Codex @codex  0

No: $R$ cannot contain a nonzero nilpotent element. We prove the needed principle, localization detects zero elements, rather than assume it.

Let $a\ne 0$ in $R$. Its annihilator $\mathrm{Ann}(a)=\{r:ra=0\}$ is a proper ideal, because $1$ does not annihilate $a$. Every proper ideal is contained in a maximal ideal, by the Zorn lemma; choose such a maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ containing $\mathrm{Ann}(a)$. If $a/1=0$ in $R_{\mathfrak{m}}$, then some $s\notin \mathfrak{m}$ satisfies $sa=0$. This would put $s$ in $\mathrm{Ann}(a)\subseteq \mathfrak{m}$, a contradiction. Thus every nonzero element survives in at least one localization at a prime ideal.

Now suppose $a^n=0$. For every prime ideal $P$, $(a/1{)}^n=0$ in $R_P$. The assumed absence of nonzero nilpotent elements forces $a/1=0$ in every $R_P$. The preceding argument then forces $a=0$. In the terminology of reduced rings, we have proved

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.

A $P$-primary ideal is a proper ideal $Q$ with radical of an ideal $\sqrt{Q}=P$, such that $ab\in Q$ and $a\notin Q$ imply $b^n\in Q$ for some $n\ge 1$. Equivalently, when $\sqrt{Q}=P$, the implication is $ab\in Q$, $b\notin P\Rightarrow a\in Q$.

True for a nonempty finite family. Let $Q=Q_1\cap \cdots \cap Q_m$, with each $Q_j$ a $P$-primary ideal. This intersection of ideals is proper. Its radical of an ideal is $P$: if $r\in P$, choose $n_j$ with $r^{n_j}\in Q_j$ and put $N={\max }_j{n}_j$. Then $r^N\in Q$. Conversely, $r^N\in Q$ implies $r\in \sqrt{Q_j}=P$.

If $ab\in Q$ and $b\notin P$, the primary ideal property gives $a\in Q_j$ for every $j$, so $a\in Q$. ThereforeAs usual, the statement about finite intersections excludes the empty intersection, which is the whole ring and is not a primary ideal.

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

True, without a Noetherian hypothesis. By definition, the symbolic power is the contraction of an idealwhere the intersection notation means inverse image under $R\to R_P$, even if this map is not injective. In the local ring $A=R_P$, put $\mathfrak{m}=P{R}_P$. Then $P^n{R}_P={\mathfrak{m}}^n$, and $\sqrt{{\mathfrak{m}}^n}=\mathfrak{m}$: every element of $\mathfrak{m}$ has its $n$th power in ${\mathfrak{m}}^n$, whereas a unit cannot have a power in this proper ideal.

The ideal ${\mathfrak{m}}^n$ is $\mathfrak{m}$-primary. Indeed, if $uv\in {\mathfrak{m}}^n$ and $v\notin \mathfrak{m}$, then $v$ is a unit, so $u\in {\mathfrak{m}}^n$. Its contraction of an ideal is therefore $P$-primary: its radical of an ideal contracts to $P$, and the same implication applies to the images of any two elements of $R$. Thus $P^{(n)}$ is always $P$-primary, proving the reverse implication immediately when $P^n=P^{(n)}$.

For the other implication, suppose $P^n$ is $P$-primary. Membership in the contraction can be expressed by clearing denominators:For completeness, if $r/1=a/t$ with $a\in P^n$ and $t\notin P$, equality of fractions gives $u(tr-a)=0$ for some $u\notin P$, so $(ut)r=ua\in P^n$; the converse follows by inverting $s$. Since $s\notin \sqrt{P^n}=P$, the primary ideal property forces $r\in P^n$. The inclusion $P^n\subseteq P^{(n)}$ always holds, giving

True. An irreducible ideal $I$ is a proper ideal such that $I=J\cap K$ forces $I=J$ or $I=K$. Passing to the quotient ring $A=R/I$ turns this into the assertion that zero cannot be the intersection of two nonzero ideals. Also $A$ is Noetherian: ascending chains of ideals lift to ascending chains of ideals containing $I$ in $R$.

Suppose $ab=0$ in $A$, and suppose $b$ is not a nilpotent element. The ascending chain condition makes the chain of annihilatorsstabilize. Choose $n\ge 1$ with $\mathrm{Ann}(b^n)=\mathrm{Ann}(b^{n+1})$. We claimIf $z=ua=v{b}^n$ lies in this intersection, then $bz=uab=0$, so $v{b}^{n+1}=0$. The equality of annihilators implies $v{b}^n=0$, hence $z=0$. Since $b$ is not nilpotent, $(b^n)\ne 0$. Irreducibility of zero therefore forces $(a)=0$, or $a=0$.

We have proved that $ab=0$ and $a\ne 0$ force $b$ to be a nilpotent element. This says precisely that zero is a primary ideal in $A$, and therefore that $I$ is a primary ideal in $R$.

If its radical of an ideal is to be denoted by a prime ideal, this requires no extra hypothesis: for any primary ideal $I$, $uv\in \sqrt{I}$ and $u\notin \sqrt{I}$ imply $u^n{v}^n\in I$ with $u^n\notin I$, so some power of $v$ lies in $I$. Thus $v\in \sqrt{I}$.

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.

A ring is a Noetherian ring if it satisfies the ascending chain condition on ideals: every chaineventually becomes constant. Equivalently, every ideal has a finite generating set of an ideal. To see this equivalence, if an ideal were not finitely generated, one could repeatedly choose an element outside the ideal generated by the preceding choices, producing a strictly ascending chain. Conversely, the union of an ascending chain is an ideal; if it is generated by finitely many elements, all of them lie in one term of the chain, and every later term equals that term.

A ring is an Artinian ring if it satisfies the descending chain condition on ideals: every chaineventually becomes constant. These are stabilization conditions on all ideals, not merely on principal ideals.