Continuous and Discrete Modules (London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series 147)

LONDON MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY l.ECfURE N01E SERIES Managing Editor: Professor J.W.S. Cassels, Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics, University of Cambridge, 16 Mill Lane, Cambridge CB2 ISB, England The books in the series listed below are available from booksellers, or, in case of difficulty, from Cambridge University Press. 17 34 36 39 40 43 45 46 49 50 51 54 57 58 59 60 62 65 66 68 69 74 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

Differential germs and catastrophes, Th. BROCKER & L. LANDER Representation theory of Lie groups, M.F. ATIYAH et al Homological group theory, C.T.C. WALL (ed) Affme sets and affine groups, D.G. NORTHCOTI Introduction to Hp spaces, P.J. KOOSIS Graphs, codes and designs, P J. CAMERON & J.H. VAN LINT Recursion theory: its generalisations and applications, F.R. DRAKE & S.S. WAINER (eds) p-adic analysis: a short course on recent work, N. KOBLITZ Finite geometries and designs, P. CAMERON, J.W.P. HIRSCHFELD & D.R. HUGHES (eds) Commutator calculus and groups of homotopy classes, H.J. BAUES Synthetic differential geometry, A. KOCK Markov processes and related problems of analysis, E.B. DYNKIN Techniques of geometric topology, R.A. FENN Singularities of smooth functions and maps, J.A. MARTINET Applicable differential geometry, M. CRAMPIN & F.A.E. PIRANI Integrable systems, S.P. NOVIKOV et al Economics for mathematicians, J.W.S. CASSELS Several complex variables and complex manifolds I, MJ. FIELD Several complex variables and complex manifolds II, M.J. FIELD Complex algebraic surfaces, A. BEAUVILLE Representation theory, I.M. GELFAND et al Symmetric designs: an algebraic approach, E.S. LANDER Spectral theory of linear differential operators and comparison algebras, H.O. CORDES Isolated singular points on complete intersections, EJ .N. LOOIJENGA A primer on Riemann surfaces, A.F. BEARDON Probability, statistics and analysis, J.F.C. KINGMAN & G.E.H. REUTER (eds) Introduction to the representation theory of compact and locally compact groups, A. ROBERT Skew fields, P.K. DRAXL Surveys in combinatorics, E.K. LLOYD (ed) Homogeneous structures on Riemannian manifolds, F. TRICERRI & L. VANHECKE Solitons, P.G. DRAZIN Topological topics, I.M. JAMES (ed) Surveys in set theory, A.R.D. MATHIAS (ed) FPF ring theory, C. FAITH & S. PAGE An F-space sampler, N.J. KALTON, N.T. PECK & J.W. ROBERTS Polytopes and symmetry, S.A. ROBERTSON Class groups of group rings, M.J. TAYLOR Representation of rings over skew fields, A.H. SCHOFIELD Aspects of topology, I.M. JAMES & E.H. KRONHEIMER (eds) Representations of general linear groups, G.D. JAMES Low-dimensional topology 1982, R.A. FENN (ed) Diophantine equations over function fields, R.C. MASON Varieties of constructive mathematics, D.S. BRIDGES & F. RICHMAN Localization in Noetherian rings, A.V. JATEGAONKAR Methods of differential geometry in algebraic topology, M. KAROUBI & C. LERUSTE Stopping time techniques for analysts and probabilists, L. EGGHE

101 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147

Groups and geometry, ROGER C. LYNDON Surveys in combinatorics 1985, I. ANDERSON (ed) Elliptic structures on 3-manifolds, C.B. THOMAS A local spectral theory for closed operators, I. ERDELYI & WANG SHENGWANG Syzygies, E.G. EVANS & P. GRIFFITH Compactification of Siegel moduli schemes, C-L. CHAI Some topics in graph theory, H.P. YAP Diophantine Analysis, J. LOXTON & A. VANDER POORTEN (eds) An introduction to surreal numbers, H. GONSHOR Analytical and geometric aspects of hyperbolic space, D.B.A.EPSTEIN (ed) Low-dimensional topology and Kleinian groups, D.B.A. EPSTEIN (ed) Lectures on the asymptotic theory of ideals, D. REES Lectures on Bochner-Riesz means, K.M. DAVIS & Y-C. CHANG An introduction to independence for analysts, H.G. DALES & W .H. WOODIN Representations of algebras, P.J. WEBB (ed) Homotopy theory, E. REES & J.D.S. JONES (eds) Skew linear groups, M. SHIRV ANI & B. WEHRFRI1Z Triangulated categories in the representation theory of [mite-dimensional algebras, D. HAPPEL Proceedings of Groups- St Andrews 1985, E. ROBERTSON & C. CAMPBELL (eds) Non-classical continuum mechanics, R.J. KNOPS & A.A. LACEY (eds) Surveys in combinatorics 1987, C. WHITEHEAD (ed) Lie groupoids and Lie algebroids in differential geometry, K. MACKENZIE Commutator theory for congruence modular varieties, R. FREESE & R. MCKENZIE Vander Corput's method for exponential sums, S.W. GRAHAM & G. KOLESNIK New directions in dynamical systems, T.J. BEDFORD & J.W. SWIFr (eds) Descriptive set theory and the structure of sets of uniqueness, A.S. KECHRIS & A. LOUVEAU The subgroup structure of the finite classical groups, P.B. KLEIDMAN & M.W.LIEBECK Model theory and modules, M. PREST Algebraic, extremal & metric combinatorics, M-M. DEZA, P. FRANKL & I.G. ROSENBERG (eds) Whitehead groups of fmite groups, ROBERT OLIVER Linear algebraic monoids, MOHAN S. PUTCHA Number theory and dynamical systems, M. DODSON & J. VICKERS (eds) Operator algebras and applications, 1, D. EVANS & M. TAKESAKI (eds) Operator algebras and applications, 2, D. EVANS & M. TAKESAKI (eds) Analysis at Urbana, I, E. BERKSON, T. PECK, & J. UHL (eds) Analysis at Urbana, ll, E. BERKSON, T. PECK, & J. UHL (eds) Advances in homotopy theory, S. SALAMON, B. STEER & W. SUTHERLAND (eds) Geometric aspects of Banach spaces, E.M. PEINADOR and A. RODES (eds) Surveys in combinatorics 1989, J. SIEMONS (ed) The geometry of jet bundles, D.J. SAUNDERS The ergodic theory of discrete groups, PETER J. NICHOLLS Uniform spaces, I.M. JAMES Homological questions in local algebra, JAN R. STROOKER Cohen-Macaulay modules on Cohen-Macaulay rings, Y. YOSHINO Continuous and discrete modules, S.H. MOHAMED & B.J. MOLLER

London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series. 147

Continuous and Discrete Modules Saad H. Mohamed Department of Mathematics, Kuwait University

Bruno J. Muller Department of Mathematics, McMaster University

The right of the University of Combr~dge to prmt and sell all manner of books 1\.DS granted by Henry VIII m IJJ4 The Umwrsiry har pnnted and publuhed C'Ontmuous/y

smce 1584.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge New York Port Chester Melbourne

Sydney

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, Silo Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521399753 ©Cambridge University Press 1990 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 1990 Re-issued in this digitally printed version 2008 A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library ISBN 978-0-521-39975-3 paperback

PREFACE The monograph addresses research mathematicians and graduate students interested in the module and representation theory of arbitary rings. It is primarily concerned with generalizations of injectivity and projectivity, and simultaneously with modules displaying good direct decomposition properties. Specifically, we study two classes of modules, named continuous and discrete. Both exhibit, in a dual sense, a generous supply of direct summands. The first class contains all injective modules, while the second one contains those projective modules which have a "good" direct sum decomposition. Continuous, as the term is used here, is not related to continuity in the sense of topology and analysis. It is rather derived from the notion of a continuum. This usage originated with von Neumann's continuous geometries. These are analogues of projective geometries, except that they have no points, but instead a dimension function whose range is a continuum of real numbers. Just as most projective geometries can be coordinatized by simple artinian rings, most continuous geometries are coordinatized by non-noetherian continuous regular rings. Utumi observed that continuous regular rings generalize self-injective regular rings. He extended the concept to arbitrary rings. Jeremy, Mohamed and Bouhy, and Goel and Jain generalized these ideas to modules. The weaker notion of quasi-continuity appears now to be more fundamental. It asserts directly that the module inherits all direct sum decompositions from its injective hull (2.8). The important Theorem (2.31) ensures that uniqueness properties are inherited as well. Another central result for quasi-continuous modules, (2.37), establishes a decomposition into a quasi-injective and a square-free part. This is a rare instance of a direct decomposition where both summands have, in different ways, better properties than the original module. It allows us to prove the exchange property for continuous modules (3.24), and the cancellation property for directly finite continuous modules (3.25). Arbitrary families of orthogonal idempotents, of the endomorphism ring of a quasi-continuous module, lift modulo the ideal of endomorphisms with essential kernel (3.9). The endomorphism ring of a quasi-continuous module retains all the properties familiar from quasi-injective modules precisely if the module is actually continuous (3.15).

The dichotomy between projective and continuous geometries, namely that their dimension functions have discrete respectively continuum range, remains in effect for injective modules (cf. Goodearl and Boyle [76]; replace the dimension function by the finite rank function), and consequently for quasi-continuous modules. Noetherian rings are exactly the ones for which every injective or every quasi-continuous module is a direct sum of indecomposables. On the other hand, over "arbitrary" rings, the continuous structure is typical: an infinite direct sum of indecomposable (quasi-)continuous modules is (quasi-)continuous only in the presence of an ascending chain condition (2.13/3.16). A quasi-continuous module decomposes into indecomposables only in the presence of strong additional properties (2.22). Concepts dual to those of (quasi-)continuity have been studied, under various names (notably (quasi-,semi-)perfect, (quasi-)dual continuous, stark supplementiert), by many authors. The usage of terminology is disturbingly inconsistent. We propose the new term "(quasi-)discrete", motivated by Oshiro's Theorem (4.15) that every such module is the direct sum of indecomposables. This decomposition, which has strong uniqueness properties, reduces some proofs to counting arguments. Exchange and cancellation property, in particular, follow Arbitrary families of orthogonal idempotents, of the quite easily (4.19/20). endomorphism ring of a quasi-discrete module, lift modulo the ideal of endomorphisms with small image (5.9). Again, a quasi-discrete module is discrete precisely if the endomorphism ring exhibits all the familiar properties (5.4). The converse question, when a direct sum of indecomposable quasi-discrete modules is quasi-discrete, has not yet received a fully satisfactory answer (cf. (4.48/49). The special cases of a finite direct sum (4.50), and a direct sum of local modules (4.53), are settled. For discrete modules over commutative noetherian rings, the complete answer is known (5.15/16), and requires elaborate arguments. In spite of the dual nature of their definitions, and some analogies on an elementary level, (quasi-)continuous and (quasi-)discrete modules display striking Continuity generalizes injectivity. The structure of dissimilarities as well: quasi-continuous modules resembles that of their injective hulls. All injective/quasi-continuous modules are direct sums of indecomposables if and only if the ring is noetherian. A direct sum of quasi-continuous modules with full relative injectivity is quasi-continuous. On the other hand: Quasi-discrete modules are always direct sums of indecomposables. Discreteness generalizes projectivity if and only if the

ring is perfect. A direct sum of quasi-discrete modules with full relative projectivity need not be quasi-discrete. These dissimiliarities can be traced to the fact that every module is complemented, and hence possesses an injective hull, while most modules are not supplemented (4.41), and have no projective cover. Modules which are just supplemented, have interesting properties of their own, and were studied by many people (cf. Appendix, Section 1 and 2). Quasi-discrete modules are supplemented (4.8), and thus constitute a much more restrictive class than quasi-continuous ones. It summarizes facts about relative Chapter 1 is of preliminary nature. injectivity, and proves the exchange and cancellation properties for injective modules. It also develops a general technique for constructing direct sum decompositions, and derives the decomposition of an injective module into a directly finite and a purely infinite part. Analogous results on relative projectivity are collected at the beginning of Section 4 of Chapter 4. More details concerning the arrangement of the material may be obtained from the table of content. We have attempted to provide a complete and up to date account of the subject. The exposition is self contained, except that a few well known and highly technical results which are readily accessible in the literature, are quoted without proof. All undefined concepts can be found in Anderson and Fuller [73]. In the comments at the end of each chapter, we try to trace the origin of some of the main ideas. Section 6 of the Appendix lists a number of open questions.

MMOHH The main portion of this work was done while the first author was on sabbatical leave from Kuwait University, at the second author's institution, McMaster University. The authors acknowledge partial financial support by Kuwait University and by the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada.

Saad H. Mohamed Bruno J. Miiller

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface Table of contents Chapter 1: Injectivity and related concepts 1. A-injective modules 2. Quasi-injective modules 3. Exchange and cancellation properties Decomposition theorems 4. Comments Chapter 2: Quasi-continuous modules 1. Basic properties 2. Direct sums of quasi-continuous modules 3. Decompositions of quasi-continuous modules 4. Internal cancellation property 5. Quasi-continuity versus quasi-injectivity Comments

1 1

7 8

12 16 18 18 21 24 33

35 37

Chapter 3: Continuous modules 1. Endomorphism rings 2. Continuous modules 3. The exchange property Comments

39 39 46

Chapter 4: Quasi-discrete modules 1. Definition and basic results 2. Decomposition theorems 3. Applications of the decomposition theorems 4. Discreteness and projectivity 5. Quasi-discreteness of direct sums Comments

55

48

53

55 59

62 67

74

79

Chapter 5: Discrete modules Discrete modules 1. 2. Endomorphism rings Commutative noetherian rings 3. Comments

81 81 82 86 94

Appendix Variants of supplementation 1. Supplements are summands 2. 3. Extending modules 4. The historial origin of the concept of continuity N0 -continuity 5.

95 95 98 99 100

6.

105

Open questions

Bibliography Notation Index

103

108 122 124

CHAPTER 1 INJECTIVITY AND RELATED CONCEPTS In this chapter we discuss injectivity, quasi-injectivity and relative injectivity, with emphasis on those properties which are used later on in the book. We start by listing some of the well known fundamental properties of injective modules which can be found in Anderson and Fuller [73] or Sharpe and Vamos [72]. A module E is injective if it satisfies any of the equivalent conditions: (1) For every module A and any submodule X of A every homomorphism X-> E can be extended to a homomorphism A-> E; (2) (Baer's Criterion) Every homomorphism of a right ideal I of R to E can be extended to a homomorphism of R to E; (3) For any module M every monomorphism E >-> M splits; (4) E has no proper essential extensions. Every module M has a minimal injective extension, which is at the same time a maximal essential extension of M; such an extension is unique up to isomorphism and is called the injective hull of M. The injective hull of M will be denoted by E(M). 1. A-INJECTIVE MODULES Definition 1.1. Let A be an R-module. A module N is said to be A-injective if for every submodule X of A, any homomorphism rp: X -> N can be extended to a homomorphism '1/J : A -> N.

The following is an immediate consequence. Lemma 1.2. If N is A-injective, then any monomorphism N >_j_> A splits. If, in addition, A is indecomposable, then f is an isomorphism. 0 Proposition 1.3. Let N be an A -injective module. If B and A/B -injective.

~

A, then N is B -injective

2

PROOF. It is obvious that N is B-injective. Let X/B be a submodule of A/B, and tp : X/B - > N be a homomorphism. Let 1r denote the natural homomorphism of A onto A/B and 1r' = 1rl x· Since N is A-injective, there exists a homomorphism 0 : A - > N that extends tp7r'. Now OB

= tp1r'B = rp{O) = 0.

Hence Ker 1r

~

Ker 0, and consequently there

exists 1/J : A/B - > N such that t/J7r

= 0.

For every xEX

1/J(x + B) = t/J7r(x) = O(x) = tp7r' (x) = rp(x + B). Thus 1/J extends tp, and therefore N is A/B injective.

D

The following proposition may be viewed as a generalization of Baer's Criterion. Proposition 1.4. A module N is A -injective if and only if N is aR -injective for every a EA. PROOF. The "only ir' part follows by the preceding proposition. Conversely, assume that N is aR-injective for every aEA. Let X ~ A and tp : X - > N be a homomorphism. By Zorn's Lemma, we can find a pair (B, ¢) maximal with the properties X ~ B ~ A and 1/J : B - > N is a homomorphism which extends tp. It is clear that B ~e A. Suppose that B f. A and consider an element aEA- B. Let K = {rER : arEB}; then it is clear that aK f. 0. Define J1. : aK - > N by J-t(ak) = 1/J(ak). Then by assumption J1. can be extended to v: aR - > N. Now define x : B + aR - > N by x(b defined, since if b + ar = 0, then rEK and so

+ ar) = 1/J{b) + v(ar).

Then xis well

1/J{b) + v(ar) = 1/J{b) + Jl.(ar) = 1/J{b) + 1/J(ar) = 1/J(b + ar) = 0. But then the pair (B + aR, x) contradicts the maximality of (B, ¢). Hence B and 1/J : A - > N extends tp.

=

A, o

Proposition 1.5. A module N is ( 81 A. )-injective if and only if N is A. -injective for I iEI 1 every iEI.

=

81 A., X < A and iEI 1 consider a homomorphism tp: X-> N. We may assume, by Zorn's Lemma, that tp cannot be extended to a homomorphism X' - > N for any submodule X' of A which

PROOF.

Assume that N is A.-injective for all iEI. 1

contains X properly. Then X ~e A. We claim that X

Let A

= A.

Suppose not. Then there

3

exist jEI and a E A. such that a ¢ X. Since N is A .-injective, N is aR-injective by J J Proposition 1.3. By an argument similar to that given in Proposition 1.4, we can extended cp to a homomorphism 7/J : X + aR -> N, which contradicts the maximality of cp. This proves our claim, and hence N is A-injective. The converse follows by Proposition 1.3.

0

The same proof as for injective modules yields the following Proposition 1.6.

II M is A -injective if and only if M is A -injective for every aEA a a

aEA.

0

Next we investigate the A-injectivity of direct sums. Theorem 1. 7. The following are equivalent for a family of modules {M Cl.

(1) (2) (3)

E9

:

aEA} :

M is A -injective;

aEA a E9 M. is A -injective for every countable subset I c A; iEI I Ma is A-injective for every aEA, and for every choice of miEMa. (iEIN) for I

w

distinct aiEA such that n i=1

m?I ~ a0 for some aEA, the ascending sequence

n m? (nEIN) becomes stationary. i>n 1 PROOF. (1) :? (2) follows by Proposition 1.6. (2):? (3): Proposition 1.6 implies that Ma is a A-injective for every aEA. Consider w

the element x = (m.) E II M . I i=1 Ci.i

The mapping cp: ar _, xr is a well defined

w

w

homomorphism from aR to II M . Let I = U ( n m?), and let ljJ denote the i=1 ai n=1 i~n 1 w

restriction of cp to al. Then ljJ is a homomorphism of ai into is A-injective and hence aR-injective, ljJ extends to 7/J: aR

w

M . Since E9 M i=1 Ci.i i=1 Ci.i E9

->

w E9

i=1

M . Then Ci.i

xi= lp(ai) = 7/J(ai) ~ 7/J(aR) = 7/J(a)R ~

E9 M , iEF Ci.i where F is a finite subset of IN. Let F = {1,2, ... ,k-1}. Then m.I = 0 for i > k and I -

hence I= n m?. Therefore the sequence n m? (nEIN) becomes stationary. i>k I i>n I (3) :? (1): By way of contradiction, assume that E9 M is not A-injective. Then by aEA a

4

Proposition 1.4, e M is not aR-injective aeA a for some aEA. Hence there exists a right ideal K of R and a homomorphism f: aK -> e aEA M a such that f cannot be extended to aR. Since e M is A-injective for all finite aEF a subsets F f A by Proposition 1.6, f(aK) ~ Ell aeF M a for any finite subset F -c A. However f can be extended to g : aR -> TI M since TI M is A-injective. Let m = g(a). aEA a aEA a Then it is clear that a0 < m0 = n m 0 where m is the a-component of aEA a a mE n M . Then Let Sk = { aeA : m k 1 0}, kEK. Then Sk is a finite subset of aEA a a A for every kEK. However I = U Sk is not finite since mK = f(aK) ~ e M for ~K aeF a any finite subset F c A. By induction we select elements k.eK (iEIN) and indices a.EA I J j-1

such that a.ESk and a. ¢ U Sk. J j J i=l i a0 ~

Let mi denote the ar-component of m.

Then

ID

n m? and the sequence n m? (nEIN) is strictly increasing, which is a i=l I i>n I contraction to our assumption. Therefore e M is A-injective. o aeA a ID

Corollary 1.8.

e Mi is A -injective if and only if Mi is A -injective for every iEIN, i=l ID

and for every choice miEMi such that n m? ~ a0 for some aEA, the ascending sequence

n

i~n

i=l m? (nEIN) becomes stationary.

D

1

Motivated by these results and later applications, we introduce the following three chain conditions on a ring R relative to a given family of R-modules {Ma:aEA}: (A 1) For every choice of distinct a.EA (iEIN) and m.EM I I aI the ascending sequence

n m? (nEIN) becomes stationary; i>n 1 (A. 2) Fore every choice of xEMa (aEA) and miEMai for distinct aiEA (iEIN) such that m? ~ x0 , the ascending sequence I

n

~n

m? (nEIN) becomes stationary; I

5

(A 3) For every choice of distinct criEA (iEIN) and m.EM , if the sequence m? is 1 cri ascending, then it becomes stationary. It is clear that (A 1) implies (A 2) and (A 2) implies (A 3 ). holds as we shall see by the end of this section.

No other implication

The following is a consequence of Proposition 1.6 and Theorem 1.7. Proposition 1.9. Let M

=

81

M . Then M(A - a) is M -injective for every crEA if

a a and only ifMa is M{Jinjective for till a:/= {JEA and (A 2 ) holds. crEA

D

By Proposition 1.6, a direct product of injective modules is injective, and hence a finite direct sum of injective modules is injective. The following proposition, which deals with injectivity of arbitrary direct sums, is an immediate consequence of Theorem 1. 7. Proposition 1.10.

81

crEA

M

a

is injective if and only if each Mer is injective and (A 1)

holds.

D

The direct sum of any family of A-injective modules is A-injective if and only if every cyclic {or finitely generated} submodule of A is noetherian. In particular, the direct sum of every family of injective R-modules is injective if and only if R is right noetherian.

Theorem 1.11.

PROOF. M

= crEA 81

Assume that aR is noetherian for every aEA, and consider a direct sum M

a

of A-injective modules M .

homomorphism.

a

Let B < aR and rp: B

-

Since B is finitely generated, rp(B) ~

81

crEF F c A.

Then tp can be extended to

a

for a finite subset

->

81 M , since 81 M is crEF a crEF a A-injective by Proposition 1.6. Hence the A-injectivity of M follows by Proposition

'1/J :

aR

M

-> M be a

1.4. Conversely, assume that the direct sum of any family of A-injective modules is A-injective.

Let a be an arbitrary element of A.

We prove that aR is right

noetherian by showing that any ascending sequence 0

= B0 ~ B 1 ~ B2 ~ ... of right ideals of R is ultimately stationary. Let Mi a

= E(R/Bi), iEIN.

Since each Mi is

6

ID

trivially A-injective,

ED i=1

elements {mi

=1+

M.1 is A-injective by assumption. ID

Bi : iEIN}. The A-injectivity of ED M. implies, by Corollary 1.8, i=1

that the ascending sequence iEIN,

Consider the set of

n

i>n -

1

m? (nEIN) becomes stationary. As m? 1

1

=

B. for every 1

= m0n = i>n n m?. n 1 Hence the sequence B 1 ~ B2 ~ ... becomes stationary, and consequently aR is noetherian. o The last statement is obvious. B

We conclude this section by listing examples which seperate the ascending chain conditions (A 1), (A 2 ) and (A 3). Each of these examples is of the type .EDIN Mi with IE indecomposable injective Mi' Examples 1.12. (1) Let R be any commutative domain, and let K be its quotient field. If we take M. = K (iEIN), then ED M. is injective, hence (A 1) holds. However 1 iEIN 1 R is not necessarily noetherian. (2) Let R = II K., a product of fields; and M. = K.. Here ED M. is semisimple, iEIN I I I iEIN 1 hence it is obvious that (A 2) holds. Since E( ED M.) II K., ED M. is not iEIN 1 iEIN 1 iEIN 1 injective, hence (A 1) does not hold. (3) Let R be any (left and right) perfect ring such that E(RR) is projective but E(RR) is not (for the existence of such a ring, see Miiller [68]). Let M be a direct sum of countably many copies of E(RR). Then M is not quasi-injective by (Yamagata [74], Lemma 3.1). Since E(RR) is projective, it is a finite direct sum of indecomposables; so M = ED M., with each M. indecomposable injective. That 1 1 iEIN ED M. does not have (A 2) follows by Proposition 1.9 (see also Proposition 1.18). iEIN 1 Proposition 2.24 (see Definition 2.23). (4) For an incidence where even (A3) fails, consider any local generalized quasi-Frobenius ring, and let M. = R(iEIN). Then ED M. has (A 3) if and only if it is 1 iEIN 1 locally-semi-T-nilpotent (Proposition 2.24), consequently R is perfect and hence quasi-Frobenius. An explicit example of a local generalized quasi-Frobenius ring which is not quasi-Frobenius is R

= 'O.p w C~,

p-adic integers by the Priifer group C~.

the split extension of the ring 'O.p of

7 2.

QUASI-INJECTIVE MODULES A module Q is called quasi-injective if it is Q-injective. Quasi-injective modules are closely related to their injective hulls. We investigate this relationship in a more general setting. Lemma 1.13.

A module N is A -injective if and only if '1/JA

~

N for every

E Hom (E(A), E(N)). PROOF. Since E(N) is injective, it is enough to consider '1/J E Hom (A, E(N)). "If": Let X ~ A and t.p : X - > N be a homomorphism. Since E(N) is injective, t.p can be extended to '1/J : A - > E(N). By assumption 7/JA ~ N, and hence '1/J : A-> N extends t.p. Therefore N is A-injective. "Only if" : Let X = {aEA : '1/J(a)E N}. Since N is A-injective, '1/JI X can be extended to v: A - > N. We claim that N n (v- '1/l)A = 0. Indeed, let nEN and aEA be such that '1/J

n = (v- '1/J) (a). Then '1/J(a) = v(a) - nEN, and Then n = v(a) - '1/J(a) consequently aEX. = '1/J(a) - 7/J(a) = 0. Therefore N n (v- '1/J)A

(v- '1/J)A

= 0 as N ~e E(N).

Corollary 1.14. fE End E(Q).

= 0, and hence Hence 7/JA = vA

E(N)

~ N.

A module Q is quasi-injective if and only if fQ

D

~

Q for every o

Corollary 1.15. Every module M has a minimal quasi-injective extension, which is unique up to isomorphism. PROOF. Let Q(M) = (End E(M))(M). Then it is obvious that Q(M) satisfies the required conditions. D Lemma 1.13 has also the following Corollary 1.16. Let A and B be relatively injective (i.e. A is B-injective and B is A-injective). IfE(A) ~ E(B), then A~ B; in fact any isomorphism E(A) - > E(B) restricts to an isomorphism A -> B; in addition A and B are quasi-injective.

8

PROOF.

Let g : E(A) -> E(B) be an isomorphism.

Since B is A-injective,

gA $ B by Lemma 1.13. Similarly g- 1B $ A. Hence B = (gg- 1)B = g(g- 1B) $ gA $ B. Consequently gA = B, and therefore g IA : A -> B is an isomorphism. Since A is B-injective and B ~ A, A is A-injective, that is A is quasi-injective. 0

The following is an immediate consequence of Propositions 1.5 and 1.6. Proposition 1.17. M1 ED M2 is quasi-injective if and only if Mi is Mrinjective (i,j = 1,2). In particular, a summand of a quasi-injective module is quasi-injective. 0

Now consider an arbitrary direct sum M

=

M ci It is clear from the a.EA preceding proposition that "Ma. is M{Jinjective for all a., {JEA" is a necessary condition for M to be quasi-injective. The following result (which is analogous to Proposition 1.10) shows that this condition is also sufficient in the presence of condition (A 2). ED

Prooosition 1.18. The following are equivalent for a direct sum decomposition of a module M = ED M : a.EA a. (1) M is quasi-injective; (2) Ma. is quasi-injective and M( A - a.) is Ma.-injective for every a.EA; (3) Ma. is M{Jinjective for all a., {JEA and (A 2) holds. PROOF. Using Propositions 1.9 and 1.17, the proof is straightforward. o n

Corollary 1.19. (i, j

=

ED Mi is quasi-injective if and only if Mi is MJ.-injective i=1 1,2, ... ,n). Mn is quasi-injective if and only if M is quasi-injective.

0

3.

EXCHANGE AND CANCELLATION PROPERTIES In this section, we prove that every ( quasi-)injective module has the exchange property, and an injective module has the cancellation property if and only if it is directly finite. (The terms are defined below).

9

Definition 1.20. A module M is said to have the (finite) exchange property if for any (finite) index set I, whenever M ED N = ED Ai for modules N and Ai, then iEI M ED N = M ED ( ED B.) for submodules B. < A.. iEI 1 1 1 It is fairly easy to show that the (finite) exchange property is inherited by summands and finite direct sums (see Lemma 3.20). Theorem 1.21. Every quasi-injective module M has the exchange property. PROOF. Let A = M ED N = ED A.. Let X. = A. n N and X = ED X.. By Zorn's 1 1 iEI 1 i El 1 Lemma, we can find B ~ A maximal with respect to the following properties: (i) B = ED B. with X. < B. < A., iEI 1 1 1 1 (ii) M n B = 0. We claim that A

=

M

ED

B. Our claim will hold if we show that 1\I ~e A and

1\I cED A (where Y denotes the image of Y ~ A under the natural homomorphism A-> A/B). We start by showing 1\I n Aj ~e Aj for every jEI. arbitrary submodule of Aj such that Bj < D. Then B < D + B = D ED (ED B.). i~j

1

Maximality of B then implies M n (D Hence

(1\I n A.j) n U

Let D be an

+ B)

~

0. Since M n B

= 0,

M n (D

+ B)

~ B.

= 1\I n U ~ o.

Hence 1\I n Aj ~e Aj for all jEL Consequently ED

(1\I n A.) ~e

jEI J Therefore 1\I ~e A.

ED

jEI

A.. J

= A..

If M is injective, then 1\I is also injective (since 1\I

=

(M

ED

B)/B

~

M) and

l\I cED A follows trivially. For a quasi- injective module we have the following additional argument: Let 1r be the projection M ED N - > > M. The restriction of 1r to Ai has kernel Xi, and hence Ai/Xi is isomorphic to a submodule of M. Since M is M-injective, M is A.fX.-injective by Proposition 1.3. As A/X ~- ED A.fX., we get by 1 1 1 1 Proposition 1.5 that M is A/X-injective; hence M is A/B-injective by Proposition 1.3. Since 1\I ~ M, 1\I is A-injective and therefore 1\I

cED

A by Lemma 1.2.

D

Definition 1.22. A module M is said to have the canceUation property if whenever M ED X ~ M ED Y, then X ~ Y. M is said to have the internal cancellation property if whenever M = A1 ED B1 = A2 ED B2 with A1 ~ A2, then B 1 ~ B2.

10

Proposition 1.23. Let M be a module with the finite exchange property.

Then M has the cancellation property if and only if M has the internal cancellation property.

PROOF. "Only ir' : Let M = A1 81 B1 = A2 81 B2 with A1 ~ A2. Then M 81 B 1 = A2 81 B 2 81 B1 ~ A1 81 B 2 81 B1 = M 81 B2. Hence B1 ~ B 2. (This direction of the proof does not need the finite exchange property on M). "Ir' : Let M 81 X = N 81 Y with M ~ N. By the finite exchange property we get M 81 X = M 81 N' 81 Y' such that N' ~ N and Y' ~ Y. Then X ~ N' 81 Y' . It is also clear that N' c81 Nand Y' c81 Y; write N = N' 81 N" andY= Y' M 81 N' 81 Y' = M 81 X = N 81 Y = N' 81 N" 81 Y' 81 Y". Hence M ~ N" 81 Y", and therefore N" 81 Y" ~ M ~ N_= N" 81 N'. Since M has the internal cancellation property, N' X~

N'

81

Y'

~

Y"

81

~

81

Y". Then

Y"; hence

Y' = Y.

0

Definition 1.24. A module D is called directly finite if D is not isomorphic to a proper summand of itself. It is clear that a summand of a directly finite module is again directly finite.

The following is a characterization of directly finite modules via their endomorphism rings. Proposition 1.25. A module D is directly finite if and only if fg = 1 implies that gf = 1

for all f, gE End M. PROOF. Assume that fg = 1 for some f, gE End M. Then D = gD 81 Kerf. Since gD ~ D and D is directly finite, Kerf = 0. However f is onto, and therefore f is an automorphism of D. Hence gf = 1. Conversely, assume the condition and let D = B 81 C with B ~ D. Let tp:

D

->

B be an isomorphism. Define tp* as tp~ on Band 0 on C. Then tp*tp = 1

and hence tp tp* = 1. It then follows that tp* is a monomorphism and hence C = 0. 0

Lemma 1.26. If M is not directly finite, then x(IN) embeds in M for some non-zero

module X.

11

PROOF. Since M is not directly finite, M = A ED X with A ~ M and X A = A1 ED X1 with A1 ~ A and X1 ~ X. Iterating this process we get A = An ED xn ED .. . ED x2 ED xl

~

0. Then

Q)

with X1.

~

X (nEIN). Hence M contains the infinite direct sum ED X. with X. i=l 1 1

~

X.

-

0

For injective modules, we show that this condition is also sufficient. Proposition 1.27. An injective module M is not directly finite if and only if x(IN) embeds in M for some non-zero module X. PROOF. In view of Lemma 1.26, we need only prove the "if'' part. Assume that Q)

M ~ K = . ED

Q)

Xi with Xi

1=1

~

X and X

~

o.

Let K1 = X1 and K = ED X.. i=2 1

Then

K = K 1 ED K2 with K 2 ~ K. Consequently Hence E(K) is not directly finite. Since E(K) cED M, M is not directly finite. 0

Proposition 1.28. A directly finite injective module M has the internal cancellation property. PROOF. Let M = A ED C = B ED D with A ~ B. Using Zorn's Lemma we can find a monomorphism C ~ C'

>__[_> D which cannot be further extended. lnjectivity of

C implies that C' CED C and D' = fC' CED D. Write C = C' ED C D = D' ED D o' o' A = A ED C' and B = B ED D'. Then 0 0 M = A0 ED C0 = B0 ED D0 with A0 ~ B0 . If C0 = 0, then M=B o EDD o-~A o EDD o-~MEDD. o Since M is directly finite, D0 = 0 and hence C ~ D. Thus our proof will be complete if we show C0 = 0. Assume that C0 ~ 0. As f cannot be extended, C0 and D0 have no non-zero isomorphic submodules; hence C0 n D0 = 0 and therefore C0 ED D0 CED M. Write M = K0 ED C0 ED D0 . Then K0 ED D0 ~ A0 ~ B0 ~ K0 ED C0 . Consequently A0 = A1 ED C1 = B1 ED D 1 with A1 ~ K0 ~ B1, c1 ~ C0 and D1 ~ D0 . Thus c1 n D 1 = 0 as C0 and D0 have no non-zero isomorphic submodules. The same argument applied to A0 yields

12 A1 = A2 ED C2 = B2 ED D2 with A2 ~ B 2, C2 ~ Cl' D2 ~ D1 and C2 n D2 = 0. Iterating this process we get for every nEIN An-1 =A n EDC n =B n EDD n with An ~ Bn, Cn ~ C, Dn ~ D and Cn n Dn = 0. It is clear that An ~ 0; otherwise Bn = 0 and Cn = Dn in contradiction to Cn n Dn = 0. Now M = Ao ED co = A1 ED c1 ED co = ... = An ED (Cn ED ... ED c1 ED Co). This proves ID

that M contains the direct sum ED C. with C. i=1 1 1 Proposition 1.27. Hence C0 = 0.

~ -

C0 , which is a contradiction to 0

Theorem 1.29. An injective module M has the cancellation property if and only ifM is

directly finite. PROOF. We first note that any module M with the internal cancellation property is directly finite. Indeed, if M = A ED B with A = M ED 0, and hence B = 0.

~

M, then M ED B

~

A ED B = M

The converse direction follows by Theorem 1.21 and Propositions 1.23 and 1.28. D

Remark. The conclusion of Theorem 1.29 holds for quasi-injective modules and even for continuous modules (see Corollary 3.25). 4.

DECOMPOSITION THEOREMS In this section we shall obtain a decomposition of injective modules into directly

finite and purely infinite submodules with strong uniqueness properties. Definitions 1.30.

Let A and B be summands of a modules M.

A is said to be

perspective to B if there exists X ~ M such that M = A ED X = B ED X. We say that A is superspective to B if for any submodule X ~ M, M = A ED X if and only if M =BED X. Perspectivity is reflexive 3fd symmetric but not, in general, transitive; while superspectivity is an equivalence relation. A decomposition M = M1 ED M2 with certain properties is said to be unique (unique up to superspectivity , unique up to isomorphism), if for any other decomposition M = N1 ED N2 with the same properties, Mi = Ni (Mi is superspective to Ni , Mi ~ Ni), (i = 1,2). Obviously one has the implications unique

~

unique up to superspectivity

~

unique up to isomorphism.

13

Let N and

Lemma. 1.31.

81

iEI

X. be submodules of a module M. 1

If N

n ( 81 iEI

X.)

f. 0,

1

then there exists jEI such that Xj and N have non-zero isomorphic submodules. PROOF. N n ( 81 x.) f. 0, implies N n ( 81 X.) f. 0 for a finite subset F f. I. Let K iEI 1 iEF 1 be a maximal subset ofF such that N n ( 81 X.) = 0. Consider jEF-K and let 1r be iEK 1 the projection X. 81 ( 81 X.) ->> X.. Then Nl = n (X. 81 ( 81 X.)) f. 0 and J iEK 1 J J iEK 1 N > N ~ 7rN < X.. - J I

0

I

As a tool for the following proofs, and for later applications, we describe a general method for constructing direct decompositions. The easy verifications are left to the reader. Two modules will be called orthogonal if they have no non-zero isomorphic submodules. For any class .%of modules, $J. denotes the class of modules orthogonal to all members of .% It is clear that .%c $J.J. and .%J. $

=

= .%J.J.J.

$ J.J. holds if and only if .%is closed under isomorphisms, submodules,

essential extensions and direct sums (use Lemma 1.31). Such a class .%is also closed under extensions, and factors modulo closed submodules; but need not be closed under arbitrary factors nor products (cf. the class of torison-free and torsion abelian groups, respectively). $J. and $J.J. form what we call an orthogonal pair, i.e. a pair of classes .A and $such that .AJ. = ~and ~J. = .A. Given such a pair, and an arbitrary module M, then there are submdoules A and B of M maximal with respect to A E .A and B E ~. The sum A + B is direct and essential in M. A and B are not necessarily unique, not even up to isomorphism; in fact the possible B's are precisely the complements in M of any A and vice versa. If M is injective (or more generally quasi-continuous; cf. Lemma 2.36), we obtain a direct decomposition M = A 81 B, which is unique up to superspectivity. If ones starts (as we will in the applications) with a hereditary class, i.e. a class $closed under isomorphisms and submodules, then $J.

= {V : V has no non-zero submodule in .%}

$J.J.

= {L : every non-zero submodule of L has

a non-zero

sub-submodule in.%}. In this situation, we shall call $ J. and $ respectively.

u

the .%-void and $-full classes,

14 Definition 1.32. A module P is called purely infinite if P

Lemma 1.33. Let P be a purely infinite module. IfB PROOF. It is easy to see that p(IN)

>->

~

P ED P.

>->

P; hence B(IN)

P, then B(IN)

>->

>->

P.

0

Let E = B ED P where E is injective and P is purely infinite. B >-> P, then E ~ P.

Lemma 1.34.

PROOF.

By the previous lemma B(IN)

>->

P; hence P

~

P.

: Bi with Bi i=l

If

~ B.

Since B and P are injective m

m

P = E( ED B.) ED C = E(B 1) ED E( ED B.) ED C i=l 1 i=2 1 m

~ B ED E( ED

B.) ED C = B ED P = E.

0

1

i=l

Now we have all the ingredients for the decomposition theorem.

Every injective module E has a decomposition, unique up to superspectivity, E = D ED P, where D is directly finite, P purely infinite, and D and P are orthogonal.

Theorem 1.35.

PROOF. We first prove the existence of the decomposition. Consider the hereditary class.%= {X: x(IN)

>->

E}. Then E = V ED L where Vis $-void and Lis $-full.

By construction V and L are orthogonal. Also V is directly finite by Proposition 1.27. We proceed now to show that L is purely infinite. exists a maximal direct sum K = infinite copower

X~IN).

By Zorn's Lemma, there

ED Y in L, where each Y is isomorphic to an aEA a a

Hence

~ ED X (IN) ~ ( ED X )(IN) = : Z. - aEA a - aEA a i=l I' where z. ~ ED X , for all iEIN. Let 1 - aEA a K

m

m

Kl =

ED z2n-1 and K2 = ED z2n" n=l n=l Then K = K 1 ED K 2 and K 1 ~ K ~ K 2. Since L is injective, L N = E(K). Maximality of K then implies F is directly finite. Also N = E(K) = E(K 1) ED E(K 2) ~NED N, hence N is purely infinite.

F ED N where

15 Another application of Zorn's Lemma yields a monomorphism F

~ H >_i_> N

that cannot be extended. Since L is injective, H c81 F and m c81 N. Write F = H 81 H' and N = ffi 81 N'. Then ffi 81 N' = N ~ N 81 N = ffi 81 N' 81 N. Since ffi, being isomorphic to H, is injective and directly finite, we get by Theorem 1.29 that N' ~ N' 81 N. Since N' ~ N and N is purely infinite, N' ~ N by Lemma 1.34. Now we claim that H' = 0. Suppose not. As H' is $-full, H' contains a non-zero submodule W such that w(m) >-> E.

Then E

~

: WJ. such that j=1

ID

W. ~ W for every jEIN. Since V is $-void, V J

n ( 81

j=1

ID

W .) = 0 by Lemma 1.31. Hence J

ID

W. >-> L. Since F is directly finite, N n ( 81 W .) 1 0; otherwise j=1 J j=1 J 81

ID

81

j=1 that

w. >->

F, a contradiction. Applying Lemma 1.31, we get tEIN and 0 j T

~

N

J

As T ~ N ~ N', we get a non-zero monomorphism H' ~ H" >_g_> N'. But then H

81

H" f

81

g > ffi

81

N'

=N

extends f, a contradiction. Hence H' = 0, and so F = H. Thus F >-> N, and by Lemma 1.34, L = F 81 N ~ N. We conclude that L is purely infinite. Now we prove the uniqueness. We will establish this by proving that for any other decomposition E = D 81 P with the given properties, D is $-void and P is $-full. Since p(IN) >-> P

~ E, we have PE.Z"and consequently P is $-full. Now ID

consider D, and let 0 I XE .%such that X

~

D. Thus E

~

. 81

Xi with Xi

~

X for

1=1 ID

ID

every iEN. If P n ( 81 X.) = 0, then 81 X. >-> D, a contradiction since D is i=1 1 i=1 1 ID

directly finite. On the other hand P n ( 81 X.) I 0 yields by Lemma 1.31 that there i=1 1 exists 0 I P' ~ P and tEIN such that P' >-> Xt. Then P' >-> Xt ~X~ D which is again a contradiction since P and D have no non-zero isomorphic P

~

submodules. Therefore X = 0 and hence D is $-void. Hence the decomposition M = L 81 Vis unique up to superspectivity. 0

16 COMMENTS Baer [40] initiated the study of abelian groups which are summands whenever they are subgroups. These are precisely the divisible abelian groups, that is abelian groups G with nG = G for every nEIN. Modules which are summands of every containing module were studied by a number of authors (initially under several different names, e.g. algebraicly compact, Mu-modules, ... etc). Eckmann and Schopf [53] introduced the terminology "injective"; they also proved the existence of the injective hull. Johnson and Wong [61] defined the notion of a quasi-injective module. They proved that a module is quasi-injective if and only if it is closed under all endomorphisms of its injective hull, and hence any module M has a quasi-injective hull (End E(M))M. Our proof of Lemma 1.13 is essentially the one given by Johnson and Wong for quasi-injective modules. (Quasi)-injective modules were studied extensively. A number of generalizations were defined and studied by many authors, e.g. pseudo-injective modules (Singh [67]), Ke_r-injective modules (Birkenmeier [78]), 1r-injective modules (Goel and Jain [78]). Another generalization of (quasi-)injectivity will be discussed in Chapter 2. Rings for which a certain class of modules satisfies some "generalized injectivity property" were studied by many authors: Ahsan, Birkenmeier, Boyle, Byrd, Faith, Goel, Jain, Koehler, Michler, Mohamed, Muller, Osofsky, Saleh, Singh, Symmonds, Villamayor, and others. In this chapter we concentrated our attention on one generalization of injectivity, namely A-injectivity (Definition 1.1), as it is indispensible for our study of (quasi-)continuous modules in later chapters. This notion was studied by Azumaya [P], Azumaya et al. [75], Sandomierski [64] and de Robert [69]. The proofs of 1.2 to 1.6 are essentially the same as for the analogous results for injective modules. Theorems 1.7 and 1.11 are results of Azumaya et al. [75], modified by some ideas in Muller and Rizvi [84]. The rest of the results in this section are modified versions of those obtained by Muller and Rizvi [84]. Theorem 1.21 was proved by Warfield [69a] for injective modules, and the proof was generalized to quasi-injective modules by Fuchs [69]; the proof presented here is slightly different. Proposition 1.23 is also due to Fuchs [72]. Suzuki [68] proved Proposition 1.28 by utilizing the properties of the endomorphism rings of injective modules; we give a different and a more direct proof. Using Suzuki's result, Birkenmeier [76] proved the conclusion of Theorem 1.29 for quasi-injective modules; this theorem will be generalized to continuous modules in Chapter 3.

17 Goodearl and Boyle [76] proved Theorem 1.35 for non-5ingular injective modules, where the decomposition is unique. The existence of the decomposition for arbitrary injective modules is contained in Goodearl [79], where the full theorem is obtained from its non-5ingular special case via some functorial techniques. A direct proof is given in Muller and Rizvi [83]; the proof included here is considerably shorter and depends on the class decomposition developed in this chapter.

CHAPTER2 QUASI-CONTINUOUS MODULES In this chapter we discuss generalizations of the notion of continuous rings studied by von Neumann [36] and Utumi [65] to modules. Such modules are also generalizations of (quasi-) injective modules. 1. BASIC PROPERTIES Proposition 2.1. Any (quasi-}injective module M satisfies the following two conditions: (C 1) Every submodule ofM is essential in a summand ofM;

(C 2) If a submodule A ofM is isomorphic to a summand ofM, then A is a summand

ofM. PROOF.

Let N

~

=

M and write E(M)

E1

1D

E2

quasi-injectivity of M implies, by Corollary 1.14, that M

where E 1

=

E(N).

The

= M n E 1 1D M n E2; and it

is clear that N ~e M n E 1. Hence ( c1) holds. Let M' >..i...> M be a monomorphism with M• c19 M. Since M is M-injective, M• is M-injective by Proposition 1.6. Then f splits by Lemma 1.2; thus (C 2) holds. D

Proposition 2.2. If a module M has (C 2), then it satisfies the following condition: (C 3) IfM 1 and M2 are summands ofM such that M1 n M2

summand ofM. PROOF. Write M Then M1

ID

M2

(C 2). As 1rM 2

= M1 ID M*1 and let

= M1 ID ~

1r

= 0, then

M1 ID M2 is a

denote the projection M1 ID M* 1 ->> M* 1.

1rM 2. Since 1rj M is a monomorphism, we get 1rM 2 c19 M by

M*1, M1 1D 1rM 2 cID M.

2

o

Definition 2.3. A module M is called continuous if it has ( c1) and ( c2); M is called

quasi-continuous if it has (C 1) and (C 3). We have just seen that the following implications hold: Injective ~ quasi-injective ~ continuous ~ quasi-continuous

~

(C 1).

19 To illustrate this hierarchy of concepts, and at the same time demonstrate that they are all distinct, we list now, without proof, all abelian groups with these properties. (Proofs are easily obtained from the following development, and from Kamal and Miiller [88a]). We also display how regular rings, as right modules over themselves, fit into the scheme. Abelian Groups

Concept

c; (all p)}

Injective

ED{~.

