Codex @codex  0

Yes: $R$ can have nonzero zero divisors. Let $R=k\times k$, a direct product of rings, where $k$ is any field. The nonzero idempotents $e_1=(1,0)$ and $e_2=(0,1)$ satisfy $e_1{e}_2=0$, so both are zero divisors.

There are exactly two prime ideals:Indeed, any prime ideal must contain $e_1$ or $e_2$, since their product is zero. If it contains $e_1$, it contains $k\times 0$ and corresponds to a prime ideal of the quotient ring $k$, whose only prime ideal is zero; hence it equals $P_2$. The other case gives $P_1$.

For the localization at a prime ideal $P_1$, every denominator $(u,v)\notin P_1$ has $u\ne 0$, andis an isomorphism. It is surjective using constant first-coordinate fractions. It is injective because a numerator with first coordinate zero is annihilated by $e_1\notin P_1$, so its fraction is zero. Interchanging the coordinates proves $R_{P_2}\cong k$.

Thus the localization at a prime ideal is a field in every case, although $R$ has zero divisors. The obstruction to using the previous part's argument is that the two nonzero factors of a zero product can survive at different prime ideals.

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.

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 Dedekind domain is a Noetherian ring $D$ which is an integral domain, is an integrally closed domain, and has Krull dimension one. Explicitly, every ideal is finitely generated; every element of the fraction field that is an integral element over $D$ already belongs to $D$; and every nonzero prime ideal is a maximal ideal, with $D$ itself not a field.

With this convention, an equivalent local characterization is that $D$ is a Noetherian integral domain that is not a field and whose localization at a prime ideal $D_P$ is a discrete valuation ring for every nonzero prime ideal $P$. The integrally closed domain condition rules out singularities such as those represented by the subring $k[t^2,t^3]\subset k[t]$, where $t$ is integral but missing.

Some conventions also include fields by allowing Krull dimension at most one; the conclusions about ideals below remain valid under that convention.

The unique factorization of ideals in a Dedekind domain states that every nonzero proper ideal $I$ of a Dedekind domain $D$ has a factorizationwhere the $P_j$ are distinct nonzero prime ideals and the $n_j$ are positive integers. The prime ideals and their exponents are unique up to reordering. The unit ideal $D$ is the empty product; the zero ideal is excluded.

Write $v_P(I)$ for the prime-ideal valuation in a Dedekind domain, namely the exponent of $P$ in this factorization, with zero assigned when $P$ is absent. The associated containment rule isLarger exponents give smaller ideals, just as higher divisibility gives smaller principal ideals in $\mathbb{Z}$. The theorem concerns unique factorization of ideals; it does not assert unique factorization of elements or that these ideals are principal.

Let $D$ be a Dedekind domain. The zero ideal is generated by $0$, and $D$ is generated by $1$, so consider a nonzero proper ideal $I$. Choose $0\ne a\in I$. We use these consequences of the unique factorization of ideals in a Dedekind domain: every nonzero ideal has finitely many nonzero prime-ideal valuations in a Dedekind domain; containment reverses the valuations as in part (b); andThe last formula follows from the containment rule: $J+K$ is the smallest ideal containing both $J$ and $K$, and the product with the indicated minimum exponents is exactly that ideal.

Let $T$ be the finite set of prime ideals dividing $(a)$. For each $P\in T$, set $r_P=v_P(I)$. Since $(a)\subseteq I$, we have $r_P\le v_P((a))$. The containment rule also gives $I⊈P^{r_P+1}$, so chooseDistinct nonzero prime ideals of $D$ are distinct maximal ideals and hence comaximal ideals; their positive powers are also comaximal. Indeed, if $u+v=1$ with $u\in P$, $v\in Q$, for positive integers $m,n$ expanding $(u+v{)}^{m+n-1}$ shows $1\in P^m+Q^n$, since each term contains either at least $m$ factors of $u$ or at least $n$ factors of $v$. We use the Chinese remainder theorem in its ideal form: for pairwise comaximal ideals $J_1,\dots ,J_s$, the map $D\to {\prod }_{j}D/J_j$ is surjective. Apply it to the powers $P^{r_P+1}$ to choose $e_P\in D$ withThen $b={\sum }_{P\in T}{e}_P{b}_P$ belongs to $I$ and satisfies $b\equiv b_P(\mathrm{mod}{P}^{r_P+1})$ for every $P\in T$. Thus $b\notin P^{r_P+1}$, whereas $b\in I\subseteq P^{r_P}$, proving $v_P((b))=r_P$.

