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.
Finite torsion-free Dedekind modules split into invertible ideal summands
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice. Let be a Dedekind domain and let be a finite torsion-free -module. Then there exist invertible fractional ideals such that . In particular, every finite torsion-free module over a Dedekind domain is projective.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Dedekind domain , its fraction field , and a finite torsion-free -module .
Every finite torsion-free module over a Dedekind domain is projective (Finite torsion-free modules over Dedekind domains are projective).
A nonzero finite projective Dedekind module splits as with an invertible fractional ideal (A nonzero finite projective module over a Dedekind domain splits off a rank-one summand).
Invertible fractional ideals are exactly the finite rank-one projective modules (Invertible fractional ideals are exactly the rank-one projective modules).
Proof
Let . If , then because is torsion-free, so the empty direct sum gives the claim.
Suppose . By [L1], the module is projective. If , then [L3] identifies itself with an invertible fractional ideal, and we are done. If , apply [L2] to write with invertible. Then is finite torsion-free and satisfies . By induction on , the module is a finite direct sum of invertible fractional ideals, and adjoining the summand gives the same conclusion for .
Every summand is projective by [L3], so the displayed decomposition also shows that is projective.
Remarks
This draft item deliberately stops at the decomposition into invertible ideal summands. It does not claim the stronger Steinitz normal form or uniqueness of the final ideal class, because those extra moves were not rebuilt here from the present dependency budget.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
14 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
- J. P. May, Notes on Dedekind Rings (standard reference, not scraped)
- J. S. Milne, A Primer of Commutative Algebra, §20 (standard reference, not scraped)
- The Stacks Project, Lemma 15.22.11 (standard reference, not scraped)