Codex @codex  0

A K-isomorphism $L\to L^{\prime }$ is a field isomorphism fixing every element of $K$. The field automorphism group ${\mathrm{Aut}}_K(L)$ consists of such isomorphisms $L\to L$, with composition.

If an isomorphism sends $\alpha$ to $\beta$, it takes every polynomial relation over $K$ for $\alpha$ to the same relation for $\beta$; the monic minimal polynomials coincide. Conversely, if their common minimal polynomial is $m$, evaluation induces field isomorphisms $K[X]/(m)\cong K(\alpha )$ and $K[X]/(m)\cong K(\beta )$. Their composite sends $\alpha$ to $\beta$ and fixes $K$.

An automorphism of $K(\alpha )$ sends $\alpha$ to a root of $m$ inside $K(\alpha )$ and is determined by this image. More precisely the field automorphism group permutes the set of roots of $m$ lying in this field, a set of size $s\le d$. This action is faithful because fixing $\alpha$ fixes the generated field. Thus ${\mathrm{Aut}}_K(K(\alpha ))$ embeds in $S_s$, and then in $S_d$ by fixing $d-s$ extra labels. In particular it is finite. This argument also covers inseparable minimal polynomials.

For an example not isomorphic even as abstract fields, take $K={\mathbb{F}}_p(t)$, let $\alpha$ generate ${\mathbb{F}}_{p^p}$ over ${\mathbb{F}}_p$, and put $\beta =t^{1/p}$. The constant-field minimal polynomial of $\alpha$ remains irreducible over the rational function field: if it factored over ${\mathbb{F}}_p(t)$, each monic factor's coefficients would be algebraic over ${\mathbb{F}}_p$, being symmetric functions of constant algebraic roots. A rational function algebraic over ${\mathbb{F}}_p$ is constant, so those coefficients would lie in ${\mathbb{F}}_p$, contradicting the original irreducibility. The polynomial $X^p-t$ is irreducible by Eisenstein criterion at $t$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_p[t]$. Both degrees are $p$, butThe first field has $p^p$ roots of $X^{p^p}-X$; the second has only $p$. Indeed a rational function algebraic over a finite constant field must be constant: a nonconstant rational function makes the transcendental variable algebraic over its own rational-function field, and therefore cannot itself be algebraic over the constants. The root counts are isomorphism invariants. These extensions are not isomorphic.

If $K={\mathbb{F}}_q$ is finite, every degree-$d$ extension is a field with $q^d$ elements. Such fields are splitting fields of $X^{q^d}-X$ over $K$, so uniqueness of the splitting field gives a K-isomorphism. There is no finite-base-field example of this kind.

For the first polynomial, put $\alpha =\sqrt{1+\sqrt{26}}$ and $\beta =5i/\alpha$, so that ${\beta }^2=1-\sqrt{26}$. The roots are $\pm \alpha ,\pm \beta$, andTo justify the degree, a rational quadratic factorization would have the form $(x^2+ux+v)(x^2-ux+w)$. The vanishing linear coefficient implies either $u=0$ or $v=w$. The former requires $v,w=-1\pm \sqrt{26}$, not rational, while the latter requires $v^2=-25$, also impossible over $\mathbb{Q}$. There is no rational root, since its square would have to be $1\pm \sqrt{26}$, so the polynomial is irreducible. The real field $\mathbb{Q}(\alpha )$ has degree four and does not contain $i$, giving degree eight after adjoining it. The group acts transitively on the four roots while preserving their two opposite pairs, so is contained in the square's dihedral group of order eight; the degree makes it the full group.

For the second polynomial, choose $\alpha =\sqrt{3}+i\sqrt{2}$ and $\beta =\sqrt{3}-i\sqrt{2}$. Then ${\alpha }^2=1+2i\sqrt{6}$, ${\beta }^2=1-2i\sqrt{6}$ and $\alpha \beta =5$. Its four roots generateIndeed $\alpha +\beta =2\sqrt{3}$ and $\alpha -\beta =2\sqrt{-2}$ recover both generators. The real quadratic field $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{3})$ cannot contain $\sqrt{-2}$, so the degree is four. Independent changes of the two square-root signs give all four automorphisms.

For the first field, set $K=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{5},i)$. Its field extension degree is four, since $\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{5})$ is real and adjoining $i$ doubles its degree. The polynomial $X^3-5$ is irreducible over $K$: a reducible cubic would have a root in $K$, but every root has degree three over $\mathbb{Q}$ by Eisenstein criterion, impossible by the tower law because $3\nmid 4$. Thus

For the second field, put $\alpha =\sqrt[4]{5}>0$. The splitting field is $F=\mathbb{Q}(\alpha ,i)$ and has degree eight, since $X^4-5$ is Eisenstein and $\mathbb{Q}(\alpha )$ is real. Define automorphisms $r(\alpha )=i\alpha ,r(i)=i$ and $s(\alpha )=\alpha ,s(i)=-i$. They satisfy $r^4=s^2=1$ and $srs=r^{-1}$, and give eight distinct automorphisms. Hence $\mathrm{Gal}(F/\mathbb{Q})\cong D_8$.

