EXPOSITIONES MATHEMATICAE pa, Math, 22 cos): 283-286, ELSEVIER gun aber derma Bases for Modules D. D. Anderson! and John Robeson? "Department of Mathematics, The University of Towa, Iowa City, TA 52242, USA Mount Mercy College, 1330 Elmhurst Dr., Cedar Rapids, [A $2402, USA Abstract: Let R bea rng and A an A-module. We examine diferent notions of bases o geneeating sets for A. Of particular iterate the notion ofan lzedundan. basis for A, that I, a subset X of A thet generates A bt for which no proper subset of X generates A. We investigate the existance ‘and cardinality of iredundant bass. Keywords: Generating st, basis, irredundant ais, perfect ring Introduction ‘The word “basis is one of those overused words in mathematics whose mesning must oRen ‘be deduced from context. On one hand the word “basis” is used for a linear independent spanning set in a veetor space or free module while at the other extrome itis used to just ‘mean any genorating set for a module or ideal as in the Hilbert Basis Theorem. Equally ambiguous is the phrase “minimal basis” or “minimal generating set”. ‘The purpose of this article is to examine diferent typos of “bases” or distinguished generating sets for modules ‘To compare and contrast the different types of bases we have included number of well Known results. Hopefully the less expert reader will enjoy our somewhat expository style ‘nd references to well known results while the expert reader will forgive us. Let Fe be a ring (always with identity) and M an Remodale (always a unitary left R- module unless otherwise noted). A subset X CM isa basis (resp. weak hasis, i-basis) for Mf i X generates M and for 2y,--~ iy © X and 71,-++ Ta € Ry rina +- + Tasn = 0 implies each ry = 0 (resp. each rxi = 0 but 2; 4 0, each ris a ronnnit). So M has & basis precisely when M is. free R-module and M has a weak basis if and only if M is a direct sum of eye modules. It is easy to see that X’is an i-basis if and only if X is imedundant in the sense that no proper subset of X generates M. Tn Section 2 these three typas of bases are examined in some déail. A number of examples are given to illustrate the similarities end differences between the three types of bases. MSC 2000 Matinematies Subject Classification, 16D10 E-mail addresses: 'dan-anderson@uiowa.edu,Zjobeson@mimercy.edu orsz-osss04 2293783 $30.00284 .D. Anderson and J. Robeson However, wo will concentrate on ébases. Of particular interest is what modules have en j-basis and how i-bases behove with rospect to stendard ring and module constructions ‘In Section 3 wo consider the peasible different cardinaitias for the differet types of bases for a given module. 1t is of course well known that while a finitely generated free module may have bases of diferent (finite) cardinslities, this eannot happen for a free module with an infinite basia, We show that if module AF has an infinite -basis X then any generating set ¥ for M has [X] < [Y1. In particular, if ¥ is another é-basis for M, then [Xj = |Y| ‘We show that quasilocal rings aze characterised by the property that any two i-bases for module have the same cardinality. We also examine the possible different lengths of i-bases for 2 finitely generated module. Tn Section 4 we cousider the question of what rings R ave the property that every R- module has an ‘-basis. We show that a left perfok ring has this property and give a partial ‘As previously noted, “ring” will mean an assoclative ring with identity and “module” & unitary lef A-module, We follow standard notation and terminology from (1 or (6) 2. ‘Types of Bases and Examples ‘Throughout R is a ring with identity and module means left Remodule, For a subset X of an Remodule M, (X) denotes the submodule generated by X. The following definition gives ‘Hee different notions of independence and basis, Definition 2.1, Let R bearing and Ian ideal of R. Let M be an Remodule and let X CM. ‘Thea X is Findependent (esp. weakly I-independent, rredundant) if for ta,.-*° 29q © Xy Phtey #104 PaZon = 0 (Ti Fn € R) implies each r; € I (resp. each rita, € IM but each tay ¢ TM, each r is a nonunit). IF X gonerates M and X is I-independent (resp., weakly independent, redundant), then X is an -basis (rosp., weak L-basis, basis) for M. 164 has an i-basis, we say that M is -gencrated. In the case I = 0, we just drop the I and say independent, weakly independent, basis, or weak basis ‘While in Definition 2.1. we have written XC M as just a subset of M, we will usually be thinking of X as a list” or es an indexed set. Thus X may have repeated elements. Of cowrse, an iredundant set (and hence s basis or weak basis) can not have repeated elements Cur first proposition gives an alternate