MHB Noetherian Rings - Dummit and Foote - Chapter 15 - Exercise 2a

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Exercise Rings
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on demonstrating that the ring of continuous real-valued functions on [0, 1] is not Noetherian by providing an infinite increasing chain of ideals. Participants suggest two methods: one involves using the ideals of functions that vanish on the interval [0, 1/n], while the other utilizes the principal ideals generated by the functions f_n(x) = x^(1/n). Both approaches effectively illustrate the non-Noetherian property of the ring. The exchange highlights the different perspectives of algebraists and analysts in tackling the problem. Ultimately, the exercise showcases the richness of ideal theory in functional analysis.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
In Dummit and Foote Chapter 15 Exercise 2(a) on page 668 reads as follows:

Show that the following ring is not Noetherian by exhibiting an explicit infinite increasing chain of ideals:

- the ring of continuous real valued functions on [0, 1]I would appreciate help on this exercise.

Peter

[This has also been posted on MHF]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
In Dummit and Foote Chapter 15 Exercise 2(a) on page 668 reads as follows:

Show that the following ring is not Noetherian by exhibiting an explicit infinite increasing chain of ideals:

- the ring of continuous real valued functions on [0, 1]I would appreciate help on this exercise.
You could take the n'th ideal to be the set of continuous functions on [0,1] that vanish on the interval [0,1/n].
 
Another solution. Let the nth ideal be the principle ideal generated by the function $$f_n(x)=x^{1/n}$$.
 
johng said:
Another solution. Let the nth ideal be the principal ideal generated by the function $$f_n(x)=x^{1/n}$$.
That is the algebraist's solution, mine was the analyst's solution. (Handshake) (Smile)
 
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 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K