The set of all prime ideals in a commutative ring
is called the spectrum of
and denoted by
. (The motivation for the term comes from the theory of a commutative Banach algebra.)
Spec A
The set of all nilpotent elements in
forms an ideal called the nilradical of
. Given any ideal
, the pre-image of the nilradical of
is an ideal called the radical of
and denoted by
. Explicitly,
if and only if
for some
.
Proposition A.14.
Let

.
- (i)

- (ii)

Proof. Routine.
Exercise.
A ring has only one prime ideal if and only if its nilradical is maximal.
Exercise.
Every prime ideal in a finite ring is maximal.
Proposition A.2.
Let

be a ring. If every principal ideal in

is prime, then

is a field.
Proof. Let
. Since
is in
, which is prime,
. Thus, we can write
. Since
is prime,
is a domain. Hence,
.
Lemma.
Let

. Then

is prime if and only if
implies 
Proof. (
) Clear. (
) Let
be the image of
in
. Suppose
is a zero-divisor; that is,
for some
. Let
, and
. Since
, and
is strictly larger than
, by the hypothesis,
. That is,
.
Theorem A.11 (multiplicative avoidance).
Let

be a multiplicative system. If

is disjoint from

, then there exists a prime ideal

that is maximal among ideals disjoint from

.
Proof. Let
be a maximal element in the set of all ideals disjoint from
. Let
and
be ideals strictly larger than
. Since
is maximal, we find
and
. By the definition of
,
; thus,
. By the lemma,
is prime then.
Note that the theorem applies in particular when
contains only 1.
Exercise.
A domain A is a principal ideal domain if every prime ideal is principal.
A Goldman domain is a domain whose field of fractions
is finitely generated as an algebra. When
is a Goldman domain, K always has the form
. Indeed, if
, let
. Then
.
Lemma.
Let

be a domain with the field of fractions

, and

. Then
![{\displaystyle K=A[f^{-1}]}](../ad99172ebebd6a8c9ade9a6f616a1e47739e7092.svg)
if and only if every nonzero prime ideal of

contains

.
Proof. (
) Let
, and
. If
is disjoint from
, then, by the lemma, there is a prime ideal disjoint from
, contradicting the hypothesis. Thus,
contains some power of
, say,
. Then
and so
are invertible in
(
) If
is a nonzero prime ideal, it contains a nonzero element, say,
. Then we can write:
, or
; thus,
.
A prime ideal
is called a Goldman ideal if
is a Goldman domain.
Theorem A.21.
Let

be a ring and

. Then

is the intersection of all minimal Goldman ideals of
A containing

Proof. By the ideal correspondence, it suffices to prove the case
. Let
. Let
. Since
is not nilpotent (or it will be in
), by multiplicative avoidance, there is some prime ideal
not containing
. It remains to show it is a Goldman ideal. But if
is a nonzero prime, then
since
collapses to zero if it is disjoint from
. By Lemma, the field of fractions of
is obtained by inverting
and so
is a Goldman ideal. Hence, the intersection of all Goldman ideals reduces to zero.
In some rings, Goldman ideals are maximal; this will be discussed in the next section. On the other hand,
Lemma.
Let

. Then

is a Goldman ideal if and only if it is the contraction of a maximal ideal in
![{\displaystyle A[X]}](../40abd94a808a2369931fac9811cbd1cbdd44497d.svg)
.
Theorem.
Proof. Clear.
A ring satisfying the equivalent conditions in the theorem is called a Hilbert-Jacobson ring.
Lemma.
Let

be domains such that

is algebraic and of finite type over

. Then

is a Goldman domain if and only if

is a Goldman domain.
Proof. Let
be the fields of fractions of
and
, respectively.
Theorem A.19.
Let

be a Hilbert-Jacobson ring. Then
![{\displaystyle A[X]}](../40abd94a808a2369931fac9811cbd1cbdd44497d.svg)
is a Hilbert-Jacobson ring.
Proof. Let
be a Goldman ideal, and
. It follows from Lemma something that
is a Goldman domain since it is contained in a
, a Goldman domain. Since
is a Hilbert-Jacobson ring,
is maximal and so
is a field and so
is a field; that is,
is maximal.
Theorem A.5 (prime avoidance).
Let

