10,1,2 Recall that

is indeed a group; certainly the restriction of to . Now for all . So , we have acts on , and if

is a mapping , then

by the restriction of our module operator .

10,7 We use the submodule criterion. Certainly Now suppose . Thus Hence . is a submodule of . for some . Thus and . Now ; then , and hence and . Since . for some and . Suppose is a submodule,

without loss of generality that

10,1,10 We use the submodule criterion. Certainly Let Thus 10,1,11 ; then , let . , and let . Thus is a submodule of . . Now since . is a right ideal. Then

1. We claim that
divides . Thus . .

. . Thus Let

Let ,

be in the annihilator of , and , so that . Now let . So

. In particular, . Note that

annihilates . Let

. Thus

2. We claim that
annihilate . In particular, mod 15, and mod 50. Thus mod 25. So ; thus

. Then mod 24, mod 12, mod 15, and . , and let Suppose . Now . So .

annihilates

10,11,12

1. Let

, and let .

. Certainly then

. Thus

2. Now let

, let . To see this, suppose . Then and note that

, and let annihilates . So mod 6, so that

. We claim that . Then in particular, mod 2. Now let . Now we

claim that mod 2 and ; thus . Then .

. To see this, suppose . Then in particular, , and we have mod 6. Then mod 3 and we have no restrictions on . Suppose now that , as desired. Note that . Certainly then . , and let . To see this, suppose . Then , so that in fact . We claim that annihilates . Then in mod 3. and let . To see this, . So . mod 6, and we have as desired. Thus . Next we claim that annihilates , we have . . In particular, mod 2. Suppose now that . Note then that and let

3. Let 4. Now let

and let , let

particular, hence . Then suppose Since

. Suppose now that

mod 6, and thus

10,1,13

We claim that for each , . To see this, let and let . Now by definition, is a finite sum of -fold products of elements in . Note that every -fold product of elements in is annihilated my , so that in fact . Thus . So submodule of
10,1,14 Let . We use the submodule criterion to show that is a submodule of Note first that , so that is not empty. Now suppose and . Then . Thus is a submodule of . .

is the union of a chain of submodules. By 10,1,7 previous exercise, it is a .

Now for the example, note that , we have 10,1,16 We claim that the -submodules of for prove this in two parts: first, that each -submodule is equal to some Let . Note that . Note that , and the th coordinate of . , so that is an . Thus

. Letting is not a submodule of .

and

are precisely the sets of the form . (Note that and .) We -submodule, and second, that every and is . Now . , and thus is in . So for all

is nonempty. Now let , the th component of is 0. Moreover,

since, for

say ; then This is a finite sum of elements whose th coordinate is 0 for all by the submodule criterion, Now suppose element that exists and thus is an with is an . If no such . Certainly -submodule. -submodule. Let

be maximal such that there exists an . Thus we may assume for all ,

exists, then

; we claim that these two sets are in fact

equal. To show this, we first prove by induction that

where eij=1 if and 0 otherwise. (The standard basis vectors, whatever that means.) We begin with some lemmas. Lemma 1: Let for then for all and and is 0 for . Let . Let . Then the -th component of . Proof: We proceed by induction on ; then for is . Now if for is . , and is 0

For the base case, suppose

. By definition, then, the th component of . For the inductive step, suppose that for some . Let . By definition, then, the th component of , and is 0 for is

, the conclusion holds for for , is is $latex for is for

. We now proceed by induction on . For the base case, let . For the inductive step, suppose that for some . The th component of

, the conclusion holds for all and 0 for for Recall that

. By the induction hypothesis, the th component of and is 0 otherwise. By induction, the lemma holds. has the property that . We claim that is 0 if

. To see and is

this, note that by Lemma 1, the th component of for .

Now we claim that if, for some Specifically, we claim that the th component of is

, we have

for all

, then

. To see this, note that for and 0 otherwise. Then each , leaving 1 in the , then th component . Thus

cancels out the th component for and 0 elsewhere. By induction, then, . for all . If

10,1,23 We begin with a lemma. Lemma: Let be a ring and let be a family of ring homomorphisms. Define is injective, then all and by . Then is a ring homomorphism. Moreover, if some is injective. Moreover, if each is unital, then is unital. Proof: For , we have and . So a ring homomorphism. Now suppose some . So , and and is injective. If , and hence is , then in particular is unital;

is injective. Now suppose each

then , and thus . Using the lemma, since and are both injective unital ring homomorphisms (in fact isomorphisms) , the mappings are all injective unital ring homomorphisms Thus each . Moreover, because is commutative, . yields a -algebra structure on , whose induced module action is given by . Specifically, we have (letting bars denote complex conjugation) and We can see that these , . -algebra structures are different: , ,

We let denote the -algebra structure induced by . Suppose now that . If the identity mapping is in fact a -algebra homomorphism, then we have $latex that this is not the case for homomorphism Note that both and . are ring isomorphisms. Given . We claim that is a , define -algebra isomorphism. . However, we showed above ; hence the identity mapping is not a -algebra

Certainly

respects addition, and moreover is a bijection. Thus it suffices to show that it and let and . Then are isomorphic as

respects scalar multiplication. To that end, let

, as desired. Thus -modules.