Use the coroot normalization ${\alpha }^{\vee }=2\alpha /(\alpha ,\alpha )$, with the pairing understood via the root system and its invariant inner product. A dominant integral weight, called a dominant weight here, is a functional $\lambda \in {\mathfrak{t}}^{\ast }$ such thatEquivalently, $\lambda ={\sum }_i{n}_i{\omega }_i$ with $n_i\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\ge 0}$, where the fundamental weights satisfy $⟨{\omega }_i,{\alpha }_j^{\vee }⟩={\delta }_{ij}$. If dominance and integrality are defined separately, dominance means the inequalities and membership in the weight lattice means integrality.

A highest-weight vector is a nonzero weight vector $v\in V_{\lambda }$, so $h\cdot v=\lambda (h)v$ for all $h\in \mathfrak{t}$, annihilated by every positive root space:The last condition is equivalently annihilation by the raising operators for the simple roots.

A two-dimensional Lie algebra representation already provides a counterexample. In the basis $e_1,e_2$ of $V={\mathbb{C}}^2$, defineThe commutator $[\rho (x),\rho (y)]$ is zero, agreeing with $\rho (z)$; the other defining Lie brackets also map to zero. Thus $\rho$ is a Lie algebra homomorphism, although it is not a Faithful Lie algebra representation.

The line $L=\mathbb{C}{e}_1$ is an invariant subspace. Any complementary line has the form $\mathbb{C}(e_2+a{e}_1)$ for some $a\in \mathbb{C}$. Butso no complementary line is an invariant subspace. Equivalently, every invariant line is killed by $\rho (x)$: its restriction to a line is a scalar, and its square is zero, forcing that scalar to be zero. A decomposition into two invariant lines would then force $\rho (x)=0$, a contradiction. This representation is therefore not a semisimple representation. Thus

The derived series gives a direct test, with no structural theorem needed. By bilinearity and antisymmetry of the Lie bracket, every bracket in $\mathfrak{h}$ is a multiple of $z$, and $z=[x,y]$ actually occurs. ThereforeConsequently this Heisenberg Lie algebra is a nonzero solvable Lie algebra. It is an ideal of a Lie algebra in itself, since $[\mathfrak{h},\mathfrak{h}]\subseteq \mathfrak{h}$. Its solvable radical is therefore all of $\mathfrak{h}$, contradicting the first criterion in part (a). Hence

For a finite-dimensional complex Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$, the following three conditions are equivalent descriptions of a semisimple Lie algebra.

First, its solvable radical is zero. An ideal of a Lie algebra is a linear subspace $I$ satisfying $[\mathfrak{g},I]\subseteq I$. A solvable Lie algebra is one whose derived series, defined by $I^{(0)}=I$ and $I^{(r+1)}=[I^{(r)},I^{(r)}]$, eventually becomes zero. The solvable radical is the largest solvable ideal of a Lie algebra; its vanishing is equivalent to the absence of nonzero solvable ideals.

Second, the Killing formis a nondegenerate bilinear form: if $\kappa (u,v)=0$ for every $v$, then $u=0$. Here $\mathrm{ad}u(v)=[u,v]$ is the Adjoint representation, and $\mathrm{tr}$ is the trace. This equivalence is the Cartan criterion for semisimplicity.

Third, $\mathfrak{g}$ is a direct sum of Lie algebras that are nonabelian simple Lie algebras. A simple Lie algebra is nonabelian and has no ideals of a Lie algebra other than zero and itself. Thus the three equivalent criteria are

No. In the Gaussian integers, chooseIndeed, substituting $i=-2$ gives $\mathbb{Z}[i]/(2+i)\cong \mathbb{Z}/5\mathbb{Z}$, so $P$ is a prime ideal and its contraction is $(5)$. Put $\beta =2-i$. Modulo $P$, $\beta$ becomes $4\ne 0$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_5$, so $\beta \notin P$. ThereforeWe show that $\alpha$ is not an integral element over ${\mathbb{Z}}_{(5)}$, using a direct reduction argument. Write $B={\mathbb{Z}}_{(5)}[i]$, viewed inside $\mathbb{Q}(i)$. There is a ring homomorphismwhich reduces rational coefficients modulo $5$. It is well defined because denominators in ${\mathbb{Z}}_{(5)}$ are not divisible by $5$, and $2^2+1=0$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_5$. In particular, $\rho (\beta )=0$ and $\rho (1)=1$.

If $\alpha$ satisfied a monic equation over ${\mathbb{Z}}_{(5)}$, saymultiplication by ${\beta }^n$ would give an equality in $B$:Applying $\rho$ gives $1=0$ in ${\mathbb{F}}_5$, a contradiction. ConsequentlyThis exhibits why localization of an integral extension at a prime need not be integral. Localizing both rings by the same multiplicative subset preserves an integral extension, but $\mathbb{Z}[i{]}_P$ inverts additional elements, including $2-i$, whose image at the other prime ideal $(2-i)$ is zero. The original extension is integral because $i$ satisfies the monic equation $T^2+1=0$: the subalgebra generated by finitely many integral elements property applies to $\mathbb{Z}[i]$.

We use three theorems for an integral extension $S\subseteq R$, none requiring Noetherian hypotheses. The Lying-over theorem says that each prime ideal $\mathfrak{p}$ of $S$ is $\mathfrak{q}\cap S$ for some prime ideal $\mathfrak{q}$ of $R$. The Going-up theorem says that if $\mathfrak{p}\subseteq {\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime }$ in $S$ and $\mathfrak{q}\cap S=\mathfrak{p}$, there is ${\mathfrak{q}}^{\prime }\supseteq \mathfrak{q}$ with ${\mathfrak{q}}^{\prime }\cap S={\mathfrak{p}}^{\prime }$. The incomparability theorem for integral extensions says that comparable prime ideals of $R$ with the same contraction to $S$ are equal.

Take any strict chainin $R$. The contraction of an ideal operation gives ${\mathfrak{p}}_j={\mathfrak{q}}_j\cap S$, which are prime ideals of $S$, by the proof in Question 1(b), and remain strictly increasing by the incomparability theorem for integral extensions. Thus every chain length in $R$ occurs in $S$, giving $\dim R\le \dim S$.

Conversely, take any strict chain ${\mathfrak{p}}_0⊊\cdots ⊊{\mathfrak{p}}_n$ in $S$. Use the Lying-over theorem to choose ${\mathfrak{q}}_0$ over ${\mathfrak{p}}_0$, then repeatedly use the Going-up theorem to obtain ${\mathfrak{q}}_0\subseteq \cdots \subseteq {\mathfrak{q}}_n$ with the prescribed contractions. Each inclusion must be strict, since its contractions are distinct. Hence every chain length in $S$ occurs in $R$, giving $\dim S\le \dim R$.

Taking suprema proves integral extensions preserve Krull dimension:The argument works equally well when the dimensions are infinite, since it compares all finite chain lengths.

For a subring $S\subseteq R$ with the same identity, $R$ is an integral extension of $S$ if every $r\in R$ is an integral element over $S$: there exist $n\ge 1$ and $s_0,\dots ,s_{n-1}\in S$ such thatThe requirement that the polynomial be monic is essential. Merely satisfying some polynomial equation over $S$ is insufficient: for instance $1/2\in \mathbb{Q}$ satisfies $2T-1=0$ over $\mathbb{Z}$, but is not integral over $\mathbb{Z}$. To see this directly, a hypothetical monic equation for $1/2$, multiplied by $2^n$, would say that an odd integer $1$ plus a sum of even integers is zero.

The degree and coefficients may depend on $r$. Integrality does not by itself assert that the entire ring $R$ is a finite $S$-module; it does imply that the subalgebra $S[r]$ is generated as an $S$-module by $1,r,\dots ,r^{n-1}$.

For a discrete valuation ring $A$,Let $\pi$ be a uniformizer, so its unique nonzero maximal ideal is $\mathfrak{m}=(\pi )$. We use the defining description of a discrete valuation ring: it is a non-field local ring that is a principal ideal domain, and every nonzero element is $u{\pi }^n$ for a unit $u$ and an integer $n\ge 0$.

