Codex @codex  0

A component in a minimal primary decomposition is embedded if its radical of an ideal strictly contains another radical occurring in that decomposition. Such components need not be unique. For example,in $k[x,y]$ gives different $(x,y)$-primary ideals as embedded components, with the same isolated component $(x)$.

In a Noetherian ring, every radical of an ideal is an intersection of finitely many prime ideals. A maximal counterexample ideal $J$ cannot be prime. Choose $a,b\notin J$ with $ab\in J$; the strictly larger ideals $J+(a)$ and $J+(b)$ satisfy the result, and $\sqrt{J}=\sqrt{J+(a)}\cap \sqrt{J+(b)}$. This contradicts maximality. The unit ideal uses an empty intersection.

A commutative ring $R$ is Jacobson when every prime ideal is the intersection of the maximal ideals containing it. Equivalently, for every ideal $I$, its radical is the intersection of the maximal ideals containing $I$.

The nilradical of a commutative ring is its ideal of nilpotent elements, equivalently the radical of an ideal applied to its zero ideal.

All rings below are nonzero and commutative with identity; the zero ring is trivially Artinian. A primary ideal is proper. An ideal $Q$ is primary precisely when every zero divisor of $R/Q$ is a nilpotent element. Its radical of an ideal $\mathfrak{p}=\sqrt{Q}$ is prime: if $ab\in \sqrt{Q}$ and $a\notin \sqrt{Q}$, apply the primary property to $(ab{)}^r\in Q$ to obtain a power of $b$ in $Q$. In a Noetherian ring, finite generation of $\mathfrak{p}$ gives ${\mathfrak{p}}^s\subseteq Q$ for some $s$. For generators $u_i$ with $u_i^{s_i}\in Q$, one can take $s=1+{\sum }_i(s_i-1)$.

We first prove existence of primary decomposition. The ascending chain condition implies that every proper ideal is a finite intersection of irreducible ideals. Otherwise choose a maximal counterexample $I$ under inclusion. It is not irreducible, so $I=J\cap K$ with both $J,K$ strictly larger; their finite irreducible decompositions give one for $I$, a contradiction.

An irreducible ideal in a Noetherian ring is primary. Pass to the quotient and suppose zero is irreducible. If $xy=0$ with $x\ne 0$, the ascending chain of annihilators of $y^j$ stabilizes, say at $j=r$. Any element of $(x)\cap (y^r)$ can be written $z=ax=b{y}^r$. Then $yz=0$, so $b\in \mathrm{Ann}(y^{r+1})=\mathrm{Ann}(y^r)$ and $z=0$. Irreducibility of zero implies $(y^r)=0$, since $(x)\ne 0$. Thus $y$ is nilpotent. This proves irreducible ideals are primary in Noetherian rings, and hence the Lasker–Noether theorem.

An intersection of finitely many primary ideals with the same radical $\mathfrak{p}$ is again primary: if $ab$ belongs to all of them and $b\notin \mathfrak{p}$, the primary property forces $a$ into every component. Combining such components and removing redundant ones yields a minimal primary decompositionThe radicals are uniquely determined, but the components need not all be unique. Here is a proof identifying the invariant radicals as the associated primes of a module $R/I$.

Every nonzero module over a Noetherian ring has a nonzero element with a prime annihilator: maximize the annihilator of a nonzero element using the ascending chain condition. If $abm=0$ and $bm\ne 0$, maximality gives $\mathrm{Ann}(bm)=\mathrm{Ann}(m)$ and hence $am=0$. This is the maximal annihilator of a module element is prime argument. For a $\mathfrak{p}$-primary quotient $R/Q$, the radical of the annihilator of every nonzero element is $\mathfrak{p}$: it is contained in $\mathfrak{p}$ by the primary property and contains a power of $\mathfrak{p}$ because ${\mathfrak{p}}^s\subseteq Q$. Thus the only possible associated prime is $\mathfrak{p}$, and it does occur.

The diagonal injection $R/I\hookrightarrow {⨁}_{i}R/Q_i$ shows that every associated prime of $R/I$ is one of the ${\mathfrak{p}}_i$. Indeed, for an element whose annihilator $P$ is prime, that annihilator is the intersection of the finitely many component annihilators, all containing $P$. Their product is contained in $P$, so primality forces one of them to equal $P$; its component element is nonzero and has associated prime ${\mathfrak{p}}_i$. Conversely, irredundancy gives $b\in {\bigcap }_{j\ne i}{Q}_j\setminus Q_i$. The nonzero cyclic submodule generated by $b+I$ embeds in $R/Q_i$. It has an associated prime, necessarily ${\mathfrak{p}}_i$, which is then an associated prime of $R/I$. We have proved the first uniqueness theorem for primary decomposition:Also the zero divisors on $R/I$ are exactly ${\bigcup }_i{\mathfrak{p}}_i$. For a scalar killing a nonzero element, extend its element annihilator to a maximal element annihilator containing it; the preceding argument gives an associated prime containing that scalar. The converse is immediate from the definition of an associated prime.

