An ideal I strictly bigger than the ideal J iff J is a proper subset of I.
at least that's what i think.
this is such a trivial question that it must not be the real question. I.e. what is the context for this question and why is it puzzling you?
#3
arunma
924
4
Yes, I suppose that was a trivial question. Indeed the answer you provided is also given in my book. I suppose what I should have asked is: what does it "mean" for one ideal to be strictly larger than another. In particular, if the terms in one ideal are not divisible by the terms in a second ideal, does this make the first ideal larger?
I'm sorry that I am phrasing my questions rather imprecisely. But I don't take algebra courses very often (I generally favor analysis), so I'm still trying to figure out precisely what ideals are and why they are of interest to mathematicians. I'd be very interested to hear any insight you've got on this.
1) what does it mwean geometrically for an ideL TO BE larger?
2) how does one check LGEBRAICALLY THt AN IDEAL generated by a given finites et of elements, is indeed lakrger thAN AN IDEAL generate dby anoither finite set of elements?
these are not so easy. i know somethings about them but i will answer later.
It is well known that a vector space always admits an algebraic (Hamel) basis. This is a theorem that follows from Zorn's lemma based on the Axiom of Choice (AC).
Now consider any specific instance of vector space. Since the AC axiom may or may not be included in the underlying set theory, might there be examples of vector spaces in which an Hamel basis actually doesn't exist ?