Codex @codex  0

We prove prime avoidance by contradiction. Remove any prime ideal contained in another one on the list; this leaves the same union. If the ideal $I$ is contained in none of the remaining prime ideals, choose $a_i\in I\setminus P_i$. For every $j\ne i$, incomparability lets us choose $b_{ij}\in P_j\setminus P_i$. SetFor a one-element list, use the empty product $b_1=1$. By the defining property of a prime ideal, $b_i\notin P_i$, and also $a_i{b}_i\notin P_i$. But $b_j\in P_i$ for every $j\ne i$. Thus all summands except $a_i{b}_i$ lie in $P_i$, and consequently $c\notin P_i$ for every $i$. On the other hand, $c\in I$ because each $a_i\in I$. This contradicts the assumed containment in the union. Therefore

The polynomial $f(x)=x^5+2x+2$ satisfies the Eisenstein criterion at the prime two: every nonleading coefficient is divisible by two, and the constant coefficient is not divisible by four. Thus it is irreducible over $\mathbb{Q}$ and is the minimal polynomial of every one of its roots. Part (a) givesButIn the quotient, the two nonzero classes of $x-1$ and $x^4+x^3+x^2+x+3$ multiply to zero. They are nonzero because their nonzero representative degrees are less than five. The quotient is not an integral domain, so $(5)$ is not a prime ideal.

For ring homomorphisms preserving the identity, an image $\beta$ of $\alpha$ in the Gaussian integers would satisfy $f(\beta )=0$. The minimal polynomial of $\beta$ over $\mathbb{Q}$ would then be $f$, of degree five. This is impossible because $\beta \in \mathbb{Q}(i)$ has degree at most two. Thus there is no unital homomorphism $\mathbb{Z}[\alpha ]\to \mathbb{Z}[i]$. If homomorphisms are instead allowed not to preserve the identity, the zero map exists; every nonzero homomorphism into this integral domain is unital, because the image of one is a nonzero idempotent and hence one.

Let $P=\mathrm{Ann}(m)$ be maximal among annihilators of nonzero elements of $M$. It is a proper ideal, since $1m=m\ne 0$. Suppose $ab\in P$ and $b\notin P$. Then $bm\ne 0$ andThe inclusion holds because every $r\in P$ satisfies $r(bm)=b(rm)=0$. Maximality in the stated set forces $\mathrm{Ann}(bm)=P$, so $a\in P$. This proves the defining implication for a prime ideal:This is a maximal annihilator of a module element is prime argument. Maximality among element annihilators is sufficient; $P$ need not be a maximal ideal of $R$.

If $M=0$, take the empty filtration. Otherwise a nonzero quotient $Q=M/M_i$ is a finitely generated module. Because $R$ has the ascending chain condition on ideals, the nonempty collection of annihilators of nonzero elements of $Q$ has a maximal element. Part (b), applied to $Q$, supplies $q\ne 0$ with a prime ideal $P=\mathrm{Ann}(q)$.

The map $R\to Rq$, $r\mapsto rq$, is surjective with kernel $P$. The first isomorphism theorem gives $Rq\cong R/P$. Let $M_{i+1}$ be the inverse image of $Rq$ under $M\to Q$. ThenRepeat whenever the quotient remains nonzero. An infinite repetition would give a strictly ascending chain of submodules of the Noetherian module $M$, contradicting part (a). Thus the process stops after finitely many steps, necessarily at $M$.

This constructs the required prime filtration $0=M_0⊊\cdots ⊊M_l=M$, with each successive quotient $R/P_i$ for a prime $P_i$.

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.

Put $u=X_1-1$ and $v=X_2-1$. Evaluation at $(1,1)$ is surjective, andso its kernel is the prime ideal $\boxed{P=(u,v)}$. In particular $P/P^2$ is naturally an $R/P=\mathbb{Z}$-module, generated by the classes of $u,v$.

For integers $a,b$, including negative integers, reduction modulo $P^2$ givesFor negative powers, this follows from $(1+u{)}^{-1}\equiv 1-u$ and $(1+v{)}^{-1}\equiv 1-v$; the mixed product $uv$ vanishes modulo $P^2$. Therefore a Laurent polynomial $f$ satisfiesThe formal derivatives obey the product rule, so $D_i(ab)=\theta (a)D_i(b)+\theta (b)D_i(a)$. If $a,b\in P$, both terms vanish. Hence both $D_i$ vanish on $P^2$ and define a mapIt sends $[u]$ to $(1,0)$ and $[v]$ to $(0,1)$, and the displayed expansion gives its inverse. Thus the conormal module has the explicit basis

Let $A=R_P$ be the localization at a prime ideal, with maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}=P{R}_P$. Every nonzero integer lies outside $P$ and is therefore inverted. The residue field isIndeed there is an explicit identificationinverting $1+u$ and $1+v$ has no effect in this local ring, and a polynomial denominator lies outside $(u,v)$ precisely when its constant term is nonzero. Conversely, clearing rational denominators turns every such fraction into a fraction from $R_P$.

