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.
Prime Spectra and Radicals
1 · Prerequisites
- Algebraic Extensions, Extension Degree, and Finite Fields
- Binary Operations, Monoids, Groups and Subgroups
- Chain Conditions, Semisimple Modules and the Wedderburn–Artin Theorem
- 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
- Group Homomorphisms and the Isomorphism Theorems
- Ideals, Quotient Rings and the Isomorphism Theorems for Rings
- 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
- Relations, Functions, and Quotients
- Rings, Subrings, Integral Domains and Fields
- Roots, Rational Powers, and Classical Inequalities
- The Field of Fractions and Localisation
- The ZFC Axioms and the Basic Set Constructions
2 · Summary
Radicals turn power-membership into an ideal-theoretic closure operation, and prime ideals detect that closure. This page defines radicals, nilradicals, reduced rings, the prime spectrum as a set, the vanishing subsets and the principal distinguished subsets , and it proves the algebraic identities among them without introducing topology.
It then records the quotient and localization correspondences for radicals and prime ideals, the reduction invariance of the prime spectrum, the Noetherian finiteness statement for minimal primes, and the boundary language of Krull dimension and height that later pages use for the actual dimension theorems.
3 · Logical flowchart
4 · Definitions, theorems and proofs
The radical of an ideal
Definition
Let be a commutative ring and let be an ideal. The radical of is
The ideal is radical when .
Radical membership via positive powers
Statement
Let be a commutative ring, let be an ideal, and let . Then
In particular, , and if is the zero ring then .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , an ideal , and an element .
The radical of is the set of elements whose positive powers land in (The radical of an ideal).
Proof
The displayed equivalence is exactly the defining membership criterion in [L1].
Taking in step 1.1 gives , because every element already has its first power in . If is the zero ring, then , so the same observation gives .
Steps 1.1 and 2.1 prove the claim and record the unit-ideal and zero-ring boundaries explicitly.
The radical of an ideal is an ideal
Statement
Let be a commutative ring and let be an ideal. Then is an ideal of containing . If is another ideal with , then . Moreover,
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , an ideal , and, for the order-preservation clause, an ideal with .
An element lies in exactly when some positive power lies in (The radical of an ideal).
In a commutative ring, for every natural number (The binomial theorem over an arbitrary commutative ring).
Proof
If , then , so by [L1]. Thus . If and , choose with . Then , so .
Let . Choose with and , and set . By [L2], every term of has the form . For each , either or ; otherwise and , which would force . Hence each term lies in , so and .
Steps 1.1 and 1.2 show that is an ideal containing . If and , any power of lying in also lies in , so . Thus radical is order-preserving.
If , choose with , and then choose with . By [L1], this means . Together with step 2.1 applied to , this proves .
The radical construction therefore sends ideals to radical ideals, contains the original ideal, and is order-preserving and idempotent.
The radical of a finite intersection
Statement
Let be a commutative ring, and let with . Then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , ideals , and an integer .
Radical is order-preserving on ideals (The radical of an ideal is an ideal).
Proof
Since for every , [L1] gives for every , hence .
Conversely, let . For each , choose with , and set . Then for every , so . Hence .
The two inclusions prove the stated equality.
The radical of a product of ideals
Statement
Let be a commutative ring and let be ideals. Then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring and ideals .
The radical of a finite intersection is the intersection of the radicals (The radical of a finite intersection).
The product ideal is generated by finite sums of products with and (The sum and product of two-sided ideals).
Proof
Every generator of lies in both and , so . Therefore by [L1].
If , choose with and . Then , so .
Step 1.1 gives , step 1.2 gives the reverse inclusion, and [L1] identifies that common ideal with .
The nilradical and reduced rings
Definition
Let be a commutative ring.
The nilradical of is the radical of the zero ideal,
Thus exactly when for some integer .
The ring is reduced when , equivalently when the only nilpotent element of is .
