Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Product ideals that yield reduced quotients

  1. Jun 17, 2011 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

    Let I,J be ideals in a commutative ring R. Assume that R/(IJ) is reduced (so that it contains no nilpotent elements). Prove that [itex] IJ = I \cap J [/itex]

    2. Relevant equations

    For two ideals I and J, we have
    [tex] IJ = \left\{ a_1 b_1 + \cdots + a_n b_n : a_i \in I, b_i \in J, i=1,\ldots,n \ n \in \mathbb N \right\} [/tex]

    3. The attempt at a solution

    I've been thinking about this problem for some time. I think I've narrowed it down to show a small result, but perhaps someone could comment on whether I'm thinking in the right direction.

    It seems unlikely that we will be able to use the fact that R/(IJ) is reduced to create a constructive proof, so we move to prove via contradiction. Since it is always true that [itex] IJ \subseteq I \cap J [/itex] let us assume for the sake of contradiction that the inclusion is strict, and show that there is a nilpotent element in R/(IJ).

    Now by looking at the definition of the product ideal, it seems that the best choice for a candidate element would be to find two elements [itex] s,t \in I \cap J [/itex] such that [itex] (s+t) \in (I \cap J)\setminus IJ [/itex] if such an element exists (this is what I have yet to prove). Then the projection map [itex] \pi: R \to R/(IJ) [/itex] would yield
    [tex] \pi(s+t) = (s+t) + IJ \neq IJ [/tex]
    because we chose s+t to not be in IJ. On the other hand
    [tex] [(s+t) + IJ]^2 = (s+t)^2 +IJ = s^2 + st + ts + t^2 + IJ = IJ [/tex]
    where the equality to IJ follows because s and t are both in I and J, and the ring is commutative. Hence [itex] (s+t)^2 + IJ = IJ [/itex] and so this is a nonzero nilpotent element which is a contradiction.

    I think this is all correct. However, I'm a bit stuck on showing that [itex] \exists s, t \in I \cap J, (s+t) \in (I\cap J)\setminus IJ [/itex]. Certainly, we know there exists at least one element, so it remains to show that there is a second, and that we can choose them such that the sum is not in the product ideal. Any thoughts? I'm also open to other suggestions.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 17, 2011 #2
    Hi Kreizhn! :smile:

    If [itex]a\in I\cap J\setminus IJ[/itex], isn't a+IJ nilpotent then?
  4. Jun 17, 2011 #3
    Oh yes, quite obviously. Since then [itex] (a +IJ)^2 = a^2 + IJ = a\cdot a + IJ [/itex] and [itex] a \cdot a \in IJ [/itex] since [itex] a \in I [/itex] and [itex] a \in J [/itex]. How did I miss that? Thanks.
  5. Jun 17, 2011 #4
    While I'm here, I have another quick question.

    I want to show that if R is a commutative ring, a in R, and [itex] f_1(x),\ldots, f_r(x) \in R[x] [/itex] then the following ideals are equal
    [tex] (f_1(x),\ldots, f_r(x),x-a) = (f_1(a),\ldots, f_r(a),x-a) [/tex]
    Now this is fairly easy if R[x] is a Euclidean domain, since I can then write
    [tex] f_i(x) = q_i(x)(x-a) + f_i(a) [/tex]
    and make appropriate substitutions. However, I am only told that R is commutative, which if memory serves, is not sufficient for R[x] to be Euclidean. Is there another way of doing this, or is the statement incorrect in that R needs to be a field?
  6. Jun 17, 2011 #5
    Hmm, you can't use the division algorithm here. But to show that

    [tex](f_1(x),\ldots, f_r(x),x-a) = (f_1(a),\ldots, f_r(a),x-a)[/tex]

    It suffices to show that

    [tex]R[x]/(f_1(x),\ldots, f_r(x),x-a) = R[x]/(f_1(a),\ldots, f_r(a),x-a)[/tex]

    which shouldn't be hard to show... (intuitively, R[x]/(x-a) is just exchanging all the x's with a's).
  7. Jun 17, 2011 #6
    That's actually what I'm asked to show in the next part of the question, so it seems like I'm supposed to do it a different way. :confused:

    Edit: Well, the next question actually asks me to go one step further and show that
    [tex] R[x]/(f_1(x),\ldots, f_r(x),x-a) \cong R/(f_1(a),\ldots, f_r(a)) [/tex]
    which is just using a corollary to the third iso theorem.
  8. Jun 17, 2011 #7
    Ah, I see. Well, maybe you can show that


    holds in general (so without referencing the division algorithm). This comes down to showing that if g(a)=0, then (x-a) divides g(x).
  9. Jun 17, 2011 #8
    I'll give both ways a shot, just for the practice. Thanks.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook