Surjectivity is a local property












3












$begingroup$


I am trying to show surjectivity is a local property, that is, for a ring $R$ and $R$-modules $M$ and $N$,



$f: M to N$ is surjective if and only if $f_{mathscr{M}}:M_{mathscr{M}} to N_{mathscr{M}}$ is surjective for all maximal ideals $mathscr{M}$ of $R$, where $M_{mathscr{M}}$ is the localization at $mathscr{M}$.



One of the directions is easy but I am having trouble seeing how to prove that $f_{mathscr{M}}:M_{mathscr{M}} to N_{mathscr{M}}$ is surjective for all maximal ideals implies that $f: M to N$ is surjective.



Atiyah Macdonald says to reverse the arrows in the injectivity proof (that uses exact sequences) but I am not sure how to go about it. Any help is much appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    3












    $begingroup$


    I am trying to show surjectivity is a local property, that is, for a ring $R$ and $R$-modules $M$ and $N$,



    $f: M to N$ is surjective if and only if $f_{mathscr{M}}:M_{mathscr{M}} to N_{mathscr{M}}$ is surjective for all maximal ideals $mathscr{M}$ of $R$, where $M_{mathscr{M}}$ is the localization at $mathscr{M}$.



    One of the directions is easy but I am having trouble seeing how to prove that $f_{mathscr{M}}:M_{mathscr{M}} to N_{mathscr{M}}$ is surjective for all maximal ideals implies that $f: M to N$ is surjective.



    Atiyah Macdonald says to reverse the arrows in the injectivity proof (that uses exact sequences) but I am not sure how to go about it. Any help is much appreciated.










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      3












      3








      3





      $begingroup$


      I am trying to show surjectivity is a local property, that is, for a ring $R$ and $R$-modules $M$ and $N$,



      $f: M to N$ is surjective if and only if $f_{mathscr{M}}:M_{mathscr{M}} to N_{mathscr{M}}$ is surjective for all maximal ideals $mathscr{M}$ of $R$, where $M_{mathscr{M}}$ is the localization at $mathscr{M}$.



      One of the directions is easy but I am having trouble seeing how to prove that $f_{mathscr{M}}:M_{mathscr{M}} to N_{mathscr{M}}$ is surjective for all maximal ideals implies that $f: M to N$ is surjective.



      Atiyah Macdonald says to reverse the arrows in the injectivity proof (that uses exact sequences) but I am not sure how to go about it. Any help is much appreciated.










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      I am trying to show surjectivity is a local property, that is, for a ring $R$ and $R$-modules $M$ and $N$,



      $f: M to N$ is surjective if and only if $f_{mathscr{M}}:M_{mathscr{M}} to N_{mathscr{M}}$ is surjective for all maximal ideals $mathscr{M}$ of $R$, where $M_{mathscr{M}}$ is the localization at $mathscr{M}$.



      One of the directions is easy but I am having trouble seeing how to prove that $f_{mathscr{M}}:M_{mathscr{M}} to N_{mathscr{M}}$ is surjective for all maximal ideals implies that $f: M to N$ is surjective.



      Atiyah Macdonald says to reverse the arrows in the injectivity proof (that uses exact sequences) but I am not sure how to go about it. Any help is much appreciated.







      abstract-algebra commutative-algebra






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited May 30 '18 at 13:11









      Magdiragdag

      11k31532




      11k31532










      asked May 29 '18 at 22:58









      Learning Representation TheoryLearning Representation Theory

      482




      482






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4












          $begingroup$

          Exactness is a local property. So looking at the exactness of $M to N to 0$ gives that surjectivity is a local property, just as looking at the exactness of $0 to M to N$ gives that injectivity is a local property.



          Doing as Atiyah and Macdonald say, reversing the arrows in their injectivity proof, works with some care.



          Claim: $fcolon M to N$ is surjective if and only if $f_m colon M_m to N_m$ is surjective for every maximal ideal $m$ of $R$.



          Proof: (References are to Atiyah Macdonald and this proof is an adaptation of their proof of Proposition 3.9)



          $(to)$ Suppose that $f$ is surjective. Then $M to N to 0$ is an exact sequence. Because localization preserves exactness (Proposition 3.3), $M_m to N_m to 0$ is exact for all maximal ideals $m$ of $R$ and therefore each $f_m colon M_m to N_m$ is surjective.



