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.
Modules over a Principal Ideal Domain and the Canonical Forms
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
- Cyclic Groups and Direct Products
- Determinants of Matrices over a Commutative Ring
- Diagonalisation and the Minimal Polynomial
- Divisibility, Euclidean Domains, Principal Ideal Domains and Unique Factorisation
- Divisibility, Greatest Common Divisors and Bézout's Identity
- Eigenvalues, Eigenvectors and the Characteristic Polynomial
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Free Modules, Exact Sequences, Projective and Injective Modules
- Group Actions, Orbits, Stabilisers and Cayley's Theorem
- Group Homomorphisms and the Isomorphism Theorems
- Ideals, Quotient Rings and the Isomorphism Theorems for Rings
- Linear Independence, Bases and Dimension
- Linear Transformations, Rank-Nullity and Quotient Spaces
- Matrices, the Matrix of a Linear Map, and Change of Basis
- Modules, Submodules, Quotient Modules and the Isomorphism Theorems
- Normal Subgroups and Quotient Groups
- Order, Zorn's Lemma, and the Axiom of Choice
- 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
- Simple Field Extensions and the Construction of the Complex Numbers
- Splitting Fields
- Symmetric Groups, Cycle Decomposition and the Sign Homomorphism
- Tensor Products of Modules
- The Determinant of a Linear Operator, Cofactors and Cramer's Rule
- The Field of Fractions and Localisation
- The Fundamental Theorem of Finite Abelian Groups
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
- Triangularisation, Generalised Eigenspaces and Jordan Canonical Form
- Vector Spaces, Linear Subspaces, Span and Direct Sums
2 · Summary
Modules, free modules, exact sequences, Noetherian conditions, principal ideals, determinants, and fraction fields supply the algebraic setting. The published finite-abelian-group classification provides the comparison target, while polynomial evaluation, minimal and characteristic polynomials, cyclic subspaces, similarity, and Jordan strings provide the operator language used by the canonical forms.
Principal ideal domains are first shown to be unique-factorisation domains, after which aligned bases produce invariant factors, primary components, elementary divisors, and their uniqueness. Determinantal divisors give Smith normal form, and scalar extension identifies free rank with fraction-field dimension. Applying the structure theorem to yields rational canonical form, the minimal- and characteristic-polynomial dictionaries, a module-theoretic Cayley-Hamilton proof, and a second Jordan-form construction whose blocks agree with the published Jordan-string classification.
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
The -primary component of a module over a domain
Definition
Let be an integral domain, let be an -module, and let be irreducible (Irreducible and prime elements of an integral domain). The -primary component of is
It is contained in the torsion subset of Annihilators, torsion elements and the torsion subset of a module. That both sets are submodules, as their names require, is proved in Torsion elements and -primary elements form submodules over a domain ↗.
Torsion elements and -primary elements form submodules over a domain
Statement
Let be an integral domain and an -module. The torsion subset is a submodule. For every irreducible , the -primary component is a submodule of .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An integral domain , an -module , the -primary definition of The -primary component of a module over a domain, and the submodule test of Submodule of a module.
If is an integral domain, an element is a torsion element when for some nonzero (Annihilators, torsion elements and the torsion subset of a module).
Proof
The zero element is torsion. If and with , then and ; if , then . Closure under negatives is the scalar case , so is a submodule.
The zero element lies in . If and with , then , and for every . Thus is a submodule contained in . The proof includes , the zero module, and replacing by an associate.
Every principal ideal domain is Noetherian
Statement
Every principal ideal domain is Noetherian.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A principal ideal domain , regarded as its left regular module, and the Noetherian-ring convention of Left and right Noetherian rings.
An integral domain is a principal ideal domain when every ideal is principal: for some (Principal ideal domain).
A module is Noetherian exactly when every submodule is finitely generated (Finite generation, ACC, and maximal-condition characterizations of Noetherian modules).
Proof
A submodule of the left regular module is an ideal. By [F1] it is generated by one element; this includes the zero ideal and unit ideal .
Thus every submodule of is finitely generated, so [L1] makes the regular module Noetherian and hence makes a Noetherian ring. Commutativity makes the same statement valid on the right.
Every irreducible element of a principal ideal domain is prime
Statement
Every irreducible element of a principal ideal domain is prime.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A PID , an irreducible , the irreducible and prime element definitions of Irreducible and prime elements of an integral domain, and maximal and prime ideals as in Prime ideals and maximal ideals in a commutative ring.
In a PID, there is an with for every ideal (Principal ideal domain).
Every maximal ideal in a commutative unital ring is prime (Every maximal ideal of a commutative ring is prime).
Proof
Let . By [F1], write , so for some . Irreducibility makes or a unit. If is a unit, ; if is a unit, . Since is a nonzero nonunit, is proper and therefore maximal.
By [L1], the maximal ideal is prime.
If , then , so primality of the ideal gives or , equivalently or . Thus is a prime element. Associates generate the same ideal and give the same conclusion.
Every principal ideal domain is a unique factorisation domain
Statement
Every principal ideal domain is a unique factorisation domain.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A PID and the UFD definition of Unique factorisation domain, which excludes zero from the factorization clause and treats a unit as an empty product of irreducibles.
Every principal ideal domain is Noetherian (Every principal ideal domain is Noetherian).
In a Noetherian module, every nonempty family of submodules has a maximal member; the route from ACC to this maximal condition carries the published dependent-choice cost (Finite generation, ACC, and maximal-condition characterizations of Noetherian modules).
Every irreducible element of a principal ideal domain is prime (Every irreducible element of a principal ideal domain is prime).
Proof
Suppose, for contradiction, that some nonzero nonunit is not a product of irreducibles. The principal ideals generated by such bad elements form a nonempty family; by [L1] and [L2], choose a maximal member . The element is not irreducible, so with nonunit nonzero . Then is strictly contained in both and , so maximality makes and products of irreducibles, and their product is a factorization of , a contradiction. Thus every nonzero nonunit factors into irreducibles.
