Prime Ideals of direct sum of Z and Z

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter joeblow
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Direct sum Prime Sum
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on identifying nonzero prime ideals of the direct sum \(\mathbb{Z} \oplus \mathbb{Z}\), particularly those that are not maximal. Participants explore various properties of ideals, including the implications of modding out by prime ideals and the conditions under which certain sets qualify as prime ideals.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant attempts to find nonzero prime ideals in \(\mathbb{Z} \oplus \mathbb{Z}\) and notes that direct sums of prime ideals do not yield a prime ideal.
  • Another participant states that modding out by a prime ideal should yield a domain and questions the nature of the zero ideal.
  • A participant explains that the zero ideal is not prime due to the product of elements resulting in zero not being contained in the ideal.
  • There is a proposal that \(\langle (2,3) \rangle\) could be a prime ideal, while \(\langle (4,6) \rangle\) is suggested as a prime ideal that is not maximal.
  • One participant presents a case where the product of two elements is in an ideal, but neither element is contained in that ideal, raising questions about the nature of prime ideals.
  • Another participant claims that \(p \mathbb{Z} \oplus \mathbb{Z}\) is a prime ideal if \(p\) is prime, but questions whether it is also maximal, suggesting that modding out by it results in a field.
  • A later reply asserts that for any rings \(R\) and \(S\), the prime ideals of \(R \oplus S\) can only take specific forms, leading to the conclusion that the prime ideals of \(\mathbb{Z} \oplus \mathbb{Z}\) are of the form \(p \mathbb{Z} \oplus \mathbb{Z}\).
  • Another participant introduces the idea of \(\mathbb{Z} \oplus p\mathbb{Z}\) and mentions two nonmaximal primes: \(0 \oplus \mathbb{Z}\) and \(\mathbb{Z} \oplus 0\).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the existence of nonmaximal prime ideals in \(\mathbb{Z} \oplus \mathbb{Z}\). While some propose specific ideals and their properties, others challenge these claims, leading to an unresolved discussion regarding the nature and existence of such ideals.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various properties of ideals, including the conditions under which an ideal is considered prime or maximal. The discussion includes assumptions about the structure of ideals in direct sums and the implications of modding out by these ideals, which remain unresolved.

joeblow
Messages
71
Reaction score
0
I am trying to find nonzero prime ideals of \mathbb{Z} \oplus \mathbb {Z}, specifically those which are not also maximal.

If I try to do direct sums of prime ideals, the resulting set is not a prime ideal. (e.g., 2 \mathbb{Z} \oplus 3 \mathbb{Z} is not prime since (3,3) \cdot (2,2) = (6,6)\in 2 \mathbb{Z} \oplus 3 \mathbb{Z}, but (2,2),(3,3) \notin 2 \mathbb{Z} \oplus 3\mathbb{Z}.)

In fact, I don't think a prime ideal could be constructed in this way since I can always take a product of the form (1,x)(y,1) and obtain (y,x) and since 1 isn't a multiple of any integer other than 1, neither of the factors would have come from the ideal.

Can somebody please help me find the prime ideals? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
modding out a prime ideal is supposed to give a domain. does that help?

notice the zero ideal is not prime, why not?
 
0 is not prime because (a,0)(0,b)=0, but (a,0),(0,b)\notin 0.

Okay, so would \langle (2,3) \rangle be a prime ideal and \langle (4,6) \rangle be a prime ideal that is not maximal?

If you mod out by both, I believe you get an ID, but \langle (4,6) \rangle \subset \langle (2,3) \rangle .
 
We have

(2,5)*(5,3)\in <(2,3)>

but neither (2,5), not (5,3) is in the ideal.

What about (\alpha\mathbb{Z})\times \mathbb{Z}
 
Okay, then p \mathbb{Z} \oplus \mathbb{Z} is a prime ideal if p is prime, but it would also be maximal... or would it? If I mod out by it, I think I get a field, so it would have to be maximal.

If we have I= rs \mathbb{Z} \oplus \mathbb{Z}, then I can always write (r,1)\cdot (s,1)=(rs,1)\in I, but (r,1),(s,1)\notin I. Thus, composites don't work.
 
Okay, I have proven that for any rings R and S, R \oplus S can only have a prime ideal of the form I \oplus S where I is a prime ideal of R or R \oplus J where J is a prime ideal of S. Since the prime ideals of Z are pZ for prime p, the prime ideals of \mathbb{Z}\oplus \mathbb{Z} are p \mathbb{Z} \oplus \mathbb{Z}.

BUT, we have (\mathbb{Z} \oplus \mathbb{Z})/(p \mathbb{Z} \oplus \mathbb{Z})\cong (\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}) \oplus (\mathbb{Z}/\mathbb{Z})\cong \mathbb{Z}/p \mathbb{Z} which is a field.

Either I'm missing something simple, or there are no primes that are not also maximal.
 
Don't forget \mathbb Z \oplus p\mathbb Z and the two nonmaximal primes 0 \oplus \mathbb Z and \mathbb Z \oplus 0.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
48
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
10K