Regular Rings } Right self injective

{ above, and X ED torsion injective

Quasi-injective

Continuous Quasi-continuous Right continuous

(X~~)

above, and Xn ED injective, and ED{ c~(p

J, c~(p)+1 or c; (all p)}

For a discussion, and a certain amount of classification of self-injective and continuous regular rings, cf. Goodearl [79]. Simple examples of a self-injective regular ring, and a continuous regular ring which is not self-injective, are II Fa (where {Fa} is an infinite family of fields), and its subring II(F a' P a) (where the P a are proper subfields of the Fa) consisting of all the sequences with almost all entries in P a' cf. Utumi [60]. A submodule of a module M is closed if it has no proper essential extensions in M. A submodule X of M is a complement if it is maximal with respect to X n Y = 0, for some submodule Y. Closed and complement submodules are the same; they exist in abundance, by Zorn's Lemma. The following two results are obvious.

20 Proposition 2.4. A module M has (C 1) if and only if every closed submodule ofM is a

summand.

D

Proposition 2.5. An indecomposable module M has (C 1) if and only if M is uniform.

Any uniform module is quasi-continuous.

D

Lemma 2.6. Let A be a submodule of an arbitrary module M. If A is closed in a summand ofM, then A is closed in M. PROOF. Let M = M1 ED M2 with A closed in M1. Let 1r denote the projection M1 ED M2

->> M1. Assume that A

~e B for some B ~ M. Then it is easy to see

that A = 1rA ~e 1rB ~ M1. Since A is closed in Ml' 1rB = A ~ B, and so, (1-1r)B ~ B.

n A = 0 and

Since (1 - 1r)B A

= B since A is

Proposition 2.7.

A ~e B, (1 - 1r)B

= 0 and

hence B

= 1rB

~ M1. Then

closed in M1.

D

=

The conditions (Ci) (i

1,2,3) are inherited by summands.

particular, any summand of a (quasi-}continuous module is {quasi-}continuous. PROOF. Follows from the definitions and Lemma 2.6.

In o

We end this section by giving characterizations of quasi-continuous modules, in terms of their injective hulls, and their complement submodules. Theorem 2.8. The following are equivalent for a module M: (1) M is quasi-continuous; (2) M = X ED Y for any two submodules X and Y which are complements of each other; (3) fM ~ M for every idempotent f E End E(M); (4) E(M) = ED E. implies M = ED M n E.. iEI

1

1

iEI

PROOF. (1) ::} (2): Now X, Y CED M by Proposition 2.4, and hence X (C 3). Since X ED Y ~eM, M =X ED Y. (2) ::} (3):

Let A1

=

M

nf

E(M) and A2

=

M

n (1-f)

ED

Y

CED

M by

E(M). Let B 1 be a

complement of A2 that contains A1, and let B2 be a complement of B1 that contains A2. Then M

=

B1

ED

that M n (f - 1r) M

B2. Let 1r be the projection B 1

=

0.

Let x, y

E

ED

B2

->> B1. We claim

M be such that (f - 1r)(x)

=

y.

Then

21

f(x)

= y + 1r(x)

E M, and hence f(x) E A1 . Thus (1 - f)x E M and so (1 - f)x E A2 .

Therefore 1r(x) = f(x), and consequently y = 0. This proves our claim. Since M ~e E(M), (f- 1r)M = 0, and so fM = 1rM ~ M. (3)::} (4): It is clear that 81 M n E. ~ M. Let m be an arbitrary element in M. 1 iEI Then m E 81 E. for a finite subset F c I. Write E(M) = 81 E. 81 E *. Then there iEF 1 iEF 1 exist orthogonal idempotents fi E End E(M) (i E F) such that Ei fiM

~

=

fi E(M).

Since

M by assumption,

f.) (m) = E f.(m) E 81 M n E.. 1 iEF 1 iEF 1 iEF Thus M < 81 M n E. and therefore M = 81 M n E .. 1 1 - iEI iEI M

m

= (E

(4)

::}

(1):

= M n E(A)

with M 1 n M2

Let

~

A

M.

Write

* e 81 M n E with A ~ M n E(A).

= 0.

Write E(M)

E(A)

E *.

81

Then

Thus M has (C 1). Let Ml' M2 c 81 M

= E 1 81 E 2 81 E'

= M n E 1 81 M n E 2 81 M n E'. M.1 c81 M and M.1-<e M n E., M.1 = 1

=

E(M)

where Ei

= E(Mi), i = 1,2.

Then

M Since

M

n E.1

( i

=

1,2). Therefore M has (C 3 ). 0

2.

DIRECT SUMS OF QUASI-CONTINUOUS MODULES A summand of a quasi-continuous module is quasi-continuous (Proposition 2. 7).

However a direct sum of quasi-continuous modules need not be quasi-continuous. This is illustrated by the following: Example 2.9. B=

[ ~ ~ J.

Let R

= [~ ~ J

where F is any field.

Let A

= [~ ~ J

and

It is clear that A and B are quasi-continuous as R-modules (in fact A

is injective and B is simple).

However R

= A 81

B is not quasi-continuous. (It is

easy to check that RR satisfies (C 1) but does not satisfy (C 3).) The following proposition gives a necessary condition for M1

o

81

M2 to be

quasi-continuous. Proposition 2.10. injective.

If M1

81

M2 is quasi-continuous, then M1 and M2 are relatively

22

PROOF.

We show M2 is Me-injective. Write M = M 1 e M2.

Let X

~

M 1 and

rp: X-> M2 be a homomorphism and let B = {x- rp(x) : xEX}. It is obvious that B

n M2 =

* 0. Let M* 1 be a complement of M2 that contains B. Then M = M 1

E9

M2

by Theorem 2.8. Let 11' denote the projection M*1 E9 M2 ->> M2. For all x E X we have 0 = 11' (x - rp(x)) = 'll'(x) - 'II'( rp(x)) = 11'(x) - rp(x). Hence 11'1 M

extends rp. 1 D

Corollary 2.11.

If M 1

quasi-injective.

M is quasi-injective if and only if M

E9

M2 is quasi-continuous and M1 >-> M2 , then M1 is E9

M is quasi-continuous. D

Corollary 2.12.

A purely infinite module M is quasi-injective if and only if M is

o

quasi-continuous.

Now we consider a direct sum M =

ED

aEA

M of quasi-continuous modules M .

a

a

A necessary condition for M to be quasi-continuous is that M(A- a) is Ma-injective for every aEA. In the following we show that this condition is also sufficient. Theorem 2.13. Let {Ma : aEA} be a family of quasi-continuous modules.

Then the

following are equivalent:

=

(1)

M

(2)

M(A- a) is Ma-injective for every aEA;

(3)

Ma is M{Jinjective for all a I {J E A and (A 2) holds.

ED

aEA

M

a

is quasi-continuous;

PROOF. (2) ~ (3) follows by Proposition 1.9, and (1) ~ (2) by Proposition 2.10. It remains to show (2) ~ (1). In view of Theorem 2.8, we have to show that eM ~ M for every idempotent e E End E(M). Since eM=e( eM)= E eM, aEA a aEA a we need only show that eMa

~

M for every a EA.

is Mtrinjective for all a I {J E A, M is a p a M(A- a)-injective by Proposition 1.5. Write N1 = Ma and N2 = M(A - a). Then Consider a fixed a E A.

Since M

23 N1 and N2 are relatively injective and N 1 is quasi-continuous. Let E, E 1 and E 2 denote the injective hulls of M, N 1 and N2, respectively. e = [ell el2] where eij : Ej -> Ei. e21 e22

Then E = E 1

Since N 2 is N 1-injective, e21 N1

ED

~

E 2 and N2 by

Lemma 1.13; consequently ~ ellNl

+

N2.

Thus it is enough to show that ellNl

~

M.

eNl = ellNl

+ e21Nl

Since e = e2, ell = ei 1 + e12 e21 . Write a= ell and b = 1- ell. Then 2 ab = ba = a - a = e12e21 E End E 1. Let K = Ker ab; then it is obvious that aK n bK = 0 and aK Hence K = aK

Ker b

~

Ker ab = K.

bK. Since E 1 is injective, there exist orthogonal idempotents f and

ED

gin End E 1 such that E 1 = £E 1 fK = f(aK

~

ED

gEl' aK

~

£E 1 and bK

~

gE 1. Then

bK) = faK = aK. Therefore K n £E 1 ~ fK = aK ~ K n fE 1; and consequently K

n £E 1 =

ED

aK

~

Ker b.

Hence a IbfE is a monomorphism. Since E 1 is 1 injective, there exists '1/J E End E 1 such that bf = '1/Jabf. Since N1 is quasi-continuous and N1 and N2 are relatively injective, we get by Theorem 2.8 and Lemma 1.13 bfNl = '1/JabfNl ~ '1/JabNl = 'I/Je12e21N1 ~ 'I/Je12N2 ~ Nl. Similarly one can prove that agN 1 aN 1 = a(f

+ g)N 1 =

afN 1

~

N1. Then

+ agN 1 =

(1- b)fN 1

+ agN 1 ~

N 1.

Hence ellNl = aN 1 ~ N1.

0

n Corollary 2.14.

ED

i=l

M. is quasi-continuous if and only if each M. is quasi-continuous 1

and Mj-injective for all j j i.

1

0

24 3.

DECOMPOSITIONS OF QUASI-CONTINUOUS MODULES In general, a quasi-continuous module need not be a direct sum of indecomposable submodules. On the other hand, a quasi-continuous module which is a direct sum of indecomposable submodules, behaves in many ways as if these submodules had local endomorphism rings, though this need not be the case. Here we characterize those quasi-continuous modules which are direct sums of indecomposable modules. We also discuss briefly some fundamental properties of arbitrary modules which are direct sums of indecomposable submodules. Definition 2.15. A family {X>. : >. E A} of submodules of a module M is called a local

summand of M, if E

X>. is direct and E X>. is a summand of M for every finite >.eA >.eF subset F f. A. (When there is no danger of confusion we simply say that E X>. is a >.eA local summand of M). If even E X>. is a summand of M, we say that the local >.eA summand is a summand. We shall prove that if every local summand of M is a summand, then M is a direct sum of indecomposable submodules (Theorem 2.17). First we need a lemma:

Let M be an arbitrary module. Every local summand of M is a summand if and only if the union of any chain of summands ofM is a summand. PROOF. "If" : Let .%= {X>. : >. E A} be a local summand of M. Let $ be the

Lemma. 2.16.

family of all subsets 0 of A such that Consider a chain 0 a in %, and let 0 E

>.eOuF

E X>. >.eOUF

= ~ 0 a·

c19 M for

every finite subset F f. A.

Then for any finite subset F f. A,

X>.= U ( E X>.) a >.en auF

is a summand of M by assumption. Thus 0 E %, and hence is an upper bound of the chain. Then Zorn's Lemma applies to $and we get a maximal element !1. Suppose 0 I A. Let 'Y E 0 -A and let n+

=0

E X).= I: X). >.en+uF >.enu ( { 7}uF)

u { 7}. For any finite subset F f. A,

c19

M.

It then follows that n+ E I, which contradicts the maximality of !1. Hence 0 and E X>. >.eA

cID M.

= A,

25 "Only if'' : Let {Mi : i E I} be a chain of summands of M. Consider the collection :7 {X>. : >. E A} with the additional property

of all local summands ..% =

E X>. = U M. for some subset J = J(..% ) of I. >.EA iEJ 1

We order :7 by inclusion.

- u ..%a= {X;. : >. E u Aa}.

Consider a chain ..%a= {X;. : >. E Aa} in :?and let ..% = It is clear that ..% is again a local summand. Now

E X;.= U ( E X;.)= U ( U M.) = U M.. >.EUAa a >.EAa a iEJ(..%a) 1 iE~J(..%a) 1

Thus ..% E :7, and hence is an upper bound of the chain. If follows by Zorn's Lemma that :7 has a maximal element ..% . A=

E

u

X;. =

>.EA

iEJ(..%)

1

exists k E I such that Mk i E J( ..%). Since A

CED

u

M.. We claim that A =

1

iEI

i:

A.

Hence Mk

i:

M by hypothesis, Mk = A

Let

M.. Suppose not. Then there

Mi and therefore Mi < Mk for all ED

B, for some 0 I B ~ M. Then it is

clear that ..%U {B} E :7, which contradicts the maximality of ..%.

D

If every local summand of a module M is a summand, then M is a direct sum of indecomposable modules.

Theorem 2.17. PROOF.

a

maximal

..%= {X>. : >. E A} where each X>. is indecomposable.

Let X =

X

CED

By

Zorn's

Lemma,

M

M by assumption; write M = X

ED

contains

local

summand

E X;.. Then >.EA Y. We claim that Y = 0. To the contrary,

assume that Y I 0 and consider a non-zero element y E Y. By Lemma 2.16, there exists a summand A of Y maximal such that y ~ A. Then Y = A ED B with B I 0. Now maximality of ..% forces B to be decomposable; so B = B 1 ED B2 with Bi I 0 (i = 1,2). Again maximality of A implies y E A contradiction. Thus Y = 0 and M = X =

ED

ED

Bi (i = 1,2). But then y E A, a

X;.·

o

>.EA Proposition 2.18. Let M be an R-module with (C 1). IfR satisfies the ascending chain

condition on right ideals of the form m 0 , m summand.

E

M, then every local summand of M is a

E X;.. If X* >.EA M and hence X* has (C 1). So there is no loss of

PROOF. Let ..% = {X;. : >. E A} be a local summand of M, and X= is a closure of X in M, then X*

CED

generality if we assume that X ~e M; in that case we have to show that X = M.

26 Suppose that X f. M and select m E M -X such that m 0 is maximal. Since X ~e M, there exists r E R such that 0 f. mr E X. Now mr E

X>. for some finite subset

E9

>.EF F f. A.

By assumption, M =

E9

AEF

X>.

ED

Y for some Y

~

M.

x E e X>. and y E Y. Clearly y ~ X and m0 ~ y0 ; hence m 0 >.EF 0 m . Since yr mr

= 0,

= mr -

xr E ( e X>.) n Y >.EF

a contradiction. Hence X

Then m = x

= y0

+

y,

by maximality of

= 0,

= M.

D

A ring R is right noetherian if and only if every injective R-module is a direct sum of uniform modules (Matlis (58), Papp (59)). The following generalizes this result to modules with (C 1). Theorem 2.19. IfR is rihgt noetherian, then every R-module with (C 1) is a direct sum

of uniform modules. PROOF. The result follows from 2.5, 2.17 and 2.18.

D

=

e M. where each Mi has a local iEI 1 endomorphism ring, then the Krull-Schmidt-Azumaya Theorem asserts that this If a module M has a decomposition M

decomposition is unique up to isomorphism (i.e. if M

=

ED

N j is another

jEJ decomposition of M with indecomposable Nj, then there exist an automorphism tp of M and a bijection

1r :

I

-> J such that N7r(i) =

tp Mi).

The conclusion of this

theorem remains true in some cases where the Mi are indecomposable but no longer have local endomorphism rings.

One example is the class of modules with a

(c.f. Anderson and Fuller (73), Ch. 3, §12.) For the reader's convenience we include the definitions and results which will

decomposition that complements summands. be used in this book.

(1)

A submodule N of M is called a maximal summand in M, if M

=

N eN' with

N' indecomposable.

(2)

A decomposition M

=

e M. is said to complement ( maximaQ summands if for iEI 1

every (maximal) summand A of M there exists a subset J

M

=Ae

( e M. ). iEJ 1

c

I such that

27

(3)

(4)

Let M

=

111 M., with each M. indecomposable, be a decomposition that 1 1 iei complements (maximal) summands. Then: (a) This decomposition satisfies the conclusion of the Krull-Schmidt-Azumaya

Theorem; (b) Any other decomposition of M into indecomposables complements (maximal) summands. Let M = 111 M. be a decomposition that complements summands. Then: iEI 1 (a) Mi is indecomposable for every i e I;

(b) (c)

Every summand of M has a decomposition that complements summands; If M 111 A , then I is the disjoint union of subsets I such that a.EA a. a. A~ Ill

a.- ieia.

M.(a.EA). 1

Definition 2.20. A module M is said to have the (finite) extending property if for any (finite) index set I, and any direct sum 111 A. of submodules A. of M, there exists a 1 iei 1 family {M. : iei} of submodules of M such that A. <e M. and 111 M. is a summand 1 1 1 iei 1 ofM. For n e IN, the n-extending property for M will mean that M has the extending property relative to index sets of cardinality n. The proof of the following lemma is straightforward. Lemma 2.21. Let M be an arbitrary module. Then:

(1)

M has the 1-extending property if and only ifM has (C 1);

(2)

M has the finite extending property, if and only if M has the 2-extending property, if and only if M is quasi-continuous; M has the extending property if and only if M has the finite extending property and every local summand ofM is a summand. 0

(9}

Theorem 2.22.

equivalent:

Let M be a quasi-continuous module.

Then the following are

28 (1) (2) (3)

M is a direct sum of indecomposable (uniform) modules; M has a decomposition that complements summands;

(4)

M has the extending property.

Every local summand ofM is a summand;

PROOF. (1) ::} (2): Let M =

M. be a decomposition of M into indecomposable

81

iEI

1

(hence uniform) submodules Mi; we show that this decomposition complements summands. Let N be any summand of M. Kf N

81

I maximal such that N

c81 M.

M(K)

M= N

81

n M(K)

By Zorn's Lemma, there exists a subset =

Next we prove that N

0. 81

Since M is quasi-continuous,

M(K) ~e M; it then follows that

M(K). Let i E I; then maximality of K implies Xi = (N

81

M(K)) n Mi f: 0.

Since Mi is uniform, Xi ~e Mi, and consequently

As N

81

X. <e

81

iEI

1 -

iEI

81

M(K) ~

M. 1

81

= M. Xi' N

M(K) ~e M.

81

This proves our claim, and hence the

iEI decomposition complements summands. (2) ::} (3): Let M = Let A =

81

jEJ

A ~e A*

c81

81

etEA

be a decomposition that complements summands.

M et

A. be a local summand of M. Since M is quasi-continuous, J

M; and if we write M = A*

81

B, we get that

81

jEJ

summand of M and essential in M.

A. J

81

B is a local

So there is no loss of generality if we assume

A ~eM; in that case we have to show A= M. Suppose A f: M. Inductively we construct a sequence of elements xn such that xn ~ A, xn E Man' the 0

x1

0

llJi are

distinct, and

0

< x2 < ... < xn < ....

Once this is done, we get a contradiction to (A 3), and hence to (A 2), which is valid by Theorem 2.13. (Recall the conditions (A.) from Section 1 of Chapter 1). 1

Assume that xl' ~· ... , xn have been constructed. Since A ~e M, there exist rt E R such that 0 f: xtrt E A, t = 1,2, ... ,n. There exists a finite subset F f J such that xtrt E

81

~F

A. for all t = 1,2, ... ,n. Since A = 81 A. is a local summand of M and J ~J J

the decomposition M =

81 ~A

M complements summands, there exists a subset K et

cA

-

29 such that M= Write x

ED

jEF

=

n

A. ED M(K). J

a + E y

a

where a E

ED

jEF

A. and E y E M(K). It is clear that xn° 5 y~ J a ...

for every a. Now ( E y

)r

a

= xnrn- ar

n

and hence x~ < y~. xn+ 1

= ypi

n

E(

ED

jEF

A.) n M(K) J

= 0,

Since xn ~ A, there exists {3 E K such that y{3 ~ A.

Take

then it is clear that xn+ 1 satisfies the required conditions. ~

(3) ::} (1) follows by Theorem 2.17, and (3) Lemma 2.21.

(4) is a consequence of 0

We now state the definition of a concept which originated from the T-nilpotency that occurs in the study of perfect rings (Bass [60]). It is equivalent, under suitable assumptions, to a number of other interesting properties (see Theorem 2.25). Though it looks technical, it is usually the one condition that can be explicitly verified. Definition

2.23.

A

family

of

modules

{Ma

aEA}

is

called

locall?rsemi-transfinitel?rnilpotent (isTn) if for any subfamily M a. (iEIN) with distinct 1

a. and any family of non-isomorphisms f. : M 1

1

ai

-> M

there exists nEIN (depending on x) such that fn ... f2f1(x) Proposition 2.24.

ED

aEA

M

a

xn+ 1

an

Let

-> M

= fn···

Then (A 3) is equivalent to lsTn.

In particular both

is quasi-continuous.

PROOF. fn : M

= 0.

Let {Ma : aeA} be a family of uniform modules such that Ma is

M{Tinjective for all {3 :f: a E A. hold if

, and for every x E M , ai+ 1 a1

an+1

(A3)

be

given

and

consider

non-isomorphisms

(n E IN), with distinct a ; and let x E M . Set x 1 n a1

f2f1(x). Then obviously x~ ~ x~+ 1 and therefore x~

= x~+ 1

=x

and

holds for

some mE IN by (A 3); consequently fmlx R: xmR -> xm+ 1R is an isomorphism. m

Assume that x

m

:f: 0.

Then since Mam is uniform, fm : Mam -> M

am+1

is a

30

monomorphism. It then follows by Lemma 1.2 that fm is an isomorphism, which is a contradiction. We conclude that fm_1 ... f2f1(x) = xm = 0. Conversely, assume that {M,J has lsTn, and consider elements xn ... (n

E IN)

EM

an

where the an are distinct and the sequence x~ is increasing. If the sequence

x~ does not become stationary, then passing to a subsequence we may assume 0 £ xn0 < xn+ 1 or all n

E IN.

Then the natural maps xnR -> xn+ 1R are not

monomorphisms, and hence their extensions by f : M -> M , are non-isomorphisms. By lsTn, x an an+1 m n holds for some m

E IN.

We conclude x~

relative

= fm_1 ...

injectivity, f2f1(x 1) = 0

= R, in contradiction to x~ < x~+ 1 .

The last statement follows from what we have already proved and Theorem 2.13.

D

In this section we have discussed a number of properties for a module M which has a decomposition M = ED M into indecomposable submodules M . The aEA a a following theorem, which we mention without proof, asserts that these properties are equivalent to each other, and to some other concepts like the exchange property, in case the Ma have local endomorphism rings. The equivalence of (1) to (4) is due to Harada [83a], and of (4) to (6) to Zimmermann-Huisgen and Zimmermann [84].

The following are equivalent for a module M with a decomposition ED M where each M has a local endomorphism ring: aEA a a

Theorem 2.25. M

=

(2) (3) (4)

The radical factor ring S/J(S) of the endomorphism ring S of M is (von Neumann) regular, and idempotents lift modulo J(S); Every local summand ofM is a summand; The decomposition complements summands; {Ma} is locally semi-T-nilpotent;

(5) (6)

M has the finite exchange property; M has the exchange property.

(1)

D

The implication (3) :} (4) in this theorem holds without the assumption on the endomorphism rings of the Ma. This was proved by Kasch and Zollner, and is apparently not published; we include a proof for the reader's convenience.

31 Theorem 2.26.

Any decomposition M =

ED

aEA

M

a

which complements summands is

locally semi-T-nilpotent. PROOF. It suffices to derive the conclusion of lsTn for non-isomorphisms

fi : Mi -> Mi+ 1 (iEIN).

ED Mi. Let iEIN M.* 1 = (1 -f.1)M.. 1 The following properties are easy to obtain, and the verifications are left to the reader: (a) Mn* n Mi = 0 fori :/: n, and Mn* n Mn = 0 if and only if fn is a monomorphism;

(b)

(c)

We may also assume that M =

E M.* is direct; i EIN 1

m

*

m+1 Mm + 1 = . ED M1.. 1=n 1 =n For any subset K f. IN, we write M(K) = .

ED

M.1

ED

ED M. and M*(K) iEK 1 first show that lsTn holds if M = M*(IN). Indeed given aEM 1,

=

ED

M *..

iEK

1

We

a= (1 - f1)m 1 + (1 - f2)m2 + ... + (1 - fn)mn with mi E Mi. Clearly fn(mn) = 0 and mn = fn_1 ... f2f1(a), hence fn ... f2f1(a) = 0. Let E, D denote the subsets of IN consisting of all even, odd numbers respectively. Then it is obvious that M = M*(E) ED M(D) = M(E) ED M*(D). Using the second decomposition to complement the summand M*(E) we get M = M*(E) ED M(E') ED M*(D'), where E' -c E and D' -c D. First assume that all the fi are monomorphisms.

We claim that D'

D.

Suppose not, and let t+1 be the least element in D- D'. For any x E Mt+ 1 x

= E 1 + (1

where E 1 E M1

- 9mt

ED ••• ED

+ E2

Mt and E 2 E Mt+ 2

ED

Mt+ 3

ED ••• •

Consequently x = - ftmt,

thus ft : Mt -> Mt+ 1 is onto and hence an isomorphism; which is a contradiction. This proves that D = D', so M = M*(IN) ED M(E' ). Assume that E' :/: 0 and let k be the least element in E'. If E' contains an element t # k, then by (c) above

32 where E" = E' - {k,t}. However, this contradicts the fact that the sum is direct. Therefore E' contains exactly one element k. Thus M = M1 ED

••• ED

Mk

ID

ED ( ED

*

M. ).

i=k 1 Again consider an element x E Mk+ 1. Then x

=y +

where y E M1

n

I:

i=k

(1 -f. )m.