          ($leftarrow$) Suppose that $f_m colon M_m to N_m$ is surjective for every maximal ideal $m$ of $R$. Let $N' = N/text{Im}(f)$ be the cokernel of $f$. Then the sequence $M to N to N' to 0$ is exact and, again because localization preserves exactness, $M_m to N_m to N'_m to 0$ is exact. Because localization commutes with quotients (Corollary 3.4), $N'_m$ is isomorphic to the cokernel of $f_m$. Because $f_m$ is surjective, this cokernel is $0$, so $N'_m = 0$ for every maximal ideal $m$ of $R$. Therefore, because being the $0$-module is a local property (Proposition 3.8), $N' = 0$. So the first three terms of the exact sequence $M to N to N' to 0$ are really $M to N to 0$, which means that $f$ is surjective. $square$



          The point is to not only just reverse the arrows in the injectivity proof, but also to look at the cokernel of $f$ instead of at the kernel.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$





















            1












            $begingroup$

            You want to prove $f(M)=N$. Consider the quotient module $frac{N}{f(M)}$.



            There is a result which says that, an $R$-module $M$ is zero module if $M_{mathfrak{m}}=0$ for every maximal ideal $mathfrak{m}$ of $R$.



            Look at the quotient $left(frac{N}{f(M)}right)_{mathfrak{m}}$. An element in $left(frac{N}{f(M)}right)_{mathfrak{m}}$ will be of the for $frac{[n]}{a}$ where $ain Rsetminus mathfrak{m}$.



            As $frac{n}{a}in N_{mathfrak{m}}$ there exists $b(mathfrak{m})in M_{mathfrak{m}}$ such that $f_{mathfrak{m}}(b(mathfrak{m}))=frac{n}{a}$. Show that this means $frac{[n]}{a}=0$.



            Thus, $left(frac{N}{f(M)}right)_{mathfrak{m}}=0 $ for every maximal ideal $mathfrak{m}$. Thus, $frac{N}{f(M)}=0$ i.e., $f(M)=N$.





            Hint for the following result




            $M_{mathfrak{m}}=0$ for all maximal ideals $mathfrak{m}$ of $R$ implies $M=0$.




            Let $ain M$ is such that $aneq 0$.



            Consider the annihilator ideal $text{Ann}(a)$ of $a$. This will be in some maximal ideal $mathfrak{m}$.



            Localize $M$ at this $mathfrak{m}$ and use that $M_{mathfrak{m}}=0$. You will end up with $a=0$. Thus, $M=0$






            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%2f2801210%2fsurjectivity-is-a-local-property%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









              4












              $begingroup$

              Exactness is a local property. So looking at the exactness of $M to N to 0$ gives that surjectivity is a local property, just as looking at the exactness of $0 to M to N$ gives that injectivity is a local property.



              Doing as Atiyah and Macdonald say, reversing the arrows in their injectivity proof, works with some care.



              Claim: $fcolon M to N$ is surjective if and only if $f_m colon M_m to N_m$ is surjective for every maximal ideal $m$ of $R$.



              Proof: (References are to Atiyah Macdonald and this proof is an adaptation of their proof of Proposition 3.9)



              $(to)$ Suppose that $f$ is surjective. Then $M to N to 0$ is an exact sequence. Because localization preserves exactness (Proposition 3.3), $M_m to N_m to 0$ is exact for all maximal ideals $m$ of $R$ and therefore each $f_m colon M_m to N_m$ is surjective.



              ($leftarrow$) Suppose that $f_m colon M_m to N_m$ is surjective for every maximal ideal $m$ of $R$. Let $N' = N/text{Im}(f)$ be the cokernel of $f$. Then the sequence $M to N to N' to 0$ is exact and, again because localization preserves exactness, $M_m to N_m to N'_m to 0$ is exact. Because localization commutes with quotients (Corollary 3.4), $N'_m$ is isomorphic to the cokernel of $f_m$. Because $f_m$ is surjective, this cokernel is $0$, so $N'_m = 0$ for every maximal ideal $m$ of $R$. Therefore, because being the $0$-module is a local property (Proposition 3.8), $N' = 0$. So the first three terms of the exact sequence $M to N to N' to 0$ are really $M to N to 0$, which means that $f$ is surjective. $square$



              The point is to not only just reverse the arrows in the injectivity proof, but also to look at the cokernel of $f$ instead of at the kernel.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$


















                4












                $begingroup$

                Exactness is a local property. So looking at the exactness of $M to N to 0$ gives that surjectivity is a local property, just as looking at the exactness of $0 to M to N$ gives that injectivity is a local property.



