How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Associated Primes and Primary Decomposition
1 · Prerequisites
- Algebraic Extensions, Extension Degree, and Finite Fields
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Chain Conditions, Semisimple Modules and the Wedderburn–Artin Theorem
- Compactness in Metric Spaces
- Construction of the Natural Numbers
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Cauchy Sequences
- Construction of the Real Numbers via Dedekind Cuts
- Cosets, Index and Lagrange's Theorem
- Countability and Uncountability
- Finite Counting, Factorials and Binomial Coefficients
- Foundations of the Real Numbers for Analysis
- Free Modules, Exact Sequences, Projective and Injective Modules
- Group Homomorphisms and the Isomorphism Theorems
- Ideals, Quotient Rings and the Isomorphism Theorems for Rings
- Localisation of Modules and Support
- Modules, Submodules, Quotient Modules and the Isomorphism Theorems
- Noetherian Rings and Hilbert Basis
- Normal Subgroups and Quotient Groups
- Order, Zorn's Lemma, and the Axiom of Choice
- Prime Spectra and Radicals
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- Sequences and Limits
- Tensor Products of Modules
- The Field of Fractions and Localisation
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
2 · Summary
This page develops the associated-prime language from annihilators of elements and cyclic submodules, then proves its behavior in short exact sequences, localization, prime filtrations, and zero-divisor questions for finite modules over Noetherian rings. Those results give the exact bridge from support and annihilator data to the finite set of primes that controls the module.
The second half adopts the quotient-zero-divisor definition of primary submodules, proves the equivalent finite-Noetherian characterizations, and then builds Lasker-Noether primary decomposition. The uniqueness results are stated at the right level: the radical set is intrinsic, isolated components are recovered by localization and contraction, and downward-closed intersections of components are canonical even though embedded components may vary.
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
Associated primes of a module
Definition
Let be a commutative ring and let be a left -module. A prime ideal is associated to when
for some element . The set of associated primes of is denoted
A cyclic submodule is a residue module by its annihilator
Statement
Let be a commutative ring, let be a left -module, and let . Then the cyclic submodule is naturally isomorphic to
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , a left -module , and an element .
The annihilator of is (Annihilators, torsion elements and the torsion subset of a module).
Proof
Define by If , then , so ; hence is well-defined. Every element of has the form , so is surjective.
If , then , so by [L1]. Thus and is injective.
Steps 1.1 and 2.1 show that is the claimed natural isomorphism.
Associated primes are exactly primes of embedded cyclic residue modules
Statement
Let be a commutative ring, let be a left -module, and let be a prime ideal of . Then
if and only if there exists an injective -module homomorphism
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , a left -module , and a prime ideal .
A prime ideal is associated to exactly when it is the annihilator of some element of (Associated primes of a module).
For any , the cyclic submodule is naturally isomorphic to (A cyclic submodule is a residue module by its annihilator).
Proof
Assume . By [L1], choose with . Then [L2] gives , and the inclusion composes with this isomorphism to give an embedding .
Conversely, let be injective, and put . Every kills , so . If , then , and injectivity gives , hence . Therefore , so by [L1].
Steps 1.1 and 1.2 prove the equivalence.
Associated primes of a cyclic quotient are colon primes
Statement
Let be a commutative ring and let be an ideal. Then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring and an ideal .
A prime ideal belongs to exactly when it is the annihilator of some element of (Associated primes of a module).
The quotient module consists of the cosets (Quotient module with scalar multiplication on additive cosets).
The annihilator of an element is the set of scalars that kill (Annihilators, torsion elements and the torsion subset of a module).
Proof
For any , the annihilator of in is
If , then [L1] gives a nonzero class with . Since , one has , and step 1.1 yields .
Conversely, if for some and if is prime, then step 1.1 gives with , so by [L1].
Steps 2.1 and 2.2 prove the stated description of .
A nonzero module over a Noetherian ring has a maximal element annihilator
Statement
Assume Dependent Choice.
Let be a Noetherian commutative ring and let be a nonzero left -module. Then there exists a nonzero element such that is maximal, under inclusion, among the annihilators of nonzero elements of .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Dependent Choice, a Noetherian commutative ring , and a nonzero left -module .
Assuming Dependent Choice, in a Noetherian commutative ring every nonempty set of ideals has a maximal member (A commutative ring is Noetherian exactly when every ideal is finitely generated, exactly when its ideals satisfy the ascending chain condition, and exactly when every nonempty set of ideals has a maximal member).
For , the annihilator is the set (Annihilators, torsion elements and the torsion subset of a module).
Proof
For every , the set is an ideal: it contains , is closed under subtraction, and implies for every . Because , choose with . Then is a nonempty set of ideals of .
By [L1], the nonempty set has a maximal member. Thus some nonzero satisfies that is maximal among the annihilators of nonzero elements of .
This is exactly the required conclusion.
A maximal element annihilator is prime
Statement
Let be a commutative ring, let be a left -module, and let be nonzero. If is maximal among the annihilators of nonzero elements of , then is a prime ideal.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , a left -module , and a nonzero element such that is maximal among the annihilators of nonzero elements of .
The annihilator of an element is (Annihilators, torsion elements and the torsion subset of a module).
Proof
Put . Since , one has , so is proper. Let and assume . Then . Also because every satisfies . If , then , so by [L1].
The element is nonzero, so maximality of forces . Since , the element lies in . Therefore and imply , so is prime.
Thus is a prime ideal.
A nonzero module over a Noetherian ring has an associated prime
Statement
Let be a Noetherian commutative ring and let be a nonzero left -module. Then is nonempty.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Noetherian commutative ring and a nonzero left -module .
