Alphabeta Math
LemmaStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedSession-authored (Fable 5 assisted)precheck 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.

An ideal maximal among the non-finitely-generated ideals is prime

Statement

Let R be a commutative ring and let p be an ideal of R that is maximal in the set Σ of non-finitely-generated ideals of R (If some ideal is not finitely generated, there is one maximal among the ideals that are not): that is, p is not finitely generated, and every ideal of R strictly containing p is finitely generated. Then p is a prime ideal (Prime ideals and maximal ideals in a commutative ring).

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A commutative ring R and an ideal p maximal in the set Σ of ideals of R that are not finitely generated (If some ideal is not finitely generated, there is one maximal among the ideals that are not). For an ideal a and aR, write (a:a):={rR:raa} and aa:={ax:xa}.

[L1]

A proper ideal PR of a commutative ring is prime when abP implies aP or bP (Prime ideals and maximal ideals in a commutative ring).

[L2]

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

[L3]

For SR, (S) is the intersection of all two-sided ideals containing S, so S(S); ({a}) is written (a) (The ideal generated by a subset and principal ideals).

[L4]

For ideals I,J of R, the sum is I+J={i+j:iI, jJ} (The sum I+J and product IJ of two-sided ideals).

[L5]

A nonempty subset IR is a two-sided ideal exactly when it is closed under xy and under rx,xr for all rR, x,yI (Ideal criteria and intersections of ideals).

Proof

technique · contradiction
1.1

p is a proper ideal: the unit ideal R=(1) is generated by one element, so RΣ, whereas pΣ.

L2L3given
1.2

Suppose p is not prime. By the previous step it is proper, so there are a,bR with abp, ap and bp.

assume-contraL1given
2.1

The ideal p+(a) strictly contains p, since a lies in it and not in p, so by maximality it is finitely generated. Every element of p+(a) has the form x+wa with xp and wR, because (a)=Ra; so a finite generating list may be written x1+w1a,,xn+wna with xip, wiR and nN.

L2L3L4step 1.2
2.2

The set q:=(p:a) is an ideal of R: it contains 0, and if ra,rap then (rr)a=rarap and (sr)a=s(ra)p for every sR. It contains p, since xap for xp, and it contains b, since ba=abp; as bp the containment pq is strict, so by maximality q is finitely generated, say q=(q1,,qm) with mN.

L2L5step 1.2
3.1

The set aq is an ideal, being closed under differences and under multiplication by R because q is, and it is generated by aq1,,aqm: any qq is jrjqj, so aq=jrj(aqj). Moreover aqp by the definition of q.

L2L5step 2.2
3.2

p=(x1,,xn)+aq. The inclusion from right to left holds because each xi lies in p and aqp. For the other inclusion take zpp+(a) and write z=i=1nci(xi+wia)=i=1ncixi+ya with ciR and y=i=1nciwi; then ya=zicixi lies in p, so yq and yaaq, whence z(x1,,xn)+aq.

L2L4step 2.1step 2.2
4.1

Both summands are finitely generated, so p=(x1,,xn,aq1,,aqm) is finitely generated, contradicting pΣ. The supposition of step 1.2 is therefore untenable: whenever abp, either ap or bp, and with step 1.1 this makes p prime.

L1L2L4step 1.1step 3.1step 3.2discharge-contradiction

Remarks

  • Where each maximality use goes. Maximality of p in Σ is used exactly twice, in step 2.1 on p+(a) and in step 2.2 on the colon ideal (p:a); both are strictly larger than p precisely because ap and bp.

  • The generators of p+(a) are normalised, not merely chosen. Writing them as xi+wia with xip is what lets step 3.2 separate the part of z lying in (x1,,xn) from the multiple of a; an unnormalised list would not split that way.

  • No Noetherian hypothesis anywhere. The lemma is used inside a proof whose conclusion is that the ring is Noetherian, so assuming a chain condition here would be circular.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

14 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