Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedjudge pass (gpt-6.1-sol)
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.

Elementary ideals are independent of the presentation

Statement

Let R be a commutative ring and let M be a finitely presented R-module. Then for every k≥0 the elementary ideal Ek(M) of Elementary ideals of a finitely presented module is independent of the chosen finite presentation of M; in particular it is an invariant of the isomorphism class of M, and isomorphic modules have the same elementary ideals.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A commutative ring R, a finitely presented R-module M and an integer k≥0. No choice principle is used.

[F1]

For a presentation Rm→ARn→M→0 with m,n finite, Ek(M) is the ideal generated by all (n−k)×(n−k) minors of A, with Ek(M)=R for k≥n and Ek(M)=0 for k<n−m (Elementary ideals of a finitely presented module).

[F2]

For a finitely generated module N presented as R(J)→φRn→N→0 with n finite and J arbitrary, the ideal In−k(φ) generated by the (n−k)×(n−k) minors depends only on N and the fixed integer k, not on the presentation; it is written Fitt⁡k(N). The conventions are Ir=R for r≤0 and Ir=0 when there are no r×r minors. In particular the minor size changes when the number of presentation generators changes. Fitting ideals are compatible with base change (Fitting ideals do not depend on a presentation).

[F3]

A finitely presented module M is finitely generated and admits a presentation Rm→Rn→M→0 with m,n finite; the cokernel of the presentation map is M (Finitely presented modules and finitely presented algebras, Module homomorphism and isomorphism, kernel, image and cokernel, Generated submodule, cyclic and finitely generated modules, module basis and free module).

[F4]

An isomorphism u:M→M′ of R-modules carries a presentation Rm→Rn→M→0 to the presentation Rm→Rn→u∘βM′→0 with the same presentation matrix; hence isomorphic modules admit presentations with identical matrices. [F3, given]

Proof

1.1F1F2F3

Identification with the Fitting indexing. Given a finite presentation of M with presentation matrix A of size n×m, [F1] defines Ek(M) as the ideal generated by the (n−k)×(n−k) minors of A, with the values R for n−k≤0 and 0 when n−k exceeds the number m of columns. This is exactly the ideal In−k(A) of [F2] for the same presentation (whose index set J is finite of size m), including both conventions; hence Ek(M)=In−k(A)=Fitt⁡k(M) for every finite presentation of M.

2.1F2F4step 1.1∎

Independence and isomorphism invariance. By [F2] the value In−k(A) is independent of the presentation, so by step 1.1 Ek(M) is independent of the chosen finite presentation. If u:M→M′ is an isomorphism, [F4] transports any finite presentation of M to one of M′ with the same matrix, so the two ideals agree. This proves the statement.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

22 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.

Sources