For uniqueness, if are irreducible factorizations, primality of from [L3] makes it divide some , hence the two factors are associates. Cancel them in the domain and repeat on the remaining finite product. This induction pairs every factor and shows up to order and associates; the empty product is the unit case.
Step 1.1 gives factorization existence and step 1.2 gives the uniqueness required in the UFD definition. Therefore every PID is a UFD; the contradictory assumption in step 1.1 is discharged.
A nonzero PID submodule has a maximal coordinate ideal and a primitive pivot
Statement
Let be a PID, let be a nonzero finite free -module, and let . A nonzero submodule of a finite free PID module admits a primitive pivot splitting both the ambient module and submodule. More precisely, there are , , a nonzero , and such that , the ideal is maximal among value ideals containing a fixed nonzero value ideal, and
Moreover belongs to a basis of , and is free of rank one less than the rank of .
The maximality is taken among all functional value ideals, so it remains available after the pivot is split off.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The dual module of The -module over a commutative ring and coordinate functionals from a finite free basis (The free module on a set and its standard basis).
Every principal ideal domain is a unique factorisation domain (Every principal ideal domain is a unique factorisation domain).
Proof
Some coordinate functional has a nonzero value on . Fix one such nonzero value ideal . By [L1], a nonzero generator of has only finitely many divisor classes, so only finitely many principal ideals can contain . Choose a maximal value ideal among them, write it as with , and choose with .
For any coordinate functional , let generate and choose with . The functional takes to , so its value ideal contains ; maximality in step 1.1 forces , hence .
Divisibility of every coordinate of gives for some . Since and , cancellation gives , so is primitive.
The ideal generated by the coordinates of in a basis of is , so it does not depend on the basis, and makes it all of . Fix a basis of and let be the coordinates of in it. For let generate . If then and nothing is done; otherwise write and put , whose entries lie in and whose determinant is , so has entries in as well. Replacing the basis pair by the pair whose coordinates are the columns of again gives a basis of , in which the coordinates of at and are the entries of and the other coordinates are unchanged. Doing this for in turn clears the coordinates , so the resulting basis has with the coordinate ideal, which is . Hence is a unit and is a basis of .
Put for . The passage from to is triangular with on the diagonal, so the latter is again a basis of , and each lies in . If lies in , applying gives ; hence is a basis of , which is therefore free of rank , and zero when . Every is with the second summand in , and because , so . For one has , say , and then with ; also , since and in the domain . Hence . When is a unit, and generate the same submodule and the second decomposition reads .
Simultaneous bases for a submodule of a finite free module over a PID
Statement
Let be a PID, let be free of finite rank , and let . For a submodule of a finite free PID module, aligned bases have nonzero factors . More precisely, there is a basis of and nonzero elements such that there is a basis of the submodule with .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Induction on natural-number rank (The principle of mathematical induction) and the rank convention of Invariant basis number and the rank of a free module.
If with finite free over a PID, there are , , and such that , , , and is maximal among the functional value ideals containing a fixed nonzero value ideal (A nonzero PID submodule has a maximal coordinate ideal and a primitive pivot).
Proof
If , then and both bases are empty, giving . If for any , choose any basis of and the empty basis of .
Assume the theorem for free ambient modules of rank less than a fixed .
For nonzero of rank , apply [L1] to obtain and , where is free of rank and .
Apply the induction hypothesis of step 1.2 to , obtaining basis vectors and, when , factors . If , then and the required chain consists only of . Otherwise let be the coordinate functionals of the combined ambient basis and put . Since , one has ; maximality of the pivot value ideal in [L1] forces equality, and , so . Concatenating the bases gives the required aligned bases and chain, with , and completes the induction.
A submodule of a free module of finite rank over a PID is free of no larger rank
Statement
If is free of finite rank over a PID and , then is free of a uniquely determined finite rank .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Invariant basis number for nonzero commutative rings (Every nonzero commutative ring has invariant basis number for finite bases).
There is a basis of the submodule with (Simultaneous bases for a submodule of a finite free module over a PID).
Proof
The family in [L1] is an -basis of , so is free and has a basis of length . The zero submodule has the empty basis, and ambient rank zero forces .
Invariant basis number makes the finite basis length unique, so is the rank of . The endpoints and , including , are permitted.
Invariant factors and elementary divisors of a finitely generated module over a PID
Definition
Let be a principal ideal domain and a finitely generated -module. In a decomposition
where every is a nonzero nonunit, the associate classes of are the invariant factors of . Unit factors are omitted.
After each is factored into powers of irreducibles and the coprime cyclic quotients are split, the resulting prime powers , counted with multiplicity and up to associates, are the elementary divisors of . The summands belonging to one associate class of form the -primary component (The -primary component of a module over a domain). The integer is separate data and is not an elementary divisor.
Invariant-factor decomposition of a finitely generated module over a PID
Statement
Every finitely generated PID module is a finite free module direct-summed with cyclic torsion quotients. Precisely, if is finitely generated over a PID , then
where each is a nonzero nonunit and . Every finitely generated PID module has an invariant-factor decomposition. This assertion is existence; uniqueness is proved separately.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finitely generated module , quotient modules (Quotient module with scalar multiplication on additive cosets), and the first isomorphism theorem for modules (First isomorphism theorem for modules: ).
For a submodule of a free PID module of finite rank , there are a basis of and nonzero elements with such that is a basis of (Simultaneous bases for a submodule of a finite free module over a PID).
Proof
Choose generators of and define the surjection by sending the standard basis to them; put . For the zero module one may take .
Apply [L1] to . There is a basis of and a basis of , with nonzero .
The first isomorphism theorem and coordinatewise quotient give . Any unit contributes the zero quotient and is removed; the remaining nonunit factors preserve the divisibility chain. This constructs the stated decomposition, including purely free, purely torsion, cyclic, and empty cases.
Every finitely generated torsion-free module over a PID is free
Statement
Every finitely generated torsion-free module over a principal ideal domain is finite free.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A finitely generated torsion-free -module , where torsion-free means (Annihilators, torsion elements and the torsion subset of a module).