A prime ideal belongs to exactly when it is the annihilator of some element of (Associated primes of a module).
Some nonzero element of has annihilator maximal among annihilators of nonzero elements (A nonzero module over a Noetherian ring has a maximal element annihilator).
An annihilator maximal among annihilators of nonzero elements is prime (A maximal element annihilator is prime).
Proof
By [L2], choose with such that is maximal among the annihilators of nonzero elements of . Then [L3] shows that is prime.
By [L1], the prime ideal belongs to .
Therefore is nonempty.
A module over a Noetherian ring has no associated primes exactly when it is zero
Statement
Let be a Noetherian commutative ring and let be a left -module. Then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Noetherian commutative ring and a left -module .
Every nonzero -module has an associated prime (A nonzero module over a Noetherian ring has an associated prime).
Proof
If , then the only element of is , whose annihilator is the whole ring . Since is not a prime ideal of itself, no associated prime can occur, so .
If , then [L1] gives .
Steps 1.1 and 1.2 prove the equivalence.
Associated primes of a submodule lie in those of the ambient module
Statement
If
is a short exact sequence of left -modules, then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring and a short exact sequence of left -modules.
A prime is associated to a module exactly when embeds in that module (Associated primes are exactly primes of embedded cyclic residue modules).
In a short exact sequence, the left map is injective (Exact sequences and short exact sequences of modules).
Proof
Let . By [L1], there is an embedding . Composing with the injective map from [L2] gives an embedding .
Applying [L1] again, the embedding from step 1.1 shows that . Therefore .
Associated primes of the middle term lie in those of the ends
Statement
If
is a short exact sequence of left -modules, then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring and a short exact sequence of left -modules.
In a short exact sequence, the image of the left map equals the kernel of the right map (Exact sequences and short exact sequences of modules).
Proof
Let , and choose with . If there exists with , then . Also , and if then ; since is prime and , this gives . Hence , so .
If no such exists, let be the image of in . Then , for otherwise and would contradict the assumption. Every kills , hence kills . Conversely, if , then . By the standing assumption, this forces . Therefore , so .
Steps 1.1 and 2.1 show that every associated prime of lies in .
Associated primes in a short exact sequence
Statement
If
is a short exact sequence of left -modules, then
In particular,
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring and a short exact sequence of left -modules.
In a short exact sequence, associated primes of the left term lie in those of the middle term (Associated primes of a submodule lie in those of the ambient module).
In a short exact sequence, associated primes of the middle term lie in those of the outer terms (Associated primes of the middle term lie in those of the ends).
Proof
Facts [L1] and [L2] give
Apply step 1.1 to the split exact sequence This gives . The reverse inclusion follows by applying the left inclusion of step 1.1 to the two canonical injections and .
Steps 1.1 and 2.1 prove the theorem and its direct-sum corollary.
Associated primes localize forward
Statement
Let be a commutative ring, let be a left -module, let be multiplicative, and let with . Then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , a left -module , a multiplicative subset , and a prime ideal with .
A prime ideal is associated to a module exactly when its residue module embeds in that module (Associated primes are exactly primes of embedded cyclic residue modules).
Injective module maps remain injective after localisation (Injective module maps remain injective after localisation).
Localisation commutes with quotient modules, so (Localisation commutes with quotient modules and arbitrary direct sums).
If , then is a prime ideal of (Prime ideals of a localization are exactly the primes disjoint from the denominator set).
Proof
By [L1], there is an injective -module map . Applying [L2] yields an injective -module map .
By [L3], the source identifies with , and by [L4] the ideal is prime. Therefore [L1], applied over the ring , shows that is associated to .
Hence associated primes localize forward.
Associated primes of a localized finite module come from upstairs
Statement
Let be a Noetherian commutative ring, let be a finitely generated left -module, and let be multiplicative. If
then there exists with and .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Noetherian commutative ring , a finitely generated left -module , a multiplicative subset , and a prime ideal .
A prime ideal is associated to a module exactly when it is the annihilator of some element (Associated primes of a module).
The annihilator of an element is the set of scalars that kill it (Annihilators, torsion elements and the torsion subset of a module).
In a Noetherian commutative ring, every ideal is finitely generated (A commutative ring is Noetherian exactly when every ideal is finitely generated, exactly when its ideals satisfy the ascending chain condition, and exactly when every nonempty set of ideals has a maximal member).
Prime ideals of correspond exactly to primes of disjoint from , via (Prime ideals of a localization are exactly the primes disjoint from the denominator set).
Proof
By [L1], choose with and . Write with and . Since is a unit of , the element is also nonzero and has the same annihilator . By [L4], there is a prime ideal with and . If , then annihilates , so and therefore . Thus .
By [L3], write . Since each , there exists with in . Put . Then , because is a unit and . Also each generator kills , so .
If , then annihilates . Since is a unit, also annihilates , so and therefore by step 1.1. Hence , and step 2.1 gives .
The prime ideal is therefore the annihilator of the nonzero element , so by [L1]. Together with step 1.1, this proves the claim.
Associated primes commute with localization for finite modules
Statement
Let be a Noetherian commutative ring, let be a finitely generated left -module, and let be multiplicative. Then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Noetherian commutative ring , a finitely generated left -module , and a multiplicative subset .
Associated primes of disjoint from localize to associated primes of (Associated primes localize forward).
Every associated prime of is the localization of an associated prime of disjoint from (Associated primes of a localized finite module come from upstairs).