be ideals, at most two of which are not prime, and

. If

, then

for some

.
Proof. We shall induct on
to find
that is in no
. The case
being trivial, suppose we find
such that
for
. We assume
; else, we're done. Moreover, if
for some
, then the theorem applies without
and so this case is done by by the inductive hypothesis. We thus assume
for all
. Now,
; if not, since
is prime, one of the ideals in the left is contained in
, contradiction. Hence, there is
in the left that is not in
. It follows that
for all
. Finally, we remark that the argument works without assuming
and
are prime. (TODO: too sketchy.) The proof is thus complete.
An element p of a ring is a prime if
is prime, and is an irreducible if
either
or
is a unit..
We write
if
, and say
divides
. In a domain, a prime element is irreducible. (Suppose
. Then either
or
, say, the former. Then
, and
. Canceling
out we see
is a unit.) The converse is false in general. We have however:
Proposition.
Suppose: for every

and

,

whenever (1) is the only principal ideal containing

. Then every irreducible is a prime.
Proof. Let
be an irreducible, and suppose
and
. Since
implies
and
, there is a
such that
. But then
and so
(
is an irreducible.) Thus,
.
Theorem A.16 (Chinese remainder theorem).
Let

. If

, then

is exact.
The Jacobson radical of a ring
is the intersection of all maximal ideals.
Proposition A.6.

is in the Jacobson radical if and only if

is a unit for every

.
Proof. Let
be in the Jacobson radical. If
is not a unit, it is in a maximal ideal
. But then we have:
, which is a sum of elements in
; thus, in
, contradiction. Conversely, suppose
is not in the Jacobson radical; that is, it is not in some maximal ideal
. Then
is an ideal containing
but strictly larger. Thus, it contains
, and we can write:
with
and
. Then
, and
would cease to be proper, unless
is a non-unit.
Note that the nilradical is contained in the Jacobson radical, and they coincide in particular if prime ideals are maximal (e.g., the ring is a principal ideal domain). Another instance of this is:
Exercise.
In
![{\displaystyle A[X]}](../40abd94a808a2369931fac9811cbd1cbdd44497d.svg)
, the nilradical and the Jacobson radical coincide.
Theorem A.17 (Hopkins).
Let
A be a ring. Then the following are equivalent.
- A is artinian
- A is noetherian and every prime ideal is maximal.
is finite and discrete, and
is noetherian for all maximal ideal
.
Proof. (1)
(3): Let
be prime, and
. Since
is artinian (consider the short exact sequence), the descending sequence
stabilizes eventually; i.e.,
for some unit u. Since
is a domain,
is a unit then. Hence,
is maximal and so
is discrete. It remains to show that it is finite. Let
be the set of all finite intersections of maximal ideals. Let
be its minimal element, which we have by (1). We write
. Let
be an arbitrary maximal ideal. Then
and so
by minimality. Thus,
for some i. (3)
(2): We only have to show
is noetherian.
A ring is said to be local if it has only one maximal ideal.
Proposition A.17.
Proof. (1)
(2): If
is a non-unit, then
is the Jacobson radical; thus,
is a unit by Proposition A.6. (2)
(3): Let
, and suppose
is a non-unit. If
is a unit, then so are
and
. Thus,
is a non-unit. Suppose
are non-units; we show that
is a non-unit by contradiction. If
is a unit, then there exists a unit
such that
. Thus either
or
is a unit, whence either
or
is a unit, a contradiction. (3)
(1): Let
be the set of non-units. If
is maximal, it consists of nonunits; thus,
where we have the equality by the maximality of
.
Example.
If

is a prime ideal, then

is a local ring where

is its unique maximal ideal.
Example.
If

is maximal, then

is a local ring. In particular,

is local for any maximal ideal

.
Let
be a local noetherian ring.
A. Lemma
- (i) Let
be a proper ideal of
. If
is a finite generated
-module, then
.
- (ii) The intersection of all
over
is trivial.
Proof: We prove (i) by the induction on the number of generators. Suppose
cannot be generated by strictly less than
generators, and suppose we have
that generates
. Then, in particular,
where
are in
,
and thus

Since
is not a unit,
is a unit; in fact, if
is not a unit, it belongs to a unique maximal ideal
, which contains every non-units, in particular,
, and thus
, which is nonsense. Thus we find that actually x_2, ..., x_n generates
; this contradicts the inductive hypothesis.
An ideal
is said to be primary if every zero-divisor in
is nilpotent. Explicitly, this means that, whenever
and
,
. In particular, a prime ideal is primary.
Proposition.
If

is primary, then

is prime. Conversely, if

is maximal, then

is primary.
Proof. The first part is clear. Conversely, if
is maximal, then
is a maximal ideal in
. It must be unique and so
is local. In particular, a zero-divisor in
is nonunit and so is contained in
; hence, nilpotent.
Exercise.

