MHB Primary Ideals, prime ideals and maximal ideals - D&F Section 15.2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Prime Section
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am studying Dummit and Foote Section 15.2. I am trying to understand the proof of Proposition 19 Part (5) on page 682 (see attachment)

Proposition 19 Part (5) reads as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposition 19.

... ...

(5) Suppose M is a maximal ideal and Q is an ideal with M^n \subseteq Q \subseteq M for some n \ge 1.

Then Q is a primary idea, with rad Q = M

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The proof of (5) above reads as follows:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proof.

Suppose M^n \subseteq Q \subseteq M for some n \ge 1 where M is a maximal idea.

Then Q \subseteq M so rad \ Q \subseteq rad \ M = M.

... ... etc

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My problem is as follows:

Why can we be sure that rad M = M?

I know that M is maximal and so no ideal in R can contain M. We also know that M \subseteq rad \ M

Thus either rad M = M (the conclusion D&F use) or rad M = R?

How do we know that rad \ M \ne R?

Would appreciate some help.

Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Like you said, we have M \subseteq \mbox{Rad} \ M which implies that M = \mbox{Rad}\ M as M is a maximal ideal. Why is \mbox{Rad} \ M \neq R? Suppose that \mbox{Rad} \ M = R then M=R but that's impossible by definition of a maximal ideal.
 
Siron said:
Like you said, we have M \subseteq \mbox{Rad} \ M which implies that M = \mbox{Rad}\ M as M is a maximal ideal. Why is \mbox{Rad} \ M \neq R? Suppose that \mbox{Rad} \ M = R then M=R but that's impossible by definition of a maximal ideal.


Thanks for the helpful post, Siron

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