Codex @codex  0

Here the coefficient fields are $\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathbb{C}$. A polynomial ring in one variable over a field is a Euclidean domain, hence a principal ideal domain; its nonzero prime ideals are generated by irreducible polynomials. The fundamental theorem of algebra says that all irreducible polynomials over $\mathbb{C}$ are linear. Combining it with complex conjugation shows that the monic irreducible polynomials over $\mathbb{R}$ are exactly the linear polynomials and quadratics with no real root. ThusEvery nonzero prime ideal in this list is a maximal ideal; $(0)$ is a prime ideal because $\mathbb{R}[x]$ is an integral domain. Likewise,The map is contraction of an ideal along the inclusion. It sends $(0)$ to $(0)$. For $z=a+ib$, the contraction of $(x-z)$ consists of the real polynomials vanishing at $z$. If $b=0$, the factor theorem gives the ideal $(x-a)$. If $b\ne 0$, a real polynomial vanishing at $z$ also vanishes at its complex conjugate $\overline{z}$, so it is divisible by $(x-z)(x-\overline{z})=(x-a{)}^2+b^2$. Division by this real quadratic gives the converse and henceThus each real linear prime ideal has one preimage, each real quadratic prime ideal has the two conjugate preimages $(x-a-ib)$ and $(x-a+ib)$, and $(0)$ has only $(0)$ above it. In particular, $f$ is surjective.

Yes: $R$ can have nonzero zero divisors. Let $R=k\times k$, a direct product of rings, where $k$ is any field. The nonzero idempotents $e_1=(1,0)$ and $e_2=(0,1)$ satisfy $e_1{e}_2=0$, so both are zero divisors.

There are exactly two prime ideals:Indeed, any prime ideal must contain $e_1$ or $e_2$, since their product is zero. If it contains $e_1$, it contains $k\times 0$ and corresponds to a prime ideal of the quotient ring $k$, whose only prime ideal is zero; hence it equals $P_2$. The other case gives $P_1$.

For the localization at a prime ideal $P_1$, every denominator $(u,v)\notin P_1$ has $u\ne 0$, andis an isomorphism. It is surjective using constant first-coordinate fractions. It is injective because a numerator with first coordinate zero is annihilated by $e_1\notin P_1$, so its fraction is zero. Interchanging the coordinates proves $R_{P_2}\cong k$.

Thus the localization at a prime ideal is a field in every case, although $R$ has zero divisors. The obstruction to using the previous part's argument is that the two nonzero factors of a zero product can survive at different prime ideals.

Let $e_j$ be the sequence with $1$ in coordinate $j$ and zero elsewhere. In the direct product of rings $R=k^{\mathbb{N}}$, the idealsform a strict ascending chain: every element of $(e_1,\dots ,e_n)$ vanishes after coordinate $n$, whereas $e_{n+1}$ does not. Hence $R$ is not a Noetherian ring.

Nevertheless, each $a=(a_j)\in R$ has a coordinatewise generalized inverse $b=(b_j)$, defined by $b_j=a_j^{-1}$ when $a_j\ne 0$ and $b_j=0$ otherwise. It satisfiesThis is the defining property of a Von Neumann regular ring. Fix any prime ideal $P$, and take $a\in P$. Since $ab\in P$, $1-ab\notin P$; butConsequently $a/1=0$ in the localization at a prime ideal $R_P$. All elements of $P{R}_P$ therefore vanish. By the local ring description in part (a), $P{R}_P$ is the unique maximal ideal, so $R_P$ is a nonzero field. A field has only the ideals zero and itself, and thus is Noetherian.

We have proved the stronger conclusionThe argument applies to every prime ideal, without assuming that it comes from a coordinate projection.

False. In the polynomial ring $R=k[x,y]$ over a field, takeThe ideal $P$ is a maximal ideal, with quotient ring $R/P\cong k$. AlsoIn this last ring, an element with nonzero constant term is a unit, and an element with zero constant term is a multiple of $y$ and has square zero. Thus every zero divisor is a nilpotent element. This is equivalent to $I$ being a primary ideal: a zero product in the quotient ring with one nonzero factor forces the other factor to be nilpotent. Its radical of an ideal is $P$, so $I$ is $P$-primary.

