Math 202 - Assignment 6

Authors: Yusuf Goren, Miguel-Angel Manrique and Rory Laster

Exercise 14.8.1.
Proof. The discriminant of x4 + 1 is D = 256 = 28 . We have x4 + 1 (x + 1)4 (mod 2). Let p be
an odd prime (so p - D), and suppose the irreducible factors of x4 + 1 have degrees n1 , n2 , . . . , nk .
By Corollary 41, the Galois group of x4 + 1 contains an element with cycle structure (n1 , n2 , . . . , nk ).
Since the Galois group of x4 + 1 over Q is the Klein 4-group, in which every element has order dividing
2, it follows that each ni = 1 or 2. This gives the possibilities (1, 1, 1, 1), (1, 1, 2), (2, 2). However, D
is a square and so the Galois group in contained in A4 ; in particular it contains no transpositions,
so (1, 1, 2) is ruled out. This leaves the possibilities (1, 1, 1, 1), and (2, 2), which correspond to the
factorization into 4 linear factors or 2 quadratic factors, respectively.
Exercise 14.8.3.
Proof. The polynomial f (x) = x5 + 20x + 16 is irreducible mod 3 and hence must be irreducible.
The Galois group is therefore a transitive subgroup of S5 . The discriminant of f (x) is 216 56 and
hence a square; therefore the Galois group is a subgroup of A5 . Modulo 7, we have factorization into
irreducibles as f (x) (x + 2)(x + 3)(x3 + 2x2 + 5x + 5) (mod 7). Therefore the Galois group contains
a 3 cycle. From the table on page 643, we see that the Galois group must be isomorphic to A5 .
Exercise 14.8.6.
Proof. By Eisenstein at 3, we see that f (x) is irreducible, so the Galois group is a transitive subgroup
of S5 . The discriminant is 210 34 55 , which is not a square, so the Galois group is not contained in
A5 . The only possibilities are therefore F20 and S5 . The associated polynomial g(x) (see Exercise 21
in 14.7) turns out to have constant term equal to 0, and hence g(x) has a rational root (namely 0).
Therefore, the exercise implies that the Galois group is isomorphic to F20 .

Proposition 1 ([DF], p342). Let R be a ring and let M be an R-module. A subset N of M is an

R-submodule of M if and only if
1. N is nonempty and
2. x + ry N for all r R and all x, y N .
Exercise 10.1.4. Let R be a ring with identity, let M be the R-module Rn with component-wise
addition and multiplication, and let I1 , I2 , . . . , In be left ideals of R for some n N. The following are
submodules of Rn :
a. N1 = {(i1 , i2 , . . . , in ) : ik Ik for all k {1, 2, . . . , n}} and
Pn
b. N2 = {(x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) : k=1 xk = 0}.
Proof. To prove (a), it suffices to show, by Proposition 1, that N1 is nonempty and x + ry N1 for
all r R and all x, y N1 . For the first condition, (0, 0, . . . , 0) N1 since Ik is a subgroup of R
containing the additive identity 0 for all k {1, 2, . . . , n}. That is, N1 is nonempty.

For the second condition, let x = (ik )kZ+ , y = (yk )kZ+ N1 and let r R. Then, by definition
of addition and scalar multiplication,
x + ry

(ik )kZ+ + r(yk )kZ+

(ik )kZ+ + (ryk )kZ+

(ik + ryk )kZ+

N1

since ik + ryk Ik for all k {1, 2, . . . , n} by the left ideal axioms. This gives
Pnus (a).
To establish (b), we apply a similar method as that used in (a). Since k=1 0 = 0, the element
(0, 0, . . . , 0) N2 . Thus N2 is nonempty. Moreover if x = (ik )kZ+ , y = (yk )kZ+ N1 and r R,
then
x + ry = (ik )kZ+ + r(yk )kZ+ = (ik + ryk )kZ+ .
Therefore, because
n
X

xk + ryk =

k=1

n
X

xk + r

k=1

n
X

!
yk

since I is a ring

k=1

since x, y N2

= 0 + r0
= 0,
we have that x + ry N2 by definition.

Exercise 10.1.5. Let R be a ring with identity, let I be a left ideal of R and let M be a left R-module.
Define

IM :=
ai mi : ai I and mi M for all i .

finite

IM is an R-submodule of M .
Proof. It suffices to show, by Proposition 1, that IM is nonempty and x + ry IM for all r R and
all x, y IM . For the former condition, observe that 0R I since I is an additive subgroup of R and
0M M because M is a group. Hence the finite sum 0R 0M = 0M satisfies the membership condition
of IM . Therefore IM is nonempty.
Pn
Pm
For the latter condition, let r R and let x = i=1 ai mi , y = i=1 a0i m0i IM such that n, m N,
ai , a0i I and mi , m0i M . Then
!
n
m
X
X
0 0
x + ry =
ai mi + r
ai mi
i=1

=
=

m
X
ai mi +
(ra0i )m0i

i=1
n
X

i=1
m
X

i=1

a00i

i=1

n
X

ai mi +

since M is a left R-module

a00i m0i

i=1

ra0i

for
=
I. That is, x + ry is a finite sum of elements of the form am such that a I and
m M . Thus x + ry IM .
Exercise 10.1.6. Let R be a ring with identity and let M be a left R-module. For any nonempty
collection {Ni }iI of R-submodules of M , the intersection
\
N=
Ni
iI

is an R-submodule of M .