Proof
If and , then [L1] gives .
Conversely, if , then [L2] produces with and .
Steps 1.1 and 1.2 prove the stated equality of associated-prime sets.
Associated primes lie in the support
Statement
Let be a commutative ring and let be a left -module. Then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring and a left -module .
A prime ideal is associated to exactly when for some (Associated primes of a module).
A prime ideal lies in exactly when the localization is nonzero (Support of a module).
The module localization consists of fractions with , and exactly when some kills (Localisation of a module at a multiplicative subset, A localised module fraction is zero exactly when one denominator kills its numerator, Localisation at a prime ideal: ).
Proof
Let . By [L1], choose with . If in , then by the definition of localization there exists with . Hence , a contradiction. So in .
By [L2], step 1.1 shows . Thus .
Finite modules over Noetherian rings admit prime filtrations
Statement
Let be a Noetherian commutative ring and let be a finitely generated left -module. Then there exist submodules
such that each quotient is isomorphic to for some prime ideal of . When , this is the empty filtration with .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Noetherian commutative ring and a finitely generated left -module .
A finitely generated module over a Noetherian ring is Noetherian (Finitely generated modules over a left Noetherian ring are Noetherian).
In a Noetherian module, every nonempty family of submodules has a maximal member (Finite generation, ACC, and maximal-condition characterizations of Noetherian modules).
Every nonzero module over a Noetherian ring has an associated prime (A nonzero module over a Noetherian ring has an associated prime).
If is associated to a module, then embeds in that module (Associated primes are exactly primes of embedded cyclic residue modules).
Quotient modules are formed from cosets (Quotient module with scalar multiplication on additive cosets).
Proof
If , then the empty chain is already a prime filtration.
Assume . Let By step 1.1, the zero submodule belongs to . Since is Noetherian by [L1], fact [L2] gives a maximal member of .
If , then is a nonzero quotient module by [L5]. Fact [L3] gives an associated prime of , and [L4] yields an embedded copy of in . Let be its preimage in . Then and . Appending to a prime filtration of gives a prime filtration of , contradicting the maximality of in step 2.1. Therefore .
When , step 3.1 shows that itself has a prime filtration; the zero case was handled in step 1.1.
Minimal support primes of a finite module are associated
Statement
Let be a Noetherian commutative ring and let be a finitely generated left -module. If is minimal in , then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Noetherian commutative ring , a finitely generated left -module , and a prime ideal minimal in .
The module admits a prime filtration with for prime ideals (Finite modules over Noetherian rings admit prime filtrations).
Support in a short exact sequence is the union of the supports of the outer terms (Support in a short exact sequence is the union of the outer supports).
The support of is exactly (The support of a cyclic quotient is its vanishing set).
Proof
Choose a prime filtration as in [L1]. Repeatedly applying [L2] to the short exact sequences and then using [L3] for gives
By step 1.1, the prime contains some . Since , the minimality of in the support forces . Choose the smallest such index , and choose whose image in is nonzero. Then , because any scalar killing kills its nonzero class in . Also for every , so .
For each , the minimal choice of gives and hence . Choose , and put . Because is prime and no factor lies in , one has . Since , this implies . Moreover because and . If , then ; as and is prime, this forces . Therefore , so .
Thus every support-prime minimal by inclusion is associated.
The support is the union of the closures of the associated primes
Statement
Let be a Noetherian commutative ring and let be a finitely generated left -module. Then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Noetherian commutative ring and a finitely generated left -module .
Minimal primes in the support of are associated primes of (Minimal support primes of a finite module are associated).
For a finitely generated module, (For a finite module, support is the set of primes containing the annihilator).
The module admits a prime filtration, and support is the union of the supports of its prime-filtration quotients (Finite modules over Noetherian rings admit prime filtrations, Support in a short exact sequence is the union of the outer supports, The support of a cyclic quotient is its vanishing set).
Every associated prime lies in the support (Associated primes lie in the support).
Proof
By [L3], write for the prime ideals occurring in a prime filtration of . Let . Then for some . Choose such an index with minimal under inclusion among the filtration primes contained in . If and , then [L3] gives some , so the minimal choice of forces and hence . Therefore is minimal in the support, so [L1] gives and . This proves .
Conversely, let and let . By [L4], the prime lies in the support; then [L2] gives , so . Thus for every .
Steps 1.1 and 1.2 prove the support decomposition.
Finite modules over Noetherian rings have finitely many associated primes
Statement
Let be a Noetherian commutative ring and let be a finitely generated left -module. Then is a finite set.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Noetherian commutative ring and a finitely generated left -module .
The module admits a prime filtration with (Finite modules over Noetherian rings admit prime filtrations).
In a short exact sequence, associated primes of the middle term are contained in the union of those of the outer terms (Associated primes in a short exact sequence).
Proof
Choose a prime filtration as in [L1]. If , then and , which is finite.
Assume . Applying [L2] to gives Since , the class of has annihilator , so . Repeating this argument down the filtration yields
The right-hand side of step 1.2 is finite, so is finite.
A zero divisor is contained in an associated prime
Statement
Let be a Noetherian commutative ring, let be a left -module, and let be a zero divisor on . Then belongs to some prime ideal of .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Noetherian commutative ring , a left -module , and an element that is a zero divisor on .
A prime ideal is associated to a module exactly when it is the annihilator of one of the module's elements (Associated primes of a module).
Every nonzero module over a Noetherian ring has an associated prime (A nonzero module over a Noetherian ring has an associated prime).