Every finitely generated PID module is a finite free module direct-summed with cyclic torsion quotients (Invariant-factor decomposition of a finitely generated module over a PID).
Proof
In the decomposition from [L1], every nonzero quotient with consists of torsion elements, whereas the free summand is torsion-free because is a domain. Torsion-freeness therefore forces every cyclic quotient summand to be zero.
Only the finite free summand remains, so is finite free. The zero module is the free module on the empty basis, and unit invariant factors already give zero summands.
A finitely generated PID module is its torsion submodule direct-summed with a finite free module
Statement
If is finitely generated over a PID , then
for some . A finitely generated PID module is its torsion submodule direct-summed with a finite free module. The torsion submodule is canonical; a free complement need not be.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The torsion submodule from Torsion elements and -primary elements form submodules over a domain and finite free modules as in The free module on a set and its standard basis.
Every finitely generated PID module is a finite free module direct-summed with cyclic torsion quotients (Invariant-factor decomposition of a finitely generated module over a PID).
Proof
In [L1], every cyclic quotient is torsion, and every torsion element has zero component in the free summand because a free module over a domain is torsion-free. Thus the direct sum of the cyclic quotients is exactly .
Substituting that identification into the invariant-factor decomposition gives . It includes pure torsion when , pure free modules when , and the zero module when both vanish.
The torsion submodule is canonical because it is defined by alone, while a free complement is not. Suppose is a nonzero nonunit and put . Since is a domain, an element killed by some nonzero scalar has , and kills every ; hence . Both and are free of rank one, because forces , and each meets only in while shows and likewise for . They are distinct: lies in only if , contrary to being a nonunit.
Coprime cyclic quotients over a PID split by the Chinese remainder map
Statement
Let be a PID. If , then . More generally, for a finite pairwise coprime family ,
The empty family reads , and the singleton case is the identity.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Quotient modules (Quotient module with scalar multiplication on additive cosets).
In a PID every ideal is principal (Principal ideal domain).
Proof
Coprimality means , so choose with .
The map given by is well defined. If both residues vanish, and ; multiplying the Bezout identity appropriately gives , so is injective. Given residues and , the element maps to them, so is surjective and is an -module isomorphism.
Repeatedly apply step 2.1 to a finite pairwise coprime family; the product of any subfamily remains coprime to the next factor. This gives the displayed finite direct sum, with the empty and singleton conventions stated above and with unit factors contributing zero quotients.
Primary decomposition and elementary-divisor form for finitely generated PID modules
Statement
Let be finitely generated over a PID . For each irreducible , the -primary component is a finite direct sum of modules . A finitely generated torsion PID module is the direct sum of its prime-power cyclic elementary-divisor summands. In general,
with only finitely many nonzero summands. Conversely, aligning the prime powers into divisibility columns reconstructs an invariant-factor decomposition.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The elementary-divisor convention of Invariant factors and elementary divisors of a finitely generated module over a PID, the UFD property of a PID (Every principal ideal domain is a unique factorisation domain), and the fact that primary elements form submodules (Torsion elements and -primary elements form submodules over a domain).
Every finitely generated PID module is a finite free module direct-summed with cyclic torsion quotients (Invariant-factor decomposition of a finitely generated module over a PID).
Coprime cyclic quotients split by the Chinese remainder map (Coprime cyclic quotients over a PID split by the Chinese remainder map).
Proof
Take the invariant-factor decomposition from [L1]. Factor each nonunit uniquely up to associates as a finite product of powers of pairwise nonassociate irreducibles. The free part is kept separate, and no factorization is assigned to zero or to a unit.
The prime-power factors of one are pairwise coprime, so [L2] splits into the corresponding quotients . Applying this to every invariant factor gives a finite elementary-divisor direct sum.
Grouping the summands by the associate class of gives exactly , because an element is killed by a power of precisely in those summands. Thus the torsion submodule is the direct sum of its primary components, each having the asserted form.
Conversely, order the powers for each prime by exponent, align the largest powers in the last column, pad missing entries by units, and multiply down columns. Each column divides the next, and repeated use of [L2] recovers the original elementary-divisor sum. This constructs the invariant factors, including empty torsion data.
-power torsion dimensions recover the elementary divisors of a PID module
Statement
Let be a finitely generated module over a PID , fix an irreducible , and for put . Then is a vector space over , and
is the number of -primary elementary divisors with . Hence is the multiplicity of . The dimensions of recover every elementary-divisor exponent multiplicity.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Vector-space dimension (Finite-dimensional vector space, and its dimension ; infinite-dimensional means having no finite basis) and the prime-element conclusion of Every irreducible element of a principal ideal domain is prime.
The -primary component is a finite direct sum of modules (Primary decomposition and elementary-divisor form for finitely generated PID modules).
Every principal ideal domain is a unique factorisation domain (Every principal ideal domain is a unique factorisation domain).
Proof
Since is prime, is a prime ideal; in a PID it is maximal by the same divisibility argument as for irreducibles, so is a field. Every element of is killed by , making this set an -vector space.
On one summand , if then and , a one-dimensional -space. If , then , so the contribution is zero. For a -primary summand with not associated to , unique factorisation [L2] makes and coprime, so choose with ; multiplication by is inverse to multiplication by on , and its -torsion is zero. Free summands likewise contribute no -power torsion.
Direct sums commute with and multiplication by , so dimensions add. By step 2.1, counts exactly the exponents ; for it counts every -primary cyclic summand, and beyond the largest exponent it is zero.
The summands counted by but not by are exactly those with exponent , so recovers their multiplicity. Empty primary data and the zero module give the zero sequence.
Uniqueness of invariant factors and elementary divisors over a PID
Statement
A finitely generated PID module is classified by its free rank and invariant factors, equivalently its elementary divisors. More precisely, the free rank is unique; invariant factors are unique up to associates in their divisibility order; elementary divisors are unique up to associates and permutation; and two finitely generated modules are isomorphic exactly when these data agree.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Primary and invariant-factor existence from Primary decomposition and elementary-divisor form for finitely generated PID modules, invariant basis number for nonzero commutative rings (Every nonzero commutative ring has invariant basis number for finite bases), and the torsion/free splitting of A finitely generated PID module is its torsion submodule direct-summed with a finite free module.
