Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I am currently reading through the book Basic Commutative Algebra, by Balwant Singh, wherein the exercise I.XVI reads like:

Show that $(A[X])^\times=A^\times+nil(A[X])$.

Here, for a ring $A$, $A^\times$ means the set of all units, and $nil(A)$ is the intersection of all prime ideals, or the nilpotent radical, the radical of the zero ideal $(0)$.

P.S. I have shown that $A^\times=A^\times+nil A$, but cannot conquer this exercise.
Thanks for any help.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 7 down vote accepted

As you say, the sum of a unit and a nilpotent element is a unit. This immediately gives one inclusion.

Here's a sketch for a proof of the reverse inclusion. Let $f(X) = a_nX^n + \cdots + a_0$ be invertible. Let $g(X) = b_mX^m + \cdots + b_0$ be the inverse of $f$. Clearly $b_0 \in A^*$. Let's show that $a_n$ is nilpotent. To begin with, $a_nb_m = 0$. Looking at the coefficient of $X^{n + m - 1}$ in the $fg$, we see that $a_nb_{m - 1} + a_{n - 1}b_m = 0$. Multiplying this by $a_n$, we get \[ a_n^2b_{m - 1} + a_{n - 1}a_nb_m = a_n^2b_{m - 1} = 0. \] The idea is to continue doing this until we reach $a_n^{m + 1}b_0 = 0$.

share|cite|improve this answer
But, after we show that $a_n$ is nilpotent, why does this tell us that $f$ is a sum of a unit and a nilpotent? – awllower Jan 20 '12 at 4:20
@awllower The point is then that $a_nX^n$ is nilpotent. So $f - a_nX^n$ is a unit. And you keep going from there. – Dylan Moreland Jan 20 '12 at 4:21
Oh, I see. Thus it is to say that, as the sum of unit and nilpotent is a unit, it is itself such a sum. Well, thanks a lot for providing such an interesting answer. – awllower Jan 20 '12 at 4:24

Let me show without calculation the difficult part:

If $f(X)=a_0+a_1X+...+a_n X^n\in (A[X])^\times$, then for all $i\gt0$, the coefficient $a_i$ is nilpotent.

For an arbitrary prime ideal $\mathfrak p\subset A$, the class $\bar f(X)\in A/\mathfrak p [X]$ is invertible in $A/\mathfrak p [X]$.
Since $A/\mathfrak p [X]$ is a domain, this implies $\bar a_i=0$ (because degree considerations show that an invertible polynomial with coefficients in a domain is a constant).
But this says that $a_i\in \mathfrak p$ for all prime ideals in $\mathfrak p \subset A$. Hence $a_i$ is nilpotent.

share|cite|improve this answer
"An egg of Columbus or Columbus's egg refers to a brilliant idea or discovery that seems simple or easy after the fact." From the Wikipedia entry Egg of Columbus. (I try to vary my comments...) – Pierre-Yves Gaillard Jan 20 '12 at 8:38
Dear @Pierre-Yves: thank you for this unexpected and amusing comment ! (By the way, in the Wikipedia entry you link to, there is an engraving by Hogarth, an artist I really like : I am grateful to you for that too.) – Georges Elencwajg Jan 20 '12 at 11:19
@Georges This is great! The situation reminds me of the two common proofs of Gauss's lemma: you can either fiddle around with coefficients, or reduce modulo a prime and obtain a much cleaner proof. – Dylan Moreland Jan 20 '12 at 14:10
Sorry for not reading it after some delay, during which I was not using this site. Hope you do not mind. Also, this is indeed a clever and magnificent proof, which I did not even expect, of the seemingly perplexed statement, whose verisimilitude I once doubted. εστι θαυμασιος.(It is wonderful!) – awllower Jan 29 '12 at 10:48
Ι shall add that this now makes everything appear easy, and thanks very much. – awllower Jan 29 '12 at 10:54

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.