formulation of each type of independence. Proposition 2.2. Let M be an R-module and lot X CM. (1) X is independent if and only if (X) isa free Remodule on X. So Mf has a basis if and only if M is a free R-medule. (2) X is weakly independent if and only if (X) = Grex tz and each Re #0. SoM has weak basis if and only if M is a direct sum of eyclie R-modules. (8) X is irredundant if and only if for each ta X, am ¢ (X ~ (4n})- S0.M has an ‘basis if and only if M has a minianal genersting s0t’(n}i ie, {an} generates M but no proper subset of {ga} generates M. ’Bases for Modules 2s Proof. Clear. Let X CM where Mf is an R-module. Then X independent => X is weakly independent = X is iredundant. However, nither of these implications can be revereod, For example, {1} is weak basis for Zo considered as e Z-module but is not a basis for Zs and {2,8} is an ‘basis for Z but is not a weak basis for Z. Note that for each ideal J, © is I-independent, ‘Tveakly independent, and irredundant, We next olserve that division rings are precisely ‘he rings for which the three types of independence coincide, ‘Theorem 2.3. For a riag R the following conditions are oquivalent. () Risa division ring (2) Every R-module has a basis. (@) Every irredundant subset of an R-module is independent. (4) Every irredundant subset of an R-module is waaky independent. (6) Every weakly independent subset of an R-module is independent. Proof, (1) <= (2) This implication is well known; see, for example (6, Theorem TV.24), (2) = (1) While this implication is also well known, we provide a proof. Let (M be a maximal left ideal of R. Now R/M has a basis. Since R/.M is simple, the basis hhas one element. So R/.M is isomorphic to R. So 0 is 8 maximal left ideal of R, Hence Ris a division ring. (1) => (3) This implication is clear as 0 is the only nomuit of vision ting R. (3) — (4) and (8) — (6) Cleat. (5) —+ (1) Let M be a maximal left ideal of R. ‘Then T in R/M is weakly independent and hence independent. But MI = 0, 50 M = 0. Thus Ria a division ring. (4) —+ (1) Suppose that A is not a diviion ring. So has a nonzero proper left ideal Rr. Lot A = R@ (R/Rr) and ri = (2,1) and r= (1,0). Then {ri.r2} is en ibasis for A. However, {risa} is not weakly independent since (0,0) # (7,0) = eri = 1m € ri Ry. ‘We next give sore examples of Z-generated modules and non-i-generated modules. Proposition 2.4. (1) A ditoct suum of cyclic modules is ‘-generated. More generally, if (Ma} is a family of ‘-genoratod R-modulss, then M = @M, is i-generated (2) A uniserial R-module (i.e, the sct of submadules of M is totally ordered by inchusion) i igenerated if and only if it is cyclic. Thus, the abelian group Zyx is not i-genereted. (8) Suppose that M isa finitely generated R-module. Then any generating set X for M has ‘finite subset ¥ CX that is an t-generating set for M. Thus a finitely generated module is iegencrated, (4) A nonzero divisible abelian group G is not i-genereted. More generally, if D isan integral domain that is not a feld, then a nonzero divisible D-module cannot be i-genczated. (5) A nonzero i-generated R-module A must have ¢ maximal submodule. More generally, if A has an i-basis X, then any submodule B of A that can be generated by fewer than |X| elements is contained in a maximal submodule. Proof, (2) Let (Mag} be an basis for Mg. Tontify mag with its tage in Bf = @My. ‘Thon Usmeg} isan basis for Mf, For U{igg} certainly generates M and 3, Tipragas = 0286 .D. Anderson and J. Robeson implias Syrapmgg = 0 foreach c. But then {mag} an basis for Me gives thet each rag is a nonunit: Hence {ag} isan Hbasis for M = Ma, (0) Let M bea unseat Remodule, We may assume that M is nonzero. ILM = Rm is cyclic, then {ma} is an irbesis for M. Conversely, suppose that M is -generateds say {ra}uen Ban FFhasis: Suppose [A > I; 80g, may ato distinc elemeats of {rag}. Bui then sinee M is uniseral, Rg, aad Rig are comparable; say Rita, © Rag. So ((rta) ~ (Mta}) = M & contradiction, ‘Thus Mf mst be eyeli. {@) Let M be finitely generated and suppose that X genertes I. ‘Then some finite subset stg} of X generates M. If X' js an basis for Mf, we are done. So suppose tat same 1,'€ ((55) ~ (4}), 80 X° — {ou} generates IM. Continsing we get tht some subset of X"™ {24} CX Ci an basis for M. (4) Lat (dy) be an rbasis for G. Tet do € {dy}. Then ((ds} — {@o}} = Go ¢ G and C/Go ise nonzero cyclic abelian group, necesearly divible. But thie i ¢ contradiction. For the teneratizalon, it suffices to observe that ifD/ i a divigible D-maodul for eome proper ideal 1, then [ = 0 and bence D isa fld (Jor more detail see the prof of Lemmas 4). (6) First, suppose that A is finitely gonerated with ¢-baso z1,--- 4. Then the