The dimensions of recover every elementary-divisor exponent multiplicity (-power torsion dimensions recover the elementary divisors of a PID module).
Proof
An isomorphism carries torsion elements to torsion elements, so it induces an isomorphism of torsion submodules and of the quotients by torsion. The latter quotients are finite free, and invariant basis number recovers their common free rank.
For every associate class of irreducible and every , an isomorphism preserves , multiplication by , and the resulting -dimension. By [L1], it therefore preserves every elementary-divisor multiplicity.
Aligning the unique prime-power columns as in the primary-decomposition theorem recovers one divisibility chain of invariant factors up to associates. Hence invariant factors are unique as well. Empty torsion data, pure torsion, pure free, and the zero module are included.
Conversely, equal free ranks and equal invariant-factor or elementary-divisor data give termwise isomorphisms between the corresponding direct-sum decompositions; their direct sum constructs a module isomorphism. This proves both directions of the classification.
The free rank of a finitely generated module over a PID
Definition
Let be a finitely generated module over a principal ideal domain . Its free rank, denoted , is the unique integer for which its invariant-factor decomposition has free summand .
Uniqueness follows from Uniqueness of invariant factors and elementary divisors over a PID and agrees with the rank convention for finite free modules in Invariant basis number and the rank of a free module. In particular a torsion module has free rank .
Extension to the fraction field recovers the free rank of a finitely generated PID module
Statement
Let be a PID, , and a finitely generated -module. Then
Thus equals the free rank of .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The free-rank definition of The free rank of a finitely generated module over a PID, fraction fields and extension of scalars (The field of fractions of an integral domain, Restriction of scalars and extension of scalars along a ring homomorphism ), and vector-space dimension (Finite-dimensional vector space, and its dimension ; infinite-dimensional means having no finite basis).
Every finitely generated module over a PID is isomorphic to with each a nonzero nonunit and (Invariant-factor decomposition of a finitely generated module over a PID).
For every integral domain , the localisation is a field and contains an embedded copy of ( is a field and embeds the integral domain ).
The unit tensor maps are module isomorphisms and respect every displayed outer module structure (The regular module is a tensor unit: and ).
Tensor products commute with arbitrary direct sums in either variable, including the empty sum (Tensor products commute with arbitrary direct sums).
Proof
Write by [L1], with and each a nonzero nonunit. This is an invariant-factor decomposition, so by the free-rank definition in the Given. Extension of scalars and [L4] give .
Every is killed by the nonzero product ; in that scalar is invertible by [L2], so each simple tensor satisfies for that . Simple tensors generate the tensor product, hence .
By [L3] and [L4], . Therefore and its -dimension is , which step 1.1 identified with . This includes , pure torsion, pure free, rank one, and the zero module, where makes the zero module.
Matrix equivalence and Smith normal form over a PID
Definition
Let be a principal ideal domain and let . The matrices are equivalent when
for some and (Invertible square matrices and similarity over a commutative ring).
A Smith normal form of is an equivalent diagonal rectangular matrix
where every is nonzero and . Multiplying any by a unit gives the same Smith data. The zero matrix has , and the definition also covers matrices with zero rows or zero columns.
Determinantal divisors from the minors of a matrix over a PID
Definition
Let over a principal ideal domain . For , the -th determinantal ideal is the ideal generated by the determinants of all minors of (For , the determinant over a commutative ring by the Leibniz formula, and for a real matrix, The ideal generated by a subset and principal ideals). Set . If , there are no such minors and .
Since is a PID (Principal ideal domain), write . The associate class of is the -th determinantal divisor. Thus is a unit up to associates, while a vanishing determinantal ideal has divisor .
Every matrix over a PID has a Smith normal form
Statement
Every rectangular matrix over a PID is equivalent to a Smith diagonal matrix. Equivalently, for every there are invertible such that
with every . This is an existence theorem over a PID and does not assert a Euclidean row-reduction algorithm.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Matrix equivalence and Smith form as in Matrix equivalence and Smith normal form over a PID; a matrix as a homomorphism ; free modules are projective (Under the stated choice boundary, free modules are projective and hence flat); and the first isomorphism theorem identifies with (First isomorphism theorem for modules: ).
A submodule of a finite free PID module admits aligned bases with a divisibility chain (Simultaneous bases for a submodule of a finite free module over a PID).
Given a section of a short exact sequence, the middle module is the direct sum of the kernel and the section image (The splitting lemma for short exact sequences of modules).
Proof
Regard as and put . By [L1], both and are finite free; the sequence is exact.
Apply [L1] to align in the codomain: choose a basis of such that is a basis of with .
Since is free and projective, the surjection has a section. By [L2], . Place the lifted basis first and then a basis of the kernel to obtain a domain basis.
In the bases from steps 2.1 and 2.2, sends the lifted vector for to and kills the kernel basis, so its matrix is the displayed Smith diagonal. Empty matrices, the zero map, and all rank deficiencies give the appropriate empty or trailing-zero diagonal.
Smith normal form is unique through the gcds of its minors
Statement
Smith normal form is unique and its entries are recovered from successive determinantal divisors. If a matrix has nonzero Smith entries , then, up to associates,
and is the successive quotient .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Determinantal ideals and divisors from Determinantal divisors from the minors of a matrix over a PID, including ; determinant multilinearity and alternation (The determinant is the unique normalized alternating multilinear function on the columns).
Every rectangular matrix over a PID is equivalent to a Smith diagonal matrix (Every matrix over a PID has a Smith normal form).
Proof
Every -minor of is an -linear combination of -minors of by determinant multilinearity, so ; applying the same argument to gives equality. Right multiplication is identical. Thus equivalent matrices have the same determinantal ideals.
For a Smith diagonal matrix with , every nonzero -minor is a product of diagonal entries and is divisible by , while the leading -minor equals that product. Hence is associate to for and is for .