Proof
Because is a zero divisor on , the set is nonzero. It is a submodule: it contains , is closed under subtraction, and implies for every .
By [L2], the nonzero module has an associated prime. By [L1], choose such that is prime. Since , one has , so . The same equality and [L1] show as well, because is also an element of .
Therefore lies in an associated prime of .
Zero divisors on a module over a Noetherian ring are the union of its associated primes
Statement
Let be a Noetherian commutative ring and let be a left -module. Then the set of zero divisors on is
If is finitely generated, this is a finite union.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Noetherian commutative ring and a left -module .
Every zero divisor on lies in an associated prime of (A zero divisor is contained in an associated prime).
If is finitely generated, then is finite (Finite modules over Noetherian rings have finitely many associated primes).
Proof
If for some , choose in with . Then , so is a zero divisor on .
Conversely, every zero divisor on lies in an associated prime by [L1].
Steps 1.1 and 1.2 prove the union formula. When is finitely generated, fact [L2] makes that union finite.
Primary submodules and primary ideals
Definition
Let be a commutative ring, let be a left -module, and let be a proper submodule. Then is primary when every zero divisor on the quotient module acts nilpotently on ; equivalently, whenever multiplication by on has nontrivial kernel, there exists with
If
then is called -primary.
The radical here is well-defined: is an ideal of . Indeed, it contains , is closed under subtraction, and if annihilates then so does for every , by the module axioms.
When , viewed as its regular module, a primary submodule is a primary ideal.
The radical of a primary ideal is prime
Statement
Let be a commutative ring and let be a primary ideal. Then is a prime ideal. In particular, is -primary.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring and a primary ideal .
A primary ideal is a proper submodule whose quotient has the property that every zero divisor acts nilpotently (Primary submodules and primary ideals).
The radical consists of those for which for some (The radical of an ideal).
A prime ideal is a proper ideal such that implies or (Prime ideals and maximal ideals in a commutative ring).
Proof
Let and assume . By [L2], some has , so in the quotient ring one has Because , the class is not nilpotent in , so . Thus kills the nonzero element , which means that is a zero divisor on .
Since is primary, [L1] makes every zero divisor on nilpotent. Therefore is nilpotent, so is nilpotent and hence by [L2]. Thus and imply , which is the primality condition from [L3].
Therefore is prime, and is -primary by definition.
Primary submodules are exactly quotients with nilpotent zero divisors
Statement
Let be a commutative ring, let be a left -module, and let be a proper submodule. Then is primary if and only if the following classical condition holds:
for every and every , if and , then there exists such that
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , a left -module , and a proper submodule .
A proper submodule is primary exactly when every zero divisor on acts nilpotently on (Primary submodules and primary ideals).
The quotient module consists of cosets (Quotient module with scalar multiplication on additive cosets).
Proof
Assume is primary, and let with . Then in by [L2], while . Thus is a zero divisor on . By [L1], some satisfies , which is equivalent to .
Conversely, assume the displayed classical condition. Let be a zero divisor on . Then there exists with . By [L2], this means and . The hypothesis gives with , equivalently . Hence every zero divisor on acts nilpotently, so is primary by [L1].
Steps 1.1 and 1.2 prove the equivalence.
Primary submodules of finite modules are characterized by a singleton associated-prime set
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice.
Let be a Noetherian commutative ring, let be a finitely generated left -module, let be a proper submodule, and let be a prime ideal. Put . Then the following are equivalent:
- is -primary.
- .
- Every acts injectively on , and there exists with .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The Axiom of Choice, a Noetherian commutative ring , a finitely generated left -module , a proper submodule , a prime ideal , and the quotient .
Zero divisors on a module over a Noetherian ring are exactly the elements lying in its associated primes (Zero divisors on a module over a Noetherian ring are the union of its associated primes).
For a finitely generated module, support is of the annihilator (For a finite module, support is the set of primes containing the annihilator).
Minimal primes in the support of a finite module are associated (Minimal support primes of a finite module are associated).
A proper submodule is -primary exactly when it is primary and (Primary submodules and primary ideals).
A localization or quotient of a Noetherian ring is Noetherian (Every quotient and every localisation of a Noetherian ring is Noetherian).
The nilradical of a Noetherian ring is nilpotent (The nilradical of a Noetherian ring is nilpotent).
The support of a finite module is the union of the over its associated primes (The support is the union of the closures of the associated primes).
Assuming the Axiom of Choice, the radical of an ideal is the intersection of the primes containing it (The radical of an ideal is the intersection of the prime ideals containing it).
Proof
Assume is -primary. Then [L4] gives , so every prime in contains by [L2] and [L8]. Let . Every is a zero divisor on , so primaryity makes act nilpotently on and hence some power of lies in . Thus , which proves . Since is minimal in , fact [L3] gives . Now every associated prime contains and is contained in , so .
Assume . By [L1], the zero divisors on are exactly the elements of , so every acts injectively on . Also [L7] gives . Combining this with [L2] shows , and then [L8] yields . Since is Noetherian by [L5], fact [L6] applied to that quotient ring shows that its nilradical is nilpotent. Hence for some , that is, .
Assume condition 3. If is a zero divisor on and , then multiplication by would be both noninjective and injective, impossible. So every zero divisor lies in . Since , each acts nilpotently on , namely . Therefore is primary. Also gives . Conversely, if , then some power of kills . If , multiplication by is injective, hence every power of is injective, so a nonzero power cannot annihilate the nonzero module . Thus . Therefore , and [L4] shows that is -primary.
Steps 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 prove the equivalence of the three conditions.
