Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2015 / iii / Paper 1 / 2

A prime ideal $P$ is a proper ideal such that $ab\in P$ implies $a\in P$ or $b\in P$. Equivalently $R/P$ is an integral domain.

For each $i$, and each $j\ne i$, choose $a_{ji}\in P_j\setminus P_i$, using incomparability. PutThen $b_i$ belongs to the other two prime ideals and does not belong to $P_i$, by primality. In particular each $b_i$ lies in the union. But $b_1+b_2+b_3\notin P_i$ for every $i$: modulo $P_i$, the sum equals $b_i\ne 0$. The union is not closed under addition and is not an ideal. This is a concrete instance of prime avoidance.

The union of three incomparable nonprime ideals example can retain pairwise incomparability. In the ringtakeThese distinct two-element ideals are pairwise incomparable, yetwhich is an ideal. None is prime: its quotient ring still contains a nonzero element of square zero. The three one-dimensional vector subspaces cover the two-dimensional vector space over ${\mathbb{F}}_2$.

Use the convention that a multiplicative subset contains $1$ and is closed under multiplication. Usually $0$ is excluded; allowing it gives the harmless zero-ring localization. A prime ideal disjoint from $S$ is mapped toin the localization of a ring. This ideal is proper, andis an integral domain, since the denominators are nonzero in the integral domain $R/P$. Thus $S^{-1}P$ is a prime ideal.

Conversely, for a prime ideal $Q$ in $S^{-1}R$, its contractionis a prime ideal disjoint from $S$: each $s/1$ is a unit and cannot belong to a proper ideal. Membership in $Q$ is equivalent to numerator membership in $P$, since $a/s=(a/1)(s/1{)}^{-1}$. Hence $Q=S^{-1}P$.

To check the other composite, $a/1\in S^{-1}P$ implies $sa\in P$ for some $s\in S$, by the equality criterion for fractions in a localization of a ring. Since $s\notin P$, primality gives $a\in P$. Therefore extension and contraction are mutually inverse:If $0\in S$, both sets are empty. This is the prime ideal correspondence for localization.

Suppose $S$ is a saturated multiplicative subset, and take $a\notin S$. The principal ideal $(a)$ is disjoint from $S$: otherwise $ra\in S$ would force $a\in S$. The prime ideal avoiding a multiplicative subset argument from Question 1 extends $(a)$ to a prime ideal $P_a$ disjoint from $S$. Thus every point of the complement belongs to such a prime ideal, andIf $S=R$, this is the empty union.

Conversely suppose $R\setminus S$ is a union of prime ideals. If $xy\in S$ and $x\notin S$, some prime ideal in that union contains $x$, and hence $xy$, a contradiction. The same holds for $y$. Thus The saturated complement as a union of prime ideals characterization holds.

For units with no finite prime-union complement, takeProducts of units are units, and a product is a unit only if both factors are units, so $S$ is a saturated multiplicative subset. Every nonunit integer lies in some $(p)$ with $p$ a positive prime, giving $\mathbb{Z}\setminus S={\bigcup }_p(p)$. If finitely many prime ideals sufficed, discard any $(0)$ and write the others as $(p_1),\dots ,(p_r)$. A prime $\ell$ outside this finite list belongs to none of them but is a nonunit, a contradiction. There is always such an $\ell$: a prime divisor of $p_1\cdots p_r+1$ is outside the list.