Radicals and quotient correspondence
Statement
Let be a commutative ring, let be ideals, and write for the quotient map. Then
as ideals of . In particular, is radical in if and only if is radical in .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , ideals , and the quotient map .
Ideals of correspond to ideals of containing , so is an ideal of (Correspondence theorem: ideals of correspond to ideals of containing ).
An element belongs to the radical of an ideal exactly when one of its positive powers lies in that ideal (The radical of an ideal).
Proof
Let . By [L2], exactly when for some , and that happens exactly when . Applying [L2] again shows that this is equivalent to , so exactly when .
Step 1.1 proves . Consequently, is radical exactly when , exactly when , and exactly when .
The quotient radical is therefore exactly the quotient of the radical, and radical ideals correspond across the quotient map.
Radicals commute with localization
Statement
Let be a commutative ring, let be a multiplicative subset, and let be an ideal. Then
as ideals of .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , a multiplicative subset , and an ideal .
An element lies in the radical of an ideal exactly when some positive power lies in that ideal (The radical of an ideal).
In , one has exactly when for some (Multiplicative subsets and the localisation as equivalence classes of fractions).
The extended ideal is (Ideals of correspond to -saturated ideals of , and prime ideals correspond to primes disjoint from ).
Proof
If , choose with . Then , so by [L1]. This proves .
Conversely, let . Choose with , and then choose and with . By [L2], some satisfies . Hence , so . Thus by [L1], and lies in .
Steps 1.1 and 1.2 prove the equality .
The reduced quotient by the nilradical
Statement
Let be a commutative ring and let . Then is reduced. Moreover, if is a ring homomorphism to a reduced commutative ring , then there is a unique ring homomorphism with , where is the quotient map.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , its nilradical , and the quotient map .
The nilradical is the ideal of nilpotent elements, and a ring is reduced exactly when its nilradical is zero (The nilradical and reduced rings).
Proof
Let be nilpotent. Then for some , so . By [L1], some power of is zero, hence some power of is zero, so . Therefore , and the only nilpotent element of is zero. Thus is reduced by [L1].
Let with reduced. If , then for some , so . Reducedness of forces , so . Therefore is well-defined, and it is unique because is surjective.
The quotient by the nilradical is reduced and is universal among maps from to reduced rings.
A prime containing an ideal and avoiding a multiplicative set
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice.
Let be a commutative ring, let be a multiplicative subset, and let be an ideal with . Then there exists a prime ideal of such that and .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , a multiplicative subset , an ideal with , and the Axiom of Choice.
A prime ideal is a proper ideal such that implies or (Prime ideals and maximal ideals in a commutative ring).
A multiplicative subset contains and is closed under multiplication (Multiplicative subsets and the localisation as equivalence classes of fractions).
Assuming the Axiom of Choice, every nonempty poset in which every chain has an upper bound has a maximal element (Zorn's lemma).
Proof
Let be the set of ideals with and , ordered by inclusion. The ideal lies in , so .
If is a chain, then is an ideal containing . Moreover , because if then for some , contradicting . Thus every chain in has an upper bound.
Zorn's lemma yields a maximal member of . Because by [L2] and , the ideal is proper.
Suppose while and . By maximality of in , the larger ideals and must meet . Choose and with and . Then , because . But by [L2], contradicting . Therefore is prime by [L1].
The ideal is prime, contains , and is disjoint from , exactly as required.
Separating an element from an ideal by a prime
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice.
Let be a commutative ring, let be an ideal, and let . If for every integer , then there exists a prime ideal of such that and .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , an ideal , an element whose positive powers all avoid , and the Axiom of Choice.
If an ideal is disjoint from a multiplicative set, then some prime ideal contains it and stays disjoint from that multiplicative set (A prime containing an ideal and avoiding a multiplicative set).
Proof
The set is multiplicative, and the hypothesis says exactly that .
Applying [L1] to the ideal and the multiplicative set yields a prime ideal with and . In particular .
This is the required separating prime.