A finite intersection of primary submodules with one radical is primary
Statement
Let be a Noetherian commutative ring, let be a finitely generated left -module, and let . Let be -primary submodules. Then
is also -primary.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Noetherian commutative ring , a finitely generated left -module , an integer , a prime ideal , and -primary submodules .
A proper submodule is primary exactly when and imply for some (Primary submodules are exactly quotients with nilpotent zero divisors).
A primary submodule is -primary when (Primary submodules and primary ideals).
Proof
Because , one has , so is proper. Suppose and . Choose with . Since is primary, [L1] gives with , so by [L2].
For each , step 1.1 gives , so choose with . The nonempty finite list has a maximum , and then for every , hence . By [L1], the proper submodule is primary.
If , the same finite-maximum argument as in step 2.1 gives a power of in , so . Conversely, if a power of annihilates , it also annihilates every because , so . Thus , and [L2] makes -primary.
Primary decompositions, minimality, and isolated components
Definition
Let be a commutative ring, let be a left -module, and let be a submodule.
A primary decomposition of in is an expression
with each a primary submodule.
Such a decomposition is minimal when:
- no component is redundant, so omitting any changes the intersection;
- the radicals are pairwise distinct.
These radicals are well-defined because Primary submodules and primary ideals establishes that each module annihilator is an ideal of .
In a minimal decomposition, a component is isolated when its radical is minimal, under inclusion, among the radicals occurring in the decomposition.
An irreducible submodule of a Noetherian module is primary
Statement
Let be a commutative ring, let be a Noetherian left -module, and let be irreducible, meaning that whenever
with submodules , then or . Then is primary.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , a Noetherian left -module , and an irreducible proper submodule .
In a short exact sequence, a quotient of a Noetherian module is again Noetherian (Noetherian and Artinian conditions are each exact in short exact sequences).
The quotient module is formed from the cosets of (Quotient module with scalar multiplication on additive cosets).
A proper submodule is primary exactly when the classical power condition of the previous lemma holds (Primary submodules are exactly quotients with nilpotent zero divisors).
Proof
Let . By [L1], the quotient module is Noetherian. The submodule is irreducible: if in , then taking inverse images in gives with , so the irreducibility of forces or , hence or .
Let be a zero divisor on . Then . Because is Noetherian, the ascending chain stabilizes; choose with . If , write . Then , so and hence . Therefore , and
Since is nonzero, the irreducibility of and the decomposition in step 2.1 force . Thus every zero divisor on acts nilpotently on . By [L3], this means is primary.
Hence every irreducible submodule of a Noetherian module is primary.
A finite primary decomposition can be stripped of redundant components
Statement
If
is a finite primary decomposition of a submodule , then some subfamily of the has the same intersection and is irredundant.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , a left -module , a submodule , and a finite primary decomposition .
Minimality requires both that no component be redundant and that the component radicals be pairwise distinct (Primary decompositions, minimality, and isolated components).
Proof
If the displayed decomposition has no redundant component, then it is already irredundant, which is the first condition recorded in [L1]. Otherwise choose an index such that . Then so removing preserves the intersection.
Each removal in step 1.1 shortens the finite list of components by one. Repeating step 1.1 therefore terminates after finitely many deletions and produces a decomposition with the same intersection and no redundant component.
This is the required irredundant subfamily.
Equal-radical primary components can be combined
Statement
Let be a Noetherian commutative ring, let be a finitely generated left -module, and let
be a finite primary decomposition of a submodule , with each -primary for a prime ideal . If several of the equal one prime , then replacing that whole group by the intersection of its components preserves the total intersection and produces one -primary component.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Noetherian commutative ring , a finitely generated left -module , and a finite primary decomposition with each -primary for a prime ideal .
For a prime ideal , a nonempty finite intersection of -primary submodules is again -primary (A finite intersection of primary submodules with one radical is primary).
Minimality requires both irredundancy and pairwise distinct component radicals (Primary decompositions, minimality, and isolated components).
Proof
Fix a prime and let be the set of indices for which is -primary. If is empty or has one element, there is nothing to combine. Otherwise set Fact [L1] shows that is again -primary.
Replacing, for each prime occurring among the radicals, the whole block by the single component does not change the total intersection, because intersections may be regrouped without changing their value. The resulting components have pairwise distinct radicals, which is the second minimality requirement recorded in [L2].
Thus equal-radical components may be combined into one primary component with the same radical.
Every submodule of a finite module over a Noetherian ring has a minimal primary decomposition
Statement
Assume Dependent Choice.
Let be a Noetherian commutative ring and let be a finitely generated left -module. Every submodule has a finite primary decomposition. After deleting redundant components and combining equal radicals, one obtains a minimal primary decomposition. When , the decomposition is the empty intersection, interpreted as . In particular, every ideal of a Noetherian ring has a minimal primary decomposition.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Dependent Choice, a Noetherian commutative ring , a finitely generated left -module , and a submodule .
A finitely generated module over a Noetherian ring is Noetherian (Finitely generated modules over a left Noetherian ring are Noetherian).
Assuming Dependent Choice, a Noetherian module has the maximal condition on submodules (Finite generation, ACC, and maximal-condition characterizations of Noetherian modules).
An irreducible submodule of a Noetherian module is primary (An irreducible submodule of a Noetherian module is primary).
Finite primary decompositions can be made irredundant by deleting redundant components (A finite primary decomposition can be stripped of redundant components).
In a finite primary decomposition of a submodule of a finitely generated module over a Noetherian commutative ring, equal-radical primary components can be combined into one primary component (Equal-radical primary components can be combined).
