What are the left and right ideals of matrix ring? How about the two sided ideals?












23














What are the left and right ideals of matrix ring? How about the two sided ideals?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    Hint: as a left module over itself, the matrix ring decomposes into a direct sum of copies of the module of column vectors.
    – Rasmus
    Mar 13 '11 at 16:47






  • 1




    Concerning twosided ideals: try taking a non-zero matrix and multiply from the left and from the right with varius matrices. See what you can get this way.
    – Rasmus
    Mar 13 '11 at 16:48
















23














What are the left and right ideals of matrix ring? How about the two sided ideals?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 1




    Hint: as a left module over itself, the matrix ring decomposes into a direct sum of copies of the module of column vectors.
    – Rasmus
    Mar 13 '11 at 16:47






  • 1




    Concerning twosided ideals: try taking a non-zero matrix and multiply from the left and from the right with varius matrices. See what you can get this way.
    – Rasmus
    Mar 13 '11 at 16:48














23












23








23


17





What are the left and right ideals of matrix ring? How about the two sided ideals?










share|cite|improve this question















What are the left and right ideals of matrix ring? How about the two sided ideals?







abstract-algebra ring-theory ideals






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Jan 17 '12 at 16:24









Martin Sleziak

44.7k7115270




44.7k7115270










asked Mar 13 '11 at 16:40







user8195















  • 1




    Hint: as a left module over itself, the matrix ring decomposes into a direct sum of copies of the module of column vectors.
    – Rasmus
    Mar 13 '11 at 16:47






  • 1




    Concerning twosided ideals: try taking a non-zero matrix and multiply from the left and from the right with varius matrices. See what you can get this way.
    – Rasmus
    Mar 13 '11 at 16:48














  • 1




    Hint: as a left module over itself, the matrix ring decomposes into a direct sum of copies of the module of column vectors.
    – Rasmus
    Mar 13 '11 at 16:47






  • 1




    Concerning twosided ideals: try taking a non-zero matrix and multiply from the left and from the right with varius matrices. See what you can get this way.
    – Rasmus
    Mar 13 '11 at 16:48








1




1




Hint: as a left module over itself, the matrix ring decomposes into a direct sum of copies of the module of column vectors.
– Rasmus
Mar 13 '11 at 16:47




Hint: as a left module over itself, the matrix ring decomposes into a direct sum of copies of the module of column vectors.
– Rasmus
Mar 13 '11 at 16:47




1




1




Concerning twosided ideals: try taking a non-zero matrix and multiply from the left and from the right with varius matrices. See what you can get this way.
– Rasmus
Mar 13 '11 at 16:48




Concerning twosided ideals: try taking a non-zero matrix and multiply from the left and from the right with varius matrices. See what you can get this way.
– Rasmus
Mar 13 '11 at 16:48










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















14














The left ideals of the matrix ring $S = M_n(R)$ over a (unital, associative) ring $R$ are in a $1–1$ correspondence with the left submodules of a free left $R$-module $R^n$ of rank $n$.



Given any left $R$-submodule $Kle R^n$ define the ideal $I(K)$ as those matrices whose rows are elements of $K$. If $M$ is such a matrix and $A$ is an arbitrary $ntimes n$ matrix over $R$, then $AM$ is a matrix whose rows are $R$-linear combinations of the rows of $M$, and so also contained in $K$. Similarly, by multiplying by elementary matrices (matrix units even), you get that every left ideal $I$ determines a submodule $K(I)$ consisting of the first rows of elements of the ideal. You then check that $I(K(I))=I$ and $K(I(K))=K$.



This is called Morita equivalence. The left ideal $P = I(Roplus0oplusdotsoplus 0) = I(Roplus 0^{n−1})$ is a direct summand of the left $S$-module $S$, and so is called a projective module. It is faithful, since $S simeq P^n$ as left $S$-modules. In other words, it is a progenerator. $I(K) = _SPotimes_R K$ and $K(I) = _Roperatorname{Hom}_S(P,I)$.



The short version is just that modules over $S$ are just big versions of modules over $R$. In particular, left ideals of $S$ are just left submodules of $R^n$.



Over some rings $R$, the submodules of $R^n$ can be significantly more complicated. Even for fields, the submodule lattice of $R=mathbb R$ is very simple: just $0 le R$. For $R^n$ one has the Grassmannian, which to my mind is quite a bit more complex than $R$. Other rings can be even worse, so one should be careful of leaning too heavily on the intuition for fields when dealing with matrix rings, though any Morita property will transfer between $R$ and $S$ without trouble using the "I()" and "K()" constructions.






share|cite|improve this answer































    1














    For two-sided ideals, see the previous question which deals with fields. In the comments I state the description of ideals over a commutative ring with $1$: they are precisely the subrings that consist of matrices with coefficients in $mathcal{J}$, where $mathcal{J}$ is an ideal of $R$. The result for not-necessarily commutative rings is the obvious one. For rings without an identity, it gets a bit more complicated, but essentially the same kind of argument works.



    For one-sided ideals, think about some of the argument given in the 2-sided case. You can do some of the stuff described, though perhaps not all. For instance, for left ideals, you can isolate rows. So perhaps you can modify the answer yoyo gives for the division ring case to a general case, along the same lines as the result for two-sided ideals generalizes from fields to the general case.






    share|cite|improve this answer























      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%2f26726%2fwhat-are-the-left-and-right-ideals-of-matrix-ring-how-about-the-two-sided-ideal%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









      14














      The left ideals of the matrix ring $S = M_n(R)$ over a (unital, associative) ring $R$ are in a $1–1$ correspondence with the left submodules of a free left $R$-module $R^n$ of rank $n$.



      Given any left $R$-submodule $Kle R^n$ define the ideal $I(K)$ as those matrices whose rows are elements of $K$. If $M$ is such a matrix and $A$ is an arbitrary $ntimes n$ matrix over $R$, then $AM$ is a matrix whose rows are $R$-linear combinations of the rows of $M$, and so also contained in $K$. Similarly, by multiplying by elementary matrices (matrix units even), you get that every left ideal $I$ determines a submodule $K(I)$ consisting of the first rows of elements of the ideal. You then check that $I(K(I))=I$ and $K(I(K))=K$.



      This is called Morita equivalence. The left ideal $P = I(Roplus0oplusdotsoplus 0) = I(Roplus 0^{n−1})$ is a direct summand of the left $S$-module $S$, and so is called a projective module. It is faithful, since $S simeq P^n$ as left $S$-modules. In other words, it is a progenerator. $I(K) = _SPotimes_R K$ and $K(I) = _Roperatorname{Hom}_S(P,I)$.



      The short version is just that modules over $S$ are just big versions of modules over $R$. In particular, left ideals of $S$ are just left submodules of $R^n$.



      Over some rings $R$, the submodules of $R^n$ can be significantly more complicated. Even for fields, the submodule lattice of $R=mathbb R$ is very simple: just $0 le R$. For $R^n$ one has the Grassmannian, which to my mind is quite a bit more complex than $R$. Other rings can be even worse, so one should be careful of leaning too heavily on the intuition for fields when dealing with matrix rings, though any Morita property will transfer between $R$ and $S$ without trouble using the "I()" and "K()" constructions.






      share|cite|improve this answer




























        14














        The left ideals of the matrix ring $S = M_n(R)$ over a (unital, associative) ring $R$ are in a $1–1$ correspondence with the left submodules of a free left $R$-module $R^n$ of rank $n$.



        Given any left $R$-submodule $Kle R^n$ define the ideal $I(K)$ as those matrices whose rows are elements of $K$. If $M$ is such a matrix and $A$ is an arbitrary $ntimes n$ matrix over $R$, then $AM$ is a matrix whose rows are $R$-linear combinations of the rows of $M$, and so also contained in $K$. Similarly, by multiplying by elementary matrices (matrix units even), you get that every left ideal $I$ determines a submodule $K(I)$ consisting of the first rows of elements of the ideal. You then check that $I(K(I))=I$ and $K(I(K))=K$.



        This is called Morita equivalence. The left ideal $P = I(Roplus0oplusdotsoplus 0) = I(Roplus 0^{n−1})$ is a direct summand of the left $S$-module $S$, and so is called a projective module. It is faithful, since $S simeq P^n$ as left $S$-modules. In other words, it is a progenerator. $I(K) = _SPotimes_R K$ and $K(I) = _Roperatorname{Hom}_S(P,I)$.



        The short version is just that modules over $S$ are just big versions of modules over $R$. In particular, left ideals of $S$ are just left submodules of $R^n$.



        Over some rings $R$, the submodules of $R^n$ can be significantly more complicated. Even for fields, the submodule lattice of $R=mathbb R$ is very simple: just $0 le R$. For $R^n$ one has the Grassmannian, which to my mind is quite a bit more complex than $R$. Other rings can be even worse, so one should be careful of leaning too heavily on the intuition for fields when dealing with matrix rings, though any Morita property will transfer between $R$ and $S$ without trouble using the "I()" and "K()" constructions.






        share|cite|improve this answer


























          14












          14








          14






          The left ideals of the matrix ring $S = M_n(R)$ over a (unital, associative) ring $R$ are in a $1–1$ correspondence with the left submodules of a free left $R$-module $R^n$ of rank $n$.



          Given any left $R$-submodule $Kle R^n$ define the ideal $I(K)$ as those matrices whose rows are elements of $K$. If $M$ is such a matrix and $A$ is an arbitrary $ntimes n$ matrix over $R$, then $AM$ is a matrix whose rows are $R$-linear combinations of the rows of $M$, and so also contained in $K$. Similarly, by multiplying by elementary matrices (matrix units even), you get that every left ideal $I$ determines a submodule $K(I)$ consisting of the first rows of elements of the ideal. You then check that $I(K(I))=I$ and $K(I(K))=K$.



          This is called Morita equivalence. The left ideal $P = I(Roplus0oplusdotsoplus 0) = I(Roplus 0^{n−1})$ is a direct summand of the left $S$-module $S$, and so is called a projective module. It is faithful, since $S simeq P^n$ as left $S$-modules. In other words, it is a progenerator. $I(K) = _SPotimes_R K$ and $K(I) = _Roperatorname{Hom}_S(P,I)$.



          The short version is just that modules over $S$ are just big versions of modules over $R$. In particular, left ideals of $S$ are just left submodules of $R^n$.



          Over some rings $R$, the submodules of $R^n$ can be significantly more complicated. Even for fields, the submodule lattice of $R=mathbb R$ is very simple: just $0 le R$. For $R^n$ one has the Grassmannian, which to my mind is quite a bit more complex than $R$. Other rings can be even worse, so one should be careful of leaning too heavily on the intuition for fields when dealing with matrix rings, though any Morita property will transfer between $R$ and $S$ without trouble using the "I()" and "K()" constructions.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          The left ideals of the matrix ring $S = M_n(R)$ over a (unital, associative) ring $R$ are in a $1–1$ correspondence with the left submodules of a free left $R$-module $R^n$ of rank $n$.



          Given any left $R$-submodule $Kle R^n$ define the ideal $I(K)$ as those matrices whose rows are elements of $K$. If $M$ is such a matrix and $A$ is an arbitrary $ntimes n$ matrix over $R$, then $AM$ is a matrix whose rows are $R$-linear combinations of the rows of $M$, and so also contained in $K$. Similarly, by multiplying by elementary matrices (matrix units even), you get that every left ideal $I$ determines a submodule $K(I)$ consisting of the first rows of elements of the ideal. You then check that $I(K(I))=I$ and $K(I(K))=K$.



          This is called Morita equivalence. The left ideal $P = I(Roplus0oplusdotsoplus 0) = I(Roplus 0^{n−1})$ is a direct summand of the left $S$-module $S$, and so is called a projective module. It is faithful, since $S simeq P^n$ as left $S$-modules. In other words, it is a progenerator. $I(K) = _SPotimes_R K$ and $K(I) = _Roperatorname{Hom}_S(P,I)$.



