Proving r is in I if rn in I | 65 Characters

  • Thread starter Thread starter EV33
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Elements
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a property related to ideals in ring theory, specifically addressing the condition that if \( r^n \in I \) for an ideal \( I \), then \( r \) must also be in \( I \). Participants explore the implications of this statement within the context of ring theory.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the validity of the original poster's proof attempt, including base and inductive cases. There is exploration of the converse of the statement and examples provided to illustrate points. Questions arise about the definitions of radical and prime ideals and their implications.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing with participants providing feedback on the original proof attempt. Some guidance has been offered regarding the definitions of radical and prime ideals, and there is an acknowledgment of the need to clarify assumptions about the properties of ideals.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific examples, such as the ideal \( 9\mathbb{Z} \) in the integers, to challenge or support the claims being made. There is a focus on the definitions and properties of ideals, particularly in relation to the original poster's proof attempt.

EV33
Messages
192
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


In the process of trying to prove something else I found it would be helpful if rn\inI, where I is an ideal, n\inN, and r\inR and R is a ring, then r is in I.

Homework Equations


I is an ideal if a\inI and b\inI then a+b\inI, a\inI and r\inR then ar\inI, and I is not the empty set.

The Attempt at a Solution



Base Case: Assume r1\inI. Then r\inI.

Inductive Case: Assume that if rn\inI then r\inI for all n<n+1.
Assume rn+1\inI. Since rn+1= rn*r then either rn or r is in I. We only need to show the first case works since the second is trivial. If rn\inI then r\inI by the inductive hypothesis. (QED)Is this correct?

thank you for your time.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That would certainly be true. r^n=r(r^(n-1)). If r is in I, then r^n is in I.
 
By what you wrote makes me think you were thinking of the converse of my statement. Were you just showing that it, in fact, is an iff statement?
 
Yes, I was thinking of the converse, sorry. Take the example of the ring of integers Z. 9Z is an ideal. Pick r=3 and n=2. What do you say now?
 
Last edited:
Ok. So I get 32=9=0 mod 9. So 32 is an element of 9z. By definition 3 is an element of 9z. So I get that it holds for this case. That's what I was supposed to get right?
 
EV33 said:
Ok. So I get 32=9=0 mod 9. So 32 is an element of 9z. By definition 3 is an element of 9z. So I get that it holds for this case. That's what I was supposed to get right?

You were supposed to get that it is a counterexample. 9Z is the ideal of integers that are divisible by 9. 3 is NOT in 9Z. 3^2 is in 9Z. So?

I think what you are missing is that the definition of ideal does NOT say that if ab is in I, then a or b is in I. And it doesn't follow from the definition either.
 
I found it would be helpful if rn∈I, where I is an ideal, n∈N, and r∈R and R is a ring, then r is in I.
This is the definition of a "radical ideal".A prime ideal is one where rs in I implies r in I or s in I. Your proof:
Since rn+1= rn*r then either rn or r is in I.
only works for prime ideals. It is true that every prime ideal is radical.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
4K