Ideal of functions disappearing at (a_1, a_2, .... .... , a_n)

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Functions
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding concepts in elementary algebraic geometry, specifically focusing on the ideal of functions that vanish at a given point in affine space, as presented in Dummit and Foote's textbook. Participants are exploring the implications of this ideal being the kernel of a surjective ring homomorphism and its relation to maximal ideals.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Peter seeks clarification on Example (2) from Dummit and Foote regarding the ideal of functions vanishing at a point in affine space.
  • Some participants explain that the surjective ring homomorphism $\psi$ evaluates polynomials at a specific point, linking it to the ideal of functions that vanish at that point.
  • It is noted that the ideal is the kernel of the evaluation morphism, which leads to the conclusion that it is a maximal ideal, contingent on the understanding of quotient rings being fields.
  • There is a suggestion that Dummit and Foote may not provide sufficient depth in algebraic geometry, with recommendations for alternative texts like Eisenbud's and Reid's books.
  • Peter expresses a preference for more elementary texts to build foundational understanding before tackling more advanced material.
  • Some participants agree on the advanced nature of Eisenbud's work and suggest other undergraduate texts that may provide a better balance of theory and exercises.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need for foundational understanding in algebraic geometry and the usefulness of alternative texts. However, there is no consensus on the best approach or material to achieve this understanding, as preferences for different levels of complexity and pedagogical styles vary.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations include the participants' varying levels of familiarity with ring theory and algebraic geometry, which may affect their interpretations and understanding of the concepts discussed.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and learners of algebraic geometry and commutative algebra, particularly those seeking foundational resources and clarifications on specific concepts related to ideals and ring homomorphisms.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am trying to gain an understanding of the basics of elementary algebraic geometry and am reading Dummit and Foote Chapter 15: Commutative Rings and Algebraic Geometry ...

At present I am focused on Section 15.1 Noetherian Rings and Affine Algebraic Sets ... ...

I need someone to help me to fully understand the reasoning/analysis behind the statements in Example (2) on Page 660 of D&F ...

On page 660 (in Section 15.1) of D&F we find the following text and examples (I am specifically focused on Example (2)):
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/4742

I need help with understanding the analysis/proof/thinking behind the statement of Example 2.

Could someone please explain the basis for the statement of Example 2 regarding the ideal $$I$$, say, of functions vanishing on $$(a_1, a_2, \ ... \ ... \ , a_n) \in \mathbb{A}^n$$ ... ...

Specifically, how (in what way) is $$I$$ the kernel of a surjective ring homomorphism from $$k[ x_1, x_2, \ ... \ ... \ , x_n]$$ to the field $$k$$ ... what exactly is the homomorphism?

Further, why does I being the kernel of such a ring homomorphism imply that $$I$$ is a maximal ideal? Can someone unpack this statement explaining the implication step by step ...

Hope someone can help ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
(fair warning : Dummit-Foote doesn't have much algebraic geometry. I'd recommend Eisenbud's book or Reid's book for learning commutative algebra with a flavor of algebraic geometry)

The surjective ring homomorphism $\psi : k[x_1, \cdots, x_n] \to k$ here is taking a polynomial $f(x_1, x_2, \cdots, x_n)$ and evaluating it at the point $(a_1, \cdots, a_n)$ to obtain the scalar $f(a_1, \cdots, a_n) \in k$. That's it.

Ideal of functions vanishing at $(a_1, \cdots, a_n) \in \Bbb A^n$ is precisely the collection of polynomials $f \in k[x_1, \cdots, x_n]$ such that $f(a_1, \cdots, a_n) = 0$. That said, it's clear that this ideal is kernel of the evaluation morphism $\psi$, and thus is a maximal ideal. (Recall that an ideal is maximal iff quotient ring is a field)
 
mathbalarka said:
(fair warning : Dummit-Foote doesn't have much algebraic geometry. I'd recommend Eisenbud's book or Reid's book for learning commutative algebra with a flavor of algebraic geometry)

The surjective ring homomorphism $\psi : k[x_1, \cdots, x_n] \to k$ here is taking a polynomial $f(x_1, x_2, \cdots, x_n)$ and evaluating it at the point $(a_1, \cdots, a_n)$ to obtain the scalar $f(a_1, \cdots, a_n) \in k$. That's it.

Ideal of functions vanishing at $(a_1, \cdots, a_n) \in \Bbb A^n$ is precisely the collection of polynomials $f \in k[x_1, \cdots, x_n]$ such that $f(a_1, \cdots, a_n) = 0$. That said, it's clear that this ideal is kernel of the evaluation morphism $\psi$, and thus is a maximal ideal. (Recall that an ideal is maximal iff quotient ring is a field)

Hi Mathbalarka,

Just reflecting on what you have said ...

I do have Eisenbud's book and it looks really interesting ... but I think I need something more elementary ... just to start with anyway ...

Peter
 
I do agree that Eisenbud is pretty advanced. However, if you know enough ring theory (which I think you do), you can start off with Atiyah-MacDonald and Reid's Undergraduate Commutative Algebra. Both are undergrad books, and complement each another quite well in the sense that A-M's theory is dry, but exercises are good and Reid's exercises are not-so-good, but the theory is excellent. It provides a lot of geometric intuition for a few things.
 
mathbalarka said:
I do agree that Eisenbud is pretty advanced. However, if you know enough ring theory (which I think you do), you can start off with Atiyah-MacDonald and Reid's Undergraduate Commutative Algebra. Both are undergrad books, and complement each another quite well in the sense that A-M's theory is dry, but exercises are good and Reid's exercises are not-so-good, but the theory is excellent. It provides a lot of geometric intuition for a few things.
Hi Mathbalarka,

Am now referencing Reid's book on Commutative Algebra and also his book on Algebraic Geometry ... thanks for the lead to Miles Reid's books ... ...

I will try to finish the Chapter in Dummit and Foote ... because I really like D&Fs exposition of mathematics ... then work a bit with Reid's books ... and then try Eisenbud again ... ...

By the way ... thanks again on the excellent advice regarding helpful books ... ...

Peter
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K