Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

Fix a commutative ring $R$. Recall that an ideal $I$ of $R$ is irreducible if $I = J_1 \cap J_2$ for ideals $J_1$ and $J_2$ only when either $I = J_1$ or $I = J_2$.

Question : Assume that $I$ is an irreducible ideal. Must the radical of $I$ be an irreducible ideal?

EDIT : The answer below in the Noetherian case convinced me that this is harder than I thought. I thus posted it to MathOverflow here

share|improve this question
1  
You may find it useful to prove the following lemma: the radical of any ideal $I$ is the intersection of all prime ideals containing $I$. –  Zhen Lin Feb 6 '12 at 7:37
3  
Yes, that's a standard fact (eg it is in ch 1 of Atiyah-MacDonald around the discussion of the nilradical). However, I don't see how to use it here. –  Mary Feb 6 '12 at 7:41
1  
Apologies. I thought it would be clear that there is only one minimal prime above an irreducible ideal, but it seems this is not a trivial fact. (It seems to be true, however.) –  Zhen Lin Feb 6 '12 at 8:55
1  
Thanks for linking between the two questions. Most people don't do that. –  Dylan Moreland Feb 9 '12 at 1:59
    
Dear Mary: I google-plussed your question. Congratulations! --- I also asked a question on MSE and then on MO. I got an answer on MO, and asked the user to post on MSE an answer in the form of a link to his MO answer. (Unfortunately, my question was far from being as interesting as yours.) –  Pierre-Yves Gaillard Feb 9 '12 at 10:39
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 11 down vote accepted

The answer is yes in a noetherian ring $A$. Let $I$ be a proper irreducible ideal of $A$. From AM-7.12, $I$ is a primary ideal. Hence $\sqrt{I}$ is prime (AM-4.1). Now, conclude because a prime ideal is irreducible (AM-1.11-ii).

One can reach the same conclusion if $I$ is supposed to be decomposable (i.e. $I$ is the intersection of a finite number of primary ideals). In a noetherian ring, every ideal is decomposable (AM-7.13). I don't know what happens if $I$ is not decomposable.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks Andrea! My guess is that there is a counterexample if $I$ is not decomposable, but I have no clue how to construct one. –  Mary Feb 8 '12 at 6:27
add comment

Pham Hung Quy answered the question on MathOverflow.

(This is a community wiki post.)

(I understand nothing to Pham Hung Quy's answer, and think it would be great if more elementary explanations were given on MSE.)

[The part above was written by Pierre-Yves Gaillard.]


[Beginning of the part written by florian.]

Here is how Pham Hung Quy's counter-example with a non-noetherian ring works:

We start with the noetherian local ring $R = k[[x,y]]/(xy)\ $ (formal power series in $x$ and $y$ modulo the ideal $(xy)$).

Note that $M := (x,y)$ is the unique maximal ideal in $R$. We will need this, and it is the reason we work with $k[[x,y]]$ instead of $k[x,y]$.

Note also that the zero ideal in $R$ is the same as $(xy)$ (since we factored $(xy)$ out), and since $(xy)=(x)\cap(y)$, we see that the zero ideal in $R$ is reducible. Moreover, $R$ doesn't have any nilpotent elements.

Now we construct an $R$-module $I$ with the following to properties:

  1. $I$ has a unique minimal submodule of dimension $1$, i.e. there is a non-zero submodule in $I$ which is contained in every other non-zero submodule. Clearly, this shows that the zero submodule of $I$ cannot be written as an intersection of non-zero submodules of $I$, since this intersection again will contain the minimal submodule.
  2. $I$ is divisible. This means: Given $f\in I$ and $r\in R$ which isn't a zero divisor there is a $g\in I$ such that $f=r\cdot g$ (i.e. we can "divide elements of $I$ by elements of $R$ which aren't zero-divisors").