module Al ease ina) eylic, Say A/ (24 -~* cs) is iomorpbic to R/T for some lef. ideal 1 GFR. But then for a maximal leR ideal M2 T, M/1 is 0 maximal submodule of R/T. $0 A has a maximal submodule. Thus fr the seoond statement we can assume that X i infinite Let B= (Y’} where [Y| < [X}. Since each element of ¥ is finite linear combination of ements of X, BS (X) for some X' CX. Let x) € X~ X's 90 BC (X— {zo}. Now 1A/ (K~ {2y}) is a nonzero cycic Remodale and hence has 8 maximal sabmodule, Thus ( (ao}}, and hence B, is contained in 8 maximal submodule Now observe that a module can have & maximal submodule without being é-gonerated. For example, Z2 @ Ze has s maximal submodule 0 © Za, but Zp © Zam is easily checked (or see Coxcllary 2.10) to not be ‘generated. Also, the condition in Proposition 2.4(5) that B be generated by fewer than [X| elements is nooawary. For G = (G%y2_) @ Zam fs (generated (Example 2.11), but @222 isnot contained in a maximal submodule since G/ G3, Za = Zam. While Proposition 2-41) gives that a direct sum of i-genersted modules is igenerated, the next example shows that a direct product of é-generated modules need not be igenerated ‘Example 2.5. (A direct produet oft-gonerated (even cyclic) modules need not bei-generated.) Let G = [],Z, where the product runs overall primes p of N. Then the torsion subgroup 1G = G2 and G/sG is divisible. Suppose that G is generated with i-basis X. ‘Then X is not countable. Since tG is countably generated, by Propesition 2.4(5) tG is contained in a maximal subgroup. But then the divisible group G/tG has 2 maximal subgroup, @ contradiction. Thus G is not generated. In a vector space, any set of vostors can be cut dowm to an independent set of vectors withthe same span. In particular, any spanning set can be cut down to & basis. This need not be true for a generating set of a module. For example, {1/2 + Z)2 is generating set for Zne, but no subset isan basis for Zam since Zu isnot t-generated. However, if X is & finite suboct of « module, then there is asabset ¥ CX with ¥ imedundant and (X) = (¥). ‘Also in a vector space any independent set can be enlarged toe basis. However, even &‘Bases for Modules 287 finite ieredundant subset ofa finitely generated module cannot necessarily be enlarged to an ‘basis, For example, for 3 ¢ 2q, (2} is on iredundant subset of Z, that can not be enlarged to an é-basis for 24. For a second cxample, let k be a field and R = £[{Xq}] where {Xa} is set of indeterminates over k. Then {Xq} is an irredundant subset of Has is {1}. However {Xo}. cannot be extended to an e-basis for R. If we take {Xq} to be infinite, we sce that ({Xa}) © R where ({Xq}) has an infinite i-basis while & has @ finite «basis. ‘We next relate the notions of basis aad basis. ‘Theorem 2.6, Let 2 bea ring, I an ideal of R, A an R-module and X © A. Put R= R/T and A= A/IA. Suppose that (X) = A. ‘Then the fllowing conditions are oquivalet (1) X i9 an Fobasis for A. (2) Porras sty € Rand 23,000 tq © X rat tos rain TA > ach ry € E. (8) 8 is an Rebasis for A Proof. (1) = (2) Suppose thet ryzy +++ ray € TA, say nay to trate = fan to bint fenttpes toot in where yee" sig © Land Supa im CX (2iyee2 Sg) The OF Gara aa) tn + faritnga Foo Phin impli each jy ~r; € T and hence cach; €1 (2) = (3) and (8) => (1) Clear. Note that in (3) => (1) of Theorom 2.6 itis crucial that we think of X as an indexed sot rather than justo set. Indood, for X = {1,3}, X is not a (2}-basis for Z, while as sets {1,3} = {i} isa Z = Zp basis for Za Rerall thet a ring A is quasilocal if 1t has a unique maximal left ideal JM. In this case ‘Mi ako the unique maximal right ideal and R/M is a division ring (for example, see [13, Lemma 4.42)), We will write (R, M4) to indicate that is a quasilocal ring with maximal left ideal JM. We have the following two well known corollaris to Theorem 2.6. Corollary 2.7. Suppaso that (RM) is quasilocl, A is an Remodule and-X © A with (X) =A. Then the following are equivalent. (Q) X is an M-basis for 4. (2) Foros ry © Rand ny 00+ 25 € X,ry2y toot ryt © MA oach 1 € M. (3) X isan Ri] Mtector space basis for A'= A) MA (2) X is an basis for A Corollary 2.8. Suppose that (F,.M) is quasilocal and A is an R-modulo with the property that for a submodule B of A, A= B+ MA implies A= B (og, 4 is finitely generated or M is nilpotent). Let X © A. Then the following are equivalent (2) X isan M-basis for A Q) (X) =A and ferry, sree Rand ny, nem, (3) X is an R/.M-vector space basis for (4) X is an t-basis for A. ote €X, ren tosh etn € MA =e each AIMA,288 D.D. Anderson and J. Robeson Proof, It suffices to show that for (1)-(4) wo have (X) = A. ‘This is assumed for (1), (2), ane (4). For (8), X is an