Suppose a ring has an underlying real normed vector space and its norm is multiplicative, without initially assuming real bilinearity of multiplication. For fixed , distributivity makes additive, while makes it continuous. Additivity gives rational scalar compatibility, and continuity extends it to every real scalar. Apply the same argument in the other variable to obtain a bilinear map. The norm identity also excludes nonzero zero divisors.
A finite-dimensional commutative real algebra with a Euclidean multiplicative norm has dimension at most two. Automatic real bilinearity from a multiplicative norm supplies bilinearity if it was not part of the initial description. On its unit sphere, squaring has derivative , injective because there are no zero divisors. The only equal squares are antipodal pairs, so the map induces an injective immersion . Compactness and the inverse function theorem make it a diffeomorphism when . For , the fundamental groups and zero contradict this. The real and complex number algebras attain dimensions one and two.
If is monic of degree over a commutative ring, every polynomial has a unique expression with . Cancel the highest remaining term successively; the leading coefficient one needs no inversion. Uniqueness follows because multiplication by a monic polynomial raises the degree of every nonzero polynomial by , even when the ring has zero divisors. The same argument applies to an even central variable and central coefficients in a graded commutative algebra.
The multiplicative norm first rules out zero divisors: if and , then forces . If the dimension is zero the claimed bound already holds, so suppose it is positive.
It is worth checking that the printed description of a ring with an underlying real vector space really permits differentiation of multiplication. This follows from the norm identity even if compatibility with real scalars is not separately stated. For fixed , the map is additive by distributivity, and
It is therefore continuous. Additivity gives rational linearity. Approximating a real number by rationals and using continuity proves for every real . The same argument holds in the other variable. This is automatic real bilinearity from a multiplicative norm, so multiplication is a bilinear map between finite-dimensional vector spaces, and hence is smooth.
Let be the unit sphere of the given positive-definite bilinear form. It is a copy of . The squaring map
is well defined because , and is smooth. Commutativity gives its derivative
For and , the norm identity gives , so the derivative is injective, including on the tangent space . It takes tangent vectors into since maps the sphere to itself. Alternatively, polarization of gives , so directly.
The only identifications under squaring are antipodal:
The factorization uses commutativity, and the last implication uses the absence of zero divisors. Conversely . It follows that induces an injective smooth map
The antipodal quotient map is a local diffeomorphism, so the injectivity of implies injectivity of . Since Real projective space is compact, the stated compact injective immersion is an embedding theorem makes a closed embedding.
For its source and target have the same dimension . The inverse function theorem makes its image open as well as closed in the connected sphere . It is nonempty, so the image is the whole sphere; consequently is a diffeomorphism. But for this is impossible:
Indeed, the antipodal two-sheeted covering map has simply connected total space in this range, and is its universal cover, with deck group . A sphere of dimension at least two is simply connected. These fundamental groups cannot be those of homeomorphic spaces.
We have obtained the dimension bound for a commutative Euclidean normed algebra:
The real numbers and complex numbers with their usual products and Euclidean norms attain dimensions one and two. In dimension two, the induced map is entirely compatible with the argument: the circle squaring map identifies exactly the two antipodal preimages. We neither assume a multiplicative identity nor use a classification of real division algebras; the squaring argument proves the bound from the supplied hypotheses.
All rings below are nonzero and commutative with identity; the zero ring is trivially Artinian. A primary ideal is proper. An ideal is primary precisely when every zero divisor of is a nilpotent element. Its radical of an ideal is prime: if and , apply the primary property to to obtain a power of in . In a Noetherian ring, finite generation of gives for some . For generators with , one can take .
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 under inclusion. It is not irreducible, so with both strictly larger; their finite irreducible decompositions give one for , a contradiction.
An irreducible ideal in a Noetherian ring is primary. Pass to the quotient and suppose zero is irreducible. If with , the ascending chain of annihilators of stabilizes, say at . Any element of can be written . Then , so and . Irreducibility of zero implies , since . Thus 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 is again primary: if belongs to all of them and , the primary property forces into every component. Combining such components and removing redundant ones yields a minimal primary decomposition
The 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 .
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 and , maximality gives and hence . This is the maximal annihilator of a module element is prime argument. For a -primary quotient , the radical of the annihilator of every nonzero element is : it is contained in by the primary property and contains a power of because . Thus the only possible associated prime is , and it does occur.