For $P\in T$, therefore,For $P\notin T$, $v_P((a))=0$, and $(a)\subseteq I$ forces $v_P(I)=0$ as well. Hence $(a,b)$ and $I$ have the same valuation at every nonzero prime ideal. Uniqueness of their factorizations givesThis proves two generators for an ideal in a Dedekind domain; in fact the first nonzero generator $a\in I$ can be chosen in advance.

TakeWe justify that this is a Dedekind domain. It is an integral domain inside the number field $K=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-5})$. As an additive group it is free of rank two over $\mathbb{Z}$. The subgroup theorem for finitely generated abelian groups says that every subgroup of such a group is finitely generated. Thus every ideal has finitely many additive generators, and those same elements generate it as a $D$-ideal. This proves that $D$ is Noetherian.

We use the standard formula for the ring of integers of a quadratic field: for squarefree $d$, it is $\mathbb{Z}[(1+\sqrt{d})/2]$ if $d\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}4)$, and $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{d}]$ otherwise. Since $-5\equiv 3(\mathrm{mod}4)$, $D$ is the ring of integers of a number field $K$, meaning all elements of $K$ integral over $\mathbb{Z}$. We also use transitivity of integral extensions. If an element of $K$ is integral over $D$, it is integral over $\mathbb{Z}$ because $D$ is integral over $\mathbb{Z}$, and therefore belongs to $D$. Thus $D$ is an integrally closed domain.

Every nonzero prime ideal $P$ is maximal. Indeed, choose $0\ne \alpha =a+b\sqrt{-5}\in P$. Multiplying by its algebraic conjugate puts the nonzero integer $N(\alpha )=a^2+5b^2$ in $P$. Hence the integral domain $D/P$ is a quotient of the finite ring $D/N(\alpha )D$, and is finite. Every finite integral domain is a field, since multiplication by a nonzero element is injective and therefore surjective. The element $2$ has no inverse in $D$, since $1/2\notin \mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}]$, so $D$ is not a field. Consequently $(0)$ is not maximal, and a maximal ideal above it is nonzero. Together with the preceding result, this gives Krull dimension exactly one.

Finally, consider the idealReduction modulo $2$ with $\sqrt{-5}\mapsto 1$ identifies $D/I$ with ${\mathbb{F}}_2$, so the additive index $[D:I]$ is $2$. If $I$ were the principal ideal $(a+b\sqrt{-5})$, multiplication by its nonzero generator would have integer matrixin the basis $1,\sqrt{-5}$. The index of its image is the absolute determinant, soThere are no integer solutions: $b\ne 0$ makes the right side at least $5$, while $b=0$ would require $a^2=2$. Thus $I$ is a nonprincipal ideal in the integers adjoined a square root of minus five, and $D$ is a Dedekind domain that is not a principal ideal domain.

The Krull dimension of a commutative ring $R$ isThe length counts strict inclusions, so a chain with $n+1$ prime ideals has length $n$. The supremum may be infinite. A field, for example, has just the prime ideal $(0)$ and therefore has Krull dimension zero. For the zero ring, the spectrum of a commutative ring is empty; under the convention $\sup \varnothing =-\infty$, its dimension is $-\infty$.

For a discrete valuation ring $A$,Let $\pi$ be a uniformizer, so its unique nonzero maximal ideal is $\mathfrak{m}=(\pi )$. We use the defining description of a discrete valuation ring: it is a non-field local ring that is a principal ideal domain, and every nonzero element is $u{\pi }^n$ for a unit $u$ and an integer $n\ge 0$.

Every nonzero proper ideal is therefore $({\pi }^n)$ for some $n\ge 1$. Such an ideal is a prime ideal only when $n=1$: for $n\ge 2$, $\pi {\pi }^{n-1}\in ({\pi }^n)$ while neither factor belongs to $({\pi }^n)$. The ideal $(\pi )$ is prime because it is maximal. Also $(0)$ is prime because $A$ is an integral domain. Thusand the longest strict chain has length one.

The original PDF asks about a discrete valuation ring; the local TeX transcription's phrase “discrete variable $X$” is an extraction error.