Primes containing an ideal contain its radical
Statement
Let be a commutative ring, let be an ideal, and let be a prime ideal with . Then .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , an ideal , and a prime ideal containing .
An element lies in exactly when some positive power of it lies in (The radical of an ideal).
A prime ideal is proper and contains a factor whenever it contains a product (Prime ideals and maximal ideals in a commutative ring).
Proof
Let . Choose with . Since , one has .
Repeatedly applying primality from [L2] to the factorization shows that : if , then ; repeating the same argument eventually forces after all.
Every element of lies in , so .
A separating prime for an element outside a radical
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice.
Let be a commutative ring, let be an ideal, and let . If , then there exists a prime ideal of such that and .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , an ideal , an element , and the Axiom of Choice.
An element belongs to exactly when one of its positive powers lies in (The radical of an ideal).
If every positive power of avoids , then some prime ideal contains but avoids (Separating an element from an ideal by a prime).
Proof
Since , [L1] says that for every integer .
Applying [L2] to step 1.1 yields a prime ideal with and .
This prime separates from the radical of .
The radical of an ideal is the intersection of the prime ideals containing it
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice.
Let be a commutative ring and let be an ideal. Then
where the intersection is taken to be if no prime ideal contains .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , an ideal , and the Axiom of Choice.
Every prime ideal containing also contains (Primes containing an ideal contain its radical).
Every element outside is omitted by some prime ideal containing (A separating prime for an element outside a radical).
Proof
Let . By [L1], every prime ideal containing also contains . Therefore belongs to the displayed intersection.
Let . By [L2], there is a prime ideal containing with . Hence does not belong to the displayed intersection.
Steps 1.1 and 1.2 prove that an element belongs to exactly when it belongs to every prime ideal containing , which is the claimed equality.
The nilradical is the intersection of all prime ideals
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice.
For a commutative ring , , with the empty-intersection convention in force for the zero ring.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring and the Axiom of Choice.
The nilradical of is (The nilradical and reduced rings).
The radical of any ideal is the intersection of the prime ideals containing it (The radical of an ideal is the intersection of the prime ideals containing it).
Proof
By [L1], .
Applying [L2] to the zero ideal gives . Combining this with step 1.1 yields the claimed formula for the nilradical.
Therefore the nilradical is exactly the intersection of all prime ideals of .
A ring is reduced exactly when zero is an intersection of primes
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice.
A commutative ring is reduced if and only if its zero ideal is the intersection of its prime ideals.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring and the Axiom of Choice.
is reduced exactly when (The nilradical and reduced rings).
The nilradical is the intersection of all prime ideals (The nilradical is the intersection of all prime ideals).
Proof
If is reduced, then by [L1]. Applying [L2] yields .
Conversely, if , then [L2] shows that . Now [L1] gives that is reduced.
Steps 1.1 and 1.2 prove the equivalence.
The prime spectrum and vanishing sets
Definition
Let be a commutative ring.
The prime spectrum of is the set
If , define its vanishing set by
For an ideal this is simply
Since a prime ideal contains exactly when it contains the ideal generated by , one has .
Krull dimension of a nonzero ring
Definition
Let be a nonzero commutative ring. A strict chain of prime ideals of length is a sequence
of prime ideals of .
The Krull dimension of is the supremum of all integers for which such a chain exists. This supremum is allowed to be infinite.
On this page the zero ring is left outside the definition so that later chain statements do not hide that degenerate boundary.
The height of a prime ideal
Definition
Let be a commutative ring and let . The height of is the Krull dimension of the local ring :
Vanishing sets reverse inclusions
Statement
Let be a commutative ring and let be ideals. Then .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring and ideals .
is the set of prime ideals containing the ideal (The prime spectrum and vanishing sets).
Proof
Let . By [L1], this means . Since , one also has .
The containment says exactly that by [L1]. Therefore every element of lies in .
Hence .
Vanishing sets of arbitrary sums
Statement
Let be a commutative ring, and let be a family of ideals of . Write for the ideal of finite sums of elements drawn from the family, with the empty sum equal to . Then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring and a family of ideals of .
is the set of prime ideals containing the ideal (The prime spectrum and vanishing sets).
Proof
If , then . Since every is contained in that sum, one has for every , so for all .
Conversely, if for every , then each lies in . Because is an ideal, it contains every finite sum of elements coming from the family, hence it contains . Therefore .
Steps 1.1 and 1.2 prove the displayed equality.
Vanishing sets of finite products
Statement
Let be a commutative ring, and let with . Then .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , ideals , and an integer .
is the set of prime ideals containing (The prime spectrum and vanishing sets).
A prime ideal contains a factor whenever it contains a product (Prime ideals and maximal ideals in a commutative ring).
Proof
If for some , then . Every element of lies in , so , and therefore . This proves .
Conversely, let and suppose that no is contained in . For each , choose . Then , so repeated use of [L2] forces some , a contradiction. Hence for some , and .
The two inclusions prove .
Vanishing-set identities
Statement
Let be a commutative ring.
- .
- .
- For every family of ideals,
- For every finite family of ideals with ,
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring .
is the set of prime ideals containing (The prime spectrum and vanishing sets).
Vanishing sets turn arbitrary sums into intersections (Vanishing sets of arbitrary sums).
Vanishing sets turn finite products into unions (Vanishing sets of finite products).
Proof
Every prime ideal contains , so . No prime ideal equals the whole ring, so no prime ideal contains ; hence .
The arbitrary-sum identity is exactly [L2], and the finite-product identity is exactly [L3].
Steps 1.1 and 1.2 supply the four listed vanishing-set identities.
Vanishing sets detect radicals
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice.
Let be a commutative ring and let be ideals. Then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , ideals , and the Axiom of Choice.
The radical of an ideal is the intersection of the prime ideals containing it (The radical of an ideal is the intersection of the prime ideals containing it).
Radical is an idempotent ideal-valued operation (The radical of an ideal is an ideal).
Proof
If , then the two ideals are contained in exactly the same prime ideals. Applying [L1] to both ideals shows that and are intersections over the same family of prime ideals, hence .
Conversely, suppose . If , then contains , so [L1] gives . Therefore , hence by [L2], and . The same argument with and reversed shows .
Steps 1.1 and 1.2 prove that vanishing sets agree exactly when radicals agree.
Principal distinguished subsets of the prime spectrum
Definition
Let be a commutative ring and let . The principal distinguished subset determined by is
It is the complement of inside the set .
Distinguished-subset identities
Statement
Let be a commutative ring and let . Then
Moreover, for every integer one has
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , elements , and an integer .
is the set of prime ideals that do not contain (Principal distinguished subsets of the prime spectrum).
Proof
Every prime ideal contains , so no prime lies in . Every prime ideal is proper, so it does not contain ; hence every prime lies in . Therefore and .
Let . Then exactly when . Because is prime, this is equivalent to saying that neither nor lies in , that is, . The same prime-ideal property shows that exactly when , so .
Steps 1.1 and 1.2 prove the stated identities for principal distinguished subsets.
Distinguished-subset covers detect radicals
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice.
Let be a commutative ring and let with . Then
if and only if
Equivalently, some positive power of lies in the ideal .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , elements , an integer , and the Axiom of Choice.
Two ideals have the same vanishing set exactly when their radicals agree (Vanishing sets detect radicals).
For any , the principal distinguished subset is the complement of in (Principal distinguished subsets of the prime spectrum), where denotes the principal ideal generated by (The ideal generated by a subset and principal ideals).
Proof
Let . If and , then . A prime ideal containing would contain every element of and therefore would contain , so cannot contain . Hence at least one is omitted by , which means for some . Thus .
Conversely, assume . If contains and omitted , then would lie in the left-hand side and hence in some , contradicting . Therefore every prime ideal containing also contains , so . By [L1], the radicals of and agree; since , this forces .