R/Mevoctor space basis gives that A= (X)+MA. Hence by hypothesis, (X) = A. ‘We have remarked (Proposition 2.4) that if {MG} is family of Fe-modules each having on ébasis, then AM, has an i-basis. Similar statements hold for bases and weak bass. Conversely, we can ask whether A@ B i-generatod implies A and B are i-generated. First observe that if A@ B has a basis (resp., weak basis), A and B need not have a. basis (cesp., weak basis), Indeod, a dizect summand of a free module is a projective module and a projective module need not be fv For example, let Q be a nonprincipal ideal of a Dedekind domain, Then @ i a direct summand of a free module but is not free and hence doesn’t Ihave a basis or even a weak basis. Of eourse, Q boing finitely generated has an i-basis, We sive an example of a dizect summand of on i-generated module that is not i-gonersted. Proposition 2.9, Let R be a ring and let A be ait K-module i-generated by {ag}aca. Let B be an R-module and {bs}aca CB. Suppose there exist {da}aca CR with dodg = 0 and ((dabaloea) = B. Thon G'= AGB ie t-generated by (79) where y= (2a:bs). Proof. We irs show that (7,} generates @. Since da, = (O,dabs), 0B S ({))- But then (2,0) = (0,ba) € ({a}}; 80 A® B= ({7,})- Suppose that 0 0 = Yeyde. Since {ag} is an é-basis for A, each ¢, is a nonunit. Hence {7} is an i-basis fr G2 4oB.m Corollary 2.10. Let A be an i-generated torsion abelian group and let B be a divisible abelian group with |A| > |B|. Then G = A@ B is (-gonerated. Canversoly, let A and B be abelian groupe with B divisible. IFA © B is i-generated, then |A| > |B. Proof, Lot X = {tahsen be an basis for A IX = 2, A= 0; 0G = Oi generated. So assume X 7: Now X finite gives A Gato aud hence B= 0. So we can fsoume that X ie infite. ‘Then [X| = [4] > |B]. So B can be generated by [X] elements, Say {dJacn genoratos B. Chocse 0-4 ra © R with raeq = 0 and d, © B with da = rally ‘Then by Proposition 29 { (tm cy)}oca isan é-bass for C. For the partial converse, suppose that A and Bare ablian groups with B divisible and A@B ace i-generated. Suppose that [Al < |B]. By Propaation 24(5), AGO CS AGB ‘here Cis a maximal subgroup of A B. But then C/A @0 is a maximal subgroup ofthe ivisble group A@ B/AGO~ B, a contradiction. Using Corollary 2.10 we get 6 number of intresting examples of generated abelian soups Bxample 2:11. (1) Let (dy) be a sequence of intgers where each d, > 2 and lt» bea prime. ‘Then by Corollary 3.10 (2%, Za.) ® Zp and (8Zs,) ©O axe r-gencrated abelian grows bt Zar tnd oing avis i no gent (Priposton 24), Hence A B tgenrated ved tot imply that A and B sre generated. (2) Let p bea prime. Thea (O24) Yom ison generated p-prmary abelian groupBases for Modules 289 (3) Lat p 4 q be primes, Lot G ~ (G32) ®Zee- Then G isi eneratod, but its ¢ primary component Zqm is no generated (4) Lot {pa)izy be the sot of primes. Put Cn = Zn @ Zp, 80 Cy ia the peprimary component of G = GF. = (DE1Zp,) (G2 By2). By Corollary 2.10 is an i-generated torsion abelian group (since ©2;2yg,is countably generated). However, since each Gy is ‘not i-generated (see the paragraph after Proposition 2.4), no primary component of G is degenerate, (5) Let p be a prime and let G = (922) @Q. Then G is -generated but Q is not. Here = 1G @G/G where (C=%.,2, i the torsion subgroup af GC, but G/tC = Q is not ‘generated. Example 2.11 shows some of the pitfalls in attempting to characterize the é-generated ‘abelian groups. For example, a torsion abelian group can be é-generated without its p- primary components being ‘generated and while’a wivsible abelian group cannot be i generated, an i-generated abelian group need not be redueed. Also, note that Example 2.5 gives an example of a raduced abelian group thet is not -generatod, Problem 2.12. Characterie the i-generated abelian groups. We have noted that if modules A and C havea basis (esp. weak bass, bass), then s0 does AGC. For a short exact sequence of Remidules 0 + A—+ B —» C'— 0 this raises the general question of wit isthe relationship of 4, B, or © having & basis, weak basis, Pasis, OF course, B can have a bass (and henoe a weak basis) without A or C having basis or even a weak bass. But if A and C have a bass, then the short exact sequence splits 80 B= A@C has a basis, However, unlike the ease for bases, A and C ean have weak bases without B having a weak basis (eg. over QIX,Y], 0+ (X) ~» (X,Y) — (X,¥)/(X) ~ 0). We next consider the t-generatad ease. Now B generated does not imply thet A or C is igenerated. In fact, A and B (woop, B and C) generated does not imply that C (cep A) i -generazed as seen by O — GEE 2p + (DEE Za) © Eye —> Zam — O (57 0+ 2pm + (CR sZ2) @ Zon + OF Ze 0). However, if X CB and X is ivedundant