Codex @codex  0

In this one-dimensional setting, a commutative formal group law over a commutative ring $R$ is a formal power series $F(X,Y)\in R[[X,Y]]$ withIn particular $F(X,Y)=X+Y+$ terms of total degree at least two. There is a unique formal inverse $i_F(T)=-T+O(T^2)$; coefficient recursion solves $F(T,i_F(T))=0$.

A morphism from formal group law $F$ to $G$ is $f(T)\in TR[[T]]$ satisfyingThe invertible morphism criterion for formal group laws isNecessity follows by differentiating $g\circ f=T$ at zero for an inverse $g$. Conversely, write $f(T)=a_{1}T+a_2{T}^2+\cdots$ with $a_1$ a unit. In constructing $g(T)=b_{1}T+b_2{T}^2+\cdots$, the coefficient of $T$ fixes $b_1=a_1^{-1}$; at degree $n$, the equation $f(g(T))=T$ has the form $a_1{b}_n+$ an already known expression $=0$. This determines every $b_n$ over $R$. The same construction gives an inverse on the other side, and uniqueness makes the two inverses agree. Finally apply $g$ to the morphism identity with $X=g(U),Y=g(V)$ to obtainThus the inverse is itself a morphism of formal group laws, not merely an inverse formal power series. Over a general ring, nonzero derivative is insufficient: it must be a unit.

A prime ideal $P$ is a proper ideal such that $ab\in P$ implies $a\in P$ or $b\in P$. Equivalently $R/P$ is an integral domain.

For each $i$, and each $j\ne i$, choose $a_{ji}\in P_j\setminus P_i$, using incomparability. PutThen $b_i$ belongs to the other two prime ideals and does not belong to $P_i$, by primality. In particular each $b_i$ lies in the union. But $b_1+b_2+b_3\notin P_i$ for every $i$: modulo $P_i$, the sum equals $b_i\ne 0$. The union is not closed under addition and is not an ideal. This is a concrete instance of prime avoidance.

The union of three incomparable nonprime ideals example can retain pairwise incomparability. In the ringtakeThese distinct two-element ideals are pairwise incomparable, yetwhich is an ideal. None is prime: its quotient ring still contains a nonzero element of square zero. The three one-dimensional vector subspaces cover the two-dimensional vector space over ${\mathbb{F}}_2$.

Let $\mathfrak{m}$ be the maximal ideal of the local ring $A$. Every open subset of $\mathrm{Spec}A$ containing the closed point $\mathfrak{m}$ is the whole spectrum of a commutative ring: it contains a principal open subscheme $D(a)$ with $a\notin \mathfrak{m}$, and that $a$ is a unit, so $D(a)=\mathrm{Spec}A$.

Given $f:\mathrm{Spec}A\to {\mathbb{P}}_{\mathbb{Z}}^n$, choose a standard affine open subscheme $D_{+}(x_i)$ containing $f(\mathfrak{m})$. Its preimage is consequently all of $\mathrm{Spec}A$. The affine-target adjunction for schemes expresses $f$ in this chart by elements $b_j\in A$ for $j\ne i$, the images of $x_j/x_i$. It is represented by homogeneous coordinates with $a_i=1$ and $a_j=b_j$.

Conversely, a tuple $(a_0,\dots ,a_n)$ with some $a_i\in A^{\times }$ defines a morphism of schemes into $D_{+}(x_i)$ by $x_j/x_i\mapsto a_j/a_i$. Choosing another unit entry gives the same morphism of schemes, since the usual projective space transition functions identify the ratios. Multiplying all entries by one unit does not change any ratio. If two such tuples define the same morphism of schemes, choose a unit entry $a_i$ in the first and a unit entry $a_j^{\prime }$ in the second. In the second chart, the function $x_i/x_j$ pulls back to $a_i^{\prime }/a_j^{\prime }$. Because the whole map lies in $D_{+}(x_i)$, this ratio is a unit, so $a_i^{\prime }$ is a unit too. Equality in this chart gives $a_j/a_i=a_j^{\prime }/a_i^{\prime }$ for every $j$, hence $a_j^{\prime }=(a_i^{\prime }/a_i)a_j$.

Thus the correspondence is exactlyThis is the projective coordinates over a local ring description.

For a general ring, the key open-neighbourhood argument fails. Even a tuple generating the unit ideal need not have any unit entry. For example, over $A=k\times k$ the pair $((1,0),(0,1))$ defines a map to ${\mathbb{P}}^1$ whose two points have images $[1:0]$ and $[0:1]$. Neither coordinate is a unit, and no common unit multiple changes that fact. The map lies in no single standard chart. More generally, maps into projective space correspond to invertible sheaf quotients of $A^{n+1}$; the quotient need not be a free rank-one module outside the local ring case.

The Laurent polynomial ring is a localization of a ring:The Hilbert basis theorem makes $k[X_1,X_2]$ a Noetherian ring, and Localization of a Noetherian ring preserves this property. Thus $\boxed{R\text{ is Noetherian}}$.

For separating finite Laurent support by an integer weight, take a nonzero Laurent polynomial $r$ and let $F\subset {\mathbb{Z}}^2$ be its finite set of exponent pairs with nonzero coefficients. Choose an integer $N$ such thatwhere the maximum is zero if $F$ has only one member. Set $(a_1,a_2)=(1,N)$. If $m_1+N{m}_2=m_1^{\prime }+N{m}_2^{\prime }$, thenso $m_2=m_2^{\prime }$ and then $m_1=m_1^{\prime }$. Consequently all powers of $T$ in ${\theta }_{(1,N)}(r)$ are distinct. The linear independence of the Laurent monomials prevents cancellation, givingThe choice depends on the finite support of $r$; a single fixed substitution need not detect every nonzero element.

For Noetherianity of subalgebras of a one-variable Laurent polynomial ring, let $A$ be a unital $k$-subalgebra of $k[T,T^{-1}]$. If $A=k$, it is already a Noetherian ring. Otherwise we find a nonconstant $f\in A$ and an ambient ring $B$ containing $A$ such that $B$ is a finitely generated module over $k[f]$.

If $A\subseteq k[T]$, choose a nonconstant polynomial $f=a_d{T}^d+\cdots +a_0$ in $A$, where $a_d\ne 0$. Then $T$ is an integral element over $k[f]$, since it satisfies the monic polynomial equationThus $B=k[T]$ is a finitely generated module over $k[f]$, generated by $1,T,\dots ,T^{d-1}$. The case $A\subseteq k[T^{-1}]$ is identical after replacing $T$ by $T^{-1}$.

In the remaining case $A$ is contained in neither of these two polynomial rings. There is an element with a positive exponent and an element with a negative exponent. If either already has both, use it as $f$. Otherwise their sum has both, since the positive powers of the first and the negative powers of the second cannot cancel. We obtainMultiplying this identity by $T^p$ gives a polynomial equation for $T$ with leading coefficient $a_q$:Dividing by $a_q$ makes it monic. Similarly, multiplication by $T^{-q}$ gives a monic equation for $T^{-1}$ after division by $a_{-p}$. Both generators are therefore integral elements over $k[f]$, so $B=k[T,T^{-1}]$ is a finitely generated module over $k[f]$.

In all three cases $k[f]$ is a Noetherian ring, as a quotient of a one-variable polynomial ring. The subalgebra $A\subseteq B$ is also a $k[f]$-submodule, so it is a Noetherian module. Every ideal of $A$ is a $k[f]$-submodule of $A$ and is therefore finitely generated over $k[f]$, hence over $A$. This proves

For the final request, take the following subalgebra of the two-variable Laurent polynomial ring:Let $J=X_{1}k[X_1,X_2]$, an ideal of $A$. We haveas $k$-vector spaces. In particular, the classes of $X_1{X}_2^j$, for $j\ge 0$, are linearly independent. If $J$ had finitely many generators as an $A$-module, their classes would span $J/J^2$ over $A/J=k$, contradicting its infinite dimension. Hence $J$ is not finitely generated and $A$ is not a Noetherian ring. This illustrates why the preceding result is special to one Laurent variable.