The diagonal injection shows that every associated prime of is one of the . Indeed, for an element whose annihilator is prime, that annihilator is the intersection of the finitely many component annihilators, all containing . Their product is contained in , so primality forces one of them to equal ; its component element is nonzero and has associated prime . Conversely, irredundancy gives . The nonzero cyclic submodule generated by embeds in . It has an associated prime, necessarily , which is then an associated prime of . We have proved the first uniqueness theorem for primary decomposition:
Also the zero divisors on are exactly . 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 are the isolated primes of a primary decomposition. They are exactly the primes minimal over : if a prime contains , it contains one by the product argument. A component belonging to an isolated prime is unique. Localize at . Every other component becomes the whole ring, since its radical contains an element outside whose power lies in that component. A -primary ideal contracts unchanged from this localization, because with implies . Hence the second uniqueness theorem for primary decomposition gives
An embedded primary component can vary. For example, in ,
Both second components are -primary, since their quotients are dual-number algebras. For the second equality, reducing modulo makes ; an element vanishes exactly when has zero constant term, giving . The isolated component is and the embedded associated prime is .
The relevance to Artinian rings is particularly sharp in Krull dimension zero. Suppose 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 for shows that powers of comaximal ideals remain comaximal. The Chinese remainder theorem gives the Artinian decomposition into local factors
Each 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 , has a finite composition series of a module, so is Artinian. This proves the Noetherian dimension-zero criterion for an Artinian ring in this direction. Applied to , it says that the quotient is Artinian exactly when all primes over 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 and cancellation gives an inverse to every nonzero . 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 is nilpotent. Indeed, its powers stabilize at , with . If , choose an ideal minimal among those satisfying . Then , since . Choose with ; minimality also gives . Therefore for some . But is a unit, contradicting . Hence .
Now is a finite product of residue fields. Each 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 makes a module of finite composition length, in particular Noetherian. Combining both directions yields
Thus 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 Weak Hilbert Nullstellensatz states that if is an algebraically closed field, every maximal ideal of is
Equivalently, every proper ideal has a common zero. We prove the more general field statement, the Zariski lemma: a field finitely generated as a -algebra is a finite field extension of .
Write such a field as . Choose a maximal set of algebraically independent elements among these generators and denote the remaining generators by . Each is an algebraic element over , so is a finite field extension. Clearing the denominators in their monic equations, choose a nonzero such that each is an integral element over
Because is a field and , we have . Thus is an integral extension of .
A subring over which a field is integral must itself be a field. Indeed, for , an integral equation for multiplied by expresses as an element of . But if , the ring is not a field: choose an irreducible polynomial which does not divide . There are infinitely many monic irreducible polynomials in , by the usual product-plus-one argument, whereas only finitely many can divide the nonzero . The prime ideal stays proper after inverting , so has no inverse in . Therefore , proving that is a finite field extension, and in particular an algebraic field extension.
Apply the Zariski lemma to the residue field of a maximal ideal. When is an algebraically closed field, this field is itself. The images of then give , proving the Weak Hilbert Nullstellensatz.
For the real Laurent polynomial ring, the same argument applies because it is the finitely generated algebra
Every residue field at a maximal ideal is consequently a finite field extension of , and so is or . Here we use the fundamental theorem of algebra, which makes the algebraic closure of of degree two. The images of must be nonzero since these elements are units. It follows that the answer is
with and defining the same maximal ideal. If both coordinates are real, evaluation has image ; otherwise its image is . 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 ,
If and with ,
If with and , then
The last two quotients are ; the nonzero coordinate condition ensures that the Laurent inverses exist in them. There are no further coincidences in the classification: equal kernels induce an -isomorphism between the evaluation image fields. The only -automorphisms of are the identity and complex conjugation, so the two pairs must agree or be conjugate.
To prove the intersection assertion, fix a prime ideal and an element . The integral domain has nonzero image . Its localization of a ring is nonzero and still a finitely generated algebra over , so it has a maximal ideal . By the Zariski lemma, the field is finite over .
The image of in is a subring containing and is a finite-dimensional -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 is thus a maximal ideal which avoids , since is invertible in . Its inverse image in is a maximal ideal containing but avoiding . As this works for every ,
This is the Jacobson ring property for this Laurent polynomial ring.
For a nonzero finitely generated module , its set of associated primes is
Here is the annihilator of the element. The Laurent polynomial ring is a Noetherian ring, so the nonempty collection of annihilators of nonzero elements of has a maximal member, say . It is proper because .
If and , then and
Maximality forces , hence . Thus is a prime ideal, proving . This argument in fact only needs that is Noetherian, not the finite generation of .
A proper ideal is -primary when its radical of an ideal is and
Equivalently, and imply ; equivalently, every zero divisor of 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 and . Then
Since is an integral domain, is a prime ideal. Moreover and , so . Consequently is the unique minimal prime ideal over .
Nevertheless , while and no power of belongs to . For the first assertion, reduce modulo : the image of is in , and is not a multiple of because is a nonunit in this integral domain. For the second, , so for every . Thus is not a -primary ideal: a unique minimal prime does not imply primary. In , the nonzero class of is killed by , a zero divisor which is not nilpotent.