prime

primary.
Theorem A.8 (Primary decomposition).
Let

be a noetherian ring. If

, then

is a finite intersection of primary ideals.
Proof. Let
be the set of all ideals that is not a finite intersection of primary ideals. We want to show
is empty. Suppose not, and let
be its maximal element. We can write
as an intersection of two ideals strictly larger than
. Indeed, since
is not prime by definition in particular, choose
and
such that
. As in the proof of Theorem A.3, we can write:
where
is the set of all
such that
. By maximality,
. Thus, they are finite intersections of primary ideals, but then so is
, contradiction.
Proposition.
If

is indecomposable, then the set of zero divisors is a union of minimal primes.
Integral extension
Let
be rings. If
is a root of a monic polynomial
, then
is said to be integral over
. If every element of
is integral over
, then we say
is integral over
or
is an integral extension of
. More generally, we say a ring morphism
is integral if the image of
is integral over
. By replacing
with
, it suffices to study the case
, and that's what we will below do.
Lemma A.9.
Proof. (1) means that we can write:

Thus,
spans
. Hence, (1)
(2). Since (2)
(3) vacuously, it remains to show (3)
(1). Let
be generated over
by
. Since
, we can write

where
. Denoting by
the matrix
, this means that
annihilates
. Hence,
by (3). Noting
is a monic polynomial in
we get (1).
The set of all elements in B that are integral over A is called the integral closure of A in B. By the lemma, the integral closure is a subring of
containing
. (Proof: if
and
are integral elements, then
and
are contained in
, finite over
.) It is also clear that integrability is transitive; that is, if
is integral over
and
is integral over
, then
is integral over
.
Proposition.
Proof. (i) Suppose
is a field, and let
. Since
and is integral over
, we can write:

Multiplying both sides by
we see
. For the rest, let
. We have an integral equation:
.
Since
is a domain, if
is the minimal degree of a monic polynomial that annihilates
, then it must be that
. This shows that
, giving us (ii). Also, if
is a field, then
is invertible and so is
.
Theorem (Noether normalization).
Let

be a finitely generated

-algebra. Then we can find

such that
is integral over
.
are algebraically independent over
.
are a separating transcendence basis of the field of fractions
of
if
is separable over
.
Exercise A.10 (Artin-Tate).
Let

be rings. Suppose

is noetherian. If

is finitely generated as an

-algebra and integral over

, then

is finitely generated as an

-algebra.
Exercise.
A ring morphism

(where

is an algebraically closed field) extends to
![{\displaystyle F:A[b]\to \Omega }](../c828706fb105401f48f9fe8f28e38667aa14a36f.svg)
(Answer:
http://www.math.uiuc.edu/~r-ash/ComAlg/)
Noetherian rings
Exercise.
The next theorem furnishes many examples of a noetherian ring.
Theorem A.7 (Hilbert basis).

is a noetherian ring if and only if
![{\displaystyle A[T_{1},...T_{n}]}](../677546759f035fa8112cafe3a299c1d129d301f8.svg)
is noetherian.
Proof. By induction it suffices to prove
is noetherian. Let
. Let
be the set of all coefficients of polynomials of degree
in
. Since
, there exists
such that
.
For each
, choose finitely many elements
of
whose coefficients
generate
. Let
be an ideal generated by
for all
. We claim
. It is clear that
. We prove the opposite inclusion by induction on the degree of polynomials in
. Let
,
the leading coefficient of
and
the degree of
. Then
. If
, then

In particular, if
, then
has degree strictly less than that of
and so by the inductive hypothesis
. Since
,
then. If
, then
and the same argument shows
.
Exercise.
Let

be the ring of continuous functions
![{\displaystyle f:[0,1]\to [0,1]}](../f64956bbc19d5bbe642fd7bf4f1aa62487006f4d.svg)
.

is not noetherian.
Let
be a noetherian local ring with
. Let
. Then
is called an ideal of definition if
is artinian.
Theorem.