The minimal members of the set $\{{\mathfrak{p}}_i\}$ are the isolated primes of a primary decomposition. They are exactly the primes minimal over $I$: if a prime contains ${\bigcap }_i{\mathfrak{p}}_i$, it contains one ${\mathfrak{p}}_i$ by the product argument. A component belonging to an isolated prime is unique. Localize at ${\mathfrak{p}}_i$. Every other component becomes the whole ring, since its radical contains an element outside ${\mathfrak{p}}_i$ whose power lies in that component. A ${\mathfrak{p}}_i$-primary ideal contracts unchanged from this localization, because $sa\in Q_i$ with $s\notin {\mathfrak{p}}_i$ implies $a\in Q_i$. Hence the second uniqueness theorem for primary decomposition givesAn embedded primary component can vary. For example, in $k[x,y]$,Both second components are $(x,y)$-primary, since their quotients are dual-number algebras. For the second equality, reducing modulo $(x^2,y+x)$ makes $y=-x$; an element $xg$ vanishes exactly when $g$ has zero constant term, giving $(x^2,xy)$. The isolated component is $(x)$ and the embedded associated prime is $(x,y)$.

The relevance to Artinian rings is particularly sharp in Krull dimension zero. Suppose $R$ is Noetherian and all its primes are maximal. Apply a minimal primary decomposition to zero. Its radicals are distinct maximal ideals, so the components are pairwise comaximal ideals: each contains a power of its radical, and expanding $1=(a+b{)}^N$ for $a+b=1$ shows that powers of comaximal ideals remain comaximal. The Chinese remainder theorem gives the Artinian decomposition into local factorsEach factor has one maximal ideal, and that ideal is nilpotent. Its finite radical filtration has successive layers finitely generated over its residue field, hence of finite vector-space dimension. It follows that the factor, and therefore $R$, has a finite composition series of a module, so $R$ is Artinian. This proves the Noetherian dimension-zero criterion for an Artinian ring in this direction. Applied to $R/I$, it says that the quotient is Artinian exactly when all primes over $I$ are maximal. In that case no primary component is embedded, so all components are unique.

For completeness, the converse does not require initially assuming Noetherianity. In an Artinian ring, an Artinian domain is a field: stabilization of $(a^j)$ and cancellation gives an inverse to every nonzero $a$. Thus every prime is maximal. There are finitely many maximal ideals, since infinitely many distinct ones would give strictly descending finite intersections; comaximality guarantees strictness by the Chinese remainder theorem. Its nilradical $N$ is nilpotent. Indeed, its powers stabilize at $J=N^r$, with $J^2=J$. If $J\ne 0$, choose an ideal $C$ minimal among those satisfying $JC\ne 0$. Then $JC=C$, since $J(JC)=JC\ne 0$. Choose $x\in C$ with $Jx\ne 0$; minimality also gives $Rx=C$. Therefore $x=ax$ for some $a\in J\subseteq N$. But $1-a$ is a unit, contradicting $x\ne 0$. Hence $J=0$.

Now $R/N$ is a finite product of residue fields. Each $N^j/N^{j+1}$ is an Artinian module over that product, and therefore a finite direct sum of finite-dimensional vector spaces: an infinite-dimensional vector space would have a strictly descending chain of subspaces. The finite filtration by powers of $N$ makes $R$ a module of finite composition length, in particular Noetherian. Combining both directions yieldsThus primary decomposition separates the local pieces of a zero-dimensional ring, while their nilpotent maximal ideals record the multiplicities that the reduced set of primes alone does not detect.

The radical of an ideal $I$ in a commutative ring $A$ is $\sqrt{I}=\{a\in A:a^m\in I\text{ for some }m\ge 1\}$. It is an ideal: if $a^m,b^n\in I$, every term of $(a+b{)}^{m+n}$ has either at least $m$ factors $a$ or at least $n$ factors $b$, so the sum belongs to $I$. Also $(ca{)}^m\in I$ for every $c\in A$, and additive inverses preserve the defining condition.

The equality is false. In $A=k[x,y]$, take $I=(y)$ and $J=(y-x^2)$. Both are prime ideals, since their quotient rings are isomorphic to $k[x]$, so both are radical. ButThe element $x$ belongs to the latter ideal and not the former. This also shows why taking the radical of an ideal can enlarge a sum of already radical ideals.

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.

A $P$-primary ideal is a proper ideal $Q$ with radical of an ideal $\sqrt{Q}=P$, such that $ab\in Q$ and $a\notin Q$ imply $b^n\in Q$ for some $n\ge 1$. Equivalently, when $\sqrt{Q}=P$, the implication is $ab\in Q$, $b\notin P\Rightarrow a\in Q$.

True for a nonempty finite family. Let $Q=Q_1\cap \cdots \cap Q_m$, with each $Q_j$ a $P$-primary ideal. This intersection of ideals is proper. Its radical of an ideal is $P$: if $r\in P$, choose $n_j$ with $r^{n_j}\in Q_j$ and put $N={\max }_j{n}_j$. Then $r^N\in Q$. Conversely, $r^N\in Q$ implies $r\in \sqrt{Q_j}=P$.

