Proving Primary Ideals in \mathbb{Z}: Peter's Challenge

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving that the primary ideals in the integers \mathbb{Z} are 0 and the ideals (p^m) for prime p and m ≥ 1, as stated in Dummit and Foote. A participant initially struggles to demonstrate that the ideal (4) is not primary based on the definition provided. They seek assistance in both proving the non-primary nature of (4) and confirming the characterization of primary ideals in \mathbb{Z}. The definition of a primary ideal is clarified, emphasizing the conditions under which an ideal is considered primary. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding these definitions to resolve the challenge presented.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
In Dummit and Foote on page 682 Example 1 reads as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The primary ideals in \mathbb{Z} are 0 and the ideals (p^m) for p a prime and m \ge 1.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So given what D&F say, (4) is obviously not primary.

I began trying to show from definition that (4) was not a primary from the definition, but failed to do this

Can anyone help in this ... and come up with an easy way to show that (4) is not primary?

Further, can anyone please help me prove that the primary ideals in \mathbb{Z} are 0 and the ideals (p^m) for p a prime and m \ge 1.

PeterNote: the definition of a primary idea is given in D&F as follows:

Definition. A proper ideal Q in the commutative ring R is called primary if whenever ab \in Q and a \notin Q then b^n \in Q for some positive integer n.

Equivalently, if ab \in Q and a \notin Q then b \in rad \ Q
 
Physics news on Phys.org
(4) is primary, and this agrees with what D&F said. Indeed (4)=(p^m) where, p=2 and m=2.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Thanks economicsnerd!

Not entirely sure how I missed that ... :-(
 
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 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Replies
48
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
857