ED ••• ED

1

1

Mk, mi E Mi and n E IN. Since each fi is a monomorphism, we

get x = -fkmk, and therefore fk is onto, hence an isomorphism, a contradiction. This proves that E' = 0, and hence M = M*(IN). However this implies that lsTn holds, which is a contradiction since all fi were assumed to be monomorphisms. It follows that the fi are not all monomorphisms.

Composing maps together,

and reindexing, if necessary, we may assume, without loss of generality, that none of the fi is a monomorphism. Then applying (a) we get E' = 0, and hence M = M*(E) ED M*(D'). But then M = M*(IN) by (b). Hence lsTn follows.

o

We end this section with yet another property of modules with decompositions complementing summands. Proposition 2.27. A module M with a decomposition that complements summands has the internal cancellation property if and only if it is directly finite. PROOF. Any module with the internal cancellation property is directly finite (see the proof of Theorem 1.29). Conversely assume that M is directly finite, and let M = A1

ED

B 1 = A2

ED

B2 , with A1

~

A2 .

Let M =

ED M. be a decomposition that complements summands. There exist subsets iEI 1 J 1, J 2, K 1 and K2 of I such that

J1

n K1 = 0, J 2 n K2 = 0, I=

J 1 U K1 = J 2 U K2 ;

A1 ~ M(J 1), B1 ~ M(K 1), A2 ~ M(J 2), B2 ~ M(K 2). Since M is directly finite, every isotype appears with finite multiplicity. Then A1 ~ A2 implies that every isotype appears with the same multiplicity in B1 and B2. Hence B1

~

B2 follows.

D

33 4.

INTERNAL CANCELLATION PROPERTY By Theorem 2.22 and Proposition 2.27, a quasi-continuous directly finite module, which is the direct sum of indecomposable submodules, has the internal cancellation property. In this section, we prove that this result holds for arbitrary quasi-continuous directly finite modules. Lemma 2.28. Let M be a quasi-continuous module. Then (1) M is purely infinite if and only ifE(M) is so; (2) M is directly finite if and only if E(M) is so. PROOF. (1) If M is purely infinite, then M ~ M ED M, hence E(M) so E(M) is purely infinite. Conversely, assume that E(M) is purely infinite. Then E(M) E(M) M2

~

E 1 ~ E2. As M is quasi-continuous, M

= M n E2 (Theorem 2.8).

2.10, and E(M 1)

~

~

E(M)

ED

=

E1

E2 with

ED

E(M),

= M1 ED M2 where M1 = M n E 1 and

Now M1 and M2 are relatively injective by Proposition

E(M 2). It then follows by Corollary 1.16 that M1

~

M2, thus M1

is quasi-injective. Then M and M1 are relatively injective by Propositions 1.5 and 1.6. Another application of Corollary 1.16 yields M1 ~ M. Hence M is purely infinite. (2) If M is not directly finite, then M ~ M ED X with X f. 0. Hence E(M) ~ E(M) ED E(X) with E(X) f. 0, so E(M) is not directly finite. Conversely, assume that E(M) is not directly finite. By Theorem 1.35, E(M) = D ED P where D is directly finite and P is purely infinite. Again the quasi-continuity of M implies M = N1 ED N2 with N1 = M n D and N2 = N n P f. 0 (since P f. 0). As N2 is quasi-continuous with purely infinite injective hull, N2 is purely infinite by (1). Then M = N1 ED N2 ~ N1 ED N2 ED N2 = M ED N2, with N2 f. 0.

Therefore M is not directly finite.

D

The following is an immediate consequence of the previous lemma and of Theorems 1.35 and 2.8. Theorem 2.29. Any quasi-continuous module M has a decomposition, unique up to superspectivity, M = D ED P, where D is directly finite, P is purely infinite, and P and D are orthogonal. D

34

Lemma 2.30. Any two closures of a submodule A of a quasi-continuous module M are superspective. PROOF. Let M1 and M2 be two closures of A. Then M1, M2 c81 M by Proposition 2.4. Write M = M1 81 X. Since A (C 3). However M2 Theorem 2.31. E(M 1)

~

81

n X=

0, M2

n X=

0 and hence M2

81

X c81 M by

X ~eM since it contains A 81 X. Hence M = M2 81 X.

o

Let M1 and M2 be summands of a quasi-continuous module M. If

E(M 2), then M1 ~ M2.

PROOF. Let U = M1 n M2 and let Xi be a complement of U in Mi. Then Xi c81 M, i = 1,2. One can easily check that the sum implies M = X1 i = 1,2. Bi

~

As U

81

B, hence Vi

81

B

81

X2

81

U

+ x2

is direct.

Then (C 3)

M* where U ~e B. Let Bi be a closure of U in Mi,

X.1 -<e M., M.1 = B.1 1 ~

x1 +

X..1

81

Write V.1 = B

81

X..1

By Lemma 2.30

Mi, i = 1,2. Therefore our proof will be complete if we show

v1 ~ v2.

By Theorem 2.29, B = D 81 P where D is directly finite and P is purely infinite. Now X1, x2 and P are relatively injective in pairs by Proposition 2.10, and P is quasi-injective by Corollary 2.12. Then by Propositions 1.5 and 1.6. Now E(D) 81 E (P 81 X1) = E(V 1)

~

x 1 81

E(M 1)

~

P and X2

81

E(V 2) = E(D)

P are relatively injective,

81

E(P

81

X2).

Since E(D) is directly finite by Lemma 2.28, we get by Theorem 1.29 E(P 81 X1) ~ E(P 81 X2) Hence P

81

x1 ~ P 81 :X 2 by Corollary 1.16.

Therefore

v 1 = n 81 P 81 x 1 ~ n 81 P 81 x 2 = v 2.

0

Corollary 2.32. In a quasi-continuous module M, isomorphic submodules have isomorphic closures. PROOF. Let Ai ~ M and Ci be a closure of Ai (i= 1,2). If A1 ~ A2, then E(C 1) ~ E(C 2). Since

c 1, C2 c81 M, c1 ~ c2 by Theorem 2.31.

o

35 Theorem 2.33. In a quasi-continuous module M, isomorphic directly finite submodules have isomorphic complements. In particular M has the internal cancellation property if and only if M is directly finite. PROOF. Let A1 and A2 be directly finite isomorphic submodules of M. Let Bi be a complement of Ai and Ci a complement of Bi which contains Ai, i M = C1

81

B1

= c2

81

B2 by Theorem 2.9. Since E(Ci)

finite by Lemma 2.28. Since E(C 1) 81 E(B 1) = E(M) E(B 1)

~

=

= 1,2.

Then

E(Ai), E(Ci) is directly

= E(C 1) 81 E(B 2),

E(B 2) by Theorem 1.29; hence B1 ~ B2 by Theorem 2.31.

The last statement is obvious.

D

A number of applications of Corollary 2.32 will be discussed in Chapter 3. 5.

QUASI-CONTINUITY VERSUS QUASI-INJECTIVITY A quasi-continuous module which is a square is quasi-injective (Corollary 2.11). In generalization of this observation we show that any quasi-continuous module decomposes into a square free and a quasi-injective summand. Definitions 2.34. A module S is called a square if S ~ x2 for some module X; a module is called square free if it does not contain a non-zero square. A submodule T of a module M is called a square root in M, if T 2 embeds in M; we say that M is square full, if every non-zero submodule of M contains a non-zero square root in M. Proposition 2.35. A square full module M is quasi-injective if and only if M is quasi- continuous. PROOF. Any quasi-injective module is continuous (Proposition 2.1). Conversely assume that M is quasi-continuous. By Zorn's Lemma M contains a direct sum K = 81 S maximal such that each S is a square. Let S ~ x 2 , etEA. etEA

et

et

et -

et

Then K~

81

- etEA

Hence K M=F

81

=

x2 ~ (

K1

N1

81

et 81

81

etEA

X ) 2. et

K2 with Ki

~

Xet, i

81

=

1,2.

Since M is quasi-continuous,

etEA

N2 with Ki ~e Ni, i

=

1,2 (Lemma 2.21).

Then maximality of K

36

implies F is square free.

Also N1 ~ N2 by Corollary 2.32, hence N1

quasi-injective by Corollary 2.11.

Since F and N1

ED

ED

N2 is

N2 are relatively injective, in

view of Proposition 1.17, M is quasi-injective if and only ifF is quasi-injective. We shall prove this by showing that F embeds into N1 (Corollary 2.11). To this end we apply Zorn's Lemma to find a monomorphism F ~ H >_:p_> N1 which cannot be extended. homomorphism

'1/J :

Since N1 is F-injective, t.p

can be extended to a

F -> N1; and it is clear that the restriction of

'1/J

to any closure

of H is a monomorphism. Then maximality of the pair (H, t.p) implies H is a closed submodule of F and so F = H ED H' for some H' ~ H. The proof will be complete if we show H' = 0. Assume that H' I 0. Then H' contains a non-zero square root T. Then M ~ W = W 1 ED W 2 with W1 ~ W 2 ~ T. Now W n (N 1 ED N2) = 0 would imply that W embeds in F which is a contradiction, as F is square free. Thus W

n (N 1 ED N2) I

0.

Applying Lemma 1.31 twice we get that N1 and W1 have non-zero isomorphic submodules.

Hence we have a non-zero monomorphism H' ~ H" >_g_> N1. Let

= t.pH n OH".

Since 1 H ~ t.p- Y ~ Y ~ o 1Y ~ H" ~ H' and F is square free, Y = 0. Then H

Y

ED

H'

t.p

ED

0 > N1 is a monomorphism, and

this contradicts the maximality of the pair (H, t.p).

Hence H'

=

0 as claimed. 0

The conclusion of the following lemma was stated, without proof, for injective modules, in Section 4 of Chapter 1. We include a proof here for the general case. Lemma 2.36. Let A and :4 be an orthogonal pair of classes of modules:

(1)

If a module M has (C 1), then M

= A ED B with A E A and B E

:4.

(2)

If M is quasi-continuous, then the decomposition in (1) is unique up to superspectivity. PROOF. (1) By Zorn's Lemma, M has a submodule A maximal with the property A E A. Since A is closed under essential extensions, A is a closed submodule of M; hence A cED M by (C 1). Write M = A ED B. Applying the same argument to B, we get B = C ED D where C is maximal such that C E :4 . Assume that D 1 0. Since contains a non-zero submodule Z E A; which is a contradiction to the D ~ :4, D maximality of A. Hence D = 0 and so M = A ED B with A E A and B E :4.

37 (2)

Let M

M

= A1 ED

A2

ED

= A1 ED B1 = A2 ED B2 with

Ai

~

E

X.

Then X

ED

X c M, and so M

Consequently Y

E ~

n

B 1, hence X

=

:4

A2

= 0,

ED

X

ED

so M

Y.

E ~

and Bi

E

:4 and therefore

Then A2

= A2 ED X.

ED

Y

= 1,2. Assume that A2 n X = 0. By (C 3),

:4, i

~

A1 and X

ED

Y

~

B2.

This proves that A1 and A2 are

superspective. Similarly one can prove that B 1 and B2 are superspective. D

Theorem 2.37.

A quasi-continuous module M has a decomposition, unique up to

superspectivity, M

= M1 ED M2, where M1 is square free,

M2 is square full, and M1 and

M2 are orthogonal. Moreover, M2 is quasi-injective.

PROOF. Consider the hereditary class $ = {X : x 2 >-> M}. Then by Lemma 2.36, M has a decomposition, unique up to superspectivity, M = M1 ED M2 where M1 is $-void and M2 is $-full (see Section 4 of Chapter 1). By construction M1 and M2 are orthogonal, and it is clear that M1 is square free. We prove that M2 i~ square Let N be a non-zero submodule of M2. Since M2 is $-full, N contains a non-zero submodule T such that T 2 >-> M. Since M1 is $-void, an application of

full.

Lemma 1.31 yields T 2 >-> M2. Hence M2 is square full. Next consider any decomposition M = A ED B with the given properties. It is obvious that B is $-full. Now assume that A has a non-zero submodule X E $. Since A is square free, x 2 n B f. 0; otherwise x 2 >-> A, a contradiction. It then follows by Lemma 2.31 that A and B have non-zero isomorphic submodules, a contradiction. This proves that A is $-void. Therefore the decomposition is unique up to superspectivity. D COMMENTS In the context of his investigations of continuous geometries, von Neumann ([36a], [36b], [36c]) introduced regular rings. He called such a ring continuous if its lattice of principal right ideals is upper and lower continuous, indecomposable and infinite dimensional. Utumi ([60], [61], [66]) studied regular rings in which the lattice of principal right ideals is upper continuous. He called them right continuous regular rings, and characterized them as regular rings with the condition (C 1). Uturni [65] proceeded to investigate right continuous rings which are not regular; he defined right continuity via the two conditions (C 1) and (C 2). Note that (C 2) is

38 automatically satisfied if the ring is regular.

He also utilized (C 3), which is a

consequence of (C 2), and a condition (C): for any two right ideals A1 and A2 with A1

n A2 = 0,

the projection A1

ED

A2 ->> A1 is given by left multiplication by a

ring element. The concepts of continuity and quasi-continuity were generalized to modules by Jeremy [74] and Mohamed and Bouhy [77], the condition (C) was extended to modules by Goel and Jain [78], and was called 1r-injectivity. It is equivalent to quasi-continuity, and also to the finite extending property defined by Harada [82b]. Theorem 2.8 comprises results of Jeremy [74] and Goel and Jain [78]. The relative injectivity in Proposition 2.10 was observed for continuous rings by Utumi [65], for continuous modules by Mohamed and Bouhy [77], and for quasi-continuous modules by Goel and Jain [78]. The results 2.13, 2.22, 2.24, 2.29, 2.31, 2.33 and special cases of 2.13 are due to Miiller and Rizvi ([83], [84]). Theorem 2.13, in full generality, is new, and was demonstrated independently by Mucke [88]. The (easy) special case M1 n M2 = 0 of Theorem 2.31 was observed in Jeremy [74] and in Goel and Jain [78]. Proposition 2.18 and Theorem 2.19 are due to Okado [84]. The material in Section 5 is due to the authors [88b], except that something like Theorem 2.37 is mentioned without proof in Jeremy [74]. The condition (C 1) was studied by Kamal [86], and by Kamal and Miiller [88 a,b,c]. Several variations of that condition are investigated in numerous papers by Harada and his collaborators, under the heading of "extending properties". Rings with (C 1) are considered by Chatters et al. ([77], [80]).

CHAPTER3 CONTINUOUS MODULES In this chapter we study the structure of the endomorphism rings of continuous Though many of the basic lemmas hold for

and quasi-injective modules.

quasi-continuous modules, the endomorphism ring of a continuous module M possesses some crucial properties which fail we only assume that M is quasi-continuous. As an application of these results, in conjunction with some theorems proved in previous chapters, we show that continuous modules have the exchange property. Beyond these facts involving the endomorphism ring, we will discuss a few other properties of continuous modules, which do not generally hold for quasi-continuous modules. ENDOMORPHISM RINGS

1.

Throughout this section, S will denote the endomorphism ring of a module M, J the Jacobson radical of S, tJ.

= {a E S : Ker

a ~e M} and 5

= S/ tJ..

The following lemma, whose proof is straightforward, will be used freely in this section. Lemma 3.1. Let A be a submodule ofM, a E S, and e an idempotent ofS. Then: (1) If A ~e M, then eA ~e eM;

(2)

aM

~

eM if and only if aS ~ eS.

o

Lemma 3.2. For an arbitrary module M,

(1) (2) then

tJ. is an ideal; and if {ei : i E I} is a family of idempotents of S which are orthogonal modulo tJ., I;

i EI

PROOF.

e.M is direct. 1

(1) Let a, b E tJ. and a E S.

Ker(a-b) ~ Ker a

n Ker

submodules

M;

N

of

= {n E M : a(n)

aa E tJ..

Then Ker a ~e M and Ker b ~e M.

Since

b and Ker aa ~ Ker a, Ker(a-b) and Ker aa are essential

and

E Ker a}.

consequently,

a-b

E

tJ.

and

aa

E

tJ..

Let

Then it is clear that N ~e M and Ker aa ~ N. Hence

40 (2)

For i f. j, eiej E !:!. and hence

It suffices to consider a finite family ei.

Ker eiej ~e M.

Since a finite intersection of essential submodules is again essential,

there exists an essential submodule K of M such that eiel = 0 holds for all i f. j. It follows immediately that E eiK is direct. But eiK ~e eiM, and consequently E eiM is also direct. Lemma 3.3. S/1:!.

~

0

Let M = M1

ID

M2.

If M1 and M2 are orthogonal, then

S1/!:!. 1 x S2/!:!. 2. The converse holds ifM 1 and M2 are relatively injective.

PROOF. We can write any s E S as s = [ s 1 '1/J (/) s2

]

where s1 E End M1, s2 E End M2,

(() E Hom(Ml' M2) and '1/J E Hom(M 2, M1); further sl' s2, (() and '1/J may be considered

as elements of S by defining them to be zero on the other summand. Then It is also clear that orthogonality of M1 and M2 implies ((J, '1/J E !:!. . Ker s

n M1 =

Ker s1 n Ker (()and Ker s

n M2 =

Ker s2

n Ker

'1/J.

Now we prove that s E !:!. if and only if s1 E !:!. 1 and s2 E !:!. 2. Assume that s E !:!.. Then Ker s ~e M and hence Ker s1

n Ker

(() = Ker s

n M1 ~e

M1. But then

Ker s1 ~e M1 and s1 E !:!. 1. Similarly s2 E !:!. 2. Conversely, assume that s1 E !:!. 1 and s2 E !:!. 2. Since Ker cp ~e M1, Ker (()

n Ker

s1 ~e M1, and hence Ker s

n M1 ~e

M1.

Similarly Ker s n M2 ~e M2. Therefore Ker s ~e M and s E !:!. . Hence S/1:!.= [

S1/ 1:!.1 0 0 S2/l:!.2

The last statement is obvious.

l

~S1/l:!.1xS2/l:!.2. 0

A ring is called reduced if it has no non-zero nilpotent elements; every idempotent of a reduced ring is central (cf. Stenstrom [75), p. 40). Lemma 3.4. If M is square free, then S" is reduced. In particular, aU idempotents ofS"

are central. PROOF. Let a E S such that a 2 E !:!.. Let K = Ker a 2 and L be a complement of Ker a. Then K ~eM and Ker aID L ~eM. Now Ker a ~ a(K n L) ~ K n L. Since M is square free, K n L = 0 and consequently L = 0. Therefore Ker a ~e M o and a E !:!..

41

Proposition 3.5. IJM is continuous, then S/1:!.. is a (von Neumann) regular ring and!!.. equals J, the Jacobson radical ofS. 81 PROOF. Let a E S and let L be a complement of K = Ker a. By (C 1), L c M. Since alL is a monomorphism, aL

c81 M by (C 2). Hence there exists

f3

E

S such that

f3a = 1L. Then (a- af3a) (K 81 L) =(a- af3a)L = 0, and so K 81 L ~ Ker( a- af3a). Since K 81 L ~e M, a- af3a E !!... Therefore S/!!.. is a regular ring. This also proves that J ~ !!... Let a E !!... Since Ker a n Ker(1-a) = 0 and Ker a ~e M, Ker(1-a) = 0. Hence (1-a)M c81 M by (C 2). However (1-a)M ~e M since Ker a ~ (1-a)M. Thus

(1-a)M = M, and therefore 1-a is a unit in S. It then follows that a /:!,. ~ J.

E

J, and hence D

Remark. The conclusion of the previous proposition fails for quasi-continuous modules (see Proposition 3.15). Lemma 3.6. IfM is quasi-continuous, then 5 has (C 3).

5

PROOF.

By Theorem 2.37, M = M1

81

M2 where M1 is square free, M2 is

quasi-injective, and M1 and M2 are orthogonal. Then 5 = 51 x 52 by Lemma 3.3. Since M2 is continuous, 52 is regular by Proposition 3.5, hence 52 has (C 2). Let be idempotents of 51 such that e51 n l'S"1 = 0. Since 3.4, ef = fe

E

e and f are central by Lemma

e and f are orthogonal idempotents, and e51 81 ffi1

e51 n l'S"1 = 0. Thus

is a summand of 51.

e, f

Hence 5 1

51

satisfies (C 3).

Therefore 55 satisfies (C 3). D

Lemma 3.7. IfM is quasi-continuous, then idempotents modulo !!.. can be lifted~ PROOF. Consider 6 E S such that 6 E !!.., and let K = Ker( 6). Since 6K n(1 - 6)K = 0, M = M1 81 M2 such that GK ~ M1 and (1 - 6)K ~ M2. Let e be

?- -

?--

the projection M1 81 M2 -> > M1. Then (e- 6)K~(e- 6)GK+(e- 6)(1- 6)K=O. Since K ~e M, e - 6 E !!.. .

D

42

e I} a family of

Let M be a quasi-continuous module, and {ei

Lemma 3.8.

idempotents in S. Then the following are equivalent: (1) I; e. M is direct; 1

i ei

(2)

There exist orthogonal idempotents fi such that eiS

= fiS for every i e I;

PROOF. (2) ~ (3): Trivial. (3) ~ (1): It is enough to consider a finite family ei. I;

ei5 is direct, we get

=

such that ei5

gi5.

idempotents of S. ei - giei

e

tl.

ei5

ED

(ED

Since 5 has (C 3) and

5

5. Thus there exist orthogonal idempotents ~ of 5

In view of Lemma 3. 7, we may assume that the gi are

Then

I;

2.M is direct by Lemma 3.2.

'"'I

Now e.1

= g.e. 1 1

and so

Hence there exist essential submodules Ki such that (ei - ~ei)Ki

=

0.

It is clear that eiKi ~ giM, and hence I; eiKi is direct. But since eiKi ~e eiM, I; eiM

is direct. (1)

~

(2): Let C. be a closure of E e.M. Since M is quasi-continuous, j#i J

1

M

= e.M ED 1

C.

1

ED

D.

1

for some D.1-< M. It is easy to check that e.M 1 D.1-< e.1 D.1 M

ED

+ C.1 + (1

(1- e.)D., 1 1

= e.M ED C. ED (1-e.)D .. 1 1 1 1

Let fi be the projection of M onto eiM with kernel Ci e.M 1 fiej

-e.) D.1 is direct; and since 1

ED

(1-ei)Di. Then

~ = fi and

= f.M. Hence e.S = f.S, e.f. = f.1 and f.e. = e..1 Since e.M < C.1 for every j f i, 1 1 1 11 11 J = 0. Thus f/j = fielj = 0. for all j f i. Therefore, the fi are orthogonal, and (2)

holds.

D

Now assume that the idempotents ei are orthogonal modulo tl. Then of course I;

ei5 is direct, and hence Lemma 3.8 applies. In this situation, we show that the fi

constructed in (2) satisfy fi

=

e. M ED (1-e.)D .. Also (e.- f.)e. 1

1

1

1

1

J

ei.

First we note that ei - fi vanishes on

= e.e., 1J

for j f i. Hence (e.- f.)e. e tl, and therefore 1

1

J

43

there exist essential submodules Nj such that elj ~ Ker (ei - fi), for j # i. e ejNj ~ ejM, 81 e. N. <e 81 e. M <e j#JJ-j#J-

Since

c.. 1

This all shows that Ker( ei - fi) ~e M, and hence ei - fi E (j._

This, along with Lemma 3.7, proves the following: Corollary 3.9. IfM is quasi-continuous, then any family of orthogonal idempotents of 'S" lifts to a family of orthogonal idempotents ofS. o Theorem 3.10. IfM is quasi-injective, then'S" is right self-injective and regular. PROOF. 'S" is regular by Proposition 3.5. Let A be a right ideal of 'S", and cp: A-> 'S" a homomorphism. We use Zorn's Lemma to obtain a maximal direct sum 81 e.'S" of principal right ideals contained in A. Then 81 e.'S" ~e A. Since 'S" is iEI 1 iEI 1 regular and idempotents modulo (j. lift by Lemma 3. 7, we may assume that each ei is an idempotent of S. Then I: e. M is direct by Lemma 3.8. i El 1 Let cp(e.) = X:.1 = X:.11 e.. Define 1/J·1 : e.M - > M by 1/J.(e.m) 1 1 1 1 81 e. M - > M by iEI 1 element a E S. Then

1/J :

0

'1/J =

81

1/J..

id

1

Since M is quasi-injective,

=

x.e.m, and 11

'1/J extends to an

=(a- '1/J.)e. = (a-x.e.)e., 1 1 1 1 1

and hence

o = (a- x:.e. )e. = (a- cp)e.. 1 1 1 1 Now let

a E A.

