Alphabeta Math
ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedprecheck passjudge pass (deepseek-v4-pro + gpt-5.6-terra)audited 2026-08-26
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.

The polynomial ring in countably many variables is not Noetherian

Example

Let k be a field and, for m∈N, write Rm:=k[x1,…,xm] for the iterated polynomial ring, so that R0=k and Rm+1=Rm[xm+1] (Polynomial rings in finitely many commuting indeterminates by iteration). Identify Rm with the subring of constant polynomials in Rm+1, which is the identification the published iterative definition already makes and which is legitimate because the constant-polynomial map is an injective unital ring homomorphism (Polynomial convolution makes R[x] a commutative ring containing R as its constant subring). Under it

R0⊆R1⊆R2⊆⋯ ,

and the union

R∞:=⋃m∈NRm

carries well-defined operations, making it a commutative ring: the polynomial ring in the countably many indeterminates x1,x2,… over k.

Then R∞ is not Noetherian. Writing Im:=(x1,…,xm) for the ideal of R∞ generated by the first m indeterminates, with I0=(∅)=0, the chain

I0⊊I1⊊I2⊊⋯

is strictly ascending and therefore never stabilises.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A field k, the rings Rm=k[x1,…,xm] for m∈N, and their union R∞.

[L1]

Polynomial rings in finitely many commuting indeterminates are defined by R[x1,…,x0]:=R and R[x1,…,xn+1]:=R[x1,…,xn][xn+1]; at each stage the coefficient ring embeds as the constant polynomials, so all preceding indeterminates remain present (Polynomial rings in finitely many commuting indeterminates by iteration).

[L2]

For every commutative ring R the polynomial ring R[x] is a commutative ring, and the constant-polynomial map R→R[x] is an injective unital ring homomorphism (Polynomial convolution makes R[x] a commutative ring containing R as its constant subring).

[L3]

A subset S of a ring is a subring when 1∈S and S is closed under addition, additive inverses and multiplication; it is then a ring with the same zero and identity (Subring: a subset containing 1R and closed under addition, additive inverses and multiplication).

[L4]

For S⊆R, (S) is the intersection of all two-sided ideals containing S, so S⊆(S) (The ideal generated by a subset and principal ideals).

[L5]

In a commutative ring, (S) consists of finite sums ∑risi, and the empty sum is included and equals 0 (In a commutative ring, (S) consists of finite sums ∑risi, and (a)=Ra).

[L6]

For commutative rings R,S, a unital ring homomorphism φ ⁣:R→S and s∈S, there is a unique unital ring homomorphism R[x]→S extending φ on constants and sending x to s (Universal property of R[x]: a coefficient homomorphism and the image of x determine a unique ring homomorphism).

Verification

technique · direct
1.1L1L2L3given

Under the identification of Rm with the constants of Rm+1, each Rm is a subring of Rm+1, so the family is increasing and any two of its members are comparable.

2.1L2L3step 1.1

The union R∞ is a commutative ring. Given f,g∈R∞ there is m with f,g∈Rm, by comparability of the two stages containing them; define f+g and fg there. The value does not depend on the stage chosen, because a larger stage contains the smaller as a subring and the operations of a subring are the restrictions of the ambient ones. Each ring axiom involves finitely many elements, which again lie in a common Rm, where the axiom holds. The identity is 1k and the zero is 0k.

3.1L4L5step 2.1

For m∈N let Im:=(x1,…,xm) be the ideal of R∞ generated by x1,…,xm; at m=0 the generating set is empty and I0=0. Since the generating sets increase with m, so do the ideals: Im⊆Im+1.

4.1L1L4L6step 1.1step 3.1

The inclusions are strict, because xm+1∉Im. Suppose xm+1=∑i=1mfixi with fi∈R∞; all the fi lie in a common RN with N≥m+1, so the equation holds in RN=k[x1,…,xN]. Iterating the one-variable universal property along the tower defining RN produces a k-algebra homomorphism θ ⁣:RN→k[T] with θ(xm+1)=T and θ(xj)=0 for every j≤N with j≠m+1. Applying θ to the supposed equation gives T=∑i=1mθ(fi)⋅0=0 in k[T], which is false. So xm+1∈Im+1∖Im and Im⊊Im+1.

5.1L7step 3.1step 4.1∎

The chain I0⊆I1⊆⋯ is an ascending chain of ideals of R∞ indexed by N in which every inclusion is strict, so no index N has In=IN for all n≥N: already IN+1≠IN. The ascending chain condition therefore fails, and R∞ is not Noetherian.

Remarks

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

28 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.

Sources