in C, then X ig iredundant in B, soe Proposition 2.18, It remains open whether A and C ‘egunerated implies B is é-generated. We suspect not, But our next result gives a special cage whece thi is true Proposition 2.13. Lot 0+ A B+ C0 be a shost exact sequence of R-modules. (Z) Let X = {29} C B and lot X = {25} be its image in C. IfX is iredundant, then X is irredundant. Hence if X generates B and X is an i-basis for C, then X is an i-basis for B. (2) Suppose that A is finitely generated and C is generated. Then B is i-generated, Proof. (1) EY ¢ X with (Y) = (X), then 7 © X (lor a # B, 24 # Hp since X cannot bave reposted elements) and (P) = (), a contradiction (2) Let a1,:++ dy generate A and choose {ta} © B so that {0s} is an basis for C. ‘Then {0is--- san}U Cin} certainly generates B. Note that 10 bay € ((Car.--- sda} U {ba} ~ Coun). for then (b5}—{bro} would generate C. Suppose that soma, € {{aiy:+" di" sn} U be}.280 D.D. Anderson and J. Robeson Then (fa1.-++ dq: tq} U {dq}) = B. Continuing, we get a subset {oxy 04} fox. sen} (possibly empty) with {ay,--- .04,} U {a} an basis for Bm “Wo end this section with a reslt-which in prineipalgives all generated R-modules. This result was remarked to us by Victor Camillo, ‘Theorem 214. An Remodule M is ¢-generated if and only if thas a presentation F + M0 where F isa foo Remodule on a sot Y = {yu} and kern © GMct for some collection (Ma) of maximal left ideals of R. Proof. Suppose that M has -basis X = (ra}aca: Lot ¥ = (Yahuen be a set disci feoxa X indowed by the same set A. Let F be a free femodule on ¥ and et w: F — M be the ‘R-module homomorphism induced by (ya) = a- For each a € A, let No = ((X — {aa}) ‘ra). Since X is itredundant, Nis a proper left deal of R. For each a choose a maximal Inf Seal My 2 Noo TE rafoy +o" Favon € 480%, then Min f° adn = 0 and henoe 71 € Noy © Ma. Thus kerr © ONatn C EMaver If conversely we have such a presentation, X = {(,)} i easly seen to be an basis for Mm 3, Number of Generators In this short section we consider the different possible cardinalitis fora basis, weak basis, oF ‘-basis of a module having such a basis. Asis the case (see below) for bases for (free) modulas where ifa free module has an infinite bass, then any other basis has the same cardinality, if ‘module has an infinite weak basis (resp. basis), then any other weak basis (resp. i-basis) has the seme cardinality (Theorem 3.3). We show (Theorem 3.4) that quasilocal rings are characterized by the property that any two weak bases (resp. -bases) for a module have the same cardinality, Finally, we consider (Theorem 3.5) the possible cardinalites of an i-besis for a finitely generated module. Its well mown that for a vector space over a division ring, any two bases have the same cardinality (for example, ee (6, Theocomn IV.2:7). Now for « general ring R, if Fis a free Remodule with infinite basis X, then for any other basis Y of FF we have [X| = [¥| (ee, for example [6, Theorem IV.26]). However, two bases for a finitely generated free R-module need not have the same cardinality as the following classic example shows (for example, see (6, Beercise 1V.2.13). Example 3.1. Let K be a ring and let F be a free K-module with basis {en} for R= Homa (FF), the free Remodule Fi has a basis with one element, namely 1p, and also a basis with two elements {f., fa} where fy is defined by fa(ean) = falean-1) = én and {filean-s) = falean) = 0. Alternatively, observe that gR = Homy(F)P) = Homy(F & FF) = Homa (F,F) @ Homx(F, P) = 22 & aR. In fact, it is easily shown that aft has a basi of longth n for each n> 1. 1 is even easier to give examples of modules having weak bases or i-bases of different lengths, Indeed, taking R= Z, we sve that 2/62 ~ 2/22 2/32. has weak boss of length fone and two and 2 iteelf has bases of longth one and two, nasnely {1} and {2,3} ‘This lends us to tho following dofintion.Bases for Modules 201 Definition 8.2. A ring F satisfies the invariant basis number property (IBN) (resp. invaci- ‘ant weak basis number property (IwBN), invariant s-basis number property (IiBN)) if for ‘each R-module M with a basis (resp. weak bess, i-basis), any two bases (resp. woak bases, tbases) for M have the some cardinality. Strictly speaking each of the previous definitions should have a left and a right version and as we are using “modulo” to moan ale: module, we havo given the lft version. For the case of JBN, itis wll known (and follows from an easy matrix argument (5, Proposition 2.2) that the notions of left and right IB. coincide. It follows from ‘Theorem 3.4 that the notions of lft and right [3B.N and loft and right JwBNV coincide, indeed, the rings satisfying BBN o: 1wBN are just the quasilocal