We will see that $I={\rm Hom}_{k}(R,k)$ does the job ($k$-linear maps from $R$ to $k$; this is an $R$-module by defining $(r\cdot f)(s) := f(r\cdot s)$ for $f\in I$ and $r,s\in R$). Let's now check that $I$ does indeed have the two desired properties:

  1. Suppose $J\subseteq I$ is a non-zero submodule. Then consider $J^\perp \subseteq R$ (those elements in $R$ annihilated by all elements in $J$; more generally, we have a non-degenerate bilinear pairing $I\times R \longrightarrow k: (g,r)\mapsto g(r)$, and we can always form perpendicular spaces with respect to this pairing). Since even in infinite dimensions we still have the well known equality from linear algebra $J^{\perp\perp}=J$, we must have $J^\perp \neq R$. Since one can show that $J^\perp$ is an ideal, and $M$ is the unique maximal ideal in $R$, it must follow $J^\perp \subseteq M$ and therefore $J=J^{\perp \perp} \supseteq M^\perp$. Thus it follows that $M^\perp$ (the set of all elements in $I$ which vanish on $M$) is the unique minimal submodule of $I$. It is also easy to see that $M^\perp$ is one-dimensional, since every element in $M^\perp$ must factor through the natural epimorphism $R\longrightarrow R/M\cong k$.
  2. Given $f\in I$ and $r\in R$ which isn't a zero divisor (this ensures well-definedness) we are looking for a $g\in I$ such that $(r\cdot g)(s)=f(s)$ for all $s\in R$, which by definition is the same as $g(rs)=f(s)$ for all $s\in R$. So take $g$ to be the linear functional on the $k$-vector space (even ideal) $rR$ which is defined by the aforementioned equation, and extend it to $R$ (note that $g$ doesn't have to satisfy any structural properties other than being $k$-linear, and $k$-linear functionals can always be extended to bigger spaces using the axiom of choice).

Now we take the ring $R$ and the $R$-module $I$ and build a new ring $$ E := R\oplus I $$ where addition is defined in the obvious way, i.e. $(r,i)+(r',i') := (r+r',i+i')$, and multiplication is defined by the formula $(r,i)\cdot (r',i') := (rr',ri'+ir')$.

Note that $I$ is an ideal in $E$, and in fact $I^2=(0)$ (in $E$.) Hence $I$ is the radical of the zero ideal in $E$ (it is the entire radical since $E/I\cong R$ has no nilpotent elements). But $I= (I+(x))\cap (I+(y))$, and hence isn't irreducible (here it pays off that we made sure the zero ideal in $R$ wasn't irreducible).

Now all we have to check is that the zero ideal in $E$ is in fact irreducible. Let $f$ be a generator for the unique minimal submodule of $I$ and let $J\subseteq E$ be a non-zero ideal. We intend to show that $f\in J$, which will imply that $(0)$ cannot be the intersection of non-zero ideals, since each such intersection contains $f$. We have two possibilities:

  1. $J \subseteq I$: In this case, $J$ is a submodule of $I$, and we know it contains $f$ because $f$ generates the unique minimal submodule of $I$.
  2. $J \not\subseteq I$: In this case we may choose some $(r,h)\in J$ with $r\neq 0$. We can choose a $j\in I$ such that $r\cdot j \neq 0$ (since clearly we find a functional with $j(r)\neq 0$). Then $(r,h)\cdot(0,j)=(0,rj)\neq 0$, and hence $(0,rj)\cdot E \subset J$ is a sub-ideal of $J$ contained in $I$. This contains $f$ due to the first point.

(looks like we don't even need divisibility)

[End of the part written by florian.]

share|improve this answer
    
Dear florian: I've just seen your post. I'll read it quietly and try to understand it, but I wanted to thank you very much right away! –  Pierre-Yves Gaillard Feb 16 '12 at 16:02
    
Dear florian: I suggest that you post your text as a non-community wiki answer, so that you'll be able to earn well-deserved reputation points. –  Pierre-Yves Gaillard Feb 16 '12 at 16:26
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.