Irreducible Components in a Primary Decomposition

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the topic of primary decompositions in a Noetherian ring, specifically addressing the question of whether the number of irreducible components in two different primary decompositions of an ideal is the same. The scope includes theoretical aspects of ring theory and properties of ideals.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that the result regarding the number of irreducible components is true, referencing uniqueness theorems from a specific textbook.
  • Another participant questions the validity of the result and suggests considering counterexamples that may reveal failures in the assumptions.
  • A participant emphasizes the importance of defining 'primary' and 'prime' ideals in the context of Noetherian rings, suggesting that the definitions are crucial for deducing the result.
  • It is proposed that the decompositions must be irredundant for the result to hold, indicating a potential condition that needs to be satisfied.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the assumptions required for the result to be true, with some asserting the necessity of irredundancy in the decompositions while others challenge the initial premise and seek clarification on definitions.

Contextual Notes

There is an indication that the discussion may be limited by assumptions not explicitly stated, particularly regarding the definitions of primary and prime ideals and the conditions under which the result is claimed to hold.

ircdan
Messages
229
Reaction score
0
Let R be a Noetherian Ring and I an ideal in R.

Let I = Q_1 n ... n Q_r = J_1 n ... n J_r be two primary decompositions of I.

How can I show the number of irreducible components in each decomposition is the same?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Firstly you shoulnd't have r on both sides of that equality. Secondly, you will need to know the definition of 'primary'. So what is it? What does it imply? Does this seem familiar to any other result you know? Is the result even true? (i.e. think about what a counter example might be and see where it fails to satisfy some hypothesis.)
 
matt grime said:
Firstly you shoulnd't have r on both sides of that equality. Secondly, you will need to know the definition of 'primary'. So what is it? What does it imply? Does this seem familiar to any other result you know? Is the result even true? (i.e. think about what a counter example might be and see where it fails to satisfy some hypothesis.)

Matt, thank you very much for your reply. Yes the result is true. I'm assuming all uniqueness theorems found in say, Dummit and Foote. I figured it would be easier to prove with some theory in place, hence why I have r on both sides. Whether I need this or not I don't know, but I figured it might make things easier.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Last edited:
The point was that by writing r on both sides you were assuming the result you wanted to show. And you haven't written out the definition of primary/prime and what it implies in a Noetherian ring. The result will be deducible from the definitions, so what are the definitions? I gave you plenty of help and you ignored it all.
 
i think you need also to assume the decompositions are irredundant, or it is not true.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
48
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K