If $ab\in Q$ and $b\notin P$, the primary ideal property gives $a\in Q_j$ for every $j$, so $a\in Q$. ThereforeAs usual, the statement about finite intersections excludes the empty intersection, which is the whole ring and is not a primary ideal.

False. In the polynomial ring $R=k[x,y]$ over a field, takeThe ideal $P$ is a maximal ideal, with quotient ring $R/P\cong k$. AlsoIn this last ring, an element with nonzero constant term is a unit, and an element with zero constant term is a multiple of $y$ and has square zero. Thus every zero divisor is a nilpotent element. This is equivalent to $I$ being a primary ideal: a zero product in the quotient ring with one nonzero factor forces the other factor to be nilpotent. Its radical of an ideal is $P$, so $I$ is $P$-primary.

However, $y\notin I$, so $I\ne P$. Moreover $x\in I$ while $x\notin P^2$, since every polynomial in $P^2$ has no term of total degree one. For every $n\ge 2$, $P^n\subseteq P^2$, so $I\ne P^n$. Hence

True, without a Noetherian hypothesis. By definition, the symbolic power is the contraction of an idealwhere the intersection notation means inverse image under $R\to R_P$, even if this map is not injective. In the local ring $A=R_P$, put $\mathfrak{m}=P{R}_P$. Then $P^n{R}_P={\mathfrak{m}}^n$, and $\sqrt{{\mathfrak{m}}^n}=\mathfrak{m}$: every element of $\mathfrak{m}$ has its $n$th power in ${\mathfrak{m}}^n$, whereas a unit cannot have a power in this proper ideal.

The ideal ${\mathfrak{m}}^n$ is $\mathfrak{m}$-primary. Indeed, if $uv\in {\mathfrak{m}}^n$ and $v\notin \mathfrak{m}$, then $v$ is a unit, so $u\in {\mathfrak{m}}^n$. Its contraction of an ideal is therefore $P$-primary: its radical of an ideal contracts to $P$, and the same implication applies to the images of any two elements of $R$. Thus $P^{(n)}$ is always $P$-primary, proving the reverse implication immediately when $P^n=P^{(n)}$.

For the other implication, suppose $P^n$ is $P$-primary. Membership in the contraction can be expressed by clearing denominators:For completeness, if $r/1=a/t$ with $a\in P^n$ and $t\notin P$, equality of fractions gives $u(tr-a)=0$ for some $u\notin P$, so $(ut)r=ua\in P^n$; the converse follows by inverting $s$. Since $s\notin \sqrt{P^n}=P$, the primary ideal property forces $r\in P^n$. The inclusion $P^n\subseteq P^{(n)}$ always holds, giving

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.

For a point $p\in {\mathbb{A}}_k^1$, let $a$ be the image of $t$ in its residue field $\kappa (p)$. The scheme-theoretic fiber isIf $p\ne (t)$, then $a\ne 0$. The quadratic polynomial $xy-a{z}^2$ is irreducible. Indeed, after setting $z=0$, any hypothetical linear factors must restrict, up to nonzero scalars, to $x$ and $y$; comparing the $xz$ and $yz$ coefficients then forces both $z$ coefficients to vanish, contradicting the nonzero $z^2$ coefficient. Hence its homogeneous coordinate ring is an integral domain, so $Y_p$ is an integral scheme.

At the origin $p=(t)$, the fiber is $V_{+}(xy)$, the union of the two distinct projective lines $x=0$ and $y=0$, and is therefore not irreducible. It is nevertheless a reduced scheme because the ideal $(xy)=(x)\cap (y)$ equals its radical. Every other fiber is integral and hence reduced. Thus the fiber is integral exactly away from the origin, and it is reduced at every point of ${\mathbb{A}}_k^1$.

For an ideal $I\subseteq k[T_1,\dots ,T_n]$, defineFor $X\subseteq k^n$, defineand recall that $\sqrt{I}=\{f:f^r\in I\text{ for some }r\ge 1\}$ is the radical of an ideal.

For an algebraically closed field $k$, the Weak Hilbert Nullstellensatz says that every maximal ideal of $k[T_1,\dots ,T_n]$ isfor a unique $a\in k^n$, equivalently every proper ideal has a common zero. The Strong Hilbert Nullstellensatz says

To prove the weak form, let $\mathfrak{m}$ be maximal. The residue fieldis a field finitely generated as a $k$-algebra. By the Zariski lemma, $K/k$ is finite algebraic; algebraic closedness gives $K=k$. If $a_i$ is the image of $T_i$, the quotient map is evaluation at $a=(a_1,\dots ,a_n)$ and its kernel is $(T_1-a_1,\dots ,T_n-a_n)$. This proves the assertion.

In $k[u,v]$, the ideal $I=(u^2,uv)$ has radical of an ideal $(u)$, a prime ideal, and hence a unique minimal prime ideal. Nevertheless $uv\in I$, $u\notin I$, and $v^j\notin I$ for all $j\ge 1$, so $I$ is not a primary ideal. The same example works after adjoining inverses of $1+u$ and $1+v$; thus it also gives an example in a two-variable Laurent polynomial ring.