There exists an essential right ideal K of'S" such that a:K < 81 e.'S". - iEI 1

Then

(a- cp)(i)K

= (a- cp)(aK)

~

(a- cp) ( 81 e.'S") iEI

1

= o.

Since 'S", being regular, is non-singular, we get (a Q(i)

= a(i) = cp(i) for

all

a E A, and aextends cp.

cp)(i)

=

0.

Thus D

Theorem 3.11. If M is continuous, then 'S" is right continuous and regular. PROOF. Let A be a right ideal of'S". As in the proof of the previous theorem, there exist idempotents e. E S such that 81 e.'S" <eA. Let eM be a closure of 81 e.M. We 1 iEI 1 iEI 1

44 ED e.'S <e es. Assume that ( ED e.'S) n ~ = 0 for some ~ E es. Since s is iEI 1 iEI 1 regular and idempotents lift modulo !::.., we may assume that 6is an idempotent in S. Then (ED e.M) n 6 M = 0 by Lemma 3.8. Now ~ = ~ hence e 6- 6 E !::.. and iEI 1 consequently ( e 6- 6)K = 0 for some K ~e M. If follows that GK ~ eM, so GK = 0 since ED e. M ~e eM. Thus 6 E !::.. and ~ = 0, proving our claim. iEI 1 Let be an arbitrary element in A. Then a s n ( ED e. s ) ~e as n A = as, iEI 1 and

claim that

a

as n ( ED eiS) ~ as n es ~ as. iEI

Hence as n e'S ~e as. However as n e'S is generated by an idempotent since S is regular. Thus as n e'S = as and consequently as ~ e'S. Therefore A ~ e'S. Since ED eiS ~ A, A ~e es. D iEI We recall that any quasi-continuous module has a decomposition into orthogonal summands where one is square free and the other square full (Theorem 2.37). The following proposition provides an alternate characterization of these summands. Proposition 3.12. Let M be a quasi-continuous module. Then (1) M is square free if and only if'S is reduced; (2) M is square full if and only if every non-zero right ideal of S has a non-zero nilpotent element. PROOF. If M is square free, then S has no non-zero nilpotent elements (Lemma 3.4). Now we prove that if M is square full, then every non-zero right ideal of S contains a Since M is quasi-continuous, non-zero nilpotent elememt. Let a E S - !::... M = (Kercr) * ED B where (Ker cr) * is a closure of Ker cr. Then B I 0; otherwise Ker a would be essential in M. Since M is square full, there exists 0 1 Z ~ crB such that z2 >-> M. Thus M ~ z1 ED z2 with Z ~ z1 ~ z2. Define X and Y as follows: If Z n z1 = 0, X= Z andY=

z1; and if Z n z1 1 0,

under the isomorphism Z ->

z2.

X= Z n z1 andY the image of X

In either case we get 0 I

X~

crB

andY~

M such

that X n Y = 0 and X~ Y. Let u: Y -> X be an isomorphism, and let X' be a complement of Y which contains X. Define f.£: X' ED Y -> M by f.£= 0 on X' and

45 J.L

= (al Bf1u

on Y.

Since M is quasi-injective by Proposition 2.35, J.L exends to

{J E S. Now, for any y E Y, u(y) E X ~ aB, and hence a{J(y) = a( al B)-1 u(y) = u(y).

Since u is an isomorphism, Ker a{J n Y = 0 and so a{J ~ tJ.. However (a{J) 2 (X' 81 Y) = (a{J) 2Y = a{J (a{JY) = a{J(uY) = apx = 0. Hence ( a/1) 2 E tJ. since X' 81 Y ~e M. So far we have proved the "only if" parts in (1) and (2). Now by Theorem 2.37,

= M1 81 M2 where

M

M1 and M2 are orthogonal, M 1 square free and M 2 square full.

Then by Lemma 3.3, S = S1 already proved,

81

S2 where Si

= End Mi, i = 1,2.

By what we have

s-1 has no non-zero nilpotent elements and every non-zero right ideal

s-

of 2 contians a non-zero nilpotent element. If S has no non-zero nilpotent elements,

= 0,

then S2

thus s 2

= tJ. 2 and hence s 2 = 0,

consequently M 2

= 0.

This proves the

"if" part of (1). The "if" part of (2) follows similarly. Corollary 3.13.

S = S1

x

PROOF.

Let M be quasi-continuous.

D

Then there is a ring decomposition

s-2 such that s-1 is regular and right self-injective, and s-2 is reduced. By Theorem 2.37, M

=

M1

81

M2, where M1 is square full and

quasi-injective, M2 is square free, and both are orthogonal.

Orthogonality implies

S = S1 x S2 (Lemma 3.3). By Theorem 3.10, S1 is regular and self injective. reduced. Remarks.

By Proposition 3.12, S2 is D

(1)

In the situation of Corollary 3.13, assume that M is non-singular.

(2)

= 0, hence s = s1 s2, and the decomposition M = M1 81 M2 is unique. If, in (1), M = R, then R = R 1 x R2 where R 1 is regular and right-self-injective,

and

~

Then tJ.

(3)

X

is reduced and right-quasi-continuous.

If, in (1), M is continuous, then S2 is regular and right-continuous

(Theorem 3.11).

46 2.

CONTINUOUS MODULES In this section we use Corollary 2.32 and results obtained in the previous section, to give necessary and sufficient conditions for a quasi-continuous module to be continuous. We also discuss some properties of continuous modules, which fail to hold for quasi-continuous modules. Lemma 3.14. A quasi-continuous module M is continuous if and only if every monomorphism M >-> M with essential image is an isomorphism. PROOF. The "only if' part is obvious. Conversely, assume the condition and let N c!D M and f : N -> M be a monomorphism. As M is quasi-continuous, M = A fD B with fN ~e B. Since fN ~ N, B ~ N by Corollary 2.32. Let g : B -> N be an isomorphism. Then M = A (f) B _!!_g_> A X N __!!_!__> A (f) B = M is a monomorphism with image A fD fN ~e M. By assumption, (1 fD f) (1 fD g) is an isomorphism. Hence 1 fD f is onto, and consequently B = fN. Thus fN c!D M and (C 2) holds.

D

Proposition 3.15. Let M be a quasi-continuous module, S End M, (j. = {a E S : Ker a ~e M} and J the Jacobson radical of S. Then M is continuous if and only if (j. = J and Sf (j. is regular. PROOF. Necessity follows by Proposition 3.5. Conversely, assume that (j. = J and Sf (j. is regular. Let cp E S be a monomorphism with essential image. There exists 1/J E S such that cp - cp 1/J cp E (j._ Consequently (1-cp?/J)cpK = 0 for some K ~e M. Since cp is a monomorphism, cpK ~e cpM; thus cpK ~e M as cpM ~e M. Therefore 1 - cp?/J E (j. = J, and hence cp?/J is a unit in S. Thus cp is onto, and consequently cp is an isomorphism. Then M is continuous by Lemma 3.14. D Theorem 3.16. The following are equivalent, for a module M

=

fD

crEA

M :

( 1)

M is continuous;

(2)

M is quasi-continuous and the Mer are continuous;

(3)

Mer is continuous and M(Jinjective for all a:/: {3, and (A 2) holds.

a

PROOF. (1) implies (2) trivially, and (2) and (3) are equivalent by Theorem 2.13. It remains to see that (2) implies (1). According to Lemma 3.14, we have to establish

that every essential monomorphism f : M >-> M is onto.

47 We first deal with the case of a finite index set A = {1, ... , n}. Here we have E(M)

=

n

E(M )

81

a=1

a

=

n 81

a=1

E(fM ). We choose closures C a

fMa ~ Ma c81 M, Corollary 2.32 yields Ca ~ Ma.

a

of fM

a

in M. Since

Thus we obtain an essential

monomorphism Ma ~ fM a ~e C a ~ Ma of Ma' which is an isomorphism by Lemma 3.14. M

Consequently fMa

n E(fM

n

a! 1 fMa

a

)

=

= fM.

=

Ca is a summand of M, and hence closed.

fM . As M is quasi-continuous, we infer M a

=

n

M

81

a=1

We deduce

n E(fM

a

)

=

This completes the proof in the finite case.

In the general case, suppose there is an essential monomorphism f: M >-> M which is not onto. Inductively we shall construct a sequence xn E Man - fM, with distinct an and strictly increasing annihilators x~.

This contradicts (A 3), which is

valid for M according to Proposition 2.24. Let xi E Ma. be constructed as claimed, for i ~ n.

Write A

= {a 1, ... , an}.

1

M(A) n fM is obviously essential in M(A); therefore M(A) is a closure of M(A) n fM in M. As fM ~ M is quasi-continuous, M(A) n fM possesses another closure, V, in fM. Now pick a closure W of V in M; then M(A) n fM ~e V ~e W c81 M. Clearly W is also a closure of M(A) n fM in M. By Corollary 2.32, all these closures M(A), V and W are isomorphic. They are continuous, by the finite case established earlier. Thus the inclusion V ~e W yields an essential monomorphism W >-> W. We conclude V = W, by Lemma 3.14. As V n M(A-A) = 0, and both submodules are summands, V 81 M(A-A) is a summand of M by (C 3). But V ~ M(A) n fM ~e M(A) implies that V 81 M(~-A) is essential in M, and consequently equal to M. Write xn

=v +

I: yi, accordingly. As

xn ¢ fM and v E fM, there exists yi ¢ fM. Take xn+ 1 to be such yi, and an+ 1 its index i. 1r: M

=

Clearly an+ 1 f. a 1, ... , an. V

81

M(A - A) ->> M

exists r E R with 0 f. xnr E M(A)

Moreover, xn+ 1

an+1

n fM

=

7r(xn), for the projection

. Thus x~ ~ x~+ 1 .

~ V.

By essentiality there

We deduce xn+lr

=

1r(xnr)

=

0, and

therefore r E x~+ 1 - x~. This completes the construction, and the proof. D

48 As yet another application of Corollary 2.32, we show that continuous modules satisfy the conclusion of the Schroder- Bernstein Theorem. Theorem 3.17. Let M be a continuous module and N a quasi-continuous module. If M >-> N and N >-> M, then M ~ N. PROOF. Without loss of generality, we may assume N ~ M. Let cp: M >-> N be a monomorphism. Since M is continuous, cpM ce M, and hence cpM ce N. Write N = A e cpM, and let 2 B = A + cpA + cp A + ... (in fact the sum is direct). Then B = A e cpB. Since cpM is (quasi-) continuous, cpM = P ED Q with cpB ~e P. Then B = A ED cpB ~e A ED P. Since B ~ cpB, P ~ A e P by Corollary 2.32. Thus N = A ED cpM = A ED p ED Q ~ p ED Q = cpM ~ M. D Corollary 3.18. Mutually subisomorphic continuous modules are isomorphic. D

Remark. Two subisomorphic quasi-continuous modules need not be isomorphic. For an example, let R be a commutative domain which is not a principal ideal domain (e.g. take R = k[x,y] for some field k). Pick an ideal A of R which is not principal. Since A and R are uniform R-modules, they are trivially quasi-continuous. However A ~ R >-> A and A

t

R.

THE EXCHANGE PROPERTY In this section, we establish the exchange property for continuous modules. The proof is based on the decomposition of a ( quasi-)continuous module into a direct sum of a quasi-injective and a square free part (Theorem 2.37). For the latter, the fact that idempotents of the endomorphism ring modulo the radical are central, is used to verify a criterion which was provided by Zimmermann-Huisgen and Zimmermann [84]. We start by proving some results concerning the exchange property. 3.

Lemma 3.19. IfM has the exchange property and A = M ED N ED L = ED A. ED L, iEI 1 then there exist submodules B. < A. such that A = M ED 1 -

1

( ED

iEI

B.) e L. 1

49 PROOF.

Let p be the projection of M onto

A. with kernel L.

81

Then the

1

iEI

restriction of p to M 81 N is an isomorphism. Now pM 81 pN = 81 A.. iEI 1 Since pM, being isomorphic to M, has the exchange property, we get pM 81 pN = pM 81 ( 81 B.) iEI 1 with Bi ~ Ai. Hence A

= M 81 N 81 L = p- 1(pM 81 ( 81

B.)) 1

iEI

= M 81 ( 81

B.)

iEI

L.

81

0

1

Lemma 3.20. Let M = X 81 Y. Then M has the exchange property if (and only if) X and Y have the exchange property. PROOF. Assume that X andY have the exchange property; and let

=

A Then A

=X

M 81

Y

81

N

=Y

81 ( 81

iEI

=

N

81

81

iEI B.) with B. < A.. It then follows by the 1

1 -

1

previous lemma that

A with Ci

= X 81 Y 81 ( 81 ~

C.),

iEI 1 Bi. Thus M has the exchange property. The converse is left to the reader. 0

Definition 3.21.

Given two modules U and V, a family (fi)iEI of homomorphisms

U -> V is called summable if for each u E U, fi(u)

= 0 for

almost all i E I. (Then

E fi is a well defined homomorphism U -> V.)

For a module M, let S,

(j.

and J be as defined in the first section of this chapter.

Proposition 3.22. The following are equivalent for a module M : (1) M has the exchange property; (2) If M 81 N = _81 Ai, with Ai ~ M for all i E I, then there exist submodules Ci

~ Ai

tEl

such that M 81 N

= M 81 ( 81 iEI

(3)

C.). 1

For each summable family (fi)iEI in S with E fi

idempotents ei E Sfi such that E ei

= 1.

1, there exist orthogonal

50 PROOF. (1) :} (2) is trivial. (2) :} (3): Let (fi)iEI be a summable family of elements of S such that Define A =

ID A. iEI 1

fi = 1.

with Ai = M for all i E I. Define f : M - > A by

f(m) = (f.(m)).EI; and g : A-> M by g((m.).EI) = 1

I;

1

I;

iEI

11

m .. It is clear that gf = 1M, 1

and so A = fM ID Ker g. By hypothesis, Ai = Bi ID ci such that

A

= fM 1D

C.). iEI 1 Let p be the projection of A onto ID B. with kernel ID c.. Then the restriction of p iEI 1 iEI 1 to fM is an isomorphism; and it is obvious that pfg p- 1 is the identity on ID B.. Let iEI 1 1 1f. : ID B. - > > B. be the natural projection, and define e. = g p'If. pf. Then J iEI 1 J 1 1 1 1 1 e.e. = g p- 7f. pf g p- 7f.pf = gp- 'If. 'If. pf. 1

( 1D

J

J

1

1

Thus e.e. = 0 for j # i and e~ = e.. 1 J 1 1 Next, let pi be the projection Bi

1D

J

Ci ->> Bi. For any mE M

7f.pf(m) = 7f.p(f.(m)). I= 1f.(p.f.(m)). I= p.f.(m). 1 1 J JE 1 JJ JE 11 -1 Hence 7f.pf = p.f. and consequently e.1 = gp p.f. E Sf.. In particular, the family 1 11 11 1 (ei)iEI is again summable, and (3) :} (1):

I;

ei = 1 follows by construction.

Let X = M ID Y =

ID X.. iEI 1

Let J.L· : ID J

x.

1

->> X. and J

q : M ID Y - > > M denote the natural projections, and define hi = q is summable, and clearly h.1 E S, the family (h.1).EI 1 find orthogonal idempotents

~

= sihi E Shi with

l"i. IM" Then

I;

h.1 = 1. By hypothesis, we can

I; ~

= 1. Define r,oi : X - > M by

r,oi = ~si~· We claim that X= MID ( ID (X. n Ker rp.)). 1 iEI 1 Once this is established, (1) follows. First note that ( r,oi )iEI is summable; let r,o = I: r,oi. Next r,oi IM = ~; indeed rp.(m) = 1

~s.

11

q J.L;1 (m) =

~s.

11

h.(m) = 1

for every mE M. Hence 10lM = ( r; r,oi)IM = r; ~=1M. Thus X= MID Ker rp. Now

~

1

6:(m) = 1

~(m) 1

51

= (/)·(1 e.s.q p..) = 6, 6-s.q P.· = 0. lJ JJ J lJJ J Using this, one can check that Ker ({) = ED X. iEI 1 (/)·I.{J·

n Ker

(/)··

0

1

In the following lemma, we list a few facts about summable families in S, which will be needed in the proof of the main theorem. Lemma 3.23. (1) If(gj)jEJ and (fi)iEI are both summable, then so is (g/i)J,. I (and

consequently the order of summation E E g.f. can be interchanged). j i

J1

(2) If(gi)iEI is summable, and (fi)iEI is finitely valued (in the sense that {fi(m): iEI} is finite for each m E M), then (g/i)iEI is summable.

If (~)iEI and (fi)iEI are both summable and ~ :: fi (modulo ~) for all iEI, then

(3)

E ~:: E fi.

PROOF. For m E M, let F(m)

(1) If g.f.(m) J1 G(f.(m)) 1

c -

:j U

1

(3)

-

= {j : gj(m) :1 0}.

G(fk(m)), which is finite, g.f. is summable. J1

(2) Let {fi(m) : i E I}

c

: fi(m) :1 0} and G(m)

0, then f.(m) :1 0 and hence i E F(m), as well as j E G(f.(m)). Since 1 1

kEF(m)

i E G (f.(m))

= {i

= {ul'

... , ut}, ui E M. If gifi(m) :1 0, then

t U G(uk), which is finite. Thus (g.f.).EI is summable.

k=l

11 1

Without loss of generality we may assume gi

= 0,

i.e., fi E ~-

Consider any

n Ker f. ~e M, hence the intersection contains 0 :j mr for 1 iEF(m) suitable r E R. As f.(m) = 0 for all i ~ F(m), we obtain mr E n Ker f.. This proves 1 1 iEI that n Ker f. <e M. Since E f1. vanishes on this submodule, E f1. E ~0 1 iEI 0 :j m E M.

Then

Now we are ready to prove the main theorem of this section. Theorem 3.24. Every continuous module has the exchange property. PROOF. Using Theorem 2.37, Lemma 3.20, and the fact that quasi-injective modules have the exchange property (Theorem 1.21), it suffices to establish the exchange property for a square free continuous module M. Here we know that all idempotents of S = Sf~ are central (Lemma 3.4), J = ~ and Sis regular (Proposition 3.5).

52 We establish the result by verifying (3) of Proposition 3.22. Let I be a set of ordinals, and fi E S (iEI) be a summable family with I; fi = 1. Since S" is regular, there exist cri E S such that fi

=ficr/i

(modulo A). Let hi = crifi; then clearly (hi)iEI

is a summable family and the ni are central idempotents in S". Inductively, we define

:t:. "k

= (1 -

I;

~)hk

i> Q. It does not

1

A. )-projective by Lemma 4.30. 1

Note that it also follows by Proposition 4.31 that Qis not ( TI A. )-projective. i EI 1 In case N is finitely generated, Proposition 4.33 extends to infinite direct sums. Proposition 4.35. Let I be an arbitrary set. If N is finitely generated and Acprojective

for every i E I, then N is (

81

iEI

A. )-projective. 1

69 A.. Then ( 81 A-)/X= I: A.. where A..= (A. + X)/X. For 1 1 1 iEI 1 i EI 1 any homomorphism cp : N -> I: A.., Im cp ~ I: A.. for some finite F c I. Then iEI 1 iEF 1 Proposition 4.33 applies to the finite direct sum 81 A. and the result follows. iEF 1 PROOF. Let X~

81

iEI

D

We also have the following corollaries to Propositions 4.32 and 4.33. Corollary 4.36. A direct sum of projective modules is projective.

D

n

Corollary 4.37.

A finite direct sum

Mrprojective (i, j

=

81 Mi is quasi-projective if and only if Mi is i=l 1, 2, ... , n). Mn is quasi-projective if and only if M is

quasi-projective. Recall the hierarchy: Injective ~ quasi-injective

o

~

continuous

~

quasi-continuous

~

(C 1).

In the present situation, we have Projective ~ quasi-projective discrete ~ quasi-discrete ~ (D 1).

=f

In fact, a projective module need not have (D 1); e.g. 71 1r Proposition 4.38. Any quasi-projective module M has (D 2). PROOF. Let M _j_>> M' be an epimorphism with M' c81 M. M-projective by Proposition 4.32; hence f splits by Lemma 4.30.

Then M' is o

Now we characterize quasi-projective modules which are discrete. Proposition 4.39. A quasi-projective module M is discrete if and only if every submodule ofM has a supplement. PROOF. If M is discrete, then it has (D 1); hence M is supplemented by Proposition 4.8. Conversely, assume that every submodule of M has a supplement. We first show that M is supplemented. (Note that, in general, if every submodule of a module N has a supplement, N need not be supplemented; cf. Appendix).

70 Let M = A + B. We show that B contains a supplement of A. By assumption A has a supplement P. Then M = A + P and A n P < < P. Let 11 and 1r be the natural homomorphisms M -> > M/A and Since M is B ->> M/A, respectively. B-projective by Proposition 4.31, there exists f: M -> B such that rl = 11. Let p, = 11lp and g = fl p·

Then 1rgP = p,P = M/ A, and

hence M = A + gP. It is easy to check that An gP = g(ker p,). Since ker p, =An P M with P projective, is called a projective cover of M if ker TJ < < P. The notion of a projective cover is dual to that of an injective hull. However, projective covers need not exist; for instance ~ll does not possess a projective cover. If a module M has a projective cover P, then Pis unique up to isomorphism. A ring R is right (semz) perfect if every (finitely generated) R-module has a projective cover. These rings were introduced by Bass [60], and were studied by many authors. For a detailed survey of these rings we refer the reader to Faith [76a] and Anderson and Fuller [73]. In particular, a ring R is right semiperfect if and only if R/RadR is semisimple and idempotents modulo RadR can be lifted. Thus right semiperfect rings are left semiperfect and vice versa. Also we note that for a ring R to be semiperfect it suffices that every simple R-module has a projective cover.

71

Lemma. 4.40. Let M supplement of A.

=

A

+

B.

If M/ A has a projective cover, then B contains a

f..£

PROOF. Let P ->> M/A be a projective over. Let ?r denote the natural homomorphism B -> > M/ A. Since P is projective, there exists a homomorphism g : P -> B such that 1rg = f..£· As in the proof of Proposition 4.39, we get that gP is a supplement of A contained in B. D

Theorem 4.41. The following are equivalent for a ring R: (1) R is a right (semi) perfect, (2) Every (finitely generated) quasi-projective R-module is discrete, (3) Every (finitely generated) R-module is supplemented, (4) Every (cyclic) free R-module has the property that every submodule has a supplement. PROOF. (1) ~ (3) by Lemma 4.40, (3) ~ (2) by Proposition 4.39, and (2) ~ (4) trivially. Assume (4), and let M be a (cyclic) R-module. Then there exists an epimorphism F __!]_>> M where F is a (cyclic) free module. Since F has (D 1) by Proposition 4.39, F

=

F1

ED

F 2 with F 1

~

ker TJ and F2 n ker TJ < < F 2. Then it is

clear that TJI F : F2 ->> M is a projective cover of M. Hence R is right (semi) 2

perfect.

D

Corollary 4.42. A ring R is semiperfect, if and only if RR is discrete, if and only if

every right ideal ofR has a supplement.

D

Mares [63] defined a module P to be semiperfect if P is projective and every homomorphic image of P has a projective cover. The following is an immediate consequence of the definition and the proof of Theorem 4.41. Corollary 4.43. A projective module P is semiperfect, if and only if P is discrete, if and only if every submodule ofP has a supplement. o

72

We now give a characterization of semiperfect modules which is analogous to that of a. semiperfect ring; this characterization shows that the discreteness of a projective module can be characterized by a weaker version of the lifting property (see Theorem 4.28). Theorem 4.44. A projective module P is semiperfect if and only if (1) RadP > M. be the natural projections. Since A < ID i=1 1 1 - i=1

hollow, 1rkA = Mk for some k E {1,2, ... ,n}.

'If. 1

A and each M. is

Thus M = A + ker 1rk.

1

Set

N = ker 1rk = ID M.. Then Mk is N-projective and M = A + N. Applying Lemma if.k 1 4.47 we get M = A* ID N with A* ~ A, consequently A = A* IDA n N. Now A n N c19 N = ID M. implies by induction hypothesis that 1 if.k N = A n N ID M(J) where J f. {1, ... , k-1, k+1, ... , n}. Then M = A* 1D N = A* 1D A n N

1D

M(J) = A 1D M(J).

