MHB Northcott - Proposition 3 - Inductive Systems Maximal Elements are Prime Ideals

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading D.G. Northcott's book: Lessons on Rings and Modules and Multiplicities.

I am currently studying Chapter 2: Prime Ideals and Primary Submodules.

I need help with an aspect of the proof Proposition 3 in Chapter 2 concerning the demonstration that all the maximal elements of $$\Omega$$ are prime ideals.Proposition 3 and its proof read as follows:

https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/3714
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/3715

In Northcott's proof above, we read the following:

" ... ... Let $$C$$ consist of all elements that can be expressed in the form $$r \alpha + \pi$$ where $$r \in R$$ and $$\pi \in P$$. It is a simple matter to check that $$C$$ is an ideal containing $$P$$. Indeed, since $$\alpha = 1 \alpha + 0$$, $$\alpha \in C$$ and therefore C strictly contains P. However P is maximal in $$\Omega$$. It therefore follows that $$C$$ meets $$S$$. ... ... "

I do not fully understand why, in the above argument, it follows that $$C$$ meets $$S$$.

Can someone show formally and rigorously whhy, exactly, it follows that $$C$$ meets $$S$$.

Help will be appreciated ... ...

Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,

$P$ is maximal in the set of ideals that do not intersect $S$, and $C$ properly contains $P$, so $P$ can't be in this set, but it's still an ideal, so it must intersect $S$
 
Fallen Angel said:
Hi Peter,

$P$ is maximal in the set of ideals that do not intersect $S$, and $C$ properly contains $P$, so $P$ can't be in this set, but it's still an ideal, so it must intersect $S$

Thanks for the help, Fallen Angel, but i need further help on this matter ...You write:

"... $P$ is maximal in the set of ideals that do not intersect $S$ ... "

Yes, understand this ...
You then write:

" ... $C$ properly contains $P$ ..."

Yes, follow this as well ...
BUT ... then you write:

" ... so $P$ can't be in this set ... "I do not really follow ... which set do you mean when you say "this set" ...Can you please clarify ...

... ... ... ... thinking further ... ...
... ... I suspect that you mean $$\Omega$$ by "this set" ... but then $$P$$ is a maximal element in this set ... so then doesn't it follow that $$P$$ is in this set (is that correct?)

I am thinking it may be that a maximal element of $$\Omega$$ need not be in $$\Omega$$ ... ... I have been assuming that if $$P$$ is a maximal element of $$\Omega$$ then $$P \in \Omega$$ ...

Can you clarify this matter ...

Peter
***EDIT***

It appears that my thoughts - see above:

" ... ... I am thinking it may be that a maximal element of $$\Omega$$ need not be in $$\Omega$$ ... ...

are not correct ...

On page 71, Northcott writes the following:" ... ... An element $$\mu$$ of $$\Omega$$ is called a maximal element if from $$x \in \Omega$$ and $$\mu \le x$$ follows $$x = \mu$$. ... ... "So, from this definition we have that a maximal element of $$\Omega$$ belongs to the set $$\Omega$$.
 
Last edited:
Hi Peter,

You're right, there was a typo

Fallen Angel said:
Hi Peter,

$P$ is maximal in the set of ideals that do not intersect $S$, and $C$ properly contains $P$, so $\color{red}C\color{black}$ can't be in this set ($\color{red}\Omega \color{black}$ ), but it's still an ideal, so it must intersect $S$
 
Fallen Angel said:
Hi Peter,

You're right, there was a typo

Thanks Fallen Angel, I think I get this now ... thanks to you!

Since $$C$$ properly contains $$P$$, then $$C$$ cannot be in $$\Omega$$ because $$P$$ is maximal in $$\Omega$$, and so no element in $$\Omega$$ can contain $$P$$ (by definition of maximality).

... ... and then, since $$C$$ is an ideal that is not in $$\Omega$$, then it must intersect $$S$$ (since by definition $$\Omega$$ is the set of all ideals which do not meet $$S$$).By the way ... thanks for all your help on this issue/problem ... ...

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...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top