MHB Northcott - Sums and Products of Ideals

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Sums
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on a result from D.G. Northcott's book regarding sums and products of ideals in ring theory. A specific statement is examined, asserting that the sum of products of ideals, denoted as Σ A_i B_j, is contained within the product of the sums of those ideals, (A_1 + ... + A_m)(B_1 + ... + B_n). The reasoning provided emphasizes that both the product of ideals and the sum of ideals are closed under addition, confirming the inclusion. Participants express appreciation for the clarity of the explanation. The conversation effectively clarifies a key concept in the study of prime ideals and primary submodules.
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 a result that Northcott quotes and proves on page 80 regarding sums and products of ideals.

The relevant text from Northcott reads as follows:

View attachment 3729

In the above text we read:

" ... ... Accordingly

$$ A_i B_j \subseteq (A_1 + A_2 + \ ... \ + A_m ) ( B_1 + B_2 + \ ... \ + B_n ) $$

and therefore

$$ \sum_{i,j} A_i B_j \subseteq (A_1 + A_2 + \ ... \ + A_m ) ( B_1 + B_2 + \ ... \ + B_n ) $$ ... ... "Can someone explain (formally and rigorously) exactly why it follows that:

$$\sum_{i,j} A_i B_j \subseteq (A_1 + A_2 + \ ... \ + A_m ) ( B_1 + B_2 + \ ... \ + B_n )$$ ... ... ?Hope someone can help ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Peter,

The reason why it follows that $\sum_{i,j} A_iB_j \subseteq (A_1 + \cdots + A_m)(B_1 + \cdots + B_n)$ is that $(A_1 + \cdots + A_m)(B_1 + \cdots B_n)$ is closed under addition. Remember, the product of two ideals of a ring is an ideal, so in particular, it is closed under addition. Also note that (finite) sum of ideals of a ring is an ideal -- that's why $A_1 + \cdots + A_m$ and $B_1 + \cdots + B_m$ are ideals of $R$.
 
Euge said:
Hi Peter,

The reason why it follows that $\sum_{i,j} A_iB_j \subseteq (A_1 + \cdots + A_m)(B_1 + \cdots + B_n)$ is that $(A_1 + \cdots + A_m)(B_1 + \cdots B_n)$ is closed under addition. Remember, the product of two ideals of a ring is an ideal, so in particular, it is closed under addition. Also note that (finite) sum of ideals of a ring is an ideal -- that's why $A_1 + \cdots + A_m$ and $B_1 + \cdots + B_m$ are ideals of $R$.
Thanks Euge,

Yes, follow that ... most clear and helpful ...

Thanks again,

Peter
 
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 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K