Proof
The submodule has the empty primary decomposition, whose intersection is interpreted as .
By [L1], the module is Noetherian. Suppose, toward contradiction, that some submodule of has no finite primary decomposition. Let be the set of such submodules. By step 1.1, . By [L2], choose a maximal element of ; then .
The submodule is irreducible. Indeed, if with and , then the maximality of in step 2.1 forces finite primary decompositions of and . Intersecting those two finite decompositions gives a finite primary decomposition of , contrary to .
Because is irreducible and proper and is Noetherian, [L3] shows that is primary. But a primary submodule is already a one-term finite primary decomposition, again contradicting . Therefore is empty: every submodule of has a finite primary decomposition.
If , the empty decomposition from step 1.1 is irredundant and has pairwise distinct radicals vacuously, so it is minimal. If , start from a finite primary decomposition supplied by step 4.1, apply [L4] to remove redundant components, and then apply [L5] to merge equal-radical blocks. The resulting decomposition is finite, has the same intersection, has no redundant component, and has pairwise distinct radicals; hence it is minimal.
Taking recovers the ideal case, because ideals are precisely the submodules of the regular module over a commutative ring.
The radicals in a minimal primary decomposition are exactly the associated primes of the quotient
Statement
Let be a Noetherian commutative ring, let be a finitely generated left -module, and let
be a minimal primary decomposition in which each is -primary. Assume each is a prime ideal. Then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Noetherian commutative ring , a finitely generated left -module , and a minimal primary decomposition with each -primary for a prime ideal .
In a minimal primary decomposition, the component radicals are pairwise distinct and no component is redundant (Primary decompositions, minimality, and isolated components).
Associated primes of a submodule lie in those of the ambient module, and associated primes of a direct sum are the union of those of the summands (Associated primes in a short exact sequence).
If is -primary, then (Primary submodules of finite modules are characterized by a singleton associated-prime set).
Every nonzero module over a Noetherian ring has an associated prime (A nonzero module over a Noetherian ring has an associated prime).
Proof
Let be the diagonal map. Its kernel is zero, because maps to zero exactly when for every , that is, when . Thus is injective. By [L3] and the direct-sum part of [L2], Since is a submodule of that direct sum, the left-inclusion part of [L2] gives
Fix . Put . By [L1], the decomposition is irredundant, so and therefore . The map is injective because its kernel is . Hence is a nonzero submodule of . By [L2] and [L3], Fact [L4] makes nonempty, so . Applying [L2] again to the inclusion yields .
Step 1.2 shows every belongs to , and step 1.1 gives the reverse inclusion. Therefore .
The radicals in a minimal primary decomposition are intrinsic
Statement
Let be a Noetherian commutative ring, let be a finitely generated left -module, and let . Let be a minimal primary decomposition in which each is -primary for a prime ideal . Then the set of component radicals is uniquely determined by and equals
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Noetherian commutative ring , a finitely generated left -module , a submodule , and a minimal primary decomposition with each -primary for a prime ideal .
In the Noetherian finite-module setting, if a minimal primary decomposition has each component -primary for a prime ideal , then its radicals are exactly the associated primes of the quotient (The radicals in a minimal primary decomposition are exactly the associated primes of the quotient).
Proof
For the given minimal primary decomposition, [L1] gives
The right-hand side depends only on the quotient , not on the chosen decomposition. Hence the set of component radicals is intrinsic.
Localisation of a primary submodule either stays primary or becomes the whole module
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice.
Let be a Noetherian commutative ring, let be a finitely generated left -module, let be a -primary submodule for a prime ideal , and let be multiplicative.
- If , then is an -primary submodule of .
- If , then .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The Axiom of Choice, a Noetherian commutative ring , a finitely generated left -module , a prime ideal , a -primary submodule , and a multiplicative subset .
Assuming the Axiom of Choice, for a Noetherian commutative ring , a finitely generated left -module , a proper submodule , and a prime ideal , the following are equivalent: is -primary; ; every acts injectively on , and some power of annihilates (Primary submodules of finite modules are characterized by a singleton associated-prime set).
Over a Noetherian commutative ring, associated primes of a finitely generated module localize exactly by extension of primes disjoint from the denominator set (Associated primes commute with localization for finite modules).
Localisation commutes with quotient modules, so (Localisation commutes with quotient modules and arbitrary direct sums).
Every localization of a Noetherian ring is Noetherian (Every quotient and every localisation of a Noetherian ring is Noetherian).
Proof
Put . Since is -primary, [L1] gives with . If , choose . Then , so in the localization the unit annihilates every element. Hence , and [L3] shows , that is, .
Assume now that . Since is -primary, the quotient has by [L1]. Fact [L2] therefore gives Also from [L1], so .
Let with . Then , so multiplication by on is injective by [L1]. Because is a unit, multiplication by on is also injective. The module is finitely generated over the Noetherian ring : if generate , then generate . Hence [L1], applied over , shows via [L3] that is -primary in .
Steps 1.1 and 2.1 prove the two localization alternatives.
A primary component is recovered by contracting its localization away from the radical
Statement
Let be a Noetherian commutative ring, let be a finitely generated left -module, let be a -primary submodule, and let the radical be prime. Let be multiplicative with . Then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Noetherian commutative ring , a finitely generated left -module , a -primary submodule for a prime ideal , and a multiplicative subset disjoint from .
For the quotient , every acts injectively on (Primary submodules of finite modules are characterized by a singleton associated-prime set).
Localisation commutes with quotient modules, so (Localisation commutes with quotient modules and arbitrary direct sums).
