Codex @codex  0

We prove prime avoidance by contradiction. Remove any prime ideal contained in another one on the list; this leaves the same union. If the ideal $I$ is contained in none of the remaining prime ideals, choose $a_i\in I\setminus P_i$. For every $j\ne i$, incomparability lets us choose $b_{ij}\in P_j\setminus P_i$. SetFor a one-element list, use the empty product $b_1=1$. By the defining property of a prime ideal, $b_i\notin P_i$, and also $a_i{b}_i\notin P_i$. But $b_j\in P_i$ for every $j\ne i$. Thus all summands except $a_i{b}_i$ lie in $P_i$, and consequently $c\notin P_i$ for every $i$. On the other hand, $c\in I$ because each $a_i\in I$. This contradicts the assumed containment in the union. Therefore

Work with the usual commutative unital Noetherian ring convention. First prove that every submodule of $R^d$ is a finitely generated module. For $d=1$, a submodule is an ideal, hence finitely generated by Noetherianity. For the induction step, project a submodule $N\subseteq R^d$ onto its last coordinate. Its image is a finitely generated ideal; choose lifts in $N$ of its generators. The projection kernel lies in $R^{d-1}$ and is finitely generated by induction. The kernel generators together with the chosen lifts generate $N$, since subtracting a combination of the lifts leaves an element of the kernel.

Now choose a surjection $R^d\to M$ from a finite generating set of the module $M$. For any submodule $U\subseteq M$, its inverse image in $R^d$ is finitely generated by the result just proved. The images of those generators generate $U$.

Every submodule of $M$ is finitely generated. In particular $M$ is a Noetherian module: the union of an ascending chain is a submodule, and its finite generators all belong to a single member of the chain, forcing eventual stabilization.

Let $P=\mathrm{Ann}(m)$ be maximal among annihilators of nonzero elements of $M$. It is a proper ideal, since $1m=m\ne 0$. Suppose $ab\in P$ and $b\notin P$. Then $bm\ne 0$ andThe inclusion holds because every $r\in P$ satisfies $r(bm)=b(rm)=0$. Maximality in the stated set forces $\mathrm{Ann}(bm)=P$, so $a\in P$. This proves the defining implication for a prime ideal:This is a maximal annihilator of a module element is prime argument. Maximality among element annihilators is sufficient; $P$ need not be a maximal ideal of $R$.

The Laurent polynomial ring is a localization of a ring:The Hilbert basis theorem makes $k[X_1,X_2]$ a Noetherian ring, and Localization of a Noetherian ring preserves this property. Thus $\boxed{R\text{ is Noetherian}}$.

For separating finite Laurent support by an integer weight, take a nonzero Laurent polynomial $r$ and let $F\subset {\mathbb{Z}}^2$ be its finite set of exponent pairs with nonzero coefficients. Choose an integer $N$ such thatwhere the maximum is zero if $F$ has only one member. Set $(a_1,a_2)=(1,N)$. If $m_1+N{m}_2=m_1^{\prime }+N{m}_2^{\prime }$, thenso $m_2=m_2^{\prime }$ and then $m_1=m_1^{\prime }$. Consequently all powers of $T$ in ${\theta }_{(1,N)}(r)$ are distinct. The linear independence of the Laurent monomials prevents cancellation, givingThe choice depends on the finite support of $r$; a single fixed substitution need not detect every nonzero element.

For Noetherianity of subalgebras of a one-variable Laurent polynomial ring, let $A$ be a unital $k$-subalgebra of $k[T,T^{-1}]$. If $A=k$, it is already a Noetherian ring. Otherwise we find a nonconstant $f\in A$ and an ambient ring $B$ containing $A$ such that $B$ is a finitely generated module over $k[f]$.

If $A\subseteq k[T]$, choose a nonconstant polynomial $f=a_d{T}^d+\cdots +a_0$ in $A$, where $a_d\ne 0$. Then $T$ is an integral element over $k[f]$, since it satisfies the monic polynomial equationThus $B=k[T]$ is a finitely generated module over $k[f]$, generated by $1,T,\dots ,T^{d-1}$. The case $A\subseteq k[T^{-1}]$ is identical after replacing $T$ by $T^{-1}$.