Steps 1.1 and 1.2 prove the equivalence. The final sentence is just the definition of membership in a radical ideal.
The spectrum map respects composition and identities
Statement
Let be ring homomorphisms of commutative rings. For a prime ideal define . Then this gives a well-defined map , and one has and .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Commutative rings and ring homomorphisms and .
Prime ideals are proper ideals that absorb factors of a product (Prime ideals and maximal ideals in a commutative ring).
Proof
If , then is a proper ideal of : otherwise , so , contradicting the properness in [L1]. If , then , so [L1] gives or . Therefore is prime.
For , one has . For , one has , so contraction along the composite is the composite of the contractions.
The inverse-image construction is therefore well-defined on prime spectra and respects identities and composition.
The spectrum map pulls back vanishing sets
Statement
Let be a ring homomorphism of commutative rings, and let be an ideal. Write for the ideal of generated by . Then as subsets of .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A ring homomorphism of commutative rings and an ideal .
is the set of prime ideals containing (The prime spectrum and vanishing sets).
is the ideal generated by the image of (The ideal generated by a subset and principal ideals).
Proof
Let . Then exactly when , and by [L1] this is equivalent to . That in turn is equivalent to .
A prime ideal contains the subset exactly when it contains the ideal generated by that subset, namely by [L2]. Hence the condition from step 1.1 is equivalent to , that is, to .
Therefore .
A ring map induces a contraction map on prime spectra
Statement
Let be a ring homomorphism of commutative rings. Then contraction along defines a map
For every ideal , if denotes the ideal generated by , then
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A ring homomorphism of commutative rings.
Contraction of prime ideals is well-defined and respects identities and composition (The spectrum map respects composition and identities).
Contraction pulls back vanishing sets by the rule (The spectrum map pulls back vanishing sets).
Proof
The first displayed assignment is well-defined on prime ideals by [L1].
The stated pullback formula for vanishing sets is exactly [L2].
Together, steps 1.1 and 1.2 give the spectrum map induced by and its basic effect on vanishing sets.
Primes of a quotient lie over the kernel
Statement
Let be a commutative ring, let be an ideal, and let be the quotient map. If , then is a prime ideal of containing . If contains , then is a prime ideal of . Both assignments preserve strict inclusion.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , an ideal , and the quotient map .
Ideals of correspond to ideals of containing (Correspondence theorem: ideals of correspond to ideals of containing ).
A prime ideal is a proper ideal that absorbs factors of a product (Prime ideals and maximal ideals in a commutative ring).
Proof
Let . Because , the contraction contains . If , then , so [L2] gives or . Also because is proper. Hence is prime.
Let with . By [L1], is an ideal of . If , then , so [L2] gives or . Properness is inherited from . Inclusion preservation is immediate from [L1].
Therefore primes of the quotient and primes of above correspond by extension and contraction, with strict inclusions preserved.
Prime ideals of a quotient ring are exactly the prime ideals containing the ideal
Statement
Let be a commutative ring, let be an ideal, and let be the quotient map. Then contraction along induces an inclusion-preserving bijection , sending to . Its inverse sends a prime ideal to .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , an ideal , and the quotient map .
Primes of correspond to primes of containing , and strict inclusions are preserved (Primes of a quotient lie over the kernel).
Every quotient map induces a spectrum map by contraction (A ring map induces a contraction map on prime spectra).
Proof
By [L2], contraction along gives a map . The quotient-prime correspondence [L1] shows that its values are precisely prime ideals containing , so the map lands in .
The same correspondence [L1] provides the inverse assignment on , and it also shows that extension and contraction undo one another and preserve inclusion.
Therefore contraction along identifies with .
Primes of a localization avoid the denominator set
Statement
Let be a commutative ring, let be a multiplicative subset, and let be the localization map. Contraction sends each prime ideal of to a prime ideal of disjoint from , and extension sends each prime ideal of disjoint from back to a prime ideal of . These two operations are inverse and preserve strict inclusion.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , a multiplicative subset , and the localization map .