Proof. Observe that N is a subset of M since, for all n N , n is an element of some Ni with i I.
Hence n M . So it suffices to show, by Proposition 1, that N is nonempty and x + ry N for all
r R and all x, y N . For the first property, 0M Ni for all i I because each Ni is an additive
subgroup of M . Therefore 0M N = iI Ni and, so, N is nonempty.
For the second property, let r R and let x, y N . Then x and y are elements of Ni for
all i I by definition. Thus, by the submodule axioms, x + ry Ni for each i I. That is,
x + ry N = iI Ni .
Exercise 10.1.7. Let R be a ring with identity and let M be a left R-module. If N1 N2 . . . is an
ascending chain of R-submodules of M , then
N=

Ni

i=1

is an R-submodule of M as well.
Proof. Suppose that N1 N2 . . . is an ascending chain of R-submodules of M . To prove that N
is also an R-submodule of M , it suffices to show, by Proposition 1, that N is nonempty and that
x + ry N for all r R and all x, y N .
Since 0 N1 , 0 is an element of the union N . Hence N is nonempty. For the remaining property,
let r R and let x, y N . Because x and y are elements of N , each must be an element of
a submodule. That is, x Nj and y Nk for some j, k N. By the ascending chain hypothesis,
Nmin(j,k) Nmax(j,k) . Therefore both x and y are members of Nmax(j,k) . Moreover, by the submodule
axioms, x + ry Nmax(j,k) . Hence, since Nmax(j,k) N , we have that x + ry N .
Definition. Let R be a ring and let M be a left R-module. A torsion element is an element m M
such that rm = 0 for some nonzero r R.
Definition. Let R be an integral domain and let M be a left R-module. The set
T or(M ) = {m M : m is a torsion element}
is the torsion submodule of M .
Exercise 10.1.8. Let R be a ring with identity and let M be a left R-module.
a. If R is an integral domain, then T or(M ) is an R-submodule of M ,
b. there exists a ring R with identity and a left R-module M such that T or(M ) is not a submodule of
M and
c. if R has zero divisors, then every nonzero left R-module contains nonzero torsion elements.
Proof. To prove (a), we suppose that R is an integral domain. It suffices to show, by Proposition 1,
that T or(M ) is nonempty and x + ry T or(M ) for all x, y T or(M ) and all r R.
For the former condition, 0 T or(M ) since 1 0 = 0. Hence T or(M ) is nonempty. For the final
condition, let x, y T or(M ) and let r R. As torsion elements, there exist nonzero s, t R such that
s x = 0 and t y = 0. Thus
(st) (x + ry) = (st) x + [(st)r] y
= (ts) x + [(sr)t] y

by the R-module axioms

by the commutativity of R

= t (s x) + (sr) (t y)

by the R-module axioms

= t 0 + (sr) 0

since s x = 0 and t y = 0

= 0.

Because R is an integral domain and s, t are nonzero, the product st is nonzero. Therefore, we have
shown that (st) (x + ry) = 0 for a nonzero st R. That is, x + ry T or(M ) and (a) is immediate.
To see that (b) holds, consider the ring R = M = Z/6Z and the elements 2, 3 R. R is a left
R-module with respect to addition and left ring multiplication. Moreover, since
23=6=0
and
3 2 = 6 = 0,
we find that 2 and 3 are elements of T or(M ). However, since 2 + 3 = 5 6 T or(M ), M is not closed
under addition. That is, T or(M ) is not a subgroup of M and, hence, it is not a submodule of M
either. Thus there exists a ring R and R-module M with the desired properties.
For (c), suppose that R contains the zero divisors s and r such that sr = 0. Then, for any
nonzero left R-module M with nonzero element m, either r m = 0 or r m 6= 0. In the first case of
r m = 0, m T or(M ) since r is nonzero by hypothesis. In the second case of r m 6= 0, we find that
r m T or(M ) because
s (r m) = (sr) m
=0m

by the R-module axioms

by hypothesis

= 0.
In either case, there exists a nonzero element contained in T or(M ). This is the desired result.
Definition. Let R be a ring with identity and let M be a left R-module. The annihilator of a submodule
N of M is the set
Ann(N ) = {r R : r n = 0 for all n N }.
Exercise 10.1.9. Let R be a ring with identity and let M be a left R-module. For any R-submodule
N of M , the annihilator of N in R is a two-sided ideal of R.
Proof. Suppose that N is an R-submodule of M , It suffices to show that Ann(N ) is nonempty and
that x + rys Ann(N ) for all x, y Ann(N ) and all r, s R. For the former condition, consider the
element 0R . Since
0R n = 0N
for any n N , we see that 0R Ann(N ).
For the remaining condition, we let x, y Ann(N ) and let r, s R. For any n N , we have that
(x + rys) n = x n + r (y (s n))
=0+r0

by the R-module axioms

since x, y Ann(N ) and sn N

= 0.
Hence x + rys Ann(N ).
Definition. Let R be a ring with identity and let M be a left R-module. The annihilator of an ideal
I of R is the set
Ann(I) = {m M : i m = 0 for all i I}.
Exercise 10.1.10. Let R be a ring with identity and let M be a left R-module. For any ideal I of R,
Ann(I) is an R-submodule of M .

Proof. Suppose that I is an ideal of R. To prove the desired result, it suffices to show, by Proposition
1, that Ann(I) is nonempty and x + ry Ann(I) for all x, y Ann(I) and all r R.
To see that Ann(I) is nonempty, observe that
i 0N = 0N
for all i I. Thus 0N Ann(I).
For the remaining condition, let x, y Ann(I) and let r R. If i I, then ir I by the ideal
axioms. Hence
i (x + ry) = i x + (ir) y
=0+0

by the R-submodule axioms

since x, y Ann(I) and ir I

= 0.
Therefore x + ry Ann(I).

References
[DF]

Dummit, David and Foote, Richard. Abstract Algebra, 3rd edition.