For the Krull dimension, the prime ideal correspondence for localization preserves the strict chainof prime ideals in $R$. They are prime because the successive quotients are the integral domains $R$, $\mathbb{Z}[X_2,X_2^{-1}]$, and $\mathbb{Z}$. They remain distinct after localization at a prime ideal because they are all contained in $P$. Hence $\dim A\ge 2$.

For the upper bound, $R$ is a Noetherian ring by the Hilbert basis theorem and Localization of a Noetherian ring. Since $P$ is generated by two elements, the Krull height theorem gives $\mathrm{ht}P\le 2$. The prime ideal correspondence for localization identifies $\dim R_P$ with $\mathrm{ht}P$, so

A Noetherian local ring $(B,\mathfrak{n})$ with residue field $\kappa$ is a regular local ring ifBy the Nakayama lemma, the dimension on the left is the minimal number of generators of $\mathfrak{n}$; this is also called the embedding dimension.

The localization of a module is exact and commutes with quotients and products of ideals. Applying it to the already computed conormal module gives the cotangent space of a local ringIts dimension is two, equal to $\dim A$. Therefore $\boxed{R_P\text{ is a regular local ring}}$. Notice that $P/P^2$ has a basis over $\mathbb{Z}$, whereas the localized cotangent space of a local ring has a basis over the residue field $\mathbb{Q}$.

An integral domain $A$ is an integrally closed domain if every element of its fraction field which is an integral element over $A$ belongs to $A$. Explicitly, if $z\in \mathrm{Frac}A$ satisfiesthen $z\in A$. Thus $\boxed{A\text{ is integrally closed exactly when its integral closure in its fraction field is }A}$.

Suppose $A$ is a unique factorization domain and $z=a/b$ is integral, with $a,b\in A$, $b\ne 0$, and with no common irreducible element as a factor. Multiplying its monic equation by $b^d$ givesHence $b$ divides $a^d$. Every irreducible element dividing $b$ is a prime element, so it would divide $a$, contrary to the choice of the fraction. Therefore $b$ is a unit, and $z\in A$. We have proved

The going-down theorem is the following. Let $A\subseteq B$ be an integral extension of integral domains with $A$ an integrally closed domain. IfthenWe first prove this for a module-finite ring extension and then remove that extra hypothesis. We use the Lying-over theorem, the Going-up theorem, and the incomparability theorem for integral extensions: primes exist over every base prime, prime chains can be extended upwards, and distinct primes over the same base prime cannot contain one another. The Going-up theorem follows by applying the Lying-over theorem to the quotient by the lower prime. These results concern arbitrary integral extensions; none assumes the going-down theorem.

For the finite case, let $K=\mathrm{Frac}A$ and $L=\mathrm{Frac}B$. Since $B$ is module-finite, $L/K$ is a finite field extension. Take a finite normal field extension $E/K$ containing $L$, obtained as a splitting field of the minimal polynomials of finitely many field generators. The extension $E/K$ need not be a separable field extension. Let $C$ be the integral closure of $A$ in $E$. Then $B\subseteq C$, and $C$ is integral over both $A$ and $B$.

We need one auxiliary fact: the finite group $G={\mathrm{Aut}}_K(E)$ acts transitively on the prime ideals of $C$ over any fixed prime ideal $\mathfrak{p}$ of $A$. First observe that an element $w\in E$ fixed by all of $G$ is a purely inseparable algebraic element over $K$. Indeed, all $K$-embeddings of $K(w)$ into an algebraic closure extend to $K$-automorphisms of the normal field extension $E$. Hence the minimal polynomial of an algebraic element $w$ has only one distinct root. In characteristic zero this says $w\in K$; in characteristic $p>0$ it says $w^{p^e}\in K$ for some $e\ge 0$.

Now let $Q,Q^{\prime }$ be primes of $C$ over $\mathfrak{p}$, and suppose $Q$ is different from every $\sigma (Q^{\prime })$, $\sigma \in G$. By the incomparability theorem for integral extensions, $Q$ is contained in none of these conjugate primes. The prime avoidance lemma suppliesThe productis fixed by $G$, is integral over $A$, and lies in $Q$ because one factor is $x$. Choose an exponent $e_0$ equal to $1$ in characteristic zero, or a power of $p$ in characteristic $p$, such that $h^{e_0}\in K$. Since $A$ is an integrally closed domain, $h^{e_0}\in A$. It also lies in $Q\cap A=\mathfrak{p}$, hence in $Q^{\prime }$. Because $Q^{\prime }$ is a prime ideal, some factor $\sigma (x)$ lies in $Q^{\prime }$. This means $x\in {\sigma }^{-1}(Q^{\prime })$, contradicting our choice. Thus $Q=\sigma (Q^{\prime })$ for some $\sigma$, proving transitivity. The power $e_0$ accounts for the possible purely inseparable field extension and makes the argument valid in every characteristic.