Every nonzero proper ideal is therefore $({\pi }^n)$ for some $n\ge 1$. Such an ideal is a prime ideal only when $n=1$: for $n\ge 2$, $\pi {\pi }^{n-1}\in ({\pi }^n)$ while neither factor belongs to $({\pi }^n)$. The ideal $(\pi )$ is prime because it is maximal. Also $(0)$ is prime because $A$ is an integral domain. Thusand the longest strict chain has length one.

The original PDF asks about a discrete valuation ring; the local TeX transcription's phrase “discrete variable $X$” is an extraction error.

The Krull dimension of a commutative ring $R$ isThe length counts strict inclusions, so a chain with $n+1$ prime ideals has length $n$. The supremum may be infinite. A field, for example, has just the prime ideal $(0)$ and therefore has Krull dimension zero. For the zero ring, the spectrum of a commutative ring is empty; under the convention $\sup \varnothing =-\infty$, its dimension is $-\infty$.

TakeWe justify that this is a Dedekind domain. It is an integral domain inside the number field $K=\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-5})$. As an additive group it is free of rank two over $\mathbb{Z}$. The subgroup theorem for finitely generated abelian groups says that every subgroup of such a group is finitely generated. Thus every ideal has finitely many additive generators, and those same elements generate it as a $D$-ideal. This proves that $D$ is Noetherian.

We use the standard formula for the ring of integers of a quadratic field: for squarefree $d$, it is $\mathbb{Z}[(1+\sqrt{d})/2]$ if $d\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}4)$, and $\mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{d}]$ otherwise. Since $-5\equiv 3(\mathrm{mod}4)$, $D$ is the ring of integers of a number field $K$, meaning all elements of $K$ integral over $\mathbb{Z}$. We also use transitivity of integral extensions. If an element of $K$ is integral over $D$, it is integral over $\mathbb{Z}$ because $D$ is integral over $\mathbb{Z}$, and therefore belongs to $D$. Thus $D$ is an integrally closed domain.

Every nonzero prime ideal $P$ is maximal. Indeed, choose $0\ne \alpha =a+b\sqrt{-5}\in P$. Multiplying by its algebraic conjugate puts the nonzero integer $N(\alpha )=a^2+5b^2$ in $P$. Hence the integral domain $D/P$ is a quotient of the finite ring $D/N(\alpha )D$, and is finite. Every finite integral domain is a field, since multiplication by a nonzero element is injective and therefore surjective. The element $2$ has no inverse in $D$, since $1/2\notin \mathbb{Z}[\sqrt{-5}]$, so $D$ is not a field. Consequently $(0)$ is not maximal, and a maximal ideal above it is nonzero. Together with the preceding result, this gives Krull dimension exactly one.

Finally, consider the idealReduction modulo $2$ with $\sqrt{-5}\mapsto 1$ identifies $D/I$ with ${\mathbb{F}}_2$, so the additive index $[D:I]$ is $2$. If $I$ were the principal ideal $(a+b\sqrt{-5})$, multiplication by its nonzero generator would have integer matrixin the basis $1,\sqrt{-5}$. The index of its image is the absolute determinant, soThere are no integer solutions: $b\ne 0$ makes the right side at least $5$, while $b=0$ would require $a^2=2$. Thus $I$ is a nonprincipal ideal in the integers adjoined a square root of minus five, and $D$ is a Dedekind domain that is not a principal ideal domain.

Let $D$ be a Dedekind domain. The zero ideal is generated by $0$, and $D$ is generated by $1$, so consider a nonzero proper ideal $I$. Choose $0\ne a\in I$. We use these consequences of the unique factorization of ideals in a Dedekind domain: every nonzero ideal has finitely many nonzero prime-ideal valuations in a Dedekind domain; containment reverses the valuations as in part (b); andThe last formula follows from the containment rule: $J+K$ is the smallest ideal containing both $J$ and $K$, and the product with the indicated minimum exponents is exactly that ideal.