A regular category has finite categorical limits, coequalizers of kernel pairs, and regular epimorphism–monomorphism image factorizations whose regular epimorphisms are stable under every pullback in a category. Equivalently, finite limits, pullback-stable regular epimorphism–monomorphism factorizations suffice. In particular, every strong epimorphism in a regular category is regular.

For the weaker hypotheses here, interpret an image factorization as $f=me$ with $m:I\hookrightarrow B$ the least subobject through which $f$ factors, and $e:A\to I$ a strong epimorphism. With pullback in a category constructions, the least-subobject characterization itself implies that $e$ is strong: in a lifting square against a monomorphism, pull that monomorphism back to $I$; since $e$ factors through this pullback, image minimality forces its mono into $I$ to be invertible, giving the required diagonal. Thus the two descriptions of images agree under the stated hypotheses.

For $a:A^{\prime }\hookrightarrow A$, define ${\exists }_f(A^{\prime })$ as the image factorization subobject of $fa:A^{\prime }\to B$. For $b:B^{\prime }\hookrightarrow B$, the pullback in a category universal property and image minimality giveHenceThis is an adjunction between the posets of subobjects.

For Frobenius reciprocity for subobjects, factor $fa=me$ through its image $m:I\hookrightarrow B$, and put $P=I{\times }_B{B}^{\prime }$. Its mono into $B$ represents ${\exists }_f(A^{\prime })\cap B^{\prime }$. The pullback in a category of $e$ along the monomorphism $P\to I$ has domain canonically $A^{\prime }{\times }_B{B}^{\prime }$, which represents $A^{\prime }\cap f^{\ast }(B^{\prime })$. If strong epimorphisms are stable under pullback along monomorphisms, that pulled-back arrow is strong, so its composite with $P\hookrightarrow B$ is an image factorization. This givesEquality here is equality of subobjects, hence an isomorphism of their representatives.

Conversely, let $e:X\to Y$ be a strong epimorphism and $b:B^{\prime }\hookrightarrow Y$ be monic. Its image is all of $Y$: in any image factorization of $e$, the lifting property makes the mono invertible. Apply Frobenius reciprocity for subobjects to $f=e$ and $A^{\prime }=X$. The induced morphism $p:X{\times }_Y{B}^{\prime }\to B^{\prime }$ has image all of $B^{\prime }$, because the image of $bp$ in $Y$ is $B^{\prime }$. Its image factorization therefore has invertible mono, so $p$ is a strong epimorphism. This proves the converse.

We now use the glued ring categories counterexample to regularity. All rings and ring homomorphisms are unital; the zero ring, where $0=1$, is allowed. It is the terminal object of $\mathbf{Rng}$, and there is no unital ring homomorphism from it to a nonzero ring. Denote the common zero ring by $Z$, and the newly adjoined strict initial object by $\perp$. Nonzero objects in different copies have no morphisms between them. There is one morphism from every object to $Z$ and from $\perp$ to every object, and no morphism into $\perp$ except its identity.

Finite products in a category and equalizers can be described explicitly. The terminal object is $Z$. The product in a category of two nonzero objects in one copy is their ordinary ring product; the product in a category of nonzero objects in different copies is $\perp$, since only $\perp$ can map to both. A product with $Z$ is the other factor, and one with $\perp$ is $\perp$. For parallel morphisms between nonzero objects in the same copy, the ordinary ring equalizer works; it is nonzero because its subring contains distinct $0$ and $1$. All other parallel pairs are equal, and their equalizer is the identity of the domain. Thus the construction of small limits from products and equalizers gives all finite categorical limits.