Hence (b) holds. It then follows that any summand of M is isomorphic to M(K) for some subset K f. {1,2, ... ,n}. Thus if {Na: a E A} is a local summand ofM, then A has at most n elements, hence ID N aEA a Corollary 4.51.

c19 M,

Let M =

E9

iEI

and (c) follows.

o

M. where each M. is local and M.-projective whenever 1 1 J

j f. i. Then M is quasi-discrete if RadM < < M. PROOF.

We

first note that Mi is M(I-i)-projective by Proposition 4.35.

Then,

applying Propositions 4.31 and 4.32, we get that M(J) is M(I-J)-projective for any subset J c I. Consider an arbitrary submodule A of M. Since 1\! = M/RadM is semisimple, 1\! = A E9 M"(J) for some subset J c I. As RadM < < M,

77 M =A+ M(J) and An M(J) M such that cr1 J J crj crj+ 1

=a

and

fn ... f 2f1(m) ~X for all n E IN. Assume that the construction is done for j < n. M'

= iEI' ED

M., X' =X n M', and m' = f 1

Let I' = I- {crl' ... ,crn_1},

... f1(m). Since RadM. n-1 1

M

and a non-isomorphism fn : Ma n

f n(m') ~X'.

Since M

an+1

nX

~

M'

nX =

an+1

such that

X', we have fn fn_ 1 ... f1(m) ~ X. 0

Corollary 4.54. A projective module is discrete if and only if it is a direct sum of local sub modules and the radical is small (equivalently the decomposition is locally semi-T -nilpotent). 0

COMMENTS Hollow modules were defined by Fleury [74a,b] and used by him, Rangaswamy [77] and Varadarajan [79a,b] in the context of dual Goldie dimension. Supplements appear first in Mares [63], and are studied, in their relationship with projective covers, by Kasch and Mares [66] and Miyashita [66]. Further investigations, in arbitrary modules and under various terminologies, are found in Zoschinger's papers (from [74a] onwards), Birjukov [78], Varadarajan [79a] and Hausen [82]. Discrete modules are defined, under the name dual-continuous, in Mohamed and Singh [77], and quasi-discrete ones, under the name quasi-semiperfect, in Oshiro [83a]. The decomposition theorem 4.15 is due to Oshiro [83a]. Preliminary versions appeared in Mohamed and Singh [77], Mohamed and Muller [79] and Kasch [79]; the present proof comes from Mohamed, Muller and Singh [85]. For projective modules, the theorem is already in Mares [63]. The exchange property (Corollary 4.19) follows immediately from the decomposition theorem and Zimmermann-Huisgen and Zimmermann [84]. There is an extensive literature concerning various aspects of the lifting property; cf. eg. Harada [80], [82a,c], Oshiro [83a], [84a,b]. The basic results on relative projectivity come from Azumaya [P] and Azumaya, Mbuntum and Varadarajan [75]. Proposition 4.39 is related to Golan [71b]. Theorem 4.41 was observed by several people, eg. Varadarajan [79a]. Theorem 4.44 is proved in Mares [63].

80 Most of the remaining results are taken from Mohamed and Muller [81], for discrete modules, and from Mohamed, Muller and Singh [85], for quasi-discrete modules. The projective case of Corollary 4.51 appears in Mares [63]. Lemma 4.52 and Theorem 4.53 are new.

CHAPTERS DISCRETE MODULES The short first section investigates when a quasi-discrete module is discrete or quasi-projective. The next section studies the endomorphism ring of a (quasi-)discrete module, and contains results analogous to those in Section 1 of Chapter 3. The final section provides an explicit description of all discrete modules over commutative noetherian rings. 1.

DISCRETE MODULES The first lemma, and its proof, are dual to Lemma 3.14.

Lemma 5.1. A quasi-discrete module M is discrete, if and only if every epimorphism -> > M with smaU kernel is an isomorphism. PROOF. The necessity of the condition is obvious. Conversely, to establish (D 2), let M

f : M -> > N be an epimorphism, with kernel K, onto the summand N of M. As M is quasi-discrete, there is a decomposition M = A ED B with A ~ K and B n K < < B. Now N ~ M/K = K+B/K ~ B/B n K. Theorem 4.24 yields N ~ B. Let g : N >-> > B be an isomorphism. Then M A e B 1 ED fl B > 1 Ae N ED g > A ED B = M is an epimorphism with the small kernel B n K. By assumption, it is an isomorphism, that is B n K = 0. Then K = A ED B n K A ce M, and f splits. o The following theorem allows to determine when a quasi-discrete module is discrete or quasi-projective. Recall that a quasi-discrete quasi-projective module is always discrete (Proposition 4.39). Theorem 5.2. Let M

=

ED

iEI

M. be a quasi-discrete module, represented as a direct sum 1

of hollow submodules, according to Theorem 4.15. Then (1) M is discrete if and if all Mi are discrete;

(2)

M is quasi-projective if and only if all Mi are quasi-projective.

PROOF. The necessity of the conditions is obvious, as both properties are inherited by summands. In the converse direction, in case (1), let f : M ->> M be an epimorphism with small kernel. Then M = I: fMi is an irredundant sum of hollow submodules

82 fM 1•• Lemma 4.22 implies M

=

ED

iEI

fM.. By Theorem 4.15, there is a permutation p of 1

fiM· I such that fMi ~ Mp: The epimorphism Mi - -1-> fMi ~ MP. is an isomorphism, 1

1

since Mi is Mrprojective for i I j, and since Mi is discrete by assumption. It follows that f is an isomorphism. Hence M is discrete, by Lemma 5.1. In case (2), Mi is M(I-i)-projective since M is quasi-discrete, and Mcprojective by assumption.

Hence Mi is M-projective, and therefore M is M-projective

(Propositions 4.32 and 4.33).

o

2.

ENDOMORPHISM RINGS Throughout this section, S denotes the endomorphism ring of the module M, J the Jacobson radical of S, V the collection of endomorphisms with small image, and S = S/V. (It is easy to see that V is an ideal of S.) Lemma 5.3. IfM is quasi-discrete, then idempotents modulo V can be lifted. PROOF. Let e E S such that e2 - e E V. Then (e 2 - e)M is small. Since M = eM + (1 - e)M and M is quasi-discrete, there exists an idempotent f E S such that fM ~ eM and (1 - f)M ~ (1 - e)M. Clearly (f- e)M ~ eM. Now, for any m E M, (f- e)m = (1 - e)fm- e(l- f)m = (1 - e)fm- e(l - e)m' = (1- e) (fm- em'). Thus (f- e)M ~ (1- e)M. Hence (f- e)M ~ eM n (1- e)M = (e- e2)M > M1. Then ea: M -> M1 is an epimorphism. Since M is discrete, Ker ea CED M. Write M = Ker ea ED N. The restriction of ea to N is an isomorphism onto M1, and the inverse isomorphism of M1 to N can be extended to an element {3 E S. Then {3 e a a(Ker ea)

~

aM

n

M2.

=

lN. Now (a - af3ea)M

= (a-

a{jea)(Ker ea

ED

N) =

Consequently (a- af3ea)M . E V,

+(1 - >.)M, (1 - >.)M = M. As M is discrete, 1- >. is right invertible. But then >. E J, since V is an ideal of S. "Ir' : Let cp E S be an epimorphism with small kernel. There exists '1/J E S such that cp - cp'I/Jcp E V. We prove that 1 - # E V. Assume that (1 - '1/Jcp)M + B = M. Then cp(1 - '1/Jcp)M + cpB = cpM = M. Hence cpB = M as cp(1 - '1/Jcp)M N. Consequently X n 1 -

generated, and therefore complete.

= ~

n=1

Anc-n = ANc-N

~

AN is finitely 0

The next lemma discusses the discreteness of a direct sum of copies of the same hollow discrete module. Lemma 5.12. For a local hollow discrete module R/I, the direct sum (R/I)(n) is discrete if and only if n is finite or R/I is artinian. For a non-local hollow discrete module (R/I)p, (R/I)p (n) is discrete if and only if n is finite, and R/I is complete if n > 1. PROOF. We may again assume I = 0. By Theorems 4.53 and 5.2, R(n) is discrete if and only if it satisfies lsTn. This is true if n is finite. If n is infinite, since R is a

90 local ring, lsTn holds precisely if RadR is T-nilpotent, ie. if R is a perfect ring. As R is noetherian, this means that it is artinian. By Lemma 5.11, Corollary 4.50 and Theorem 5.2, the given conditions are certainly necessary and sufficient, for (R/I)p (n) to be discrete, if n is finite. It remains to show that

(R/I)~ IN)

is not discrete.

Fix, as before, an element c E m-P, and recall that the c-n generate Rp as R-module. Thus £( c-n) -_ (c-n ,... , c-1 , 0, ... ) + R (IN) determines a well defined R-homomorphism Rp -> Rp (IN) /R(IN)_

Suppose that

Rp (IN) is discete. Then Rp is Rp (IN)_projective (Lemma 4.23), and we obtain a lift Rp -> Rp(IN)_ As this R-homomorphism is automatically an Rp-homomorphism, we

have

an

element

a=(al' ... ,aN,0, ... )

E

(c-n, ... ,c-l,o, ... )- (al' ... ,aN'0, ... )c-n E R(IN) for all n.

Rp(IN) For n

such

=

that

N+1, the

(N+1)--coordinate yields c-1 E R; a contradiction.

o

We need an auxiliary general result. Lemma 5.13. Let R be a commutative noetherian ring. Let Ij (j E IN) be a sequence of

ideals, aU contained in the same maximal ideal m. Then, after suitable reindexing, the t

JoUowing is true: for any choice of s and N there exists t such that n I. c I 1 + mN j=s J

PROOF. We claim first that, for almost all k, Ik contains n I. for all finite F. j¢F J Indeed, suppose there are infinitely many exceptions k1 < k2 < ... . This means that there are xn E n I. - Ik for all n. As R is noetherian, we have j¢Fn J n 00 s s n~ 1 xnR = n~ 1 xnR. Choose q such that kq ¢ n~ 1 F n· Then xn E Ikq holds for

s n = 1, ... ,s. But then x E I; xnR q n=1

~

Ik , which is a contradiction. q_

We apply this claim to the ideal Ij of the m-adic completion R of R. 00

•

reindex such that it is valid for k = 1, and obtain then in particular that n I. j=s J holds for all s.

We ~

I1

91 00

•

•

Let D = n I.. Then R/D is noetherian, local and complete. By Chevalley's j=s J Theorem (Zariski and Samuel [60], VIII. 5.13), there exists t = t(N) such that t • .N oo t t • .N n I. ~ m + D. We write R = R/ n mn, and deduce n r. ~ n I. ~ m + D ~ j=s J n=1 j=s J j=s J .N • N • t N • N m + I1 = (m + I1) hence _n r. ~ (m + I1) n J[ = (m + I1) , using that J=S J mN + I 1 is co-artinian hence m-adically closed. The lemma follows immediately. 0

The crucial step towards the main theorem is the following observation. Lemma 5.14. An infinite direct sum of non-local hollow discrete modules with the same attached maximal ideal is never dual continuous. PROOF. Using the second part of Lemma 5.12, one sees that it suffices to derive a 00

contradiction, from the assumption that a countable direct sum

(R/Ik)P

ED

k=O

with k

distinct Pk is dual continuous. We assume that the indexing is chosen in such a way that Lemma 5.13 applies. 00

We observe that (R/I 0)p

is 0

ED

k=1

(R/Ik)P -projective. k

But homR((R/Io)p , 0

00

ED

k=1

(R/Ik)P ) = 0 holds by the proof of Lemma 5.11 (iii). k

So we conclude that

00

homR((R/I 0)p , ED (R/Ik)P /X) = 0 holds for all R-submodules X. 0 k=1 k We construct a specific homomorphism f. We start by fixing an element c E mP 0. Then mN + P 0 ~ cnR + P 0 holds for suitable N = N(n). Lemma 5.13 shows that we can define, inductively, an increasing function g such that g(O) = 1 and g(n) N n n I. ~ I 0 + m ~ P 0 + c R. j=g(n-1)+1 J g ( n)

Next we put w = E e., where e. = (0, ... ,0,1,0, ... ) j=g(n-1)+1 J J n

oo E

ED

k=1

(R/Ik)P . k

We let X = En(wn+ 1 c - wn)R + En wni 0, and determine f: (R/I 0)p 0 -> 00

(R/Ik)P /X by f(c-n) = w +X. This yields a well defined R-homomorphism, k n which must be zero. In particular f( c-1) = 0, and we obtain rn E R, xn E I 0 such ED

k=1

92 that w1 = I:n(wn+ 1c-wn)rn + I:nwnxn, or I:nwn(t5n 1 - crn_1 + rn- xn) = 0. Since, by our choice of wn, the sum I:n wn R is direct, we conclude t5n 1 - crn_1 + rn- xn = g(n) n I. ~ P 0 + cnR. Recursively we deduce qn E w~ j=g(n-1)+1 J 1 n . r = -en- + I: cn-I(x + q ). As rn = 0 holds for large n, we obtain n i= 1 n n n n-i i n . . n-1 n n-i c = I: c (x + q ) E I 0 + I: c (P 0 + c R) ~ P 0 + c R. Smce c IS regular i=1 n n i=1 modulo P 0, we conclude 1 E P 0 + cR

~

m.

This is the desired contradiction. D

We are now able to establish the pivotal special case of the structure theorem. Theorem 5.15.

Let R be a commutative noetherian ring.

Consider a collection of

discrete hollow R-modules, which are pairwise relatively projective, and have the same attached maximal ideal. Then their direct sum is discrete, if and only if it is finite, or all the summands are local and artinian. More specifically, and with the notation of Proposition 5.10, a direct sum of discrete hollow R-modules with the same attached maximal ideal is discrete precisely in the following two cases: Either it involves finitely many copies of one local module R/I and of finitely many non-local modules (R/Ik)P , subject to the further restrictions k that I ~ n Ik, and that R/Ik is complete if (R/Ik)P

appears with multiplicity greater k

than one. Or it involves infinitely many copies of one artinian local module R/l.

PROOF. Everything follows immediately from Corollary 4.50, Theorem 4.53, Theorem 5.2, and the results of this section. We note specifically that Lemma 5.11 implies I

~

n Ik, if a local module R/I and non-local ones, (R/Ik)P , do occur. k

Moreover, in this situation, I

~

Ik

~

Pk and dim Pk = 1 imply that R/I is not

artinian; and therefore the multiplicity of R/I is finite.

o

The general case, with more than one attached maximal ideal, reduces to this special one. For a direct sum M of hollow discrete modules, denote by M(m) the subsum of those with attached maximal ideal m. Then we have

93 Corollary 5.16. M is discrete if and only ifM(m) is discrete for aU m. PROOF. Write M = M1 E9 M2, where M1 is the sum of certain M(m), and M2 is the sum of the remaining ones. We claim that every homomorphism f between subfactors of M1 and M2 is zero. Indeed, let f(X) and M2. Let A y(A+B) A+B

=

= y.

= n

iEF

Then x E

H? and B 1

=

E9 H. and y E E9 H., for finite subsums of M1 jEG 1 iEF 1 n H~. Then xA = 0 and yB = 0, and therefore jEG J

0. But, since the attached maximal ideals of the Hi and Hj are distinct,

= R.

Thus y = 0, and consequently f = 0. With the claim at hand, the corollary follows immediately from Corollary 4.49. (Instead of referring to Corollary 4.49, one can deduce from the claim that each

submodule X of M decomposes as X

=

e (X n M(m)). With this information, (D 1)

and (D 2) follow directly forM, from their validity for the M(m).) Remark.

The decomposition M

=

E9

D

M(m) of Corollary 5 is an instance of a

generalized primary decomposition (Zoschinger [82b]).

This decomposition is most

naturally described in the language of torsion theories; cf. Stenstrom [75], Chapter VI, whose terminology we shall use. Let R be any commutative ring. Call an ideal m-isolated if it is contained in at most one maximal ideal, m. The m-isolated ideals form a Gabriel topology, and therefore define a hereditary torsion class, T(m). For any R-module X, the sum of its T(m)-torsion submodules X(m) is direct.

If X =

E9

X(m), then X(m) = Xm, the

localization of X at m. The collection T of modules of the form X = e X( m) forms a hereditary pretorison class; the corresponding linear topology is generated by all isolated ideals (as a subbase). If R is noetherian, Tis a hereditary torsion class. To see that this decomposition X = E9 X(m) generalizes primary decomposition, note that Theorem 2.6 of Brandal [79] says that every torsion R-module belongs to T if and only if R is h-local.

Every commutative ring of Krull dimension one, and in

particular the ring of integers, is obviously h-local. We conclude the section with a number of examples of non-local hollow discrete modules.

94

Example 5.17. Dedekind domains R. To obtain a non-local hollow discrete module, (R/I)p, one needs P

= I = 0, and

R local. Thus R must be a valuation ring, and then the quotient field is the only such module. It is quasi-projective if and only if the valuation ring is complete. Example 5.18. A local ring R with many non-local hollow discrete modules. Take R to be the localization, at the maximal ideal generated by x and y, of either the polynomial ring IR[x,y] or the power series ring IR[[x,y]], over the real numbers. Each one-dimensional prime ideal of R is generated by a prime polynomial p(x,y) without constant term. As Rp is a discrete valuation ring, its ideals are the powers P~, and the candidates for our modules are the (R/Ps)p· In the second case, they will be quasi-projective. Such a candidate is indeed non-local hollow and discrete if and only if the integral closure of R/P is local; and this means that the curve p(x,y) = 0 has only one branch at (0,0), that is is either regular or has a hypercusp. For example, x 3 - y 2 leads to such a module, while x 3 + x 2 - y 2 does not. Example 5.19. A ring R with infinitely many maximal ideals, each attached to non-local hollow discrete modules. Take R to be the localization of either IR[x,y] or IR[x][[y]], at the complement of U m , where N is any countable subset of IR, and m is the maximal ideal generated nEN n n by x+n and y. As IR is uncountable, the maximal ideals of R are precisely the localizations of the mn ( cf. Jategaonkar [86], (7.1.5) and (7.2.6) or Miiller [80], Proposition 21). The ideal P nk of R generated by x+n+l, is prime and mn-isolated. The factoring R/P nk is a valuation ring, and complete in the second case. Therefore the modules (R/Ps k)P n

nk

, (s E IN) are non-local hollow discrete with attached maximal

COMMENTS Theorem 5.2 appears in Mohamed, Miiller and Singh [85]. The basic properties of the endomorphism ring of a discrete module are given in Mohamed and Singh [77]; the quasi-projective case is due to (Sandomierski and) Mares [63]. Lemma 5.8 and Corollary 5.9 are due to the authors. Everything in the last section comes from Mohamed and Miiller [88a].

APPENDIX In this appendix, we discuss a number of topics which are related to the material of the book. Proofs will be given only where they are not readily available in the literature. Several variants of supplementation and their interactions are considered. Cases where explicit structural information is available are compiled. Results on the splitting of supplements, and on modules with (C 1) are summarized. The historical origin of the concept of continuity, in von Neumann algebras and continuous geometries, is described. A brief overview is given of background and recent work on the weaker concept of N0 -continuity. In the last section we list a number of open problems. 1.

VARJANTS OF SUPPLEMENTATION

M

Recall that a module M is supplemented if, for every decomposition A + B, there exists a supplement of A contained in B; and that M has (D 1) if it

=

is supplemented and every supplement is a summand. Definitions A.l. A module M is weakly supplemented if every submodule has a supplement, fB--supplemented if every submodule has a supplement which is a summand, H-supplemented if for every submodule A there is a summand A' such that A + X = M holds if and only if A' + X = M. Proposition A.2. The following implications hold:

(Dl)~ / supplemented

1

H-snpplemented

~

/upplemented

weakly supplemented

96 PROOF. (D 1) implies H-supplemented: Consider a submodule A of the module M. By (D 1) we have M = M1 A = M1 M

=

Ill

M2 n A.

111

M2, where M1

~

A and M2 n A is small.

We infer

If M = A + X, then M = M1 + M2 n A + X hence

Ml +X.

M = A' Ill B, such that M = A + X if and only if :ivl = A' + X. In particular, M =A+ B. If M = A + B' for B' ~ B, then A' + B' = M = A' e B, hence B' = B. We conclude that the summand B is a supplement of A. The remaining implications are trivial. D Next we investigate the relationship between H-supplementation and the lifting property.

If RadM < < M, then M is H-supplemented if and only if Proposition A.3. 1\! = M/RadM is semisimple, and each summand (=submodule) of 1\! lifts to a summand ofM. PROOF. Given H-supplementation, consider A ~ 1\!. The full inverse image A has a supplement B. Then A n B is small in B hence in M. Therefore An B ~ RadM, and consequently A Ill B" = 1\!. We conclude that 1\! is semisimple. Returning to A ~ 1\!, we have a summand A' ~ M such that M = A + X if and only if M = A' + X. Consequently 1\! = A + X if and only if 1\! = A' + X. As lii.r is semisimple, this implies A = A'. Thus A lifts to the summand A'. In the converse direction, if N ~ M is given, then M = M1 Ill M2 with M 1 = N. As RadM is small, we have M = M1 + X if and only if M = N + X.

Thus M is

H-supplemented.

D

Remarks. (1) It is easy to see that a Ill-supplemented module M has a decomposition M = M1 Ill M2 such that RadM 1 = M1 and RadM 2 < < M2. (2)

While the properties (D 1), supplemented and weakly supplemented are

inherited by summands, it is unknown (and unlikely) that the same is true for the other two properties. We now provide examples to separate the properties of Proposition A.2.

97

Lemma. A.4. Let R be a commutative local ring, with maximal ideal J, and let M be a

finitely generated R-module. Then M is supplemented;

( 1)

n

(2)

M is fB--supplemented if M

~

ED

i=1

R/1., for ideals I.; 1

1

~

~

(3)

M is H-supplemented if and only if, in addition, I 1

(4)

M has (D 1) if and only if, in addition, Jin

(5)

M is (quasi-) discrete if and only if, in addition, I 1 = ... = In.

~

I1

~

...

...

In;

~In;

If M is 2-generated, then (2) reads "if and only if' also.

PROOF. Everything but the last statement is proved in Zoschinger (82a]. Let M be 2-generated and fB-Supplemented, and pick a E M-RadM. Then aR has a supplement which is a summand, i.e. M = M1ED M2 with aR n M2 small. Thus 1\! = ilt ED 1\!2 with 0 f. ilt

~

1\!1. Therefore the Mi are both 1--dimensional over the field R/J, and·

consequently Mi ~ R/Ii with Ii ~ J ~ R.

D

Lemma. A.5. Let R be an incomplete rank one discrete valuation ring, with quotient field K. Then the module M = K2 is fB--supplemented but not supplemented. PROOF. By Zoschinger ((74b], 2.2) every submodule of M has a supplement, but M is not supplemented. Let B be a supplement of A in M. As M is divisible, M = Mr = Ar + Br ~ A + Br, for every 0 f. r E R. Thus B = Br, and B is divisible, hence injective, hence a summand. D Corollary A.6. No other implications hold in the diagram of Proposition 2, except possibly "H-supplemented ==::?supplemented". PROOF. Use Lemmas 4 and 5.

D

We now provide a complete list of all the relevant modules over Dedekind domains. All these results are due to Zoschinger [74a], [74b], [82a]; cf. also Hausen [82], Mohamed and Abdul-Karim [84], and Singh [84].

Let R be a local Dedekind domain, with maximal ideal P, quotient field K, and Q = K/R. Let a, b, c and n be natural numbers, and let B(n1' ... ,ns)

Proposition A. 7.

denote the direct sum of arbitrarily many copies of R/Pn1, ... ,R/Pns. foUowing table describes aU modules M with the listed properties:

Then the

98 weakly supplemented )

M ~ Rae Kb e Qc e B(1, ... ,n)

e-supplemented supplemented }

Mas above

H-supplemented M ~ Rae Kb e Qc or B(n,n+l)

(b~1

quasi-discrete

M ~ Ra e Kb or Rae Q or B(n)

incomplete)

discrete

M ~ Ra e Kb or B(n)

if R is

PROOF, with indication of original terminology: Zoschinger [74a], 2.4 and [82a], 2.10 "komplementiert"; [74b], 2.2 and [82a], 2.6 "supplementiert"; [74b], 4.3 "stark komplementiert"; [74b], 5.2 "stark supplementiert"; Theorem 5.2. 0 Proposition A.8. If R is a non-local Dedekind domain, then all these modules are torsion. Moreover, a torsion module has any one of these properties if and only if every P-primary component (viewed as module over the localization Rp} has the

structure described in Proposition A. 7. (Note that "torsion" forces a that c and n will vary with P.) PROOF. Z6schinger [74a], 3.1.

