Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
- 3,920
- 48
I am reading Dummit and Foote Ch 15, Commutative Rings and Algebraic Geometry. In Section 15.1 Noetherian Rings and Affine Algebraic Sets, Example 2 on page 660 reads as follows: (see attachment)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Over any field k, the ideal of functions vanishing at (a_1, a_2, ... ... ... a_n) \in \mathbb{A}^n is a maximal ideal since it is the kernel of the surjective ring homomorphism from k[x_1, x_2, ... ... x_n] to the field k given by evaluation at (a_1, a_2, ... ... ... a_n).
It follows that \mathcal{I}((a_1, a_2, ... ... ... a_n)) = (x - a_1, x - a_2, ... ... ... , x - a_n)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can see that (x - a_1, x - a_2, ... ... ... , x - a_n) gives zeros for each polynomial in k[ \mathbb{A}^n ] - indeed, to take a specific example involving \mathbb{R} [x,y] we have for, let us say, a particular polynomial g \in \mathbb{R} [x,y] where g is as follows:
g(x,y) = 6(x - a_1)^3 + 11(x - a_1)^2(y - a_2) + 12(y - a_2)^2
so in this case, clearly g(a_1, a_2) = 0 ... ... ... and, of course, other polynomials in \mathbb{R} [x,y] similarly.
BUT ... ... I cannot understand D&Fs reference to maximal ideals. Why is it necessary to reason about maximal ideals.
Since I am obviously missing something, can someone please help by explaining what is going on in this example.
Another issue I have is why do D&F write \mathcal{I}((a_1, a_2, ... ... ... a_n)) with 'double' parentheses and not just \mathcal{I}(a_1, a_2, ... ... ... a_n)?
Would appreciate some help.
Peter
Note - see attachment for definition of \mathcal{I}(A)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Over any field k, the ideal of functions vanishing at (a_1, a_2, ... ... ... a_n) \in \mathbb{A}^n is a maximal ideal since it is the kernel of the surjective ring homomorphism from k[x_1, x_2, ... ... x_n] to the field k given by evaluation at (a_1, a_2, ... ... ... a_n).
It follows that \mathcal{I}((a_1, a_2, ... ... ... a_n)) = (x - a_1, x - a_2, ... ... ... , x - a_n)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can see that (x - a_1, x - a_2, ... ... ... , x - a_n) gives zeros for each polynomial in k[ \mathbb{A}^n ] - indeed, to take a specific example involving \mathbb{R} [x,y] we have for, let us say, a particular polynomial g \in \mathbb{R} [x,y] where g is as follows:
g(x,y) = 6(x - a_1)^3 + 11(x - a_1)^2(y - a_2) + 12(y - a_2)^2
so in this case, clearly g(a_1, a_2) = 0 ... ... ... and, of course, other polynomials in \mathbb{R} [x,y] similarly.
BUT ... ... I cannot understand D&Fs reference to maximal ideals. Why is it necessary to reason about maximal ideals.
Since I am obviously missing something, can someone please help by explaining what is going on in this example.
Another issue I have is why do D&F write \mathcal{I}((a_1, a_2, ... ... ... a_n)) with 'double' parentheses and not just \mathcal{I}(a_1, a_2, ... ... ... a_n)?
Would appreciate some help.
Peter
Note - see attachment for definition of \mathcal{I}(A)
Attachments
Last edited: