= Solution
The <Weak Hilbert Nullstellensatz> states that if $k$ is an <algebraically closed field>, every <maximal ideal> of $k[Y_1,\ldots,Y_s]$ is
$$
\boxed{(Y_1-a_1,\ldots,Y_s-a_s)\quad\text{for a unique }(a_1,\ldots,a_s)\in k^s.}
$$
Equivalently, 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 $L=k[b_1,\ldots,b_s]$. Choose a maximal set of <algebraically independent elements> $t_1,\ldots,t_r$ among these generators and denote the remaining generators by $c_1,\ldots,c_h$. Each $c_j$ is an <algebraic element> over $K=k(t_1,\ldots,t_r)$, so $L/K$ is a <finite field extension>. Clearing the denominators in their monic equations, choose a nonzero $d\in k[t_1,\ldots,t_r]$ such that each $c_j$ is an <integral element> over
$$
D=k[t_1,\ldots,t_r,d^{-1}].
$$
Because $L$ is a field and $d^{-1}\in L$, we have $L=D[c_1,\ldots,c_h]$. 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> $k[Y_1,\ldots,Y_s]/\mathfrak m$ 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 $\mathfrak m=(Y_1-a_1,\ldots,Y_s-a_s)$, proving the <Weak Hilbert Nullstellensatz>.
For the real <Laurent polynomial ring>, the same argument applies because it is the <finitely generated algebra>
$$
R\cong\mathbb R[U_1,V_1,U_2,V_2]/(U_1V_1-1,U_2V_2-1).
$$
Every <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 is
$$
\boxed{\mathfrak m_{\alpha,\beta}=\{f\in R:f(\alpha,\beta)=0\},\quad (\alpha,\beta)\in(\mathbb C^\times)^2,}
$$
with $(\alpha,\beta)$ 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 $a,b$,
$$
\mathfrak m_{a,b}=(X_1-a,X_2-b).
$$
If $\alpha=a\in\mathbb R^\times$ and $\beta=s+it$ with $t\ne0$,
$$
\mathfrak m_{a,\beta}=(X_1-a,\ X_2^2-2sX_2+s^2+t^2).
$$
If $\alpha=u+iv$ with $v\ne0$ and $\beta=s+it$, then
$$
\mathfrak m_{\alpha,\beta}=\left(X_1^2-2uX_1+u^2+v^2,\ X_2-s-\frac{t}{v}(X_1-u)\right).
$$
The 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 $f\notin P$,
$$
\boxed{P=\bigcap_{\substack{\mathfrak m\supseteq P\\\mathfrak m\text{ maximal}}}\mathfrak m.}
$$
This is the <Jacobson ring> property for this <Laurent polynomial ring>.
For a nonzero <finitely generated module> $M$, its set of <associated primes> is
$$
\boxed{\operatorname{Ass}_R(M)=\{\operatorname{Ann}_R(m):0\ne m\in M,\ \operatorname{Ann}_R(m)\text{ is a prime ideal}\}.}
$$
Here $\operatorname{Ann}_R(m)=\{a\in R:am=0\}$ 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 $P=\operatorname{Ann}_R(m)$. It is proper because $m\ne0$.
If $ab\in P$ and $b\notin P$, then $bm\ne0$ and
$$
P\subseteq\operatorname{Ann}_R(bm),\qquad a\in\operatorname{Ann}_R(bm).
$$
Maximality forces $\operatorname{Ann}_R(bm)=P$, hence $a\in P$. Thus $P$ is a <prime ideal>, proving $\boxed{\operatorname{Ass}_R(M)\ne\varnothing}$. 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 $P$ and
$$
\boxed{ab\in Q,\ a\notin Q\ \Longrightarrow\ b^j\in Q\text{ for some }j\ge1.}
$$
Equivalently, $ab\in Q$ 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 $v=X_2-1$. Then
$$
\boxed{I=(u^2,uv),\qquad P=(u).}
$$
Since $R/P\cong\mathbb R[X_2,X_2^{-1}]$ 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 $j\ge1$. 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>.
Back to article page