Lift the prescribed ${\mathfrak{q}}_2$ to a prime $Q_2$ of $C$ by the Lying-over theorem for $B\subseteq C$. Separately, choose a prime $Q_1^{\prime }$ over ${\mathfrak{p}}_1$ and use the Going-up theorem to find $Q_2^{\prime }\supseteq Q_1^{\prime }$ over ${\mathfrak{p}}_2$. Transitivity gives $\sigma \in G$ with $\sigma (Q_2^{\prime })=Q_2$. ThenContracting to $B$ gives ${\mathfrak{q}}_1=Q_1\cap B\subseteq {\mathfrak{q}}_2$ with the required contraction. This proves the going-down theorem for the module-finite case.

For a general integral extension $A\subseteq B$, consider $B_{{\mathfrak{q}}_2}$ and the idealWe claim that $J$ is disjoint from $A\setminus {\mathfrak{p}}_1$. Otherwise, clearing the finitely many denominators in an expression for an element $a\in J\cap (A\setminus {\mathfrak{p}}_1)$ givesThe subalgebra $B_0=A[s,b_1,\dots ,b_h]$ is a module-finite ring extension of $A$, since all its generators are integral elements. Apply the finite case to ${\mathfrak{q}}_2\cap B_0$: there is a prime $Q_1\subseteq {\mathfrak{q}}_2\cap B_0$ contracting to ${\mathfrak{p}}_1$. The displayed identity puts $sa$ in $Q_1$, but $a\notin Q_1$. Thus $s\in Q_1\subseteq {\mathfrak{q}}_2$, a contradiction.

Localize $B_{{\mathfrak{q}}_2}$ further at the multiplicative subset $A\setminus {\mathfrak{p}}_1$. The extension of $J$ is a proper ideal, by the disjointness just proved. Choose a maximal ideal containing it and contract back to a prime ideal of $B_{{\mathfrak{q}}_2}$. This prime contains $J$ and avoids $A\setminus {\mathfrak{p}}_1$. Its contraction ${\mathfrak{q}}_1$ to $B$ lies inside ${\mathfrak{q}}_2$ by the prime ideal correspondence for localization, and its contraction to $A$ is exactly ${\mathfrak{p}}_1$. This completes the proof of the going-down theorem without any finite generation assumption on $B$.

The points of the spectrum of a commutative ring $A$ are its prime ideals. Its Zariski topology has closed sets $V(I)=\{\mathfrak{p}:I\subseteq \mathfrak{p}\}$ and basis $D(f)=\{\mathfrak{p}:f\notin \mathfrak{p}\}$. The structure sheaf of a scheme can be defined as follows: a section over $U$ assigns an element of $A_{\mathfrak{q}}$ to every $\mathfrak{q}\in U$, and locally that assignment is represented by one fraction $a/s$, with $s$ outside every prime in the neighbourhood. Restrictions forget values. Local representability and equality can be checked on an open cover, so these assignments satisfy the sheaf gluing axiom. On $D(f)$ the sections identify with the localization of a ring $A_f$.

Evaluation at $\mathfrak{p}$ induces the ring homomorphism ${\mathcal{O}}_{X,\mathfrak{p}}\to A_{\mathfrak{p}}$. It is surjective because $a/s\in A_{\mathfrak{p}}$ is represented by a section on $D(s)$. For injectivity, represent a germ by $a/s$ on a neighbourhood of $\mathfrak{p}$. If its value in $A_{\mathfrak{p}}$ vanishes, there is $t\notin \mathfrak{p}$ with $ta=0$. The section is then zero after restricting to $D(st)$ inside that neighbourhood. Its germ is zero. Thus

A nilpotent element belongs to every prime ideal: if $a^r=0\in P$, repeated primality forces $a\in P$. Therefore $N\subseteq {\bigcap }_{P}P$.

Conversely, if $a\notin N$, none of its positive powers is zero. The multiplicative subset $S=\{1,a,a^2,\dots \}$ is disjoint from $(0)$. Part (b) supplies a prime ideal disjoint from $S$, hence not containing $a$. Thus $a$ is outside the intersection, proving the nilradical as the intersection of prime ideals identity:In the zero ring there are no prime ideals; the empty intersection is interpreted as the whole ring, which is also its nilradical. For nonzero rings this argument proves existence of a prime ideal whenever a nonnilpotent element is available.

Write the Gaussian integer $\alpha =a+bi$, with $a,b\in \mathbb{Z}$, and set $R=\mathbb{Z}[\alpha ]$. Complex conjugation preserves $R$, because $\bar{\alpha }=2a-\alpha$. Choose a nonzero $\beta \in P$. Then $N=\beta \bar{\beta }$ is a positive integer in $P$. It cannot be one because $P$ is a proper prime ideal. Factoring $N$ into rational primes and applying primality repeatedly gives a prime $p\in P$.

The element $\alpha$ satisfies the monic polynomial $F(t)=t^2-2at+a^2+b^2$. Evaluation induces a ring homomorphism that is a surjectionThe source has $p^2$ elements by part (b), soIf $b=0$, use $F(t)=t-a$ instead and get at most $p$ elements. Moreover $R/P$ is an integral domain, so its finiteness makes it a field. This proves the finite residue-field theorem for Gaussian integer orders without incorrectly assuming that every Gaussian integer order is a principal ideal domain.