Step 1.1 makes the invariants of equivalence. Step 1.2 recovers as the last nonzero index and recovers each up to a unit from successive products, proving uniqueness. It includes , zero matrices, one-by-one matrices, and all rectangular ranks.
Abelian groups and -modules have the same objects and morphisms
Statement
Every abelian group carries a unique -module structure whose scalar action is integer multiplication. Abelian groups and -modules have the same objects and morphisms; their subgroups, generated subobjects, cyclic objects, finite generation, and quotients agree.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: An abelian group and the published additive integer-power construction.
The integers form a commutative ring with multiplicative identity (The integers form a commutative ring).
A group is abelian when its operation is commutative (Group and abelian group).
A left -module is an abelian group with a unital distributive scalar action (Unital left and right modules over a ring; unqualified module means left module).
A group homomorphism preserves the group operation (Monoid homomorphism and group homomorphism).
An -module homomorphism preserves addition and scalar multiplication (Module homomorphism and isomorphism, kernel, image and cokernel).
A subgroup is closed under the group operation and inverses (Subgroup).
A submodule is an additive subgroup closed under scalars (Submodule of a module).
The subgroup generated by is the smallest subgroup containing (The subgroup generated by a subset, the cyclic subgroup , and cyclic groups).
The submodule generated by is the smallest submodule containing (Generated submodule, cyclic and finitely generated modules, module basis and free module).
The quotient group consists of cosets when is normal (The quotient group and coset product ).
The quotient module has the same additive cosets with induced scalar action (Quotient module with scalar multiplication on additive cosets).
Every subgroup of an abelian group is normal (Every subgroup of an abelian group is normal).
In additive notation the integer power is written (Powers : natural exponents in a monoid and integer exponents in a group, with ).
Integer powers satisfy (Exponent laws in a group: and for all , and when and commute).
Integer powers satisfy (Exponent laws in a group: and for all , and when and commute).
In an abelian group, integer powers satisfy (Exponent laws in a group: and for all , and when and commute).
Proof
Define using [F11]. The integer-power laws [L3], [L4], and [L5], together with and , give the four module axioms over the ring in [L1]; commutativity in [F1] supplies the hypothesis for [L5]. Thus every abelian group becomes a -module.
Conversely, any -module action must satisfy and , so induction forces the action of every nonnegative integer. The equation forces the negative action. Hence the action in step 1.1 is unique, including the zero scalar and the trivial group.
An additive group homomorphism preserves repeated sums and negatives, hence preserves for every integer and is -linear. Every -linear map is additive by definition, so group homomorphisms and module homomorphisms are the same maps.
A subgroup of an abelian group is closed under every integer multiple and is therefore a -submodule; every submodule is already an additive subgroup. Thus subgroups and submodules agree.
Since the two families of subobjects agree, their intersections over subobjects containing agree. Hence generated subgroups and generated -submodules coincide, including , so cyclicity and finite generation agree.
By [L2], every subgroup is normal. The quotient group and quotient module have the same cosets and addition, and the unique integer action on cosets is , so the quotient objects agree, including and .
Steps 1.1 and 2.1 identify the objects in both directions, step 2.2 identifies morphisms, steps 2.3 and 3.1 identify subobjects and generation, and step 3.2 identifies quotients. This proves the complete dictionary.
The fundamental theorem of finitely generated abelian groups from PID modules
Statement
Every finitely generated abelian group has unique canonical decompositions
and
where and the finite torsion data are unique up to the stated order. The torsion summand is finite. The trivial group has and empty torsion data.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The PID definition of Principal ideal domain.
Abelian groups and -modules have the same objects and morphisms; their subgroups, generated subobjects, cyclic objects, finite generation, and quotients agree (Abelian groups and -modules have the same objects and morphisms).
The integers form a commutative ring with multiplicative identity (The integers form a commutative ring).
If are nonzero, then (The integers have no zero divisors; multiplicative cancellation).
Every subgroup of is cyclic (Every subgroup of is for exactly one natural number ).
A finitely generated PID module is classified by its free rank and invariant factors, equivalently its elementary divisors: the free rank is unique, invariant factors are unique up to associates in their divisibility order, elementary divisors are unique up to associates and permutation, and two such modules are isomorphic exactly when these data agree (Uniqueness of invariant factors and elementary divisors over a PID).
Every finitely generated module over a PID is isomorphic to with each a nonzero nonunit and , and also to with finitely many nonzero prime-power summands (Invariant-factor decomposition of a finitely generated module over a PID, Primary decomposition and elementary-divisor form for finitely generated PID modules).
Proof
By [L2] and [L3], is a commutative unital ring without zero divisors, hence an integral domain.
Every ideal of is an additive subgroup and is cyclic by [L4], so it is generated by one integer.
Steps 1.1 and 1.2 verify the domain and principal-ideal clauses, so is a PID.
Regard as the canonical finitely generated -module from [L1]. Applying [L6] over the PID in step 2.1 gives the free summand and the invariant-factor and elementary-divisor decompositions, and [L5] makes the free rank and the torsion data unique; [L1] translates the cyclic quotients back to cyclic abelian groups. Uniqueness and the converse construction are preserved by the dictionary.
Each torsion summand is finite, and only finitely many occur, so their direct sum is finite. The free rank may be zero, and empty torsion data gives a finitely generated free abelian group.
The PID-module and finite-abelian-group classifications have the same canonical data
Statement
For a finite abelian group, the PID-module elementary divisors and invariant factors agree with the published group-theoretic data. In particular the two classifications attach the same prime-power multiset and the same divisibility chain, including the empty data for the trivial group.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The module-derived abelian classification of The fundamental theorem of finitely generated abelian groups from PID modules and the group-side definitions of Elementary-divisor data for a finite abelian group and Invariant-factor data for a finite abelian group.
Every finite abelian group is isomorphic to a finite direct product of cyclic groups of prime-power order, with unique factor orders up to permutation (Fundamental theorem of finite abelian groups: elementary-divisor form).
Every finite abelian group has a unique divisibility list of invariant factors, with the trivial group represented by the empty list (Fundamental theorem of finite abelian groups: invariant-factor form).