Ideals of correspond to -saturated ideals of , and primes correspond exactly to the prime ideals disjoint from (Ideals of correspond to -saturated ideals of , and prime ideals correspond to primes disjoint from ).
Proof
The prime-ideal part of [L1] says exactly that if , then is a prime ideal of disjoint from , and if with , then is a prime ideal of .
The same statement [L1] asserts that these assignments are inverse inclusion-preserving bijections. In particular they preserve strict inclusion.
Therefore primes of the localization are exactly the primes of that avoid the denominator set.
Primes of a localization at a prime
Statement
Let be a commutative ring and let . Contraction along induces an inclusion-preserving bijection from to the set of prime ideals of .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring and a prime ideal .
is the localization at the multiplicative set (Localisation at a prime ideal: ).
Primes of a localization correspond to primes of the original ring disjoint from the denominator set (Primes of a localization avoid the denominator set).
Proof
By [L1], the denominator set is . For a prime ideal of , the condition is equivalent to .
Applying [L2] to the localization at yields the claimed bijection between and the primes .
Hence prime ideals of the local ring are exactly the primes of lying below .
Primes of a principal localization
Statement
Let be a commutative ring and let . Contraction along induces an inclusion-preserving bijection from to the set of prime ideals of that do not contain .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring and an element .
is the localization of at the multiplicative set (Principal localisation ).
Primes of a localization correspond to primes of the original ring disjoint from the denominator set (Primes of a localization avoid the denominator set).
Proof
By [L1], the denominator set is . A prime ideal is disjoint from exactly when : if , then every positive power of lies in ; conversely, if some power of lies in , primality forces .
Applying [L2] to the localization at gives the stated bijection.
Therefore primes of are exactly the primes of that avoid .
Prime ideals of a localization are exactly the primes disjoint from the denominator set
Statement
Let be a commutative ring, let be a multiplicative subset, and let be the localization map. Then contraction along induces an inclusion-preserving bijection . Its inverse sends to .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , a multiplicative subset , and the localization map .
Every localization map induces a spectrum map by contraction (A ring map induces a contraction map on prime spectra).
Primes of the localization correspond exactly to primes of disjoint from (Primes of a localization avoid the denominator set).
Proof
By [L1], contraction along gives a map from to .
The localization-prime correspondence [L2] says that this map lands exactly in the primes disjoint from , and that extension and contraction are inverse inclusion-preserving bijections on that subset.
Therefore is identified with the primes of that avoid the denominator set.
Passing to the reduced quotient does not change the prime spectrum
Statement
Let be a commutative ring, let , and let be the quotient map. Then contraction along induces an inclusion-preserving bijection . If and , this bijection identifies with .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , its nilradical , and the quotient map .
Prime ideals of a quotient correspond exactly to prime ideals of the original ring containing the kernel (Prime ideals of a quotient ring are exactly the prime ideals containing the ideal).
Every element of is nilpotent (The nilradical and reduced rings).
Proof
Let . If , then for some , so . Because is prime, this forces . Thus every prime ideal of contains .
Applying [L1] to the quotient map and using step 1.1, one gets an inclusion-preserving bijection from onto all of . Moreover, for an ideal with pullback , a prime of contains exactly when its contraction contains . So the same bijection carries onto .
Therefore passing from to its reduced quotient does not change the prime spectrum or the vanishing sets attached to quotient ideals.
Minimal primes over a proper ideal exist
Statement
Assume the Axiom of Choice.
Let be a commutative ring and let be a proper ideal. Then there exists a prime ideal of containing that is minimal with respect to inclusion among the prime ideals containing .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , a proper ideal , and the Axiom of Choice.
If an ideal is disjoint from a multiplicative set, then some prime ideal contains it and stays disjoint from that set (A prime containing an ideal and avoiding a multiplicative set).
Assuming the Axiom of Choice, every nonempty poset in which every chain has an upper bound has a maximal element (Zorn's lemma).
