X in ideal if x^n is in ideal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pivoxa15
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of ideals in ring theory, specifically questioning whether the inclusion of \( x^n \) in an ideal implies that \( x \) is also in that ideal, where \( n \) is a natural number.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the statement regarding ideals, with some attempting to construct proofs and others questioning the validity of the statement based on examples.

Discussion Status

The discussion includes various perspectives, with some participants suggesting that the statement is false and providing examples to illustrate their points. Others are exploring the reasoning behind the statement and considering specific cases.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the statement may only hold true for prime ideals and discuss specific examples, such as the ideal generated by 4 in the integers and the ideal generated by \( x^2 \).

pivoxa15
Messages
2,250
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


In a ring with multiplicative identity, If x^n is in an ideal then is x also in the ideal? with n a natural number.

The Attempt at a Solution


I can't find a proof. Which is likely to mean the statement is false?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let x^n be in the ideal I of a ring R. It can be represented as x^n = x^(n-1) x. Now, either both x^(n-1) and x are in the ideal (in that case the statement if proved), or one of them is in the ideal. If x is in the ideal, the proof is finished. If x^(n-1) is in the ideal, then you can apply the same argument again.

I hope this works, since I'm a bit new to rings.
 
The statement that a*b in an ideal implies a and/or b in the ideal is only true for prime ideals. Not any ideal. The statement is false.
 
Eg. consider the ideal generated by 4 over the integers.
 
[This is a sign I should stop learning from various lecture notes, and turn to books. :rolleyes:]
 
No. It is a sign you should think about what you're reading.
 
pivoxa15 said:
I can't find a proof. Which is likely to mean the statement is false?


Just think about an example for a second. Like the simplest ring there is, the integers. Why didn't you do some examples to see if it was true?
 
Right, I should have done that. So the ideal generated by <x^2> in a ring certainly wouldn't have x in it. So the statement is false.
 
It is perfectly possible for the ideal generated by x^2 to have x in it. It is just not *certain* to have x in it.
 
  • #10
matt grime said:
It is perfectly possible for the ideal generated by x^2 to have x in it. It is just not *certain* to have x in it.

Good point. An example might be the ideal <2^2> in N which contains no element 2.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K