How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Chain Conditions, Semisimple Modules and the Wedderburn–Artin Theorem — Examples
1 · Prerequisites
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Chain Conditions, Semisimple Modules and the Wedderburn–Artin Theorem
- Congruences, the Integers Modulo n and the Chinese Remainder Theorem
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Cosets, Index and Lagrange's Theorem
- Countability and Uncountability
- Determinants of Matrices over a Commutative Ring
- Divisibility, Greatest Common Divisors and Bézout's Identity
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Free Modules, Exact Sequences, Projective and Injective Modules
- Group Homomorphisms and the Isomorphism Theorems
- Matrices, the Matrix of a Linear Map, and Change of Basis
- Modules, Submodules, Quotient Modules and the Isomorphism Theorems
- Normal Subgroups and Quotient Groups
- Polynomial Rings, the Division Algorithm and Roots
- Primes, Euclid's Lemma and the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Tensor Products of Modules
- The Field of Fractions and Localisation
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Vector Spaces, Linear Subspaces, Span and Direct Sums
2 · Summary
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
None yet.
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
is Noetherian but not Artinian as a module over itself
Example
The regular -module is Noetherian but not Artinian. See Noetherian modules: every submodule is finitely generated.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The hypotheses and objects in the Example.
A left -module is Noetherian when every submodule of is finitely generated (def-generated-cyclic-finitely-generated-and-free-modules). This finite-generation definition is the convention; its equivalence with ACC and the maximal condition is proved in thm-equivalent-characterizations-of-noetherian-modules. (Noetherian modules: every submodule is finitely generated).
A left -module is Artinian when every descending chain of submodules stabilizes: there is such that for all . This is the descending chain condition. (Artinian modules by the descending chain condition).
Every subgroup equals for exactly one ; in particular every subgroup is cyclic. (Every subgroup of is for exactly one natural number ).
Verification
Every subgroup of is principal, so every submodule is finitely generated.
The descending chain is strict from onward, showing failure of DCC.
The chain of step 2.1 begins at , the whole module, and each inclusion is strict because ; so the chain never stabilizes and DCC fails from the first term onward. This proves the stated claim.
The Prüfer -group is Artinian but not Noetherian
Example
For every prime , the Prüfer group is Artinian but not Noetherian as a -module. See Noetherian modules: every submodule is finitely generated.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The hypotheses and objects in the Example.
A left -module is Noetherian when every submodule of is finitely generated (def-generated-cyclic-finitely-generated-and-free-modules). This finite-generation definition is the convention; its equivalence with ACC and the maximal condition is proved in thm-equivalent-characterizations-of-noetherian-modules. (Noetherian modules: every submodule is finitely generated).
A left -module is Artinian when every descending chain of submodules stabilizes: there is such that for all . This is the descending chain condition. (Artinian modules by the descending chain condition).
with the operations of def-rat-operations is a field: a commutative ring with in which every nonzero element has a multiplicative inverse. (The rationals form a field).
The map is injective and preserves addition, multiplication, and order. Composing with lem-nat-embeds-int embeds in ; we write for throughout. (The integers embed in the rationals).
For , the additive cosets form the quotient module under the well-defined scalar action (Quotient module with scalar multiplication on additive cosets).
Verification
Let . The class generates and has order , while . If an element of has order dividing , cancelling its denominator shows that it lies in . Hence every cyclic subgroup of order is , and is the Prüfer -group.
The group is not finitely generated, which is the failure of [L1] directly: a finite subset of lies in a single , because each of its finitely many members lies in some and the are nested, so the submodule it generates is contained in and is proper. Equivalently, the strict ascending chain of step 1.1 does not stabilize.
If a subgroup contains elements of unbounded order, then for every it contains an element whose cyclic subgroup contains the unique , so and . Otherwise the element orders in are bounded by some , and step 1.1 gives . The subgroups of the cyclic group are the unique for , so every proper subgroup of the Prüfer group is one of these finite cyclic groups.
A descending chain either remains at the whole group or enters some finite , after which it stabilizes because has only the chain of subgroups. Thus DCC holds. The argument includes and is unchanged for . This proves the stated claim.
The ring is not Noetherian
Example
The product ring is not Noetherian: its ideals generated by the first finitely many coordinate idempotents form a strict ascending chain. See Left and right Noetherian rings.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The hypotheses and objects in the Example.
A unital ring is left Noetherian when its left regular module is Noetherian, and right Noetherian when the right regular module is Noetherian. Unqualified “Noetherian ring” means left Noetherian here; the side is stated whenever both notions occur. (Left and right Noetherian rings).
Let be a unital ring and a family of left -modules (def-left-and-right-modules). Their direct product is the module with coordinatewise operations. The support of is , and the direct sum is the submodule (def-submodule). (The direct sum of an indexed family of modules).