Prime ideals are ordered by inclusion as ideals (Prime ideals and maximal ideals in a commutative ring).
Proof
The singleton set is multiplicative and is disjoint from because is proper. Applying [L1] gives at least one prime ideal containing . Let be the set of all prime ideals containing , ordered by reverse inclusion. Then .
Let be a chain. Put
Then . To see that is prime, let and assume . Choose with and . Since is totally ordered by inclusion, either or . In the first case because ; in the second case . Either way one of the primes in the chain contains but neither factor, a contradiction. Thus , and it is an upper bound of in the reverse-inclusion order.
By [L2], the poset has a maximal element for reverse inclusion. Such an element is exactly a prime ideal minimal by ordinary inclusion among the primes containing .
Therefore every proper ideal lies under a minimal prime ideal.
The Noetherian minimal-prime induction split
Statement
Let be a commutative ring and let be a proper radical ideal that is not prime. Then there exist elements with . For any such choice of and , every prime ideal minimal over is minimal over or minimal over .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring and a proper radical ideal that is not prime.
A prime ideal is proper and contains one factor whenever it contains a product (Prime ideals and maximal ideals in a commutative ring).
Proof
Because is not prime, [L1] gives elements with but and .
Let be a prime ideal minimal over . Since and is prime, [L1] gives or . If and is a prime ideal with , then , so minimality of over forces . Thus is minimal over . The same argument with in place of shows that if , then is minimal over .
Therefore every prime ideal minimal over appears on one side of the split or .
The nilradical of a Noetherian ring is nilpotent
Statement
Let be a Noetherian commutative ring. Then its nilradical is a nilpotent ideal: there exists an integer such that .
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Noetherian commutative ring .
The nilradical is the ideal of nilpotent elements (The nilradical and reduced rings).
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).
Proof
By [L1] and [L2], the ideal is finitely generated. Choose generators , and for each choose an integer with . Set .
Every element of is a finite sum of monomials of total degree in the generators . In each such monomial, some generator occurs at least times, so that monomial contains the factor and therefore vanishes. Hence every monomial, and therefore every finite sum of them, is zero.
Thus for the integer chosen in step 1.1.
A radical ideal in a Noetherian ring is a finite intersection of minimal primes
Statement
Let be a Noetherian commutative ring and let be a radical ideal. Then there exist prime ideals minimal over such that ; when , this means and the empty intersection is . In particular, has only finitely many minimal prime ideals.
The proof uses Noetherian induction and inherits the dependent-choice cost already recorded there; it introduces no further choice principle.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Noetherian commutative ring and a radical ideal .
Noetherian induction holds for ideals of a Noetherian ring (Noetherian induction: a property that passes to an ideal whenever it holds for every strictly larger ideal holds for every ideal).
If a proper radical ideal is not prime, then every prime minimal over it is minimal over one of two strictly larger ideals or obtained from a factorization with (The Noetherian minimal-prime induction split).
Radicals of products satisfy (The radical of a product of ideals).
Proof
Let be the collection of radical ideals for which there exist finitely many prime ideals minimal over whose intersection equals . By [L1], it is enough to fix a radical ideal and assume that every radical ideal strictly containing lies in .
If , then no prime ideal contains , and the empty intersection is . So in this boundary case.
If is prime, then itself is the unique prime minimal over , so .
Assume now that is neither nor prime. Then is a proper radical ideal, so [L2] applies: choose with , and set and . Because is radical and , both and strictly contain . Hence the induction hypothesis places both and in , and [L2] also says that every prime minimal over is minimal over or over .
Choose finite families of prime ideals minimal over and with and . The product is contained in : expanding gives terms in because and . Therefore by [L3]. The reverse inclusion is immediate, so .
By step 1.4, every prime minimal over belongs to the finite family . Let be the subfamily of inclusion-minimal members. Every element of is a prime ideal minimal over , and every prime in contains some member of because is finite. Removing a prime ideal that contains another one does not change an intersection, so the intersection over is still . Thus .