=

b

=

0, and o

Remark. Rudlof [89], a student of Zoschinger, has recently fully determined the structure of all weakly supplemented modules over commutative noetherian rings. 2.

SUPPLEMENTS ARE SUMMANDS The property of the title has been widely studied for projective modules. We summarize the main results: Proposition A.9. The following are equivalent, for any ring: (1) In every finitely generated projective right module, every supplement submodule is a summand; (2) every projective right module with finitely generated radical factor module, is itself finitely generated; (3) in every projective right module, every finitely generated submodule is contained in a maximal submodule; (4) the analogues of the above properties, for left modules.

99 AU these properties are true for commutative rings, as weU as for rings such that every prime factor ring is right (or left) Goldie {in particular for right or left noetherian rings, and for rings with a polynomial identity). If R is a commutative domain or a right noetherian ring, then (1) is valid for every (not necessarily finitely generated} projective module. PROOF. Cf. Zoschinger [81] and the literature cited there, as well as Mohammed and Sandomierski [P], where several other equivalent conditions are listed. 0

An example of a ring where these equivalent conditions fail, is provided in Gerasimov and Sakhaev [84]; cf. also Mohammed and Sandomierski [P] for a discussion of "minimal counterexamples". 3.

EXTENDING MODULES We summarize briefly some of the results in Harada [82b], Okado [84] and Kamal and Miiller [88a,b,c], concerning the structure of modules with (C 1) (which are

also called extending modules), over certain commutative rings. remain open here.

Many questions

Proposition A.lO. Let R be a commutative domain. A module M has (C 1) if and only if it is a torsion module with (C 1), or the direct sum of an injective module, and a torsionfree reduced module with (C 1). IfM is torsionfree reduced, then it has (C 1) if and only if it is a finite direct sum of uniform submodules, each pair of which has (C 1).

0

Proposition A.ll. Let R be a commutative noetherian ring. If a module M has (C 1), then it is the direct sum of uniform submodules. If M =

61

Mi where all Mi have local endomorphism rings, then M has (C 1) if

and only if it satisfies lsTn, and every pair Mi

61

Mj has (C 1).

o

(Fairly complicated) criteria as to when the direct sum of two uniform modules has (C 1), are contained in Kamal and Miiller [88b,c]. Complete results are known only over Dedekind domains:

100

Proposition A.l2. Let R be a Dedekind domain, with maximal ideals P. A torsion module has (C 1) if and only if each P-primary component is a direct sum of copies of

either Cp, or of C~ and c~+ 1 for some natural number n

= n(P). A torisonfree

reduced module has (C 1) if and only if it is a finite direct sum

ED

Nli, where N is a

torsionfree reduced uniform module (i.e., a proper submodule of the quotient field of R), and the Ii are fractional ideals.

o

4.

THE HISTORICAL ORIGIN OF THE CONCEPT OF CONTINUITY Before we start our discussion, we remind the reader of a few concepts from lattice theory. A complete lattice is upper [lower] continuous if x II (Vxi) [x V (llxi)

= ll(x

=

v(x II xi)

V xi)] holds for any chain or up [down] directed family {xJ

A lattice is modular if x ~ z implies x V (y II z) = (x V y) II z. A lattice with 0 and 1 is complemented if for every element x there is a complement, ie., an element y with x II y = 0 and x V y = 1. Two elements are perspective if they have a common complement. An orthocomplemented lattice is a lattice with an additional operation, ', called orthocomplementation, which is involutory and anti-monotone, and such that x' is a complement of x. An orthocomplemented lattice is orthomodular if x ~ z implies x V (x' II z)

= z.

In quantum mechanics (von Neumann [32]), the physical observables are represented by selfadjoint operators, a = a*, on a complex separable Hilbert space. Two observables are simultanuously measurable if and only if their operators commute. The analysis of such operators let Murray and von Nemann [36] to investigate what are now called von Neumann algebras, i.e., *-subalgebras of the algebra of all bounded operators, which coincide with their second commutator. Von Neumann algebras have two fundamental properties: Every left or right annihilator is generated by a projection (ie. a self adjoint idempotent e = e* = e2). The set P A of all projections forms a complete orthomodular lattice. (Here, P A is partially ordered via e ~ f iff e = ef, and the orthocomplementation is defined as e' = 1-e.) Elements e, f E P A are called equivalent, e "' f, if there is a E A with e = aa* and f = a*a. An element e E PAis finite if e "' f ~ e implies e = f. A factor is the special case of a von Neumann algebra whose center consists of the complex numbers only.

Factors are precisely those von Neuman algebras which

101 occur in tensor decompositions A1 e A2 of the algebra of all bounded operators. For a factor A, the collection of equivalence classes in P A is totally ordered. Moreover there exists a dimension function (unique up to a scalar multiple) d : P A -> IR+ u {m} satisfying the following properties: de = 0 iff e = 0, de = df iff e "' f, de < m iff e is finite, d( e+f) = de + df if ef = 0. The range of this dimension function is limited to the following possibilities : Accordingly, Murray and von {0,1,2, ... ,n}, {0,1,2, ... ,m}, [0,1), [O,m) and {O,m}. Neumann classified von Neumann algebras into the five types In , IID , Ilf, IIID and III. All types occur. The orthomodular lattice PA is modular precisely for the two types In and Ilf" Generalizing these last two cases, von Neumann ([36a), [60)) defined a "geometry" to be a complete complemented modular lattice L which is upper and lower continuous (and indecomposable). Kaplansky [55) established that a complete orthocomplemented modular lattice is automatically upper and lower continuous (cf. also Amemiya and Halperin [50)). With considerable effort (mainly devoted to showing that perspectivity is transitive) von Neumann found, in the indecomposable case, an (essentially unique) dimension function d : L -> R+ satisfying dx = 0 iff x = 0, d(x V y) = dx + dy if x A y = 0. Its range is limited to the two cases {0,1,2, ... ,n} and [0,1). In the first instance, Lis just an (n-1)-dimensional projective geometry (cf. Birkhoff [35)). In the second one, L is called a continuous geometry. (The decomposable case is technically more complicated and requires a family of dimension functions, cf. Iwamura [44)). Next von Neumann [36c) defined regular rings (a ring R is regular if for every x E R there is y E R with xyx = x). He showed that, if a geometry L has at least four perspective independent elements, then there is a (unique) regular ring R whose lattice of principal right ideals is isomorphic to L. In the projective case, R is artinian, in fact an n " n-matrix ring over a division ring. In the continuous case, R is not artinian, and is called a continuous regular ring. A right continuous regular ring is one whose lattice of principal right ideals is upper continuous. As the lattices of principal left and right ideals are dual to each other, under annihilators, a regular ring is continuous if and only if it is left and right continuous.

102 We present now the proof, due to Utumi [61), that a regular ring is right continuous if and only if it satisfies the condition (C 1). Note that the condition (C 2) is always satisfied for a regular ring. Lemma A.13. The principal right ideals of a regular ring form a sublattice of the lattice of all right ideals. PROOF. Recall that a ring R is regular if and only if for every a E R there exists x E R with axa = a. It follows immediately that ax is idempotent, and aR = axR. Thus a right ideal is principal if and only if it is a summand. (We shall use this fact repeatedly in the sequel.) Consider two right ideal A, B of R which are summands. Let A 81 A* = R, and let 1r denote the projection onto A*. We obtain A + B = A 81 1rB. Moreover 1rB is principal hence a summand, of R and therefore of A*. We conclude A + B = A 81 1rB c81 R. Since B is a summand hence projective, the epimorphism B -> > B I A n B ~ A + B1A ~ 1rB splits. We deduce that A n B is also a summand. o Proposition A.14. A regular ring is right continuous if and only if it satisfies (C 1) for

right ideals. PROOF. Assume that R is right continuous, and consider an arbitrary right ideal A. By completeness, the join V aR in the lattice of principal right ideals exists, but is aEA possibly larger than the join E aR = A in the lattice of all right ideals. We aEA establish (C 1) by showing A ~e v aR. aEA To this end consider B < V aR with B n A = 0. For a finite subset F of A, - aEA v aR = E aR holds by Lemma A.13. Therefore B n v aR = B n E aR ~ aEF aEF aEF aEF B n A = 0. Then, by upper continuity, and since the V aR form an updirected aEF family, B n v aR = B n v ( v aR) = v(B n v aR) = 0. We conclude B = 0, as aEA F aEF F aEF required. Conversely suppose that R satisfies (C 1). Let {A) be a chain of summands. By (C 1), the right ideal E Ai is essential in a summand A.

We demonstrate

completeness by showing that A is the least upper bound for {A), in the lattice of summands.

103 $

Let B c R be any other upper bound for {AJ Then A A.13, and hence A E Ai n C 5 A n B n C

= =

nB

$

c R by Lemma

A n B $ C for some right ideal C. We obtain 0, and therefore C = 0 since E Ai is essential in A.

Consequently A = A n B, and A 5 B, as required. It remains to show upper continuity. Let D be an arbitrary summand. Then We obtain D n Ai is a summand, and v(D n Ai) exists by completeness. E (D v(D

n Ai) 5 v(D n Ai) 5 D n VAi. Since E Ai 5e vAi holds, as seen before, we deduce n Ai) 5e D n vAi. But both terms are summands, and therefore equal. o

The study of von Neumann algebras has led to a tremendous amount of literature; for instance, Dixmier [81)1ists 968 papers till 1980. An excellent survey of the related work on orthomodular lattices, till 1966, can be found in Holland [70); cf. also Kalmbach [83). 5.

N0 -CONTINUOUS RINGS AND MODULES

N0 -continuous regular rings have arisen in two different, though somewhat

related contexts: First, Halperin [38) showed that most of von Neumann's results on continuous geometries could be obtained for N0 -continuous geometries (ie. N0 -complete N0 -upper and lower continuous complemented modular lattices).

In particular, most In

N0 -continuous geometries can be coordinatized by "N 0 -continuous" regular rings.

the spirit of Utumi (cf. Section 4 of this appendix), a regular ring is N0 -continuous if and only if it is left and right N0 -continuous, and it is right N0 -continuous if and only if it satisfies (N 0 -C 1): every N0 -generated right ideal is essential in a summand. For the discussion of the second context, we require some background. It was felt early on that it was desirable to develop the theory of von Neumann algebras (= W *-algebras = weakly closed *-subalgebras of the algebra of all bounded operators on a Hilbert space), as far as possible, in a purely algebraic-topological framework, without reference to operator theory. Kaplansky [51) introduced * * AW -algebras as an abstract generalization of W -algebras. We describe the relevant concepts in the setting of C*-algebras (ie. complex Banach algebras with involution subject to IJxx *11 = 1Jxll 2 , equivalently norm-closed

104 *-subalgebras of the algebra of all bounded operators on a Hilbert space, I. Gelfand and M. Naimark, cf. Goodearl [82a]), though some of the arguments can be carried out in the furely algebraic ~etting of *-rings or even ordinary rings. An AW *-algebra [Rickart C -algebra] is a C -algebra such that the right (or left) annihilator of every subset [element] is generated by a projection. The set P A of projections of such an algebra A is an [N 0 -]complete orthocomplemented lattice. If A is finite (ie. xx * = 1 implies x*x = 1), then P A is modular, and is in fact an [N 0 -]continuous geometry. This geometry can always be coordinatized, by an [N 0 -]continuous regular ring R.

Interestingly enough it has

turned out recently that this ring R is actually the maximal left and right [classical] quotient ring of A (cf. Handelman and Lawrence [78], Ara and Menal [84].) K0 (R), for N0 -continuous regular rings, is investigated in great detail in Goodearl [79]. Crucial facts are that such rings are unit regular, and that their finitely generated projective modules have cancellation and interpolation properties. Some structural information on R is deduced. Many of these results extend to directly finite right N0 -continuous regular rings (Goodearl [82b]), and even to arbitrary right N0 -continuous regular rings (Ara [87]). In Goodearl, Handelman and Lawrence [80] they use the embedding of a finite Rickart C*-algebra A into an N0 -continuous regular ring R very effectively to transfer many of these results from R to A.

A few recent papers attempt to extend some of this work from right N0 -continuous regular rings and their finitely generated projective modules, to (more or less) arbitrary N0 -(quasi-)continuous modules over (more or less) arbitrary rings. The definitions (which rest on appropriate N0 -relativizations of the conditions (Ci)) and elementary properties are given by Oshiro [83b]. Kutami [83], working over arbitrary regular rings, proves an analogue of (2.32) for N0 -essentially generated (ie. essential over an N0 -generated subsubmodule) submodules of a directly finite N0 -quasi-continuous projective module.

Mucke [88] has quite a number of more general results. Over arbitrary rings, he proves analogues of (3.18) for N0 -( quasi-)continuous N0 -essentially generated modules with (split) embeddings into each other. He also establishes the cancellation property for directly finite, and the finite interpolation property for arbitrary N0 -continuous N0 -essentially generated modules with the finite exchange property.

105 More penetrating results are obtained over two types of rings, viz. right coherent rings and right ZP-rings (ie. rings where the right annihilator of every element is generated by an idempotent), and for N0 -(quasi-)continuous N0 -essentially generated submodules of free modules.

For instance, in the N0 -quasi-continuous case, such

modules satisfy the internal cancellation property, the N0 -interpolation property, and analogues of (2.32), (3.14) and (2.14). In the N0 -continuous case, the finite exchange property is valid, and therefore the cancellation property if the module is directly finite. 6.

OPEN PROBLEMS 1. Characterize the quasi-continuous modules with the finite exchange property, cf. (3.24) and (2.25). Using (2.37) and (3.20), one can confine oneself to square free modules M. Such a module might have the finite exchange property iff end M has a "sheaf representation" with local stalks.)

2. Does the finite exchange property imply the full exchange property, for quasi-continuous modules ? 3. Characterize the cancellation property for quasi-continuous modules (cf. (1.23), (2.33) and (3.25)). 4. Determine the rings over which every continuous module is quasi- injective (see Rizvi [88] for partial results). 5.

Find analogues of the theorems of Chapters 2 and 3 for N0 -(quasi-) continuous

modules (for numerous partial results, see Mucke [88], cf. also Section 5 of this appendix). 6.

Investigate the structure of (N 0 -,quasi-)continuous rings, in generalization of

(N 0 - )continuous regular rings; cf. Section 5 of the Appendix. 7.

Study modules and rings with the condition (C 1) only, generalizing the results

in Kamal and Muller [88a,b,c] and Chatters et al. [77, 80].

106 8.

In particular, find necessary and sufficient conditions, for a module with (C 1) to

be the direct sum of indecomposables (for a sufficient condition, cf. (2.17)- (2.19)). 9.

Weaken (C 1) to the analogue of s-supplemented: every submodule has a

complement which is a summand. 10. Develop a fully satisfactory structure theory for injective modules over an arbitrary ring, along the ideas in Goodearl and Boyle [76], and its consequences for the structure of quasi-continuous modules. 11. The endomorphism ring of a local R-module is a local ring, provided R is commutative or right noetherian. Investigate this implication in general. Find an example where it fails. Find an infinite collection of local modules with non-local endomorphism rings which are relatively projective in pairs (cf. (4.53)). 12. Can the conditions of (4.48) be weakened? Are (b) and (c) independent, in the presence of (a) ? Is it sufficient to assume only (a) and lsTn ? (All of this is of interest only if the end Mi are not local; cf. (4.49) and (2.25).) 13. In the situation of (4.53), every local summand is a summand, by (4.13). Is this condition also equivalent to the conditions (1)- ((5) of the list? (In showing this, one may assume that the Mi are pairwise non-isomorphic.)

14. Determine the structure of ( quasi-)discrete modules over arbitary rings. (In analogy with (5.15), (5.16) one might expect that any (quasi-) discrete module has a "primary decomposition" such that each component is either a finite direct sum of hollow modules, or a direct sum of local modules. These two cases are covered by (4.50) and (4.53).) 15. Does the exact dual of (3.2) hold; ie. is (5.8) valid for supplemented modules, except for the phrase "and is a summand of M"? 16. Determine when a quasi-discrete module has the cancellation property (cf. (1.23) and (4.20)).

107 17. Characterize the rings over which every discrete module is quasi-projective. (This reduces immediately to studying hollow modules.) 18.

Is every H-supplemented module supplemented (cf. (A.2))?

19. Are the summands? 20.

properties

H-supplemented

and

$-Supplemented

inherited

by

Does the converse of (A.4) (2) hold for n > 2 ?

21. Investigate the structure of (weakly) supplemented modules over arbitrary rings (cf. the forthcoming results of P. Rudlof over commutative noetherian rings, and Inoue [83]). 22. Are existing supplements in arbitrary projective modules summands, over any commutative ring (cf. (A.9)) ? 23.

Characterize the rings of (A.9) internally.

24. For continuous modules, one knows !::.. = J(S), cf. (3.5) and (3.15); for discrete modules, V = J(S), cf. (5.4). Investigate the relationship between !::.., V and J(S), for quasi-continuous and quasi-discrete modules.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abdul-Karim, F. H. [82]: Contributions to the theory of dual-continuous modules, M. Sc. thesis, Univ. Kuwait, (1982). Ahsan, J. [73]: Rin!\s all whose cyclic modules are quasi-injective, Proc. London Math. Soc. 27, (1973 J, 425--439.

-----,= [81]: Submodules of quasi-projective modules, Comm. Algebra 9, (1981), 975-988. Amemiyah, I. and Halperin, I. [50]: Complemented modular lattices, Canad. J. Math. 11, (1959), 481-520. Anderson, D. D. [76]: (1976), 258-260.

The existence of dual modules, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 55,

Anderson, F. W. [69]: Endomorphism rings of projective modules, Math. Z. 111, (1969), 322-332. Anderson, F. W. and Fuller, K. R. [72]: Modules with decompositions that complement direct summands, J. Algebra 2, (1972), 241-253. _ _ _ [73]: Rings and Categories of Modules, Springer Verlag, 1973. Ara, P. [87]: Aleph-nought-continuous regular rings, J. Algebra 109, (1987), 115-126. Ara, P. and Menal, P. [84]: On regular rings with involution, Arch. Math. 42, (1984), 126-130. Azumaya, G. [P]: M-projective and M-injective modules, unpublished (1974). [74]: Characterization of semiperfect and perfect modules, Math. Z. 140, (1974), 95-103. Azumaya, G., Mbuntum, F. and Varadarajan, K. [75]: On M-projective and M-injective modules, Pacific J. Math. 95, (1975), 9-16. Baer, R. [40]: Abelian groups that are direct summands of every containing abelian group, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 46, (1940), 800-806. Bass, H. [60]: Finitistic dimension and homological generalization of semiprimary rings, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 95, (1960), 466--488. [62]: Injective dimension in noetherian rings, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 102, (1962), 18-29.

--or.-:::

Beck, I. [78]: On modules whose endomorphism ring is local, Israel J. Math. 29, (1978), 393--407. --.,.., [78]: An independence structure on indecomposable modules, Ark. Mat. 16, (1978), 171-178. Berberian, S. K. [57]: (1957), 224-240.

The regular ring of a finite AW*-algebra, Ann. Math. 65,

109

Birjukov, P. A. [78]: On a certain class of Abelian torsion groups, Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 25, (1978), A--418. Birkenmeier, G. F. [76]: On the cancellation of quasi-injective modules, Comm. Algebra 4, (1976), 101-109. ----:-:- [76b]: Self-injective rings and the minimal direct summand containing the nilpotents, Comm. Algebra 4, (1976), 705-721. [78]: Modules which are subisomorphic to injective modules, J. Pure Applied Algebra 13, (1978), 169-177.

_ _'T'i"'

-----,=-[81]: Baer rings and quasi-continuous rings have a MDSN, Pacific J. Math. 97, 1981), 283-292. --~

[83]: Modules which are epi-equivalent to projective modules, Acta Mathematica 24, (1983), 9-16.

_ _ _ [P]: Quasi-projective modules and the finite exchange property. Birkhoff, G. [35]: Combinatorial relations in projective geometries, Ann. Math. 36, (1935), 743-748. Bjork, J.-E. [70]: Rings satisfying a minimal condition on principal ideals, J. Reine Angew. Math. 245, (1970), 63-73. [72]: Radical properties of perfect modules, J. Reine Angew. Math. 253, (1972), 78-86.

--r:-::::

Bouhy, T. [75]: On quasi-injective modules, M.Sc. thesis, Ain Shams Univ., Cairo, (1975). Boyle, A. K. [74]: Hereditary QI-rings, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 192, (1974), 115-120. Boyle, A. K. and Goodearl( K. R. [75]: Rings over which certain modules are injective, Pacific J. Math. 58, 1975), 43-53. Brandal, W. [79]: Commutative Rings Whose Finitely Generated Modules Decompose, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 723, Springer Verlag, 1979. Brodskii, G. M. [83]: Dualities in modules and the AB * condition, Russian Math. Surv. 38, (1983), 185. Bumby, R. T. [65]: Modules which are isomorphic to submodules of each other, Arch. Math. 16, (1965), 184-185. Burgess, W. D. and Raphael, R. [P]: On modules with the absolute direct sum property, unpublished (1985). Byrd, K. A. [72]: Rings whose quasi-injective modules are injective, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 33, (1972), 235-240. --.,.-- [79]: Right self-injective rings whose essential right ideals are two-sided, Paci:li.c J. Math. 82, (1979), 23--41. Cartan, H. and Eilenburg, S. [56]: Homological Algebra, Princeton Univ. Press, 1956.

110 Chambless, L. [81]: Coprimary decomposition, N--dimension and divisibility: Application to artinian modules, Comm. Algebra 9, (1981), 1131-1146. Chase, U. S. [60]: Direct product of modules, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 97, (1960), 457-473. Chatters, A. W. and Hajaranavis, C. R. [77]: Rings in which every complement right ideal is a direct summand, Quart. J. Math. Oxford 28, (1977), 61--80. Chatters, A. W. and Khuri, S. M. [80]: Endomorphism rings of modules over non-singular CS rings, J. London Math. Soc. 21, (1980), 434-444. Crawley, P. and Dilworth, R. P. [73]: Algebraic Theory of Lattices, Prentice-Hall, 1973. Crawley, P. and Jonsson, B. (64]: Refinements for infinite direct decompositions of algebraic systems, Pacific J. Math. 14, (1964), 797--855. Cunningham, R. S. and Rutter, E. A. Jr. [74]: Perfect modules, Math. Z. 140, (1974), 105-110. Diximer, J. (81]: Von Neumann Algebras, North Holland, 1981. Eckmann, B. and Schopf, A. [53]: Uber injective Moduln, Arch. Math. 4, (1953), 75-78. Faith, C. [73a]: When are proper cyclics injective? 97-112.

Pacific J. Math. 45, (1973),

_ _ _ [73b]: Algebra: Rings, Modules and Catagories I, Springer Verlag, 1973. _ _ _ [76a]: Algebra II, Ring Theory, Springer Verlag, 1976. [76b]: On hereditary rings and Boyle's conjecture, Arch. Math. 27, (1976), 113-119.

_ _'1""1"n

---=-

[85]: The maximal re~ular ideal of self-injective and continuous rings splits off, Arch. Math. 44, (1985), 511-521.

Faith, C. and Utumi, Y. (64]: Quasi-injective modules and their endomorphism rings, Arch. Math 15, (1964), 166-174. Faith, C. and Walker~ E. A. [67]: Direct sum representation of injective modules, J. Algebra 5, (1967), 203-221. Faticoni, T. G. (83]: On quasi-projective covers, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 278, (1983), 101-113. Feigelstock, S. and Raphael, R. (85]: A ~roblem of relative projectivity for abelian groups, Canad. Math. Bull. 29, (1986), 114-122. --~

(86]: Some aspects of relative projectivity, Comm. Algebra 13, (1986), 1187-1212.

Fieldhouse, D. (84]: Epis and monos which must be isos, Internat. J. Math. & Math. Sci. 7, (1984), 507-512.

111 Fleury, P. [74a): A note on dualizing Goldie dimension, Canad. Math. Bull, 17, (1974), 511-517. [74b): Hollow modules and local endomorphism rings, Pacific J. Math. 53, (1974), 379-385.

--r:-::::.