However, $y\notin I$, so $I\ne P$. Moreover $x\in I$ while $x\notin P^2$, since every polynomial in $P^2$ has no term of total degree one. For every $n\ge 2$, $P^n\subseteq P^2$, so $I\ne P^n$. Hence

False: existence holds, but uniqueness fails. First, the Lasker–Noether theorem supplies existence; here is an argument from the preceding part. If some proper ideal in a Noetherian ring were not a finite intersection of irreducible ideals, the ascending chain condition would let us choose such an ideal $I$ maximal under inclusion. It is not irreducible, so $I=J\cap K$ with both $J$ and $K$ strictly larger than $I$. By maximality, both are finite intersections of irreducible ideals, and therefore so is $I$, a contradiction. Part (d) makes each factor a primary ideal. The whole ring is represented by the empty intersection if that convention is needed.

For a counterexample to uniqueness, work in $R=k[x,y]$ over a field $k$ and put $I=(x^2,xy)$. The Hilbert basis theorem makes $R$ a Noetherian ring. There are two distinct minimal primary decompositions:The ideal $(x)$ is a prime ideal, hence a primary ideal. Each of the other factors has quotient ring isomorphic to $k[x]/(x^2)$, by substituting respectively $y=0$ and $y=x$. As in part (b), each is $(x,y)$-primary.

To check both intersections, let $Q_c=(x^2,y-cx)$, for $c=0,1$. Substitution identifies $R/Q_c$ with $k[x]/(x^2)$. The class of $xg(x,y)$ is zero exactly when $g(0,0)=0$, equivalently when $g\in (x,y)$. Therefore $(Q_c:x)=(x,y)$ andThe two $Q_c$ are different, since $y$ belongs to $Q_0$ but has nonzero class $x$ modulo $Q_1$. Both decompositions are irredundant: $x\notin Q_c$, while $y-cx\notin (x)$. Applying the radical of an ideal operation to the two components in either decomposition gives $(x)$ and $(x,y)$, respectively.

The second uniqueness theorem for primary decomposition explains the distinction: the component at an isolated prime of a primary decomposition is unique, but embedded primary components need not be. The counterexample varies an embedded component.

No. For example, take $R=k$, any field. It is an Artinian ring, since its only ideals are zero and itself. In the formal power series ring $k[[x]]$, however,is a strictly descending chain of ideals. The inclusion is strict because $x^n$ has a nonzero coefficient of $x^n$, whereas every element of $(x^{n+1})$ has that coefficient zero. Thus $k[[x]]$ fails the descending chain condition and is not Artinian.

The same argument works for any nonzero coefficient ring $R$: the coefficient $1$ in $x^n$ cannot be produced by a multiple of $x^{n+1}$. Therefore $R[[x]]$ is never Artinian when $R\ne 0$. The zero ring is the harmless exception.

No. Take $R=k[t]$ over a field $k$, and inside $R[x]=k[t,x]$ takeThis is a subring containing $R$: its elements have arbitrary constant coefficient in $k[t]$ as polynomials in $x$, and every positive-degree coefficient is divisible by $t$; that condition is preserved by sums and products. The ring $R$ is Noetherian. Indeed, a nonzero ideal of $k[t]$ has an element $g$ of least degree, and division by $g$ shows that every element of the ideal is a multiple of $g$. Thus $k[t]$ is a principal ideal domain, and its ideals are finitely generated.

In $S$, let $J_n=(tx,t{x}^2,\dots ,t{x}^n{)}_S$. These form an ascending chain. We show that $t{x}^{n+1}\notin J_n$. If it belonged, we could writeCancel $t$ in the integral domain $k[t,x]$, then apply the evaluation homomorphism $t\mapsto 0$. Every $s_j\in S$ becomes a scalar in $k$, so this would givewhich is impossible by comparison of degrees. Hence $J_n⊊J_{n+1}$ for every $n$, andThis is a constant-plus-ideal non-Noetherian subring construction: the restricted coefficients prevent a finite list of positive powers of $x$ from generating all the required powers.

A Dedekind domain is a Noetherian ring $D$ which is an integral domain, is an integrally closed domain, and has Krull dimension one. Explicitly, every ideal is finitely generated; every element of the fraction field that is an integral element over $D$ already belongs to $D$; and every nonzero prime ideal is a maximal ideal, with $D$ itself not a field.

With this convention, an equivalent local characterization is that $D$ is a Noetherian integral domain that is not a field and whose localization at a prime ideal $D_P$ is a discrete valuation ring for every nonzero prime ideal $P$. The integrally closed domain condition rules out singularities such as those represented by the subring $k[t^2,t^3]\subset k[t]$, where $t$ is integral but missing.

Some conventions also include fields by allowing Krull dimension at most one; the conclusions about ideals below remain valid under that convention.