Proof
The inclusion is immediate, because every element of localizes into .
Conversely, let with . Under the identification of [L2], the class of in is zero. Hence some satisfies in , so . Since , [L1] makes multiplication by injective on , and the equality forces . Therefore .
Steps 1.1 and 1.2 prove that is exactly the contraction of .
Isolated primary components are recovered by localization and contraction
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice.
Let be a Noetherian commutative ring, let be a finitely generated left -module, and let
be a minimal primary decomposition with each -primary for a prime ideal . If is isolated, then
inside . In particular, each isolated primary component is uniquely determined by .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The Axiom of Choice, a Noetherian commutative ring , a finitely generated left -module , and a minimal primary decomposition with each -primary for a prime ideal .
In a minimal primary decomposition, isolated means minimal under inclusion among the component radicals, and the radicals are pairwise distinct (Primary decompositions, minimality, and isolated components).
Assuming the Axiom of Choice, in the Noetherian finite-module setting, localizing a -primary component at its prime radical keeps it primary, while localizing at a multiplicative set meeting its radical gives the whole localized module (Localisation of a primary submodule either stays primary or becomes the whole module).
In the Noetherian finite-module setting, a -primary component with prime radical is recovered by contracting its localization at a multiplicative set disjoint from (A primary component is recovered by contracting its localization away from the radical).
Localisation commutes with finite intersections of submodules (Localisation commutes with finite intersections of submodules).
In the Noetherian finite-module setting, the prime component radicals of a minimal primary decomposition are intrinsic and equal the associated primes of the quotient (The radicals in a minimal primary decomposition are intrinsic).
Proof
Fix an isolated component . By [L1], if then , since otherwise minimality of would force , contradicting the distinct-radical part of [L1]. Hence for each we may choose . Localizing at , fact [L2] gives for , while remains a proper primary submodule. Using [L4],
Fact [L3] recovers by contracting back to . Since step 1.1 identifies with , this gives By [L5], the prime depends only on and occurs in every minimal primary decomposition. Applying the same localization-and-contraction argument to any such decomposition recovers its -component from the same right-hand side. Hence the isolated component is unique.
Therefore every isolated component is recovered by localization and contraction.
An ideal contained in a finite union of prime ideals lies in one of them
Statement
Let be a commutative ring, let be an ideal, and let be prime ideals with . If
then for some .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , an ideal , a positive integer , and prime ideals with .
A prime ideal is proper and contains one factor whenever it contains a product (Prime ideals and maximal ideals in a commutative ring).
Proof
We argue by induction on . The case is immediate. Assume and that the claim is known for smaller families. Suppose, for contradiction, that for every . Then for each , the ideal is not contained in either, because the induction hypothesis would then force for some . Hence for each we may choose . Since , each must lie in .
If , then . It is not in , because would then force , contradicting the choice of ; the same argument shows . This contradicts .
If , put For , the product term lies in because , while by the choice in step 1.1; hence . Also each with lies outside , so [L1] implies ; since , one gets as well. This again contradicts .
The contradictions in steps 2.1 and 2.2 show that the assumption for every is impossible. Therefore for some .
Downward-closed intersections of primary components are intrinsic
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice.
Let be a Noetherian commutative ring, let be a finitely generated left -module, and let
be a minimal primary decomposition with each -primary for a prime ideal . Let be downward-closed under inclusion. Then
depends only on and on , not on the chosen minimal decomposition. When , the empty intersection is interpreted as .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The Axiom of Choice, a Noetherian commutative ring , a finitely generated left -module , a submodule , and a minimal primary decomposition with each -primary for a prime ideal .
In the Noetherian finite-module setting, a minimal primary decomposition whose component radicals are prime has radical set (The radicals in a minimal primary decomposition are intrinsic).
Assuming the Axiom of Choice, in the Noetherian finite-module setting, localizing a primary component away from its prime radical keeps it, while localizing at a set meeting its radical turns it into the whole localized module (Localisation of a primary submodule either stays primary or becomes the whole module).
In the Noetherian finite-module setting, a primary component with prime radical is recovered by contracting its localization at a multiplicative set disjoint from that radical (A primary component is recovered by contracting its localization away from the radical).
Localisation commutes with finite intersections of submodules (Localisation commutes with finite intersections of submodules).
If an ideal is contained in a finite union of prime ideals, then it lies in one of them (An ideal contained in a finite union of prime ideals lies in one of them).
For a multiplicative subset , the canonical localization map is , (Localisation of a module at a multiplicative subset).
Proof
Let be downward-closed, and set Because the members of are prime, is multiplicative. If , then by definition. If and , then , so [L5] forces for some . Since by [L1] and is downward-closed, this would imply , a contradiction. Hence
By [L4], For , step 1.1 and [L2] say that remains a proper localized primary component. For , step 1.1 and [L2] give . Therefore When , the right-hand side is the empty intersection , which matches the fact that and hence .
Let be the canonical map of [L6]. Contracting the equality of step 2.1 back to gives because inverse image commutes with intersections. For every , step 1.1 and [L3] identify with . Hence
The left-hand side of step 3.1 depends only on and the set , hence only on and on . By [L1], any other minimal primary decomposition has the same associated-prime set, so it yields the same and therefore the same intersection.
Thus the intersection of the primary components indexed by any downward-closed subset of is intrinsic.
A radical ideal in a Noetherian ring is the intersection of its minimal primes
Statement
Assume Dependent Choice.
