## Product of Modules

**Point of Post: **In this post we discuss the product of modules, including their characterizations via univeral mapping properties.

*Motivation*

We now consider the product of modules, which as always, is just endowing the Cartesian product of a set of modules with operations that turn the resulting (set) product into a module. That said, while we have mentioned before that products of things can be characterized via certain universal mapping properties (e.g. for rings and groups) here we shall actually start with thinking of products in terms of these universal mapping properties and then define the “natural product” only to prove existence of such modules. Why? What precisely is the point of doing? Well, we all have an intuitive idea about what products are, we have seen them as objects for much of our mathematical careers. That said, we understand them intuitively in a concrete “I can see them” sense. What we are now more currently interested is understanding them in a “how do they act” sense–what makes “products” products from the view of mappings. Well, this is precisely what the universal characterization of products tells us. Stated it says that “a product of the set of left -modules is a left -module together with a set of maps with the following property: given any left -module and maps there exists a unique map such that .” Ok, so fine, but what is this big-long-horrible definition really telling us about this ? The existence of these ‘s tell us that is “put together” in some way via the ‘s. The fact that any map is determined by its values on (translated via the “put together maps”, ) tells us that is put together in a fairly minimal way–i.e. this isn’t put together in such a way that there is much “room outside the s” for movement. That said, we see that the ‘s are living inside of in a fairly faithful manner, in the sense that a functions values on each of the s are independent of one another–this tells intuitively that we didn’t squish the ‘s, or that we didn’t underepresent any of the s at any stage of construction. Thus, with this in mind, it’s clear why we’d consider products of modules.

*Products of Modules*

As stated in the motivation we define a (take note of the indefiniteness of the article) *product* of the set of left -modules to be a pair where is a left -module and where each , called a *projection, *is a morphism, such that the set satisfies the following universal property: given any left -module and any set of -morphisms there exists a unique -morphism with . The first thing to notice, especially considering that the archetypal example of a product is the usual set product and the ‘s being the canonical projections, is that we do not require the ‘s to be epis. That said, it’s not hard to see that they must, in fact, be epis. In particular, taking and to be if and if we see that there exists a map which has, in particular, the property that and so is an epi. Thus, we get the following theorem:

**Theorem: ***If is a product then each is an epi.*

The next thing to expect is that while products aren’t literally unique they are surely going to be unique up to isomorphism, and in fact natural isomorphism. To be particular, we have the following fact:

**Theorem: ***Let be any set of left -modules and let and be any two products of the . Then, there exists a unique isomorphism such that .*

**Proof: **The proof should be obvious enough. Whenever we maps from a fixed module into each of the factors we are given maps from the fixed module into any product. Well, we’re looking for a map , which by the previous section allows us to only look for maps , but, we are already given these for free! Namely, merely by the existence of the maps we are afforded, since is a product, a unique map with . That said, by the symmetry of the situation we know that we are also able to find a map with . What we’d like, in a perfect world, is that , but why is this so? Well, what we really want to prove is that and , and keeping with our theme that mappings into products are determined by the composition with their projections we are led to examining and . But, and similarly . But, wait a minute! We know that the right hand side of these equations completely determines and , and we already know functions for which and , namely and . Thus, by uniqueness we know that and and so is an isomorphism as desired.

Thus, we have in essence proved “uniqueness” (up to isomorphism) of products. Now, while slightly silly, we actually have no reason to believe at this point that there actually *exist *products. Of course, we know there do exist products (or at least there should if there is any justice in the world) in the form of the “usual” product given by . To be particular, we define a left -module structure on the set (whose elements shall be denoted ) in the usual way: and –it is easily verified that this does define a left -module structure. We then define, as per usual, to be the canonical projection. Of course, as is the case in every other algebraic structure, it’s trivial to verify that with these definitions is a product. Since, as we have pointed out there is, up to one isomorphism one product, we shall often speak of this construct (this particular product) as the product.

We’d now like to discuss some of the obvious theorems that go along with the product of modules. In particular, letting

**Theorem: ***Let be a set of left -modules and a set of submodules. Then, and *

**Proof: **We merely define a map by sending to . This is evidently a -epimorphism and since evidently its kernel is we may conclude by the first isomorphism theorem.

*Remark: *Note that the fact that was a kernel implies that its a subspace.

Note, that when each is secretly , and is finite we’ve discussed that a sort of converse to the first part of this theorem where every ideal of the product of finitely many rings is of the prescribed form. While probably fairly obvious, it’s clear that this does not hold here. Namely, while the product of submodules is a submodule, not every submodule of a product is a product of submodules. This has nothing to do with the fact that the ring may be ugly, it’s also true for vector spaces. For example, is a subspace of but is not a product of submodules of (indeed, it’s not even a set-theoretic product!).

The last two theorems we note are to the effect that products are “associative” and commutative in the following sense:

**Theorem: ***Let be a set of -modules, a bijection, and a partition of then*

* *

this is easily verified since the extreme right and left sides are both products, and so by previous discussion naturally isomorphic to the center module.

**References:**

[1] Dummit, David Steven., and Richard M. Foote. *Abstract Algebra*. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2004. Print.

[2] Rotman, Joseph J. *Advanced Modern Algebra*. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 2010. Print.

[3] Blyth, T. S. *Module Theory.* Clarendon, 1990. Print.

[…] is precisely the content of this post. It shall be good practice for us applying our notions of product and […]

Pingback by Homomorphism Groups of Products and Coproducts (Pt. I) « Abstract Nonsense | November 12, 2011 |

[…] the maps, for each , by . Clearly this is an -map. We claim that that is a product of from where the conclusion will follow from the isomorphism uniqueness of […]

Pingback by Homomorphism Groups of Products and Coproducts (Pt. II) « Abstract Nonsense | November 14, 2011 |

[…] first natural thing to ask is whether, as in the case of products and coproducts whether this map has to have any special properties that, while not present in […]

Pingback by Free Modules (Pt. I) « Abstract Nonsense | November 16, 2011 |

[…] coproducts, namely given a set of modules, we can form the module which is the submodule of the product of -tuples with finite support. That said, from experience dealing with vector spaces, we often […]

Pingback by Internal Direct Sum of Modules « Abstract Nonsense | November 20, 2011 |

[…] as stated, not everything works out nicely for arbitrary products (finite products are fine since they coincide with coproducts). Indeed, we have the following, […]

Pingback by Coproduct of Free Modules are Free, but not Arbitrary Products « Abstract Nonsense | November 23, 2011 |

[…] of direct limits and reversing all the arrows. We have already seen this kind of duality between products and coproducts, and in fact this shall serve as the main kind of duality between direct and inverse […]

Pingback by Inverse Limits of Modules (Pt. I) « Abstract Nonsense | December 9, 2011 |

[…] Let be a preoredred set and an inverse system of modules. Then, if denotes the submodule the product of all the modules containing all the elements such that for all , then along with the natural […]

Pingback by Inverse Limits of Modules (Pt. II) « Abstract Nonsense | December 9, 2011 |

[…] product by the inclusion mapping we have by assumption that for all , but by the definition of product this tells us that , and since is injective this implies that […]

Pingback by Inverse Limit of Rings (Pt. II) « Abstract Nonsense | December 26, 2011 |

[…] is true with most product (cf. products of modules) the projections on the product of categories satisfy a certain “universal property” […]

Pingback by Product of Categories (Pt. I) « Abstract Nonsense | December 31, 2011 |

[…] some ring the usual product was defined to be a […]

Pingback by Categorical Products « Abstract Nonsense | January 24, 2012 |