The local ring
is said to be regular if the equality holds in the above.
Theorem.
Let

be a noetherian ring. Then
![{\displaystyle \dim A[T_{1},...,T_{n}]=n+\dim A}](../501367e7288dd75b9e62ef82ca42fcc924684e69.svg)
.
Proof. By induction, it suffices to prove the case
.
Theorem.
Let

be a finite-dimensional

-algebra. If

is a domain with the field of fractions

, then

.
Proof. By the noether normalization lemma,
is integral over
where
are algebraically independent over
. Thus,
. On the other hand,
.
Theorem.
Let

be a domain with (ACCP). Then

is a UFD if and only if every prime ideal

of height 1 is principal.
Proof. (
) By Theorem A.10,
contains a prime element
. Then

where the second inclusion must be equality since
has height 1. (
) In light of Theorem A.10, it suffices to show that
is a GCD domain. (TODO: complete the proof.)
Theorem.
A regular local ring is a UFD.
Theorem A.10 (Krull's intersection theorem).
Let

be a proper ideal. If

is either a noetherian domain or a local ring, then

.
Theorem A.15.
Let

. If

is noetherian,
for some
.
In particular, the nilradical of

is nilpotent.
Proof. It suffices to prove this when
. Thus, the proof reduces to proving that the nilradical of A is nilpotent. Since
is nilpotent, we have finitely many nilpotent elements
that spans
. The power of any linear combination of them is then a sum of terms that contain the high power of some
if we take the sufficiently high power. Thus,
is nilpotent.
Proposition A.8.
If

is noetherian, then

is noetherian.
Corollary.
If

is noetherian, then
![{\displaystyle A[[X]]}](../6859aedb35d49362a6fea7725d7cc9c2f6301fd2.svg)
is noetherian.
Zariski topology
Given
, let
. (Note that
.) It is easy to see
, and
.
It follows that the collection of the sets of the form
includes the empty set and
and is closed under intersection and finite union. In other words, we can define a topology for
by declaring
to be closed sets. The resulting topology is called the Zariski topology. Let
, and write
.
Proposition A.16.
Proof. We have:
.
Exercise.
Let

be a local ring. Then

is connected.
Corollary.

is a closed surjection.
Theorem A.12.
If

is noetherian for every maximal ideal

and if

is finite for each

, then

is noetherian.
Integrally closed domain
Lemma A.8.
In a GCD domain, if

, then

.
Proposition A.9.
In a GCD domain, every irreducible element is prime.
Proof. Let
be an irreducible, and suppose
. Then
. If
,
is a unit, the case we tacitly ignore. Thus, by the lemma,
, say, is a nonunit. Since
is irreducible,
and so
.
In particular, in a polynomial ring that is a GCD domain, every irreducible polynomial is a prime element.
Theorem (undefined: ACC).
Let
A be a ring that satisfies the ascending chain conditions on principal ideals (example: noetherian ring). Then every
x in

is a finite product of irreducibles.
Theorem A.10.
Let

be a domain. The following are equivalent.
- Every nonzero nonunit element is a finite product of prime elements.
- (Kaplansky) Every nonzero prime ideal contains a prime element.
is a GCD domain and has (ACC) on principal ideals.
Proof. (3)
(2): Let
. If
is nonzero, it then contains a nonzero element x, which we factor into irreducibles:
. Then
for some
. Finally, irreducibles are prime since
is a GCD domain. (2)
(1): Let
be the set of all products of prime elements. Clearly,
satisfies the hypothesis of Theorem A.11 (i.e., closed under multiplication). Suppose, on the contrary, there is a nonzero nonunit
. It is easy to see that since
,
and
are disjoint. Thus, by Theorem A.11, there is a prime ideal
containing
and disjoint from
. But, by (2),
contains a prime element
; that is,
intersects
, contradiction. (1)
(3): By uniqueness of factorization, it is clear that
is a GCD domain.
A domain satisfying the equivalent conditions in the theorem is called a unique factorization domain or a UFD for short.
Corollary.
If

is a UFD, then
![{\displaystyle A[X]}](../40abd94a808a2369931fac9811cbd1cbdd44497d.svg)
is a UFD. If A is a principal ideal domain, then
![{\displaystyle A[[X]]}](../6859aedb35d49362a6fea7725d7cc9c2f6301fd2.svg)
is a UFD.
Theorem A.13 (Nagata criterion).
Let
A be a domain, and

a multiplicatively closed subset generated by prime elements. Then

is a UFD if and only if

is a UFD.