_ _ _ [77): On local QF-rings, Aequat. Math. 16, (1977), 173-179. Fuchs, L. [69): On quasi-injective modules, Annali Scoula Normal Sup. Pisa 23, (1969), 541-546. ----..,..--- [72): The cancellation property for modules, in Lecture Notes Math. 246, Springer Verlag, 1972, 193-212. Fuchs, L., Kertesz, A. and Szele, T. [53): Abelian groups in which every serving subgroup is a direct summand, Publ. Math. Debrecen 3, (1953), 95-105. Fuller, K. R. [69): On direct representations of quasi-injectives and quasi-projectives, Arch. Math. 20, (1969), 495-502. Fuller, K. R. and Hill, D. A. [70): On quasi-projective modules via relative projectivity, Arch. Math 21, (1970), 369-373. Generalov, A. I. [83): The w-cohigh purity in a category of modules, Math. Notes 33, (1983), 402-408. Gerasimov, V. A. [82): Localizations in associative rings, Sib. Math. J. 23, (1982), 78!H!04. Gerasimov, V. N. and Sakhaev, I. I. [84): A counter-example to two hypotheses on projective and flat modules, Sibirskii Mat. J. 25, (1984), 31-35. Goel, V. K., Jain, S. K. and Singh, S. [75): Rings whose cyclic modules are injective or projective, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 53, (1975), 16-18. Goel, V. K. and Jain, S. K. [76): Semiperfect rings with quasi-projective left ideals, Math. J. Okayama Univ. 19, (1976), 39-43. - - [78): '1!"-injective modules and rings whose cyclic modules are '1!"-injective, Comm. Algebra 6, (1978), 59-73. Golan, J. S. [70): Characterization of rings using quasi-projective modules, Israel J. Math. 8, (1970), 34-38. --....-- [71a): Characterization of rings using quasi-projective modules (II), Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 2, (1971), 237-343. _ _ _ [71b): Quasi-perfect modules, Quart. J. Math. Oxford 22, (1971), 173-182. Goodearl, K. R. [76): Direct sum properties of quasi-injective modules, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 82, (1976), 108-110. _ _ _ [79): Vov Neumann regular rings, Pitman, 1979. _ _ _ [82a): Notes on Real and Complex C*-Algebras, Shira Publ. Ltd., 1982.

112

--=-= [82b]: Directly finite aleph-nought-continuous regular rings, Pacific J. Math.

100, (1982), 105-122. Goodearl, K. R. and Boyle, A. K. [76]: Dimension Theory for nonsingular injective modules, Memoirs Amer. Math. Soc. 177, (1976). Goodearl, K. R., Handelman, D. E. and Lawrence, J. W. [80]: Affine representations of Grothendieck groups and applications to Rickart C*-algebras and N0 -continuous regular rings, Memoirs Amer. Math. Soc. 234, (1980). Grzeszczuk, P. and Puczylowski, A. R. [84]: On Goldie and dual Goldie dimension, J. Pure Applied Algebra 31, (1984), 47-54. Gupta, A. K. and Varadarajan, K. [80]: Modules over endomorphism rings, Comm. Algebra 8, (1980), 1291-1333. Guralnik, R. M. [86]: Power cancellation of modules, Pacific J. Math. 124, (1986), 131-144. Haack, J. K. [82]: The duals of the Camillo-Zelmanowitz formulas for Goldie dimension, Canad. Math. Bull. 25, (1982), 325-334. Hafner, I. [74]: The regular ring and the maximal ring of quotients of a finite Baer *-ring, Michigan Math. J. 21, (1974), 153-160. Hall, P. [37]: Complemented groups, J. London Math. Soc. 12, (1937), 201-204. Halperin, I. [38]: On the transitivity of perspectivity in continuous geometries, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 44, (1938), 537-562. Handelman, D. [79]: Finite Rickart C*-algebras and their properties, Studies in Analysis, Adv. Math. Suppl. Studies 4, (1979), 171-196. Handelman, D. E. and Lawrence, J. W. [78]: Lower K-theory, regular rings and operator algebras - a survey, in Lecture Notes in Math. 734, Springer Verlag, 1978, 158-173. Hanna, A. and Shamsuddin, A. [83]: On the structure of certain types of abelian groups, Arch. Math. 40, (1983), 495-502. Harada, M. [75]: On the exchan~e property of a direct sum of indecomposable modules, Osaka J. Math. 12, (1975), 719-736. --~

[771: Small submodules in a projective module and semi-T-nilpotent sets, Osaka . Math. 14, (1977), 355-364.

--=-= [78]: A note on hollow modules, Rev. Union Math. Argentina 28, (1978), 186-194. [78b]: 186-194.

A note on hollow modules, Rev. Un. Mat. Argentina 28, (1978),

_ _ _ [78b]: On small homomorphism, Osaka J. Math. 15, (1978), 365-370.

113 - - = [78c]: On the small hulls of a commutative ring, Osaka J. Math. 15, (1978),

679--682. -~.,.--.

[79]: Non-small modules and non--cosmall modules, in Ring Theory, Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied Math. 51, Marcel Dekker, 1979.

--==-[80]: On lifting property on direct sums of hollow modules, Osaka J. Math. 17, 1980), 783-791. [82a]: On modules with lifting properties, Osaka J. Math. 19, (1982), 189-201. [82b]: On modules with extending property, Osaka J. Math. 19, (1982), 203-215. [82c]: Uniserial rings and lifting properties, Osaka J. Math. 19, (1982), 217-229. [83a]: Factor Categories with Applications to Direct Decomposition of Modules, Marcel Dekker, 1983.

- - = [83b]: On maxi--quasiprojective modules, J. Austral. Math. Soc. 35, (1983), 357-368. Harada, M. and Ishii, T. [721: On endomorphism rings of noetherian quasi-injective modules. Osaka J. Math. 9, (1972), 217-223. [75]: On perfect rings and the exchange property, Osaka J. Math. 12, (1975), 483--491.

--..-nn

Harada, M. and Oshiro, K. [81]: On extending property of direct sums of uniform modules, Osaka J. Math. 18, (1981), 767-785. Hausen, J. [79]: Groups whose normal subgroups have minimal supplements, Arch. Math. 32, (1979), 213-222. -~..-:::.

[82]: Supplemented modules over Dedekind domains, Pacific J. Math. 100, (1982), 387--402.

Hausen, J. and Johnson, J. A. [82]: On supplements in modules, Comment. Math. Univ. St. Paul. 31, (1982), 29-31. --;-;-. [83]: A characterization of two classes of Dedekind domains by properties of their modules, Publ. Math. 30, (1983), 53-55. -~07"""

[83b]: A new characterization of perfect and semiperfect rings, Bull. Cal. Matn. Soc. 75, (1983), 57-58.

Herrmann, P. [84]: Self-projective modules over valuation rings, Arch. Math. 43, (1984), 332-339. [84b]: Projective properties of modules, Algebra Berichte 47, (1984), Universitat Miinchen. Rein, J. [79]: Almost artinian modules, Math. Scand. 45, (1979), 198-204.

114 Hermandez, J. L. G. and Pardo, J. L. G. [87]: On endomorphism rings of quasiprojective modules, Math. Z. 196 (1987), 87-108. Hermandez, J. L. G., Pardo, J. L. G. and Hernandez, M. J. [86]: Semiperfect modules relative to a torsion theory, J. Pure Applied Math. 43, (1986), 145-172. Hill, D. A. [73]: Semi-perfect q-rings, Math. Ann. 200, (1973), 113-121. --,........,. [83]: Quasi-projective modules over hereditary noetherian prime rings, Osaka J. Math. 20, (1983), 767-777. Holland, S. S. [70]: The current interest in orthomodular lattices, in Trends in Lattice Theory, Van Nostrand, 1970. Ikeyama, T. [81]: Four-fold torison theories and rings of fractions, Comm. Algebra 9, (1981), 1027-1037. Inoue, T. [83]: Sum of hollow modules, Osaka J. Math. 20, (1983), 331-336. Ishii, T. [75]: On locally direct summands of modules, Osaka J. Math. 12, (1975), 473--482. Ivanov, G. [72]: Non-local rings whose ideals are all quasi-injective, Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 6, (1972), 45-52. Ivanov, A. V. [78]: A problem on abelian groups, Math. USSR Sbornik 34, (1978), 461--474. Iwamura, T. [44]: On continuous geometries I, Japan. J. Math. 19, (1944), 57-71. Jain, S. K. [76]: Ring theory, Proc. Ohio Univ. Conference, May 1976, Lecture Notes in Pure & App. Math. 25, Marcel Dekker, 1977. Jain, S. K., Lopez-Permouth, S. R. and Rizvi, S. T. [P1]: ACC on essentials are artinian.

Continuous rings with

_ _ _ [P2]: A characterization of uniserial rings via continuous modules. Jain, S. K., Mohamed, S. and Singh, S. [69]: Rings in which every right ideal is quasi-injective, Pacific J. Math. 31, (1969), 73-79. Jain, S. K. and Mohamed, S. [78]: Rings whose cyclic modules are continuous, J. Indian Math. Soc. 42, (1978), 197-202. Jain, S. K. and Miiller B. J. [81]: Semiperfect modules whose proper cyclic modules are continuous, Arch. Math. 37, (1981), 140-143. Jain, S. K. and Saleh, H. H. [87a]: Rings whose (proper) cyclic modules have cyclic 1r-injective hulls, Arch. Math. 48, (1987), 109-115. - - [87bh Rings with finitely generated injective (quasi-injective) hulls of cyclic modules, Comm. Algebra 15, (1987), 1679-1687. Jain, S. K. and Singh, S. [75]: Rings with quasi-projective left ideals, Pacific J. Math. 60, (1975), 169-181.

115 Jain, S. K., Singh, S. and Symonds, G. [76]: Rings whose proper cyclic modules are quasi-injective, Pacific J. Math. 67, (1976), 461--472. Jans, J. P. [59]: Projective injective modules, Pacific J. Math. 9, (1959), 1103-1108. Jansen, W. G. [78]: Fsp rings and modules, and local modules, Comm. Algebra 6, (1978), 617--637. Jeremy, L. [71]: Sur les modules et anneaux quasi-continus, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 273, (1971 ), 80-83.

----...,=

[74]: Modules et anneaux quasi-continus, Canad. Math. Bull. 17, (1974), 217-228.

Johnson, R. E. and Wong, E. T. [61]: Quasi-injective modules and irreducible rings, J. London Math. Soc. 36, (1961), 260-268. Kalmbach, G. [83]: Orthomodular lattices, Academic Press , 1983. Kamal, M. A. J86]: Modules in which complements are summands, Ph.D. thesis, McMaser niversity, (1986). Kamal, M. A. and Miiller, B. J. [88a]: Extending modules over commutative domains, Osaka J. Math. 25, (1988), 531-538. - - [88b]: The structure of extending modules over noetherian rings, Osaka J. Math. 25, (1988), 539-551. _ _ _ [88c]: Torsion free extending modules, Osaka J. Math. 25, (1988). Kaplansky, I. [51]: Projections in Banach algebras, Ann. Math. 53, (1951), 235-249. - - [52]: Modules over Dedekind rings and valuation rings, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 72, (1952), 327-340. _ _ _ _ [55]: Any orthocomplemented complete modular lattice is a continuous geometry, Ann. Math. 61, (1955), 524-541. _ _ _ [58]: Projective modules, Ann. Math. 68, (1958), 372-377. _ _ _ [74]: Commutative Rings, University of Chicago Press, 1974. Kasch, F. [79]: A decomposition theorem for strongll supplemented and d-continuous modules, McMaster Univ. Math. Reports 105, t1979), 1-10. Kasch, F. and Mares, E. [66]: Eine Kennzeichnung semi-perfekter Moduln, Nagoya Math. J. 27, (1966), 525-529. Ketkar, R. D. and Vanaja, N. [Bla]: A note on FR-perfect modules, Pacific J. Math. 96, (1981), 141-152. --~

[Blb]: R-projective modules over a semiperfect ring, Canad. Math. Bull. 24, (1981), 365-367.

Koehler, A. [70a]: Quasi-projective covers and direct sums, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 24, (1970), 655--658.

116

- - = [70b]: Rings for which every cyclic module is quasi-projective, Math. Ann. 189, (1970), 311-316. [71]: Quasi-projective and quasi-injective modules, Pacific J. Math 3, (1971), 713--820. --~

[74]: Rings with quasi-injective cyclic modules, Quart. J. Math. Oxford 25, (1974), 51-55.

Leonard, W. W. [66]: Small modules, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 17, (1966), 527-531. Li, M. S. and Zelmanowitz, J. M. [P]: On the generalizations of injectivity. Mares, E. A. [63]: Semiperfect modules, Math Z. 82, (1963), 347-360. Matlis, E. [58]: Injective modules over noetherian rings, Pacific J. Math. 8, (1958), 511-528.

--...,=

[73]: !-dimensional Cohen-Macaulay Rings, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 327, Springer Verlag, 1973.

Michler, G. 0. and Villamayor, 0. E. [73]: On rings whose simple modules are injective, J. Algebra 25, (1973), 185-201. Ming, R. Yue Chi [85]: On von Neumann regular rings, XIII, Ann. Univ. Ferrara Sc. Mat. 31, (1985), 49--61. Miyashita, Y. [65]: On quasi-injective modules, J. Fac. Sci. Hokkaido Univ. 18, (1965), 158-187. --.,,.......,.., [66]: Quasi-projective modules, perfect modules and a theorem for modular lattices, J. Fac. Sci. Hokkaido Univ. 19, (1966), 86-110. Mohamed, S. [70a]: q-rings with chain conditions, J. London Math. Soc. 2, (1970), 455-460. _ _ _ [70b]: Semilocal q-rings, Indian J. Pure and App. Math. 1, (1970), 419-424. --~

[70c]: Rings whose homomorphic images are q-rings, Pacific J. Math 35, (1970), 727-735.

_ _ _ [75]: On PCI-rings, J. Univ. Kuwait (Sci). 2, (1975), 21-23. --.,...,. [82]: Rings with dual continuous right ideals, J. Austral. Math. Soc. 32, (1982), 287-294. Mohamed, S. and Abdul-Karim, F. H. [84]: Semi-dual continuous abelian groups, J. Univ. Kuwait (Sci.) 11, (1984), 23-27. Mohamed, S. and Bouhy, T. [77]: Continuous modules, Arabian J. Sci. Eng. 2, (1977), 107-122. Mohamed, S. and Miiller, B. J. [79]: Decomposition of dual continuous modules, Lecture Notes in Math. 700, Springer-Verlag, 1979, 87-94. _ _ _ [81]: Direct sums of dual continuous modules, Math. Z. 178, (1981), 225-232.

117 --....- [88a]: Dual continuous modules over commutative noetherian rings, Comm. Algebra 16, (1988), 1191-1207. [88b]: Continuous modules have the exchange property, Proc. Perth Con£. Abelian Groups, Contemporary Math. (1988).

---r-;-

Mohamed, S., Muller, B. J. and Singh, S. [85]: Quasi-dual continuous modules, J. Austral. Math. Soc. 39, (1985), 287-299. Mohamed, S. and Singh, S. [77]: Generalizations of decomposition theorems known over perfect rings, J. Austral. Math. Soc. 24, (1977), 496-510. Mohammed, A. and Sandomierski, F. L. [P]: Complements in projective modules. Monk, G. S. [72]: A characterization of exchange rings, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 35, (1972), 349-353. Mucke, C. [88]: Zerlegun~seigenschaften von stetigen und quasi-stetigen Moduln, Algebra Berichte 57, {1988), Universitat Miinchen. Miiller, B. J. [68]: Dominant dimension of semi-primary rings, J. Reine Angew. Math. 232, (1968), 173-179. _ _ _ [70]: On semiperfect rings, lllinois J. Math. 14, (1970), 464--467. [81]: Continuous geometries, continuous regular rings, and continuous modules, Proc. Conference Algebra & Geometry, Kuwait (1981), 49-52. Miiller, B. J. and Rizvi, S. T. [82a]: On the decomposition of continuous modules, Canad. Math. Bull. 25, (1982), 296-301.

---.,-= [82b]: On the existence of continuous hulls, Comm. Algebra 10, (1982), 1819-1838. ---.,.....- {83]: On injective and quasi-continuous modules, J. Pure Applied Algebra 28, [1983), 197-210. ---.,= [84]: Direct sums of indecomposable modules, Osaka J. Math. 21, (1984),

365-374. Murra>', F. J. and von Neumann, J. [36]: {1936), 116-229.

On rings of operators, Ann. Math. 37,

Nakahara, S. [83]: On a generalization of semiperfect modules, Osaka J. Math. 20, (1983), 43-50. Nicholson, W. K. [75]: On semiperfect modules, Canad. J. Math. 18, (1975), 77-80. _ _ _ [76]: Semiregular modules and rings, Canad. J. Math. 28, (1976), 1105-1120. [77): Lifting idempotents and exchange rings, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 229, (1977), 269-278.

--r:-:::

Oberst, U. und Schneider, H. J. [71]: Math. 13, (1971), 295-304.

Die Struktur von projektiven Moduln, lnv.

118 Okado, M. [84]: On the decomposition of extending modules, Math. Japonica 29, (1984), 939-941. Okado, M. and Oshiro, K. [84]: Remarks on the lifting property of simple modules, Osaka J. Mat. 21, (1984), 375-385. Oshiro, K. [80]: An example of a ring whose projective modules have the exchange property, Osaka J. Math. 17, (1980), 415-420.

--=-=- [83a]: Semiperfect modules and quasi-semiperfect modules, Osaka J. Math. 20, (1983), 337-372. --=-=- {83b]: Continuous modules and quasi-continuous modules, Osaka J. Math. 20, (1983), 681--694. _ _ _ [83c]: Projective modules over Von Neumann regular rings have the finite exchange property, Osaka J. Math. 20, (1983), 695--699. [84a]: Lifting modules, extending modules and their applications to QF-rings, Hokkaido Math. J. 13, (1984), 310-338. [84b]: Lifting modules, extending modules and their applications to generalized uniserial rings, Hokkaido Math. J. 13, (1984), 339-346. Osofsky, B. L. [64]: Rings all whose finitely generated modules are injective, Pacific J. Math. 14, (1964), 646--650. [68a]: Non-cyclic injective modules, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 19, (168), 1383-1384. --;---;. [68b]: Non-commutative rings whose cyclic modules have cyclic injective hulls, Pacific J. Math. 25, (1968), 331-340. --~

[68c]: Endomorphism rings of quasi-injective modules, Canad. J. Math. 20, (1968), 895-903.

Papp, Z. [59]: On algebraically closed modules, Pub. Math. Debrecen 6, (1959), 311-327. Pyle, E. S. [75]: The regular ring and the maximal ring of quotients of a finite Baer *-ring, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 203, (1975), 201-213. Rangaswamy, K. M. [77]: Modules with finite spanning dimension, Canad. Math. Bull. 20, (1977), 255-262. Rangaswamy, K. M. and Vanaja, N. [72]: Quasi-projectives in abelian and modules categories, Pacific J. Math. 43, (1972), 221-238. Rayar, M. [71]: Small and co-small modules, Ph.D. thesis, Indiana Univ., (1971). --~

[82]: On small and cosmall modules, Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar. 39, (1982), 389-392.

Reda, F. A. [78]: On continuous and dual continuous modules, M.Sc. thesis, Univ. Kuwait, (1978).

119

Rizvi, S. T. [80]: Contributions to the theory of continuous modules, Ph.D. thesis, McMaster University, (1980). _ _ _ [88]: Commutative rings for which every continuous module is quasi-injective, Arch. Math. 50, (1988), 435--442.

Robert, E. de [69]: Projectifs et injectifs relatifs, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 286, (1969), A 361-364.

Roos, J. E. [68]: Sur l'anneau maximal de fractions des AW *-algebras et des anneaux de Baer, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 266, (1968), A 120-133. Rudlof, P. [89]: Komplementierte Moduln iiber Noetherschen Ringen, Ph.D. thesis, Universitat Miinchen, (1989). Sakhaev, I. I. [85]: Projectivity of finitely generated flat modules over semilocal rings, Math. Notes 37, (1985), 85--90. Sandomierski, F. L. [64]: Relative injectivity and projectivity, Ph.D. thesis, Penn. State. Univ., (1964). - - [69]: On semiperfect and perfect rings, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 21, (1969), 205-207.

Sarath, B. and Varadarajan, K. [74]: Injectivity of direct sums, Comm. Algebra 1, (1974), 517-530. _ _ _ [79]: Dual Goldie dimension II, Comm. Algebra 7, (1979), 1885-1899.

Satyanarayana, B. [85]: On modules with finite spanning dimension, Proc. Japan. Acad. 61, (1985), 23-25. Sharpe, W. D. and Vamos, P. [72]: Injective Modules, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1972. Singh, S. [67]: On J>Seudo-injective modules and self-pseudo-injective rings, J. Math. Sci. India 2, (1967), 23-31. [80]: Dual continuous modules over Dedekind domains, J. Univ. Kuwait (Sci.} 7, (1980), 1--9.

--r..-,

[84]: Semi-dual continuous modules over Dedekind domains, J. Univ. Kuwait (Sci} 11, (1984), 33-39.

--Tn""",

Singh, S. and Mehran, H. A. [P]: A note on weak q-rings. Stenstrom, B. [75]: Rings of Quotients, Springer Verlag, 1975. Stock, J. [86]: On rin~s whose projective modules have the exchange property, J. Algebra 103, (1986 ), 437--453. Suzuki, Y. [68]: On automorphisms of an injective module, Proc. Japan. Acad. 44, (1968), 120-124.

Szeto, G. [77]: The structure of semiperfect rings, Comm. Algebra 5, (1977), 219-229.

120 Swan, R. G. [62]: Vector bundles and projective modules, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 105, (1962), 264-277. Takeuchi, T. [76]: 1-43.

On confinite dimensional modules, Hokkaido Math. J. 5, (1973),

Utumi, Y. [59]: On a theorem on modular lattices, Proc. Japan. Acad. 35, (1959), 16-21. _ _";"""""""; [60]: On continuous regular rings and sernisimple self-injective rings, Canad. J. Math. 12, (1960), 597--605. _ _ _ [61]: On continuous regular rings, Canad. Math. Bull. 4, (1961), 63--69.

- - = [65]: On continuous rings and self-injective rings, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 118, (1965), 158-173. - - = - [66]: On the continuity and self injectivity of a complete regular ring,

Canad. J. Math. 18, (1966) 404-412. _ _ _ [67]: Self-injective rings, J. Algebra 6, (1967), 56--64. Varadarajan, K. [79a]: Modules with supplements, Pacific J. Math. 82, (1979), 559-564. _ _ _ [79b]: Dual Goldie dimension, Comm. Algebra 7, (1979), 565--610. _ _ _ [80]: Study of certain pre-radicals, Comm. Algebra 8, (1980), 185-209. Von Neumann, J. [32]: Verlag, 1932.

Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik, Springer

_ _ _ [36a]: Continuous Geometry, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 22, (1936), 92-100.

---= [36b]: Examples of continuous geometries, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 22, (1936), 101-108. _ _ _ [36c]: On regular rings, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 22, (1936), 707-713. _ _ _ [60]: Continuous Geometries, Princeton Univ. Press, 1960. Wani, P.R. [86]: Study of the S-module Hom (RM, RN) where S thesis, Univ. Calgary, (1986).

= EndRM,

Ph.D.

Ware, R. [71]: Endomorphism rings of projective modules, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 155, (1971) 233-256. Ware, R. and Zelmanowitz, Z. [70]: The Jacobson Radical of the endomorphism ring of a projective module, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 26, (1970), 15-20. Warfield, R. B. [69a]: A Krull-Schrnidt theorem for infinite sums of modules, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 22, (1969), 460-465.

----:= [69b]: Decompositions of injective modules, Pacific J. Math. 31, (1969), 263-276.

121 [72]: Exchange rings and decompositions of modules, Math. Ann. 199, (1972), 31-36. Wisbauer, R. [80]: F-semiperfekte und perfekte Moduln in cr[M], Math. Z. 173, (1980), 229-234. Wong, E. T. and Johnson, R. E. [59]: Self-injective rings, Canad. Math. Bull. 2, (1959), 167-173. Wu, L. E. T. and Jans, J. P. [67]: On quasi-projectives, Illinois J. Math. 11, (1967), 439--448. Yamagata, K. [74al: The exchange property and direct sums of indecomposable injective modules, Pacific J. Math. 55, (1974), 301-317. [74b]: On projective modules with the exchange property, Sci. Rep. Tokyo Ky01ku Daigaku Sec. A, (1974), 149-158.

_ _TT""

Zariski, 0. and Samuel P. [60]: Commutative Algebra II, Van Nostrand, 1960. Zimmerma.Illl-Huisgen, B. and Zimmermann{ W. [84]: Classes of modules with the exchange property, J. Algebra 88, (1984), 416--434. Zollner, A. [86]: On modules that complement direct summands, Osaka J. Math. 23, (1986), 457--459. Zoschinger, H. [74a]: Komplementierte Moduln iiber Dedekindringen, J. Algebra 29, (1974), 42-56. [74b]: Komplemente als direkte Summanden, Arch. Math. 25, (1974), 241-253.

_ _: