MHB Localization - Bijections between prime ideals of R and D^-1R

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Prime
Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on proving a contraction bijection between prime ideals of D^{-1}R and prime ideals of R that do not intersect with D. The contraction map c is defined as c(Q) = π^{-1}(Q) for an ideal Q of D^{-1}R. It is established that if J is a prime ideal of D^{-1}R, then its contraction does not intersect D, leading to the conclusion that c(J) is prime if J is prime. The participants emphasize the need to demonstrate that c is a bijection and provide hints for proving that any prime ideal of D^{-1}R extends to a prime ideal in R with the required intersection property. This exploration aims to clarify the relationship between the prime ideals in the two rings.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Dummit and Foote, Section 15.4: Localization and am currently working on Proposition 38, part 3 (contraction bijection) - see attachments.

I am hoping that someone can demonstrate a proof of the following propostion (without - as D&F do - referring to or relying on translating the result of Exercise 13, Section 7.4)

c maps prime ideals of $$ D^{-1}R $$ to prime ideals P of R where $$ P \cap D = \emptyset $$

Note: c is a contraction of ideals Q of $$ D^{-1}R $$ to R defined as folows:

$$ c: \ D^{-1}R \to R $$

where

$$ c(Q) = \Pi^{-1}(Q) $$ where Q is an ideal of $$ D^{-1}R $$

Hoping someone can help!

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
By an earlier exercise, if $I \cap D \neq \emptyset$, we have ${}^eI = D^{-1}R$, which is not a prime ideal of $D^{-1}R$.

Since $J = {}^e({}^cJ)$ we see that if $J$ is a prime ideal of $D^{-1}R$, it must be the case that ${}^cJ$ does not intersect $D$ (if $D$ is an ideal, this is often expressed as: " ${}^cJ$ does not meet $D$").

D&F do not give a very good characterization of which elements of $R$ are actually in ${}^cJ$.

I claim that ${}^cJ = S = \{a \in R: a/1 \in J\}$.

Suppose $a \in S$. Then $a/1 \in J$

Hence $a \in \pi^{-1}(J) = {}^cJ$.

On the other hand suppose $a \in {}^cJ$. Then $a \in \pi^{-1}(r/d)$ for some $r/d \in J$. From:

$\pi(a)= a/1 = \pi(\pi^{-1}(r/d)) = r/d$, we see that $a/1 \in J$.

It remains to be seen that if $J$ is prime, ${}^cJ$ is prime.

So suppose we have $ab \in {}^cJ$, with $a \not\in {}^cJ$.

This means that $(ab)/1 = (a/1)(b/1) \in J$. Since $a \not\in {}^cJ$,

$a/1 \not\in J$, and since $J$ is prime, $b/1 \in J$, so $b \in {}^cJ$.

I leave it to you to show that $c$ is a bijection of the two sets.

(Hint: show any prime ideal of $D^{-1}R$ is an extension of a prime ideal $I$ in $R$ with $I \cap D = \emptyset$).
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
905
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
835
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K