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
 
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
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K