Proof
A finite abelian group cannot contain a nonzero free summand , so its module-theoretic free rank is .
The module elementary-divisor form and [L1] both express the group as cyclic groups of prime-power order. Their uniqueness clauses force the same prime powers with the same multiplicities, which is exactly agreement of the two elementary-divisor definitions.
Aligning those common prime powers produces the module invariant factors, while [L2] uniquely characterizes the group invariant-factor chain. The two chains therefore agree. Conversely either common list reconstructs the same cyclic direct sum, proving agreement in both directions.
The index of a full-rank subgroup of is the absolute determinant of a generating matrix
Statement
Let .
- Let and let be the subgroup generated by the columns of . If , then the quotient group is finite of order ; if , then is infinite.
- Every subgroup is for some .
So a subgroup of has finite index exactly when it is generated by the columns of a square integer matrix of nonzero determinant, and its index is then the absolute determinant of every such matrix.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A natural number , and for clause 1 a matrix with .
Abelian groups and -modules have the same objects and morphisms, so a subgroup of is a -submodule and the quotient group is the quotient module (Abelian groups and -modules have the same objects and morphisms). The ring is a commutative ring with identity in which a product of nonzero elements is nonzero, so it is an integral domain, and every subgroup of is cyclic, so every ideal of is principal: is a principal ideal domain (The integers form a commutative ring, The integers have no zero divisors; multiplicative cancellation, Every subgroup of is for exactly one natural number , Principal ideal domain).
For every over a PID there are invertible with and , every ; equivalence means with and (Every matrix over a PID has a Smith normal form, Matrix equivalence and Smith normal form over a PID).
Over a commutative ring , a square matrix is invertible exactly when its determinant is a unit, the determinant of a triangular matrix is the product of its diagonal entries, and the units of are and (For same-sized finite square matrices over a commutative ring, , A positive-sized square matrix over a commutative ring is invertible if and only if its determinant is a unit, The determinant of a triangular matrix is the product of its diagonal entries, is a commutative monoid whose group of units is ; equivalently holds exactly for and ).
For every module homomorphism there is an isomorphism (First isomorphism theorem for modules: ).
For a submodule of a free module of finite rank over a PID there is a basis of the ambient module and nonzero elements with such that is a basis of the submodule (Simultaneous bases for a submodule of a finite free module over a PID).
Proof
By [F1] the quotient is a quotient of -modules, and by [F2] applied over the PID there are with , every .
By [F3], and are units of , hence , so ; and is diagonal, so , which is when and when .
Since is invertible over , , so . The map is an automorphism of carrying onto , so it induces an isomorphism .
Write for , and let send to the tuple of residues , a surjective homomorphism whose kernel is . By [F4], , and with step 2.1 this group is isomorphic to .
If then by step 1.2, so and every is nonzero; each is then finite of order , so by step 3.1 the quotient is finite of order .
If then by step 1.2, so and ; the summand is infinite, so by step 3.1 the quotient is infinite. This proves clause 1.
For clause 2, let be any subgroup of . By [F1] it is a -submodule of the free module of rank over the PID , so [F5] gives a basis of and nonzero , , with a basis of . Let be the matrix whose first columns are and whose remaining columns are zero; its entries are integers because the and the are. Then is the set of integer combinations of those columns, which is exactly , so clause 2 holds; combining it with clause 1 gives the final sentence of the Statement.
Remark
The corollary is what makes the determinant a counting invariant: clause 2 says every subgroup of is a column lattice, and for with nonzero determinant the columns of generate a subgroup of of index exactly , and the Smith invariant factors refine that single number into the isomorphism type of the quotient. Nothing here needs a Euclidean volume: the count comes from the invariant factors, and the determinant enters only because it is unchanged up to sign by multiplication with matrices invertible over .
The companion matrix of a monic polynomial
Definition
For a monic polynomial
of positive degree over a commutative ring, its companion matrix is
Thus the ones are on the subdiagonal. This is the matrix of multiplication by on the power basis of the cyclic module .
The -module of an endomorphism
Definition
Let be a vector space over a field and let be an endomorphism. The polynomial module of , denoted , is the additive group of with the -action
from Polynomial evaluation at an endomorphism: . This is a unital left -module (Unital left and right modules over a ring; unqualified module means left module): distributivity follows from linearity, , and by expanding the finite polynomial sums. The subscript records the action; it does not change the underlying vectors or addition.
For finite-dimensional , is finitely generated and torsion, with annihilator generated by the minimal polynomial
Statement
Let be an endomorphism of a finite-dimensional -vector space . The -module is finitely generated and torsion. The annihilator of is generated by the minimal polynomial .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The polynomial action of The -module of an endomorphism, the module finite-generation convention of Generated submodule, cyclic and finitely generated modules, module basis and free module, and the operator-annihilator definition of The annihilator set ; once existence is proved, its unique monic generator is the minimal polynomial.
For every endomorphism of a finite-dimensional -vector space, is a nonzero ideal of and has a unique monic generator ; moreover exactly when (The annihilator ideal is nonzero and has a unique monic generator; if and only if ).
Proof
Any finite -basis of generates over , because constant polynomials already give every -linear combination. On the zero space the empty basis generates.
By [L1], , so kills every vector. Thus every vector is torsion and is a torsion -module.
A polynomial annihilates the whole module exactly when for every , exactly when . By [L1], this is equivalent to , so . For , both ideals are .
Invariant factors and elementary divisors of an endomorphism
Definition
Let be an endomorphism of a finite-dimensional vector space over . The invariant factors and elementary divisors of are those of the -module (The -module of an endomorphism), normalized to be monic polynomials.
The ring is a PID by For every field , is a principal ideal domain, and For finite-dimensional , is finitely generated and torsion, with annihilator generated by the minimal polynomial makes a finitely generated torsion module. These data therefore exist by Invariant-factor decomposition of a finitely generated module over a PID and Primary decomposition and elementary-divisor form for finitely generated PID modules, and are unique by Uniqueness of invariant factors and elementary divisors over a PID.
