Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-31
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.

Equivalent characterizations of invertible fractional ideals

Statement

Assume the Axiom of Choice. Let I be a nonzero fractional ideal of a domain R. The following are equivalent:

  1. I is invertible.
  2. As an R-module, I is finite projective and Im≅Rm for every maximal ideal m.
  3. The module I is finitely generated, and for every maximal ideal m, the localisation Im is a principal fractional ideal of Rm.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A nonzero fractional ideal I of a domain R.

[F1]

Invertibility means I(R:I)=R (Invertible fractional ideals).

[L1]

Product, colon, and localisation of fractional ideals are well defined (The basic operations on fractional ideals are well defined).

[L2]

Localisation of modules preserves short exactness (Localisation of modules is exact).

[L3]

Assuming Choice, a module map is an isomorphism exactly when all maximal localisations are isomorphisms (Assuming the Axiom of Choice, local criteria for zero modules and for injective, surjective, and bijective maps).

[L4]

A projective module is exactly one that splits off a free cover (Equivalent characterizations of projective modules).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1F1L4givenconstruct

Assume (1). Choose a finite relation 1=∑i=1nxiyi with xi∈I and yi∈(R:I). For any x∈I one has x=∑i(xyi)xi, so x1,…,xn generate I. Define ϕ:Rn→I by ei↦xi and ψ:I→Rn by x↦(xy1,…,xyn). Then ϕψ=id⁡I, so I is a direct summand of a finite free module and hence finite projective by [L4].

1.2L1L2L3givenchoosealgebra

Assume (3), and choose generators x1,…,xn of I. For a maximal ideal m, write Im=aRm with a∈K×. For each i there is ui∈Rm such that xi/1=aui, and we may choose si∉m with siui∈R. Putting t:=s1⋯sn, we get (ta−1)xi∈R for every i, so ta−1∈(R:I) and a−1/1=(ta−1)/t∈(R:I)m. Hence 1=(a/1)(a−1/1)∈Im(R:I)m⊆Rm, so in fact Im(R:I)m=Rm. By [L1], localising the quotient R/I(R:I) and using [L2] gives (R/I(R:I))m=0 for every maximal ideal m. Therefore [L3] gives I(R:I)=R, so I is invertible.

2.1F1step 1.1algebra

Still under (1), localise at a maximal ideal m. From 1=∑xiyi, one summand xjyj is a unit in the local ring Rm, so xj generates Im. Thus (1) implies (3), and also yields the local rank-one part of (2).

3.1step 1.1step 1.2step 2.1∎

Condition (2) implies (3) because finite projective modules are finitely generated, and a free rank-one module over Rm is principal. Steps 1.1 and 2.1 prove (1)⇒(2) and (1)⇒(3), step 1.2 proves (3)⇒(1), and the present step proves (2)⇒(3). Therefore the three conditions are equivalent.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

23 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