When an $\mathscr{S}$-closed submodule is a direct summand

Details When an $\mathscr{S}$-closed submodule is a direct summand When an $\mathscr{S}$-closed submodule is a direct summand

2010-05-02

arxiv.org/abs/1005.0132v1

Mathematics

Rings and Algebras

8 pages

Scientific paper

It is well known that a direct sum of CLS-modules is not, in general, a CLS-module. It is proved that if $M=M_1\oplus M_2$, where $M_1$ and $M_2$ are CLS-modules such that $M_1$ and $M_2$ are relatively ojective (or $M_1$ is $M_2$-ejective), then $M$ is a CLS-module and some known results are generalized. Tercan [8] proved that if a module $M=M_{1}\oplus M_{2}$ where $M_{1}$ and $M_{2}$ are CS-modules such that $M_{1}$ is $M_{2}$-injective, then $M$ is a CS-module if and only if $Z_{2}(M)$ is a CS-module. Here we will show that Tercan's claim is not true.

Affiliated with

Also associated with

No associations

Rating

When an $\mathscr{S}$-closed submodule is a direct summand does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this scientific paper.

If you have personal experience with When an $\mathscr{S}$-closed submodule is a direct summand, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and When an $\mathscr{S}$-closed submodule is a direct summand will most certainly appreciate the feedback.

Rate now

Comments { 0 }

Profile ID: LFWR-SCP-O-723864