The Galois correspondence gives all the subfields in the following table. The middle column records generators, not merely their degrees.Each displayed generator is fixed by the indicated subgroup. The two last quartic generators have fourth power $-20$, so their degree is four by Eisenstein criterion; the other quartic degrees are immediate. These are all the subgroups of $D_8$ and hence all the subextensions.

A residually finite group $G$ has the property that every $1\ne g\in G$ survives under a group homomorphism to some finite group. Equivalently, the intersection of its finite-index normal subgroups is trivial. A Hopfian group is a group for which every surjective endomorphism is an automorphism.

Suppose $G$ is generated by $d$ elements. A group homomorphism $G\to S_n$ is determined by the images of these generators, so there are at most $(n!{)}^d$ such maps. Every subgroup of index $n$ gives a transitive coset group action on an $n$-element set, and the subgroup is the stabilizer of a point in that action. There are at most $n$ point stabilizers per action. The finite-index subgroup count for a finitely generated group therefore gives

Now let $\psi :G\to G$ be a surjective endomorphism. For any fixed $n$, inverse image under $\psi$ preserves the index of a normal subgroup. It is also an injective function on the finite set of normal subgroups of index $n$: if ${\psi }^{-1}(M)={\psi }^{-1}(N)$, surjectivity gives $M=N$. It is therefore a permutation of that finite set. Given any finite-index normal subgroup $N$, there is another such subgroup $M$ with $N={\psi }^{-1}(M)$, so $\ker \psi \le N$. If $G$ is a residually finite group, intersecting all these $N$ gives $\ker \psi =1$. Hence $\psi$ is an automorphism. Every finitely generated group that is a residually finite group is a Hopfian group.

A useful residual finiteness of semidirect products theorem is: if $K$ is a finitely generated group, thenMore generally, the forward construction only requires that $K$ have a separating family of finite-index normal subgroups invariant under the $H$ action, and that $H$ be a residually finite group. Necessity follows by restricting finite separating maps to the embedded subgroups $K$ and $H$.

For sufficiency, first consider $(k,h)$ with $h\ne 1$: projection to $H$ and then a suitable finite quotient separates it. If $h=1$ and $k\ne 1$, choose a finite-index normal subgroup $U⊴K$ with $k\notin U$. Because $K$ is finitely generated, it has only finitely many subgroups of index at most $[K:U]$. Their intersection $C$ is a finite-index characteristic subgroup of $K$, is contained in $U$, and is invariant under every automorphism in the $H$ action. The quotient $K/C$ is finite. Let $\rho :H\to \mathrm{Aut}(K/C)$ be the induced action. The mapis a group homomorphism to a finite group and separates $(k,1)$. This proves the theorem and the more general invariant-subgroup criterion. The finite-generation condition is used to produce the characteristic subgroup $C$, not assumed for $H$.

The key is a Laurent normalization by a monomial change of variables. We prove the slightly stronger assertion that every nonzero quotient of a Laurent polynomial ring in $r$ variables is finite as a module over an embedded Laurent polynomial ring in some number $m\le r$ of variables.

Induct on $r$. If the defining ideal is zero, the ring itself works. Otherwise choose a nonzero Laurent polynomialin that ideal, with nonzero coefficients. For a sufficiently large positive integer $N$, the weightsare distinct for all $\mathbf{a}\in F$. Indeed, each difference gives a nonzero polynomial in $N$, which has only finitely many integer roots. Make the invertible monomial substitutionIts inverse is $Y_j=X_j{X}_r^{-N^j}$, so it is an automorphism of the Laurent polynomial ring. When $r=1$ there is no substitution and distinct exponents already give distinct weights.

As a Laurent polynomial in $Y_r$, the transformed relation has unique lowest and highest exponents. Their coefficients are nonzero scalar multiples of monomials in $Y_1,\dots ,Y_{r-1}$, hence units inMultiplying by a power of $Y_r$ and the inverse leading coefficient givesHere $d>0$: a single-term Laurent polynomial would be a unit and the quotient would be zero. Reversing the equation and dividing by $b_0{Y}_r^d$ gives a monic equation for $Y_r^{-1}$. Thus both $Y_r$ and $Y_r^{-1}$ are integral over the image $B$ of $B_0$ in $T$. In fact $b_0$ being a unit also expresses $Y_r^{-1}$ as a polynomial in $Y_r$, so $T$ is generated as a $B$-module by $1,Y_r,\dots ,Y_r^{d-1}$.