Let $T$ be the finite set of prime ideals dividing $(a)$. For each $P\in T$, set $r_P=v_P(I)$. Since $(a)\subseteq I$, we have $r_P\le v_P((a))$. The containment rule also gives $I⊈P^{r_P+1}$, so chooseDistinct nonzero prime ideals of $D$ are distinct maximal ideals and hence comaximal ideals; their positive powers are also comaximal. Indeed, if $u+v=1$ with $u\in P$, $v\in Q$, for positive integers $m,n$ expanding $(u+v{)}^{m+n-1}$ shows $1\in P^m+Q^n$, since each term contains either at least $m$ factors of $u$ or at least $n$ factors of $v$. We use the Chinese remainder theorem in its ideal form: for pairwise comaximal ideals $J_1,\dots ,J_s$, the map $D\to {\prod }_{j}D/J_j$ is surjective. Apply it to the powers $P^{r_P+1}$ to choose $e_P\in D$ withThen $b={\sum }_{P\in T}{e}_P{b}_P$ belongs to $I$ and satisfies $b\equiv b_P(\mathrm{mod}{P}^{r_P+1})$ for every $P\in T$. Thus $b\notin P^{r_P+1}$, whereas $b\in I\subseteq P^{r_P}$, proving $v_P((b))=r_P$.

For $P\in T$, therefore,For $P\notin T$, $v_P((a))=0$, and $(a)\subseteq I$ forces $v_P(I)=0$ as well. Hence $(a,b)$ and $I$ have the same valuation at every nonzero prime ideal. Uniqueness of their factorizations givesThis proves two generators for an ideal in a Dedekind domain; in fact the first nonzero generator $a\in I$ can be chosen in advance.

The unique factorization of ideals in a Dedekind domain states that every nonzero proper ideal $I$ of a Dedekind domain $D$ has a factorizationwhere the $P_j$ are distinct nonzero prime ideals and the $n_j$ are positive integers. The prime ideals and their exponents are unique up to reordering. The unit ideal $D$ is the empty product; the zero ideal is excluded.

Write $v_P(I)$ for the prime-ideal valuation in a Dedekind domain, namely the exponent of $P$ in this factorization, with zero assigned when $P$ is absent. The associated containment rule isLarger exponents give smaller ideals, just as higher divisibility gives smaller principal ideals in $\mathbb{Z}$. The theorem concerns unique factorization of ideals; it does not assert unique factorization of elements or that these ideals are principal.

A Dedekind domain is a Noetherian ring $D$ which is an integral domain, is an integrally closed domain, and has Krull dimension one. Explicitly, every ideal is finitely generated; every element of the fraction field that is an integral element over $D$ already belongs to $D$; and every nonzero prime ideal is a maximal ideal, with $D$ itself not a field.

With this convention, an equivalent local characterization is that $D$ is a Noetherian integral domain that is not a field and whose localization at a prime ideal $D_P$ is a discrete valuation ring for every nonzero prime ideal $P$. The integrally closed domain condition rules out singularities such as those represented by the subring $k[t^2,t^3]\subset k[t]$, where $t$ is integral but missing.

Some conventions also include fields by allowing Krull dimension at most one; the conclusions about ideals below remain valid under that convention.

No. Take $R=k[t]$ over a field $k$, and inside $R[x]=k[t,x]$ takeThis is a subring containing $R$: its elements have arbitrary constant coefficient in $k[t]$ as polynomials in $x$, and every positive-degree coefficient is divisible by $t$; that condition is preserved by sums and products. The ring $R$ is Noetherian. Indeed, a nonzero ideal of $k[t]$ has an element $g$ of least degree, and division by $g$ shows that every element of the ideal is a multiple of $g$. Thus $k[t]$ is a principal ideal domain, and its ideals are finitely generated.

In $S$, let $J_n=(tx,t{x}^2,\dots ,t{x}^n{)}_S$. These form an ascending chain. We show that $t{x}^{n+1}\notin J_n$. If it belonged, we could writeCancel $t$ in the integral domain $k[t,x]$, then apply the evaluation homomorphism $t\mapsto 0$. Every $s_j\in S$ becomes a scalar in $k$, so this would givewhich is impossible by comparison of degrees. Hence $J_n⊊J_{n+1}$ for every $n$, andThis is a constant-plus-ideal non-Noetherian subring construction: the restricted coefficients prevent a finite list of positive powers of $x$ from generating all the required powers.

