A standard fact in commutative algebra:
Let $A$ be a ring in which there exists some finite number of maximal ideals whose product is $0$. Then $A$ is Artinian iff $A$ is Noetherian.
The usual proof involves noting that each $\frac{m_1...m_{i-1}}{m_1...m_i}$ is naturally an $\frac{A}{m_i}$-module. You look at a short exact sequence $$0 \rightarrow m_1...m_i \rightarrow m_1...m_{i-1} \rightarrow \frac{m_1...m_{i-1}}{m_1...m_i} \rightarrow 0 $$
and argue that the middle module is Artinian/Noetherian iff the other two are Artinian/Noetherian. Then by decreasing induction, each $m_1...m_i$ is Artinian iff it is Noetherian. In particular, for $i=0$, you get the desired result.
My question is, why is it OK to conflate $A$ being Noetherian (over itself), and $A$ being Noetherian as an $\frac{A}{m_i}$-module?
Surely there's a difference between the notion of being Artinian/Noetherian as $\frac{A}{m_i}$-modules, and being Artinian/Noetherian as $A$-modules. So for instance how can we justify using the assumption that the $\frac{A}{m_i}$-module $\frac{m_1...m_{i-1}}{m_1...m_i}$ is Noetherian to deduce anything about $A$ being Noetherian as a module over itself?
(For full details of the standard proof see Lemma 2.15 here: https://people.kth.se/~laksov/courses/algebradr01/notes/chains2.pdf)