          The short version is just that modules over $S$ are just big versions of modules over $R$. In particular, left ideals of $S$ are just left submodules of $R^n$.



          Over some rings $R$, the submodules of $R^n$ can be significantly more complicated. Even for fields, the submodule lattice of $R=mathbb R$ is very simple: just $0 le R$. For $R^n$ one has the Grassmannian, which to my mind is quite a bit more complex than $R$. Other rings can be even worse, so one should be careful of leaning too heavily on the intuition for fields when dealing with matrix rings, though any Morita property will transfer between $R$ and $S$ without trouble using the "I()" and "K()" constructions.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Apr 25 '13 at 12:11







          user26857

















          answered Mar 14 '11 at 1:41









          Jack Schmidt

          43k570149




          43k570149























              1














              For two-sided ideals, see the previous question which deals with fields. In the comments I state the description of ideals over a commutative ring with $1$: they are precisely the subrings that consist of matrices with coefficients in $mathcal{J}$, where $mathcal{J}$ is an ideal of $R$. The result for not-necessarily commutative rings is the obvious one. For rings without an identity, it gets a bit more complicated, but essentially the same kind of argument works.



              For one-sided ideals, think about some of the argument given in the 2-sided case. You can do some of the stuff described, though perhaps not all. For instance, for left ideals, you can isolate rows. So perhaps you can modify the answer yoyo gives for the division ring case to a general case, along the same lines as the result for two-sided ideals generalizes from fields to the general case.






              share|cite|improve this answer




























                1














                For two-sided ideals, see the previous question which deals with fields. In the comments I state the description of ideals over a commutative ring with $1$: they are precisely the subrings that consist of matrices with coefficients in $mathcal{J}$, where $mathcal{J}$ is an ideal of $R$. The result for not-necessarily commutative rings is the obvious one. For rings without an identity, it gets a bit more complicated, but essentially the same kind of argument works.



                For one-sided ideals, think about some of the argument given in the 2-sided case. You can do some of the stuff described, though perhaps not all. For instance, for left ideals, you can isolate rows. So perhaps you can modify the answer yoyo gives for the division ring case to a general case, along the same lines as the result for two-sided ideals generalizes from fields to the general case.






                share|cite|improve this answer


























                  1












                  1








                  1






                  For two-sided ideals, see the previous question which deals with fields. In the comments I state the description of ideals over a commutative ring with $1$: they are precisely the subrings that consist of matrices with coefficients in $mathcal{J}$, where $mathcal{J}$ is an ideal of $R$. The result for not-necessarily commutative rings is the obvious one. For rings without an identity, it gets a bit more complicated, but essentially the same kind of argument works.



                  For one-sided ideals, think about some of the argument given in the 2-sided case. You can do some of the stuff described, though perhaps not all. For instance, for left ideals, you can isolate rows. So perhaps you can modify the answer yoyo gives for the division ring case to a general case, along the same lines as the result for two-sided ideals generalizes from fields to the general case.






                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  For two-sided ideals, see the previous question which deals with fields. In the comments I state the description of ideals over a commutative ring with $1$: they are precisely the subrings that consist of matrices with coefficients in $mathcal{J}$, where $mathcal{J}$ is an ideal of $R$. The result for not-necessarily commutative rings is the obvious one. For rings without an identity, it gets a bit more complicated, but essentially the same kind of argument works.



                  For one-sided ideals, think about some of the argument given in the 2-sided case. You can do some of the stuff described, though perhaps not all. For instance, for left ideals, you can isolate rows. So perhaps you can modify the answer yoyo gives for the division ring case to a general case, along the same lines as the result for two-sided ideals generalizes from fields to the general case.







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:21









                  Community

                  1




                  1










                  answered Mar 13 '11 at 22:22









                  Arturo Magidin

                  261k32585905




                  261k32585905






























                      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.





                      Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                      Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                      • 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.


                      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%2f26726%2fwhat-are-the-left-and-right-ideals-of-matrix-ring-how-about-the-two-sided-ideal%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

                      Questions related to Moebius Transform of Characteristic Function of the Primes

                      List of scandals in India

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