MHB Why Are Maximal Elements in Omega Prime Ideals?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Prime
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading D.G. Northcott's book: Lessons on Rings and Modules and Multiplicities.

I am currently studying Chapter 2: Prime Ideals and Primary Submodules.

I need help with an aspect of Proposition 3 in Chapter 2.

Proposition 3 and its proof read as follows:

View attachment 3680
View attachment 3681

In the last sentence of the statement of Proposition 3, we read the following:

" ... ... Then $$\Omega$$, together with the relation $$\le $$ is a non-empty inductive system and all its maximal elements are prime ideals."My question/problem is as follows:

$$\Omega$$ is a set of ideals and so its maximal elements would be maximal ideals ... ... BUT ... in the Corollary to Proposition 1 in this chapter, Northcott has already shown that "Every maximal ideal is a prime ideal" ... SO ... it appears that this part of Proposition 3 is unnecessary/redundant ...

But this makes me feel I am missing something or misunderstanding something ... ...

Can someone please clarify this situation ... that is why is Northcott apparently proving that all maximal ideals are prime ideals twice over ... ?

Hope someone can help ... ...
In order for MHB members to fully understand the above, I am providing Proposition 1 and its Corollary, as follows:

View attachment 3682
View attachment 3683
 
Physics news on Phys.org
"Maximal element" with respect to the ordering $\leq$, is different from saying "maximal ideal". The confusion is that the word 'maximal', is being used in two different contexts.
 
ThePerfectHacker said:
"Maximal element" with respect to the ordering $\leq$, is different from saying "maximal ideal". The confusion is that the word 'maximal', is being used in two different contexts.
Thanks for your help ThePerfectHacker ... but i think I need a bit more help in order to fully understand your statement ...

Since $$\Omega$$ is a set of ideals, surely then the maximal elements in $$\Omega$$ are maximal ideals ...

Can you help further?

Thanks again for your help,

Peter
 
Peter said:
Thanks for your help ThePerfectHacker ... but i think I need a bit more help in order to fully understand your statement ...

Since $$\Omega$$ is a set of ideals, surely then the maximal elements in $$\Omega$$ are maximal ideals ...

The theorem says that if $\Omega$ is a set of ideals where $\leq$ simply means containment then all the maximal elements are prime ideals.

What is a "maximal element"? It is an ideal $I \in \Omega$ with the property that $I$ is not contained in any other ideal (other than itself) from $\Omega$. We say that $I$ is a "maximal element with respect the ordering $\leq$" i.e. it is not contained in anything else.

This is not the same as saying $I$ is a "maximal ideal", because a maximal ideal is an ideal not contained in any ideal. The property of $I$ is that it is not contained in any ideal of $\Omega$. It is a different concept.
 
ThePerfectHacker said:
The theorem says that if $\Omega$ is a set of ideals where $\leq$ simply means containment then all the maximal elements are prime ideals.

What is a "maximal element"? It is an ideal $I \in \Omega$ with the property that $I$ is not contained in any other ideal (other than itself) from $\Omega$. We say that $I$ is a "maximal element with respect the ordering $\leq$" i.e. it is not contained in anything else.

This is not the same as saying $I$ is a "maximal ideal", because a maximal ideal is an ideal not contained in any ideal. The property of $I$ is that it is not contained in any ideal of $\Omega$. It is a different concept.
Thanks so so much for the clarification ... still reflecting on what you have written ... ...

Thanks again for your help ...

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 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K