rings ‘A “useful” characterization of the rings satisfying TEN is not known. Howeves, axy commutative rng satisies BI. For if f: R— $i a ring homomorphism and 5 satisfies IBN, then 90 does R. Since a division ring satistien IBN, a ving having a division ring as a homomorphic image (e., @ commutative ring) satisfies ZEN (For example, see [6, Proponition IV.2.11, Corollary IV.2.12}). For further results on IBN, the reader is referred to (5) However, it is ey to characterize the ings satisfying /wBN or IBN. Recal that a ring Ris quasilocal if R has @ unique maximal lft ideal Tn this case M is also the unique aximal right ideal of Rand 2/.M is actually s division riog. Duay, « ring is quasilocel if tas a unique maximal right ideal NV, for then AV is also the unique maximal loft ideal of R. Now by Theoram 3.4, Rsatitios (left) FwBNV or (loft) ABN if and only if Ris (lot) Za,)- Then ¥" = Ujey UX) © X. IFY infinite, then Y is also finite end hence IY't'< |X|. If¥ is infinite, then [Y"| <[V| sinoe Y's e union of Y| finite subsets of X and hence [Y"| < |X|. In either case, Y''¢ X and (¥!) = M, a contradiction. Hence |X| < |¥|. IY is actually an i-basi, ‘then reversing the roles of X end Y gives |¥| < |X| and hence |X| = |¥|. a Note that Theorem 3.9 gives that ifan R-module I is ic to.a direct sum of a nonzero cyclic R-modules where 0 is infinite, then al -bases for M also have cardinality a.DD. Andesson and J, Robeson ‘Theorem 3.4. For a ring R, the following conditions are equivalent. (2) Ris quasiloca (2) R satisfies BN. (3) R satisfies /uBN, Proof. (1) => (2) Suppose that is qusilocal with maximal ideal M. By Theorein 13.3 sulices to show that for a finitely generated R-module M, aay two f-basee for M have thesame cardinality. By Nalayama's Lerama m;,--- a generate M as an Remodile if and only if is,-+- iy generate M = M/MM as an R= R/M-modale. Hence my-++ rig i8 an ‘basis for Mi and only if fia,--- in is a Rebssio for Af. So every ‘esis for M has cardinality dimg Mf (This i really just Corollary 2.7) (2) => (8) This implication is clar since any weak basis for M is ako an i-asis for Mf. (3) =» (1) Suppose thet has more ‘han on2 maxiual left ideal; say M and Aare two distinct maximal left ideels of FR. Since MoM = R, the map R~» R/M @ RUN given by + + (r-+-M,r-+4) is surjective and nonce R/MAaN = R/M@R/N. Thus R/.MON has weak bases of cardinalites one and two, a contradiction, ‘We next determine the possible iforont lengths of i-bases (all are finite by ‘Theorem 3.8) for a finitely generated Remodtule. While this has alresdy been done by Ratliff and Robson (19), our treatment is diffrent. Our proof uses the Tarski Iredundant Basis Theorem, or rather its corollary, given below. ‘The Lrredumdant Basis Theorem was proved by AA. Tarski {14}; also, see. Burrs and HP. Sankappanavar (2, Theorem 44] for a very readable account of this result ‘Theorem 8.5. (Tarski [Id]) Let R be a ring and M a finitely generated R-module, Let Tir(M) = {n € No|M has an i-bacis with n elements}. ‘Then Ir(M) is a convex subset of No Let M be 8 nonzero finitely generated R-module. Now each proper submodule of M is contained in a maximal submodule of Mf. Recall that the Jacobson radical of M is TUM) = P(N | N is a maximal submodule of M}. (So J(R) is the Jacobson radical Of R.) Observe that my,-+> ma @ M generate M if and only if my,--~ iq generate = MIM. ‘Theorem $.6. (Ratliff and Robson {12)) Let A be a ring and M a finitely generated Re. module. Let Te(M) = {1 € Ro | M has an i-basis of cardinality n} and let u(M) = min{n se ln(Af)}. IPM/J(M) has finite length A, then ire(M) = {u(04), uM) +1, °> AF while HEM/J(M) has ifiite lengeh, then Ine(M) = {y(M), (34) + 1y-°") Proof, By Theorem 3.5, Ire(M) is a convex subsot of No. Of course, (Af) i its least element, First, suppose that M/J(M) hos a finite length A. Let. my,-++ ymy be an i-asis for M. ‘Then in M-= M/J(M),0 Rif © Rit + Big G --- C Rity +--+ Rim, = Me. Hence s <. But since IM has length 9, M being semisimple, is @ direct sum of \ simple ‘Ferwodules and hence has a weak basis and thus an z-basis of length 2. ‘Next suppose that M/J(M) does not have finite length. Then J(M) cannot be & finite intersection of maximal submodules of M. (Por if J(M) = MyM-+-AMy where MisBases for Modules 293 ‘maximal submodule of M, then 1 = M/Mi0 CUM embeds nt the faite length F-mnodule M/My@---@M/Mr end ence has finite length, a contradiction.) ‘Thus there i a countably Infinite coloction {M,}e2; of maximal submodiles of M with M2 My 2 My > MMM Ay o>. Now M/M, M---P1My has fits length, 0 fom the previous paragraph J = 2/4700 Ma an basis (B,-+ By} where By By € M. Choose a generating st (ag for My"---7My, Then ({B,"°- By} U fea) = M. Since io fitely senerated, B= (Bi, ,Bqy doy" dng) For Soman init subset {day dan} S {20} Note that (B,,--+ sBus--- sByo@ans°** sam) & M. Por if not, then (By.