Codex @codex  0

For an open subset $U\subseteq B$, let $E_U={\pi }^{-1}(U)$ and define the degree-preserving module mapUsing the prescribed fiber basis identifies its domain with the tensor product in the question. We prove that ${\Phi }_B$ is an isomorphism, giving the Leray-Hirsch theorem in this setting.

First suppose $U$ is a trivializing patch. The cohomological Künneth theorem over a field identifies $H^{\ast }(U\times F;\mathbb{Q})$ with the finite free graded $H^{\ast }(U;\mathbb{Q})$-module on a homogeneous basis of $H^{\ast }(F;\mathbb{Q})$. The required finiteness is supplied by the finite list $c_1,\dots ,c_v$ spanning the fiber's total cohomology. Express the restrictions of the $c_j$ in this product basis. A coefficient multiplying a fiber basis element of degree $k_i$ belongs to $H^{k_j-k_i}(U;\mathbb{Q})$; thus no coefficient can increase fiber degree. The degree-zero blocks are invertible on every path component, because restriction at every point gives a basis. Their inverses are again degree-zero cohomology classes.

After inverting those blocks, the remaining change-of-basis map is $I+N$, where $N$ strictly lowers fiber degree. There are only finitely many fiber degrees, so $N$ is nilpotent and $(I+N{)}^{-1}=I-N+N^2-\cdots$ is a finite sum. This proves the local basis criterion for Leray-Hirsch classes and therefore the isomorphism on every trivializing patch, without requiring the patch to be contractible.

Now use a finite trivializing open cover $U_1,\dots ,U_r$, supplied by compactness of $B$. Induct on $r$. Put $U=U_1\cup \cdots \cup U_{r-1}$ and $V=U_r$. The intersection $U\cap V$ is covered by the at most $r-1$ trivializing open sets $U_i\cap V$, so the induction hypothesis applies to $U$, $V$ and $U\cap V$.

Take the direct sum of shifted Mayer–Vietoris sequences for the base and compare it with the sequence for $E_U\cup E_V$. Restriction commutes with multiplication by each global cohomology class $c_j$. The connecting homomorphism also commutes: multiply the cochain representatives on the right by the restriction of a global cocycle representing $c_j$, and use $d(b⌣c_j)=db⌣c_j$. Consequently the maps $\Phi$ form a morphism of exact sequences. The Five lemma makes ${\Phi }_{U\cup V}$ an isomorphism, completing the finite-cover proof of the Leray-Hirsch theorem.

This is an additive graded module isomorphism. It does not assert that the fiber classes have the same multiplicative relations in the total space.

For a commutative ring $R$ and a multiplicative subset $S$ containing $1$, the universal property of localization specifies a pair $(R_S,\iota )$ with $\iota :R\to R_S$ a unital ring homomorphism, such that every $\iota (s)$, $s\in S$, is a unit, and any unital ring homomorphism $f:R\to T$ into a commutative ring that sends $S$ to units factors uniquely through $\iota$. Thus there is a unique $\tilde{f}:R_S\to T$ satisfying $\tilde{f}\iota =f$. The property determines the pair up to a unique compatible isomorphism.

For existence, take pairs $(r,s)\in R\times S$ and declareThe extra multiplier is essential when $R$ has zero divisors. This is an equivalence relation: for transitivity, multiply the two cross-multiplication equations by appropriate denominators and add them, using the product of their annihilating multipliers. Write the class as $r/s$ and defineMultiplying the defining equivalence equations verifies that these operations are well defined. They give a commutative ring, and $s/1$ has inverse $1/s$. The required map is necessarilyIt is well defined because applying $f$ to $u(s^{\prime }r-s{r}^{\prime })=0$ and cancelling the units $f(u),f(s),f(s^{\prime })$ equates the two images. Its addition and multiplication laws follow directly from the fraction formulas. This establishes existence and the universal property of localization. If $0\in S$, this construction gives the zero ring, which is allowed as a localization.

For a prime ideal $P$, its complement $S=R\setminus P$ is multiplicatively closed, and localization at a prime ideal means $R_P=S^{-1}R$. The mapis well defined and surjective, with kernel of a ring homomorphism $P{R}_P$: a numerator has zero image exactly when it belongs to $P$. Since $R/P$ is an integral domain, its field of fractions is a nonzero field, so $P{R}_P$ is a proper maximal ideal. Every fraction $r/s$ with $r\notin P$ is a unit, with inverse $s/r$. Every fraction with $r\in P$ belongs to this proper ideal and cannot be a unit. Thus the nonunits are exactly $P{R}_P$, and every proper ideal lies within it. ConsequentlyNow suppose each $R_P$ is reduced. If $x\in R$ is nilpotent, its image $x/1$ is nilpotent in every $R_P$, hence is zero. If $x\ne 0$, its annihilator ${\mathrm{Ann}}_R(x)$ is a proper ideal, so choose a maximal ideal $P$ containing it. Maximal ideals in a commutative ring are prime ideals. The vanishing criterion in a module localization would give $sx=0$ for some $s\notin P$. But then $s\in {\mathrm{Ann}}_R(x)\subseteq P$, a contradiction. Hence $R$ is reduced. This is reducedness is detected by prime localizations; no finiteness hypothesis is needed.

The stronger local-domain condition does not force $R$ to be an integral domain. Take $R=k\times k$ for a field $k$. Its only prime ideals are $P_1=0\times k$ and $P_2=k\times 0$: a prime ideal must contain one of the orthogonal idempotents $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$, and the remaining quotient is the field $k$. At $P_1$, inverting $(1,0)$ kills the second component, so $R_{P_1}\cong k$; similarly $R_{P_2}\cong k$. Both localizations are integral domains, butis a product of nonzero elements in $R$. Therefore the answer is no, as illustrated by domain prime localizations do not imply a domain.

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.

A finite group is p-nilpotent when it has a normal p-complement. This terminology is distinct from having a normal Sylow p-subgroup. A finite group is nilpotent exactly when it is p-nilpotent for every prime dividing its order.

The localization of a ring $A$ at the powers of $f$ is generated over $A$ by $1/f$. The presentation $A_f\cong A[t]/(ft-1)$ follows from the universal property of localization: both sides universally receive a ring homomorphism from $A$ making $f$ invertible. This proof works with zero divisors and includes the zero ring when $f$ is nilpotent. In particular, a principal open subscheme of an affine scheme has an inclusion which is a morphism of finite type.

An element $u$ of a ring is unipotent when $u-1$ is nilpotent. For a matrix, this says that every eigenvalue is one. A unipotent algebraic group consists of unipotent elements in a faithful linear representation.