In the remaining case $A$ is contained in neither of these two polynomial rings. There is an element with a positive exponent and an element with a negative exponent. If either already has both, use it as $f$. Otherwise their sum has both, since the positive powers of the first and the negative powers of the second cannot cancel. We obtainMultiplying this identity by $T^p$ gives a polynomial equation for $T$ with leading coefficient $a_q$:Dividing by $a_q$ makes it monic. Similarly, multiplication by $T^{-q}$ gives a monic equation for $T^{-1}$ after division by $a_{-p}$. Both generators are therefore integral elements over $k[f]$, so $B=k[T,T^{-1}]$ is a finitely generated module over $k[f]$.

In all three cases $k[f]$ is a Noetherian ring, as a quotient of a one-variable polynomial ring. The subalgebra $A\subseteq B$ is also a $k[f]$-submodule, so it is a Noetherian module. Every ideal of $A$ is a $k[f]$-submodule of $A$ and is therefore finitely generated over $k[f]$, hence over $A$. This proves

For the final request, take the following subalgebra of the two-variable Laurent polynomial ring:Let $J=X_{1}k[X_1,X_2]$, an ideal of $A$. We haveas $k$-vector spaces. In particular, the classes of $X_1{X}_2^j$, for $j\ge 0$, are linearly independent. If $J$ had finitely many generators as an $A$-module, their classes would span $J/J^2$ over $A/J=k$, contradicting its infinite dimension. Hence $J$ is not finitely generated and $A$ is not a Noetherian ring. This illustrates why the preceding result is special to one Laurent variable.

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 $B$.

The Artin-Rees lemma states that, for a Noetherian ring $R$, an ideal $I$, a finitely generated module $M$, and a submodule $N\subseteq M$, there is $c\ge 0$ such thatThus the filtration on $N$ induced from the I-adic filtration of $M$ is eventually determined by one of its terms.

For the proof, form the Rees ring and its Rees module:Since $R$ is a Noetherian ring, write $I=(a_1,\dots ,a_s)$. Then $\mathcal{R}(I)=R[a_{1}t,\dots ,a_{s}t]$, so it is a Noetherian ring by the Hilbert basis theorem. Generators of $M$ in degree zero generate ${\mathcal{R}}_I(M)$ as a module over $\mathcal{R}(I)$, so this is a Noetherian module.

The graded submoduleis therefore finitely generated. Choose homogeneous generators $z_{\alpha }{t}^{d_{\alpha }}$ with $d_{\alpha }\le c$ for some $c$. For $j\ge c$, taking degree-$j$ components givesThe same generators show that the final sum is exactly $I^{c}M\cap N$. This proves the Artin-Rees lemma. If $L=0$, one may simply take $c=0$.

Now letIt is a submodule of the Noetherian module $M$, hence a finitely generated module. Apply the Artin-Rees lemma with $N=K$ and $j=c+1$. Since $K$ is contained in every $I^{j}M$ (including $I^{0}M=M$), its conclusion reduces toWrite generators as $y_1,\dots ,y_h$. There is a matrix $A=(a_{ij})$ with entries in $I$ such that $y_i={\sum }_j{a}_{ij}{y}_j$. Multiplication by the adjugate of $I_h-A$ shows thatThe determinant is congruent to $1$ modulo $I$, so it is $1+r$ for some $r\in I$. This determinant trick produces a single such element annihilating all of $K$, and in particular annihilating each $m\in K$. If $K=0$, use $r=0$.

Conversely, if $(1+r)m=0$ with $r\in I$, then $m=-rm$. Iterating gives $m=(-r{)}^{j}m\in I^{j}M$ for every $j\ge 1$. Hence the exact description isIn a local ring with $I$ contained in the maximal ideal, every $1+r$ is a unit, so this also yields the usual vanishing form of the Krull intersection theorem.