-++ Byy+++ Ba) = A But this sa contradiction since {8,y---,2y} ia an i-basis for K/. Thus for some subset fay} (Brer= Barts 104) ian HDasis for M. But then n +s € lx(M). Since ‘ie(A) i convex and contains arbitrarily lange intagrs, er) = (1(M), (Mf) +1,---}. Tue following example i a applzaton of Theopem 3.6 Example 3.7. (1) Let R be a sing such that R/J(R) is not left Artinian (eg, Z). Then for each n > 1, ‘aR has an i-basis of length. (2) Let I be a nonzero finitely goncrated ideal of K{{Xq}], Ka field. Then I has i-bases of arbitrarily long finite length. For a finitely generated R-module Mf we can also ask what is the minimarn cardinality of an é-basis for The following result from [12] gives the answer when Af has finite length ‘Theorem 8.8. (Ratliff and Robson /12)) Let R be s ring and M a finite length nonzero R- ‘module. For each isomorphism class of simple R-module 5 eppasring in compesition series {or M, let e(S) denote the number of copies of S in tho earapasition serics and let f($) be the longth of Ff onn(S). Then p(M) is the least integer > sup(l,e(S)/ f(S)}. UFR aan(S) ‘has infinite length, then e(S)/ (S) = 0.) For a finitely generated R-module M, we can also consider the sets Bas(M) = {0 € No | Mf has a basis of length n} and w Bas(Mf) = {rn © No | M has a weak basis of length n). So Bas(M) C wBas(iM} C Irr(M). Of course, Bas(M) = @ (resp. wBas(M) = 2) unless ‘Mis freo (resp. M is a direct sum of eyclic modules). Now Bas(M) need not be s convex subset of Ny. In fact, the subsets of Ny that can be a Bas(iM) for gomo finitely generated ‘ree module Af have boon characterized by W. G. Leavitt [9, 10|; also soe (5), For a finite abelian group M, it is aasy to soo that «Bas(f) = Irx(M) = {m,n + 4).++ yn} where has an invatiant factor decomposition with m summands and M has an clementary divisor decomposition with n summands. For a finitely generated abelian group with free part of rankr > 0, wBes(IM) = (r+ m,---.r-+n} and lee(M) = {rt m+} ‘whore m ond n areas above. 4. Strongly generated Rings After discussing modules that have # basis, weak basis, or i-basi, it ia natural to ase which ings have the property that every module has a basis, has a weak basis, or has an é-bass294 D.D. Anderson and J. Robeson ‘Tho rings for which every module has @ basis (or equivalently, is fee) are of course just the division rings. Wo have already noted this in Theorem 2.3. Tt is perhaps worth noting, that every (left) R-module has a bass if and only if every tight R-module has a. basis. ‘The sings for which every module has a woak basis are just the rings with the property that every module is @ direct eum of eyelic modules, Kothe [8} proved that a left Artinian principal ideal ring hss this property and that a commutative Artinian ring for which all ‘modules area direct sum of eyclcs isa principal ideal ring. Cohon and Keplansky [4] showed that a corauautative ring F has every A-module a direct sum of cyelios if and only if Ris ‘an Artinian principal ideal ring, ‘The question of what rings have the property that every ‘module is a dizeet sum of eycics appears to be open. Nakayama [11] showed that such a ring need not be a principal ideal ring, but Chase {3} showed that such a rin is left Artinian ‘More precisly, Chase showed that a ring with the property that every nodule is a direct ‘sum of finitely generated modules must be lef Artjnian, ‘We next ask what rings have the property that every module has an i-basis. ‘This leads ‘us to the following definition, Definition 4.1. A ring R is strongly tgenerated if every Remodule has an i-basis. Of course we could also define a strongly right é-generated ring. Recall that o ring R ie left perfect i every R-module has a projective cover. A number of conditions equivalent to being left perfect are known. For example (1, Theorem 284, the following conditions are ‘equivalent: (1) is left perfect, 2) R/J(R) is left Artinian semisimple and every nonzero ‘Reamodule bas a maximal eubmodule, and (3) R/J(A) is left Artinian semisimple and J(R) 5s let t-nilpotent (ce, given a sequence o;,2,--- ii J(R) there isan n with aya >a = 0) ‘We show that «left perfect ring is strongly Hgenerated and conversely that a commutative coherent strongly #-gencrated ring is perfect. ‘Theorem 4.2. A loft perfect ring is strongly generated, Proof. Suppose that Fis left perfect. Let A be an R-module, Since R= R/.J(R) is loft Artinian somisimple, A = A/J(R)A is a semisimple R-module. Hence A has an i-besio {da} where aq € A. Now A= ({2a}) + J(A)A, 80 