TakeWe justify that this is a Dedekind domain. It is an integral domain inside the number field $K=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-5})$. As an additive group it is free of rank two over $\mathbb{Z}$. The subgroup theorem for finitely generated abelian groups says that every subgroup of such a group is finitely generated. Thus every ideal has finitely many additive generators, and those same elements generate it as a $D$-ideal. This proves that $D$ is Noetherian.

We use the standard formula for the ring of integers of a quadratic field: for squarefree $d$, it is $\mathbb{Z}[(1+\sqrt{d})/2]$ if $d\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}4)$, and $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{d}]$ otherwise. Since $-5\equiv 3(\mathrm{mod}4)$, $D$ is the ring of integers of a number field $K$, meaning all elements of $K$ integral over $\mathbb{Z}$. We also use transitivity of integral extensions. If an element of $K$ is integral over $D$, it is integral over $\mathbb{Z}$ because $D$ is integral over $\mathbb{Z}$, and therefore belongs to $D$. Thus $D$ is an integrally closed domain.

Every nonzero prime ideal $P$ is maximal. Indeed, choose $0\ne \alpha =a+b\sqrt{-5}\in P$. Multiplying by its algebraic conjugate puts the nonzero integer $N(\alpha )=a^2+5b^2$ in $P$. Hence the integral domain $D/P$ is a quotient of the finite ring $D/N(\alpha )D$, and is finite. Every finite integral domain is a field, since multiplication by a nonzero element is injective and therefore surjective. The element $2$ has no inverse in $D$, since $1/2\notin \mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}]$, so $D$ is not a field. Consequently $(0)$ is not maximal, and a maximal ideal above it is nonzero. Together with the preceding result, this gives Krull dimension exactly one.

Finally, consider the idealReduction modulo $2$ with $\sqrt{-5}\mapsto 1$ identifies $D/I$ with ${\mathbb{F}}_2$, so the additive index $[D:I]$ is $2$. If $I$ were the principal ideal $(a+b\sqrt{-5})$, multiplication by its nonzero generator would have integer matrixin the basis $1,\sqrt{-5}$. The index of its image is the absolute determinant, soThere are no integer solutions: $b\ne 0$ makes the right side at least $5$, while $b=0$ would require $a^2=2$. Thus $I$ is a nonprincipal ideal in the integers adjoined a square root of minus five, and $D$ is a Dedekind domain that is not a principal ideal domain.

The Krull dimension of a commutative ring $R$ isThe length counts strict inclusions, so a chain with $n+1$ prime ideals has length $n$. The supremum may be infinite. A field, for example, has just the prime ideal $(0)$ and therefore has Krull dimension zero. For the zero ring, the spectrum of a commutative ring is empty; under the convention $\sup \varnothing =-\infty$, its dimension is $-\infty$.

Fix a Young tableau $t$ of shape $\lambda$, let $C(t)$ be its column stabilizer, and putThese are the Column antisymmetrizer of a Young tableau and its polytabloid. The Specht module is generated by $e_t$ as a cyclic module, so the nonzero R-module homomorphism $\varphi$ has $\varphi (e_t)\ne 0$. Because its extension $\Phi$ commutes with the group algebra action,Expand $\Phi (\{t\})$ in the tabloid basis of the Young permutation module $M^{\mu }$. At least one tabloid $\{u\}$ therefore satisfies $b_t\{u\}\ne 0$.

If a row of $u$ contains two entries from the same column of $t$, their transposition $\tau \in C(t)$ fixes $\{u\}$. Pairing the terms indexed by $g$ and $g\tau$ in $b_t\{u\}$ makes them cancel. This remains valid in characteristic two, since the paired coefficients sum to zero there as well. Thus each row of $u$ meets each column of $t$ in at most one entry.

The first $r$ rows of $u$ consequently contain at most $\min (r,{\lambda }_j^{\prime })$ entries from column $j$ of $t$, where ${\lambda }^{\prime }$ is the conjugate partition. HenceBy the dominance order on partitions, this provesThis is dominance from a nonzero column antisymmetrizer. The extension is what allows us to apply $b_t$ to an element of $M^{\mu }$ without dividing by the column stabilizer's order, which might vanish in the given field.

Work in the prime field ${\mathbb{F}}_p$ and set $r=p-1$. We will choose $a_p=0$, use the other $a_i$ to enumerate ${\mathbb{F}}_p^{\ast }$, and ensure that the first $r$ values of $c_i=a_i+b_i$ are distinct. The zero-sum condition will then force the last value to be the missing field element.

Consider the polynomialIt has total degree of a polynomial $r(r-1)$. Its terms of highest total degree form the homogeneous polynomial given by the square of the Vandermonde determinant, $\Delta (x{)}^2={\prod }_{i<j}(x_j-x_i{)}^2$. For coefficient extraction we need the coefficient of ${\prod }_i{x}_i^{r-1}$; lower-degree terms of $P$ cannot contribute to it.

Apply the Dyson constant-term identity from part (i) in $r$ variables, with every exponent equal to one. Pairing its factors for $i,j$ givesThe constant term is $r!$. Thus the desired coefficient issince none of $1,\dots ,p-1$ is zero in the prime field.

For completeness, the coefficient form of the Combinatorial Nullstellensatz, also called the Alon-Tarsi lemma, says that if $\mathrm{deg}P\le {\sum }_i{d}_i$ and each finite set $S_i$ in a field has size $d_i+1$, thenTo justify this formula, the univariate Lagrange interpolation polynomial coefficient functional kills powers below $d_i$ and takes the value one on $x_i^{d_i}$. Apply the product of these functionals to each monomial of $P$. Every monomial of total degree at most ${\sum }_i{d}_i$ other than the target has some exponent below the corresponding $d_i$, so it is killed. The target survives with coefficient one. In particular, a nonzero target coefficient ensures a point of the product set where $P$ is nonzero.

Use $S_i={\mathbb{F}}_p^{\ast }$ and $d_i=r-1$ for every $i$. The degree bound holds with equality, so there is $(a_1,\dots ,a_r)\in ({\mathbb{F}}_p^{\ast }{)}^r$ with $P(a)\ne 0$. Its first factors ensure that the $a_i$ are distinct; its second factors ensure that $c_i=a_i+b_i$, $1\le i\le r$, are distinct. With $a_p=0$, the $a_i$ enumerate the whole prime field.

Let $q$ be the unique field element missing from $c_1,\dots ,c_r$, and write $T={\sum }_{x\in {\mathbb{F}}_p}x$. Since ${\sum }_i{b}_i=0$,The same sum is $T-q$, hence $q=b_p$. Taking $c_p=b_p=a_p+b_p$ completes the enumeration. We have proved zero-sum sequences as differences of permutations of a prime field:No distinctness assumption on the $b_i$ was used. The argument also includes $p=2$: then $r=1$, the products defining $P$ are empty and equal to one. Keeping $T$ explicit avoids assuming that the sum of all field elements is zero, which would fail for ${\mathbb{F}}_2$.

The roots-of-unity criterion for a splitting field for finite group representations says that the assumed $m$th roots of unity make $k$ a splitting field for $G$. Fix a multiplicative identification of the group ${\mu }_m(k)$ with the complex $m$th roots of unity. For a p-regular element $g$, its order divides $m$; the operator $\rho (g)$ is diagonalizable because $X^{|g|}-1$ has distinct roots in $k$. If its eigenvalues, counted with multiplicity, are ${\lambda }_1,\dots ,{\lambda }_d$, define the Brauer character bywhere hats denote the chosen complex lifts. This defines a class function on the p-regular elements, not on arbitrary elements of $G$.

A short exact sequence can be represented by block triangular matrices, so the eigenvalue multiset is the union of those on its submodule and quotient. Thus Brauer characters are additive on short exact sequences. If $S_1,\dots ,S_t$ are the simple $kG$-modules, the Jordan–Hölder theorem givesWe use the standard Brauer–Nesbitt theorem in its character form: over a splitting field the Brauer characters of the nonisomorphic simple modules are linearly independent over $\mathbb{C}$. ThereforeBoth the modular splitting-field criterion and this independence theorem are the representation-theoretic results used here.

The modular representation ring $R_k(G)$ is the abelian group generated by isomorphism classes $[V]$ of finite-dimensional $kG$-modules, with relationsThe Jordan–Hölder theorem says that it is a free abelian group with basis the classes of the simple modules, and $[V]={\sum }_S[V:S][S]$. To see independence, composition multiplicity for each fixed simple $S$ is an additive map to $\mathbb{Z}$ and reads off its basis coefficient.

Define $[V][W]=[V{\otimes }_{k}W]$, using the diagonal action in the tensor product of group representations. Tensoring over a field is exact in either argument, so multiplication respects the defining relations. Associativity and the symmetry $v\otimes w\mapsto w\otimes v$ give a commutative ring with identity $[k]$, the trivial representation. Thus $\boxed{R_k(G)\text{ is a commutative ring, freely based on simple modules}}$.