of $M$ is a subset $B = e_imid iin Isubseteq M$ such that the following two conditions hold:



                1. For any $min M,$ there exists a finite subset $Jsubseteq I$ and collection of elements $r_jmid jin Jsubseteq R$ such that $$m = sum_jin J e_j r_j,$$ and

                2. If $r_jmid jin Jsubseteq Isubseteq R$ is a finite collection of elements of $R$ such that $$sum_jin J e_j r_j = 0,$$ then $r_j = 0$ for all $j.$

                To that end, suppose such a basis $B = e_i_iin Isubseteq M$ exists (as $R_1$ is nontrivial, the set $B$ is necessarily nonempty). Let $r = (0,1),$ and choose any $ein B.$ Then we have
                $$
                er = e(0,1) = ecdot 0 = 0,
                $$

                but $(0,1)in R$ is not zero (as $R_2$ is not the trivial ring). This contradicts our assumption that $B$ was a basis. Therefore, assuming that both $R_1$ and $R_2$ are nontrivial, we have shown $R_1$ cannot be a free right $R_1times R_2$-module via the natural action.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  Suppose $R_1$ and $R_2$ are nontrivial, and consider $R_1 = M$ as a right $R = R_1times R_2$-module via the natural action
                  beginalign*
                  Mtimes R&to M\
                  (m,(r,s))&mapsto mr.
                  endalign*



                  To show that $M$ is not free over $R,$ we must show that there is no basis of $M.$ Recall that a basis of $M$ is a subset $B = e_imid iin Isubseteq M$ such that the following two conditions hold:



                  1. For any $min M,$ there exists a finite subset $Jsubseteq I$ and collection of elements $r_jmid jin Jsubseteq R$ such that $$m = sum_jin J e_j r_j,$$ and

                  2. If $r_jmid jin Jsubseteq Isubseteq R$ is a finite collection of elements of $R$ such that $$sum_jin J e_j r_j = 0,$$ then $r_j = 0$ for all $j.$

                  To that end, suppose such a basis $B = e_i_iin Isubseteq M$ exists (as $R_1$ is nontrivial, the set $B$ is necessarily nonempty). Let $r = (0,1),$ and choose any $ein B.$ Then we have
                  $$
                  er = e(0,1) = ecdot 0 = 0,
                  $$

                  but $(0,1)in R$ is not zero (as $R_2$ is not the trivial ring). This contradicts our assumption that $B$ was a basis. Therefore, assuming that both $R_1$ and $R_2$ are nontrivial, we have shown $R_1$ cannot be a free right $R_1times R_2$-module via the natural action.






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  Suppose $R_1$ and $R_2$ are nontrivial, and consider $R_1 = M$ as a right $R = R_1times R_2$-module via the natural action
                  beginalign*
                  Mtimes R&to M\
                  (m,(r,s))&mapsto mr.
                  endalign*



                  To show that $M$ is not free over $R,$ we must show that there is no basis of $M.$ Recall that a basis of $M$ is a subset $B = e_imid iin Isubseteq M$ such that the following two conditions hold:



                  1. For any $min M,$ there exists a finite subset $Jsubseteq I$ and collection of elements $r_jmid jin Jsubseteq R$ such that $$m = sum_jin J e_j r_j,$$ and

                  2. If $r_jmid jin Jsubseteq Isubseteq R$ is a finite collection of elements of $R$ such that $$sum_jin J e_j r_j = 0,$$ then $r_j = 0$ for all $j.$

                  To that end, suppose such a basis $B = e_i_iin Isubseteq M$ exists (as $R_1$ is nontrivial, the set $B$ is necessarily nonempty). Let $r = (0,1),$ and choose any $ein B.$ Then we have
                  $$
                  er = e(0,1) = ecdot 0 = 0,
                  $$

                  but $(0,1)in R$ is not zero (as $R_2$ is not the trivial ring). This contradicts our assumption that $B$ was a basis. Therefore, assuming that both $R_1$ and $R_2$ are nontrivial, we have shown $R_1$ cannot be a free right $R_1times R_2$-module via the natural action.







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited Mar 23 at 22:41

























                  answered Mar 23 at 22:28









                  StahlStahl

                  16.8k43455




                  16.8k43455



























                      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%2f3159629%2ffactor-of-a-product-ring-can-not-be-free%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

                      How should I support this large drywall patch? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?How do I cover large gaps in drywall?How do I keep drywall around a patch from crumbling?Can I glue a second layer of drywall?How to patch long strip on drywall?Large drywall patch: how to avoid bulging seams?Drywall Mesh Patch vs. Bulge? To remove or not to remove?How to fix this drywall job?Prep drywall before backsplashWhat's the best way to fix this horrible drywall patch job?Drywall patching using 3M Patch Plus Primer

                      random experiment with two different functions on unit interval Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Random variable and probability space notionsRandom Walk with EdgesFinding functions where the increase over a random interval is Poisson distributedNumber of days until dayCan an observed event in fact be of zero probability?Unit random processmodels of coins and uniform distributionHow to get the number of successes given $n$ trials , probability $P$ and a random variable $X$Absorbing Markov chain in a computer. Is “almost every” turned into always convergence in computer executions?Stopped random walk is not uniformly integrable

                      Lowndes Grove History Architecture References Navigation menu32°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661132°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661178002500"National Register Information System"Historic houses of South Carolina"Lowndes Grove""+32° 48' 6.00", −79° 57' 58.00""Lowndes Grove, Charleston County (260 St. Margaret St., Charleston)""Lowndes Grove"The Charleston ExpositionIt Happened in South Carolina"Lowndes Grove (House), Saint Margaret Street & Sixth Avenue, Charleston, Charleston County, SC(Photographs)"Plantations of the Carolina Low Countrye