Existence and uniqueness of rational canonical form
Statement
Every square matrix over a field is similar to the unique rational canonical form determined by its invariant factors. If the monic invariant factors are , then
In rational canonical form, the blocks are the companion matrices of the invariant factors. The zero-dimensional form and invariant-factor list are empty.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The invariant factors of an endomorphism from Invariant factors and elementary divisors of an endomorphism, the torsion statement of For finite-dimensional , is finitely generated and torsion, with annihilator generated by the minimal polynomial, the companion convention of The companion matrix of a monic polynomial, and similarity as change of basis (Similarity is an equivalence relation, and two matrices represent the same endomorphism in two bases exactly when they are similar).
A finitely generated PID module is classified by its free rank together with its invariant factors, the latter unique up to associates in their divisibility order (Uniqueness of invariant factors and elementary divisors over a PID).
On the power basis of a cyclic subspace, multiplication by has the companion matrix with ones on the subdiagonal and the negative coefficients in the last column (A vector annihilator gives a power basis and its companion matrix).
Every finitely generated module over a PID is isomorphic to with each a nonzero nonunit and (Invariant-factor decomposition of a finitely generated module over a PID).
Proof
Apply [L3] to the finitely generated torsion -module . A free summand with contains a nonzero element with zero annihilator, so torsion forces , and for monic nonconstant after normalizing each generator to be monic.
In the power basis of each cyclic quotient, multiplication by , hence the action of , has companion matrix by [L2]. Concatenating these bases gives the displayed block diagonal matrix and therefore a similarity from the original matrix to rational canonical form.
By [L1], the monic invariant factors are unique; unit factors give zero modules and are omitted. Thus the ordered companion-block form is unique and determines the similarity class. Dimension zero has no summands and gives the empty matrix.
On a nonzero finite-dimensional space, the largest invariant factor is the minimal polynomial
Statement
On a nonzero finite-dimensional space, the largest invariant factor is the minimal polynomial. On the zero space the invariant-factor list is empty and the minimal polynomial is , so there is no largest invariant factor.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A nonzero finite-dimensional space with invariant factors supplied by Existence and uniqueness of rational canonical form.
The annihilator of is generated by the minimal polynomial (For finite-dimensional , is finitely generated and torsion, with annihilator generated by the minimal polynomial).
Proof
A polynomial annihilates exactly when for every . Since , this is equivalent to , so the module annihilator is .
By [L1], the same annihilator ideal is . Both generators are monic, so . The nonzero-space hypothesis ensures ; the zero-space convention is as stated.
The product of the invariant factors is the characteristic polynomial
Statement
If are the invariant factors of an endomorphism , then the product of the invariant factors is the characteristic polynomial:
On the zero space this is the empty product .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The characteristic polynomial of The basis-independent characteristic polynomial of an endomorphism of a finite-dimensional space, including in dimension zero, the companion-matrix convention of The companion matrix of a monic polynomial, and multiplication of characteristic polynomials across block triangular matrices (The characteristic polynomial of a block upper- or lower-triangular matrix is the product of the characteristic polynomials of its diagonal blocks).
In rational canonical form, the blocks are the companion matrices of the invariant factors (Existence and uniqueness of rational canonical form).
Proof
Expanding along the companion rows gives the monic polynomial ; this includes zero coefficients and linear companion matrices.
By [L1], is similar to the block diagonal matrix with blocks . Characteristic polynomials are similarity-invariant and multiply over block diagonals, so step 1.1 gives . With no blocks, the determinant and product are both .
Cayley-Hamilton by the PID-module structure theorem
Statement
For every endomorphism of a finite-dimensional vector space, its characteristic polynomial annihilates it:
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The minimal polynomial satisfies by The annihilator set ; once existence is proved, its unique monic generator is the minimal polynomial.
On a nonzero finite-dimensional space, the largest invariant factor is the minimal polynomial (On a nonzero finite-dimensional space, the largest invariant factor is the minimal polynomial).
The product of the invariant factors is the characteristic polynomial (The product of the invariant factors is the characteristic polynomial).
Proof
On a nonzero space, [L1] and [L2] show that , the largest factor, divides the product ; write . On the zero space, and the identity endomorphism equals the zero endomorphism because there is only one map from the zero space to itself.
Evaluating the factorization from step 1.1 gives . The zero endomorphism and one-dimensional spaces are included.
Remarks
This is the module-theoretic route to Cayley-Hamilton. The published proof Cayley-Hamilton: every finite-dimensional endomorphism satisfies its characteristic polynomial, instead uses the adjugate identity for the polynomial matrix .
A companion block for is similar to the Jordan block
Statement
For and , is similar to .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The power-basis companion matrix of The companion matrix of a monic polynomial and similarity as change of basis (Similarity is an equivalence relation, and two matrices represent the same endomorphism in two bases exactly when they are similar).
For and , the Jordan block has on the diagonal, on the superdiagonal, and elsewhere (Jordan blocks, Jordan strings, and their endpoints).
Proof
In , the residue classes form a basis. Reversing their order gives the basis .
Multiplication by in the reversed basis has on the diagonal and sends each basis vector except the first to itself times plus the preceding basis vector. Its matrix therefore has ones on the superdiagonal and is by [F1]. For it is the matrix .
In the ordinary power basis , the same multiplication operator has companion matrix . The two matrices represent one operator in two bases, so they are similar.
Jordan canonical form from the elementary divisors of
Statement
Let be an endomorphism of a finite-dimensional -vector space whose characteristic polynomial splits over . If the elementary divisors of are , then has a Jordan canonical form with one block for each elementary divisor. The multiset of blocks is unique, and conversely each Jordan block yields its corresponding cyclic primary module. The zero space has empty lists.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Endomorphism elementary divisors from Invariant factors and elementary divisors of an endomorphism, Jordan canonical form as in Jordan bases and Jordan canonical forms over the base field, and uniqueness of PID elementary divisors (Uniqueness of invariant factors and elementary divisors over a PID).
A finitely generated torsion PID module is the direct sum of its prime-power cyclic elementary-divisor summands (Primary decomposition and elementary-divisor form for finitely generated PID modules).
is similar to (A companion block for is similar to the Jordan block ).
