The radical of an ideal is
We first establish the properties needed below. If , every term of the binomial theorem expansion of contains either or , so . Also and . Thus is an ideal. The definition gives and shows that implies . Finally, if , then for some , so . Hence ; in other words, is a radical ideal.
We prove the stronger fact that the radical of an ideal is the intersection of the prime ideals containing it:
If and is a prime ideal, then for some , and repeated application of the definition of a prime ideal gives . This proves one inclusion.
Conversely, fix . The multiplicatively closed set is disjoint from . Consider the ideals containing and disjoint from . This collection is nonempty, and the union of any chain in it is another such ideal. By Zorn's lemma, there is a maximal member . It is proper because .
To prove that is a prime ideal, suppose but . Maximality forces both and to meet . Thus, for some ,
Multiplication gives , since every term lies in , including . This contradicts disjointness from . Therefore is a prime ideal containing and avoiding . This proves the other inclusion, including the required prime ideal avoiding a multiplicative subset argument without using any unproved facts about the nilradical.
If , the displayed intersection represents as required. Conversely, an intersection of ideals that are all prime ideals is a radical ideal: if belongs to every one of them, then so does . Consequently
The unit ideal is included by interpreting the empty intersection as .
The spectrum of a ring is the set of its proper prime ideals. For an ideal , set . These are the closed sets of the Zariski topology. They satisfy
The union identity follows because a prime ideal containing must contain or : otherwise choose and , contradicting . These identities verify the closed-set axioms. The maximal spectrum has the subspace topology, whose closed sets are .
For a finitely generated -algebra, the needed form of the Hilbert Nullstellensatz is
Here an empty intersection means . We prove this formula rather than assume the desired correspondence.
First establish the residue-field fact. If a field is a finitely generated algebra over , choose a maximal algebraically independent subset of a finite generating set, with remaining generators . Each is algebraic over . Clearing the finitely many denominators in their monic equations gives a nonzero polynomial such that each is integral over
Since is a field, it contains , and is an integral extension of . If a field is integral over a domain, the domain is itself a field: for , an integral equation for , multiplied by , expresses in .
But if , choose for which does not divide . Such a choice exists because a nonzero polynomial has only finitely many distinct factors . The element is a nonunit even after inverting : an inverse would imply that divides a power of . Thus would not be a field, a contradiction. Hence , and is algebraic over the algebraically closed field , forcing . This proves the Zariski lemma in the form used here.
Now if , the localization of a ring is nonzero: vanishing would mean for some . It is still a finitely generated algebra over , since one need only adjoin an inverse of . Choose a maximal ideal of . By the preceding argument, . The composite is surjective because it contains the constant scalars. Its kernel is consequently a maximal ideal of , contains , and does not contain , whose image is invertible. This proves that the displayed intersection is contained in . The reverse inclusion follows because every maximal ideal is prime and contains the radical of an ideal whenever it contains that ideal.
For a closed subset , put . It is a radical ideal. The formulas now show
are inverse maps on radical ideals and closed sets. Indeed the first followed by the second gives , while if , the second gives and . Thus the correspondence is a bijection reversing inclusion. This is the relation between radical ideals and closed subsets of the maximal spectrum.
For , the maximal ideals are , for . Every nonzero proper radical ideal is generated by a squarefree polynomial, and hence has the form
for a finite nonempty subset . The associated closed set is . A repeated factor of a polynomial does not change its zero set, but passing to its radical ideal removes that repeated factor. The two endpoint cases are
The empty-product convention makes . Under , the closed sets are exactly the finite subsets and the whole affine line.
Write
The equation splits the analysis into two cases. If , the remaining equation is , giving the cuspidal cubic
It is irreducible because is irreducible in : as a quadratic in , it could factor only if were a square in .
If , the other equations become
Their solutions are , which already lies on , and the two points
Thus the irreducible components are
Equivalently, the radical ideal of the cusp with two isolated-point components is
Powers of an ideal 2026-10-25
For an ideal in a commutative ring , put and let for be the product of ideals with factors equal to . It consists of finite sums of products of elements of . These ideals form a descending chain .
Every positive power has the same radical of an ideal as :
One inclusion follows from . Conversely, if , then , giving the other inclusion. Different ideals can therefore define the same radical ideal, even when their successive powers are all distinct.
For a finitely generated algebra over an algebraically closed field , radical ideals correspond, with inclusion reversed, to closed subsets of the maximal spectrum. If , the nonzero algebra is still finitely generated over . Its maximal residue field is by the Zariski lemma, so contracting a maximal ideal gives a maximal ideal of containing and avoiding . Hence the intersection of all maximal ideals containing is . This proves the inverse correspondence, including the empty closed set and unit ideal.
For any ideal in a commutative ring, every prime ideal containing contains , because implies . Conversely, if , the multiplicatively closed set is disjoint from . By Zorn's lemma, there is an ideal maximal among those disjoint from .
This is a prime ideal: if but , maximality makes both and meet . Multiplication of representatives from these two intersections puts an element of in , a contradiction. Thus there is a prime ideal containing but avoiding , establishing the identity. For , the intersection is empty and means . It follows that an ideal is a radical ideal exactly when it is an intersection of ideals that are all prime ideals.