Let be a Noetherian commutative ring and let be a radical ideal. Then there exist finitely many prime ideals minimal over such that
When , this is the empty intersection.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Dependent Choice, a Noetherian commutative ring , and a radical ideal .
Assuming Dependent Choice, every ideal of a Noetherian ring has a minimal primary decomposition (Every submodule of a finite module over a Noetherian ring has a minimal primary decomposition).
The radical of a primary ideal is prime (The radical of a primary ideal is prime).
The radical of an intersection of ideals is the intersection of their radicals (The radical of a finite intersection).
Proof
If , then no prime ideal contains , and the empty intersection is . This is exactly the stated boundary case.
Assume . By [L1], choose a minimal primary decomposition Since the empty intersection is , one has . For each , put . Fact [L2] makes every prime. Since is radical, by [L3].
Let be the set of inclusion-minimal members among the finite family . If one prime in the family contains another, removing the larger one does not change the intersection, so the intersection over is still . Every prime minimal over contains the product , which is contained in , so primality of forces for some . Since and is minimal among primes containing , this gives . Thus the members of are exactly the minimal prime ideals over .
Steps 1.1, 1.2, and 2.1 prove that a radical ideal is the finite intersection of its minimal primes.
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
None yet.
Sources
- A. Altman and S. Kleiman, A Term of Commutative Algebra, 13th ed., Definition (17.1)
- The Stacks Project, Section 10.63: Associated primes
- A. Altman and S. Kleiman, A Term of Commutative Algebra, 13th ed., Lemma (17.2)
- J. S. Milne, A Primer of Commutative Algebra, v4.03, §19
- A. Altman and S. Kleiman, A Term of Commutative Algebra, 13th ed., Lemma (17.12)
- A. Altman and S. Kleiman, A Term of Commutative Algebra, 13th ed., Proposition (17.13)
- The Stacks Project, Lemma 10.63.7
- A. Altman and S. Kleiman, A Term of Commutative Algebra, 13th ed., Proposition (17.5)
- The Stacks Project, Lemma 10.63.3
- A. Altman and S. Kleiman, A Term of Commutative Algebra, 13th ed., Proposition (17.10)
- The Stacks Project, Lemma 10.63.15(1)
- The Stacks Project, Lemma 10.63.15(2) and Lemma 10.63.16
- The Stacks Project, Lemma 10.63.16
- The Stacks Project, Lemma 10.63.2
- A. Altman and S. Kleiman, A Term of Commutative Algebra, 13th ed., §17
- A. Altman and S. Kleiman, A Term of Commutative Algebra, 13th ed., Lemma (17.20)
- The Stacks Project, Lemma 10.62.1
- A. Altman and S. Kleiman, A Term of Commutative Algebra, 13th ed., Theorem (17.18)
- The Stacks Project, Proposition 10.63.6
- A. Altman and S. Kleiman, A Term of Commutative Algebra, 13th ed., Theorem (17.21)
- The Stacks Project, Lemma 10.63.5
- The Stacks Project, Lemma 10.63.9
- A. Altman and S. Kleiman, A Term of Commutative Algebra, 13th ed., Proposition (17.15)
- J. S. Milne, A Primer of Commutative Algebra, v4.03, Definition 19.1
- A. Altman and S. Kleiman, A Term of Commutative Algebra, 13th ed., §18
- J. S. Milne, A Primer of Commutative Algebra, v4.03, Proposition 19.2
- A. Altman and S. Kleiman, A Term of Commutative Algebra, 13th ed., Theorem (18.4)
- J. S. Milne, A Primer of Commutative Algebra, v4.03, Definition 19.1 and Lemma 19.5
- J. S. Milne, A Primer of Commutative Algebra, v4.03, Propositions 19.5 and 19.16
- J. S. Milne, A Primer of Commutative Algebra, v4.03, Proposition 19.6
- A. Altman and S. Kleiman, A Term of Commutative Algebra, 13th ed., Lemma (18.12)
- A. Altman and S. Kleiman, A Term of Commutative Algebra, 13th ed., (18.13)
- J. S. Milne, A Primer of Commutative Algebra, v4.03, Definition 19.7
- J. S. Milne, A Primer of Commutative Algebra, v4.03, Theorem 19.18
- A. Altman and S. Kleiman, A Term of Commutative Algebra, 13th ed., proof of Theorem (18.21)
- A. Altman and S. Kleiman, A Term of Commutative Algebra, 13th ed., Theorem (18.21)
- J. S. Milne, A Primer of Commutative Algebra, v4.03, Theorem 19.11
- A. Altman and S. Kleiman, A Term of Commutative Algebra, 13th ed., Lemma (18.19) and Theorem (18.20)
- J. S. Milne, A Primer of Commutative Algebra, v4.03, Theorem 19.19
- A. Altman and S. Kleiman, A Term of Commutative Algebra, 13th ed., Theorem (18.20)
- J. S. Milne, A Primer of Commutative Algebra, v4.03, Theorem 19.10
- A. Altman and S. Kleiman, A Term of Commutative Algebra, 13th ed., Lemma (18.23)
- J. S. Milne, A Primer of Commutative Algebra, v4.03, Proposition 19.4
- A. Altman and S. Kleiman, A Term of Commutative Algebra, 13th ed., Theorem (18.25)
- The Stacks Project, Lemma 10.15.2
- B. Totaro, Commutative Algebra (Michaelmas 2011), notes by Z. Norwood, §9
- J. S. Milne, A Primer of Commutative Algebra, v4.03, Theorem 19.10 and isolated-component discussion
- J. S. Milne, A Primer of Commutative Algebra, v4.03, Proposition 19.8