The product of the invariant factors of is its characteristic polynomial (The product of the invariant factors is the characteristic polynomial).
Proof
By [L3], every invariant factor divides the split polynomial , so every irreducible factor occurring in an elementary divisor is linear. By [L1], is the direct sum of cyclic modules , one for each elementary divisor.
On each cyclic summand, multiplication by has companion matrix , which [L2] turns by a basis change into . Concatenating these bases constructs a Jordan basis for .
Every Jordan block gives the reverse cyclic module , and uniqueness of elementary divisors gives uniqueness of the block multiset up to order. Empty elementary-divisor data gives the empty Jordan form on the zero space.
Remarks
This proof obtains the blocks from the -module structure. The published criterion Jordan form over the base field exists exactly when the characteristic polynomial splits obtains existence through generalized eigenspaces and Jordan strings.
For split characteristic polynomial, elementary divisors and Jordan strings give the same Jordan blocks
Statement
For an endomorphism with split characteristic polynomial, the elementary divisors in the module construction and the Jordan strings in the rank-of-powers construction determine exactly the same block sizes and multiplicities, including the empty data on the zero space.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The module-derived Jordan form of Jordan canonical form from the elementary divisors of .
The ranks of all shifted powers determine the Jordan form uniquely up to permutation of its blocks (Ranks of shifted powers determine Jordan form up to block order).
For a nilpotent operator, successive kernel dimensions or rank differences give the number of blocks of each size (Power ranks determine every nilpotent Jordan-block multiplicity).
Proof
On the cyclic summand , multiplication by has kernel dimension for : it kills exactly the final translated-power basis vectors.
Kernel dimensions add over direct sums, so for each the module elementary divisors give , counted with multiplicity.
By [L2], successive differences of the sequence in step 2.1 recover the number of blocks of size at least and exactly . These are the same shifted-power invariants used in [L1], so the module and Jordan-string constructions have identical block multisets. For the kernel is zero; after the largest exponent the sequence stabilizes, and on the zero space every sequence and list is empty.
Two matrices are similar exactly when their invariant factors agree
Statement
Two square matrices over a field are similar exactly when their invariant factors agree. No splitting hypothesis is required.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Similar matrices in the sense of Similar matrices: for an invertible and the endomorphism invariant factors of Invariant factors and elementary divisors of an endomorphism.
Every square matrix over a field is similar to the unique rational canonical form determined by its invariant factors (Existence and uniqueness of rational canonical form).
Proof
For the forward direction, if , then intertwines the two endomorphisms and hence is an isomorphism of their polynomial modules. Module classification, equivalently [L1], gives equal invariant factors.
For the reverse direction, if the invariant factors agree, [L1] makes both matrices similar to the same rational canonical block matrix. Composing the two conjugating changes of basis shows that they are similar to each other. The argument covers nonsplit factors, repeated factors, zero matrices, one-by-one matrices, and the unique zero-by-zero matrix.
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
None yet.
Sources
- K. Conrad, Modules over a PID, Sections 4-5
- M. Brussel, Finitely Generated Modules over a PID, Section 3
- K. Conrad, Modules over a PID, Section 4
- K. Conrad, Modules over a PID, Section 2
- K. Conrad, Modules over a PID, preliminary PID facts
- M. Brussel, Finitely Generated Modules over a PID, Section 1
- K. Conrad, Modules over a PID, PID factorization prerequisites
- K. Conrad, Modules over a PID, Theorem 2.14
- K. Conrad, Modules over a PID, Theorem 2.2
- M. Brussel, Finitely Generated Modules over a PID, Theorem 1.0.1
- M. Brussel, Finitely Generated Modules over a PID, Sections 3-5
- K. Conrad, Modules over a PID, Theorem 4.1
- K. Conrad, Modules over a PID, Corollary 2.6
- M. Brussel, Finitely Generated Modules over a PID, Section 3.5
- A. Apisa, Wisconsin Math 542, Lecture 11
- K. Conrad, Modules over a PID, Theorem 5.7
- M. Brussel, Finitely Generated Modules over a PID, Section 3.6
- K. Conrad, Modules over a PID, Section 5
- K. Conrad, Modules over a PID, Lemma 1.2 and rank discussion
- M. Brussel, Finitely Generated Modules over a PID, Definitions 2.0.1 and 2.1.1
- M. Brussel, Finitely Generated Modules over a PID, Section 2.1
- A. Apisa, Wisconsin Math 542, Lectures 8-9
- M. Brussel, Finitely Generated Modules over a PID, Theorem 2.1.2
- K. Conrad, Modules over a PID, aligned-basis theorem
- M. Brussel, Finitely Generated Modules over a PID, Theorem 2.1.6
- A. Apisa, Wisconsin Math 542, Theorem 27
- K. Conrad, Introductory Notes on Modules, Section 4
- M. Brussel, Finitely Generated Modules over a PID, Section 4
- K. Conrad, Modules over a PID, Example 4.2
- M. Brussel, Finitely Generated Modules over a PID, Theorem 4.2.1
- M. Brussel, Finitely Generated Modules over a PID, Section 7
- M. Brussel, Finitely Generated Modules over a PID, Section 5
- M. Brussel, Finitely Generated Modules over a PID, Section 5.2
- A. Apisa, Wisconsin Math 542, Lectures 11-12
- M. Brussel, Finitely Generated Modules over a PID, Sections 5.2-5.3
- M. Brussel, Finitely Generated Modules over a PID, Theorem 7.2.1
- A. Apisa, Wisconsin Math 542, Lemma 34
- A. Apisa, Wisconsin Math 542, Lemma 33
- A. Apisa, Wisconsin Math 542, Corollary 35
- A. Apisa, Wisconsin Math 542, Lemma 37
- M. Brussel, Finitely Generated Modules over a PID, Section 7.4
- A. Apisa, Wisconsin Math 542, Corollary 38
- M. Brussel, Finitely Generated Modules over a PID, Sections 5.4 and 7.2