Steps 1.2, 1.3, and 3.1 establish the induction step promised in step 1.1. Therefore every radical ideal of is an intersection of finitely many prime ideals minimal over it, and in particular has only finitely many minimal prime ideals.
A Noetherian ring has finitely many minimal prime ideals
Statement
Let be a Noetherian commutative ring. Then has only finitely many minimal prime ideals.
This theorem inherits only the dependent-choice cost already recorded in the cited Noetherian-induction corollary.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A Noetherian commutative ring .
The nilradical is , and every ideal of the form is radical (The nilradical and reduced rings, The radical of an ideal is an ideal).
Every radical ideal of a Noetherian ring is a finite intersection of its minimal primes, and hence has only finitely many minimal primes (A radical ideal in a Noetherian ring is a finite intersection of minimal primes).
Proof
Let . By [L1], is a radical ideal, so [L2] gives only finitely many prime ideals minimal over .
A prime ideal contains if and only if it contains every nilpotent element, hence if and only if it contains . Therefore the prime ideals minimal over are exactly the prime ideals minimal over .
Combining steps 1.1 and 1.2 shows that has only finitely many minimal prime ideals.
Height equals local dimension
Statement
Let be a commutative ring and let . Then . The supremum is allowed to be infinite.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring and a prime ideal .
By definition, (The height of a prime ideal).
Prime ideals of correspond exactly to prime ideals of contained in , with strict inclusions preserved (Primes of a localization at a prime).
Krull dimension is the supremum of lengths of strict chains of prime ideals (Krull dimension of a nonzero ring).
Proof
By [L2], strict chains of prime ideals in are in bijection with strict chains of prime ideals in that end at . Corresponding chains have the same length because strict inclusions are preserved in both directions.
By [L1], the left-hand side is . By [L3], that dimension is the supremum of the lengths of the strict prime chains in , so step 1.1 identifies it with the displayed supremum over chains in ending at .
Therefore height agrees with the chain-length description.
Dimension of a quotient via chains above an ideal
Statement
Let be a commutative ring and let be an ideal. Assume is nonzero. Then . The supremum is allowed to be infinite.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: A commutative ring , an ideal , and a nonzero quotient ring .
Krull dimension is the supremum of lengths of strict chains of prime ideals (Krull dimension of a nonzero ring).
Prime ideals of correspond exactly to prime ideals of containing , with strict inclusions preserved (Prime ideals of a quotient ring are exactly the prime ideals containing the ideal).
Proof
By [L2], strict chains of prime ideals in are in bijection with strict chains of prime ideals of whose every term contains . Corresponding chains have the same length.
Since is nonzero, [L1] applies to it. Thus is the supremum of the lengths of the strict prime chains in , and step 1.1 identifies that supremum with the one displayed in the statement.
Therefore dimension of the quotient is computed by prime chains of lying above .
5 · Examples, counterexamples and false statements
None yet.
Sources
- J. S. Milne, A Primer of Commutative Algebra, v4.03, §2 Ideals
- A. Altman and S. Kleiman, A Term of Commutative Algebra, 13th ed., §2 Ideals
- M. Hochster, Introduction to Commutative Algebra, Math 614 notes (2020)
- The Stacks Project, Section 10.17: The spectrum of a ring
- J. S. Milne, A Primer of Commutative Algebra, v4.03, §14 The spectrum of a ring
- A. Altman and S. Kleiman, A Term of Commutative Algebra, 13th ed., §13 The Spectrum of a Ring
- J. S. Milne, A Primer of Commutative Algebra, v4.03, Definition 3.14
- The Stacks Project, Section 10.60: Dimension of rings
- A. Altman and S. Kleiman, A Term of Commutative Algebra, 13th ed., §13 and §17
- The Stacks Project, Section 10.31: Noetherian rings
- The Stacks Project, Section 10.32: Rings and modules with finiteness conditions