For every , with addition and multiplication as in def-addition-and-multiplication-modulo-n: 1. is an abelian group (def-group), with ; 2. is a commutative monoid (def-semigroup-and-monoid); 3. multiplication distributes over addition on both sides. (For every natural , is an abelian group, multiplication is a commutative monoid operation, and both distributive laws hold).
Verification
In , let have value in coordinate and elsewhere, and set . Then consists exactly of the sequences supported in .
Since , the chain is strictly ascending; hence the regular module is not Noetherian.
The union is only the finite-support ideal; for example the multiplicative identity belongs to the product ring but not to that union. Thus the witness is genuinely an ideal chain in the full product ring. This proves the stated claim.
as a direct sum of minimal left ideals
Example
For every field and , the left regular module of is the internal direct sum of simple left ideals. See Matrix rings over division rings are semisimple.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The hypotheses and objects in the Example.
For a division ring and , the left regular module of is the direct sum of its simple column ideals . (Matrix rings over division rings are semisimple).
For , , and division rings , every simple left module over is supported on exactly one factor and is isomorphic to that factor's column module . (Simple modules over a product of matrix rings over division rings).
The matrix unit has entries so it has entry in position and everywhere else. (Matrix units and the Kronecker delta).
Verification
The left ideal consists of matrices supported in column . Reading that column identifies it with the natural column module . If a nonzero vector lies in a submodule of , matrix units send it to every standard basis vector, so the submodule is all of ; each column ideal is therefore simple.
Every matrix is the sum of its column matrices, and matrices supported in distinct columns have zero intersection. Hence as a left module.
For this is the single simple left ideal . The decomposition selects minimal left ideals but makes no assertion that these are the only minimal left ideals. This proves the stated claim.
A product of two fields is semisimple with two simple-module types
Example
For fields and , the ring is semisimple. Its simple left modules are, up to isomorphism, supported on the first factor and supported on the second. See Wedderburn–Artin theorem for semisimple rings.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The hypotheses and objects in the Example.
Let be a nonzero unital ring. Then is semisimple if and only if for positive integers and division rings . (Wedderburn–Artin theorem for semisimple rings).
For , , and division rings , every simple left module over is supported on exactly one factor and is isomorphic to that factor's column module ; these give all isomorphism classes. (Simple modules over a product of matrix rings over division rings).
Verification
The central idempotents and satisfy and . Thus the regular module splits as the direct sum of the simple left ideals and , proving semisimplicity.
For every left module , one has . If is simple, exactly one summand is nonzero; it is then a simple vector space over the corresponding field and hence isomorphic to on the first factor or on the second.
Even when as fields, the two modules are not isomorphic as -modules because acts as the identity on one and as zero on the other. This proves the stated claim.
The -module has length
Example
For a prime and , the -module has length . In particular, gives the zero module. See Composition series and length of a module.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The hypotheses and objects in the Example.
A composition series of a left -module is a finite chain whose factors are simple. If such a series exists, the length is its number of factors; thm-jordan-holder-theorem-for-modules proves independence of the chosen series. The zero module has the empty series and length . (Composition series and length of a module).
Any two composition series of a module have the same length, and their simple factors agree up to permutation and isomorphism. (Jordan–Hölder theorem for modules).
For a short exact sequence , the module has finite length if and only if and do, and then . (Module length is additive in short exact sequences).
Let be a finite group such that the positive integer is prime. Then every has order , satisfies , and hence generates . In particular, is cyclic. (A finite group of prime order is cyclic and every nonidentity element generates it).
Verification
For , the chain is strict, and every successive quotient has order and is therefore the simple -module .
This composition series has factors, so Jordan–Hölder gives length . For , has the empty series; for , the displayed module itself is simple.
The calculation concerns the finite-length quotient module and does not require the ambient ring to be Artinian. This proves the stated claim.
and are algebraic integers, while is not
Example
The numbers and are algebraic integers, whereas is not. See Integral elements over a commutative ring and algebraic integers.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The hypotheses and objects in the Example.
Let be a homomorphism of commutative rings. An element is integral over when it is a root of a monic polynomial in . The extension is integral when every element is integral. An algebraic integer is a complex number integral over . (Integral elements over a commutative ring and algebraic integers).
A rational number is an algebraic integer if and only if it is an integer. (The rational algebraic integers are exactly the integers).
Let be a complete ordered field (def-complete-ordered-field). Then every with has a unique with and ; we write . Consequently the positive elements of are exactly the nonzero squares: if and only if for some . (Square roots exist: a unique with ; the positives are ).
Verification
The number is a root of the monic polynomial , and is a root of the monic polynomial ; both are therefore algebraic integers.
The rational algebraic-integer criterion already excludes . Directly, a monic equation of degree at would, after multiplication by , read , whose left side is odd. This proves the stated claim.
False statement: every Artinian module is Noetherian
Statement
False claim: every Artinian module is Noetherian. See The Prüfer -group is Artinian but not Noetherian.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The hypotheses and objects in the false claim.