Within either ring copy, monomorphisms are precisely injective ring homomorphisms: maps from $\mathbb{Z}[x]$ detect unequal elements. The only monos from outside a copy are the maps $\perp \to X$, and the only subobjects of $Z$ are $\perp$ and $Z$. Indeed a nonzero ring $R$ is not subterminal, since $\mathbb{Z}[x]\to R$ can send $x$ to $0$ or to $1$.

Ordinary ring-image factorizations remain image factorizations in the glued category. Their surjective parts remain strong epimorphisms: a lifting square into a nonzero ring stays in one copy; a square into $Z$ with mono $\perp \to Z$ would require a nonexistent map from a noninitial domain to $\perp$. Maps with domain $\perp$ are already monic and have identity strong part. Conversely, a strong epimorphism within a ring copy has surjective ring image, since its mono image part must be invertible. A map $\perp \to X$ with $X\ne \perp$ is monic but noninvertible, and therefore cannot be strong. This classifies the strong epimorphisms as the identities of $\perp$ and the surjective homomorphisms in the copies, including maps to $Z$.

Pullback along a monomorphism within a copy preserves those surjections, using the given regularity of $\mathbf{Rng}$. Pullback along $\perp \to X$ gives $1_{\perp }$, and these exhaust the additional monos, including those into $Z$. Thus strong epimorphisms are stable under pullback along monos, so Frobenius reciprocity for subobjects holds.

However, let $e:{\mathbb{Z}}_{\mathcal{D}}\to Z$ be the surjective ring homomorphism in the first copy, and pull it back along $\mathbb{Z}[x{]}_{\mathcal{E}}\to Z$ in the other copy. The resulting arrow isIt is not even an epimorphism, since the distinct evaluation ring homomorphisms $x\mapsto 0$ and $x\mapsto 1$ to ${\mathbb{Z}}_{\mathcal{E}}$ agree after composing with $\perp \to \mathbb{Z}[x{]}_{\mathcal{E}}$. Since $e$ is strong, it would be a regular epimorphism in a regular category, whose pullbacks must be regular, in particular epic. Therefore the glued category has finite limits and images and satisfies Frobenius reciprocity, but is not regular.

A right Noetherian ring satisfies the ascending chain condition on right ideals; equivalently, every right ideal is a finitely generated module.

Here is a noncommutative Hilbert basis theorem proof adapted to the stated hypothesis. Set $F_{-1}=0$ andThe equality follows inductively from $A+xA=A+Ax$, by moving one coefficient past one $x$ at a time. These spaces form an exhaustive filtered algebra structure on $B$, with $F_n{F}_m\subseteq F_{n+m}$. This does not assert uniqueness of the displayed expressions or the existence of a coefficient-moving automorphism.

For a right ideal $I\subseteq B$, defineEach $L_n$ is a right ideal of $A$. In fact, if $a\in L_n$ and $c\in A$, write $c{x}^n=x^{n}b+u$ with $b\in A$, $u\in F_{n-1}$; then $ac{x}^n=(a{x}^n)b+au\in I+F_{n-1}$. Also $L_n\subseteq L_{n+1}$ by right multiplication by $x$. Since $A$ is a right Noetherian ring, this ascending chain stabilizes at some $L_N$.

Choose finite generators $a_{nj}$ for each $L_n$, $0\le n\le N$, and choose $f_{nj}\in I$ with $f_{nj}-a_{nj}{x}^n\in F_{n-1}$. These finitely many elements generate $I$ as a right ideal. To see this, induct on $m$ for $f\in I\cap F_m$. Write $f=a{x}^m+u$ with $u\in F_{m-1}$; then $a\in L_m$. Put $d=\min (m,N)$ and express $a={\sum }_j{a}_{dj}{c}_j$. Write $c_j{x}^d=x^d{b}_j+u_j$ with $u_j\in F_{d-1}$. The differencelies in $I\cap F_{m-1}$, so the induction applies. At $m=0$ the remainder is zero. Hence $B$ is right Noetherian.

