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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Functions
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
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...
Back
Top