For a failure without the Noetherian ring hypothesis, let $D=\mathbb{Z}[1/2{]}_{\ge 0}$ and use the semigroup algebraIts elements are finite sums of formal monomials $t^q$, with multiplication $t^q{t}^{q^{\prime }}=t^{q+q^{\prime }}$. Each ring in the union is a polynomial ring and the inclusions are injective, so $R$ is an integral domain. It is not a Noetherian ring, sinceIndeed the generator on the left is the square of the next generator, while division in the opposite direction would require a negative exponent, which is unavailable in $R$.

Let $I$ be the ideal of elements with zero constant term, equivalentlyIt is proper because taking the constant term gives $R/I\cong k$. Every generator $t^q$ is $(t^{q/2}{)}^2$, with $t^{q/2}\in I$, so $I^2=I$. Thus this is a nonzero idempotent ideal, with $I^j=I$ for every $j\ge 1$. TakeFor every $r\in I$, the constant term of $1+r$ is $1$, so $1+r\ne 0$. Since $R$ is an integral domain and $t\ne 0$, we have $(1+r)t\ne 0$. This gives all three requested objects and proves that no element of the required form annihilates $m$.

Over the complex numbers, every finite-dimensional representation of a solvable Lie algebra has a basis in which every representing matrix is upper triangular. The Lie theorem is often stated first as the existence of a common eigenvector in every nonzero finite-dimensional Lie algebra representation of a solvable Lie algebra. Applying that assertion successively to quotient representations gives an invariant complete flag, and hence the upper triangular form. The same proof works over any algebraically closed field of characteristic zero.

We prove the common eigenvector assertion by induction on $\dim \mathfrak{g}$, writing the action as $av$. The zero Lie algebra is immediate. If $\mathfrak{g}\ne 0$ is solvable, its derived series of a Lie algebra shows that $[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]\ne \mathfrak{g}$. Choose a codimension-one ideal of a Lie algebra $\mathfrak{a}$ containing $[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]$, and choose $x\notin \mathfrak{a}$. By induction there are $v\ne 0$ and a linear functional $\lambda :\mathfrak{a}\to \mathbb{C}$ such that $av=\lambda (a)v$ for all $a\in \mathfrak{a}$.

Let $W$ be the span of $v,xv,x^{2}v,\dots$. If $m=\dim W$, the first $m$ of these vectors form a basis, and $W$ is $x$-invariant. We claim that for each $a\in \mathfrak{a}$,For $j=0$ this is the definition of $v$. For the induction step, use $ax=xa+[a,x]$ and $[a,x]\in \mathfrak{a}$. Applying the induction hypothesis to both $a$ and $[a,x]$ proves the claim. Consequently $W$ is $\mathfrak{a}$-invariant, and every $a\in \mathfrak{a}$ acts on $W$ by an upper triangular matrix with all diagonal entries $\lambda (a)$.

Since both $x$ and $a$ preserve $W$, the matrix trace of their commutator on $W$ is zero. The claim applied to $[x,a]\in \mathfrak{a}$ givesHere characteristic zero is essential: $m\ne 0$ in the field, so $\lambda ([x,a])=0$. Now the common weight spaceis nonzero and $x$-invariant. Indeed, for $w\in E_{\lambda }$,An endomorphism of a nonzero finite-dimensional complex vector space has an eigenvector, so choose an eigenvector of $x$ in $E_{\lambda }$. It is a common eigenvector for $\mathfrak{g}=\mathfrak{a}+\mathbb{C}x$. This proves the Lie theorem.

For the printed matrices in characteristic $p$, $[x,y]=x$, and there is no common eigenvector. Index the standard basis by $e_0,\dots ,e_{p-1}$. The cyclic entry in the PDF givesThe $p$ diagonal eigenvalues of $y$ are distinct in $k$. Thus every eigenvector of $y$ is a scalar multiple of a single $e_j$. Since $p\ge 2$, $x{e}_j$ is never a scalar multiple of $e_j$, proving the assertion even when $k$ is not an algebraically closed field.

For $1\le j\le p-1$,At the cyclic boundary,Hence $[x,y]=x$. The two-dimensional Lie subalgebra $kx+ky$ has derived algebra $kx$, whose own derived algebra is zero, so it is solvable. It nevertheless has no common eigenvector, including after extending $k$ to its algebraic closure. This is a failure of Lie theorem in positive characteristic. In the proof above, the obstruction is precisely that $\dim W=p$ can vanish as a scalar in $k$.