                Doing as Atiyah and Macdonald say, reversing the arrows in their injectivity proof, works with some care.



                Claim: $fcolon M to N$ is surjective if and only if $f_m colon M_m to N_m$ is surjective for every maximal ideal $m$ of $R$.



                Proof: (References are to Atiyah Macdonald and this proof is an adaptation of their proof of Proposition 3.9)



                $(to)$ Suppose that $f$ is surjective. Then $M to N to 0$ is an exact sequence. Because localization preserves exactness (Proposition 3.3), $M_m to N_m to 0$ is exact for all maximal ideals $m$ of $R$ and therefore each $f_m colon M_m to N_m$ is surjective.



                ($leftarrow$) Suppose that $f_m colon M_m to N_m$ is surjective for every maximal ideal $m$ of $R$. Let $N' = N/text{Im}(f)$ be the cokernel of $f$. Then the sequence $M to N to N' to 0$ is exact and, again because localization preserves exactness, $M_m to N_m to N'_m to 0$ is exact. Because localization commutes with quotients (Corollary 3.4), $N'_m$ is isomorphic to the cokernel of $f_m$. Because $f_m$ is surjective, this cokernel is $0$, so $N'_m = 0$ for every maximal ideal $m$ of $R$. Therefore, because being the $0$-module is a local property (Proposition 3.8), $N' = 0$. So the first three terms of the exact sequence $M to N to N' to 0$ are really $M to N to 0$, which means that $f$ is surjective. $square$



                The point is to not only just reverse the arrows in the injectivity proof, but also to look at the cokernel of $f$ instead of at the kernel.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$
















                  4












                  4








                  4





                  $begingroup$

                  Exactness is a local property. So looking at the exactness of $M to N to 0$ gives that surjectivity is a local property, just as looking at the exactness of $0 to M to N$ gives that injectivity is a local property.



                  Doing as Atiyah and Macdonald say, reversing the arrows in their injectivity proof, works with some care.



                  Claim: $fcolon M to N$ is surjective if and only if $f_m colon M_m to N_m$ is surjective for every maximal ideal $m$ of $R$.



                  Proof: (References are to Atiyah Macdonald and this proof is an adaptation of their proof of Proposition 3.9)



                  $(to)$ Suppose that $f$ is surjective. Then $M to N to 0$ is an exact sequence. Because localization preserves exactness (Proposition 3.3), $M_m to N_m to 0$ is exact for all maximal ideals $m$ of $R$ and therefore each $f_m colon M_m to N_m$ is surjective.



                  ($leftarrow$) Suppose that $f_m colon M_m to N_m$ is surjective for every maximal ideal $m$ of $R$. Let $N' = N/text{Im}(f)$ be the cokernel of $f$. Then the sequence $M to N to N' to 0$ is exact and, again because localization preserves exactness, $M_m to N_m to N'_m to 0$ is exact. Because localization commutes with quotients (Corollary 3.4), $N'_m$ is isomorphic to the cokernel of $f_m$. Because $f_m$ is surjective, this cokernel is $0$, so $N'_m = 0$ for every maximal ideal $m$ of $R$. Therefore, because being the $0$-module is a local property (Proposition 3.8), $N' = 0$. So the first three terms of the exact sequence $M to N to N' to 0$ are really $M to N to 0$, which means that $f$ is surjective. $square$



                  The point is to not only just reverse the arrows in the injectivity proof, but also to look at the cokernel of $f$ instead of at the kernel.






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  Exactness is a local property. So looking at the exactness of $M to N to 0$ gives that surjectivity is a local property, just as looking at the exactness of $0 to M to N$ gives that injectivity is a local property.



                  Doing as Atiyah and Macdonald say, reversing the arrows in their injectivity proof, works with some care.



                  Claim: $fcolon M to N$ is surjective if and only if $f_m colon M_m to N_m$ is surjective for every maximal ideal $m$ of $R$.



                  Proof: (References are to Atiyah Macdonald and this proof is an adaptation of their proof of Proposition 3.9)



                  $(to)$ Suppose that $f$ is surjective. Then $M to N to 0$ is an exact sequence. Because localization preserves exactness (Proposition 3.3), $M_m to N_m to 0$ is exact for all maximal ideals $m$ of $R$ and therefore each $f_m colon M_m to N_m$ is surjective.



                  ($leftarrow$) Suppose that $f_m colon M_m to N_m$ is surjective for every maximal ideal $m$ of $R$. Let $N' = N/text{Im}(f)$ be the cokernel of $f$. Then the sequence $M to N to N' to 0$ is exact and, again because localization preserves exactness, $M_m to N_m to N'_m to 0$ is exact. Because localization commutes with quotients (Corollary 3.4), $N'_m$ is isomorphic to the cokernel of $f_m$. Because $f_m$ is surjective, this cokernel is $0$, so $N'_m = 0$ for every maximal ideal $m$ of $R$. Therefore, because being the $0$-module is a local property (Proposition 3.8), $N' = 0$. So the first three terms of the exact sequence $M to N to N' to 0$ are really $M to N to 0$, which means that $f$ is surjective. $square$



                  The point is to not only just reverse the arrows in the injectivity proof, but also to look at the cokernel of $f$ instead of at the kernel.







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited May 30 '18 at 12:47

























                  answered May 30 '18 at 9:35









                  MagdiragdagMagdiragdag

                  11k31532




                  11k31532























                      1












                      $begingroup$

                      You want to prove $f(M)=N$. Consider the quotient module $frac{N}{f(M)}$.



                      There is a result which says that, an $R$-module $M$ is zero module if $M_{mathfrak{m}}=0$ for every maximal ideal $mathfrak{m}$ of $R$.



                      Look at the quotient $left(frac{N}{f(M)}right)_{mathfrak{m}}$. An element in $left(frac{N}{f(M)}right)_{mathfrak{m}}$ will be of the for $frac{[n]}{a}$ where $ain Rsetminus mathfrak{m}$.



                      As $frac{n}{a}in N_{mathfrak{m}}$ there exists $b(mathfrak{m})in M_{mathfrak{m}}$ such that $f_{mathfrak{m}}(b(mathfrak{m}))=frac{n}{a}$. Show that this means $frac{[n]}{a}=0$.



                      Thus, $left(frac{N}{f(M)}right)_{mathfrak{m}}=0 $ for every maximal ideal $mathfrak{m}$. Thus, $frac{N}{f(M)}=0$ i.e., $f(M)=N$.





                      Hint for the following result




                      $M_{mathfrak{m}}=0$ for all maximal ideals $mathfrak{m}$ of $R$ implies $M=0$.




                      Let $ain M$ is such that $aneq 0$.



                      Consider the annihilator ideal $text{Ann}(a)$ of $a$. This will be in some maximal ideal $mathfrak{m}$.



                      Localize $M$ at this $mathfrak{m}$ and use that $M_{mathfrak{m}}=0$. You will end up with $a=0$. Thus, $M=0$






                      share|cite|improve this answer











                      $endgroup$


















                        1












                        $begingroup$

                        You want to prove $f(M)=N$. Consider the quotient module $frac{N}{f(M)}$.



                        There is a result which says that, an $R$-module $M$ is zero module if $M_{mathfrak{m}}=0$ for every maximal ideal $mathfrak{m}$ of $R$.



                        Look at the quotient $left(frac{N}{f(M)}right)_{mathfrak{m}}$. An element in $left(frac{N}{f(M)}right)_{mathfrak{m}}$ will be of the for $frac{[n]}{a}$ where $ain Rsetminus mathfrak{m}$.



                        As $frac{n}{a}in N_{mathfrak{m}}$ there exists $b(mathfrak{m})in M_{mathfrak{m}}$ such that $f_{mathfrak{m}}(b(mathfrak{m}))=frac{n}{a}$. Show that this means $frac{[n]}{a}=0$.



                        Thus, $left(frac{N}{f(M)}right)_{mathfrak{m}}=0 $ for every maximal ideal $mathfrak{m}$. Thus, $frac{N}{f(M)}=0$ i.e., $f(M)=N$.





                        Hint for the following result




                        $M_{mathfrak{m}}=0$ for all maximal ideals $mathfrak{m}$ of $R$ implies $M=0$.




                        Let $ain M$ is such that $aneq 0$.



                        Consider the annihilator ideal $text{Ann}(a)$ of $a$. This will be in some maximal ideal $mathfrak{m}$.



                        Localize $M$ at this $mathfrak{m}$ and use that $M_{mathfrak{m}}=0$. You will end up with $a=0$. Thus, $M=0$






                        share|cite|improve this answer











                        $endgroup$
















                          1












                          1








                          1





                          $begingroup$

                          You want to prove $f(M)=N$. Consider the quotient module $frac{N}{f(M)}$.



                          There is a result which says that, an $R$-module $M$ is zero module if $M_{mathfrak{m}}=0$ for every maximal ideal $mathfrak{m}$ of $R$.



                          Look at the quotient $left(frac{N}{f(M)}right)_{mathfrak{m}}$. An element in $left(frac{N}{f(M)}right)_{mathfrak{m}}$ will be of the for $frac{[n]}{a}$ where $ain Rsetminus mathfrak{m}$.



                          As $frac{n}{a}in N_{mathfrak{m}}$ there exists $b(mathfrak{m})in M_{mathfrak{m}}$ such that $f_{mathfrak{m}}(b(mathfrak{m}))=frac{n}{a}$. Show that this means $frac{[n]}{a}=0$.



                          Thus, $left(frac{N}{f(M)}right)_{mathfrak{m}}=0 $ for every maximal ideal $mathfrak{m}$. Thus, $frac{N}{f(M)}=0$ i.e., $f(M)=N$.





                          Hint for the following result




                          $M_{mathfrak{m}}=0$ for all maximal ideals $mathfrak{m}$ of $R$ implies $M=0$.




                          Let $ain M$ is such that $aneq 0$.



                          Consider the annihilator ideal $text{Ann}(a)$ of $a$. This will be in some maximal ideal $mathfrak{m}$.



                          Localize $M$ at this $mathfrak{m}$ and use that $M_{mathfrak{m}}=0$. You will end up with $a=0$. Thus, $M=0$






                          share|cite|improve this answer











                          $endgroup$



                          You want to prove $f(M)=N$. Consider the quotient module $frac{N}{f(M)}$.



                          There is a result which says that, an $R$-module $M$ is zero module if $M_{mathfrak{m}}=0$ for every maximal ideal $mathfrak{m}$ of $R$.



                          Look at the quotient $left(frac{N}{f(M)}right)_{mathfrak{m}}$. An element in $left(frac{N}{f(M)}right)_{mathfrak{m}}$ will be of the for $frac{[n]}{a}$ where $ain Rsetminus mathfrak{m}$.



                          As $frac{n}{a}in N_{mathfrak{m}}$ there exists $b(mathfrak{m})in M_{mathfrak{m}}$ such that $f_{mathfrak{m}}(b(mathfrak{m}))=frac{n}{a}$. Show that this means $frac{[n]}{a}=0$.



                          Thus, $left(frac{N}{f(M)}right)_{mathfrak{m}}=0 $ for every maximal ideal $mathfrak{m}$. Thus, $frac{N}{f(M)}=0$ i.e., $f(M)=N$.





                          Hint for the following result




                          $M_{mathfrak{m}}=0$ for all maximal ideals $mathfrak{m}$ of $R$ implies $M=0$.




                          Let $ain M$ is such that $aneq 0$.



                          Consider the annihilator ideal $text{Ann}(a)$ of $a$. This will be in some maximal ideal $mathfrak{m}$.



                          Localize $M$ at this $mathfrak{m}$ and use that $M_{mathfrak{m}}=0$. You will end up with $a=0$. Thus, $M=0$







                          share|cite|improve this answer














                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer








                          edited Jan 8 at 12:42

























                          answered Jan 8 at 12:33









                          Praphulla KoushikPraphulla Koushik

                          16419




                          16419






























                              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%2f2801210%2fsurjectivity-is-a-local-property%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

                              Human spaceflight

                              Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

                              張江高科駅