Annihilator
Definition
Let be a ring, and let be a left -module. For any , define
as the *annihilator *of in . Notice that is a left ideal of .
For a set , define . If is a -submodule of , then is a -sided ideal of .
Lemma
Let be a ring with identity . Let be a left simple -module. Then is a quotient of the left regular module .
\begin{proof}
Let be an nonzero element of . Consider cyclic module , then . Define
and note that is an epimorphism. Hence is a quotient of the left regular module .
\end{proof}
Jacobson Radical
Definition
Let be a ring. The Jacobson radical of is the intersection of all left maximal ideals of . As a left -module, .
Intersection of Annihilators of Simples
Theorem
The following holds for the Jacobson radical of a ring .
- is the intersection of all the annihilator ideals of simple (left) -modules. Consequently, is a -sided ideal of .
- iff has a left inverse for all , i.e., there exists such that .
- is the largest one among the ideals of satisfying the following condition: if , then is a unit of .
- coincides with the intersection of all maximal right ideals of .
\begin{proof}
i) Let be a simple -module. As for any by ^09efb3, is a maximal left ideal of . It deduces that and so .
Conversely, we aim to show that, for any , if for each simple -module , then is contained in all maximal left ideals. For a maximal left ideal , is a simple -module. Since , we know and so . Now we finish the proof.
ii) "→" If and has no left inverse for some , then . Hence there is a maximal left-ideal of with . Then yields , which is a contradiction.
"←" If , then for some maximal left ideal of . Then and for some and . So and has no left inverse.
iii) Let . Then there exists such that and then has a left inverse, i.e. there exists such that . It deduces that and so is a unit.
Let be a -sided ideal with the property ” then is a unit of “. If , then there exists a maximal ideal such that and . So for some and . As , is not a unit, which is a contradiction.
iv) Suppose is the intersection of all maximal right ideals of , then by the argument of iii), we can prove that is the largest one among the ideals of satisfying the following condition: if , then is a unit of . Then by iii) and so we finish the proof.
\end{proof}
Nilpotency of in Artinian Rings
Definition
- An element is called nilpotent if for some . If so, and is a unit.
- An left ideal of is called a nil left ideal if every element of is nilpotent.
- is called nilpotent if for some . Clearly, nilpotent ideals are nil.
Theorem
If is a nil left ideal, then .
\begin{proof}
Let . For any , . Since is nil, is a unit and so by ^p95eh4.
\end{proof}
Theorem
If is Artinian, then is nilpotent.
\begin{proof}
Consider . Since is Artinian, there exists such that . Assume that .
Consider the set of left ideals . It is a nonempty set since . Let be the minimal member of this set. There exists such that . Since and , by the minimality of , we know . In particular, there exists such that , i.e. . Recall that , then is a unit, leading to a contradiction.
\end{proof}
Corollary
Let be an Artinian ring, then is the maximal nilpotent left ideal of .
\begin{proof}
By ^112eab and ^a43f1d.
\end{proof}
Corollary
Let be an Artinian ring. Then is the unique left ideal of with the property that is nilpotnent and is semisimple.
\begin{proof}
By ^r8oe32 and ^8uxtcw.
\end{proof}
Theorem
Let be a -sided ideal of with . Then .
\begin{proof}
By ^9eaa9e.
\end{proof}
Theorem
Let be an Artinian. Then is semisimple iff .
\begin{proof}
"←" Assume that are all maximal left ideals of . We consider the set of left ideals that are expressed a finite intersection of some . By Artinian, this set has minimal element, say . If , then there exists such that , which contradicts to the minimality of . So
Define a map , which is a monomorphism and so is semisimple. (This part can also be proved by ^r8oe32.)
"→" Assume is semisimple, then with simple. Since , . It deduces that .
\end{proof}