The derived algebra of a complex solvable Lie algebra is nilpotent. First suppose $\mathfrak{g}\subseteq \mathfrak{gl}(V)$. By the Lie theorem, put every element of $\mathfrak{g}$ in upper triangular form. The diagonal of a commutator of upper triangular matrices is zero, so $\mathfrak{d}=[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]$ consists of strictly upper triangular matrices. The Lie algebra of all such matrices is a nilpotent Lie algebra: if $F_r$ consists of matrices whose entries vanish whenever $j-i<r$, thenTherefore the lower central series of a Lie algebra of $\mathfrak{d}$ reaches zero. Alternatively, every element of $\mathfrak{d}$ is a nilpotent linear map, and the Engel theorem states that a finite-dimensional Lie subalgebra consisting of nilpotent linear maps is a nilpotent Lie algebra.

For an abstract complex solvable Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$, apply the preceding result to its Adjoint representation. The Lie algebra $\mathrm{ad}\mathfrak{d}=[\mathrm{ad}\mathfrak{g},\mathrm{ad}\mathfrak{g}]$ is nilpotent. Since $\ker (\mathrm{ad}{|}_{\mathfrak{d}})=\mathfrak{d}\cap Z(\mathfrak{g})$ is central in $\mathfrak{d}$, some term of the lower central series of a Lie algebra of $\mathfrak{d}$ lies in that central ideal; the next term is zero. Thus $\mathfrak{d}$ itself is nilpotent.

Conversely, every nilpotent Lie algebra is solvable, since its derived series of a Lie algebra is contained term by term in its lower central series of a Lie algebra. If $\mathfrak{d}$ is nilpotent, it is therefore solvable, and $\mathfrak{g}/\mathfrak{d}$ is Abelian. More directly, the derived series of a Lie algebra of $\mathfrak{g}$, after its first term, is the derived series of a Lie algebra of $\mathfrak{d}$. Consequently the derived algebra nilpotence criterion is

Schur's lemma says that a nonzero intertwiner between irreducible representations is an isomorphism; over $\mathbb{C}$, every endomorphism of a finite-dimensional irreducible representation is scalar. To prove the Schur lemma, let $T:V\to W$ be a intertwining operator between irreducible representations. Its kernel and image of a linear map are invariant. If $T\ne 0$, irreducibility forces $\ker T=0$ and $\mathrm{im}T=W$. This proves the first assertion over any field. In particular the endomorphisms of an irreducible representation form a division ring.

When $V$ is finite-dimensional over an algebraically closed field, an endomorphism $T$ has an eigenvalue $\lambda$. The endomorphism $T-\lambda I$ has nonzero kernel. By the first assertion it must be zero, so $T=\lambda I$. Consequently, for complex finite-dimensional irreducible representations, the space of intertwining operators has dimension zero for nonisomorphic representations and dimension one for isomorphic representations.

Every finite-dimensional representation of a complex semisimple Lie algebra is completely reducible. We prove the Weyl complete reducibility theorem using the allowed Casimir operator facts, without assuming a splitting in advance. For dual bases $x_i,x^i$ with respect to the Killing form, the Casimir elementis central in the universal enveloping algebra. Hence its Casimir operator $C_M={\sum }_i{\rho }_M(x_i){\rho }_M(x^i)$ commutes with the action on every Lie algebra representation $M$ and is compatible with subrepresentations, quotient representations, and intertwining operators. On the trivial Lie algebra representation it acts by zero. On every nontrivial finite-dimensional Irreducible Lie algebra representation it acts by a nonzero scalar.

For clarity, the last fact can be expressed by the Casimir eigenvalue formula: on an irreducible with dominant integral weight $\lambda$, the scalar is $(\lambda ,\lambda +2\rho )$, with the inner product induced by the Killing form and $\rho$ the half-sum of positive roots. On the real span of the weights this inner product is positive definite, and the scalar is positive for $\lambda \ne 0$. For a semisimple Lie algebra with several simple factors the scalars add, so a nontrivial representation still gives a nonzero scalar. These are properties of the Casimir operator being used here.