No. For example, take $R=k$, any field. It is an Artinian ring, since its only ideals are zero and itself. In the formal power series ring $k[[x]]$, however,is a strictly descending chain of ideals. The inclusion is strict because $x^n$ has a nonzero coefficient of $x^n$, whereas every element of $(x^{n+1})$ has that coefficient zero. Thus $k[[x]]$ fails the descending chain condition and is not Artinian.

The same argument works for any nonzero coefficient ring $R$: the coefficient $1$ in $x^n$ cannot be produced by a multiple of $x^{n+1}$. Therefore $R[[x]]$ is never Artinian when $R\ne 0$. The zero ring is the harmless exception.

Yes. Taking the constant coefficient defines a surjective ring homomorphismIts kernel of a ring homomorphism is $(x)$, so the first isomorphism theorem for rings gives $R[[x]]/(x)\cong R$.

We prove the needed preservation result. If $A$ is a Noetherian ring and $J\subseteq A$ is an ideal, any ascending chain of ideals in $A/J$ lifts under the quotient ring homomorphism to an ascending chain of ideals in $A$. The lifted chain stabilizes; surjectivity makes the original chain stabilize as well. Hence every quotient ring of a Noetherian ring is Noetherian.

Applying this with $A=R[[x]]$ and $J=(x)$ gives

Yes: $R[[x]]$ is Noetherian. We prove Noetherianity of a formal power series ring directly, using only the equivalence in part (a). Let $A=R[[x]]$, a formal power series ring, and fix an ideal $I\subseteq A$. For $n\ge 0$, let $C_n$ be the set of coefficients of $x^n$ in elements of $I\cap x^{n}A$. It is an ideal of $R$, because coefficient extraction is additive and respects multiplication by constants. Multiplication by $x$ givesSince $R$ is Noetherian, there is an $N$ with $C_n=C_N$ for all $n\ge N$. Each $C_n$, for $0\le n\le N$, has a finite generating set of an ideal $a_{n1},\dots ,a_{n{r}_n}$. Choose $f_{nj}\in I\cap x^{n}A$ whose coefficient of $x^n$ is $a_{nj}$. If $C_n=0$, use no generators at that index.

We claim that these finitely many $f_{nj}$ generate $I$ over $A$. Given $f\in I$, start with $g_0=f$ and recursively construct $g_n\in I\cap x^{n}A$. For $n<N$, express the coefficient of $x^n$ in $g_n$ as ${\sum }_j{c}_{nj}{a}_{nj}$, with $c_{nj}\in R$, and subtract ${\sum }_j{c}_{nj}{f}_{nj}$ to obtain $g_{n+1}\in I\cap x^{n+1}A$. For $n\ge N$, use $C_n=C_N$ and subtractto cancel that coefficient. Every step involves a finite sum and leaves a residual still in $I$.

For each $j$, define the formal power seriesThe residual after the $n$th cancellation lies in $x^{n+1}A$, so comparison of each coefficient gives the exact identityThe right side is a finite $A$-linear combination of the chosen generators. No assertion that arbitrary ideals are closed under limits is being used: the equality is verified coefficient by coefficient, and the multipliers $h_j$ belong to $A$. Thus every ideal of $A$ is finitely generated, proving

A ring is a Noetherian ring if it satisfies the ascending chain condition on ideals: every chaineventually becomes constant. Equivalently, every ideal has a finite generating set of an ideal. To see this equivalence, if an ideal were not finitely generated, one could repeatedly choose an element outside the ideal generated by the preceding choices, producing a strictly ascending chain. Conversely, the union of an ascending chain is an ideal; if it is generated by finitely many elements, all of them lie in one term of the chain, and every later term equals that term.

A ring is an Artinian ring if it satisfies the descending chain condition on ideals: every chaineventually becomes constant. These are stabilization conditions on all ideals, not merely on principal ideals.

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.

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 $v\in \sqrt{I}$.