Codex @codex  0

Every ring integral over a Jacobson ring is Jacobson. After quotienting by a prime, an integral equation for a nonzero element has nonzero constant term; choose a maximal ideal of the base avoiding that term and apply the Lying-over theorem.

A nilpotent element belongs to every prime ideal and therefore to every maximal ideal, soFor the reverse containment, let $r$ be nonnilpotent. The localization of a ring $S=R[1/r]$ is nonzero: if $1=0$ there, some power of $r$ would annihilate $1$ in $R$. This is still a finite-type integer algebra, because it can be presented as $R[T]/(rT-1)$.

Choose a maximal ideal $\mathfrak{n}$ of $S$. Its residue field $L=S/\mathfrak{n}$ is a finite-type integer algebra, hence finite by part (a). Consider the image $F$ of $R$ in $L$. It is a finite integral domain containing $1$, so it is a field: multiplication by a nonzero element is injective on the finite set $F$, hence surjective, and therefore has an inverse in $F$.

The kernel $\mathfrak{m}$ of $R\to F$ is consequently maximal. The image of $r$ is nonzero, since $r$ became a unit in $S$ and remains a unit in its nonzero residue field. Thus $r\notin \mathfrak{m}$. Every nonnilpotent element can therefore be avoided by a maximal ideal, givingThis radical equality for finitely generated integer algebras uses part (a) to ensure that the contraction of the localized maximal ideal is maximal. Such contraction is not generally maximal for arbitrary localization of a ring; the finite-field image is the decisive additional step. The zero ring is immediate, with the intersection of its empty set of maximal ideals understood as the whole ring. No general theorem that integer algebras are Jacobson rings is being quoted.

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.

It is enough to prove that every prime ideal $\mathfrak{q}$ of $S$ is the intersection of the maximal ideals containing it. Replace $R\subseteq S$ byThe new extension is integral, both rings are domains, and the base remains a Jacobson ring.

Let $0\ne s\in S$. Choose an integral equation of least degreeAs above, $a_0\ne 0$. Since the zero ideal of $R$ is the intersection of its maximal ideals, choose a maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ with $a_0\notin \mathfrak{m}$. By the Lying-over theorem, some maximal ideal $\mathfrak{n}$ of $S$ contracts to $\mathfrak{m}$. If $s\in \mathfrak{n}$, the integral equation would imply $a_0\in \mathfrak{n}\cap R=\mathfrak{m}$, a contradiction. Thus every nonzero $s$ is omitted by some maximal ideal, so their intersection is zero. Therefore $S$ is Jacobson, proving Integral extension of a Jacobson ring.

For a finite-type integer algebra, a nonnilpotent element $r$ gives a nonzero localization of a ring $R[1/r]$. A maximal ideal there has finite residue field by the finite-field theorem for finitely generated integer algebras. The image of $R$ in that field is a finite integral domain, hence a field. Its kernel is therefore maximal in $R$ and avoids $r$. Nilpotents lie in every maximal ideal, proving the radical equality. Applying the same argument to every prime quotient shows that these algebras are Jacobson rings. Merely contracting a localized maximal ideal without the finite-image argument would not prove maximality.