First establish Casimir splitting of a trivial quotient. Supposeis a short exact sequence of finite-dimensional Lie algebra representations, with trivial quotient. The generalized eigenspaces of $C_E$ are invariant, soEach $E_c$ with $c\ne 0$ maps to zero under $q$: applying a sufficiently large power of $C_E-cI$ and using $C_{\mathbb{C}}=0$ gives $(-c{)}^{r}q(e)=0$. Thus $q(E_0)=\mathbb{C}$.

Take a composition series of a module of $E_0$. The Casimir operator is nilpotent on $E_0$, so its scalar on every irreducible composition factor is zero. The stated Casimir operator property makes every such factor trivial. In a basis adapted to the composition series of a module, the image of $\mathfrak{g}$ on $E_0$ therefore consists of strictly upper triangular matrices, so that image is solvable. The allowed fact that a semisimple Lie algebra acts trivially on every one-dimensional representation implies that $\mathfrak{g}$ is a perfect Lie algebra: otherwise a nonzero linear functional on $\mathfrak{g}/[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]$ would define a nontrivial one-dimensional Lie algebra representation. Thus $\mathfrak{g}=[\mathfrak{g},\mathfrak{g}]$, and its image is consequently a perfect Lie algebra too. A perfect Lie algebra that is also a solvable Lie algebra is zero, since its derived series of a Lie algebra is constant until it vanishes. Hence $\mathfrak{g}$ acts trivially on $E_0$. Choose $e\in E_0$ with $q(e)=1$. The map $1\mapsto e$ is an invariant section, proving the split short exact sequence assertion.

Now let $W\subseteq V$ be any nonzero subrepresentation. On the Hom representation $\mathrm{Hom}(V,W)$ the action isConsider the invariant subspaceRestriction produces a short exact sequenceSurjectivity follows by extending $I_W$ to a linear map on $V$. The quotient is trivial, because $I_W$ commutes with the action on $W$. The preceding Casimir splitting of a trivial quotient yields an invariant $p:V\to W$ with $p{|}_W=I_W$. Thusand $\ker p$ is invariant. The zero subrepresentation also has a complement. Repeatedly splitting off an irreducible subrepresentation now gives a direct sum of irreducibles, proving the Weyl complete reducibility theorem.

A derivation of a Lie algebra is a linear map $D:\mathfrak{g}\to \mathfrak{g}$ satisfying the Leibniz ruleThe space $\mathrm{Der}(\mathfrak{g})$ is a vector subspace of $\mathrm{End}(\mathfrak{g})$. Equip it with the commutator $[D,E]=DE-ED$. Expanding the Leibniz rule twice givesSubtracting proves that $[D,E]$ is again a derivation of a Lie algebra. Antisymmetry and the Jacobi identity hold for the commutator in every associative endomorphism algebra, so this defines the derivation Lie algebra.

The Jacobi identity says that $\mathrm{ad}x$ is a derivation of a Lie algebra. Moreover, for $D\in \mathrm{Der}(\mathfrak{g})$,soThis makes $\mathrm{ad}\mathfrak{g}$ an ideal of a Lie algebra in $\mathrm{Der}(\mathfrak{g})$.

Finally suppose $\mathfrak{g}$ is semisimple. Let $\mathfrak{g}$ act on $\mathrm{Der}(\mathfrak{g})$ by $x\cdot D=[\mathrm{ad}x,D]$. The Weyl complete reducibility theorem supplies an invariant complement $M$ to $\mathrm{ad}\mathfrak{g}$. For $D\in M$, invariance gives $[\mathrm{ad}x,D]\in M$, while the ideal identity above gives $[\mathrm{ad}x,D]\in \mathrm{ad}\mathfrak{g}$. Their intersection is zero, so $\mathrm{ad}(Dx)=0$ for every $x$. The center of a Lie algebra of a semisimple Lie algebra is zero, hence $Dx=0$ for every $x$, and $M=0$. ThereforeEvery derivation of a Lie algebra is inner, and the element giving it is unique because the center of a Lie algebra vanishes.