J(RY(A/ ({0a}}) = A/ Kaa})-, Since UR) is tnilpotent, A/ {04}) = 0 and hence A = ({ag}) (1, Lemma 28.3]. But fag) i8 inedundant since {2q} i8 (Proposition 2.13). Thus {a,} i an é-basis for A.M ‘To establish the partie converse for the commutative case we need several emanas. Note that Lemma 4.3 does not require F to be commutative. Lemma 4.3. If Ris strongly ¢generated, then so is each factor ring R/1. Proof, Each R/J-modale A ig an Rmodule and hence has an basis {ag} when considered as an Remodule. But {a9} is then also an ‘basis for A considered as an R/I- module. Lemma 4.4, Let R be a strongly é-generated commutative ring, Then R has Kull dimen- sion zero,Bases for Modules 295 Proof. Let P be a prime ideal of R. By Lemma 4. the intopral domsin Rt = R/P ia strongly generated. Let K be the quotient field of F Then K hasan i-basis X. Suppose that [X] > 1. Leb A = (X — {o}) for some fixed 2» € X. Then K/A is a eycic divisible Remodule, say K/A = R/T for some ideal T of R. For 0 #1 € 1, r(K/A) = K/A, 50 7(R/N) = R/T. Hence I = 0, So Ris a divisible R-module; ie, R= KC isa field. Fence P sa maximal ideal of R. i ‘Recall that axing Ris left coherent ifevery finitely generated F-module is finitely related. ‘Theorem 4.5. Let A be 2 coherent (e.g. Noetherian) commutative strongly i-generated zing, Thea Ris perfect. Proof, By Lemma 4.4, dim R= 0. Hence A= R/J(R) is von Neumann regular. We stow that is Artinian. Now by Proposition 2.4 every nongeto R-modile has a maximal submodule. Hence by the previously mentioned [L"Theorem 28.4), is (It) perfect. ‘We claim that R is Artinian. Let J = 1/.J(R) be an ideal of B. Now RjT is a finitely generated P-module and hence isa finitely related R-modul since Fis coherent, Thus F/T $8. finitely related Ramodul. Sinco Ais vou Newsann regular, R/is a fat R-module (13, ‘Thoorer 416] and hence is projective sinoe A/T 's finitely related [13, Theorera 3.58). Thus tho short exact soquence 0» I+ R—+ R/T -+ 0 splits; 9 I is finitely generated (even sgonerated by an idempotent). Thus every ideal of Fis initly generated; 9 is Nocthorian and hence Artinian being zero dimensional. “We end with the fll i rem ‘Theorem 4.8. Lot F bo a ring M where IC J(R). Then (2) Ris strongly é-generated if and only if J(R) is left nilpotent and R/.J(R) is strongly Eegenerated Proof, (1) This is just Nalaysmna's Lemma. Suppose M #0, Lat {ma} #2 bo ‘an i-basis for M. For mg € {ma}, ma = SiaM™a where each i € J; 80 (1 — tg)mg € ( {omg} — {mo} snd henoe me € ({rma} ~ {mel} since ia € J(R) gives that L— igi @ unit (2) (=+) Suppose that R is strongly i-generated. By Lemma 4.3, R/J(R) is strongly i gpmerated. Since 2 is sicoagly égenerated, for each Remodule M, J(R)M = Mf implies M0, By {f, Tema 28.1), J(R) is oft Cnilpoten. (==) Tet Abe an Femodule. Now R/J(R) is sttongly -generated, so A/.J(R)A is generated asa F/J()-miodule and hence as an R-module, Choove {2c} © A so that {25} is an bass for A/J(R)A. By Proposition 213, {on} is iredundant, “Abo ({0q)) + J(R)A = A; s0 ({aq)) = A since J(R) is Belt teullpotent. Thus (@g} isan ibasis for Am References [0] PF. Anderson and K. Fuller, Rings and Categories of Modules, Graduate Texts in Math ‘matics, vl. 13, Springer-Verlag New York Inc, 1974296 D.D. Anderson and J. Robes (2) 8. Burris and HP. Sankappanavar, A Course in Universal Algebra, Graduate ‘Texts in Mathematics, wl. 78, Springer-Verlag New York Ine., 1981. {3) 8. U. Chase, Direct product of modules, Trans. Aimer. Math, Soe, 97 (1960), 457-47. [i] 1. Coho and 1. Koplansicy, Rings for which every module is @ direct sum of eyetie ‘modules, Meth. Z. 54 (2951), 97-101 [5] P.M. Cohn, Some remarks on the invariant basis property, Topalogy 5 (1966), 215-218, [o) T. W. Hungerford, Algebra, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 73, Springer-Verlag New York Tne., 1974 | I. Kaplansky, Commutative Rings, Revised Euition, Polygonal Publishing House, Wash- 88 ington, NJ, 1904 ee [8] G. Kothe, Vereligemeinerte Abelsche Gruppen mit hyperkompleren Operatorenting, ‘Math. Z. 39 (1986), 31-44. [9] W. G. Leavitt, The module type ofa ring, Trans. Amer. Math, Soo. 103 (1962), 113-190. (10) W. G. Leavitt, The module type of 2 homomorphic image, Duke Math. J. 32 (1965) 305-311. [U1] 7. Nalayama, Note on uni-serisl and goneralized uni-serial rings, Proc. Imp. Aced. Tokyo 16 (1940), 285-28. [12] L, J. Ratliff, Jr. and J. C. Robson, Minimal bases for moduks, Houston J, Math. 4 (4978), 599-596. (03) J. Rotman, An Introduction to Homological Algebra, Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, 1979. [ld] A. Tarsid, An interpolation theorem f ‘Math, 12 (1975), 185-192 jandant, bases of closure structures, Discrete Received: 01.09. 2003