For every prime , the Prüfer group is Artinian but not Noetherian as a -module. (The Prüfer -group is Artinian but not Noetherian).
Refutation
We use the preceding Prüfer -group, quoting its complete subgroup classification to establish DCC and its strict ascending chain of finite cyclic subgroups to refute Noetherianity.
One witness refutes a universally quantified claim, and is one: it is Artinian and not Noetherian by [L1], so "every Artinian module is Noetherian" is false. This proves the stated claim.
False statement: every module has a composition series
Statement
False claim: every module has a composition series. See A module has a composition series if and only if it is Noetherian and Artinian, the converse using dependent choice.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The hypotheses and objects in the false claim.
A module with a composition series is both Noetherian and Artinian. The zero module has the empty composition series. (A module has a composition series if and only if it is Noetherian and Artinian, the converse using dependent choice).
The regular -module is Noetherian but not Artinian. ( is Noetherian but not Artinian as a module over itself).
Refutation
The module over itself is Noetherian but not Artinian, so the equivalence theorem rules out a composition series.
The failure is exhibited by an explicit chain rather than only by the equivalence: the submodules are strictly descending and never stabilize, so is not Artinian. The false claim is therefore refuted by a single module, not merely restricted in scope.
False statement: every semisimple ring is commutative
Statement
False claim: every semisimple ring is commutative. See as a direct sum of minimal left ideals.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The hypotheses and objects in the false claim.
For every field and , the left regular module of is the internal direct sum of simple left ideals. ( as a direct sum of minimal left ideals).
For every field and every natural , the ring is not commutative. ( is noncommutative for every ).
Refutation
For any field , the preceding decomposition makes semisimple, while two matrix units multiply in opposite orders to different results.
The witness does not depend on the characteristic: in one has and , and in every field, characteristic two included, so the two products differ there as well. This proves the stated claim.
False statement: every subring of a Noetherian ring is Noetherian
Statement
False claim: every subring of a Noetherian ring is Noetherian. See Left and right Noetherian rings.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The hypotheses and objects in the false claim.
A unital ring is left Noetherian when its left regular module is Noetherian, and right Noetherian when the right regular module is Noetherian. Unqualified “Noetherian ring” means left Noetherian here; the side is stated whenever both notions occur. (Left and right Noetherian rings).
If is an integral domain, then is multiplicative. Its localisation is the field of fractions of . Thus its elements are fractions with and , modulo the localisation equivalence relation. (The field of fractions of an integral domain).
For every integral domain , the localisation is a field. Its canonical map is an injective unital ring homomorphism. ( is a field and embeds the integral domain ).
Refutation
Fix a field and let consist of polynomials in symbols in which each polynomial contains only finitely many monomials and variables. The usual polynomial operations make a domain, so it embeds in its fraction field .
The field is Noetherian because its only ideals are and . In , the ideals satisfy : setting to zero leaves nonzero, so .
Thus the Noetherian ring contains the non-Noetherian subring , which refutes the claim. This proves the stated claim.
False statement: every right Noetherian ring is left Noetherian
Statement
False claim: every right Noetherian ring is left Noetherian. See Left and right Noetherian rings.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The hypotheses and objects in the false claim.
A unital ring is left Noetherian when its left regular module is Noetherian, and right Noetherian when the right regular module is Noetherian. Unqualified “Noetherian ring” means left Noetherian here; the side is stated whenever both notions occur. (Left and right Noetherian rings).
Let be a commutative ring. Matrices of one shape are added and scaled entrywise. For and , their product is with The sum is the finite sum in the additive commutative monoid of , and is when . (Entrywise ring-matrix operations, rectangular matrix products, identity matrices and transpose).
with the operations of def-rat-operations is a field: a commutative ring with in which every nonzero element has a multiplicative inverse. (The rationals form a field).
Refutation
Let . Matrix multiplication is closed and is its identity. As a right module, ; the second summand is the simple module . For a right submodule , its top-left entries form an ideal , while its intersection with is either or all of the simple right -module . Choosing one element of with top-left entry shows that is generated by it and, if needed, . Thus is Noetherian.
For , the sets are left ideals because left multiplication scales only by the integer top-left entry. The inclusions are strict, witnessed by . Hence is not Noetherian, refuting the claim.
Sources
Standard references
Recommended treatments; not extraction sources.
- Arvind Nair, Algebra I, Lecture 5
- MIT 18.706, Lecture 2: Semisimple Modules, Socles, Artinian Rings, Wedderburn's Theorem
- Eloisa Grifo, Commutative Algebra I, Section 1.4
- William Crawley-Boevey, Noncommutative Algebra, Chapter 1 Sections 1.1-1.9
- Keith Conrad, Noetherian Modules, Sections 1-2
- Abigail C. Bailey and John A. Beachy, On Noncommutative Piecewise Noetherian Rings, Example 1