Consider all ideals containing $I$ and disjoint from the nonempty multiplicative subset $S$. This collection is nonempty because it contains $I$. The ascending chain condition for the Noetherian ring gives a maximal member $P$: otherwise repeatedly choosing a strictly larger member would give an infinite strictly ascending chain of ideals. Since $S$ is nonempty and $P$ misses it, $P\ne R$.

Suppose $ab\in P$ but $a,b\notin P$. Maximality implies that $P+(a)$ and $P+(b)$ both meet $S$, so write $s=p+ra\in S$ and $t=q+ub\in S$ with $p,q\in P$. Thenwhile closure under products gives $st\in S$, a contradiction. HenceThis proves the prime ideal avoiding a multiplicative subset result without needing $1\in S$. The assumptions themselves rule out $0\in S$, since every ideal contains zero.

A unique factorization domain is an integral domain in which every nonzero nonunit is a finite product of irreducible elements, uniquely up to reordering and multiplication of factors by a unit in a ring. A principal ideal domain is an integral domain in which every ideal is generated by one element.

Gauss lemma for polynomials says that over a unique factorization domain $D$, the product of two primitive polynomials is primitive, and the polynomial content satisfies $c(fg)=c(f)c(g)$ up to a unit. In particular a primitive polynomial of positive degree is irreducible over $D$ exactly when it is irreducible over the fraction field of $D$. Consequently a polynomial ring over a unique factorization domain is itself a unique factorization domain.

The Eisenstein criterion says that if $f(X)=a_n{X}^n+\cdots +a_0\in D[X]$ has $n\ge 1$ and there is a prime element $p$ with $p\nmid a_n$, $p\mid a_j$ for every $j<n$, and $p^2\nmid a_0$, then $f$ is irreducible over the fraction field. If $f$ is primitive, it is also irreducible in $D[X]$. Over $\mathbb{Z}$ one may take $p$ to be an ordinary prime number. The primitivity qualification prevents a nonunit constant content from being overlooked.

For the same pair, $\boxed{S=\mathbb{Z}[X]\subset \mathbb{Q}[X]}$. Since $\mathbb{Z}$ is a unique factorization domain, Gauss lemma for polynomials proves that $S$ is a unique factorization domain.

To prove that $S$ is not a principal ideal domain, consider the ideal $I=(2,X)$. A generator $g$ would divide 2 and $X$. Divisibility of 2 forces $g$ to be a nonzero constant integer; divisibility of $X$ then forces that integer to divide its coefficient 1, so $g=\pm 1$. This would make $I=S$. But evaluation at $X=0$ followed by reduction modulo 2 maps every element of $I$ to zero and maps 1 to one. Hence $1\notin I$, a contradiction. This is the integer polynomial ring is not a principal ideal domain example, with both clauses satisfied by a single inclusion.

Take $\boxed{R=\mathbb{Q}[X]}$ and, for the next clause, its subring $S=\mathbb{Z}[X]$. Division with remainder makes $R$ a Euclidean domain, with the degree as Euclidean size for nonzero polynomials. For completeness, a nonzero ideal of $R$ contains a polynomial $g$ of least degree; division of any member by $g$ leaves a smaller-degree remainder in the ideal, so that remainder must vanish. The ideal is therefore $(g)$; the zero ideal is already principal. Thus $R$ is a principal ideal domain.

A Euclidean domain is an integral domain $R$ with a function $\nu :R\setminus \{0\}\to \mathbb{N}$ such that for each $a\in R$ and $b\ne 0$ there are $q,r\in R$ with $a=qb+r$ and either $r=0$ or $\nu (r)<\nu (b)$. Some conventions add a multiplicative monotonicity condition; it is unnecessary for this implication.

Let $I$ be a nonzero ideal. Choose $d\in I\setminus \{0\}$ minimizing $\nu (d)$, possible because the values lie in the nonnegative integers. For $a\in I$, division by $d$ gives $a=qd+r$, with $r=a-qd\in I$. A nonzero remainder would contradict minimality, so $r=0$ and $a\in (d)$. Since $d\in I$, the reverse inclusion also holds. The zero ideal is $(0)$. Thus