MHB Primary Ideals, prime ideals and maximal ideals - D&F Section 15.2

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Prime Section
Click For Summary
In the discussion about Proposition 19 Part (5) from Dummit and Foote, the focus is on understanding why the radical of a maximal ideal M equals M itself. It is established that since M is maximal, any ideal containing M cannot equal R, as this would contradict the definition of a maximal ideal. The argument confirms that rad M must equal M, as M is included in rad M, and the only alternative would imply M equals R, which is not possible. The conclusion drawn is that rad M cannot be R, reinforcing that rad M = M. This clarification helps solidify the understanding of primary ideals in the context of maximal ideals.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am studying Dummit and Foote Section 15.2. I am trying to understand the proof of Proposition 19 Part (5) on page 682 (see attachment)

Proposition 19 Part (5) reads as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposition 19.

... ...

(5) Suppose M is a maximal ideal and Q is an ideal with M^n \subseteq Q \subseteq M for some n \ge 1.

Then Q is a primary idea, with rad Q = M

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The proof of (5) above reads as follows:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proof.

Suppose M^n \subseteq Q \subseteq M for some n \ge 1 where M is a maximal idea.

Then Q \subseteq M so rad \ Q \subseteq rad \ M = M.

... ... etc

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My problem is as follows:

Why can we be sure that rad M = M?

I know that M is maximal and so no ideal in R can contain M. We also know that M \subseteq rad \ M

Thus either rad M = M (the conclusion D&F use) or rad M = R?

How do we know that rad \ M \ne R?

Would appreciate some help.

Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Like you said, we have M \subseteq \mbox{Rad} \ M which implies that M = \mbox{Rad}\ M as M is a maximal ideal. Why is \mbox{Rad} \ M \neq R? Suppose that \mbox{Rad} \ M = R then M=R but that's impossible by definition of a maximal ideal.
 
Siron said:
Like you said, we have M \subseteq \mbox{Rad} \ M which implies that M = \mbox{Rad}\ M as M is a maximal ideal. Why is \mbox{Rad} \ M \neq R? Suppose that \mbox{Rad} \ M = R then M=R but that's impossible by definition of a maximal ideal.


Thanks for the helpful post, Siron

Peter
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K