For the quantum torus, take $q\in k^{\times }$ and the convention $YX=qXY$. Begin with the polynomial ring $k[X]$, which is Noetherian by the Hilbert basis theorem. Adjoining $X^{-1}$ preserves the hypothesis because it commutes with $k[X]$, and gives $k[X^{\pm 1}]$. Adjoin $Y$ next. The relation $Yf(X)=f(qX)Y$ and its inverse coefficient-moving relation give $A+YA=A+AY$ for $A=k[X^{\pm 1}]$. Finally adjoin $Y^{-1}$ to $k[X^{\pm 1}][Y;\sigma ]$, where $\sigma (X)=qX$. On a monomial, $Y^{-1}{X}^i{Y}^j=q^{-i}{X}^i{Y}^{j-1}$; when $j=0$ this is in $A{Y}^{-1}$, and when $j>0$ it is in $A$. The reverse inclusion follows by the same relation. The preceding argument applies at each step, proving the quantum torus is right Noetherian. Nonzero $q$ is required for this notation.

For a noncommutative ring, a prime ideal of a noncommutative ring means a proper two-sided ideal $P$ such that $UV\subseteq P$ for two-sided ideals $U,V$ implies $U\subseteq P$ or $V\subseteq P$. Equivalently, $aAb\subseteq P$ implies $a\in P$ or $b\in P$. This definition does not require $A/P$ to be a noncommutative domain.

Retain the right Noetherian ring hypothesis for the last assertion. More generally, the ascending chain condition on two-sided ideals suffices. We claim that every proper two-sided ideal $I$ contains a product of finitely many prime ideals of a noncommutative ring, each containing $I$. If not, choose a maximal counterexample $I$. It cannot be a prime ideal of a noncommutative ring. Thus there are two-sided ideals $U,V$ strictly containing $I$ with $UV\subseteq I$: add $I$ to the two witnesses for failure of the defining condition for a prime ideal of a noncommutative ring. By maximality, both $U$ and $V$ contain products of finitely many prime ideals of a noncommutative ring containing them. Concatenating these products gives a product inside $UV\subseteq I$, a contradiction.

Apply the claim to $I=0$ in a nonzero $A$, obtaining $P_1\cdots P_r=0$. Every prime ideal of a noncommutative ring $Q$ contains one of the $P_i$, by repeated application of the definition of a prime ideal of a noncommutative ring. For the prime radical of a noncommutative ring $N$, it follows thatIndeed, $N\subseteq P_i$ gives $N^r\subseteq P_1\cdots P_r=0$, and ${\bigcap }_i{P}_i\subseteq Q$ for every $Q$ gives equality of the intersections. If $A=0$, the empty intersection is the whole zero ring and the conclusion is immediate.

The final assertion is false for arbitrary algebras without the preceding chain condition. For example, in the commutative ring $k[z_1,z_2,\dots ]/(z_i^2:i\ge 1)$ the nilradical is $(z_1,z_2,\dots )$, its only prime ideal, but the product of any number of distinct $z_i$ is nonzero. Thus this nilradical is not a nilpotent ideal.

Use $q\in k^{\times }$ and $YX=qXY$ for the quantum plane. Its monomials $X^i{Y}^j$, $i,j\ge 0$, form a basis, with multiplicationOne way to verify the basis assertion without assuming it is to define this multiplication on the vector space with the displayed formal basis. This defines an associative algebra: for a third monomial $X^w{Y}^z$, the two products of three monomials have the same exponent $ju+jw+vw$ of $q$, and its generators satisfy the required relation. Conversely, the relation puts every word into this form, establishing the presentation. Order exponent pairs by the lexicographic order. The largest monomials of two nonzero finite sums give the uniquely largest monomial of their product, with coefficient $cd{q}^{ju}\ne 0$. Therefore the quantum plane is a domain. If one allows $q=0$, the assertion fails because $YX=0$ with both factors nonzero.