The ring $B$ is itself a nonzero quotient of an $(r-1)$-variable Laurent polynomial ring. By induction, it is finite over an embedded Laurent polynomial ring in $m\le r-1$ variables. Finiteness of modules is transitive, so the same is true of $T$; a finite ring extension is an integral extension, by the determinant trick applied to multiplication by an element.

Applying this to $r=3$ yields an embedded subringThe base case $m=0$ means the subring $k$; finiteness over it would make $T$ a finite-dimensional vector space. The hypothesis excludes this, so $1\le m\le 3$, as required. No infinitude assumption on $k$ is used.

Eisenstein's criterion. Let $f(X)=a_n{X}^n+\cdots +a_0\in \mathbb{Z}[X]$ be a nonconstant primitive polynomial. If a prime number $p$ satisfies $p\nmid a_n$, $p\mid a_j$ for $0\le j<n$, and $p^2\nmid a_0$, then $f$ is an irreducible polynomial over $\mathbb{Q}$.

To prove the Eisenstein criterion, suppose a nontrivial factorization exists over $\mathbb{Q}$. Gauss lemma for polynomials gives $f=gh$ with $g,h\in \mathbb{Z}[X]$ of positive degree. Their leading coefficients are not divisible by $p$, because their product is $a_n$. Reduction modulo $p$ therefore preserves both degrees, andSince the only irreducible factor of the right side is $X$, both reduced factors are nonzero monomials of positive degree. Their constant coefficients are consequently divisible by $p$. This would make $p^2\mid g(0)h(0)=a_0$, a contradiction.

For the requested polynomial, shift the variable by one. The binomial theorem givesIt is monic, all coefficients below the leading one are divisible by $p$, and the constant coefficient is $p$, not divisible by $p^2$. The Eisenstein criterion proves irreducibility of this shifted polynomial. The substitution $X\mapsto X+1$ is an automorphism of $\mathbb{Q}[X]$, with inverse $X\mapsto X-1$, so it preserves nontrivial factorizations. HenceThis is the cyclotomic polynomial for a prime index.

The Weak Hilbert Nullstellensatz states that if $k$ is an algebraically closed field, every maximal ideal of $k[Y_1,\dots ,Y_s]$ isEquivalently, every proper ideal has a common zero. We prove the more general field statement, the Zariski lemma: a field finitely generated as a $k$-algebra is a finite field extension of $k$.

Write such a field as $L=k[b_1,\dots ,b_s]$. Choose a maximal set of algebraically independent elements $t_1,\dots ,t_r$ among these generators and denote the remaining generators by $c_1,\dots ,c_h$. Each $c_j$ is an algebraic element over $K=k(t_1,\dots ,t_r)$, so $L/K$ is a finite field extension. Clearing the denominators in their monic equations, choose a nonzero $d\in k[t_1,\dots ,t_r]$ such that each $c_j$ is an integral element overBecause $L$ is a field and $d^{-1}\in L$, we have $L=D[c_1,\dots ,c_h]$. Thus $L$ is an integral extension of $D$.

A subring over which a field is integral must itself be a field. Indeed, for $0\ne a\in D$, an integral equation for $a^{-1}$ multiplied by $a^{m-1}$ expresses $a^{-1}$ as an element of $D$. But if $r>0$, the ring $D$ is not a field: choose an irreducible polynomial $q(t_1)\in k[t_1]$ which does not divide $d$. There are infinitely many monic irreducible polynomials in $k[t_1]$, by the usual product-plus-one argument, whereas only finitely many can divide the nonzero $d$. The prime ideal $(q)$ stays proper after inverting $d$, so $q$ has no inverse in $D$. Therefore $r=0$, proving that $L/k$ is a finite field extension, and in particular an algebraic field extension.

Apply the Zariski lemma to the residue field $k[Y_1,\dots ,Y_s]/\mathfrak{m}$ of a maximal ideal. When $k$ is an algebraically closed field, this field is $k$ itself. The images $a_i$ of $Y_i$ then give $\mathfrak{m}=(Y_1-a_1,\dots ,Y_s-a_s)$, proving the Weak Hilbert Nullstellensatz.

For the real Laurent polynomial ring, the same argument applies because it is the finitely generated algebraEvery residue field at a maximal ideal is consequently a finite field extension of $\mathbb{R}$, and so is $\mathbb{R}$ or $\mathbb{C}$. Here we use the fundamental theorem of algebra, which makes $\mathbb{C}$ the algebraic closure of $\mathbb{R}$ of degree two. The images of $X_1,X_2$ must be nonzero since these elements are units. It follows that the answer iswith $(\alpha ,\beta )$ and $(\overline{\alpha },\overline{\beta })$ defining the same maximal ideal. If both coordinates are real, evaluation has image $\mathbb{R}$; otherwise its image is $\mathbb{C}$. Thus every displayed kernel is maximal, and the Zariski lemma shows that this list is exhaustive.

For explicit generating sets of an ideal, there are three cases. For real nonzero $a,b$,If $\alpha =a\in {\mathbb{R}}^{\times }$ and $\beta =s+it$ with $t\ne 0$,If $\alpha =u+iv$ with $v\ne 0$ and $\beta =s+it$, thenThe last two quotients are $\mathbb{C}$; the nonzero coordinate condition ensures that the Laurent inverses exist in them. There are no further coincidences in the classification: equal kernels induce an $\mathbb{R}$-isomorphism between the evaluation image fields. The only $\mathbb{R}$-automorphisms of $\mathbb{C}$ are the identity and complex conjugation, so the two pairs must agree or be conjugate.

To prove the intersection assertion, fix a prime ideal $P$ and an element $f\notin P$. The integral domain $B=R/P$ has nonzero image $\bar{f}$. Its localization of a ring $B[{\bar{f}}^{-1}]$ is nonzero and still a finitely generated algebra over $\mathbb{R}$, so it has a maximal ideal $\mathfrak{n}$. By the Zariski lemma, the field $L=B[{\bar{f}}^{-1}]/\mathfrak{n}$ is finite over $\mathbb{R}$.

The image of $B$ in $L$ is a subring containing $\mathbb{R}$ and is a finite-dimensional $\mathbb{R}$-vector space. It is an integral domain, hence a field: multiplication by any nonzero element is an injective linear map of a finite-dimensional vector space and therefore surjective. The kernel of $B\to L$ is thus a maximal ideal which avoids $\bar{f}$, since $\bar{f}$ is invertible in $L$. Its inverse image in $R$ is a maximal ideal containing $P$ but avoiding $f$. As this works for every $f\notin P$,This is the Jacobson ring property for this Laurent polynomial ring.

For a nonzero finitely generated module $M$, its set of associated primes isHere ${\mathrm{Ann}}_R(m)=\{a\in R:am=0\}$ is the annihilator of the element. The Laurent polynomial ring $R$ is a Noetherian ring, so the nonempty collection of annihilators of nonzero elements of $M$ has a maximal member, say $P={\mathrm{Ann}}_R(m)$. It is proper because $m\ne 0$.

If $ab\in P$ and $b\notin P$, then $bm\ne 0$ andMaximality forces ${\mathrm{Ann}}_R(bm)=P$, hence $a\in P$. Thus $P$ is a prime ideal, proving $\boxed{{\mathrm{Ass}}_R(M)\ne \varnothing }$. This argument in fact only needs that $R$ is Noetherian, not the finite generation of $M$.

A proper ideal $Q$ is $P$-primary when its radical of an ideal is $P$ andEquivalently, $ab\in Q$ and $b\notin P$ imply $a\in Q$; equivalently, every zero divisor of $R/Q$ is nilpotent. These formulations distinguish the actual primary ideal property from the weaker assertion that there is only one minimal prime ideal.

For the final example, set $u=X_1-1$ and $v=X_2-1$. ThenSince $R/P\cong \mathbb{R}[X_2,X_2^{-1}]$ is an integral domain, $P$ is a prime ideal. Moreover $I\subseteq P$ and $u^2\in I$, so $\sqrt{I}=P$. Consequently $P$ is the unique minimal prime ideal over $I$.

Nevertheless $uv\in I$, while $u\notin I$ and no power of $v$ belongs to $I$. For the first assertion, reduce modulo $v$: the image of $I$ is $(u^2)$ in $\mathbb{R}[X_1,X_1^{-1}]$, and $u$ is not a multiple of $u^2$ because $u$ is a nonunit in this integral domain. For the second, $v\notin P$, so $v^j\notin P\supseteq I$ for every $j\ge 1$. Thus $I$ is not a $P$-primary ideal: a unique minimal prime does not imply primary. In $R/I$, the nonzero class of $u$ is killed by $v$, a zero divisor which is not nilpotent.

An integral domain $A$ is an integrally closed domain if every element of its fraction field which is an integral element over $A$ belongs to $A$. Explicitly, if $z\in \mathrm{Frac}A$ satisfiesthen $z\in A$. Thus $\boxed{A\text{ is integrally closed exactly when its integral closure in its fraction field is }A}$.

Suppose $A$ is a unique factorization domain and $z=a/b$ is integral, with $a,b\in A$, $b\ne 0$, and with no common irreducible element as a factor. Multiplying its monic equation by $b^d$ givesHence $b$ divides $a^d$. Every irreducible element dividing $b$ is a prime element, so it would divide $a$, contrary to the choice of the fraction. Therefore $b$ is a unit, and $z\in A$. We have proved

The going-down theorem is the following. Let $A\subseteq B$ be an integral extension of integral domains with $A$ an integrally closed domain. IfthenWe first prove this for a module-finite ring extension and then remove that extra hypothesis. We use the Lying-over theorem, the going-up theorem, and the incomparability theorem for integral extensions: primes exist over every base prime, prime chains can be extended upwards, and distinct primes over the same base prime cannot contain one another. The going-up theorem follows by applying the Lying-over theorem to the quotient by the lower prime. These results concern arbitrary integral extensions; none assumes the going-down theorem.

For the finite case, let $K=\mathrm{Frac}A$ and $L=\mathrm{Frac}B$. Since $B$ is module-finite, $L/K$ is a finite field extension. Take a finite normal field extension $E/K$ containing $L$, obtained as a splitting field of the minimal polynomials of finitely many field generators. The extension $E/K$ need not be a separable field extension. Let $C$ be the integral closure of $A$ in $E$. Then $B\subseteq C$, and $C$ is integral over both $A$ and $B$.

We need one auxiliary fact: the finite group $G={\mathrm{Aut}}_K(E)$ acts transitively on the prime ideals of $C$ over any fixed prime ideal $\mathfrak{p}$ of $A$. First observe that an element $w\in E$ fixed by all of $G$ is a purely inseparable algebraic element over $K$. Indeed, all $K$-embeddings of $K(w)$ into an algebraic closure extend to $K$-automorphisms of the normal field extension $E$. Hence the minimal polynomial of an algebraic element $w$ has only one distinct root. In characteristic zero this says $w\in K$; in characteristic $p>0$ it says $w^{p^e}\in K$ for some $e\ge 0$.

Now let $Q,Q^{\prime }$ be primes of $C$ over $\mathfrak{p}$, and suppose $Q$ is different from every $\sigma (Q^{\prime })$, $\sigma \in G$. By the incomparability theorem for integral extensions, $Q$ is contained in none of these conjugate primes. The prime avoidance lemma suppliesThe productis fixed by $G$, is integral over $A$, and lies in $Q$ because one factor is $x$. Choose an exponent $e_0$ equal to $1$ in characteristic zero, or a power of $p$ in characteristic $p$, such that $h^{e_0}\in K$. Since $A$ is an integrally closed domain, $h^{e_0}\in A$. It also lies in $Q\cap A=\mathfrak{p}$, hence in $Q^{\prime }$. Because $Q^{\prime }$ is a prime ideal, some factor $\sigma (x)$ lies in $Q^{\prime }$. This means $x\in {\sigma }^{-1}(Q^{\prime })$, contradicting our choice. Thus $Q=\sigma (Q^{\prime })$ for some $\sigma$, proving transitivity. The power $e_0$ accounts for the possible purely inseparable field extension and makes the argument valid in every characteristic.

Lift the prescribed ${\mathfrak{q}}_2$ to a prime $Q_2$ of $C$ by the Lying-over theorem for $B\subseteq C$. Separately, choose a prime $Q_1^{\prime }$ over ${\mathfrak{p}}_1$ and use the going-up theorem to find $Q_2^{\prime }\supseteq Q_1^{\prime }$ over ${\mathfrak{p}}_2$. Transitivity gives $\sigma \in G$ with $\sigma (Q_2^{\prime })=Q_2$. ThenContracting to $B$ gives ${\mathfrak{q}}_1=Q_1\cap B\subseteq {\mathfrak{q}}_2$ with the required contraction. This proves the going-down theorem for the module-finite case.

For a general integral extension $A\subseteq B$, consider $B_{{\mathfrak{q}}_2}$ and the idealWe claim that $J$ is disjoint from $A\setminus {\mathfrak{p}}_1$. Otherwise, clearing the finitely many denominators in an expression for an element $a\in J\cap (A\setminus {\mathfrak{p}}_1)$ givesThe subalgebra $B_0=A[s,b_1,\dots ,b_h]$ is a module-finite ring extension of $A$, since all its generators are integral elements. Apply the finite case to ${\mathfrak{q}}_2\cap B_0$: there is a prime $Q_1\subseteq {\mathfrak{q}}_2\cap B_0$ contracting to ${\mathfrak{p}}_1$. The displayed identity puts $sa$ in $Q_1$, but $a\notin Q_1$. Thus $s\in Q_1\subseteq {\mathfrak{q}}_2$, a contradiction.

Localize $B_{{\mathfrak{q}}_2}$ further at the multiplicative subset $A\setminus {\mathfrak{p}}_1$. The extension of $J$ is a proper ideal, by the disjointness just proved. Choose a maximal ideal containing it and contract back to a prime ideal of $B_{{\mathfrak{q}}_2}$. This prime contains $J$ and avoids $A\setminus {\mathfrak{p}}_1$. Its contraction ${\mathfrak{q}}_1$ to $B$ lies inside ${\mathfrak{q}}_2$ by the prime ideal correspondence for localization, and its contraction to $A$ is exactly ${\mathfrak{p}}_1$. This completes the proof of the going-down theorem without any finite generation assumption on $B$.

A right Noetherian ring satisfies the ascending chain condition on right ideals; equivalently, every right ideal is a finitely generated module.

Here is a noncommutative Hilbert basis theorem proof adapted to the stated hypothesis. Set $F_{-1}=0$ andThe equality follows inductively from $A+xA=A+Ax$, by moving one coefficient past one $x$ at a time. These spaces form an exhaustive filtered algebra structure on $B$, with $F_n{F}_m\subseteq F_{n+m}$. This does not assert uniqueness of the displayed expressions or the existence of a coefficient-moving automorphism.

For a right ideal $I\subseteq B$, defineEach $L_n$ is a right ideal of $A$. In fact, if $a\in L_n$ and $c\in A$, write $c{x}^n=x^{n}b+u$ with $b\in A$, $u\in F_{n-1}$; then $ac{x}^n=(a{x}^n)b+au\in I+F_{n-1}$. Also $L_n\subseteq L_{n+1}$ by right multiplication by $x$. Since $A$ is a right Noetherian ring, this ascending chain stabilizes at some $L_N$.

Choose finite generators $a_{nj}$ for each $L_n$, $0\le n\le N$, and choose $f_{nj}\in I$ with $f_{nj}-a_{nj}{x}^n\in F_{n-1}$. These finitely many elements generate $I$ as a right ideal. To see this, induct on $m$ for $f\in I\cap F_m$. Write $f=a{x}^m+u$ with $u\in F_{m-1}$; then $a\in L_m$. Put $d=\min (m,N)$ and express $a={\sum }_j{a}_{dj}{c}_j$. Write $c_j{x}^d=x^d{b}_j+u_j$ with $u_j\in F_{d-1}$. The differencelies in $I\cap F_{m-1}$, so the induction applies. At $m=0$ the remainder is zero. Hence $B$ is right Noetherian.

For the quantum torus, take $q\in k^{\times }$ and the convention $YX=qXY$. Begin with the polynomial ring $k[X]$, which is Noetherian by the Hilbert basis theorem. Adjoining $X^{-1}$ preserves the hypothesis because it commutes with $k[X]$, and gives $k[X^{\pm 1}]$. Adjoin $Y$ next. The relation $Yf(X)=f(qX)Y$ and its inverse coefficient-moving relation give $A+YA=A+AY$ for $A=k[X^{\pm 1}]$. Finally adjoin $Y^{-1}$ to $k[X^{\pm 1}][Y;\sigma ]$, where $\sigma (X)=qX$. On a monomial, $Y^{-1}{X}^i{Y}^j=q^{-i}{X}^i{Y}^{j-1}$; when $j=0$ this is in $A{Y}^{-1}$, and when $j>0$ it is in $A$. The reverse inclusion follows by the same relation. The preceding argument applies at each step, proving the quantum torus is right Noetherian. Nonzero $q$ is required for this notation.

For a noncommutative ring, a prime ideal of a noncommutative ring means a proper two-sided ideal $P$ such that $UV\subseteq P$ for two-sided ideals $U,V$ implies $U\subseteq P$ or $V\subseteq P$. Equivalently, $aAb\subseteq P$ implies $a\in P$ or $b\in P$. This definition does not require $A/P$ to be a noncommutative domain.

Retain the right Noetherian ring hypothesis for the last assertion. More generally, the ascending chain condition on two-sided ideals suffices. We claim that every proper two-sided ideal $I$ contains a product of finitely many prime ideals of a noncommutative ring, each containing $I$. If not, choose a maximal counterexample $I$. It cannot be a prime ideal of a noncommutative ring. Thus there are two-sided ideals $U,V$ strictly containing $I$ with $UV\subseteq I$: add $I$ to the two witnesses for failure of the defining condition for a prime ideal of a noncommutative ring. By maximality, both $U$ and $V$ contain products of finitely many prime ideals of a noncommutative ring containing them. Concatenating these products gives a product inside $UV\subseteq I$, a contradiction.

Apply the claim to $I=0$ in a nonzero $A$, obtaining $P_1\cdots P_r=0$. Every prime ideal of a noncommutative ring $Q$ contains one of the $P_i$, by repeated application of the definition of a prime ideal of a noncommutative ring. For the prime radical of a noncommutative ring $N$, it follows thatIndeed, $N\subseteq P_i$ gives $N^r\subseteq P_1\cdots P_r=0$, and ${\bigcap }_i{P}_i\subseteq Q$ for every $Q$ gives equality of the intersections. If $A=0$, the empty intersection is the whole zero ring and the conclusion is immediate.

The final assertion is false for arbitrary algebras without the preceding chain condition. For example, in the commutative ring $k[z_1,z_2,\dots ]/(z_i^2:i\ge 1)$ the nilradical is $(z_1,z_2,\dots )$, its only prime ideal, but the product of any number of distinct $z_i$ is nonzero. Thus this nilradical is not a nilpotent ideal.

Put $A^e=A{\otimes }_k{A}^{\mathrm{op}}$, so an $A$-bimodule is a left $A^e$-module through $(a\otimes b^{\mathrm{op}})m=amb$. The Hochschild cohomology isEquivalently, the Hochschild cochain complex has $C^n(A,M)={\mathrm{Hom}}_k(A^{\otimes n},M)$ and coboundary mapIts cohomology agrees with the displayed Ext functor because the bar resolution of an associative algebra is free over $A^e$ when $k$ is a field. The Hochschild cohomological dimension isThe supremum uses all bimodules, not merely the finitely generated one supplied in the question; an unbounded projective dimension is infinity.

An extension in this classification is a square-zero extension of an algebra: a short exact sequence $0\to M\to E\to A\to 0$, where $E$ and $A$ are unital algebras, $E\to A$ is unital, and $M$ is its two-sided ideal with $M^2=0$ and induced $A$-bimodule structure equal to the prescribed one. An equivalence of extensions is an algebra isomorphism of the middle terms commuting with the maps and inducing the identity on both $A$ and $M$. Arbitrary isomorphisms of middle algebras, or extensions without the square-zero ideal requirement, are not classified by this cohomology group.

Choose a $k$-linear map section $s:A\to E$ with $s(1)=1$. Its multiplication defectis a normalized Hochschild cocycle: $\mu (1,a)=\mu (a,1)=0$, and associativity in $E$ gives $\delta \mu =0$. Changing $s$ to $s+g$, where $g(1)=0$, changes the defect to $\mu +\delta g$, since $M^2=0$.

Conversely, for a normalized Hochschild cocycle $\mu$, put $E_{\mu }=A\oplus M$ as a vector space and defineThe Hochschild cocycle equation is exactly associativity, and $(1,0)$ is the identity. If ${\mu }^{\prime }=\mu +\delta g$, the map $E_{{\mu }^{\prime }}\to E_{\mu }$, $(a,m)\mapsto (a,m+g(a))$, is an equivalence. Conversely, every equivalence has this form after choosing sections. The normalized Hochschild cochain complex computes the same cohomology as the full complex: in the bar resolution of an associative algebra, the degenerate terms containing an inserted identity form a contractible subcomplex. Passing to the normalized bar resolution of an associative algebra, then applying the Hom functor, gives the same cohomology. Thus every class has a normalized representative. We obtain a bijection between $H{H}^2(A,M)$ and equivalence classes of square-zero extensions.

For a formal associative deformation, a completion convention is necessary. The usual star product lives on the formal power series moduleThis is the adic completion of a module applied to the ordinary tensor product, rather than literally the ordinary $A{\otimes }_{k}k[[t]]$ when $A$ is infinite-dimensional. For example, ${\sum }_{n\ge 0}{X}^n{t}^n$ lies in $k[X][[t]]$ but not in the ordinary tensor product, whose coefficient spaces have finite-dimensional span. The two agree when $A$ is finite-dimensional. We interpret the printed notation in this standard completed sense; the infinite iteration below requires that interpretation.

A star product is a $k[[t]]$-bilinear, unital product continuous for the adic topology satisfying associativity of the formIt is a trivial formal deformation if a $k[[t]]$-linear automorphism continuous for the adic topology $T=\mathrm{id}+{\sum }_{r\ge 1}{t}^r{T}_r$, with $T(1)=1$, satisfies $T(a\ast b)=T(a)T(b)$.

If $\mathrm{Dim}(A)\le 1$, then $H{H}^2(A,A)=0$. Suppose changes of coordinates have removed all coefficients below order $r$. The order-$r$ part of associativity then says $\delta {\mu }_r=0$. Hence ${\mu }_r=\delta g_r$ for a $k$-linear map $g_r:A\to A$. Its normalization gives $g_r(1)=0$, since $(\delta g_r)(1,1)=g_r(1)$. Transport the product by $T_r=\mathrm{id}+t^r{g}_r$:The order-$r$ coefficient becomes ${\mu }_r-\delta g_r=0$, and lower coefficients remain zero. Repeating constructs compatible changes of coordinates modulo every $t^N$. They converge in the adic topology to an invertible $T$ fixing $1$, with inverse obtained coefficient by coefficient. The limit product is ordinary multiplication. Therefore every star product is trivial under the completed formal-series convention. In fact, the argument only needs the vanishing of $H{H}^2(A,A)$, not all of Hochschild cohomological dimension at most one.

Use the presentation $D_6=⟨r,s:r^3=s^2=1,srs=r^{-1}⟩$. Its subgroup $⟨r⟩$ is the unique subgroup of order $3$, hence is a characteristic subgroup. An automorphism must send $r$ to $r$ or $r^{-1}$ and $s$ to one of the three reflections $r^{j}s$. Thus there are at most six automorphisms.

The center of a group of $D_6$ is trivial, so conjugation embeds $D_6$ as a group of six inner automorphisms. These exhaust the possibilities. Hence every automorphism of $D_6$ is inner.

For every $t\in T_N$, the torus action mapis an automorphism of $X_{\Sigma }$. It induces isomorphisms of local rings, so it carries smooth points to smooth points and singular points to singular points. The singular locus is consequently invariant under $T_N$. If it contains one point $x$, it contains the entire orbit $T_N\cdot x$; hence the torus-invariance of the singular locus of a toric variety proves that $X_{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{sing}}$ is a union of the orbits in the orbit-cone correspondence.

NFU has a unary predicate $S$ for sets, atoms have no members, extensionality applies to sets, and comprehension applies to every stratified formula. A stratification assigns integer types to variables so that equality uses equal types and $x\in y$ requires $\mathrm{type}(y)=\mathrm{type}(x)+1$. A unary set predicate adds no type difference.

Start with the actual set structure $B=(V_{\omega +\omega },\in )$. This structure satisfies extensionality and every pure-membership separation instance: the subset defined in a set $a$ of rank below $\omega +\omega$ still has rank below $\omega +\omega$. We do not assert that $B$ satisfies replacement or all of ZFC. Expand it by Skolem functions. In it use the sequence of rank objects $V_{\omega +n+6}$, $n<\omega$. For two such objects $d<e$ in sequence order, we havewith quantifiers in $B$. The second statement holds because every subset of $V_{\alpha }$ belongs to $V_{\alpha +1}$, and the later rank is at least $\alpha +1$.

Introduce constants $d_i$, $i\in \mathbb{Z}$, and require them to be order indiscernibles in the Skolem language, satisfying these two assertions whenever $i<j$. Also require $V_{\omega +5}\subseteq d_i$ for every $i$; this fixed rank object is first-order definable in $B$. Every finite part of these requirements together with $\mathrm{Th}(B^{\ast })$ is satisfiable: color finite increasing tuples of the original rank sequence by the truth values of the finitely many formulas mentioned, and use Ramsey's theorem to get a homogeneous subsequence. The rank assertions hold for every increasing tuple there. The compactness theorem gives a model of the full theory. In its Skolem hull $N$ generated by the $d_i$, the integer shift extends to an automorphism $j$ with $j(d_i)=d_{i+1}$, by the term-transport proof of the Ehrenfeucht-Mostowski theorem. Thus $N$ still satisfies extensionality and all pure-membership separation instances, andThis is a set-sized first-order model; no satisfaction predicate for a proper-class universe is being assumed.

Externally let $D_i=\{x\in N:N\models x\in d_i\}$. The automorphism bijects $D_i$ onto $D_{i+1}$. Interpret a typed structure with sort $i$ equal to $D_i$. At sort $i+1$, declare $y$ a set exactly when $N\models y\subseteq d_i$; otherwise it is an atom. Define adjacent-sort membership byThe guard is necessary: a typed atom might have some ordinary $N$-members in $D_i$, and those must not become its typed members. Set-extensionality follows from extensionality in $N$, because the ordinary members of a typed set all lie in $D_i$. For any typed formula on sort $i$, its quantifiers can be restricted to the corresponding $d_l$, its set predicates replaced by subset assertions, and its memberships replaced by the guarded relation. This is an ordinary pure-membership formula of $N$ with finitely many parameters. Separation gives its extension $X\subseteq d_i$, and the displayed closure assertion gives $X\in d_{i+1}$. It is therefore a typed set witnessing comprehension. The automorphism shifts these sorted domains and preserves the set flags and guarded memberships.

Collapse the types onto $D_0$. DefineObjects not satisfying $S$ have no $E$-members. If two sets have the same $E$-members, their images under $j$ are subsets of $d_0$ with the same ordinary members, so are equal by extensionality of $N$; injectivity of $j$ gives equality of the original objects.

To verify every stratified comprehension instance, assign a variable $v$ its stratification type $t(v)$ and translate its value $a\in D_0$ to $j^{t(v)}(a)\in D_{t(v)}$. Equality is preserved. An atomic $E(x,y)$ translates to the guarded adjacent-sort membership because $t(y)=t(x)+1$; the unary predicate $S(y)$ translates to $j^{t(y)}(y)\subseteq d_{t(y)-1}$. Induction on formulas, using the domain bijections for quantifiers, preserves truth. If the free variable $x$ has type $t$, typed comprehension produces its extension $X\subseteq d_t$, with $X\in d_{t+1}$. Put $b=j^{-(t+1)}(X)\in D_0$. Then $S(b)$ holds, and for every $a\in D_0$,This is exactly the required NFU set. No formula containing the external automorphism $j$ has been used in a separation or comprehension scheme; $j$ only transports values after the pure formula is formed.