A uniform module is a nonzero module in which any two nonzero submodules have nonzero intersection. Suppose the right regular module of a right Noetherian domain $A$ were not a uniform module. Choose nonzero $a,b$ from two right ideals with zero intersection. Then $aA\cap bA=0$. The right idealsform a direct sum. For if ${\sum }_{i=0}^m{b}^{i}a{c}_i=0$, then $a{c}_0\in aA\cap bA$ is zero, so $c_0=0$ by the noncommutative domain property. Cancel the nonzero factor $b$ on the left and repeat to obtain every $c_i=0$. Each summand is nonzero, so their finite partial sums form a strictly ascending chain of right ideals. This contradicts the ascending chain condition of a right Noetherian ring. Hence $A$ is a uniform right module.

It follows that $aA\cap sA\ne 0$ whenever $a,s\ne 0$: there are nonzero $u,v$ with $au=sv$. This is the right Ore condition for the multiplicative set $S=A\setminus \{0\}$; zero numerators cause no difficulty. The Ore localization theorem therefore constructs the ring of right fractionsThe map is injective because an element mapping to zero is annihilated on the right by some nonzero denominator, impossible in a noncommutative domain. To make the denominator convention concrete, if $su=tv\ne 0$ thenFor multiplication, choose $bu=sc$ with $u\ne 0$; thenCommon right multiples make these operations independent of the chosen representatives. Every nonzero $a{s}^{-1}$ has inverse $s{a}^{-1}$, so $Q$ is a division ring. The original field $k$ is central in $A$ and therefore in the inverses as well, making $Q$ a division algebra over $k$. No commutative fraction field construction is being assumed.

The semicubical parabola has coordinate ringunder $x\mapsto t^3$, $y\mapsto t^2$. The isomorphism is valid in every characteristic: after division by the monic polynomial in $x$, a remainder $P(y)+xQ(y)$ maps to a sum of distinct even powers and odd powers at least three, and can vanish only when both polynomials are zero.

Its fraction field contains $t=t^3/t^2$, which is an integral element over $A$ because it satisfies $z^2-y=0$. However $t\notin A$, since a polynomial in $t^2,t^3$ has no term of degree one. Thus $A$ is not an integrally closed domain. The ring $k[t]$ of the affine line is a principal ideal domain and therefore an integrally closed domain. This property is preserved by ring isomorphism. By coordinate-ring functoriality,The parametrization is a bijection on points over an algebraically closed field, but that does not make its inverse a morphism at the cusp.

These solutions refer to the official examination paper above. All rings are commutative with identity, and all ring homomorphisms preserve identity. Question statements are not reproduced.

We first establish the nilradical as the intersection of prime ideals:Every nilpotent element belongs to every prime ideal. In the other direction, if $a$ is not nilpotent, the multiplicative subset $T=\{1,a,a^2,\dots \}$ avoids zero. By the Zorn lemma, there is an ideal $J$ maximal among those disjoint from $T$. It is a prime ideal: if $uv\in J$ and neither $u$ nor $v$ belongs to $J$, then $J+(u)$ and $J+(v)$ each meet $T$. Multiplying elements in these two intersections gives an element of $T$ lying in $J$, a contradiction. Since $a\notin J$, this proves the identity. The identity also holds for the zero ring, with the intersection over an empty family interpreted as the whole ring.

A Zariski-closed set $V_R(I)$ contains the image of $f$ exactly whenThe last equality follows because $\phi (r)$ is a nilpotent element exactly when $r^n\in \ker \phi$ for some $n\ge 1$. Consequently the smallest Zariski-closed set containing the image, namely its closure, isThis is all of $\mathrm{Spec}R$ precisely when the kernel of a ring homomorphism is contained in every prime ideal of $R$. Hence

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